Smartphones won’t make you grow horns—but neglecting a worsening skin cancer lesion for years could do the trick.
Recently, doctors in the UK surgically removed a 14cm-long “dragon horn” from a man’s lower back. The 50-year-old patient reported that it had been growing for at least three years. The doctors determined that the “gigantic” skin growth was a cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC)—a type of skin cancer that causes growing, scaly bumps on the top layer of skin.
While SCC is a very common type of skin cancer, the man’s case is rare, the doctors report in the journal BMJ Case Reports this week. Such lesions are typically caught much earlier. But in this case, doctors found “an extremely large well-differentiated SCC that was neglected by a patient,” even though he was “living in a developed country with access to free healthcare.”
“This highlights that despite current public skin cancer awareness and rigorous healthcare measures, cases like this can still arise and slip through the net,” they conclude.
Cases of SCC are typically seen in those with light skin, who have a lot of sun exposure, are older, have a weakened immune system, or have had certain chemical exposures, such as arsenic. In this case, the man was a light-skinned manual laborer, but he reported no other clear risk factors. He had no significant sun exposure, no personal or family history of skin cancers, and was not immunosuppressed. Also unusual, his lymph nodes weren’t swollen—a common, nonspecific sign that the body is fighting off an infection or disease, such as skin cancer.
Journal Reference:
Agata Marta Plonczak, Ramy Aly, Hrsikesa Sharma, Anca Breahna. ‘Dragon horn SCC’, BMJ Case Reports CP (DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2019-233305)
(Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 09 2020, @04:59PM (6 children)
It isn't as if these people were trying to inflict the world with cancer, and it isn't as if they were pushing only using narrow spectrum sunscreen. As long as I can remember the advice was to avoid prolonged exposure, cover up, and use sunscreen liberally. Adding that the sunscreen should be broad spectrum is certainly useful advice, but the advice was never to bask in the sun as much as possible wearing nothing but narrow spectrum sunscreen.
Anecdotally, I can't remember the last time one of the high proof sunscreens I personally use didn't brag about being broad spectrum. I have to wonder what effect commercial availability and user preference has on this epidemic, would blaming manufacturers for pushing a substandard product, or users for choosing an inferior product make sense?
The issue with this line of reasoning is that it vilifies incremental improvement in medicine or science in general. I would rather enjoy the benefits of the slow and steady progress of science than focus on retribution for any missteps along the way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 09 2020, @05:25PM
If you don't hold people responsible for giving you diseases then they will continue to do so. It is pure natural selection.
I have no idea why people are such apologists for the medical industry. They are not your friend. They are looking to make money and/or get fame and influence.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 09 2020, @05:28PM (4 children)
This guy staked his reputation on an early polio vaccine he was warned was contaminated:
https://www.nytimes.com/1955/05/05/archives/bulbar-polio-kills-doctors-grandson.html [nytimes.com]
Then his granddaughter was paralyzed and his grandson died, later a bunch of other children died or became paralyzed. Guess what? He suffered no loss of reputation at all. In fact there are hospitals all over named after him
If there are no negative impacts from poor judgement then the worst type of people will rise to power. This has been going on in medicine for too long.
(Score: 5, Informative) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 09 2020, @06:54PM (3 children)
This is literally a chapter in the greatest success story in medicine, you couldn't find a better counter example to your own point. Yes, there was a contaminated batch in the 1950s (can't read the paywalled article, but it is well documented), but the vaccine worked, the solution was correct. And once ID'ed the bad batch was pulled and new safety practiced put in place. The result here wasn't "the worst type of people ... rise to power", it was we fucking beat a horrible disease, and have a safer inoculation program on the whole.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 09 2020, @07:13PM (2 children)
This is not what happened at all. It was ID'd then they attempted a cover up, then publicity stunts like what this doctor did, then they finally had to pull it. And they got away with it too.
There is no one held responsible when they fuck up but massive profit when it works out.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 09 2020, @10:40PM (1 child)
Again, I can't read the NYT paywalled article, but that summary doesn't match the sources I can find.
Here is the wiki statement on the event (unless the reference to Cutter manufactured Salk vaccine in the brief of the NYT article is about a different event from May 1955, which I sincerely doubt).
and here is their source, it doesn't read anything like what you are describing https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2928990. [nih.gov]
Mistakes absolutely happen, but I hardly see any of the sinister motive you attribute. The dude didn't murder his 30 month old grandson, an accident happened, it is tragic, but not at all what you are portraying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 10 2020, @12:25AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernice_Eddy [wikipedia.org]
I'm sure you can find lots of interesting stuff if you pull on that thread.