@Diego, I think the perspective in the US regarding litigations is a little different from other parts of the world 
. But I do believe that there should be more public interactions to explain the “risk vs benefit” issue.
3 Likes
There are solid evidence that the intake of potentially contaminated antihypertensives for example cause skin cancer ! If this investigation is not a solid one - please , read first before thematizing it! Many investigations :
There is also the first report of sitagliptin induced melanoma:
This is the begining only!
Have in mind that Ames test and other cpca test are static tests for
Mutagenic activity determination of a single substance ! In these conditions u can not compare it in the framework of the carcinogenesis and the metabolic reprogramming !
U are completely losing the picture of the complexity of the process of carcinogenesis which might have been triggered also by the intake of a second or third mono or policontaminated medication!
Thanks @Georgi for sharing the incidences and literature.
It is appreciable you are consistently doing research in the angle of “Nitrosamines induced photo carcinogenesis”
Hope it was also brought to notice of regulators.
Photosensitivity in terms of photo genotoxicity is still need to have much focus in terms of regulatory.
May be antihypertensive and ant-diabetic medications due to their and long term use could cause accumulation of these contaminants in the skin followed by photoreaction could trigger.
Agree- Ames and CPCA are not final screeners. Not only for nitrosamines to be fact, for any mutagen these are not final assays/tool that aids in decision. They just help to make initial screen or to get clue.
Carcinogenicity whether it is driven by mutagenicity or non-mutagenicity itself is a complex process in human physiology. Current regulatory assays address only to some extent.
Photogenotoxicity driven carcinogenicity might need more attention now after seeing all these incidences.
1 Like
Thanks again for the answer! That’s important because it’s a vision check and so we can move a step forward !
I see daily 5-6 patients with these cancer and could not count anymore how much thay are!
Photo Nitroso carcinogenesis will rewrite the books!
In dermatology at least !
Nitrosamines has to be checked in skin , and blood- also their metabolites !
A lot of new data will have to arrive soon I suggest!
Once again- thanks for understanding my or our view points and giving us some explanations!
My team has one purpose- to
Protect human destinies and create scientific base for the complete elimination of the nitrosamines from the drug menu!
Prospective studies could not secure purity of production! Reason for that is their objectivity or loss of objectivity ! That’s more than guaranteed!
The current tetrospections all over the world are giving significant connection between antihypertensives intake and all types of skin cancer generation world wide! This studies are more tha. Objective because nobody knows in the past what will be investigated in the future !
🫶🏻
But now , when u want to perform prospective studies - nobody will give to patients contaminated production!
For that reason retrospective analysis are more important than the prospective one!
Hopefully the scientific community will understand this!
Otherwise do not winder about the rising skin cancer incidence and general cancer incidence !
Cheers
And open ur yes 
It’s time
Agree , of course with everything shared in ur last opinion ! However there are several
Point that are more than worrying and disturbing the peace of the patients!
When nitrosamines are not dangerous as stated from regulators -
- why the exact concentrations is not listed officially on each drug packages ?
- how can we create daily acceptable dosis for carcinogens that are even not listed on the last 60 years officially ? Now we have to betkmate their presence as carcinogens and make pressure to tha patients to take them
Daily ? Because there is no alternative !?
That’s crazy!
Take a look on that paper first and than - there is some work to be performed on it:
To innvestifate the polimedication in all that cancer patients and compare it to the fda contamination list!
That’s simple!
Than the answer is and would be:
The polimedication of the patients is and could linked to the fda contamination list and cancer incidence ! Nitrosogenesis and oncopharmacogenesis are real and th real cause of cancer world wide:
https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21834
Take the time
Do this statistic / that’s might be important each of us in order to have or to adopt the new vision of possible relationships?!
Convince urself
Elimination regimes for nitrosamines are the only way !
Agree- scientist has to manage this process and we do this adequately
Photo Nitroso carcinogenesis is on the way of
Clarification
Soon
Some new data and expert opinions from
Our team
Might be useful
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382338073_Academic_Criticims_Antihypertensives_Nitrosamines_And_Melanoma-Beyond_The_Medical_Aspects_of_The_Socially_Significant_Human_Problem_Current_State_and_Future_Directions
The last 300 surgical procedures from
Our patients have been studied na there is no single
Patient which has NOT taken potentially nitrosamine contaminated drugs: most of the patients - several drugs!
Nitroso carcinogenesis related to drug intake or drug related Nitrosogenesis of skin cancer is not a myth, it’s a fact that will
Lead to rewrite all books
worldwide regarding the skin cancers pathogenesis !
It’s a good opportunity!
If we want to
Have a completely new result in regard of medical
Prevention: our duty is to
Consider a new view points and new thesis or hypothesis !
Nitrosogenesis of skin cancer is not a hypothesis- it’s a reality and no
Kore a hidden truth !
Of course it’s a completely different issue if we want to
Keep
Our eyes shut or to look inside and directly on the problem and rapidly resolve it!