Friday, November 7, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Scientists doubt that sunscreen protects against skin cancer

Published June 25, 2024 – By Editorial staff
The researchers say there is insufficient scientific evidence to recommend the use of sunscreen to prevent skin cancer.

In a new report, researchers question the advice that sunscreen can reduce the risk of skin cancer. Instead, they argue that sunscreen may lead to longer exposure to the sun, increasing the risk of malignant melanoma.

In "Work-related skin cancer", Swedish researchers looked at the risk of skin cancer in people who work outdoors. It shows that researchers have doubts about whether sunscreen protects against cancer.

– We believe that there is not enough scientific evidence to recommend the use of sunscreen to prevent skin cancer, there are no scientific studies that have shown that sunscreen reduces the risk of skin cancer, says Bengt Järvholm, professor of public health at Umeå University and chief physician at Norrland University Hospital, one of the researchers behind the report, in a press release.

Risks difficult to eliminate

Sunscreen is one of the recommendations Swedish authorities have for the public to avoid skin cancer, yet skin cancer is increasing significantly in Sweden, according to the researchers. In fact, using sunscreen can lead to spending more time in the sun, increasing the risk of skin cancer.

– Sunscreen means that you burn less, which can mean that you stay in the sun longer and sunbathe more, which exposes you to a higher risk of malignant melanoma, he says.

They also point out that the substances in sunscreens pass through the skin, which has been measured in human urine, for example, but that we do not know what effect this could have.

– The risks are not fully known, but it is difficult to rule out that there could be negative health effects, says Järvholm.

Outdoor workers get less cancer

The report also found that people who work outdoors generally have less skin cancer, even though they are exposed to a lot of sunlight. One explanation could be that these people are exposed to a milder form of the sun in the spring, and thus slowly build up a tan that protects the skin.

The researchers do not advise against using sunscreen, but say it is important to inform people about the findings so they can make their own decisions.

Health expert Fredrik Paulún, author of The Light Revolution (Ljusrevolutionen), also points out that there are misconceptions about the sun and that people should build up a good tan, avoid burning themselves and sunbathe smartly rather than using sunscreen.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Powerful new antibiotic discovered by accident

Published yesterday 3:37 pm – By Editorial staff

Researchers have discovered an antibiotic that is more than 100 times stronger than previously thought – by studying a process that has been known for at least fifty years. The discovery could be a breakthrough in the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Antibiotics were discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming, but widespread use of the drug only began during World War II. Today, large amounts of antibiotics are used annually worldwide, which has led to higher resistance to the drug.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) means that bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites develop resistance to drugs, including antibiotics. It arises primarily through incorrect and excessive use of antibiotics, and is a problem that is increasing globally. It is therefore considered one of the most serious threats to global health.

Now researchers at the University of Warwick in the UK and Monash University in Australia have made an unexpected discovery while studying how the bacterium Streptomyces coelicolor produces the old antibiotic methylenomycin A. This bacterium has been one of the most studied in antibiotic research since the 1950s.

In simple terms, when cells produce chemical substances, they go through several intermediate stages before the final product is ready – rather like baking, where ingredients are mixed in a certain order. The researchers had the idea of testing these intermediate stages for antimicrobial activity. It turned out that one of them is significantly more powerful than the final product itself.

Methylenomycin A was originally discovered 50 years ago and while it has been synthesized several times, no-one appears to have tested the synthetic intermediates for antimicrobial activity!, says Professor Greg Challis at the University of Warwick, in a press release.

One hundred times more powerful

This intermediate stage, called pre-methylenomycin C lactone, proved to be a very powerful antibiotic – in fact one hundred times more effective than methylenomycin A against dangerous bacteria. It worked particularly well against bacteria that cause MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus infection) and VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococci) – two of healthcare's worst nightmares.

Furthermore, the bacteria appeared to have great difficulty developing resistance to the new antibiotic. The discovery opens up a completely new avenue for antibiotic research, and the researchers have already developed a new method for producing the antibiotic in larger quantities, with preclinical trials as the next step.

This discovery suggests a new paradigm for antibiotic discovery. By identifying and testing intermediates in the pathways to diverse natural compounds, we may find potent new antibiotics, says Professor Challis.

“Eco-friendly” cattle feed may have negative climate impact

The exaggerated climate crisis

Published November 3, 2025 – By Editorial staff
Algae have been presented as "the solution" to methane emissions from cows, but the entire production chain paints a completely different picture.

Algae in cattle feed has been presented as a breakthrough in the fight against methane emissions from livestock. But new Swedish research shows that the real climate benefit may be minimal – or even negative. Energy-intensive production and long-distance transport risk canceling out any environmental gains achieved in the barn.

As climate alarmism has risen, cows have increasingly been accused of being real climate villains due to the methane emissions that occur when they burp and pass gas – which is why various schemes have emerged to solve this so-called problem. In 2022, for example, Prince Charles praised the British startup company Zelp for inventing a mask for cows to wear that would convert methane gas into water vapor. The cow mask is still under development but may likely become part of British cows' daily life.

However, the most talked-about solution has been the methane-reducing supplements implemented in cattle feed. The best known is Bovaer, which the Swedish-Danish dairy cooperative Arla has particularly been criticized for using, with both Danes and Swedes calling for a boycott of the company. Due to the strong criticism, the company is planning further studies to see how it affects cows' health, as well as the meat and milk.

Algae has been described as climate-smart

Another supplement being tested for cows is algae, which according to some studies has been shown to reduce methane emissions by between 30 and 90 percent. Now, however, research from KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm has shown that these figures may be highly misleading.

Adding algae to cattle feed has been overestimated as a quick solution to livestock emissions, says Jean-Baptiste Thomas, researcher at the Division of Water and Environmental Engineering at KTH, in a press release.

To measure climate impact, one must take into account how these algae are produced, processed, and how far they are transported. The algae are often dried or refined, which involves energy-intensive methods such as freeze-drying. Furthermore, there is of course an environmental impact when fossil fuels are used, Thomas argues.

Sometimes there is no climate benefit at all

The most common algae used is Asparagopsis, which has the greatest effect on methane emissions, but it is a tropical species. This means long-distance transport all the way to Sweden. Growing it locally in Sweden is not a good alternative either, as it would require artificial, energy-intensive land-based cultivation systems since the species is invasive.

The real climate benefit is much smaller – and sometimes there is no benefit at all, or it can even be worse, says Thomas.

Thomas still believes that algae can be of some use as a supplement in cattle feed, as long as the environmental impact is low. For example, it could be interesting to use by-products instead, but he emphasizes that algae alone cannot "transform the climate footprint of livestock". This study is the first to look at the entire chain for algae feed, something that surprises the researchers.

It's quite surprising, considering how much attention the issue has received for almost a decade. Perhaps it shows how eager we are to find quick technical solutions to the climate crisis, says Thomas.

Increased cancer risk linked to covid vaccines

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published November 1, 2025 – By Editorial staff
The overall risk of cancer diagnosis increased by 27 percent compared to those who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine.

A comprehensive South Korean study shows a correlation between covid vaccines and increased cancer incidence, particularly prostate cancer and lung cancer.

However, the researchers are cautious in their conclusions and careful to point out that the statistical correlations do not constitute proof of any causal relationship.

In the study, which has been published in Biomarker Research, researchers examined data from 8,407,849 people between 2021 and 2023, drawn from the Korean National Health Insurance Database. The participants were divided into two groups depending on whether they had received covid vaccines or not. The aim was to examine both the actual occurrence (incidence) of cancer and subsequent cancer risks one year after vaccination.

The results show that there were indications of increased risks for various cancer types one year after receiving any form of covid vaccine, compared to those who had not received it. The overall risk of cancer diagnosis increased by 27 percent compared to those who had not received covid vaccines.

Regarding specific cancer forms, the most pronounced risk increases were seen for prostate cancer, which increased by 69 percent, followed by lung cancer which increased by 53 percent. Furthermore, the risk of thyroid cancer increased by 35 percent and stomach cancer by 34 percent. Colorectal cancer showed a risk increase of 28 percent, while breast cancer increased by 20 percent.

These risk increases applied to diagnoses made within one year after vaccination, regardless of whether mRNA or non-mRNA vaccines were used. However, it is unclear which covid vaccines were included in the study.

Statistical correlations

The researchers emphasize, however, that the study's results do not provide evidence that covid vaccines cause cancer, but rather that these are "statistical correlations".

One possible explanation could be, for example, that covid-vaccinated individuals have likely undergone more medical check-ups and screenings, which increases the chance of detecting cancer early compared to those who have not received covid vaccines. However, one cannot say with certainty what causes this, only that there is a difference depending on covid vaccination status.

Study: Testosterone does not control men’s economic risk-taking

Published October 25, 2025 – By Editorial staff
The researchers tested nine different economic behaviors – from risk-taking to generosity – but found no difference between the groups.

Testosterone has no effect on men's economic decisions, according to the largest study to date in this field. One thousand Canadian men who received testosterone made the same decisions as those who received a placebo – a result that challenges previous research.

In the study, published in the scientific journal PNAS, 1,000 Canadian men aged 18 to 45 participated. The men were randomly assigned to receive either an 11-milligram dose of testosterone or a placebo in a double-blind study. Once the hormone began to take effect, the men participated in various experiments to measure risk-taking, generosity, competitiveness, and fairness preferences.

A total of nine different outcomes were measured, and the results showed that both groups behaved on average in the same way, regardless of whether they received testosterone or placebo – across all outcomes.

Our results provide strong evidence that short-term increases in testosterone have no meaningful impact on men's economic decisions, says Anna Dreber Almenberg, professor at the Department of Economics at the Stockholm School of Economics in Sweden, in a press release.

Largest study in the field

Previous studies have suggested that testosterone can influence the propensity to take risks or compete in economic situations, but this study shows that this is not necessarily the case. This study is also the largest of its kind in the field, with ten to twenty times more men participating than in previous studies.

However, the researchers emphasize that they only tested one dose and one time perspective in the men, which means that other possible effects could occur at different doses or time perspectives. Women were also not included in the trial.

The study is important because it directly challenges the idea that short-term fluctuations in testosterone levels explain why some people take greater economic risks, reject unfair offers, or act more competitively in life, says Justin M. Carré, professor at the Faculty of Arts and Science at Nipissing University in Canada.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.