August 2007 monthly follow up: "Is melanoma simply a vitamin D deficiency cancer?"

TO: All melanoma researchers, doctors, and patients.

A famous 2002 study found that a small spot of gray duct tape applied
to a wart for up to two months eliminated it in nearly all cases,
whereas a recent 2007 study found that transparent duct tape hardly
worked at all. The investigators jumped into the most complicated
speculations, ranging from the body's immune system to the adhesive's
magic chemicals, yet what is the simplest explanation for why the
opaque version resolves warts but the clear one does not?

As sunburn vividly demonstrates, sunlight stimulates circulation in
the skin, so darkness must dull it. By blocking light, the gray duct
tape just reduces blood flow to the wart and it starves.

But a spot of pigmented tape is an artificial mole. Thus, tape
occlusion should come with a warning--it raises the risk of melanoma.

James Semmel
Albuquerque, New Mexico



reference:
http://www.mpip.org/cgi-bin/mpip/dbf...bb&post=392298
Last month's follow up to the 4th annual discussion: "Is melanoma
simply a vitamin D deficiency cancer?"

James Semmel wrote:

> A famous 2002 study
> a recent 2007 study

Where are these "famous/recent" studies to be found?

On August 23, california_chief wrote:

Quoting Semmel:

>> A famous 2002 study
>> a recent 2007 study

Cal Chief replied

> Where are these "famous/recent" studies to be found?

Answer: In his head.

Regards,

Steve J

Cal Chief asked:

>> Where are these "famous/recent" studies to be found?


And Steve Jordan replied:

> Answer: In his head.


That's what I always believe with those types of intros, i.e. "famous".
<g>

On Aug 23, 5:36 pm, "california_chief"
<Fire_Chief@Jamacha_Junction_FD.ca.us> wrote:
> James Semmel wrote:
> > A famous 2002 study
> > a recent 2007 study
>
> Where are these "famous/recent" studies to be found?

pubmed.gov

On Aug 23, 6:30 pm, Steve Jordan <mycrofts...@cox.net> wrote:
> On August 23, california_chief wrote:
>
> Quoting Semmel:
>
> >> A famous 2002 study
> >> a recent 2007 study
>
> Cal Chief replied
>
> > Where are these "famous/recent" studies to be found?
>
> Answer: In his head.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve J

LOL!

James Semmel wrote:

> On Aug 23, 5:36 pm, "california_chief"
> <Fire_Chief@Jamacha_Junction_FD.ca.us> wrote:
>> James Semmel wrote:
>> > A famous 2002 study
>> > a recent 2007 study
>>
>> Where are these "famous/recent" studies to be found?
>
> pubmed.gov

Lots of stuff is published on pubmed. Can you be more specific?

--charlie
--
6/2006 PSA 5.2, DRE suspicious
7/2006 Biopsy: *2 of 10 positive, Gleason 7(3+4)
11/2006 LRP: *Clear margins
PSA < 0.01 on 1/2007, 3/2007, 6/2007
so far, so good ...

duct tape warts

On Aug 24, 9:04 pm, chasjac too <chazjac@_takethisout_chazjac.com>
wrote:
> James Semmel wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 5:36 pm, "california_chief"
> > <Fire_Chief@Jamacha_Junction_FD.ca.us> wrote:
> >> James Semmel wrote:
> >> > A famous 2002 study
> >> > a recent 2007 study
>
> >> Where are these "famous/recent" studies to be found?
>
> > pubmed.gov
>
> Lots of stuff is published on pubmed. Can you be more specific?
>
> --charlie
> --
> 6/2006 PSA 5.2, DRE suspicious
> 7/2006 Biopsy: 2 of 10 positive, Gleason 7(3+4)
> 11/2006 LRP: Clear margins
> PSA < 0.01 on 1/2007, 3/2007, 6/2007
> so far, so good ...