Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

Baseball Caps and Sunscreen: McCain's Melanoma Cover-Up

By Brian McKenna, CounterPunch. Posted July 29, 2008.


McCain has a history of melanoma, the most deadly skin cancer -- one most sunscreens won't protect against.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's note: On Monday, July 28th John McCain said a blemish was removed from his face during a physical examination The mole-like spot was discovered during the Arizona senator's routine three-month examination, which he undergoes because he has a history of skin cancer. This article offers larger context on McCain's case, and the dangers of melanoma.

When John McCain rode an airboat through the sun-drenched Florida Everglades in June, he was sure to lather up with plenty of sunscreen (SPF-30 is his preference) and wear a baseball cap. For someone with his melanoma history, this was poor preventive medicine. In a UVA-saturated wetland, this outfit made him vulnerable for more melanomas on his face, neck, hands and other exposed areas.

In fact, the most effective preventive sunscreen is not found in an expensive 6-ounce bottle, which generally offers little or no melanoma protection. It is simple avoidance of the sun between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., proper clothing and eyewear, wide-brimmed hats (4 inches or more) and shady structures.

The facts are readily before us. McCain's cherished SPF-30 rating is meaningless when it comes to melanoma. The SPF rating scale applies only to ultraviolet-B radiation (290 to 320 nanometers along the sun's spectrum), which causes red sunburn and is a major contributor to the more easily curable basal and squamous cell skin cancers. However, the consensus of biomedical research and opinion is that melanoma is strongly related to exposure to ultraviolet radiation type A (UVA), the long solar waves (320 to 400 nanometers along the sun's spectrum) that travel beneath the skin's surface to damage melanocytes, the pigment-making cells.

And McCain's baseball cap won't protect against either type. According to the National Cancer Institute, baseball caps are insufficient sun protectors because they "do not fully protect the face, neck, and ears." The NCI is actively trying to dissuade people from using them, urging instead the use of big hats or draped baseball caps.

McCain's activities may have cost him his life (as we'll discuss), and more importantly, they may contribute to the loss of thousands of lives for those who emulate his behavior. As the most well-known melanoma victim of our times, McCain's decision to shun the best sun-smart policies, noted below, sets a very bad example.

But McCain apparently doesn't know, doesn't care, or just doesn't want to draw attention to his disease by donning a showy 4-inch wide-brimmed hat for his ongoing public appearances. One can speculate on reasons why. Fashion is a form of communication, and politicians want to communicate that they are fit and healthy. They do not want to communicate that they are a cancer victim or a worrywart.

A wide-brimmed hat, unlike the hip-hop baseball cap, may not be perceived as being "cool." The broad hat breaks a cultural denial mechanism. It's apparently far too risky, from a public relations standpoint, to send a non-macho "I fear the sun" message. For McCain, apparently, image politics trumps public health.

What's Covered Up

Melanoma is one of the fastest-growing cancers of our time. If not caught early, there's a good chance that it will metastasize and kill you. So far it might have been caught early enough for Troy Aikman, Sam Donaldson and McCain (but we cannot know for sure). But sadly it was not for Maureen Reagan, Bob Marley or rising folk musician Eva Cassidy, gone at 33. The problem with melanoma is that it is a very tricky and unpredictable cancer that can silently metastasize to the lungs and brain (common targets) years, even decades, after the original tumor was excised from the skin. The absolute key is prevention.

In 1930 melanoma was rare, with a lifetime risk of just one in 1,500 people. Since then, it has grown exponentially, with a lifetime risk in the United States of 1 in 250 in 1980, 1 in 120 in 1987, 1 in 75 by 2000 and 1 in 32 in 2007. Worldwide, it annually strikes an estimated 132,000 people with an estimated 48,000 deaths.

McCain's silence about several raging sunscreen controversies is disturbing. In June the Environmental Working Group reported on its study that tested 952 sunscreen products. It concluded that 809 should be either treated with caution or avoided altogether. The group said it acted because the federal government had refused to do so.

Earlier, in 2006, the nation's most successful class-action law firm, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, filed a class-action lawsuit against leading sunscreen producers (including Schering-Plough, makers of Coppertone; Sun Pharmaceuticals, producers of Banana Boat; Tanning Research Laboratories, makers of Hawaiian Tropic; Neutrogena Corp. and Johnson & Johnson, makers of Neutrogena; and Chattem Inc., which makes Bullfrog). Samuel Rudman, a partner, claimed, "Sunscreen is the snake oil of the 21st century, and these companies that market it are Fortune 500 snake oil salesmen. False claims such as 'sunblock,' 'waterproof' and 'all-day protection' should be removed from these products immediately."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: john mccain, radiation, sunscreen, melanoma, skin cancer

Brian McKenna is a melanoma survivor for the past 16 years. He wears a draped sun hat. This article is adapted from his monograph, "Melanoma Whitewash: Millions at Risk of Injury or Death because of Sunscreen Deceptions," in the book, Killer Commodities: Public Health and the Corporate Production of Harm (Merrill Singer and Hans Baer, eds., AltaMira Press 2008). He can be reached at mckenna193@aol.com

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wow!
Posted by: Carol Burns on Jul 29, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is such an eye-opening essay. Just like the current discourse on oil drilling, the powers that be only tell the public what they want us to know. I don't know first-hand about melanoma, but I do know about basal cell carcinoma. Alternative therapies exist, but they are repressed by the FDA and the AMA. There is something called "black salve" that was used originally on skin cancer in Texas cattle, but is effective on humans. A product called "BEC5" is approved in Europe but not approved by the FDA. A simple sliver of garlic placed over the "spot" will draw out the cancerous cells and dry up the lesion over a period of days. Light therapies, such as those used in cosmetic dermatology, are also promising. But the mainstream medical establishment will advise only surgical removal, with its resultant scarring and depigmentation.
Oh, and of course McCain is lying about this, just like he lies about everything else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow! Posted by: Balanchine
» RE: Wow! Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Wow! Posted by: indepentent
» RE: Wow! Posted by: amberthyst
» RE: Wow! Posted by: du2vye
I am uninsurable except through an employer
Posted by: DrSuess on Jul 29, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I made it in good health to 50- spending less than $1000/year on health care (except at the health food store), and then I got hit with the big C, and dropped about $50,000 on an operation and a week in the hospital. I exceeded my entire life expenditure on health care in a week- and now that I am taking chemo- the cost is still rising. I am guessing that by the time that my treatment for cancer is done, I will have exceeded $80,000. Luckily I had good insurance. But I wasn’t sure if the company would pay. When I went into the hospital I knew that I would either get the insurance to pay, or I would declare bankruptcy, and have my entire life savings wiped out. First the medical bills take every dime you have, and then the government steps in to help you- once you have lost your house and car- and retirement savings.
McCain fails to notice that the biggest risk factor around is age. Put a healthy 20 year old, a healthy 40 year old, a healthy 60 year old, and a healthy 80 year old together- and it is visibly obvious how much of a factor age plays in health. The other factors like alcohol are voluntary- but ageing is not. I would love to opt out of the aging process- but I don’t have a choice.
One of the companies I worked at had sky high health insurance costs- not because the workers were sickly- but because they kept older workers. It was the only place that I have ever been that had retirement parties. Companies get slammed in health care costs because they make what seem like “good” decisions to keep qualified older workers.
There are currently companies out there that help employers reduce their health care costs- and these companies never say- fire older workers- because this is illegal- but I know of companies that “fire” from the top to get rid of older workers. The high cost of health care only encourages discrimination against older workers.
Our current system may have started well, but it has slowly evolved into the worst possible of all systems. We need reform. But not McCain’s kind of reform. I will not have access to any kind of medical services in the next 15 years until I hit retirement age if McCain’s policy goes through

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Momto5
Posted by: PeggyO on Jul 29, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My husband recently died from melanoma cancer. He had the original one removed in 1957 and it recurred in the form of invasion of lymph glands in 2005. You never really are recovered from this horrible disease.
We as a family are grateful for his additional 50 years with us, but he was a much younger man at the time of his original infection as opposed to McCain whose resistance at 70 will be much lower. As the article says put a 20, 40, 60 and 80 year old next to each other and see what age does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Far more Hidden in his Medical Records ..Stroke
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jul 29, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
3 hours, 1,000 pages and non medical professionals reviewing....Recipe for deception.
Mac's skin cancer is not the only thing they have buried in the record.
having worked as a Social worker who assited in admissions evaluation in to long term care, I know how much can be deleted,disguised and overlooked.I worked with severla DON's on these Hospital visits, All found tidbits of info which my lack of medical understanding did not pick up. I got a great education in Deceptive Documentation by hospitals trying to eliminate any 'undesireable' medical conditions- Antibiotic resistant Infections, aggressive behavior...Anything that would cause a LTC facility to decide they could not meet that patients needs - or which would place the other residents in danger (resistant , communicable diseases- requiring extensive Infection control or isolation techniques, far better served in a Hospital setting)But due to Medical Insurance DRG's the resident was being discharged into a setting which could not meet their needs, and placed others in danger of contracting or being effected by these medical conditions.
I also worke dextensively with the Rehab Dept ( PT, OT and SLP), and am educated in Rehab methods, esp in regards to Stroke victims. McCains memory loss, inability to retain information/confusion,and body mechanics Appear to me to be clear indications of Stroke and subsequent Rehab. Notice how he ususally uses both arms at the same time. His stiff walk & posture. Age and preivous injury can account for some of this ,but add to this his mental lapses- most notably within the Primary season. Also his inexplicable changes in legislative stances- rejects his own Immigration Bill- and there is proof of a drastic personality change- also associated with a CVA.It also appears as though he is wearing a brace around his trunk- to aid in his ability to stand & sit upright
Not to pat my self on the back or to claim some innate higher perception, but I recognized Reagan's alzheimers symptoms within his first term, in fact I was suspecious during his run in'80.
It would not be the first time Americans have been intentionally decieved about a Political figures fitness for Duty- both Elenor and Nancy did a great job of helping hide these Presidential infirmities.
It is not Mac's age that concerns me- it is his current medical condtions. And if he has not suffered a recent stroke- that does not eliminate the very real possiblity he is suffering from old brain injuries sustained during his Crash.With age such injuries can become amplified, inconjunction with reduced blood flow through aging viens and arteries, Lung capacity....Oxygen exchange to the structures in the brain. Mohammad Ali suffered from Parkinsons- due to the number of hits to the head while Boxing without head gear all those years???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fallacy of "do not fully protect against..."
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 29, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no full protection. You want full protection? Especially ss a septagenarian? Then don't be born.

McCain isn't a terrifically good choice as a president. It's arguable that Obama is marginally better, since we don't have any real options other than republicrat or democran in our three-branch government which has turned into a two-party..."thing".

Because you've had the big C doesn't mean you quit living. He's pushing 80 in few years. He's been treated and released for prior cancers--cured. Period. If he needs to see the damn everglades, and if he's doing it as part of his campaign, then what's the problem?

I don't see why you folks pick the issue of prior cancer to pick on John Mc, with so many other points of contention that are outside his medical history. What's next? Trashing Obama because black men have a higher rate of prostate cancer?

Get a clue. Get a real cause.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This gives McCain a perfect chance to stay inside
Posted by: xmvince on Jul 29, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This gives McCain a perfect chance to stay inside and learn how to use a computer!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fluorescent lights are a melanoma risk?!
Posted by: arieden on Jul 29, 2008 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's really scary! I had never heard that before.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good article, and it makes sense
Posted by: willymack on Jul 29, 2008 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've lived in the West since 1961. I began to be cautious concerning exposure to the sun shortly after my arrival in Las Vegas in 1986. The sun there can only be described as BRUTAL. It's even worse in places like Palm Springs and Phoenix. Take a look around the world and take note of the garb of desert-dwelling Arabs , Bedouins, Tuaregs, etc. All their clothes are designed with protection from the sun in mind. Look at Mexican sombreros and cowboy hats. Great protection for the head, neck, and ears. I now live in the Oregon high desert, 4200 feet above sea level. On any given day the UV index is ten, or very high, so when I'm out walking my dog or mowing the lawn, I wear a cowboy hat I bought at the Furnace Creek ranger station in the Death Valley park in 1986. Pretty cheap protection from skin cancer, huh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prince Robert
Posted by: PrinceRobert on Jul 30, 2008 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the article is not attacking John McCain because he had or has skin cancer..it is taking issue with his action as a Senator in favor of an industry which deceives the public in such a way as to probably contribute to the very problem they claim to prevent. It also criticizes his failure to set an example for preventative action/behavior and, especially, for failing to take action to expose the deceptions of the "sunscreen" industry.
The author, however, loses a bit of my support
when drifting into labelling such as "neoliberal" which would require some detailed defining of what that is. There's too much labelling going on across the board and most people who use the label don't have a clue what the label is supposed to mean.
The underlying issue and overlying tragedy, which is only slightly hinted at in the article but which is very capably raised by other commentors, is the cost to the sufferers of skin or other cancers and the abject, criminal failure of our society to provide any reasonable assistance to those victims. John McCain is very clearly not going to lead any effort to overhaul our very sick medical insurance industry. Capitalism, as pointed out by the author, is the problem and those who put profit motive ahead of the health of the nation are the villans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I owned A Tanning Salon
Posted by: walldodger1969 on Aug 5, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for a number of years, From what I got from our trade magazines, was A: people who were most vulnerable to Cancer were the ones that as children had gotten very burnt 2 or more times from sun exposure. B: The ones that came to the tanning salon were the ones that knew,a tan would help them on their vacation.(gives protection).

Also SPF is a way to judge a lotion ..by time. A number four will protect you for an hour ,then you have to reapply, a number 15 is good for about 3 hrs...etc.
Most lotions on the market today protect both UVB and UVA rays.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I owned A Tanning Salon Posted by: john mont
» RE: I owned A Tanning Salon Posted by: Misha2
» RE: I owned A Tanning Salon Posted by: du2vye
Macho posturing
Posted by: BlueTigress on Aug 5, 2008 9:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since McCain is campaigning as a tough guy, having him speak out on melanoma protection would make him seem "unmanly" and lord knows we can't have that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep It Simple Stupid aka the KISS method
Posted by: davidt on Aug 6, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't trust any sunscreen.

Try to avoid going out in the sun during the peak hours.

Wear a wide-brimmed hat for protection.

Even NFLers practice at training camp with equipment on. But the coaches DON'T have any protection--who are the dummies?

Hey, Suzanne Somers, who we watched jiggle & guffaw her way to stardom, has come out for sun protection on Duh Toob.

Children out there in the summer sun playing games should be a national campaign. But hey, our illiteracy/infant mortality rates aren't bothering us so I don't hold out much hope.

After all--WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE OUR RIGHT TO GET ALL THE MELANOMA WE WANT!

It ain't rocket science here. Them dumbell Europeans get it...so give us ten years.

David T. Gray
Claremont, NH

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent Article
Posted by: du2vye on Aug 14, 2008 2:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is that public/private partnerships are not going to provide the "public" part of a balanced education campaign or act in the interest of the public.

I also have a life threatening skin cancer, only invasive squamous that is very difficult to find anything on. It acts like a melanoma but since it's not reportable to cancer registries in the U.S. no one really knows the extent of it. It affects people below 50 and most dermatologists aren't aware of it because by the time it's accurately diagnosed, it's beyond their care (read 3 or 4 failed treatments). It does not need to appear on sun damaged skin, it takes months to grow v. years as most literature claim.

Up to 30% of skin cancer deaths (including melanoma) are from invasive SCC. I was finding a new spots every month for 3 years and my insurance plan would not cover it, since they didn't show it existed. I lost over a third of both my lower legs to it - but that was my imagination. They have never monitored me for more spots.

Oh great. I got an education and discovered the same thing about suncreams. It's scary that cosmetics are allowed to repeat even more impossible claims about the protection they offer and mislead women into thinking they are protecting their skin when in fact, they are probably harming it by not having inadequate protection.

The most effective UVA protection is Mexoryl, which has been safely used elsewhere for over 13years. No additional testing was required before the FDA approved it. But cheaper creams made by L'Oreal were removed from shelves. I have to pay MORE for mexoryl after it was approved than I did when I was importing it. It's also harder to find. Make sense? L'Oreals patent rights began all over again in the U.S. when they had ended in the rest of the world. They see the U.S. as a new cash-cow.

Since mexoryl, there have been numerous other ingredients approved elsewhere in the world that are even better with each development. Tinsorb comes to mind and that is both UVA and UVB, photo-stable and pigments can be added without reducing it's effectiveness (something that can't be done with current ingredients offered in the U.S.)

People should review the lawsuit against sunscreen manufacturers. It explains that even the current SPF system has been inadequate with over 50% of creams showing only half or less the effectiveness claimed (consumer reports).

Skin cancer has increased after manufacturers began educating the public about the need for protection because most people believe claims for all day protection, it's effective, water proof or resistant and think they have a free pass to stay exposed to the sun. Suncream's aren't even the first line of defense.

Most the information for patients about skin cancer is just as misleading because it's over-simplified. The ABC test for melanoma doesn't include some of the more common appearances.

Don't trust you insurance company to offer all the preventive healthcare that's required and get a skin check. The information, data and tracking on how frequently skin cancer is diagnosed and treated can't be relied on because no one is tracking it. It's a lot more common than patient literature assumes and that your doctor may not be fully aware of.

This is not another political game. It could cost you your life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]