Currently viewing the category: "skin cancer"

Drugs Causing Disease

By On · Add Comment · In autoimmunity, chemotherapy, Crohn's disease, dermatologists, immune system, immunosuppressive, inflammatory bowel disease, skin cancer, sun exposure, thiopurines, ulcerative colitis, UV radiation

You may not know this but…sometimes drugs used to fight one condition cause other equally health damaging conditions. Take chemotherapy, for instance: it’s immunosuppressive. In other words, it kills all cells–cancer and healthy immune cells together. Not a great thing when the immune system works 24/7 to keep us free from infection and cancers. But that’s the idea–kill all the cells, and let the body rebuild itself with healthy cells, yet sans the cancerous ones.

How about other disorders, like the inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Immunosuppressive drugs are often given to people suffering from ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease too. These conditions are inflammatory in nature–that is, the body goes through major inflammation of the digestive tract, usually the small intestine or colon, leading to abdominal pain, diarrhea, and bloody stool among other symptoms. To combat them, immunosuppressants are often used to shut down the body’s immune system to prevent it from attacking itself (autoimmunity). Unfortunately, some patients are developing skin cancer as a result.

In a recent French study it was found that both past and present use of a widely used class of immunosuppressants called thiopurines significantly increased the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer in inflammatory bowel disease patients. The increased risk was seen in all patients, even those under 50; however, it increased with age. As a result, researchers recommend that anybody taking thiopurines now or at any time in the past protect their skin from UV radiation and receive regular dermatologic screening, regardless of their age.

Non-melanoma skin cancer includes basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, which are the most common cancers diagnosed in North America.

I find these results and conclusions rather harrowing for two reasons. First, I strongly believe that these conditions are related to lifestyle factors like diet and toxin ingestion (smoking, for example). Although not necessarily straight forward in which foods are the causative factors, I believe most everybody has foods that they are sensitive to. Unfortunately, they may be foods that aren’t generally recognized as allergens–like the common wheat or dairy–but nevertheless cause the body to respond defensively to them. Repeated ingestion will ultimately lead to inflammation, which can become chronic and thus classified as IBD.

Second, why the treatment option becomes an immunosuppressive drug, in my opinion, is that doctors are simply at a loss at what else to do, so they go for broke–they simply attack the symptoms, or the body’s response–quite foolish I believe. It is not surprising to me that the risk of developing skin cancer goes up. Duh! Suppressed immune system leads to increased infections and increased cancers.

Finally, I think it’s ludicrous that the answer is to “protect oneself” from the life giving rays of the sun. This is just another case of being at a loss. We can’t figure out why our blessed drugs and medical ideology aren’t figuring out this skin cancer thing, so it must be the sun. Uh yeah, the source of all life in the solar system; the entity which provides energy for all living things, and we shouldn’t expose ourselves to it. C’mon.

Further, this anti-sun sentiment has been pushed by dermatologists and the entire medical profession to the degree that people are coating their skin with chemicals so as to prevent themselves from getting the healing and life sustaining rays of the sun. Puh-leeze! No doubt, baking in the sun like a freakin’ piece of bacon is unwise…but so is getting no sun.
Please medical profession wake up! Drugs cause skin cancer, and the inordinate amount of people walking the planet on multiple drugs they take daily is just as likely the cause of increased skin cancer as sun exposure is, probably more so. Thank goodness time acts as the greatest of observation tools.

Vitamin D Supplementation VERY Effective

By On · Add Comment · In cardiomyopathy, diabetes, heart disease, immunosuppressive, increased risk of death, skin cancer, sun exposure, sunscreen, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D insufficiency, vitamin D supplements

More evidence showing the dangers of vitamin D insufficiency, as a large new study shows that people with low blood concentrations of this vital nutrient are at an increased risk for dying of any cause. Any cause? Yes, and even more startling was that  by simply boosting low levels with vitamin D supplementation it cut peoples’ risk of dying in half.

According to the latest study, which looked at 10,899 patients at the University of Kansas Hospital, 70% were deficient in vitamin D, and they were also at significantly higher risk for a variety of heart diseases, including  hypertension, coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy and diabetes. D-deficiency also nearly doubled a person’s likelihood of dying, whereas correcting the deficiency with supplements lowered the risk of death by 60%.

rickets_boy

Rickets

These numbers highlight previous research that has shown many North Americans to have insufficient blood levels of vitamin D. While Rickets due to vitamin D deficiency has been well understood for years,  the degree to which blood levels of vitamin D play a role in overall health and well-being is just starting to become clear: We now know that levels falling below 30 ng/ml are incompatible with good health.

According to the latest National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, an estimated 25-57% of adults are vitamin D insufficient, while other studies have suggested the number is as high as 70%.  Cardiologists from the University of Kansas study have found that people deficient in D were more than two times as likely to have diabetes, 40% more likely to have high blood pressure and about 30% more likely to suffer from cardiomyopathy (diseased heart muscle) than people without D deficiency.”We expected to see that there was a relationship between heart disease and vitamin D deficiency; we were surprised at how strong it was,” said Dr. James L. Vacek, a professor of cardiology at the University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center. “It was so much more profound than we expected.”
Vacek believes that so many people are deficient because they aren’t getting enough sun. Humans should get 90% of their vitamin D from the sun, while only getting 10% from food. We need sunlight to make vitamin D in our bodies, so 20 minutes per day is the minimum necessary exposure to maintain proper blood levels. With the fear of skin cancer looming large, many have taken to using sunscreens to reduce total sun exposure.

130571880-18130246

Experts say that in the Northern United States and Canada the sun isn’t strong enough during winter months to make sufficient vitamin D, even if the weather was warm enough to induce people to expose their skin for an extended period. To combat this seasonal deficiency, adults should get vitamin D levels checked by their doctors, and take vitamin D supplements.
This study definitely comes at an opportune time, as many in the medical field have dismissed previous vitamin D research as inconclusive, particularly the role supplements can play in returning the health to normal (or optimal) for those suffering from deficiency. I have wondered  for some time why so many doctors and med-policy stiffs have been so adamant at denying the research results on vitamin D. The only thing I can think of is that they just despise being wrong. I don’t believe it’s a pharmaceutical industry conspiracy necessarily, as many have been wont to do, but purely a clinging to old, outdated beliefs; really that’s the only explanation that makes sense to me, in light of some pretty solid data. I can certainly understand the uncertainty, but many of the previous studies have been well done, and they are vast in number, so really…what’s the problem?
I just think the old guard will never accept that they were wrong about supplementation from the start, no matter how well-intentioned their skepticism might have been; and I think many are wrong today for advocating minimal sun exposure for the masses. Some increases in skin cancer can be from chronic pharmaceutical use, too, you know…particularly medications that are immunosuppressive. It was easy to blame skin cancer on the sun in the past, but that was wrong. The sun is the most life-giving source in the solar system—avoiding it is just unwise. This latest vitamin D study is simply more evidence to support a universal truth.

I’m Quitting SPF

By On · Add Comment · In dermatologists, skin cancer, sunprotective factor (SPF), sunscreen, vitamin D deficiency

I’m no sucker–I’m quitting the SPF. That’s right, we’ve been duped…badly. Made suckers by dermatologists, but no more.

SPF or sun protective factor is a measure of sunscreen lotions’ effectiveness at blocking out UV radiation. Sun protective lotions have pervaded our skin products and make-up. It’s everywhere, and it’s screwing people up. Here’s how:

Over the last decade for certain, and probably even longer, I have observed numerous clients (and one family member) in my Beverly Hills chiropractic office, with bandaged healing wounds on their faces, necks, shoulders and arms.

“What the heck is that,” I’d ask. “Oh, my dermatologist says it’s a mild form of skin cancer, so they removed it.” Some people would have like ten of these wounds on their head and shoulder regions. WTF???

OK, I’d think, I’m not going to question the dermatologists–they’re doctors! (hum of Mormon Tabernacle Choir crescendos in background) But why so many now, today? Why not a decade ago? Global warming?

More like dermatologic marketing. When you practice in a relatively useless and heavily impacted specialty like dermatology, the lack of viable cases can lead to stagnant revenue. So…why not scare the pants off people and pick a properly positioned political issue that fits in perfectly with dermatology–skin cancer! Yeah, that’ll work.

OK, so what’s the problem? Skin cancer exists, right? Yes, it certainly does, but the anti-sun campaign has led to some serious health consequences. We are currently in a vitamin D insufficiency epidemic. I’ve been very vocal about the dangers of vitamin D insufficiency, and now I have a personal experience to boot.

My wife and I just got our vitamin D levels checked (if you haven’t done this, then do it soon–I can’t recommend it highly enough). Mine came back at 38, my wife’s 32. Anything over 35 is considered “normal.” So, my wife has entered dangerous territory, yet I’m not without risk either. According to some sources, optimal vitamin D levels are 50-65. And I take daily vitamin D supplements! What the heck???

Here’s what the heck. We’ve been fooled by a medical specialty trying to keep their heads above water–it’s been purely professional survival. Not buying it? Read my article on the dangers of vitamin D deficiency, get your vitamin D levels checked (I’ll bet they’re low), and then we’ll talk. Supplement with vitamin D and STOP using sunscreen regularly–only wear it when you know you’ll be baking in the sun all day. Get that crap out of your daily moisturizers, your make-up and any other daily product the marketing hounds have put it in. My next post will be on the direct dangers of using sunscreens that go beyond not getting enough vitamin D. Stay tuned.

Frank McCourt Succumbs to Melanoma Treatment

By On · Add Comment · In ABCDE rule, Abraxane, Frank McCourt, malignant melanoma, meningitis, skin cancer, sunscreen, UVA and UVB rays

Pulitzer prize winning author Frank McCourt died today from complications related to the treatment of malignant melanoma. According to reports, McCourt was suffering from meningitis, likely resulting from the immune-suppressing treatments he was receiving for the deadly skin cancer.

An Irish-American born writer, McCourt won the Pulitzer prize in 1997 for his work, Angela’s Ashes, which propelled him into wealth and popularity. He was being treated for malignant melanoma for the past few years and was released from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Center to recuperate. Two weeks ago he developed meningitis, an inflammation of the sheath covering the brain and spinal cord.

This recent death brings up the importance of protection and detection of skin cancer. I’ve just written an article on the importance of daily sunlight for people, but still we all need to be careful. Sun exposure in and of itself is not dangerous; it’s getting sunburned that can lead to skin cancer. Using a good sunscreen that protects against UVA and UVB rays is essential, and protecting exposed areas if sun exposure will be for an extended time is equally important. And sunbed tanning is for the unwise, as it increases the risk significantly.

When it comes to melanoma, males and Caucasians are most susceptible. 7,800 people will die in the U.S. this year, and 48,000 worldwide, from malignant melanoma. Melanoma is most common on the back in men and on legs in women (areas of intermittent sun exposure).

To detect melanomas, one may follow the ABCDE rule:

  • Asymmetrical skin lesion.
  • Border of the lesion is irregular.
  • Color: melanomas usually have multiple colors.
  • Diameter: moles greater than 6 mm are more likely to be melanomas than smaller moles.
  • Enlarging: Enlarging or evolving

Rule D is a slight weakness in the method, as malignancies can be less than 6mm, but overall the ABCDE a good screening tool. If you are unsure about a spot or growth, don’t hesitate, get it checked out. People who live in sunny climates–Southwestern U.S., Southern California, Florida, Australia should be especially cautious.

The treatment for melanomas range from tumor excision, immunotherapy, adjuvant treatment, chemotherapy, and radiation. A new treatment for malignant melanoma using the breast cancer drug, Abraxane, is in the final stages of study. If the drug passes the Phase 3 clinical trial, it will be a new weapon in the arsenal against malignant melanoma.

In spite of all this, cancer treatments in general are risky. Since cancer cells share most traits with regular cells, just that they multiply uncontrollably, most treatments kill off all cells, including healthy ones. This can leave the patient immunocompromised, like Frank McCourt was, and thus susceptible to opportunistic diseases like meningitis.

So protect yourself, and get any unusual growths or discolorations checked out by an expert. In the meantime, give a minute of remembrance for a fine writer who will be sorely missed.

Skin Cancer Salons

By On · Add Comment · In melanoma, skin cancer, sun, tanning salon, UV bed, vitamin D, World Health Organization

Well, it’s that time. Sun’s coming out and you know what that means–go to the tanning salon to get your starter tan. For some people, tanning in a UV bed is a year long practice. Well indoor tanners beware: Tanning beds can up your risk of skin cancer.

British cancer experts report that melanoma, a deadly type of skin cancer, is now the leading form of cancer found in women in their 20s. And based on the current numbers, they predict that it will be the the fourth most common cancer for men and women of all ages by 2024. What makes this especially worrying is that people in their 20s are not generally susceptible to melanoma–it’s usually found in people over 75.

This trend is thought to be the result of heavy tanning salon use. According to one researcher,

“Spending time on sunbeds is just as dangerous as staying out too long in the sun. The intensity of UV rays in some sunbeds can be more than 10 times stronger than the midday sun.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that tanning beds be regulated because of their potential to damage DNA. 29 states have regulations against minors using tanning beds without the consent of a parent.

It never ceases to amaze me this tanning salon phenomenon. Someone please tell me, what’s wrong with the sun?!?! Oh no, I gotta be tan…now! Whatever. I personally take the middle ground here: Humans need sun–it provides us with vitamin D. And based on a recent report that Americans on average are low in their D levels, we need more sun.

But the fear mongers (in this case, dermatologists) have been working hard, and have been pushing this “stay out of the sun (and have every freckle burned off)” agenda. So what have people done? They either avoid sun altogether (porcelain dolls) or they go nuts inside the tanning booth (tanorexics). Yeah, yeah, yeah…don’t bother telling me about the Magic Tan. Everybody knows you’ve been sprayed–it’s not fooling anyone.

Listen, we all need sun. Get out and enjoy it. Use sunscreen and don’t allow yourself to get burned. Simple sun-enomics. Avoid the tanning salons, or increase your risks of getting skin cancer. Simple as that.

Tanning Hysteria

By On · Add Comment · In DNA, melanin, melanocytes, melanoma, skin cancer, SPF, sunscreen, tanning, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, UVA, UVB

Warning: No tan is safe! That’s the latest out of London, the capital of alabaster hues, where scientists have concluded that tanning and cancer share the same biological mechanisms. So cover up beach bunnies and slather on the sunscreen, because the sun has now become public enemy number one.

According to a paper published in the current issue of Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research, both tans and skin cancer begin with DNA damage caused by exposure to ultraviolet light. In tanning the mutations to the genetic material cause darkening of melanin, the skin’s pigment responsible for protecting against further DNA damage by absorbing ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

There are two forms of ultraviolet radiation, UVB and UVA. UVB induces increased melanin production through direct and indirect DNA damage. This mechanism produces vitamin D in the skin, but it is also responsible for sunburn when the skin is overexposed and can cause skin aging (see last post). UVB can also cause cancer but not melanoma.

UVA, on the other hand, causes release of preexisting melanin from melanocytes (the cells that produce melanin), which actually produces the tanned look. It causes less cancer than UVB but is the generator of the deadly form of skin cancer, melanoma.

Both forms of UV radiation can be blocked by a broad-spectrum sunscreen; however, most sunscreens on the market protect mostly against UVB. The SPF (Sun Protection Factor) number on a sunscreen product shows its rated effectiveness. Products with a higher SPF number are those designed to provide more defense for the skin against the effects of solar radiation.

The only thing I can say about all this is that…it’s true–smart sunning is a must. Sun-worshiping, like the kind done in the past (a la George Hamilton), is simply unwise. However, we know how important sunlight is to all life, so to say that “no tan is safe” is a bit alarmist in my opinion. Skin cancer diagnoses are way up, but how many of those are due to better diagnostics? In my observation, dermatologists are having a field day with some people, frying off every freckle on their bodies. I’ve encountered it with some of my clients, and frankly, I find it unethical. They’re selling it as a prophylactic skin cancer treatment. BS, I say. But if enough people are scared shirtless, they’ll do it.

“Oh, yeah,” they’ll say, “I used to tan a lot in the 70s.” And so as a result they’ve got to look like they’ve taken a shot of sulfuric acid to the face. I don’t buy it. There are plenty of people who do their work out in the sun every day, and they aren’t getting their freckles zapped to kingdom come. Bad insurance, I guess.

So sun smartly, but don’t get too paranoid and shut out the sun entirely. You’ll cause more health harm than good that way. We can go way overboard with the health precautions if we allow ourselves to.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.