Contact me today for your FREE
15-minute Skype consultation.

Free Consultation


People with pale skin have a much higher rate of certain types of skin cancers than the rest of the population. They have a genetic predisposition, a susceptibility for these cancers. However research has discovered that the environmental trigger for these cancers is too much exposure to the sun. At this point we have a choice: Invest BILLIONS of dollars in genetic research to try and ‘correct’ this predisposition…OR issue advice on ways that pale-skinned people can protect themselves: limiting their sun exposure, higher factor suncream, hats!

What is the more rational approach to take…and which one is most likely to reduce the incidence of skin cancer? (hint: it’s not the genetic research)

With autism there is clearly also a genetic predisposition, and clearly there are environmental factors that lead to a child becoming autistic. However BILLIONS of dollars are being poured into genetic research, and practically nothing into researching the environmental triggers for the condition. We have an epidemic raging all around us and mainstream science has responded by sticking it’s head up it’s collective ass. Put simply: It’s nuts!

I suppose the difference is: no-one is making money from the sun, but there are powerful, well-connected people making fortunes from the probable environmental triggers for autism. (heavy metals from amalgam fillings, vaccinations and other medications, pesticides etc).

My suggestion is: if we know a child is predisposed to autism (perhaps from their genetic markers, or other members of their family being on the spectrum), then their exposure to the probable environmental triggers should be kept to a minimum.