This is 2 paragraphs after the one I quoted and it says it even more clearly: “And yet they are being told a very different story, misled into believing that sunscreen can prevent their melanomas, which Weller finds exasperating. “The cosmetic industry is now trying to push sunscreen at dark-skinned people,” he says. “At dermatology meetings, you get people standing up and saying, ‘We have to adapt products for this market.’ Well, no we don’t. This is a marketing ploy.””
> “I think that sun-protection advice,” [David Leffel, Yale] told me, “has always been directed at those most at risk”—people with fair skin or a family history of skin cancer. “While it is true that people with olive skin are at less risk, we do see an increasing number of people with that type of skin getting skin cancer. But skin cancer… is very rare in African Americans… and although they represent a spectrum of pigmentation, [they] are not at as much risk.”
Your original comment was effectively ‘why does everything have to be about race?’ and it matters in this context.
You say “systemic racism”, I say “the article cites one guy and gives his voice more weight than an entire industry body in order to contort this into a story about (maybe) racism”.
Science is messy. Doctors are very cautious by training and experience. So yes, they encourage everyone to use sunscreen until the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests otherwise. This is not racism in any form. To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to people who have been subjected to real racism.
> No real science is performed to test their validity.
This is a ludicrous argument. Which scientific experiment do you want me to perform, exactly, to discover the definition of racism? It's a word, not a physical law.
> To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to people who have been subjected to real racism.
And a true scottsman would never put sugar in his porridge, yes, yes.
It's generally a damned good principle to live by. We know for certain that higher UV exposure = higher risk of melanoma. It may be a lower risk for people with darker skin, but where do you draw the line for how dark is dark enough to not need to bother with sunscreen? The article states that it's rare in African Americans, but not nonexistent. In the absence of other evidence, why not avoid UV exposure?
This article presents emerging studies that suggest that UV exposure does have some direct benefits and that avoiding it may be especially harmful to people with darker skin. If there's enough evidence to support the findings, the AAD should absolutely change its advice. That's the scientific process. The article uses the example of margarine to illustrate the point; we've gotten it wrong before.
Given the above, are you certain that the term "racism" is accurate here? What can we attribute to bias that can't be explained by a lack of scientific evidence?