Are the people at CDC (Centers for Disease Control) insane when they believe that more UV-avoidance will mean less skin cancer? Find out in this document.

1. 1 http://www.thetanningguru.com/initiative-cdc-skin-cancer-prevention-doomed-start/#axzz2cacEBkmY
Is The New Initiative By CDC Regarding Skin Cancer
Prevention Doomed Already From The Start?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) are right now collecting information from the public on preventing skin cancer
through the reduction of UV exposure.
As you can see further below in the full text of the CDC announcement, just the simple assumption
that reduction of UV exposure is the sole option for preventing skin cancer makes their initiative
doomed to fail already before it has started.
To put even more emphasize on this pre-determined solution, a CDC sponsored research report
about “Indoor Tanning Among Young Non-Hispanic White Females” has just been published
(http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1729532#ild130138r1).
The survey “examined the prevalence of indoor tanning and frequent indoor tanning (≥10 times)
using nationally representative data among non-Hispanic white female high school students and
adults ages 18 to 34 years.”
And the result, which was blasted out yesterday in an extensive (and expensive) media campaign,
was that a horrifying amount of “29.3% of non-Hispanic white high school girls use a tanning bed
more than once a year, dramatically increasing their risk of developing skin cancer”.
The problem with the survey, in addition to that it sets a biased foundation for the CDC way of
addressing the “public health problem of skin cancer”, is that it is based upon the assumption that
UV exposure in general and especially from commercial indoor tanning drastically increases the risk
of skin cancer.
The CDC sponsored report starts with the, by now so many times repeated that most people don’t
even question it, anti-tanning mantra of: “Indoor tanning before age 35 years increases melanoma
risk by 75%”.
Image: CDC Partner links. Try to find any organization there
which is not sponsored by a beneficiary of peoples' sun-fear!

2. 2 http://www.thetanningguru.com/initiative-cdc-skin-cancer-prevention-doomed-start/#axzz2cacEBkmY
My previous post “Is FDA’s Proposal To Increase Consumer Awareness Of Tanning Bed Risks
Based Upon Facts Or Fiction?”, describes the origin of that anti-tanning myth and in the article “The
Hidden Truth In Sun-Scare Statistics”, I have addressed the irregularities in another report (from
Yale) to which the new CDC study also is referring.
The fact that CDC in this way is preparing their work shows that they are either grossly misled by the
organizations (all sponsored by cosmetic- and pharmacy- companies) on the CDC’s Internet-page
about skin cancer partner links (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/links.htm) or being directly
influenced by the beneficiaries of the campaigns of keeping people “in the dark” about the real role
and use of UV exposure.
If CDC really wanted to find a solution to the apparent skin-cancer problem, there are three
questions they should seek the answers to:
1. Is there really an increase of skin-cancer or are we victims of an enormous amount of overdiagnoses
driven by cancer- and cosmetic- industry-sponsored screening campaigns?
2. What is the real (and not relative) statistical risk of getting a deadly skin-cancer from UV exposure in
commercial sunbeds?
3. What are the consequences (negative side-effects) of even further reducing exposure to UV light
among people in general and youngsters especially?
Here are some references in which they can find the answers to the questions above:
“Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Cancer – An Opportunity for Improvement”
(http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1722196)
“Accuracy in melanoma detection: A 10-year multicenter survey” (http://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-
9622(11)00808-5/abstract)
“Critique of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s meta-analyses of the association of
sunbed use with risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma”
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092569/)
“Tanning beds: What do the numbers really mean?”
(http://healthjournalism.org/blog/2010/05/tanning-beds-what-do-the-numbers-really-mean/)
“Relationship between Sunbed Use and Melanoma Risk in a Large Case-Control Study in the United
Kingdom” (https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/tr121203/PIIS0190962211008085.pdf).
“Sunbeds and sunscreens – friends or foes?” (www.dnva.no/geomed/solarpdf/Nr_19_Moan.pdf).
In spite of what the CDC is trying to prove, here are the facts:
• The use of sunbeds has decreased during the last ten years (ask anyone in the indoor tanning
business).
• The sale of sun-protection cosmetics has increased enormously during the last 40 years.

3. 3 http://www.thetanningguru.com/initiative-cdc-skin-cancer-prevention-doomed-start/#axzz2cacEBkmY
I believe it is Einstein that has been credited for this definition of insanity: “To do the same thing
over and over again and expecting different results every time”.
The question is then:
According to that definition, aren’t the people at the CDC who try to combat skin-cancer with more
and more of the same, insane?
How long will they, a governmental organization, be able to rob us of what little sunshine we have
left in a modern urban environment where the sunbed is a Nobel-prize worthy invention for improving
public health.
A, seemingly obvious, better way to tackle skin-cancer would be to increase people’s awareness of
how to use UV exposure, both from the natural sun and from sunbeds, in a measured way for
optimal health benefits. This will not only address skin cancer but also most other diseases (thanks
to vitamin D from UVB and Nitric Oxide from UVA) which is the task of CDC to prevent.
Just imagine if two non-burning session per week in a sunbed with low-pressure lamps with a
reasonable high percentage of UVB (approximately like the summer-sun in Florida) could be enough
to cut in half (like some vitamin D researchers say it can do) the risk of cancer (also skin cancer) and
cardiovascular diseases?
Wouldn’t that be at least worth a try? However, since it will then also lead to billions of dollars in lost
income for the companies producing remedies for a steadily growing amount of cancer-victims, the
only chance for such an approach to become reality is through the initiative by the Government. And,
judging by the CDC initiative, their approach is not about to be changed any time soon.
Source: http://www.thetanningguru.com/initiative-cdc-skin-cancer-prevention-doomed-start/#axzz2cacEBkmY