The American Academy of Dermatology Association Saturday defended its usage of sunbeds for the treatment of psoriasis as \u201cmedically necessary\u201d UV exposure, denying that dermatology phototherapy competes with indoor tanning and creating an interesting contradiction in the group\u2019s campaign to ban indoor tanning for those under 18 years of age.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are not competitors with the tanning industry,\u201d Idaho Dermatology Society President Lindsay D. Sewell said in AADA\u2019s press release, denying that dermatology has a conflict-of-interest in lobbying for the regulation of a competitor. Sewell and AADA have asked that sunbed usage be banned for those under 18, but that teenagers be allowed to use sunbeds in dermatology offices for phototherapy. \u201cWe are specially trained to treat skin conditions with medically necessary UV radiation.\u201d<\/p>\n
AADA\u2019s statement was a response to the Idaho Freedom Foundation\u2019s objections to AADA lobbying \u2014 objections which led to the Idaho House of Representatives delaying action on House Bill 486, which would ban salon tanning for those under 18 if enacted.<\/p>\n
In their press release, AADA and Sewell did not disclose that both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health Organization classify phototherapy as a Group 1 Carcinogen. In once study cited by the U.S. government, dermatology phototherapy was associated with a 50-fold (5,000 percent) increase in skin cancer risk \u2014 a 66-times greater relative risk than dermatology (falsely) alleges for indoor tanning sunbeds (75 percent).<\/p>\n
Sewell claimed in AADA\u2019s press release that derms use \u201ca lesser amount of ultraviolet light than tanning beds\u201d in phototherapy treatments. But published phototherapy standards often refer to dermatology protocol as intentionally inducing a sunburn in phototherapy treatments and that blistering sunburns are a potential side effect. North American indoor tanning sunbeds, in contrast, deliver no more than three-quarters of what would induce a sunburn \u2014 conservative exposure schedules developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in cooperation with the indoor tanning industry.<\/p>\n
An estimated 1.5 million indoor tanning clients tan primarily to informally treat psoriasis \u2014 a side-effect many achieve by following indoor tanning\u2019s cosmetic tanning guidelines. Salons do not market the service as therapeutic \u2014 any perceived treatment is a side effect. Many who have used phototherapy devices in dermatology offices have said that derms use less precautions to prevent sunburns than indoor tanning salons do.<\/p>\n
In fact, many patients are referred to tanning salons instead by physicians, as the cost of a tanning session is almost always less expensive than the health insurance co-payment of a dermatology-based phototherapy session. As a result, the number of phototherapy treatments by dermatologists has plummeted. In 1993 dermatologists administered 873,000 visits for phototherapy sessions. By 1998, that number dropped by 94 percent according to the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which in 2002 described phototherapy sessions as \u201ca safe and effective treatment for psoriasis.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIf any UV exposure were as dangerous as a recent statement from the AAD claims, then dermatologists would be guilty of violating their Hippocratic oath for using UV in what they describe as burning dosages to treat purely cosmetic skin conditions,\u201d said Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy. \u201cProfessional tanning facilities are trained to deliver non-burning dosages of UV light to create a cosmetic tan, but a side effect is that people are treating all sorts of conditions informally and effectively. What we\u2019re really seeing is dermatology\u2019s anger for the loss of billions of dollars in phototherapy treatments in their offices, as consumers choose a more economical and convenient method of self-care.\u201d<\/p>\n
Professional indoor tanning facilities promote a balanced message about UV exposure \u2014 acknowledging the risks of overexposure. In contrast, AAD continues to mislead the public by suggesting in its statements that any UV exposure causes melanoma, which completely misrepresents the science. \u201cThis has never been a health care debate,\u201d said Levy. \u201cThis is the cosmetic dermatology industry attacking indoor tanning as a competitor. If they thought any UV was harmful, they would not use it at all themselves to treat cosmetic conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n
The AAD has come under fire from within its ranks for its position on melanoma. In 2008, Dr. Bernard Ackerman \u2014 a pioneer in dermatology pathology recognized as a Master Dermatologist by AAD \u2014 backed up Smart Tan\u2019s position about the complex relationship between UV and melanoma in the Dermatology Times stating, \u201cThere is no compelling evidence that sun tan parlors have induced a single melanoma,\u201d and that any regulation of the tanning market \u201c\u2026should be predicated on evidence and not on accusation.\u201d<\/p>\n
In fact, AAD spokesperson Dr. James Spencer admitted in a May 2008 article in Dermatology Times that, \u201cWe don\u2019t have direct experimental evidence,\u201d referring to the fact that research has not shown a causative mechanism between indoor tanning and melanoma. The studies the AAD has referred to do not show causation \u2014 only weak correlations that are confounded by study design. The organization continues to omit refuting evidence and studies and the fact that most studies don\u2019t show a correlation.<\/p>\n
Further, while AAD is lobbying to restrict indoor tanning, its lobbying efforts have always called for phototherapy treatment in dermatology offices to be exempted from further restriction.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s time that researchers and the media start asking tough questions about why dermatologists refuse to talk about these issues and their real motivations around their attacks on indoor tanning,\u201d Levy said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The American Academy of Dermatology Association Saturday defended its usage of sunbeds for the treatment of psoriasis as \u201cmedically necessary\u201d UV exposure, denying that dermatology phototherapy competes with indoor tanning and creating an interesting contradiction in the group\u2019s campaign to ban indoor tanning for those under 18 years of age. \u201cWe are not competitors with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n