Prepper medicine: How to use chokecherry, a versatile medicinal plant

(NaturalNews)

(Natural News) Despite the unappetizing name, chokecherries are a versatile food source for preppers. When prepared right, the berries can be used to make delicious fruit leather or sweet jelly.Medicinally, chokecherry bark is used to make home remedies like a cold infusion, syrup and a tincture. These remedies are used to treat … [Read More…]

Dr. Jane Ruby: Airline pilots were offered incentives to get COVID-19 vaccine – Brighteon.TV

(NaturalNews)

(Natural News) Dr. Jane Ruby revealed that airline pilots were offered huge monetary incentives to get the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) injection during the June 6 episode of “Live with Dr. Jane Ruby” on Brighteon.TV.”And we knew that they were starting initially with huge monetary incentives. In fact, what they said was, let’s try to … [Read More…]

DeSantis vindicated of COVID cover-up after media darling, ‘whistleblower’ ends up in complete disgrace

(NaturalNews)

(Natural News) What a surprise: Rebekah Jones, once hailed as a “whistleblower†for claiming Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis had fudged the state’s COVID-19 numbers, has been revealed as a complete fraud.(Article by C. Douglas Golden republished from WesternJournal.com)A report released last week by the Florida Department of Health … [Read More…]

US veteran, former Secret Service and CIA officer: The America I fought so hard to protect is unraveling right before my eyes

(NaturalNews)

(Natural News) When I look at our country today, anxiety and emptiness fill my body. The state of our country that I fought so hard to protect is unraveling before my eyes.(Article by Anthony Sabio republished from LawEnforcementToday.com)Dysfunction and lack of caring is everywhere, and we have become so woke that we are allowing … [Read More…]

NY Times Runs Another Hit Piece on Dr. Mercola

The New York Times (NYT) was once upon a time the gold standard of the American free press, lovingly known as the “Gray Lady” — a nod to its fearlessly honest and impartial reporting of “all the news that’s fit to print.” Those days are long gone, however.

As noted by Ashley Rindsberg in his book, “The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times’ Misreporting, Distortions & Fabrications Radically Altered History,”1,2 its founding vision and principles have radically devolved over the generations, and “the costs of the Times’ habitual and intentional misreporting over the past century are incalculably high.”3

To highlight just one example of the NYT’s inglorious fake news past, the paper continued to broadcast Nazi propaganda in support of Hitler throughout World War II:4

“… in 1939, Hitler’s Gestapo cronies and propagandists coordinated Operation Himmler, which involved Polish-speaking Germans storming a Gleiwitz radio station with guns and shouting in Polish. It was enough to dupe the German people and the world into believing that Poland had attacked Germany, creating the pretext to ‘retaliate.’

None of it was true, but the New York Times took the propaganda hook, line, and sinker: from Hitler’s mouth to the Times front page. This story is more nefarious than a simple case of repeatedly promulgating Nazi propaganda around the world without adding any countervailing voices. The ‘semi-official news agency’ that the New York Times article mentions was one of the main cogs in the Nazi propaganda machine.

The head of National Socialist propaganda Joseph Goebbels and his cronies had a hand in every press publication since 1933, so by 1939 there was no ‘semi-official news agency’ — only official Nazi-approved organs. And the NYT would have known that … For a decade the Times cast Hitler’s Nazi Germany in the best possible light, even in the face of riots, violence, and takeovers.”

Propaganda of the Most Damaging Sort

Over the past two years, in particular, the NYT has revealed itself as a pure propaganda outlet. It doesn’t even try to hide its bias. It’s on the side of the technocratic One World Order cabal, and will go to absurd lengths to promote and defend the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Great Reset narrative, just as it defended Hitler’s regime during World War II.

What ideology underpins the editorial decisions of the NYT today? I can’t see inside the controlling shareholders’ brains, but from the outside, judging purely by what they see fit to print, it seems they’re working hand in hand with the global enemy of all mankind.

As recently as 2019, the NYT devoted an entire issue to prop up the fabricated “1619 Project,” which seeks to reframe America’s origin as a nation of freedom to one of still-ongoing tyranny to be toppled.

That the NYT is working on behalf of the globalist cabal is also evident by the fact that NYT managing editor Rebecca Blumenstein was among the journalists invited to the WEF’s 2022 meeting in Davos.5

She’s an insider. She’s part of the club that wants to erase national sovereignty in favor of an unelected global governing body based on technocratic ideology, social engineering and anti-God, anti-humane transhumanist ideals.

NYT Hit Parade

In July 2021, the NYT published an article6 declaring me “The Most Influential Spreader of Coronavirus Misinformation Online.” The NYT described me as “a pioneer of the anti-vaccine movement” who “creates and profits from misleading claims about COVID-19 vaccines.”

That article contained such blatant lies, I ended up sending the author, Sheera Frenkel, a legal notice demanding a retraction.7 For example, she claimed the Food and Drug Administration has levied multimillion-dollar fines against me — a complete fabrication, as the FDA has never fined me a dime.

Frenkel also implied that I misrepresent myself as a published author of a paper on vitamin D for COVID-19 by stating she was “unable to verify” that I had in fact published such a paper. This despite the fact that I had sent her a direct link to it, and the fact that it’s easily found by searching for my name in the PubMed database. A child capable of spelling my name could find it.

So, the NYT doesn’t just violate journalistic standards by ignoring the opposing side of a given argument. It outright lies about it, squarely pigeon-holing the paper as a propaganda rag.

Most recently, a May 25, 2022, NYT article8 again paints me as a top “disinformation dozen” figure — a term taken straight from the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s (CCDH) “Disinformation Dozen” report,9 which claimed a mere 12 individuals were responsible for 65% of anti-vaccine content on Facebook and Twitter.

The CCDH insisted that were these 12 individuals deplatformed, most online disinformation would be eradicated. However, this claim turned out to be so grossly inaccurate, Facebook itself even publicly rebuked it.

After conducting its own investigation, Facebook concluded these 12 individuals — myself included — accounted for a miniscule 0.05% of vaccine-related content views. Yet, with a reach of influence amounting to a tiny fraction of a percent, the NYT still insists on labeling us as “the disinformation dozen.” It’s a hallmark propaganda move.

The CCDH — The Propagandist Favorite Resource

And speaking of propaganda, that is the sole function of the CCDH as well — a one-man organization with undisclosed funding. Its connections, however, firmly link it to technocrat-led institutions that support the WEF’s Great Reset, so its raison d’être — or reason for being — is not difficult to identify.

By way of its board members, the CCDH can be linked to the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council and the European Council of Foreign Relations, which are all Great Reset supporting institutions. Board members are also linked to Save the Children Fund — funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Alliance — the British Parliament, CIA and Reuters, an exclusive WEF content distributor.10

CCDH chairman Simon Clark is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress,11 which is funded by dark money from a liberal Swiss billionaire named Hansörg Wyss.12,13 Wyss also funds Arabella Advisors,14 a professional activism organization known for funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to left-wing organizations and hosting hundreds of ‘pop-up groups’ designed to look like standalone nonprofits when, in fact, they’re part of an Arabella campaign.

Arabella is founded by Eric Kessler, who has a direct, personal connection to the president of the Wyss Foundation, Molly McUsic. They both worked for Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit during the Clinton administration.15

CCDH chairman Clark also has ties to a participant of Event 201 (former CIA deputy director Avril Haines). Event 201 was a fabulously prescient coronavirus pandemic exercise held in October 2019 that foreshadowed and practiced the draconian countermeasures implemented when COVID-19 appeared mere months later.

Curiously enough, a primary focus of that exercise was not infection control and treatment, but rather how to best censor and counteract problematic narratives about the virus, public disagreement with pandemic measures and doubts about vaccine safety.

You would think that if public health were the primary impetus behind such an exercise — as opposed to wealth transfer, economic destruction and societal reformation — it would focus on the medical and scientific strategies of how to best contain and control the actual virus, and not how best to contain and control information. Infectious disease control science would have been the key feature, not the science of social engineering.

Who Really Has a Profit Motive?

According to the NYT, my motive for sharing COVID information is simple: “Profit”:16

“Numerous experts told me that a good way to understand what motivates many players in the anti-vaccine movement is through the lens of profit. There are several levels of profiteering.

The first involves social media companies. Historically, the algorithms that drive their platforms, some argue, have fed users more and more of what they respond to without regard for whether it’s true …

Some ‘disinformation dozen’ figures, like Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, offer products directly. He presides over a multimillion-dollar business selling supplements and other merchandise online …”

What the NYT completely ignores is that my site has been delisted by Google and I’ve been deplatformed by YouTube. Twitter has also banned any link to my articles from being posted, so they cannot be shared. Just how is losing all primary methods of communication profitable to me?

On the flip-side, the NYT completely omits that the drug industry is motivated by profits in the billions, and that COVID jab makers have paid many billions of dollars in actual fines for fraud and other kinds of criminal malfeasance. On top of that, the NYT refuses to look into the shady connections and motivations behind the CCDH.

Profit is the least of my motives for sharing information which, by the way, has always been free. Helping as many people as possible to survive this unprecedented attack on humanity is. Mankind has been under assault from through toxic chemicals, risky drugs and nutritionally illiterate health guidelines for many decades, but now “it’s getting real,” as the kids say.

This is by far the most important battle we’ve ever faced — certainly in our own lifetime but possibly in the history of the world. During World War II, the NYT whitewashed Nazi propaganda. Today, they’ve chosen to be on the wrong side of history yet again, because in the end, truth will win.

Resistance — Not All Germs Are Created Equal

This article was previously published June 9, 2018, and has been updated with new information.

Antibiotic resistance has become a major threat to public health worldwide, and the primary cause for this man-made epidemic is the widespread misuse of antibiotics — drugs used to combat bacterial infections in humans and animals. Over the decades, antibiotics have been widely overprescribed for infections that don’t respond well, or at all, to these drugs.

Viral infections, for example, cannot be treated with antibiotics since they only kill bacteria, yet many of you have likely taken a course of antibiotics for an ear infection or a bout of cold or flu — all viral infections. Antibiotics have also been routinely used for growth promotion purposes in livestock, and this practice continues in the U.S. to this day, despite the well-known risks.

In the U.S. alone, antibiotic-resistant pathogens are conservatively estimated to cause at least 2.8 million infections annually, leading to 35,000 deaths each year.1 Globally, data from a January 2022 study in The Lancet2 show that there are 4.95 million deaths associated with antibiotic-resistant infections and 1.27 million directly attributable to them, with the leading infections being E. coli, S. aureus and K. pneumoniae.

Statistically, an estimated 21.5% to 64.91% of K. pneumoniae infections are now resistant to several different antibiotics, making these infections extremely difficult to treat.3 The rise in pan-resistance (resistance to multiple drugs) in turn has led to a significant increase in use of carbapenems — a class of last-line antibiotics.

Disturbingly, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae are also rapidly becoming more common in hospitals,4 and an estimated 1 in 25 patients now ends up with a hospital-acquired infection.5

The Rise of Antibiotic Resistance

The featured 2015 documentary, “Resistance: Not All Germs Are Created Equal,”6 delves into the history of bacteria, antibiotics, and the subsequent development and spread of antibiotic resistance. It also features personal stories of people impacted by drug-resistant infections. Not surprisingly, those affected generally feel we’ve squandered an awesome resource by overusing antibiotics, thereby creating bacteria that are impervious to these drugs.

For years now, scientists have warned we are entering a preantibiotic era once more, where infections that were once simple to treat will become deadly. Already, drug-resistant urinary tract infections (UTIs) and tuberculosis are on the rise, as are several sexually transmitted diseases. For example, the two main strains of syphilis in circulation worldwide have developed resistance to azithromycin, the second drug of choice for this infection.7,8

The Street Strain 14 (SS14), which is a newer strain, appears to be far more drug-resistant than the older Nichols strain. A whopping 90% of the SS14 samples had drug resistance genes. There’s also evidence showing the three most common STDs — chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis — are all developing pan-resistance.

Gonorrhea is already resistant to all antibiotics that have been used against it, and is rapidly developing resistance against cephalosporins, the drugs of last resort. In the case of UTIs, drug-resistant infections have actually been traced back to the consumption of chicken contaminated with antibiotic-resistant E. coli. As more and more antibiotics become useless, surgeries will also become life-threatening events, and organ transplants may become virtually impossible.

Efforts to Scale Back Human Consumption of Antibiotics Fail

Between 2000 and 2015, the global human consumption of antibiotics rose by 65%, reaching 42 billion doses a year.9 The increase was driven by low- and middle-income countries and, if no policy changes are made, it’s estimated that global antibiotic consumption will rise up to 200% higher by 2030.

Use of antibiotics in high-income countries still remains higher than in most low- and middle-income countries, but their use is rising fast — a concern, in part, because antibiotics are often available without a prescription in lower-income countries, making the potential for abuse high.

In the U.S., while rates of antibiotics didn’t rise sharply, they also didn’t fall, which suggests efforts to scale back inappropriate usage have largely failed. Lance Price, director of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University, told NPR:10

“The biggest driver for the evolution of superbugs is the use of antibiotics … The more we use antibiotics, the more we are going to encourage the growth of these bacteria that are resistant to them … [Already] you have these extreme cases like the woman [in Nevada] just about a year ago who died of an infection that was resistant to 26 different antibiotics …

So, bacteria are out there that are resistant to everything, and they are becoming more and more prevalent.”

You’re Exposed to Antibiotics From Several Sources

As mentioned, antibiotic overuse occurs not just in medicine, but also in food production. In fact, agricultural uses account for about 80% of all antibiotic use in the U.S.,11 so it’s a major source of human antibiotic consumption. The peril with giving animals antibiotics is that it alters their gut microbiome (this is also, in part, how antibiotics promote unnatural growth in the animal).

In the process, some of those gut bacteria become antibiotic-resistant. One of two things can then happen. Either the drug-resistant bacteria are passed into the environment via the animal’s manure, or the gut contents may contaminate the meat during slaughter or processing.

So, antibiotics given to animals enter your food supply not only via meat, but also through manure used as fertilizer on crops. Indeed, at least two studies12,13 show most vegetables grown in soil fertilized with manure will uptake antibiotics into leaves, plant tissues and tubers, and the greater the amount of antibiotics in the manure, the higher the levels detected in plant tissues.

One of the studies, funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), found that root crops, which are in direct contact with soil, are particularly prone to antibiotic contamination. Antibiotics such as oxytetracycline and streptomycin are also used as pesticides in agriculture — primarily on fruit orchards, but also on some vegetable crops — and both of these antibiotics are used in human medicine as well.14

Protecting your gut health and reducing the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are significant reasons for making sure you’re only eating organically raised grass fed meats and animal products, and biodynamic fruits and vegetables. You can also help yourself and your community by using medical antibiotics only when absolutely necessary, and avoiding antibacterial products altogether.

This includes antibacterial soaps, wipes, gels and sprays, as well as personal hygiene and household products containing antimicrobial agents, such as triclosan-containing sanitizers and Microban-treated cutting boards.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule in 201615 that manufacturers must remove triclosan and a related ingredient, triclocarban, from antiseptic wash products, they decided not to ban it from toothpaste products, hand sanitizers and mouthwashes, which means you may still find these products in the dental aisles at your local store, which leaves 75% of the U.S. population still exposed to this compound.16

US Has Been Lax on Curtailing Antibiotic Use in Factory Farms

In August 2017, PBS News17 featured a concise overview of how concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) serve as breeding grounds for antibiotic-resistant superbugs — and how farmers have the power to change that by raising their animals in a more natural way. Perhaps most disturbing is the FDA’s lack of action on this issue, even as antibiotic-resistant disease has become a pressing public health threat.

The FDA issued voluntary guidance on agricultural antibiotics in 2013, asking drug companies to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from the labels of their antibiotic products. They also required veterinarians to oversee any addition of these drugs to animal feed and water. Most companies agreed to comply with the guidelines and state they no longer use antibiotics for growth promotion purposes, but there’s a major loophole being exploited.

Instead of saying the drugs are being used to promote growth, they simply state they use the antibiotics for disease prevention and control, a use that is still allowed under the FDA’s guidance. Last year, the FDA officially banned the use of antibiotics for the purpose of growth promotion altogether. A veterinary prescription for antibiotics is now required.

However, this outright ban has had no real impact either. CAFOs are still dispensing antibiotics as usual, since it’s easy enough to obtain a veterinary prescription.

Stop Nonmedical Use of Antibiotics to Reduce Drug Resistance

In 2017, the World Health Organization also called on farmers and the food industry to stop the use of antibiotics in healthy animals to “help preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics that are important for human medicine.”18

They cited a study19 published in The Lancet Planetary Health, which found reducing antibiotic use in food-producing animals reduced antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the animals by up to 39% and may similarly reduce such bacteria in humans, particularly those who are directly exposed to food-producing animals.

Lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the animals also means less risk to those who consume the meat. In a Consumer Reports study20 of 300 raw ground beef samples published in 2015, CAFO samples were three times more likely to be contaminated with multidrug-resistant bacteria compared to grass fed beef raised without antibiotics. The grass fed beef was also less likely to be contaminated with E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus than the CAFO meat.

As it stands, the excessive use of antibiotics among CAFO animals has turned them into veritable “disease factories”21 and, in the U.S., when the FDA tests raw supermarket chicken, they routinely find antibiotic-resistant bacteria to be present.22

Outrageously, USDA acting chief scientist Chavonda Jacobs-Young countered WHO’s international call to action saying,23 “The WHO guidelines are not in alignment with U.S. policy and are not supported by sound science. The recommendations erroneously conflate disease prevention with growth promotion in animals.”

This assertion flies in the face of previous investigations showing that nontherapeutic use accounts for an estimated 93% of the antibiotics used in American livestock.24,25

Are Antibiotics Essential in Farming?

The question is, are antibiotics absolutely essential in farming? There’s plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is no. It does, however, require some healthy changes to be implemented. Pastured animals, for example, rarely need antibiotics as they’re nowhere near as prone to disease as animals raised in confinement. Other countries have also shown that antibiotic-free meat can be produced on a larger scale.

In the featured documentary, the filmmakers travel to Denmark, a country in which reforms to tackle drug resistance by eliminating antibiotic use in livestock began in the late 1980s. The EU followed suit, ending the use of antibiotics for growth promotion in 2006, and as noted in the film, raising antibiotic-free meat would be just as feasible in the U.S. as it is in Denmark and other European countries.

Denmark’s success is also detailed in a 2014 article in Environmental Health Perspectives,26 which notes:

“One of the most striking aspects of Denmark’s transformation in antibiotics policy is that it reportedly has had little negative impact on the nation’s pork industry. From 1992 to 2008, antibiotic use per kilogram of pig raised in Denmark dropped by more than 50 percent. Yet overall productivity increased.

Production of weaning pigs increased from 18.4 million in 1992 to 27.1 million in 2008. Pig mortality began increasing in 1994 but fell sharply after 2004 and by 2008 was similar to 1992 levels. According to Niels Kjeldsen, a veterinarian with the Danish Agriculture and Food Council, the cost of raising pigs has gone up by about €1 per animal, from birth to slaughter, since the ban.

‘We have more efficient production and less disease,’ says Jørgen Schlundt, director of the National Food Institute … Many Danish farmers now allow piglets to stay with their mothers for a longer period, which allows them to build their immune systems naturally …”

Strategies to Protect Yourself

As noted in the film, it seems inevitable that antibiotic resistance will continue to climb, and that treatment will become more expensive. Unless the drug industry starts making antibiotic development a priority, we may soon lose the fight against drug-resistant bacteria, which will inevitably mean more people will die from infections that were once relatively easy and inexpensive to treat.

While the problem of antibiotic resistance needs to be addressed through public policy, our individual choices also add up, and will influence your personal risk. The following strategies will help curtail the growth of antibiotic resistance in general and lower your personal risk of contracting and/or spreading a drug-resistant infection:

Infection prevention, with a focus on strengthening your immune system naturally. Avoiding sugars, processed foods and grains, stress reduction and optimizing your sleep and vitamin D level are foundational for this. Adding in traditionally fermented and cultured foods is also important, as this will help optimize your microbiome.

The Nitric Oxide Dump exercise will also help improve your immune status. Contrary to supplements that boost immune function, which should be taken only as needed, this exercise is a preventive method that should ideally be done daily.

Limit your use of antibiotics — Any time your doctor prescribes an antibiotic, ask if it’s absolutely necessary, and keep in mind that antibiotics do not work for viral infections. For example, antibiotics are typically unnecessary for most ear infections, and they do not work on the common cold or flu, both of which are caused by viruses.

Avoid antibiotics in food by purchasing organic or biodynamic grass fed meats and animal products and organically grown fruits and vegetables.

Avoid antibacterial household products such as antibacterial soaps, hand sanitizers and wipes, as these promote antibiotic resistance by allowing the strongest bacteria to survive and thrive in your home.

Properly wash your hands with warm water and plain soap, to prevent the spread of bacteria — Be particularly mindful of washing your hands and kitchen surfaces after handling raw meats, as about half of all meat sold in American grocery stores is likely to be contaminated with pathogenic bacteria. Avoid antibiotic soaps that typically have dangerous chemicals like triclosan.

Take commonsense precautions in the kitchen — Kitchens are notorious breeding grounds for disease-causing bacteria, courtesy of contaminated meat products, including antibiotic-resistant strains of E. coli. To avoid cross-contamination between foods in your kitchen, adhere to the following recommendations:

  • Use a designated cutting board, preferably wood, not plastic, for raw meat and poultry, and never use this board for other food preparation, such as cutting up vegetables. Color coding your cutting boards is a simple way to distinguish between them
  • To sanitize your cutting board, use hot water and detergent. Simply wiping it off with a rag will not destroy the bacteria
  • For an inexpensive, safe and effective kitchen counter and cutting board sanitizer, use 3% hydrogen peroxide and vinegar. Keep each liquid in a separate spray bottle, and then spray the surface with one, followed by the other, and wipe off
  • Coconut oil can also be used to clean, treat and sanitize your wooden cutting boards. It’s loaded with lauric acid that has potent antimicrobial actions. The fats will also help condition the wood
Gaia Films and Docs

About the Distributor

I believe in bringing quality to my readers, which is why I wanted to share some information about Gaia, the distributor of “Resistance.” We sat down to learn a little more about what goes in to making these films. Thank you to Gaia for sharing with us.

What is Gaia?

Streaming Consciousness. Gaia is your source for conscious media, featuring over 8,000 documentaries, original episodes and films for life-long learners seeking more than mere entertainment from their streaming service. Discover new alternative health, yoga and meditation practices, and feed your curiosity with ancient wisdom and metaphysics.

What are the benefits of joining Gaia?

Gaia is 100% ad-free, and is the largest resource of consciousness-expanding videos.

What does a conscious media company do with $9.95 a month?

We provide an ad-free experience, no exceptions! We bring scholars, scientists and even shamans into the studios. We pay the bills without selling your personal information. We make Gaia accessible on your favorite connected devices. And, we keep our community active and support its growth.

Gaia Films and Docs

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Many Pathologists Agree Skin Cancer Is Overdiagnosed

Data published in JAMA Dermatology in April 2022 revealed that nearly two-thirds of dermatopathologists believe that skin cancer is overdiagnosed.1 According to the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD),2 skin cancer will affect 1 in 5 Americans in their lifetime, making it one of the most common cancers diagnosed in the U.S.

According to the AAD, exposure to UV radiation from sunlight or tanning beds can increase the risk of developing certain types of skin cancer, especially when a person has five or more blistering sunburns at an early age, from 15 to 20 years. This can increase melanoma risk by 80% and non-melanoma by 68%.

The annual cost of treating skin cancer was $8.1 billion for 4.9 million adults from 2007 to 2011. This was an increase in cost from 2002-2006, when the average annual treatment was $3.6 billion for 3.4 million adults treated each year. This represents a 44% increase in people with skin cancer and a 125% increase in the cost of treatment.

The significant rise in treatment costs is likely not due to the annual increases in medical costs for known treatments. For example, photodynamic therapy (PDT) was commonly used to treat nonmelanoma skin cancer in 2007.3 An evaluation of costs4 showed a 3.2% to 4.7% rise in Medicare reimbursement for PDT from 2012 to 2017.

There have been some advances in the treatment of melanoma and other types of skin cancer,5 which include targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are immunotherapies that have been used in people with advanced, unresectable melanoma. The drugs include ipilimumab (Yervoy), pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and nivolumab (Opdivo).

The first checkpoint inhibitor was released for use in 2011, and since then five others have reached the market.6 A review7 of the cost and cost-effectiveness of these drugs yielded disappointing results.

One paper8 estimated the cost at $1 million per patient with a “median progression-free survival of 11.4 months,” which Dr. Leonard Salz, from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, called “truly remarkable, for a disease that five years ago was thought virtually untreatable.”9

Data Show Melanoma Cancer Is Overdiagnosed

Researchers in the featured study10 wanted to know the perception of dermatopathologists as it related to the overdiagnosis of melanoma and other skin cancers. The researchers surveyed 115 dermatopathologists to evaluate their perception of overdiagnosis of melanoma as a public health issue. These are board-certified and/or fellowship-trained pathologists who specialize in diagnosing skin diseases from skin samples.

The researchers gave each a set of 18 skin biopsy samples and asked them to interpret the case using their own microscopes. The survey was taken from 2018 to 2019 and the analysis was finalized in September 2021. The results11 showed that 68% of the dermatopathologists believed overdiagnosis was a public health issue for atypical nevi, which are also known as dysplastic nevi or benign acquired melanocytic neoplasms.12

These skin disorders look similar to melanoma but are benign lesions. The survey also showed that the dermatopathologists believe that melanoma in situ was overdiagnosed 47% of the time and invasive melanoma was overdiagnosed 35% of the time. The results also showed that a lower number of pathologists with more years of practice thought atypical nevi were overdiagnosed. The researchers concluded:13

“… about two-thirds of dermatopathologists thought that atypical nevi are overdiagnosed, half thought that melanoma in situ is overdiagnosed, and one-third thought that invasive melanoma is overdiagnosed. No statistically significant associations were found between perceptions about overdiagnosis and interpretive behavior when diagnosing skin biopsy cases.”

Kathleen Kerr, Ph.D., lead researcher from the University of Washington, talked about the importance of these findings:14

“Melanoma diagnoses have been rising in the U.S. If there were truly an epidemic of melanoma, we would expect that deaths from melanoma to show a corresponding rise, since there hasn’t been a major breakthrough in treatment during this time. Yet melanoma deaths have been remarkably constant. This suggests that the rise in melanoma diagnoses is largely due to overdiagnosis.”

Data from the National Cancer Institute15 also demonstrate that the rate of diagnosis of new cases from 1992 to 2019 rose dramatically from 14.6 cases per 100,000 persons to 23.9 per 100,000 persons. Yet, the death rate from melanoma remained steady from 1992 until 2013 at 2.7 deaths per 100,000 persons. By 2019 it had declined to 2.0 deaths per 100,000 persons.

The disparity in diagnosis and death rate suggests the epidemic of melanoma is likely from an overdiagnosis of the skin condition. Kerr16 shared that while advanced melanoma is not difficult to diagnose, early biopsies have a distinct diagnostic variability, which raises the possibility of overdiagnosis.

The second half of their study looked at how a pathologist’s perception of overdiagnosis would affect how they diagnosed a skin biopsy. What they found was that those who believed invasive melanoma was overdiagnosed by the medical community were in fact “slightly more likely to diagnose invasive melanoma compared to other dermatopathologists examining the identical cases.”17

Overdiagnosis of melanoma is a significant problem since the diagnosis often carries consequences that affect the patient on an emotional and financial level. Kerr believes18 it will be challenging to reduce the problem with overdiagnosis as it will require cooperation between patients, primary care physicians and pathologists.

Melanoma Linked to Linoleic Acid; Sun Isn’t the Primary Cause

To prove this point there was a study from 1987,19 during which samples of fat tissue were taken from 100 melanoma patients and 100 people without melanoma and analyzed for fatty acids.

Not only is there an increase in linoleic acid in the tissue of all the subjects, but the percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) is significantly higher in the melanoma patients’ tissue. “The suggestion is made that increased consumption of dietary polyunsaturates may have a contributory effect in the etiology of melanoma,” the researchers concluded.20

Linoleic acid is the primary fat found in omega-6 polyunsaturated fats, including vegetable/seed oils, and accounts for about 80% of the fat composition of vegetable oils. Omega-6 fats must be balanced with omega-3 fats in order to not be harmful, but most Americans don’t eat that way.

Most of the omega-6 people eat, including seed oils, has been damaged and oxidized through processing. Once oxidized, it generates oxidized linoleic acid metabolites, which are mutagenic, carcinogenic, cytotoxic and atherogenic.21

“Is it possible that increased linoleic acid consumption could be causing fragility to cell membranes and that could be leading to oxidative damage in the sun leading to DNA damage and then more melanocytic nevi precursor lesions or melanoma or could the same thing be happening with squamous and basal?

I would say yes. It’s not supported by literature yet because there haven’t been any studies looking at this. We need many more studies on linoleic acid … The linoleic acid found in seed oils is most likely one of the biggest drivers of chronic disease in humans.”

Linoleic acid is found in virtually every processed food, including restaurant foods, sauces and salad dressings, as well as “healthy” foods like chicken, pork and some olive oil, so eliminating these foods in your diet is another stepping stone to good health.

Many Sunscreen Ingredients Are Toxic

The AAD’s answer to a rising number of people diagnosed with melanoma and other skin cancers is sunscreen.22 They recommend a sunscreen with broad-spectrum protection, water-resistant SPF 30 or higher. Yet, sunscreen may be one of the worst things you can do to “protect” your skin.

First, I should make it clear that I believe sunscreen is widely overused. There are circumstances where it’s wise and appropriate, but those cases are few and far between. For the most part, you should rely on sensible sun exposure and get out of the sun or wear clothing the minute your skin starts to turn a light pink.

If you’re planning a day at the beach, or will be outdoors for hours at a time, you will need some form of sun protection. However, before grabbing the first bottle of sunscreen, it’s important to look at the ingredients and make a wise choice. One pharmaceutical testing company23 found 27% of the products tested exposed users to known carcinogens.

The data were published in 2021. Researchers tested 294 sunscreen products across a range of companies. They found 78 contained at least three times the level of benzene that the FDA allows under special circumstances. Benzene is an industrial chemical recognized by the CDC, U.S. Health and Human Services and World Health Organization as a known human carcinogen.24

CBS News25 reported 14 of the sunscreen products analyzed with the highest number of contaminants came from popular personal care brands, including Neutrogena, Sun Bum, CVS Health and Fruit of the Earth. While not all the products in these brands contained benzene, “the founder and CEO of Valisure believes the issue is manufacturing contamination affecting specific batches,” CBS News reported.

Although the name is similar, oxybenzone is a different chemical that is approved by the FDA and found in an estimated 70% of sunscreens.26 However, the chemical is a known endocrine disruptor and has been linked to reduced sperm count in men27 and endometriosis28 in women.

In the U.S., sunscreens may also contain at least eight other active ingredients that are suspected of having endocrine-disrupting effects. According to one Danish study,29 13 of 29 sunscreen chemicals that are allowed in the US. and/or the European Union can reduce male fertility by affecting calcium signaling in the sperm, in part by exerting a progesterone-like effect. The U.S. approves eight of these chemicals for use:30

Avobenzone

Homosalate

Meradimate

Octisalate (also known as octyl salicylate)

Octinoxate (octyl methoxycinnamate)

Octocrylene

Oxybenzone (also called benzophenone-3)

Padimate O

Ingredients Build Up to Unhealthy Levels

Data funded by the FDA published in JAMA in 201931 and 202032 showed that certain ingredients in sunscreen products may build up in the body at unhealthy levels. The chemicals studied were avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate and octinoxate. After the 2019 study, the researchers concluded the:33

“… conditions resulted in plasma concentrations that exceeded the threshold established by the FDA for potentially waiving some nonclinical toxicology studies for sunscreens. The systemic absorption of sunscreen ingredients supports the need for further studies to determine the clinical significance of these findings.”

At least one — oxybenzone, found in 70% of sunscreen products — can show up in breast milk, amniotic fluid, urine and blood.34 They also wrote that the ingredients were absorbed after only one day’s exposure, and some persisted in the body after use.

Your Body Requires Vitamin D for Optimal Health

Your body needs vitamin D, which it manufactures after exposure to the sun.35 Vitamin D is involved in the biology of most cells and tissues in your body,36 including your immune system.37 Currently, the U.S. The Preventive Services Task Force38 considers 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) sufficient.

However, a compelling body of research suggests that 40 ng/mL is the low end of sufficiency39 and 30 ng/mL is rock bottom to prevent disease.40 The ideal level for prevention is actually between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL.41 According to a study in Anticancer Research,42 it requires 9,600 international units of vitamin D each day for the majority of the population (97.5%) to reach 40 ng/mL.

This is a far cry from the current recommendations of 600 IUs of vitamin D per day for adults.43 While optimal levels lower the risk of preterm birth.44 vitamin D deficiency puts you at risk for diabetes,45 heart disease,46 colorectal cancer,47 breast cancer,48 lung disease49 and pregnancy loss.50

The only way to know if you are deficient is a blood test. However, there are some general signs and symptoms that may indicate you should get your vitamin D levels tested sooner rather than later. These include:

  • Ongoing musculoskeletal pain and achy bones51
  • Frequent infections or illnesses52,53
  • Neurological symptoms, such as depression,54 cognitive impairment55 and migraines56
  • Fatigue and daytime sleepiness57

Naturally Protect Your Skin From the Summer Sun

While most sunscreens contain toxic ingredients, the good news is that you can support your healthy skin and protect it from damage from the inside out. Scientists have identified several nutrients that can up UV protective activity that reduces your risk of sunburn and related skin damage.

One of those nutrients is astaxanthin. It is a potent antioxidant that acts as an internal sunscreen. Astaxanthin has strong free radical scavenging activity that protects you from oxidative damage. It is produced by the microalgae Haematococcus pluvialis58 when the water supply dries up, to protect itself from ultraviolet radiation. Essentially, it’s the algae survival mechanism.

One paper59 examined the effect of astaxanthin on UV radiation exposure and gene expression. Researchers hypothesized it “would have a significant benefit on protecting against UVA-induced skin photoaging such as sagging and wrinkles.”60

A second paper,61 noted that a combination of 6 mg of astaxanthin taken internally and 2 mg used topically led to “significant benefit” in skin wrinkling, age spots and skin elasticity, texture and moisture content by week eight of the intervention. Several other nutrients naturally play a role in photoprotection, including lycopene,62 beta-carotene,63 vitamin D64 and vitamin E.65