The SHN #3: Sunscreen and Sunglasses.... Friends or Foes?

Welcome to another edition of The Synergetic Health Newsletter!

This is a long one… so buckle up. A super deep dive into sunscreen and sunglasses and if they are helping or hurting your health. Average reading time ~12 minutes.

TLDR: Sunscreen disrupts the body's natural defense mechanisms against UV light, blocks melanin production in the skin, negatively affecting hormones, and raises the risk of hypertension and stroke. Its use has been linked more WITH melanoma than preventing it. Its only saving grace is preventing burns, which can be avoided other ways.

Sunglasses block UV light from reaching the pineal gland through the optic nerves. As a result, the brain fails to signal the pituitary gland to produce melanin, the pigment responsible for tanning and safeguarding the skin from sunburn. They prevent us sensing the light outside and from regulating our hormone levels throughout the day. Wearing sunglasses tricks the brain into perceiving darkness, preventing the natural tanning process from initiating. Light entering the eyes plays a crucial role in maintaining overall health. Exposure to inappropriate light frequencies at the wrong times of day disrupts the body's innate and adaptive defense mechanisms against the sun.

Why Sunscreen and Sunglasses are Harmful

*I’m not a doctor and I do not play one on the Internet.

One of the leading voices in quantum biology and decentralized medicine, neurosurgeon Dr. Jack Kruse, is a strong advocate of the idea that the body’s natural circadian rhythms and exposure to sunlight are critical for maintaining health and preventing chronic diseases.

He unapologetically attacks centralized medicine practitioners who fail to acknowledge the importance of the sun and the earth while refusing to warn of the dangers of artificial light, non-native electromagnetic fields (nNEMF), and in this review, sunglasses and sunscreen.

This is the type of guy and the type of viewpoints I feel compelled to bring here. People brave enough to question everything while still taking a scientific approach, willing to put the status quo on trial and sound the alarm when things do not add up.

I am a subscriber to “Uncle Jack’s” patreon, which is a treasure trove of quantum wisdom. Some of you may have seen him pop up on Rick Rubin’s podcast along with Andrew Huberman. Slowly, his profound knowledge in physics, light, magnetism, and electricity is being discovered.

So, what’s wrong with sunscreen and sunglasses? (Kruse’s views! I am a student, draw your own conclusions)

Sunscreen contains tyrosinase inhibitors that can lead to the atrophy of the skin, gut, eyes, hearing, and brain's dopaminergic neurons, potentially causing issues such as paleness, blocked VDR in the gut, hearing loss, tinnitus, depression, poor executive functioning, and poor thinking.

It also blocks melanin production in the skin, which hampers the skin's ability to produce POMC (proopiomelanocortin), melanin, and convert cholesterol esters into Vitamin D3.

Sunscreen inadvertently hinders the body's natural ability to defend against harmful radiation.

Sunscreen disrupts the body's natural defense mechanisms against UV light, according to Kruse. Melanocytes, specialized cells in the skin, produce melanin to protect against UV damage. However, sunscreen can interfere with these protective pathways, particularly those involving UV-A radiation. This disruption can lead to inadequate absorption and storage of UV light, increasing the risk of skin diseases like melanoma.

“SUNSCREEN CAUSES MORE SKIN CANCERS OF ALL TYPES: HIGHER MELANOMA RISK = LOW MELATONIN, LOW DOPAMINE, LOW VIT D LEVELS = NO SUN = LOWERED mitochondrial REDOX”- Kruse

Another reason to avoid sunscreen, according to Kruse, is its potential negative impact on mood and mental well-being. Sunscreens can interfere with the production of important proteins like β-endorphin by affecting tyrosinase inhibitors and blocking the production of POMC. These proteins are involved in the body's natural opioid system and have connections to mood regulation. Sunlight exposure plays a crucial role in the synthesis of these proteins, and disruptions caused by sunscreen usage contributes to issues such as opiate addiction.

Melanin, the pigment responsible for protecting the skin against harmful radiation, plays a crucial role in shielding internal structures. Avoiding sunscreens preserves the natural processes that contribute to the beneficial effects of melanin and sunlight exposure.

Sunscreen use raises the risk of hypertension and stroke due to the mechanisms affected by sunlight. Sunlight exposure releases nitric oxide (NO) in the skin, which dilates blood vessels and reduces resistance, leading to lower blood pressure. Moreover, sunlight increases vitamin D3 levels in the skin and blood plasma. Kruse believes the bidirectional relationship between vitamin D3 and the endocrine system, disrupted by clothing, sunblock, and indoor living, contributes to the global epidemic of high blood pressure.

Melanopsin, a light-sensitive protein, is found not only in the eyes but also in the arterioles, skin, and subcutaneous fat. Blocking sunlight can lead to chronic skin atrophy and affect melanopsin's function, causing various issues like weight gain, impaired tanning ability, and hormonal disruptions.

“When you put sunscreen or sunglasses on you are making it harder to lose weight and easier to gain it while atrophying your skin and eyes making them more susceptible to damage because there is no melanin present in tissues to absorb UV light.”-Kruse

Sunscreen and eyeglasses that block melanin production may increase the risk of addiction, as dopamine, which is involved in addiction, is created via melanin biology.

The widespread use of sunscreen from a young age can lead to skin and eye atrophy, making individuals sensitive to the sun and prone to sleep issues. Sunscreen, sunglasses, and excessive indoor screen use can result in individuals having reduced melanin levels.

Kruse argues that dermatology and ophthalmology, influenced by pharmaceutical companies, have propagated the idea that the sun is toxic. He suggests that it is the artificial light we live under that is the real problem. The use of sunscreen and sunglasses supports centralized healthcare and profiting healthcare corporations.

In summary, Kruse advocates for a reevaluation of the beliefs surrounding sunscreen and the sun, emphasizing the important of education and critical thinking.

Check this study, that found “Sunburn, high intermittent sun exposure were statistically significantly inversely associated with death from melanoma.” That study’s conclusion? “Sun exposure is associated with increased survival from melanoma.” !!!

Back to sunscreen, which often contains oxybenzone, a known estrogenic, as well as 4-methylbenzylidene camphor (4-MBC) and benzophenone (BP). 4-MBC was banned in Europe in 2015 (still legal in America, where corporations own profitable patents on formulations) and BP was named “Allergen of the Year” by the American Contact Dermatitis Society. Both of these substances are used to absorb UV radiation and are likely present in your favorite sunscreen product.

In his book “Estrogeneration: How Estrogenics are Making You Sick, Fat, and Infertile”, Anthony Jay says that 4-MBC and BPC can stick to estrogen receptors, causing long-term damage. So these substances cause endocrine damage, as well as DNA damage and environmental toxicity. If you’re unfamiliar with the effects of endocrine damage, google it at your own risk. Sunscreen has also been studied to have a substantial negative impact on marine life, studied here, here, here, and here.

It’s likely that most people reading this has put on sunscreen in the last week. I’m not here to tell you what to do but present you with information that you can choose to do whatever you’d like with.

WEIRD that the rising rates of melanoma are identical to the rise of employed dermatologists.

And my favorite stat of all “The annual cost of treating skin cancers in the U.S. is estimated at $8.1 billion: about $4.8 billion for nonmelanoma skin cancers and $3.3 billion for melanoma.”

Hmmm….. that seems like big business.

What you do with this information is entirely up to you. For me? I have put sunscreen on maybe once or twice a year for the past 5-6 years. I get a sunburn maybe once every couple years, but I am diligent in building up my skin’s tolerance. If I’m worried about overexposure, I simply cover up completely or go into the shade.

If you bring all this up to your dermatologist/PCP they will likely politely dismiss it. They are probably hesitant to consider that one of their go-to recommendations that they’ve given patients their entire career could actually have done more harm than good. I can understand their cognitive dissonance, imagine if you were in their shoes. These aren’t bad people, they have done plenty of good, but they also may be missing the mark on this one.

A dermatologist is a “specialist medical doctor who manages diseases related to skin, hair, nails, and some cosmetic problems”. You can’t count on this type of specialist to be able to make comprehensive decisions on your overall health and well-being. They may be able to treat skin conditions and perform cosmetic procedures, but they may NOT be the person to listen to on all things light and sun, and the scope of their impact on human health.

I’d like to remind you that blood letting was a common medical practice for over 2,000 years. Yes, doctors cut into a vein (or used leeches) and let their patient’s bleed to treat “almost every disease” including asthma, cancer, diabetes, herpes, insanity, pneumonia, stroke, tuberculosis, etc.

This archaic practice continued into the 20th century, well after the discovery of a myriad of scientific discoveries and treatments for almost every disease that blood letting was used for.

Historical influence, cultural authority and tradition, and a firm resistance to change kept the leeches-a-leechin’. These same forces stand in the way of all health and medical progress today.

In light of my personal bias (I love unprotected sun exposure) on the subject, and to provide you with an alternative perspective, I felt it necessary to review pro-sunscreen/sunglasses research.

I first went to the Skin Cancer Foundation website, full of stats and studies. Of the 45 cited studies on the site, three were sunscreen studies (no sunglass studies). All three studies, interestingly, were done on the same exact population in 1992, consisting of 1,621 residents of Nambour, Australia.

To reiterate, the ONLY studies mentioned by the Skin Cancer Foundation regarding the use of sunscreen were all done on the same population (light skinned individuals with similar lifestyles), 31 years ago, in a country with some of the highest UV levels in the world, without controlling for red and blue light exposure, and without a control group in the study.

One of these studies concluded “there was no beneficial or harmful effect on the rates of either type of skin cancer”, another that “melanoma may be preventable by regular sunscreen in adults”, and the third that “skin aging from baseline to the end of the trial was 24% less in the daily sunscreen group than in the discretionary sunscreen group.”

Uninspiring effort by the Skin Cancer Foundation.

*I went back to these studies and studied them in detail, because they are the only randomized controlled trials available. They are also responsible for the worldwide belief that sunscreen prevents skin cancer (with no mention of the laundry list of potential harms it can do, like listed above). My review has left me shaking my head, I am just completely shocked that this science is what’s cited as the impetus for global sunscreen adoption. THE STUDY ALLOWED THE “NONINTERVENTION” GROUP TO USE WHATEVER SPF THEY WANTED, AT AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT. THERE WAS NO CONTROL GROUP!!!!

I then went to my go-to AI tool which can find scientific studies and queried “can you list scientific studies that show the beneficial effect of sunscreen?”

The first one that came up cited the exact same group of studies conducted in Australia, which happened to be funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. My friend recently told me about Australia’s “Slip, Slop, Slap slogan” used to get Australians to practice better sun protection habits. After digging their site to find any scientific basis for their sunscreen recommendations, I came up empty handed.

Instead, the findings of the review of this group of studies concluded:

“To date, evidence regarding the effects of sunscreen on skin cancer per se and photoaging is limited in that it comes from a single randomized controlled trial. Moreover, this trial was conducted in subtropical Queensland, a region with the highest known rates of skin cancer and thus the findings are unlikely to be fully generalizable to white populations in other more temperate geographic locations.”

I decided to dig a little deeper into this “Slip, Slop, Slap” campaign in Australia, potentially looking for conflicts of interest in financing. I happened onto Wikipedia, which lauded the "skin cancer campaign” as “one of the most cost-effective and successful public health initiatives in Australia.” This quote included with it an interesting citation and link to a study titled “Could sunscreen increase melanoma risk?”

LOL.

Written in 1992, this study mind-boggling says “The rise in melanoma has been unusually steep in Queensland, Australia, where sunscreens were earliest and most strongly promoted by the medical community. Queensland now has the highest incidence rate of melanoma in the world. In contrast, the rise in melanoma rates was notably delayed elsewhere in Australia, where sunscreens were not promoted until more recently.”

The study continued “sunscreens suppress natural warnings of overexposure to the sun and allow excessive exposure to wavelengths of sunlight which they do not block… Untested but wide-spread public health recommendations concerning the use of sunscreens for the prevention of skin cancer may be more harmful than advice to control sun exposure by traditional means.”

VERY CONVENIENT that the same year as the above study was published marked the beginning of the sunscreen randomized control trial mentioned throughout this post which, while incredibly unconvincing, has been used for ~30 years to push the pro-sunscreen agenda.

OH, AND BY THE WAY, GUESS WHO FUNDED THIS “STUDY”?

L'Oreal Recherche, research and development arm of L'Oreal, the world's largest cosmetics company.

B-A-N-A-N-A-S

I wasted 15 minutes of my life reading this 2nd study given to me by AI, only to find no conclusion of any benefit to wearing sunscreen. Just a bunch of theoretical “sunscreen limits UV radiation in a lab setting so it should work” even though that’s not how this works, as mentioned earlier.

The third study I was given included this tidbit: “The American Academy of Dermatology recommends regular sunscreen use with an SPF of 30 or higher for people of all skin types, although skin cancers are far more prevalent in White individuals than people with darker skin. There have been no studies (!!!) to assess the effectiveness of regular sunscreen use in reducing the risk of skin cancers among people who are not White.”

85% of the world’s population is non-white, but this population HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED for sunscreen efficacy, despite corporations, governments, and doctors around the world telling them to wear it (darker skin people need MORE unprotected sun exposure to achieve healthy Vitamin D levels).

So naturally I fired up the American Academy of Dermatology website to see some solid research that backs up their sunscreen recommendations. Interestingly, all they have is the same regurgitated guidelines that we’ve heard our whole lives, with no science at all to back it up.

The next source I was given to investigate came from Johns Hopkins, so maybe this is the one to find some good science supporting sunscreen use. Instead, all that was given was the same basic guidelines for sun protection, with absolutely no sourcing to back up their claims.

At this point, I gave up trying to find reasons to support sunscreen use. I was hoping to find at least some counter to Dr. Kruse’s convincing arguments on why sunscreen is actually disrupting the body's natural defense mechanisms against UV light, blocking melanin production in the skin, negatively affecting hormones, and raising the risk of hypertension and stroke.

I couldn’t find anything.

The sunscreen industry is also, shall I say, significant in size.

It was valued at around $9.1 billion in 2020, and expected to reach $13.1 billion by 2027. To say there are financial incentives to keep the average consumer believing in the efficacy of sunscreen would be an understatement.

Some of these companies, like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, L’ Oreal, and Unilever, employ lobbyists to represent their (quite large) financial interests and advocate for favorable policies and regulations. Sometimes, it’s found that these companies knowingly put the public at risk. In fact, J&J just reached an $8.9 billion dollar settlement for their talc products causing cancer in April of this year.

What science, exactly, warrants these companies from taking over $10 billion dollars from the public every year? I can’t seem to find any. Is it possible that the lobbying and marketing prowess of these corporations are simply tricking us into thinking that sunscreen is necessary to prevent skin cancer, while the balance of the evidence actually seems to say otherwise?

Add this massive business to the $8.1 billion dollar skin cancer engine, and you have a ~$18 billion dollar machine built off “sun protection” and “treatment from sun damage.” All constructed on a foundation as weak as quicksand.

A final caveat to discuss before ending this way-too-long article is that we all know that sunscreen prevents sunburn. And since sunburns are the absolute worst, we often will reach for the lotion. If I am unable to cover up and have had more than my fill of sun, I would consider lathering up a bit. This happens almost never to me though.

Most people enjoy lounging in the sun, and depending on their skin type and melanin levels, can handle a certain amount of UV before getting a burn. It’s an individual decision, after a pre-burn threshold amount of exposure, to a) seek shade or cover up; b) stay in the sun but use lotion to prevent burning; c) get burned. “A” is the best option here.

Building up your solar callus (mentioned here and here) will prolong your ability to stay in the sun without burning. Using sunscreen infrequently as a last resort to prevent burning is not going to kill you, using sunscreen daily might.

As a final “makes you go hmmmm”, and shoutout to Z for pointing this out me, the highest skin care rates in the US are in Utah, Vermont, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. Not exactly Cancun level sun there. The lowest? Texas, where I’m writing this from in early June on a 100 degree day with a 12 UV rating.

Now, onto sunglasses.

Kruse writes “Solar exposure of the retinal actually increases blood flow in the retina so that the entire blood volume in the circulatory system in 15-30 minutes.” Wearing sunglasses blocks this process, which is necessary for basic wellness.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer started a hospital in Lambarene, on the west coast of Africa where no cancer was found at first but later became a problem. Inquiring into what could have changed, the only change noted by the late doctor’s daughter was the introduction of sunglasses. They “represented a status symbol of civilization and education and had a higher bartering value than beads and other trinkets.” They also may have contributed to the sudden appearance of cancer in the area.

“Sunglasses alter the solar frequencies to trick the brain by changing the solar frequency spectrum the eye senses into thinking it’s dark and prevent it from producing a hormone (melanin) using nitric oxide pulses that protects against sunburn, according to new research.”-Kruse

Exposure to UV light triggers the release of melanocyte-stimulating hormone, which leads to skin thickening and tanning as a protective response against harmful rays. However, wearing sunglasses blocks UV light from reaching the pineal gland through the optic nerves. As a result, the brain fails to signal the pituitary gland to produce melanin, the pigment responsible for tanning and safeguarding the skin from sunburn. (study here)

Kruse recommends to avoid covering your eyes from sunlight, as they have evolved to sense and regulate your hormone levels throughout the day. Wearing sunglasses tricks the brain into perceiving darkness, preventing the natural tanning process from initiating. Light entering the eyes plays a crucial role in maintaining overall health. Exposure to inappropriate light frequencies at the wrong times of day disrupts the body's innate and adaptive defense mechanisms against the sun.

Surprisingly, sunglasses may contribute to the development of cancer, making a simple change in behavior potentially life-saving. Consider how light shapes your existence and be mindful of its impact on your well-being.

“But, the sun makes me squint.” You squint regularly because you have WEAK eyes from wearing sunglasses regularly. Even eye docs say “squinting has no adverse effects on the health of your eyes.” I do recommend continuing to wear sunglasses in your car if necessary.

Well, I’m exhausted.

I hope you find this information valuable. Please feel free to conduct your own research to see if considering some habit changes are warranted in your individual circumstance and share this with whoever may be interested in reading!

Time spent in outdoor light is associated with mood, sleep, and circadian rhythm-related outcomes: This study found that greater time spent in outdoor light during the day was associated with fewer depressive symptoms, lowers odds of using antidepressant meds, lower odds of lifetime major depressive disorder, improved sleep, and other health benefits.

Perplexity AI: This is a new AI chat tool that acts as an extremely powerful search engine. When a user inputs a question, the model scours the internet to give an answer. And what’s great about this tool, is its ability to display the source of the information it provides. Since ChatGPT 3 doesn’t have this sourcing ability for now, I’ve been using Perplexity to get sources for topics I’m researching.

The Great Awakening: “This documentary experience assembles forbidden puzzle pieces to reveal the big picture of what’s really happening in America and beyond. The Great Awakening is intended to be a lighthouse to guide us out of the storm and into a brighter future.” Whatever your thoughts on the state of the world, your political leanings, your tolerance for viewpoints other than your own, this documentary is worth considering.

My Morning Yoga Flow: Some of you have likely seen this YouTube channel, Yoga with Adriene, which has 12M subscribers. I’ve been doing one of her 20-minute morning yoga flows, which has been a nice addition to my morning routine.

That will do it for this time! Hopefully you got some value out of it. If you have any questions/comments/things you’d like to learn more about please don’t hesitate to reach out. If you know anyone who loves learning about these types of topics, please share!The SHN #1: