TOLD YOU: Sunscreen Actually CAUSES Cancer?

I have been telling you this for years….and it looks like I’m now being vindicated.

After running this site for over 10 years and finding out “they” have lied to us about virtually everything in politics, would it surprise you to learn “they” have lied to you about everything outside of politics too?

Me either.

Sit back for a minute and think about everything they have told us is bad for us….

Red meat is bad for you.

Eggs are bad for you.

And the sun is VERY bad for you.

Wear hats!

Stay inside!

If you have to go outside, slosh on copious amounts of sunscreen.

But what if the sun is actually good for you?

In moderation of course.

Not to the point of burning, but what if you got 15-30 minutes of unfiltered sunlight on your skin each day?

What if God actually designed your skin (it is your biggest organ, after all) to be a giant solar cell receptor, taking the sunlight from the sky and converting it into life-giving and healing Vitamin D in your body?

And what if blocking that out cut off a major source of rejuvenation and energy we are all supposed to get each day?

And what if adding sunscreen loaded with toxic chemicals onto our skin that immediately gets absorbed directly into the bloodstream only greatly compounded the problem and made it so much worse?

Well, new studies are now suggesting those might not be “what ifs”….they might be true!

See here:

The LARGEST sunscreen-skin cancer study in HISTORY (n=470,000) found sunscreen users are FAR MORE likely to develop EVERY major form of skin cancer.

INVASIVE MELANOMA:

+292%
MELANOMA IN SITU:

+258%
BASAL CELL CARCINOMA:

+140%
SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA:

+126%

27% of… pic.twitter.com/Sv86uzbEY9

— Nicolas Hulscher, MPH (@NicHulscher) July 4, 2026

Click to expand...

And here:

The LARGEST sunscreen-skin cancer study EVER done (n=470,000) found sunscreen users faced dramatically higher risks of ALL major skin cancers:

Invasive melanoma: 292% HIGHER
Melanoma in situ: 258% HIGHER
Basal cell carcinoma: 140% HIGHER
Squamous cell carcinoma: 126% HIGHER https://t.co/9gApQoVvxv pic.twitter.com/YF2snej7vm

— Nicolas Hulscher, MPH (@NicHulscher) July 22, 2026

Click to expand...

To be fair, we always like to give you the straight scoop here including things that might be on the other side.

So I will note that this post carries a Community Note that puts forth a different conclusion:

The LARGEST sunscreen-skin cancer study EVER conducted found sunscreen users faced FAR higher risks of EVERY major skin cancer.

INVASIVE MELANOMA: +292%

MELANOMA IN SITU: +258%

BASAL CELL CARCINOMA: +140%

SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA: +126%

Large increases in all major… pic.twitter.com/lklZ45WZre

— Nicolas Hulscher, MPH (@NicHulscher) August 15, 2026

Click to expand...

See that Note right here:



NOTE: they don’t dispute the results of the study, they just propose that perhaps the people in the study who are already in the sun more than the control group get the higher cancer rates because they’re in the sun more, and not because of the sunscreen.

To be fair, it is true that “correlation” does not always prove “causation”.

But wow, this is quite a chart, isn’t it?



More here:

Rise of sunscreen adoption and melanoma incidence since 1960

U.S. historical comparison. Sunscreen series before national surveys is an estimated adoption index (modern widespread adoption = 100), NOT a measured usage percentage. Melanoma uses long-running Connecticut registry data before nationwide SEER data are available.

Important: The sunscreen adoption index is reconstructed from commercialization, SPF/product development, market growth and later usage surveys; it should not be interpreted as exact population usage.

And this longer view actually makes the relationship you’re interested in more striking visually: as sunscreen went from a relatively specialized product to a mainstream consumer product, diagnosed melanoma incidence rose substantially as well.

But I would not calculate a Pearson correlation coefficient from that chart, because doing so would give false precision: half of one series is a reconstructed adoption index. We can legitimately say that the two historical trends have a strong positive temporal association—both rise substantially—but not assign a scientifically meaningful r to these particular data.

There’s another wrinkle worth emphasizing. Early “sunscreen” wasn’t necessarily being used the way we think of sunscreen today. Much of the sun-care industry was explicitly associated with tanning. Even in the early-1980s study, roughly one-third of sunscreen users believed sunscreen promoted tanning. And the 1982 litigation record distinguishes products marketed for sun protection from Coppertone products marketed as tanning agents even though both contained UV-filtering ingredients.

So if the hypothesis you’re investigating is “sunscreen became ubiquitous while melanoma simultaneously became much more common,” the historical record absolutely supports examining that observation. It just doesn’t establish which variable is causing what.

Click to expand...

I’ve actually covered the importance of Vitamin D several times before and I’d encourage you to Bookmark this, share it with your friends and family, print it out, and….keep reading:

Vitamin D — They’ve Been Lying To You All Along (Here’s The Truth)

Click to expand...

Continue reading...

[ H/T WLT Report ]