Centralized Dermatology: A House of Cards
The one paper to prove that they're wrong about sunlight exposure.
This is the final blow to centralized dermatology.
I’m a firm believer that this one paper puts everything into perspective regarding the scientific evidence on sunlight exposure as it relates to the world of dermatology and their hyper-reductionist notions.
For reference, you can read the paper yourself here.
In their own dermatology journal, they admit the following with this paper:
“UVA has been shown to be mutagenic in cultured cells.”
In vitro (using cell cultures) is next to meaningless. In vivo (within the organism) gives a more accurate representation of the truth, but even then there are major limitations.
“To induce skin cancers in hairless albino mice.”
That’s precisely the issue with centralized science on this subject. They use isolated UV light in an artificially blue lit lab that is bathed with non-native EMFs on nocturnal animals that are often ALBINO.
If you understand the basics of study design, it’s ridiculous to run these studies and then claim that the same outcome manifests with full spectrum sunlight on circadian, diurnal creatures.
“More significantly, a causal relationship between artificial UVA baths for cosmetic or medical purposes and a substantial increase in human melanomas has recently been demonstrated epidemiologically.”
Epidemiological data is merely observational data. It’s a poor level of evidence.
And yet, the main point is that they’re talking about isolated UV-A or UV-B, which is the case in tanning beds and booths. That isn’t the same thing as full spectrum sunlight which offers UV light packaged with red/infrared as well as the other light wavelengths.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting.
“Much of our knowledge about solar radiation effects comes from experiments with monochromatic UV. Consequently, the additive, synergistic, or antagonistic interactions between the different solar wavelengths have been largely overlooked.”
They literally admit that all of their research and the worldview + recommendations which stem from it uses monochromatic (isolated) UV light rather than the sun’s full light spectrum.
When you piece together all of the available evidence on circadian biology and sunlight exposure in addition to this glaring statement, it’s obvious that centralized science has this entire thing wrong.
“The incidence of skin cancer detected in human populations submitted to high levels of solar radiation seems to be less than what would be expected taking into account the amount of damage inflicted on cellular DNA by solar UV fluence and the repair capability of the cells.”
“This means that (1) the solar UV damaging potential has been overestimated, (ii) the repair potential of the cells has been underestimated, or (iii) the effects of UV in a polychromatic light beam are not the same as those of monochromatic UV, due to as yet unknown antagonistic effects.”
What a paragraph.
They admit that the real world statistics do not reflect the beliefs of their worldview.
They admit that monochromatic, isolated UV light doesn’t have the same effect on biological systems as polychromatic, full spectrum sunlight.
They even admit that the repair potential of cells has been underestimated while the solar UV damaging potential has been overestimated.
It’s almost as if Mother Nature didn’t make a mistake when it comes to the relationship of sunlight and biology. Imagine that.
Nothing more needs to be said here.
“In preliminary experiments we determined that, under our experimental conditions, 30 min irradiation with the IR lamp (810 kJ per m2) elicited the maximal protective response, without any measurable cytotoxicity.”
The high-level summary here is that infrared light provides maximum protection of cells, without any cell toxicity whatsoever.
I have been pushing the idea that red and infrared light wavelengths are the balancing force in sunlight that allow UV to act as hormetic stressors. It’s already baked into the system because Mother Nature has had billions of years to perfect it.
“Time-course experiments show that the protection induced by IR is detectable almost immediately after IR irradiation, is enhanced progressively until reaching a maximum 24 h later, and then decreases, disappearing almost completely within 3 d This temporal profile of the protection induced by IR is shown in Figure 2 for UVA.”
Cell protection from infrared irradiation occurs practically instantly, increases progressively to a peak at 24 hours, and then gradually decreases, nearly disappearing within 3 days.
This is why I push AM sunbathing heavy as a means to prime the skin to develop more leverage for midday sunbathing. The protective effect of infrared lasts a long time, which clarifies the power of this work.
Furthermore, the protection from infrared is a cumulative phenomenon.
Fibroblasts were irradiated one, two, or three times with IR, before irradiation with UVA. 250 kJ UVA per m2 led to a decrease of about 50% in the number of cells. It can be seen in this figure that one pre-irradiation with IR inhibited the cytotoxic effect of UVA, leading to a decrease of only 20% in the number of cells. Two IR irradiations abolished the effect of UVA almost completely, leading to a loss of only 2% of the cells, and three IR irradiations abolished the cytotoxicity of this dose of UVA completely, indicating that the protection provided by IR is cumulative. We found the same cumulative protection against UVB (data not shown).
Read through that again and digest it.
“The cells developed adaptive responses and enzymatic repair systems to assure these vital functions, reaching an equilibrium between damage and repair in normal environmental conditions.”
In the final parts of this paper, they basically point to the idea that cells evolved to receive the full light spectrum, which makes sense intuitively when you understand how biology works in relation to evolutionary adaptation.
I love this paper because it addresses many of the “controversial” points involved within the discussion of sunlight exposure including skin cancer, UV skin damage, so forth.
I hope you understand the implications of this.
Much love,
Zaid
Work with Zaid directly | https://calendly.com/zaidkdahhaj
Website | https://www.zaidkdahhaj.com/
The 2AM Podcast | https://www.youtube.com/@THE2AMPODCAST
Twitter | https://twitter.com/zaidkdahhaj
Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/zaidkdahhaj/
Thanks so much for presenting this evidence! You, Dr Syed Haider, and The Midwestern Doctor shedding much light on the truth and our health - our REAL health! Priceless info 👏👏👏
🙏🏼🙏🏼