WEBVTT - The Sunscreen Paradox

0:00:06.000 --> 0:00:07.910
<v Speaker 1>There are these videos I saw last week on Instagram.

0:00:07.920 --> 0:00:09.990
<v Speaker 1>A couple people I know told me they've been popping

0:00:10.030 --> 0:00:13.030
<v Speaker 1>up in their feeds. And they seem innocuous enough. Mommy

0:00:13.070 --> 0:00:15.610
<v Speaker 1>bloggers showing how they prep their kids for the summer sun.

0:00:16.130 --> 0:00:21.570
<v Speaker 1>Happy music playing. One of them's using a makeup sponge

0:00:21.790 --> 0:00:25.130
<v Speaker 1>to put sunscreen on her little kid. Caption, my favorite

0:00:25.150 --> 0:00:28.850
<v Speaker 1>hack for applying sunscreen to my kids. Another's brushing sunscreen

0:00:29.230 --> 0:00:30.390
<v Speaker 1>on her blonde toddler's head.

0:00:34.060 --> 0:00:34.300
<v Speaker 2>Cute.

0:00:36.220 --> 0:00:39.240
<v Speaker 1>But then, in the comments of all these videos, something

0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:43.839
<v Speaker 1>strange and kind of alarming. People claiming that using sunscreen

0:00:44.220 --> 0:00:48.050
<v Speaker 1>will give you cancer rather than prevent it. Do not

0:00:48.070 --> 0:00:50.510
<v Speaker 1>put sunblock on your baby, says one commenter on one

0:00:50.530 --> 0:00:52.550
<v Speaker 1>of these videos. It causes cancer.

0:00:53.130 --> 0:00:53.410
<v Speaker 3>Another.

0:00:53.850 --> 0:00:56.830
<v Speaker 1>Recent scientific studies prove that there is a link between

0:00:56.870 --> 0:01:01.050
<v Speaker 1>sunscreen use and cancer. Another commenter. No thank you, skipping

0:01:01.090 --> 0:01:05.160
<v Speaker 1>that toxic crap. Another, sunscreen is harmful for humans. And

0:01:05.220 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 1>as one person said, rather simply, sunscreen is cancer. Sunscreen,

0:01:10.600 --> 0:01:14.120
<v Speaker 1>for the record, is not cancer. It does not cause cancer.

0:01:14.560 --> 0:01:17.240
<v Speaker 1>In fact, used properly, it can save you from cancer

0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:20.560
<v Speaker 1>of the skin. So where the hell does this idea

0:01:20.640 --> 0:01:23.220
<v Speaker 1>come from? And why is it gaining traction on the

0:01:23.240 --> 0:01:26.120
<v Speaker 1>internet right now? Because it has taken off in just

0:01:26.140 --> 0:01:29.610
<v Speaker 1>the last few weeks, according to experts who monitor online misinformation.

0:01:32.110 --> 0:01:35.030
<v Speaker 1>It turns out this is not some naturally occurring viral

0:01:35.069 --> 0:01:38.230
<v Speaker 1>delusion that has sprung up organically as people head to

0:01:38.250 --> 0:01:41.470
<v Speaker 1>the beach. There are actually two specific guys who are

0:01:41.490 --> 0:01:45.560
<v Speaker 1>behind it. From Placement Theory and KCRW, I'm Brian Reed.

0:01:45.590 --> 0:01:49.500
<v Speaker 1>This is Question Everything. We investigate how the truth gets buried, distorted,

0:01:49.580 --> 0:01:51.620
<v Speaker 1>and denied, and the ways people are fighting to make

0:01:51.660 --> 0:01:54.580
<v Speaker 1>it matter again. Today on the show, a little ditty

0:01:54.680 --> 0:01:59.140
<v Speaker 1>about summer disinformation. We find out who's responsible. for injecting

0:01:59.160 --> 0:02:02.230
<v Speaker 1>this odd and dangerous lie into the social media bloodstream

0:02:02.730 --> 0:02:06.610
<v Speaker 1>and the surprising scientific phenomenon they are weaponizing.

0:02:06.170 --> 0:02:06.540
<v Speaker 3>To do it.

0:02:07.090 --> 0:02:14.010
<v Speaker 1>Stick around. Now and again on this show, we like

0:02:14.030 --> 0:02:16.209
<v Speaker 1>to check in with the folks over at NewsGuard, a

0:02:16.250 --> 0:02:19.050
<v Speaker 1>fact checking company that each week chooses a false claim

0:02:19.090 --> 0:02:22.120
<v Speaker 1>of the week and debunks it. When they do this,

0:02:22.280 --> 0:02:23.980
<v Speaker 1>I like that you get to see where the false

0:02:24.020 --> 0:02:27.790
<v Speaker 1>claims originate and how they grow online. The paths these

0:02:27.810 --> 0:02:31.260
<v Speaker 1>things take often are telling. And last week, I saw

0:02:31.300 --> 0:02:32.380
<v Speaker 1>that the false claim of the week was.

0:02:32.400 --> 0:02:38.019
<v Speaker 2>A study found that sunscreen use increased your risk.

0:02:37.860 --> 0:02:38.980
<v Speaker 3>Of skin cancer.

0:02:40.660 --> 0:02:43.500
<v Speaker 1>This is John Gregory, a health editor at NewsGuard. He's

0:02:43.520 --> 0:02:47.220
<v Speaker 1>worked there for eight years, debunking health misinformation online. John

0:02:47.240 --> 0:02:50.310
<v Speaker 1>says this claim, that using sunscreen can give you skin cancer,

0:02:50.850 --> 0:02:53.950
<v Speaker 1>started flashing on the NewsGuard radar screens about three weeks ago.

0:02:54.860 --> 0:02:57.220
<v Speaker 1>Their team regularly monitors certain search terms.

0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:02.600
<v Speaker 2>Skin cancer, cancer is one of those that we monitor.

0:03:02.620 --> 0:03:04.620
<v Speaker 2>And these posts started popping up.

0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:09.290
<v Speaker 1>More than 17,000 posts, to be exact, in seven languages

0:03:09.590 --> 0:03:13.269
<v Speaker 1>across 44 countries, spreading this fabrication to millions of people.

0:03:14.430 --> 0:03:17.290
<v Speaker 1>And as someone who spends every day ingesting health misinformation,

0:03:18.090 --> 0:03:19.810
<v Speaker 1>John says this claim stuck out.

0:03:20.570 --> 0:03:25.190
<v Speaker 2>This kind of really out there health misinformation, one that

0:03:25.250 --> 0:03:28.669
<v Speaker 2>is not focused on vaccines, not focused on kind of

0:03:28.690 --> 0:03:33.220
<v Speaker 2>a core issue of RFK Jr. and the Maha crowd

0:03:33.800 --> 0:03:38.420
<v Speaker 2>is a special kind of circumstance. We usually don't see

0:03:38.460 --> 0:03:42.280
<v Speaker 2>conservative media telling you, hey, don't wear sunscreen.

0:03:42.320 --> 0:03:45.950
<v Speaker 3>It might cause skin cancer. And the risk involved.

0:03:46.110 --> 0:03:51.300
<v Speaker 2>I mean, you're telling people to potentially adopt a dangerous behavior,

0:03:51.820 --> 0:03:54.440
<v Speaker 2>go outside in the sun unprotected.

0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:56.480
<v Speaker 3>For hours on end. Right. Like this could have real

0:03:56.860 --> 0:03:58.920
<v Speaker 3>impacts on people. Absolutely.

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:01.880
<v Speaker 2>That risk of harm also factors into how we pick

0:04:01.920 --> 0:04:03.060
<v Speaker 2>the false claim of the week.

0:04:03.640 --> 0:04:05.880
<v Speaker 1>As they looked at the activity on social media boosting

0:04:05.910 --> 0:04:08.490
<v Speaker 1>this claim, John and his team saw that many of

0:04:08.530 --> 0:04:12.460
<v Speaker 1>the posts were resharing or referencing this one clip from

0:04:12.500 --> 0:04:13.000
<v Speaker 1>cable news.

0:04:13.500 --> 0:04:16.700
<v Speaker 2>One American News Network featured it on Matt Gaetz's show,

0:04:16.760 --> 0:04:20.839
<v Speaker 2>Foreigner Congressman Matt Gaetz, who was at one point set

0:04:20.880 --> 0:04:22.800
<v Speaker 2>to be President Trump's attorney general.

0:04:23.200 --> 0:04:25.480
<v Speaker 1>He has a show now on One America.

0:04:25.680 --> 0:04:26.160
<v Speaker 3>He's an anchor.

0:04:26.660 --> 0:04:28.380
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, he does have a show on OAN.

0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:30.479
<v Speaker 3>If you don't know it, One.

0:04:30.400 --> 0:04:33.260
<v Speaker 1>American News Network is like a more extreme and less

0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:36.919
<v Speaker 1>factual network than Fox News. And Matt Gaetz, you might recall,

0:04:37.380 --> 0:04:40.260
<v Speaker 1>is a former Florida congressman who eventually withdrew himself from

0:04:40.279 --> 0:04:43.029
<v Speaker 1>the running to be attorney general. because a House Ethics

0:04:43.070 --> 0:04:45.830
<v Speaker 1>Committee found evidence that he'd paid women for sex and

0:04:45.870 --> 0:04:49.130
<v Speaker 1>had sex with a 17-year-old, which is statutory rape in Florida.

0:04:49.930 --> 0:04:53.349
<v Speaker 1>He said these findings are untruthful and defamatory. Now he's

0:04:53.390 --> 0:04:56.180
<v Speaker 1>a news anchor. The guest Gates had on to talk

0:04:56.190 --> 0:04:56.830
<v Speaker 1>about sunscreen?

0:04:57.770 --> 0:05:02.279
<v Speaker 2>A anti-vaccine epidemiologist by the name of Nicholas Holzer.

0:05:03.380 --> 0:05:04.599
<v Speaker 3>Gates asked Holzer.

0:05:04.880 --> 0:05:07.840
<v Speaker 4>Have I been lied to as a Florida man about

0:05:08.020 --> 0:05:09.880
<v Speaker 4>sunscreen protecting me from cancer?

0:05:10.740 --> 0:05:15.080
<v Speaker 2>Pulitzer responded, Yes, it appears we've all been lied to, unfortunately.

0:05:15.400 --> 0:05:18.460
<v Speaker 2>The claim that was being spread was based around a

0:05:18.560 --> 0:05:22.460
<v Speaker 2>November 2023 study done in the UK.

0:05:22.720 --> 0:05:28.010
<v Speaker 4>This massive study of over 470,000 people confirms it. When

0:05:28.029 --> 0:05:33.250
<v Speaker 4>they compared sunscreen users to non-sunscreen users, the sunscreen users

0:05:33.330 --> 0:05:37.290
<v Speaker 4>faced increased risks of all the major skin cancers.

0:05:37.310 --> 0:05:39.960
<v Speaker 1>We'll dig into that study in a bit. But that

0:05:40.020 --> 0:05:43.940
<v Speaker 1>interview happened on June 26th. The guest, Nick Holsher, posted

0:05:43.960 --> 0:05:46.219
<v Speaker 1>a clip of it on X and got 2.9 million

0:05:46.279 --> 0:05:49.180
<v Speaker 1>views in four days. He also went on other shows,

0:05:49.420 --> 0:05:52.350
<v Speaker 1>like comedian Jimmy Dore's podcast, which has nearly 2 million

0:05:52.370 --> 0:05:55.750
<v Speaker 1>subscribers on YouTube. Nick Holsher was out there pushing this claim.

0:05:56.150 --> 0:05:57.610
<v Speaker 1>And did you know who that guy was?

0:05:57.630 --> 0:06:02.150
<v Speaker 2>Oh, yes. He's a very frequent purveyor of health misinformation.

0:06:02.870 --> 0:06:06.970
<v Speaker 2>Often in the anti-vaccine space, he's also a big promoter

0:06:07.010 --> 0:06:11.030
<v Speaker 2>of ivermectin as not only a treatment for COVID-19, but

0:06:11.089 --> 0:06:12.810
<v Speaker 2>also as a cancer treatment.

0:06:13.710 --> 0:06:17.290
<v Speaker 1>Ivermectin, used to deworm horses, also used to treat some

0:06:17.330 --> 0:06:20.030
<v Speaker 1>conditions in humans, not supposed to be used to treat

0:06:20.050 --> 0:06:23.430
<v Speaker 1>COVID-19 or cancer. But since the pandemic, it's become gospel

0:06:23.730 --> 0:06:25.450
<v Speaker 1>among some people on the right that it's a go-to

0:06:25.540 --> 0:06:29.320
<v Speaker 1>cure for just about everything. John says Holscher got his

0:06:29.380 --> 0:06:32.700
<v Speaker 1>master's in public health from the University of Michigan. And

0:06:32.750 --> 0:06:35.430
<v Speaker 1>on paper, he's sort of unremarkable. When you Google him,

0:06:35.500 --> 0:06:38.290
<v Speaker 1>he seems like a relatively normal researcher. He has a

0:06:38.310 --> 0:06:41.890
<v Speaker 1>whole profile on a research website listing scientific journals he's

0:06:41.930 --> 0:06:44.969
<v Speaker 1>published in. But it's who he works with that's noteworthy.

0:06:45.410 --> 0:06:48.510
<v Speaker 2>He's one of the writers on a substack called The

0:06:48.630 --> 0:06:54.909
<v Speaker 2>Focal Points. It has about 138,000 subscribers. The more famous

0:06:55.029 --> 0:06:58.670
<v Speaker 2>author on that substack is someone that Holzer has worked

0:06:58.710 --> 0:07:00.510
<v Speaker 2>for for a number of years named Dr.

0:07:00.589 --> 0:07:01.510
<v Speaker 3>Peter McAuliffe.

0:07:02.110 --> 0:07:06.969
<v Speaker 2>Who's one of the big sources of misinformation from the

0:07:07.029 --> 0:07:08.010
<v Speaker 2>COVID pandemic.

0:07:08.690 --> 0:07:11.200
<v Speaker 3>If I was not listing them off, he'd be in.

0:07:11.130 --> 0:07:14.660
<v Speaker 2>The top five in terms of sources of bad information,

0:07:14.760 --> 0:07:17.560
<v Speaker 2>particularly about COVID vaccines.

0:07:18.220 --> 0:07:20.860
<v Speaker 1>If you look at Nick Holscher, the sunscreen guy's resume,

0:07:21.280 --> 0:07:24.420
<v Speaker 1>John says his entire professional career as an epidemiologist since

0:07:24.460 --> 0:07:27.630
<v Speaker 1>graduating just a few years ago is working with Peter McCullough,

0:07:27.970 --> 0:07:28.910
<v Speaker 1>who is a real doctor.

0:07:29.270 --> 0:07:30.440
<v Speaker 3>He's a cardiologist.

0:07:30.480 --> 0:07:37.300
<v Speaker 2>He had affiliations with major institutions like Baylor University prior

0:07:37.800 --> 0:07:43.920
<v Speaker 2>to becoming this big misinformation purveyor. He left in early 2021,

0:07:43.920 --> 0:07:47.400
<v Speaker 2>and Baylor later had to sue him in order to

0:07:47.460 --> 0:07:51.470
<v Speaker 2>get him to stop mentioning his affiliation with them as

0:07:51.550 --> 0:07:54.050
<v Speaker 2>if it were current because they didn't want to be

0:07:54.090 --> 0:07:56.920
<v Speaker 2>associated with with the claims he was starting to make

0:07:56.980 --> 0:07:58.180
<v Speaker 2>about COVID vaccines.

0:07:59.380 --> 0:08:03.720
<v Speaker 1>Together, Dr. McCullough, Nick Hulsher, write this prolific newsletter on Substack,

0:08:04.120 --> 0:08:04.660
<v Speaker 1>Focal Points.

0:08:05.120 --> 0:08:09.170
<v Speaker 2>This Substack alone is responsible for, you know, dozens of

0:08:09.510 --> 0:08:14.610
<v Speaker 2>false health claims. I'm probably being conservative with that. It's

0:08:14.730 --> 0:08:19.150
<v Speaker 2>not 100% in line with RFK Jr. They've had some

0:08:19.420 --> 0:08:21.820
<v Speaker 2>articles that are a little critical of RFK Jr. for

0:08:21.840 --> 0:08:23.920
<v Speaker 2>basically not moving fast enough.

0:08:24.880 --> 0:08:25.510
<v Speaker 3>On issues.

0:08:25.540 --> 0:08:28.760
<v Speaker 2>I mean, these are people that want to see COVID

0:08:28.780 --> 0:08:32.340
<v Speaker 2>vaccines 100% pulled off the market because in their eyes

0:08:32.620 --> 0:08:35.080
<v Speaker 2>and their claims, it's killed millions of people.

0:08:35.540 --> 0:08:37.900
<v Speaker 3>That's what they claim on this sub stack. Yeah.

0:08:37.960 --> 0:08:41.100
<v Speaker 2>They have actually claimed that it's killed more people than,

0:08:41.120 --> 0:08:43.850
<v Speaker 2>you know, World War I, World.

0:08:43.620 --> 0:08:46.810
<v Speaker 3>War II in Vietnam combined, at least for the U.S.

0:08:46.850 --> 0:08:47.470
<v Speaker 3>death toll.

0:08:48.830 --> 0:08:51.949
<v Speaker 1>So back to the sunscreen. A few weeks before he

0:08:51.990 --> 0:08:54.800
<v Speaker 1>went on Matt Gaetz's show, on June 9th, Amid all

0:08:54.840 --> 0:08:58.380
<v Speaker 1>these other Focal Points articles about vaccines killing people and

0:08:58.400 --> 0:09:03.189
<v Speaker 1>the government doing biowarfare experiments with ticks and vaccines causing autism,

0:09:03.790 --> 0:09:07.410
<v Speaker 1>Nick Holscher published a Substack post about sunscreen.

0:09:07.770 --> 0:09:11.740
<v Speaker 2>The headline is study finds sunscreen use linked to higher

0:09:11.780 --> 0:09:16.780
<v Speaker 2>risk of multiple skin cancers. And then further down, he's

0:09:16.820 --> 0:09:20.900
<v Speaker 2>got this graphic article. that says sunscreen use linked up

0:09:21.020 --> 0:09:24.800
<v Speaker 2>to a 292% higher risk of multiple skin cancers.

0:09:25.370 --> 0:09:26.890
<v Speaker 1>There's an image of a man and a woman in

0:09:26.910 --> 0:09:30.470
<v Speaker 1>their bathing suits slathering sunscreen on their skin, oblivious to

0:09:30.510 --> 0:09:33.870
<v Speaker 1>the danger. Next to them are dermatological sketches of the

0:09:33.929 --> 0:09:37.830
<v Speaker 1>layers of skin with cancer in it. The Substack post

0:09:37.990 --> 0:09:41.150
<v Speaker 1>centers on a study of more than 470,000 people in

0:09:41.170 --> 0:09:41.630
<v Speaker 1>the UK.

0:09:42.130 --> 0:09:42.790
<v Speaker 3>And what did it find?

0:09:43.590 --> 0:09:48.070
<v Speaker 2>So it did find that people who reported using sunscreen

0:09:48.090 --> 0:09:52.710
<v Speaker 2>more frequently did also report having higher rates of skin cancers.

0:09:54.880 --> 0:09:57.900
<v Speaker 1>What was that? It's not what it sounds like. We'll

0:09:57.920 --> 0:10:03.660
<v Speaker 1>get into it after a quick break. When I spoke

0:10:03.679 --> 0:10:05.800
<v Speaker 1>to the founder of Ground News a little while back,

0:10:06.040 --> 0:10:08.940
<v Speaker 1>Harleen Kaur, she dropped this line on me. Ground News

0:10:08.980 --> 0:10:11.840
<v Speaker 1>helps you, I like using the phrase, walking in somebody

0:10:11.900 --> 0:10:15.579
<v Speaker 1>else's news. Walking in someone else's news. Pretty catchy, huh?

0:10:15.980 --> 0:10:18.220
<v Speaker 1>You really get it if you start to use Ground News.

0:10:18.660 --> 0:10:21.700
<v Speaker 1>Because we know two reasonable people can have very different

0:10:21.740 --> 0:10:25.320
<v Speaker 1>understandings of the same event because they're reading different coverage.

0:10:26.000 --> 0:10:28.980
<v Speaker 1>We may think people are ignoring facts, but sometimes they're

0:10:29.000 --> 0:10:32.679
<v Speaker 1>just seeing different facts shown to them or emphasized. Ground

0:10:32.720 --> 0:10:35.760
<v Speaker 1>news lets you step into that other perspective and see

0:10:36.059 --> 0:10:39.580
<v Speaker 1>coverage the way people with maybe different algorithms, different backgrounds,

0:10:39.620 --> 0:10:42.540
<v Speaker 1>different political perspectives are seeing it shown to them. It's

0:10:42.580 --> 0:10:45.880
<v Speaker 1>less about changing your mind than understanding how someone else

0:10:46.100 --> 0:10:51.000
<v Speaker 1>got to their perspective. Go to groundnews.com slash question for 40%

0:10:51.000 --> 0:10:56.600
<v Speaker 1>off their unlimited access Advantage subscription. That's groundnews.com slash question.

0:10:56.960 --> 0:10:58.630
<v Speaker 1>Make sure to use that link so they know we

0:10:58.650 --> 0:11:08.869
<v Speaker 1>sent you. So this epidemiologist, Nick Holscher, who's spreading the

0:11:08.910 --> 0:11:12.840
<v Speaker 1>claim about sunscreen causing skin cancer, he's basing his claim

0:11:12.940 --> 0:11:16.199
<v Speaker 1>on a 2023 study in the U.K., which was investigating

0:11:16.240 --> 0:11:19.800
<v Speaker 1>a very technical scientific question related to skin cancer. But

0:11:19.860 --> 0:11:22.980
<v Speaker 1>as part of the research, looked at the correlation between

0:11:23.000 --> 0:11:26.479
<v Speaker 1>people who self-report using sunscreen and the occurrence they have

0:11:26.520 --> 0:11:29.970
<v Speaker 1>of skin cancer. This is a real scientific study conducted

0:11:29.990 --> 0:11:33.170
<v Speaker 1>by real doctors and published in a peer-reviewed journal called

0:11:33.230 --> 0:11:35.890
<v Speaker 1>Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention.

0:11:36.230 --> 0:11:40.770
<v Speaker 2>But did find that people who reported using sunscreen more

0:11:40.830 --> 0:11:45.220
<v Speaker 2>frequently were did also report having higher rates of skin cancers.

0:11:45.760 --> 0:11:48.579
<v Speaker 2>But the study was very clear right as they made

0:11:48.620 --> 0:11:51.900
<v Speaker 2>that finding that this was a paradoxical finding. That's the

0:11:51.960 --> 0:11:54.920
<v Speaker 2>exact terminology they use. It had been seen in similar

0:11:54.970 --> 0:12:01.210
<v Speaker 2>studies because people who report using sunscreen more regularly also

0:12:01.290 --> 0:12:06.370
<v Speaker 2>might tan more regularly and or a lack of reapplication

0:12:06.390 --> 0:12:10.429
<v Speaker 2>of sunscreen throughout the day, this so-called sunscreen paradox.

0:12:11.150 --> 0:12:12.070
<v Speaker 1>Wait, this is a thing?

0:12:12.130 --> 0:12:15.150
<v Speaker 3>Like in science, the sunscreen paradox? Yeah.

0:12:15.570 --> 0:12:18.350
<v Speaker 1>Apparently, this is a recognized phenomenon that scientists have seen

0:12:18.390 --> 0:12:21.670
<v Speaker 1>in multiple dermatological studies, not just this one. Just want

0:12:21.690 --> 0:12:23.780
<v Speaker 1>to make sure I'm getting this right. Basically, the sunscreen

0:12:23.820 --> 0:12:28.420
<v Speaker 1>paradox is people who report higher use of sunscreen tend

0:12:28.460 --> 0:12:33.059
<v Speaker 1>to have higher instances of skin cancer. But the understanding

0:12:33.080 --> 0:12:36.640
<v Speaker 1>of scientists doing this research is that That might be

0:12:36.700 --> 0:12:40.199
<v Speaker 1>happening because people who report a lot of sunscreen use

0:12:40.300 --> 0:12:42.339
<v Speaker 1>might just go in the sun more. And so they

0:12:42.380 --> 0:12:45.179
<v Speaker 1>have skin cancer for that reason. Or they think they're

0:12:45.220 --> 0:12:46.880
<v Speaker 1>using it properly. They stay in the sun a long

0:12:46.900 --> 0:12:49.390
<v Speaker 1>time feeling they're safe and they don't reapply it. And

0:12:49.410 --> 0:12:51.770
<v Speaker 1>so they do have higher instances of skin cancer, but

0:12:51.809 --> 0:12:53.590
<v Speaker 1>it's not because of the use of the sunscreen.

0:12:54.429 --> 0:12:54.709
<v Speaker 3>Right.

0:12:55.050 --> 0:12:58.010
<v Speaker 2>They've given themselves kind of a false sense of protection there.

0:12:58.600 --> 0:13:01.020
<v Speaker 2>by just saying, oh, well, I use it, but like,

0:13:01.040 --> 0:13:03.530
<v Speaker 2>you know, they're applying it once and then staying out

0:13:03.570 --> 0:13:06.510
<v Speaker 2>for hours and hours on end and spend more time

0:13:06.710 --> 0:13:09.770
<v Speaker 2>out in the sun without really using the sunscreen properly

0:13:09.830 --> 0:13:11.990
<v Speaker 2>for the amount of time they're in the sunlight.

0:13:12.910 --> 0:13:15.770
<v Speaker 1>John says in other studies, where instead of simply asking

0:13:15.809 --> 0:13:19.380
<v Speaker 1>people to say how regularly they use sunscreen, researchers are

0:13:19.480 --> 0:13:22.720
<v Speaker 1>following people over time and checking that they're using it properly,

0:13:23.360 --> 0:13:25.720
<v Speaker 1>applying enough, reapplying it over the course of the day,

0:13:26.460 --> 0:13:29.550
<v Speaker 1>the sunscreen paradox goes away. And in fact, the results

0:13:29.570 --> 0:13:34.190
<v Speaker 1>show that sunscreen used properly decreases instances of skin cancer.

0:13:35.570 --> 0:13:38.850
<v Speaker 1>A study in Australia showed daily use of sunscreen reduced

0:13:38.870 --> 0:13:43.030
<v Speaker 1>the incidence of melanoma by 50 percent. A Norwegian study

0:13:43.150 --> 0:13:46.490
<v Speaker 1>found using SPF 15 lotion reduced melanoma risk by about

0:13:46.490 --> 0:13:50.200
<v Speaker 1>30 percent. There are similar findings for other skin cancers, too.

0:13:51.220 --> 0:13:54.439
<v Speaker 1>But Nick Holscher's Substack post concluded the exact opposite, that

0:13:54.460 --> 0:13:57.969
<v Speaker 1>sunscreen use can cause skin cancer. John and his team

0:13:58.000 --> 0:14:01.490
<v Speaker 1>at NewsGuard contacted one of the authors of the UK study, Dr.

0:14:01.590 --> 0:14:04.870
<v Speaker 1>Ivan Litvinov at McGill University, who told them Holscher's take

0:14:04.950 --> 0:14:08.190
<v Speaker 1>was a misrepresentation of their findings. He said, quote, the

0:14:08.250 --> 0:14:11.110
<v Speaker 1>proper use of sunscreen combined with other sun protection measures

0:14:11.610 --> 0:14:15.170
<v Speaker 1>reduces the risk of skin cancer. But again, he and

0:14:15.190 --> 0:14:18.970
<v Speaker 1>his co-authors also said this in the study itself. The

0:14:19.070 --> 0:14:23.150
<v Speaker 1>very study that Nick Holscher is supposedly reading and summarizing

0:14:23.360 --> 0:14:26.220
<v Speaker 1>on the Focal Point substack and later on One American News.

0:14:26.920 --> 0:14:30.390
<v Speaker 1>Does he ever report in this Substack post that the

0:14:30.530 --> 0:14:34.550
<v Speaker 1>authors of the study have said that their study should not.

0:14:34.410 --> 0:14:35.410
<v Speaker 3>Be interpreted this way?

0:14:35.430 --> 0:14:35.489
<v Speaker 2>No.

0:14:35.930 --> 0:14:39.550
<v Speaker 1>And should not be interpreted to link skin cancer to

0:14:39.690 --> 0:14:40.410
<v Speaker 1>use of sunscreen?

0:14:40.950 --> 0:14:46.140
<v Speaker 2>No, he never provides that countervailing information. There's no mention

0:14:46.600 --> 0:14:49.840
<v Speaker 2>of what's in the study about the paradoxical finding or

0:14:49.920 --> 0:14:54.060
<v Speaker 2>the comments they made since then. He cherry-picked and just

0:14:54.420 --> 0:14:55.200
<v Speaker 2>worked around that.

0:14:56.060 --> 0:14:59.460
<v Speaker 1>So Nicholas Holzer, do you have a sense, like, does

0:14:59.540 --> 0:15:04.170
<v Speaker 1>he believe that sunscreen causes cancer?

0:15:04.830 --> 0:15:08.410
<v Speaker 2>It's hard to discount with any single health misinformation source

0:15:08.550 --> 0:15:12.830
<v Speaker 2>whether or not they believe this stuff. His motivation seems

0:15:12.890 --> 0:15:17.570
<v Speaker 2>to be railing against vaccine and mainstream medical opinion. Whether

0:15:17.630 --> 0:15:21.050
<v Speaker 2>he actually believes in it or not, I think someone

0:15:21.100 --> 0:15:22.940
<v Speaker 2>would have to be inside his head to really get

0:15:22.980 --> 0:15:23.400
<v Speaker 2>into it.

0:15:23.860 --> 0:15:27.120
<v Speaker 1>The explanation here is he either didn't read the whole

0:15:27.220 --> 0:15:31.900
<v Speaker 1>study or he did and specifically left out the really

0:15:31.950 --> 0:15:36.030
<v Speaker 1>important information that the authors of the study said the

0:15:36.210 --> 0:15:38.090
<v Speaker 1>opposite thing is true than what he's saying.

0:15:38.630 --> 0:15:38.890
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:15:40.290 --> 0:15:40.570
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.

0:15:40.790 --> 0:15:43.650
<v Speaker 2>And it's just, you know, only he would know whether

0:15:43.740 --> 0:15:47.760
<v Speaker 2>he deliberately cherry picked or he just stopped reading at

0:15:47.800 --> 0:15:49.820
<v Speaker 2>a certain point when he felt like he had his

0:15:49.880 --> 0:15:51.000
<v Speaker 2>narrative set in stone.

0:15:52.290 --> 0:15:55.109
<v Speaker 1>We emailed Holscher and McCullough to ask if they believed

0:15:55.170 --> 0:15:58.830
<v Speaker 1>it or were purposely deceiving people. They didn't answer us.

0:16:00.670 --> 0:16:02.670
<v Speaker 1>There is a profit motive behind a bunch of the

0:16:02.730 --> 0:16:06.610
<v Speaker 1>disinformation Holscher and McCullough push on Focal Points. For one,

0:16:06.650 --> 0:16:09.740
<v Speaker 1>they have subscribers to the newsletter, nearly 140,000 of them,

0:16:09.800 --> 0:16:13.340
<v Speaker 1>some portion of those paid. But more important, McCullough and

0:16:13.400 --> 0:16:17.720
<v Speaker 1>Holscher are involved in a for-profit company called the Wellness Company,

0:16:18.300 --> 0:16:21.840
<v Speaker 1>which sells certain prescription drugs and other medical products online.

0:16:22.700 --> 0:16:24.940
<v Speaker 1>And on the Substack, they're like encouraging people to go

0:16:24.980 --> 0:16:26.680
<v Speaker 1>buy stuff from the wellness company?

0:16:27.740 --> 0:16:29.220
<v Speaker 3>They do talk about.

0:16:29.040 --> 0:16:32.880
<v Speaker 2>Their products, provide links to it, and they have put

0:16:32.920 --> 0:16:36.540
<v Speaker 2>up stuff that we would consider, frankly, just advertising for

0:16:36.600 --> 0:16:40.330
<v Speaker 2>the wellness company. It might be kind of couched in

0:16:40.350 --> 0:16:42.540
<v Speaker 2>an article that's about like, you know, if they're talking

0:16:42.590 --> 0:16:47.630
<v Speaker 2>about ivermectin, they probably will insert, by the way, you

0:16:47.650 --> 0:16:48.410
<v Speaker 2>can go buy it.

0:16:48.410 --> 0:16:51.530
<v Speaker 3>Here and link out to the wellness company site.

0:16:52.300 --> 0:16:56.760
<v Speaker 1>Which, of course, sells ivermectin. Any sense of how much

0:16:56.840 --> 0:16:57.460
<v Speaker 1>money they're making?

0:16:59.440 --> 0:17:02.580
<v Speaker 2>For them, no. We don't know exactly how much money

0:17:02.620 --> 0:17:04.960
<v Speaker 2>they pull in. But, you know, you can look at

0:17:04.980 --> 0:17:09.580
<v Speaker 2>their website and see they're selling drugs that are, you know,

0:17:09.700 --> 0:17:15.060
<v Speaker 2>generic drugs that probably cost, you know, cents to produce

0:17:15.100 --> 0:17:18.770
<v Speaker 2>at this point. Things like ivermectin. And they're selling them

0:17:18.810 --> 0:17:22.840
<v Speaker 2>for hundreds of dollars. So I would imagine, well, I

0:17:22.880 --> 0:17:26.380
<v Speaker 2>can't put a round number on it. Their margins are

0:17:26.780 --> 0:17:27.720
<v Speaker 2>extremely high.

0:17:30.080 --> 0:17:32.680
<v Speaker 1>But here's the interesting thing about the shoddy sunscreen claim.

0:17:33.400 --> 0:17:36.010
<v Speaker 1>Holscher and McCullough don't appear to be leveraging that to

0:17:36.050 --> 0:17:40.170
<v Speaker 1>sell any specific product. It's not like ivermectin, where they're

0:17:40.190 --> 0:17:43.490
<v Speaker 1>claiming falsely that it cures cancer and then directing people

0:17:43.510 --> 0:17:46.170
<v Speaker 1>to go buy it from their website. I didn't see

0:17:46.290 --> 0:17:49.600
<v Speaker 1>any skin cancer or sun-related products on that they might

0:17:49.640 --> 0:17:51.960
<v Speaker 1>be trying to trick people into paying them for. They're

0:17:51.980 --> 0:17:56.160
<v Speaker 1>not selling hats or rash guards. In fact, Holscher doesn't

0:17:56.200 --> 0:18:00.240
<v Speaker 1>tell people to swear off sunscreen totally. He writes, He

0:18:00.280 --> 0:18:02.800
<v Speaker 1>suggests mineral sunscreens for long sun exposure. Quote, John says,

0:18:19.080 --> 0:18:22.840
<v Speaker 1>In his near decade covering health disinformation, this actually tracks.

0:18:24.040 --> 0:18:29.510
<v Speaker 2>I think there's sometimes a misconception that health misinformation like

0:18:29.550 --> 0:18:32.030
<v Speaker 2>this always has to be based on, for one, a

0:18:32.070 --> 0:18:36.390
<v Speaker 2>consistent agenda that doesn't contradict itself or that it's selling something.

0:18:37.270 --> 0:18:40.899
<v Speaker 2>And in this case, it's not doing either of those things.

0:18:40.980 --> 0:18:44.600
<v Speaker 2>It's really just about, seems to be just about contrarianism.

0:18:45.140 --> 0:18:50.389
<v Speaker 2>That whatever mainstream medical science says, whatever health authorities say,

0:18:51.160 --> 0:18:54.350
<v Speaker 2>people like Nicholas Holzer have to have a counter-narrative. They

0:18:54.390 --> 0:18:56.970
<v Speaker 2>have to say, no, they're lying to you. And this

0:18:57.050 --> 0:19:00.090
<v Speaker 2>is the real secret truth that you're being let in on.

0:19:00.990 --> 0:19:03.980
<v Speaker 2>They are trying to keep that audience engaged with them

0:19:04.460 --> 0:19:09.130
<v Speaker 2>that is expecting to hear a alternative view on everything

0:19:09.470 --> 0:19:14.780
<v Speaker 2>that comes out of mainstream medicine and mainstream news. The

0:19:14.859 --> 0:19:21.740
<v Speaker 2>misinformation itself is the product. That's John Gregory at NewsGuard.

0:19:23.140 --> 0:19:25.260
<v Speaker 2>Since we're on the topic, a few quick tips for

0:19:25.359 --> 0:19:30.179
<v Speaker 2>proper sunscreen application from the American Academy of Dermatology. For adults,

0:19:30.350 --> 0:19:33.750
<v Speaker 2>use a broad-spectrum formula, at least SPF 30, on all

0:19:33.790 --> 0:19:36.820
<v Speaker 2>exposed skin, 15 minutes before you head into the sun.

0:19:37.320 --> 0:19:39.440
<v Speaker 2>Most adults need to use at least one ounce, a

0:19:39.560 --> 0:19:42.679
<v Speaker 2>shot glass, for all skin that's not covered by clothing.

0:19:43.200 --> 0:19:45.090
<v Speaker 2>Not as much as I thought, but that's why I'm

0:19:45.109 --> 0:19:48.370
<v Speaker 2>not a dermatologist. The American Academy of Dermatology also says

0:19:48.510 --> 0:19:51.320
<v Speaker 2>make sure to reapply every two weeks. hours or after

0:19:51.380 --> 0:19:56.600
<v Speaker 2>swimming or sweating. If you found this episode edifying, please

0:19:56.640 --> 0:19:58.410
<v Speaker 2>send it to a friend. And if you're new here,

0:19:58.450 --> 0:20:01.450
<v Speaker 2>go check out our recent episodes about chatbots and conspiracy theorists,

0:20:01.830 --> 0:20:05.410
<v Speaker 2>Ashley St. Clair, Meta, and also our two-parter from earlier

0:20:05.470 --> 0:20:09.350
<v Speaker 2>this year about deported journalist Mario Guevara. Another request, please

0:20:09.510 --> 0:20:12.310
<v Speaker 2>follow Question Everything wherever you get your podcasts. It helps

0:20:12.369 --> 0:20:14.609
<v Speaker 2>us reach more people who should hear the reporting we're doing.

0:20:15.150 --> 0:20:20.540
<v Speaker 2>And follow us on Instagram at questioneverything.podcast. Today's show was

0:20:20.580 --> 0:20:23.260
<v Speaker 2>produced by Sam Egan and edited by Jen Kinney. Robin

0:20:23.300 --> 0:20:25.600
<v Speaker 2>Simeon and I are the executive producers of Question Everything.

0:20:26.380 --> 0:20:28.960
<v Speaker 2>Our team also includes producer Zach St. Louis, managing editor

0:20:29.000 --> 0:20:32.700
<v Speaker 2>Kevin Sullivan, contributing editor Neil Drumming, and associate producer Kevin Shepard.

0:20:33.170 --> 0:20:35.950
<v Speaker 2>This episode was fact-checked by Annika Robbins, mixing and sound

0:20:35.970 --> 0:20:38.760
<v Speaker 2>design by Brendan Baker. Our music is by Matt McGinley.

0:20:38.960 --> 0:20:42.340
<v Speaker 2>Abby Kwong manages our social media. Special thanks to Dana Chivas.

0:20:42.840 --> 0:20:46.340
<v Speaker 2>Our partners at KCRW include Arnie Seipel, Tejal Ajmera, Natalie Hill,

0:20:46.380 --> 0:20:47.139
<v Speaker 2>and Jennifer Farrow.

0:20:47.700 --> 0:20:48.380
<v Speaker 3>We'll see you next time.