🚀 go-pugleaf

Gee I have heard of Sun Bathers, but what the hell is a Sun Bader? Darth 
Vaders brother?
I don't know what advertisement you are refering, as I have never seen it.

We know that using skin block prevents the sun's vitamin D from being 
absorbed.
And lack of Vitamin D can contribute to "skin cancer". This was in the news 
recently.
And now the dermatologigists are saying that research is dangerous, as 
people still need to use sun-block to prevent skin cancer.

But you have a point convict. Very few things have actually been proven to 
cause cancer, only causative factors have been established.
However you can rely that people will not listen to you or your advice on 
any subject, even if it was in your field.



"Fabrikant" <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1121787273.730277.226730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Medical crooks do not cease to amaze me with their ingenuity.
> Recently, some dermatologists did the following trick to scare people
> into buying the sun blockers.  They came to a beach and offered the
> sun-baders to make their pictures in a normal light and . in
> ultra-violet light.  In a normal light the faces looked smooth, in
> ultra-violet light the faces looked all in dots, which the
> dermatologists claimed as evidence of the sun damage to the skin.  The
> people were so impressed that started buying sun-blockers in groves.
>
> Nobody bothered to ask some very simple questions.  First, here is my
> ass, which is never exposed to sun, let us make a picture to see
> whether the dots will be there.  Second, the end of any nose even to a
> naked eye looks like the most damaged place, while in ultra-violet
> light there were almost no dots there, why?  Third, what is the
> evidence that those dots indicate a damage to the skin?  I noticed a
> lot of dots on my skin, they are called pores and they have nothing to
> do with damage.  Could it be that the dots we see are just that -
> pores?
>
> In general, what is the evidence that the skin cancer is caused by the
> sun?  White people have more skin cancer, than black and there are more
> incidence of skin cancer in the South, than in the North.  On the other
> hand, skin cancer often appears on the parts of body, which are never
> exposed to sun.  Why?  Less than 10,000 people die from skin cancer in
> US each year.  To place this in proper perspective, people in US are 10
> times more likely to be killed in a hospital due to a medical error or
> twice as likely to be shot to death by a gun.
>
> People are now spending billions on the so-called sun blockers, trying
> to save themselves from something, which does not threaten them at all:
> out of 300 sun-baders, 299 never get skin cancer.  If the sun was
> really responsible for skin cancer, should not the number be much
> greater?  Last, but not least: if sun were the cause of skin cancer,
> introduction of sun blockers would have significantly reduced the cases
> of skin cancer.  Since it is claimed that it takes many years to
> develop a skin cancer, it would be quite long before anything can be
> proven.  Here is my prediction: sun blockers will have no effect on the
> incidence of skin cancer.
>
> Fabrikant
>