In Part 1 of this series, we showed that there is no causal correlation between UVR and cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). Instead, we showed that a weak coincidental correlation resulting from the normal and natural response by the body to UVR (an increase in the number of melanocytes in the skin after exposure) has led to the incorrect belief that there is a causal relationship.
Moreover, we showed that because there is no genetic signature of molecular damage to the melanocyte genome and there is no action spectrum linking UVR and CMM (as there is for erythema and vitamin D), there is no valid scientific proof that UVR causes CMM.
Finally, we introduced the plausible theory that the development of CMM can only take place when there is an insufficient level of vitamin D in the body. Taken together, the article showed that the preponderance of scientific evidence proves that exposure to sunlight, UVR or a tanning device does not cause CMM and—regardless of what environmental factor scrambles the signal to quit dividing and causes a melanocyte cell to become a CMM—this event can only take place when an insufficient level (i.e., less than 120 nmol/L) of vitamin D exists.
Now, in Part 2 of this series, we are taking a look at how “blame-shifting” by the dermatology community has hidden the real cause of CMM increase: The indiscriminant “harvesting” of benign pigmented lesions.
In the Aug. 5 issue of the British Medical Journal, H. Gilbert Welch, Steven Woloshin and Lisa M. Schwartz summed up the absurdity of this situation when they said that, “The increasing incidence of melanoma between 1986 and 2001 in the United States is associated with biopsy rates. That the extra cases diagnosed were confined to early-stage cancer while mortality remained stable suggests over-diagnosis—the increased incidence being largely the result of increased diagnostic scrutiny and not an increase in the incidence of the disease.”
Similarly, in the 1997 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, dermatologists Robert A. Swerlick and Zhong-Sheng Chen said that the increase is “more apparent than real” and that the dermatology community has tried to hide the truth about what caused the reported increase by blaming it on UVR exposure.
In summary, the dermatology community wants to have it both ways. On one hand, they want to enjoy the enormous financial and professional benefits associated with the removal of benign pigmented lesions; on the other hand, they want to blame the increase that they created on UVR exposure. This self-serving attitude of “shifting the blame” is damaging to the American public because it has resulted in wasted time and resources that could have (and should have) been spent trying to find the real cause of CMM.
Here is an example of those wasted resources at work: Mark Purdue, Laura Beane Freeman, William Anderson and Margaret Tucker published the study “Recent Trends in Incidence of Cutaneous Melanoma Among U.S. Caucasian Young Adults” in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. However, they failed to mention the facts contained in the Welch study (or even cite it in their list of references). They also used the questionable statistical technique of joinpoint regressive modeling in order to show an increase in CMM incidence in young females when a standard presentation would have shown otherwise. And, even though no data was provided to support the claim, the authors gratuitously tried to link the increase in the incidence of CMM to the use of sunbeds by young women. So, why did they do this? The answer is simple: If they hadn’t done it this way, the results would have undermined their anti-UVR and anti-tanning stance.
