The Sun Is Heating Up And It’s Time To Ignore Every Single Message You Hear About Slathering On Sunscreen

June 4, 2013 by MARCO TORRES

The idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is a falsity promoted by a profit-seeking tag-team effort between the cancer industry and the sunscreen industry. How convenient an oversight by these demonizers of the sun that people closest to the equator have the lowest incidence of skin cancer, but you’ll never hear that message on your local news. Instead, as the summer approaches the media bombards us daily with myths that blocking the sun’s rays from reaching our skin will somehow protect us from the one thing it actually prevents–cancer.

Blocking the sun’s rays from reaching our skin dramatically influences our optimal vitamin D levels, leading to higher mortality, critical illness and mental health disorders. Ironically, sunscreen itself causes cancer.

A Tale of Corruption and Deception

The sunscreen industry makes money by selling lotion products that actually contain cancer-causing chemicals. It then donates a portion of that money to the cancer industry through non-profit groups like Cancer Societies which, in turn, run heart-breaking public service ads and charity events such as Relay For Life urging people to donate and use sunscreen to “prevent cancer.”

The cancer establishment has retreated from the truth. What began as sincere investigation into the economic root causes of a complex set of 200 different diseases, at the turn of the 20th century, quickly degenerated into a single-minded focus. All cancer societies are now dedicated to funding drug companies to “find the cure” that will never exist, at least not from any mainstream institution.

Devra Davis, one of North America’s sharpest epidemiologists “Astonishing alliances between naive or far too clever academics and folks with major economic interests in selling potentially cancerous materials have kept us from figuring out whether or not many modern products affect our chances of developing cancer.” She has documented how some of the world’s most prominent cancer researchers secretly worked for chemical firms without disclosing these ties when publishing studies.

Davis’ work will rob you of any lingering, Disney-like fantasies you might have entertained about the nobility of cancer fundraising campaigns actually doing some good the cancer patients. Please DON’T support American or Canadian Cancer Societies or Relays For Life.

Many grants funding cancer research are supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Melanoma Research Foundation. The NCI is the same federally funded (and privately funded by Big Pharma) organization that promotes mammography via ionizing radiation. In fact they are one of the biggest mammography promoters in the nation. They are directly managed by the biotech sector and typically employ pharmaceutical executives on their boards.

The Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) is filled with scientific advisory members with conflicts interests statements littering their academic work. The decision makers at MRF are all current or former pharmaceutical executives or board members.

Why Sunscreen Will Never Prevent Cancer And May Cause It

The Sun does not cause cancer. Researchers have concluded that UVA exposure has not contributed to the rise in the incidence of melanoma over the past 30 years. UVA makes up 90 percent of the ultraviolet light spectrum of sunlight.

“Our data refute the only direct evidence that UVA causes melanoma, which is not to say that UVA is harmless,” said the study’s lead author David Mitchell, Ph.D., professor in M. D. Anderson’s Department of Carcinogenesis located at its Science Park — Research Division in Smithville, Texas. “UVA is just not as dangerous as we thought because it doesn’t cause melanoma.”

Both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, although UVB does so far more rapidly. UVA, however, penetrates your skin more deeply than UVB.

UVB appears to be protective against melanoma — or rather, the vitamin D your body produces in response to UVB radiation is protective.

As written in The Lancet:
“Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect.”
So if UVA and UVB do not cause melanoma, why use sunscreen?
Skin cancer rates are increasing and the so-called experts are STILL blaming the sun for a problem manufactured right here on earth.

If the sun was REALLY causing skin cancer, and if sunscreen prevented it, we’d be cancer-free by now. We’re already spending less time outside than ever, and wasting billions of dollars a year on needless, dangerous creams and lotions.
Meanwhile, just a couple of generations ago, we spent far more time out in the sun and ZILCH on sunscreen — and skin cancer was practically unheard of.

After decades of debate, several governments have failed to set mandatory sunscreen safety standards. Companies are free to make their own decisions on everything from advertising claims to product quality. The underlying message is that sunscreen applications are presently carrying risks that far outweigh any benefit to the public.

Comprehensive scientific reviews indicate that 83% of 785 sunscreen products contain ingredients with significant safety concerns. Only 17% of the products on the market block both UVA and UVB radiation which is the intended purpose by manufacturers of sunscreen, so what’s the point? The assessment by the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database was based on a review of nearly 400 scientific studies, industry models of sunscreen efficacy, and toxicity and regulatory information housed in nearly 60 government, academic, and industry databases.

At least 50% of products on the market bear claims that are considered “unacceptable” or misleading under sunscreen safety standards. An analysis of marketing claims on hundreds of sunscreen bottles shows that false and misleading marketing claims are common. They give consumers a false sense of security (based on myths) with claims like “all day protection,” “mild as water,” and “blocks all harmful rays” which are completely untrue, yet are found on bottles. Consumers might assume that, because researchers have implicated ultraviolet light in skin cancer development, sunscreen automatically thwarts skin cancer. They play on this consumer bandwagon of fear and hope on an issue shouldn’t even be an issue…blocking the sun!

A review of the technical literature shows that some sunscreen ingredients absorb into the blood, and some are linked to toxic effects. Some release skin-damaging free radicals in sunlight, some act like estrogen and could disrupt hormone systems, several are strongly linked to allergic reactions, and still others may build up in the body or the environment.

Almost two dozen law suits have been filed against Johnson & Johnson Inc., Schering-Plough Corp., Playtex Products Inc., Tanning Research Laboratories Inc. and Chattem Inc involving some of the most popular brands, including Coppertone, Banana Boat, Hawaiian Tropic, Bullfrog and Neutrogena — charge that manufacturers inflate claims about sunscreens, lulling consumers into believing their products are safe when they have shown to CAUSE cancer.

Almost half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivatives retinol and retinyl palmitate which accelerate tumor growth.

In a year-long study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent faster in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream, a report by EWG stated based on their analysis of initial findings released by the FDA and the National Toxicology Program,

Based on the strength of the findings by FDA’s own scientists, many in the public health community say they can’t believe nor understand why the agency hasn’t already notified the public of the possible danger.

Scientists have reported that particle size affects the toxicity of zinc oxide, a material widely used in sunscreens. Particles smaller than 100 nanometers are slightly more toxic to colon cells than conventional zinc oxide. Solid zinc oxide was more toxic than equivalent amounts of soluble zinc, and direct particle to cell contact was required to cause cell death. Their study is in ACS’ Chemical Research in Toxicology, a monthly journal.

The Environmental Working Group who previously analyzed 15 studies on nanoparticles on sunscreen said that no investigations have ever assessed absorption through damaged skin. Such data is missing “for nearly all of the 17 sunscreen chemicals approved for use in the U.S.” The scientists note that a concern is children accidentally ingesting nano-sized zinc oxide.

Another common and toxic ingredient in sunscreens is titanium dioxide. New research published in ACS’ journal, Environmental Science & Technology found that Children may be receiving the highest exposure to nanoparticles of titanium dioxide. The geometry of titanium dioxide (TiO2) based nanofilaments appears to play a crucial role in cytotoxicity having a strong dose-dependent effect on cell proliferation and cell death.

A comprehensive study conducted by researchers at UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer found that titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, found in everything from cosmetics to sunscreen to paint to vitamins, caused systemic genetic damage in mice. The TiO2 nanoparticles induced single- and double-strand DNA breaks and also caused chromosomal damage as well as inflammation, all of which increase the risk for cancer.

Vitamin D From The Sun is The Key In Preventing Disease

The scientific evidence, however, shows quite clearly that sunscreen actually promotes cancer by blocking the body’s absorption of ultraviolet radiation, which produces vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D, as recent studies have shown, prevents up to 77 of ALL cancers in women (breast cancer, colon cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer, brain tumors, multiple myeloma, etc). Meanwhile, the toxic chemical ingredients used in most sunscreen products are actually carcinogenic and have never been safety tested. They get absorbed right through the skin (a porous organ that absorbs most substances it comes into contact with) and enter the bloodstream.

For the past several years, there has been considerable interest in the role vitamin D plays in improving health and preventing disease. Previous finding show that low levels of vitamin D have been directly associated with various forms of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Stephen B. Kritchevsky, PhD, Professor of Internal Medicine and Transitional Science at the Wake Forest School of Medicine found a significant correlation.

“We observed vitamin D insufficiency (defined as blood levels <20 ng/ml), in one third of our study participants. This was associated with nearly a 50 percent increase in the mortality rate in older adults,” said Kritchevsky. “Our findings suggest that low levels of vitamin D may be a substantial public health concern for our nation’s older adults.”

Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., cancer prevention specialist at the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and colleagues estimate that 250,000 cases of colorectal cancer and 350,000 cases of breast cancer could be prevented worldwide by increasing intake of vitamin D3, particularly in countries north of the equator. “For the first time, we are saying that 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancer could be prevented each year worldwide, including nearly 150,000 in the United States alone,” said Garland.

Although vitamin D can be obtained from limited dietary sources and directly from exposure to the sun during the spring and summer months, the combination of poor dietary intake and sun avoidance has created vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency in large proportions of many populations worldwide.

It is known that vitamin D has a wide range of physiological effects and that correlations exist between insufficient amounts of vitamin D and an increased incidence of a number of cancers. These correlations are particularly strong for cancers of the digestive tract, including colon cancer, and certain forms of leukemia.

Spending an average of three hours a day exposed to sunlight can slash the risk of breast cancer by up to 50 percent.

People with higher blood levels of vitamin D live significantly longer than people who have low blood levels of the vitamin.

A new study from University College London in the UK found that people with higher vitamin D levels had a 43% lower risk of depression, compared to people with vitamin D lower levels.

Results published in Clinical Nutrition also indicated that the higher vitamin D levels were associated with a 67% lower risk of panic, compared to the lower levels.

“The high burden of mental and behavioral disorders and concurrent high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency (<75nmol/l) worldwide (29) highlight the potential importance of our findings,” wrote the researchers, led by Jane Maddock from the UCL Institute of Child Health.

People with the highest levels of vitamin D have the lowest risk of skin cancer. Sure, you can get some of that from a pill…but historically, most people have gotten their D straight from the source: the sun, and protecting yourself from it 100 years ago with clothing, cream or anything would likely have been viewed as its own mental health disorder.

How To Make Your Own Non-Toxic Sunscreen

While the sun will not cause cancer, it is not in your best interest to burn your skin. So if you are prone to burning easily, try making your own natural sunscreen to extend your exposure.

New York Times Best selling author, Sophie Uliano of Gorgeously Green and her new book DO IT GORGEOUSLY, shows you how to make your own non toxic sunscreen in less than 4 minutes.

Please omit zinc oxide from the recipe to make a truly natural and toxic free version of this sunscreen, especially during preparation. Zinc oxide can affect the lungs and reproductive system if inhaled. Replace the zinc oxide with 1 tablespoon of avocado oil which helps increase the sun protection factor (SPF).

Recipe: (SPF 6-8)

  • 2 tablespoon Virgin Coconut Oil
  • 1 tablespoon Shea Butter
  • 1 tablespoon Avocado Oil
  • 1/2 teaspoon Sesame Oil
  • 1/2 teaspoon Aloe Vera Gel

Keep in mind that this recipe will not allow you to stay in the sun for hours without burning, even if you have darker skin. If you have pale skin and are prone to burning in very short periods, this recipe will only modestly protect you when UV rays are at their highest strength. Intermittent periods spent in the shade are highly recommended to balance the UV dose you receive.

For those that tan well, this lotion will give you an excellent color and glow if used daily while spending a minimum of 30 minutes in the sun.

Although it not waterproof, it is water resistant if applied thoroughly and spread evenly. In direct sunlight, you must reapply a thin layer of the lotion every half hour for optimal results.

Spread the word: Please promote the use of non-toxic sunscreens.

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy

“Laws of Physics for a Holographic Universe” – New Theories of Space-Time

Researchers at the University of Southampton have taken a significant step in a project to unravel the secrets of the structure of our Universe. One of the main recent advances in theoretical physics is the holographic principle. According to this idea, our Universe may be thought of as a hologram and we would like to understand how to formulate the laws of physics for such a holographic Universe.

A new paper released by Professor Skenderis and Dr Marco Caldarelli from the University of Southampton, Dr Joan Camps from the University of Cambridge and Dr Blaise Goutéraux from the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, Sweden published in Physical Review D, makes connections between negatively curved space-time and flat space-time. The paper AdS/Ricci-flat correspondence and the Gregory-Laflamme instability specifically explains what is known as the Gregory Laflamme instability, where certain types of black hole break up into smaller black holes when disturbed – rather like a thin stream of water breaking into little droplets when you touch it with your finger. This black hole phenomenon has previously been shown to exist through computer simulations and this work provides a deeper theoretical explanation.

6a00d8341bf7f753ef01901cc2ed1c970b

Space-time is usually understood to describe space existing in three dimensions, with time playing the role of a fourth dimension and all four coming together to form a continuum, or a state in which the four elements can’t be distinguished from each other.

Flat space-time and negative space-time describe an environment in which the Universe is non-compact, with space extending infinitely, forever in time, in any direction. The gravitational forces, such as the ones produced by a star, are best described by flat-space time. Negatively curved space-time describes a Universe filled with negative vacuum energy. The mathematics of holography is best understood for negatively curved space-times.

Professor Skenderis has developed a mathematic model which finds striking similarities between flat space-time and negatively curved space-time, with the latter however formulated in a negative number of dimensions, beyond our realm of physical perception.

“According to holography, at a fundamental level the universe has one less dimension than we perceive in everyday life and is governed by laws similar to electromagnetism,” says Skenderis. “The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card, but now it is the entire Universe that is encoded in such a fashion.

“Our research is ongoing, and we hope to find more connections between flat space-time, negatively curved space-time and holography. Traditional theories about how the Universe operates go some way individually to describing its very nature, but each fall short in different areas. It is our ultimate goal to find a new combined understanding of the Universe, which works across the board.”

In October 2012, Professor Skenderis was named among 20 other prominent scientists around the world to receive an award from the New Frontiers in Astronomy and Cosmology international grant competition. He received $175,000 to explore the question, ‘Was there a beginning of time and space?”

The Daily Galaxy via University of Southampton

Image credit: MIT

Hydrolyzed, Autolyzed, and Other MSG-Containing Ingredients In Foods and Vaccines Kick-Start Schizophrenia

April 24, 2013 | By Dylan Charles

Dave Mihalovic, Prevent Disease – Waking Times

WIKI-MSG1Glutamate is everywhere. It’s in food, medicine, vaccines, spices, and even household cleaning agents. It’s very toxic to the brain of any mammal at any age. New evidence suggests excess glutamate causes a progression of schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders.

The human brain is packed with a substance that needs to be treated like a handle-with-care explosive. Glutamate, one of the most abundant chemical messengers in the brain, plays a role in many vital brain functions, such as learning and memory, but it can inflict massive damage if it is accidentally spilled into brain tissue in large amounts.

Glutamate flow in the brain is normally kept in check by a system of dam-like structures, which release a trickle of the substance only when and where it is needed. But burst a dam–as happens in stroke, head trauma, and some other neurological disorders–and the treacherous messenger floods the brain. The surge of glutamate radiates out from the area of original damage, and kills neurons in nearby areas. The expanded damage can leave in its wake signs of impaired brain function, such as slurred speech and shaky movement.

Glutamate in Food

Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) is not a nutrient, vitamin, or mineral and has no health benefits. The part of MSG that negatively affects the human body is the “glutamate”, not the sodium. The breakdown of MSG typically consists of 78% glutamate, 12% sodium, and about 10% water. Any glutamate added to a processed food is not and can not be considered naturally occurring. Natural glutamate in plants and animals is known as L-glutamic acid.

 
In contrast, processed free glutamic acid (MSG) contains both L-glutamic acid and D-glutamic acid, and is also accompanied by pyroglutamic acid and other impurities. The impurities differ according to the starting materials and methods used to produce the glutamic acid (MSG). It is only acid hydrolyzed proteins that contain mono and dichloro propanols (which are carcinogenic), and it is only reaction flavors that contain heterocyclic amines (which are also carcinogenic).

By FDA definition, processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is “naturally occurring,” because the basic ingredients are found in nature. “Naturally occurring” does not mean that a food additive is being used in its natural state. “Naturally occurring” only means that the food additive began with something found in nature. By FDA definition, the ingredient “monosodium glutamate” is natural. So is hydrochloric acid. So is arsenic. “Natural” doesn’t mean “safe.”

Processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is created when protein is either partially or fully broken apart into its constituent amino acids, or glutamic acid is secreted from selected bacteria. A protein can be broken into its constituent amino acids in a number of ways (autolysis, hydrolysis, enzymolysis, and/or fermentation). When a protein is broken down, the amino acid chains in the protein are broken, and individual amino acids are freed. These processes are discussed in some detail in food encyclopedias — wherein articles on glutamic acid and “monosodium glutamate” are generally written by persons who work for Ajinomoto, Co., Inc., the world’s largest producer of the food ingredient “monosodium glutamate.”

It used to be that when any ingredient contained 78%-79% processed free glutamic acid (MSG), and the balance was made up of salt, moisture, and up to 1 per cent impurities, the FDA required that the product be called “monosodium glutamate”, and required that the product be labeled as such. The FDA required that other MSG-containing ingredients be identified by names other than “monosodium glutamate.” Never has the FDA required mention of the fact that an ingredient contains processed free glutamic acid (MSG).

While the glutamic acid in “monosodium glutamate” is generally produced through bacterial fermentation, the glutamic acid in the other MSG-containing ingredients is made through use of chemicals (hydrolysis or autolysis), enzymes (enzymolysis), fermentation, or a complex cooking process wherein reaction flavors are produced from a combination of specific amino acids, reducing sugars, animal or vegetable fats or oils, and optional ingredients including hydrolyzed vegetable protein.

It is now essentially unregulated when it comes to labeling standards. A label may say “yeast extract“, “calcium caseinate”, or “beef flavoring”, but the product still contains varying amounts of “free” glutamic acid. This makes it very difficult for consumers who are trying to avoid it. It is also very dangerous for those who suffer severe reactions to it. Many people who are very sensitive to MSG experience respiratory, neurological, muscular, skin, urological and even cardiac symptoms.

Some of the common ingredients which contain MSG are: Plant Protein, Hydrolyzed Corn Gluten, Hydrolyzed Pea Protein, Textured Protein, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Autolyzed Plant Protein, Yeast Extract, Calcium Caseinate, Sodium Caseinate, Gelatin, Disodium Guanylate, Disodium Inosinate, Carrageenan, Xanthum Gum, Maltodextrin, Natural Flavor, Barley Malt, Malt Extract, Soy Protein Isolate, Ultra-pasteurized Soy Sauce, Whey Protein Concentrate, Soy Protein Concentrate, Whey Protein Isolate, Protease Enzymes, Protein Fortified anything, Enzyme Modified anything and Citric Acid.

Glutamate in Vaccines

Both MSG and hydrolyzed gelatin (11% free glutamate by weight) are found in many vaccines. Considering the dangers associated with glutamate as well as the other alternative stabilizers available, it is not clear why vaccine manufacturers continue to incorporate these harmful ingredients in their formulas. Even a simple vaccine given to children such as the FluMist contains MSG (Source: FluMist February 2012 from fda.gov – page 12).

Another example would be Merck’s M-M-R vaccine. The product insert states that the growth medium for measles and mumps includes “amino acids” and “glutamate.” It is also stated that the medium for rubella included “amino acids” and “hydrolyzed gelatin.” Finally, it states that the “reconstituted vaccine” for subcutaneous administration includes hydrolyzed gelatin.

We also know that any hydrolyzed protein, such as the hydrolyzed gelatin will contain some processed free glutamic acid (MSG), some aspartic acid, and some L-cysteine, all considered to be neurotoxic by neuroscientists. Even without hydrolyzing gelatin, gelatin contains over 11% processed free glutamic acid (MSG) and some aspartic acid and L-cysteine. It is present as a result of the manufacturing process that results in gelatin.

A study on infant rats showed that administration of MSG lead to five shrunken glands, including the testes. Other studies have shown that growth hormone, thyroid hormones and many other endocrine functions can be assaulted by excitotoxins which may lead to growth retardation of children before the age of puberty.

Based on peer reviewed studies, there is no question that glutamic acid is neurotoxic. This can be easily confirmed by accessing MEDLINE retrieval service for studies dating from 1966 to the present, using the words “glutamic acid” in combination with the words “brain lesions” and then “neurotoxicity.”

There is also no question that the young are most at risk from MSG. The work of John W. Olney, MD has provided sufficient evidence on the effect of glutamic acid on the blood brain and placental barriers.

The Schizophrenic Connection

There are a number of straightforward bold faced lies used by the glutamate industry in defending its contention that exposure to free glutamic acid found in processed food does not cause adverse reactions including hives, asthma, seizures, and migraine headache; could not possibly cause brain damage, learning disorders, or endocrine disturbances; and could not possibly be relevant to diverse diseases of the central nervous system such as addiction, stroke, epilepsy, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, and degenerative disorders such as ALS, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. Central to their argument is the lie that the processed free glutamic acid used in processed food is identical to the glutamic acid found in unprocessed, unadulterated food and in the human body.

The scientific evidence is now slowly surfacing that free glutamate is causing severe damage to brain chemistry.

To see if the increase in glutamate leads to brain changes, the researchers at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) turned to a mouse model of schizophrenia. When the researchers increased glutamate activity in the mouse, they saw the same pattern as in schizophrenic patients: The hippocampus became hypermetabolic and, if glutamate was raised repeatedly, the hippocampus began to atrophy.

Strategies are now being employed to treat schizophrenia by reducing glutamate. “Targeting glutamate may be more useful in high-risk people or in those with early signs of the disorder,” said Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, a renowned expert in the field of schizophrenia. “Early intervention may prevent the debilitating effects of schizophrenia, increasing recovery in one of humankind’s most costly mental disorders.”

If excess glutamate is driving schizophrenia, it may also explain why children begin having psychotic episodes at young ages often after multi-dose vaccines are administered, since this may directly increases glutamate levels in the brain of young children.

An increasing body of peer-reviewed evidence indicates that when a woman is pregnant, transiently elevated cytokines can induce atypical brain development in her embryo or fetus. Illnesses and vaccinations induce elevation of cytokines, and these elevations can be heightened in individuals with alleles of genes related to immune responses. An implication of citations supporting these relationships is that vaccinating pregnant women is likely to induce cognitive and behavioral pathologies in as least some children whose mothers were vaccinated while the child was in utero. Schizophrenia and developmental disabilities are pathologies that may ensue.

A pregnant woman’s options are discomforting. If she develops swine flu or seasonal influenza, she may induce cytokine elevations which adversely affect her fetus. If she allows herself to be vaccinated during pregnancy, her body’s reaction will include cytokine elevations which may adversely affect brain development of some fetuses – and do in ways that become apparent only during early childhood, adolescence, or young adulthood.

Since 100% of both routine and influenza vaccinations are not tested for long-term safety and effectiveness in pregnant women or nursing mothers, there is no conclusive scientific evidence available on their pharmacokinetic risks nor the physiological impact they may present in the development of schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders.

This area of study is worthy of serious investigation to firmly establish whether the foundation of the majority of glutamate associated psychotic disorders stem from dietary patterns and medical intervention (primarily vaccines) in early childhood.