Oddly enough, even slight sunlight exposure is the most commonly believed source of visible skin aging.

“Oddly enough” because this belief is rooted in marketing, not science. It has become accepted as dogma.

As a result of non-stop promotion of SUNSCREENS as the savior of skin beauty and their proclaimed prevention of cancers, both melanoma and non-melanoma cancers (Basal Cell & Squamous Cell Carcinomas) by a coalition of pharmaceutical companies and dermatologists these outcomes are now thought to be preventable by the general public.

Wrong.

The formation of pre-cancerous skin lesions (actinic keratosis) may be aggravated significantly by chronic skin inflammation caused by topical products, including chemical sunscreens.

After more than twenty years of this nonstop barrage in every media known it amounts to a near religion. Parents routinely slather toxic sunscreens on their toddlers – at least those who are not already blocked from straying outside.

The wrong of all this is seen in the numbers: AK prevalence is increasing, not decreasing since the introduction of SUNSCREENS. Go to any Australian/New Zealand public health website to satisfy your curiosity on AK prevalence. AK’s are now showing up in formerly “AK immune” Asian populations. Hmmm.

Melanoma of course has nothing to do with sunlight exposure. The prevalence of melanoma on the soles of the feet in the African population cannot be explained by sunlight and so, is ignored by ”the science.” Apparently, to follow the dogma, it must be caused by reclining in hammocks, feet to the sky, all day.

The clinical fictions of sunlight exposure like so many others have been promoted by an industry and captured regulatory agencies, primarily the FDA that has yet to define what UVA/UVB blocking amounts to either in quantitive or qualitative terms.

UVA/UVB rays are skin cell disruptive. Radiation damage can affect the DNA and is revealed in the daughter cells. But the countervailing forces in the skin to this exposure are potent themselves and the visible consequences can be remedied easily and topically.

And yet, we have been herded into suspending our knowledge that anyone born before sunscreens must have been irreversibly transformed into a twisted gristle of radioactive meat by walking down the street on a sunny day more than ten days in a row.

Did everyone die of skin cancer before 1990? It must have been the leading cause of death and any of the fossils staggering out of those prehistoric days, must all be withered char by now.

The AK lesions themselves are most visible on Caucasian skin but formerly AK free (and thought to be not susceptible) Asian skin is now also seeing increasing numbers of the population affected. The intermarrying of ethnic groups around the world has changed the skin susceptibility factor for AK’s is one explanation.

Another explanation is that chronic skin inflammation brought on by topical products, now widespread in Japan (where ethnic intermarriage is very rare) and where AK’s were thought to be genetically impossible even quite recently, has greatly weakened natural UVA/UVB resistance.

Those who exfoliate and go out in the sun are most assuredly increasing their risks of UVA/UVB damage. The so-called “horny layer” of the epidermis so delightfully shed by exfoliation products is there for a purpose. Applying a sunscreen, whether chemical or mineral, does not in any way protect this exfoliated skin, in fact, the inflammation caused by chemical sunscreens is far more threatening to the long term health of the skin that sunlight ever could be.

The use of mineral sunscreens has become nearly a lost cause. Unless you are willing to apply a product that covers your skin with a reflective white/blue zinc oxide, like a lifeguard’s nose in the 1950’s, you are not getting any protection. Zinc oxide small particles (less than 100 microns) invade the skin cells and cause endless damage. Large zinc oxide particles are not esthetically correct – you look as if you are coated in white paint.

Crafty marketers have attempted to capitalize on the public’s increasing perception that chemical sunscreens are harmful by promoting the “mineral sunscreen” component. In these products the chemical and mineral are combined. The mineral is promoted and the chemical hushed.

The false advertising continues and has been aggravated by a numbers game. SPF 100 has 5% greater “protection” than an SPF 15. The numbers are meaningless as the FDA agrees, but nevertheless requires.

Let the sun shine. Wear a hat, long sleeves etc. But sunscreens, meh.

Actinic keratosis are not easy to spot. Most dermatologists fail most of the time themselves. That’s because they can be flat or raised, crusty or smooth and colored or discolored, large or small. The crusty raised ones are most obvious and get all the worry.

If you have one, the “treatments” are, not surprisingly, all inflammatory, and in many cases this amounts to a treatment worse than the disease. Physician, first do no harm.

They always return. No matter what the physician may do, AK’s always come back. The good news, if there is any, is that only about 1% of these AK’s will become a non-melanoma cancer. AK’s do not cause or presage melanoma. Ever.

The American Academy of Dermatology no longer promotes sunscreens. A letter to the Skin Dork’s office in April 2022, from the AAD went as follows:

“Thank you for contacting the Academy’s Member Resource Center. The AAD does not promote or recommend sun screen products.”

Now if the dermatology association that speaks for dermatologists is not on board with sunscreens, then who exactly is it that promotes these inflammatory products ? The Skin Dork leaves that for your speculation.

To visibly improve the look of sun-damaged skin, use SYNERGY DROPS or SYNERGY SERUM. For those who are more hands on – use A 1.0 DROPS or A 1.0 SERUM and 302 DROPS or 302 SERUM in combination. See PRODUCT PAGES and USAGE GUIDES for guidance.