Is the truth beginning to "dawn" on the mainstream? To my eternal surprise, I'm more often finding refreshing little kernels of unbiased truth in that flagship rag of American leftism, the New York Times. And I stumbled across another one just the other day - a piece that relates directly to a point I made just last month (Daily Dose, 8/10/04) about the demonization of dermatologists who sing the praises of sunlight exposure. It seems that another high-profile Dermatologist, Dr. Bernard Ackerman (a recent winner of the American Academy of Dermatology's prestigious, once-yearly Master Award) has publicly questioned the sky-is-falling conventional wisdom about the sunlight/melanoma link. According to the good doctor - who in 1999 founded the world's largest center for dermatopathology training - there is NO PROOF that sun exposure causes melanoma. Furthermore, he cites a recent article in the Archives of Dermatology concluding that no evidence exists supporting the notion that sunscreen PREVENTS melanoma - a claim the mega- dollar sun-goop industry and medical mainstream trumpet with impunity. Gee, where have we heard all this before? Perhaps from crazy old Dr. D. (as in vitamin D from sunlight)? But you know how much I hate to say, "I told you so..." Dr. Ackerman also casts doubt on the increase in the incidence of melanoma cases the mainstream insists is happening. His reasoning? That an expansion of the diagnostic definition of "melanoma" have allowed a much broader array of symptoms to be classified as the deadly disease compared to just 30 years ago. And according to Ackerman, today's assumption that melanoma is caused by sun exposure is based on flawed interpretation of data. Punctuating his point in the article, the respected physician challenged the medical mainstream to explain why nearly all cases of melanoma among certain races (blacks, Asians) occur in areas that are almost NEVER exposed to sunlight - places like the palms, soles of the feet, and mucous membranes. Even among pale-faces, the most common sites for melanoma (legs in women, torso in men) get significantly less sunlight exposure than other parts of the body. Judging by this evidence, our best chances of avoiding melanoma might be to move to the equatorial tropics and become nudists! What's the sun-hating mainstream say to this? Keep reading... ******************************************
To take up Ackerman's gauntlet, the article's author solicited the opinion (completely unbiased, naturally) of New York Dermatologist D.S. Rigel - a former American Academy of Dermatology President who just happens to be the author of a book entitled Cancer of the Skin... In typical knee-jerk establishment style, he attempted to discredit his sun-friendly peer by calling Ackerman's questioning of the conventional melanoma wisdom "perverse." Open-minded, huh?
So what's his answer to the question? Basically, this: Sunlight damages the immune system that normally keeps melanoma in check, allowing it to appear on the body anywhere - not just in sun-affected zones. But this makes no sense to me, for two reasons. One, sunlight exposure BOOSTS immunity by stimulating your body's production of vital vitamin D... And second, if the actual SITE of melanoma is unrelated to sunlight exposure (caused instead by sun-related immunity breakdown), wouldn't at least a proportionate percentage of these malignant tumors appear on the arms, scalp, neck, ears and other sun-battered spots? They don't, according to Ackerman's sources. Clearly, melanoma appears most often (in some groups more than others) where the sun DOESN'T shine. If only that's where we could shove the mainstream's convoluted thinking on the matter. Shedding (sun) light in all the right places, William Campbell Douglass II, MD | 
