Sunlight Truth

How Does Sunlight Affect Breast Cancer?

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:26:03 GMT

If one is to believe Esther John, an epidemiologist of Northern California Cancer Center, a daily dose of sunlight can decrease the chances of breast cancer by an amazing 40%. A short walk in the sun can also relieve stress and increase blood circulation in addition to reducing the risk of breast cancer. It is a well known and researched fact that the instance of breast cancer is more in cloudy and colder regions. An exposure to the full spectrum light is inversely correlated to colon, rectal and breast cancers.
Exposure to sun stimulates production of certain hormones underneath the human skin. The Ultraviolet B rays react with a certain variety of cholesterol in the skin triggering organs like liver and kidneys to produce vitamin D3, which in fact is not a vitamin but a king of steroid that boosts the human immune system. It inhibits the growth of malignant cells and also motivates the digestive tract to absorb more calcium and hinders angiogenesis that aids growth of cancerous cells. Vitamin D3 also stops formation of blood vessels that aid cancer thus effectively curbing the malignancy of any tumors.
Vitamin D3 taken in high does can result in toxic complications. Medications administered for breast cancer thus contain Vitamin D3 in derivative form. These derivatives have been found to be effective in stopping the spread of cancer cells in breast cancer patients and reducing the size of mammary tumors.

It is a cause of grave concern that most sunscreens lotions used today block the Ultraviolet B rays thus inhibiting the formation of Vitamin D3. What the human race needs to realize today is that the harm done by sun is far less compared to the goodness that comes from its radiation.

Exposure to sun benefits people having prostrate, ovarian, breast or colon cancer, osteoporosis, heart ailments and multiple sclerosis. If one can imagine statistically, people dying from the any of the above diseases are far more then people effected by skin cancer. Moreover, exposure to sun is more beneficial than detrimental as per the past 5 decades of medical research.

In spite of awareness, it has been found that almost 59% of patients admitted to the Massachusetts General Hospital have been found to be lacking in Vitamin D. In light of this it is only logical to infer that Americans are more prone to caner and other ailments compared to most other people.

Vitamin D is also available in adequate measures in certain foods like tuna, salmon almost all other varieties of fish. Having Vitamin D fortified diet may also help, but look for more information than just claims on the product labels.

Benefits of Sunlight: A Bright Spot for Human Health

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:18:07 GMT

Each day, Apollo’s fiery chariot makes its way across the sky, bringing life-giving light to the planet. For the ancient Greeks and Romans, Apollo was the god of medicine and healing as well as of sun and light—but Apollo could bring sickness as well as cure. Today’s scientists have come to a similarly dichotomous recognition that exposure to the ultraviolet radiation (UVR) in sunlight has both beneficial and deleterious effects on human health.

Most public health messages of the past century have focused on the hazards of too much sun exposure. UVA radiation (95–97% of the UVR that reaches Earth’s surface) penetrates deeply into the skin, where it can contribute to skin cancer indirectly via generation of DNA-damaging molecules such as hydroxyl and oxygen radicals. Sunburn is caused by too much UVB radiation; this form also leads to direct DNA damage and promotes various skin cancers. Both forms can damage collagen fibers, destroy vitamin A in skin, accelerate aging of the skin, and increase the risk of skin cancers. Excessive sun exposure can also cause cataracts and diseases aggravated by UVR-induced immunosuppression such as reactivation of some latent viruses.

However, excessive UVR exposure accounts for only 0.1% of the total global burden of disease in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), according to the 2006 World Health Organization (WHO) report The Global Burden of Disease Due to Ultraviolet Radiation. DALYs measure how much a person’s expectancy of healthy life is reduced by premature death or disability caused by disease. Coauthor Robyn Lucas, an epidemiologist at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health in Canberra, Australia, explains that many diseases linked to excessive UVR exposure tend to be relatively benign—apart from malignant melanoma—and occur in older age groups, due mainly to the long lag between exposure and manifestation, the requirement of cumulative exposures, or both. Therefore, when measuring by DALYs, these diseases incur a relatively low disease burden despite their high prevalence.

In contrast, the same WHO report noted that a markedly larger annual disease burden of 3.3 billion DALYs worldwide might result from very low levels of UVR exposure. This burden subsumes major disorders of the musculoskeletal system and possibly an increased risk of various autoimmune diseases and life-threatening cancers.

The best-known benefit of sunlight is its ability to boost the body’s vitamin D supply; most cases of vitamin D deficiency are due to lack of outdoor sun exposure. At least 1,000 different genes governing virtually every tissue in the body are now thought to be regulated by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D₃ (1,25[OH]D), the active form of the vitamin, including several involved in calcium metabolism and neuromuscular and immune system functioning.

Although most of the health-promoting benefits of sun exposure are thought to occur through vitamin D photosynthesis, there may be other health benefits that have gone largely overlooked in the debate over how much sun is needed for good health [see “Other Sun-Dependent Pathways,” p. A165]. As for what constitutes “excessive” UVR exposure, there is no one-size-fits-all answer, says Lucas: “‘Excessive’ really means inappropriately high for your skin type under a particular level of ambient UVR.”

Vitamin D Production

Unlike other essential vitamins, which must be obtained from food, vitamin D can be synthesized in the skin through a photosynthetic reaction triggered by exposure to UVB radiation. The efficiency of production depends on the number of UVB photons that penetrate the skin, a process that can be curtailed by clothing, excess body fat, sunscreen, and the skin pigment melanin. For most white people, a half-hour in the summer sun in a bathing suit can initiate the release of 50,000 IU (1.25 mg) vitamin D into the circulation within 24 hours of exposure; this same amount of exposure yields 20,000–30,000 IU in tanned individuals and 8,000–10,000 IU in dark-skinned people.

The initial photosynthesis produces vitamin D₃, most of which undergoes additional transformations, starting with the production of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), the major form of vitamin D circulating in the bloodstream and the form that is routinely measured to determine a person’s vitamin D status. Although various cell types within the skin can carry out this transformation locally, the conversion takes place primarily in the liver. Another set of transformations occurs in the kidney and other tissues, forming 1,25(OH)D. This form of the vitamin is actually a hormone, chemically akin to the steroid hormones.

1,25(OH)D accumulates in cell nuclei of the intestine, where it enhances calcium and phosphorus absorption, controlling the flow of calcium into and out of bones to regulate bone-calcium metabolism. Michael Holick, a medical professor and director of the Bone Health Care Clinic at Boston University Medical Center, says, “The primary physiologic function of vitamin D is to maintain serum calcium and phosphorous levels within the normal physiologic range to support most metabolic functions, neuromuscular transmission, and bone mineralization.”

Without sufficient vitamin D, bones will not form properly. In children, this causes rickets, a disease characterized by growth retardation and various skeletal deformities, including the hallmark bowed legs. More recently, there has been a growing appreciation for vitamin D’s impact on bone health in adults. In August 2007, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research published Effectiveness and Safety of Vitamin D in Relation to Bone Health, a systematic review of 167 studies that found “fair evidence” of an association between circulating 25(OH)D concentrations and either increased bone-mineral density or reduced falls in older people (a result of strengthened muscles as well as strengthened bones). “Low vitamin D levels will precipitate and exacerbate osteoporosis in both men and women and cause the painful bone disease osteomalacia,” says Holick.

Evolution of the Great Solar Debate

In the 2002 book Bone Loss and Osteoporosis in Past Populations: An Anthropological Perspective, Reinhold Vieth, a nutrition professor at the University of Toronto, writes that early primates probably acquired their relatively high vitamin D requirements from frequent grooming and ingestion of oils rich in vitamin D precursors that were secreted by their skin onto their fur. The first humans evolved in equatorial Africa, where the direct angle of sunlight delivers very strong UVR most of the year. The gradual loss of protective fur may have created evolutionary pressure to develop deeply pigmented skin to avoid photodegradation of micronutrients and protect sweat glands from UVR-induced injury.

In the July 2000 issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, California Academy of Sciences anthropologists Nina Jablonski and George Chaplin wrote that because dark skin requires about five to six times more solar exposure than pale skin for equivalent vitamin D photosynthesis, and because the intensity of UVB radiation declines with increasing latitude, one could surmise that skin lightening was an evolutionary adaptation that allowed for optimal survival in low-UVR climes, assuming a traditional diet and outdoor lifestyle. Cooler temperatures in these higher latitudes resulted in the need for more clothing and shelter, further reducing UVR exposure. With shorter winter days and insufficient solar radiation in the UVB wavelengths needed to stimulate vitamin D synthesis, dietary sources such as fatty fish became increasingly important.

Over time, clothing became the norm in higher latitudes and then eventually a social attribute in many societies. By the 1600s, peoples in these regions covered their whole body, even in summertime. Many children who lived in the crowded and polluted industrialized cities of northern Europe developed rickets. By the late 1800s, approximately 90% of all children living in industrialized Europe and North America had some manifestations of the disease, according to estimates based on autopsy studies of the day cited by Holick in the August 2006 Journal of Clinical Investigationand the October 2007 American Journal of Public Health.

Doctors throughout Europe and North America began promoting whole-body sun-bathing to help prevent rickets. It was also recognized that wintertime sunlight in the temperate zone was too feeble to prevent rickets. For this reason, many children were exposed to UVR from a mercury or carbon arc lamp for one hour three times a week, which proved to be an effective preventive measure and treatment.

Around the time the solar solution to rickets gained widespread traction in medical circles, another historic scourge, tuberculosis (TB), was also found to respond to solar intervention. TB patients of all ages were sent to rest in sunny locales and generally returned in good health. Dermatology professor Barbara A. Gilchrest of Boston University School of Medicine says that, whereas sun exposure was shown to improve cutaneous TB, sanatorium patients with pulmonary TB likely responded as much or more to rest and good nutrition than to UVR. Nevertheless, a meta-analysis published in the February 2008 International Journal of Epidemiology found that high vitamin D levels reduce the risk of active TB (i.e., TB showing clinical symptoms) by 32%.

Almost overnight, as awareness of the sun’s power against rickets and TB spread, attitudes toward sun exposure underwent a radical shift. The suntan became valued in the Western world as a new status symbol that signified both health and wealth, as only the affluent could afford to vacation by the sea and play outdoor sports. Phototherapy quickly emerged as a popular medical treatment not only for TB, but also for rheumatic disorders, diabetes, gout, chronic ulcers, and wounds. The “healthy tan” was in, and “sickly-looking” pale skin was out.

Cancer: Cause, Protection, or Both?

The first reports of an association between sun exposure and skin cancer began to surface in dermatology publications in the late nineteenth century. Nevertheless, it was not until the 1930s that the U.S. Public Health Service began issuing warnings about sun-related health risks. People were cautioned to avoid the midday summer sun, cover their heads in direct sunlight, and gradually increase the time of sun exposure from an initial 5–10 minutes per day to minimize the risk of sunburn.

In the decades that followed, the skin cancer hazards of excessive sun exposure would be extensively studied and mapped. Today, the three main forms of skin cancer—melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma—are largely attributed to excessive UVR exposure. Skin cancers became the most common form of cancer worldwide, especially among groups such as white residents of Australia and New Zealand.

When atmospheric scientists first called attention to possible chemical destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer in the early 1970s, one predicted consequence of the increased UVB radiation was a rise in skin cancer rates, especially in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Latin America. To counter this threat, the WHO, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Meteorological Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection established INTERSUN, the Global UV Project, with the express goal of reducing the burden of UVR-related disease. INTERSUN activities have included the development of an internationally recognized UV Index to help frame sun protection messages related to the daily intensity of UVR. [For more information on these activities, see “WHO Ultraviolet Radiation Website,” p. A157 this issue.]

Australia was among the first countries to spearhead large-scale sun protection programs, with the Slip-Slop-Slap initiative (short for “slip on a shirt, slop on some sun-screen, and slap on a hat”) introduced in the early 1980s. “This program and the subsequent SunSmart campaign have been highly effective in informing Australians of the risks and providing clear, practical instructions as to how to avoid excessive UVR exposure,” says Lucas. As a result of increased use of hats, sunscreen, and shade, the incidence of malignant melanoma has begun to plateau in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Northern Europe among some age groups. However, because other UVR-induced skin cancers typically take longer than melanoma to develop, their incidence rates continue to rise in most developed countries. Lucas says a gradual improvement in these rates is to be expected as well.

Whereas skin cancer is associated with too much UVR exposure, other cancers could result from too little. Living at higher latitudes increases the risk of dying from Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as breast, ovarian, colon, pancreatic, prostate, and other cancers, as compared with living at lower latitudes. A randomized clinical trial by Joan Lappe, a medical professor at Creighton University, and colleagues, published in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, confirmed that taking 2–4 times the daily dietary reference intake of 200–600 IU vitamin D₃ and calcium resulted in a 50–77% reduction in expected incidence rates of all cancers combined over a four-year period in post-menopausal women living in Nebraska.

Moreover, although excessive sun exposure is an established risk factor for cutaneous malignant melanoma, continued high sun exposure was linked with increased survival rates in patients with early-stage melanoma in a study reported by Marianne Berwick, an epidemiology professor at the University of New Mexico, in the February 2005 Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Holick also points out that most melanomas occur on the least sun-exposed areas of the body, and occupational exposure to sunlight actually reduced melanoma risk in a study reported in the June 2003 Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

MS and arthritis may be linked to lack of sun, say scientists

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:03:24 GMT

MS and arthritis may be linked to lack of sun, say scientists

Vitamin D found to exert an influence over genes associated with certain diseases more common in the northern hemisphere

guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 August 2010 22.00 BST
The Food Standards Agency says a healthy diet plus ‘a little’ exposure to sun should give us all the vitamin D we need. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP

Insufficient exposure to sunshine, resulting in low levels of vitamin D, could play a part in a wide-range of diseases, from multiple sclerosis to rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes, some cancers and even dementia, scientists say today.

A study funded by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and others, has succeeded in mapping the points at which vitamin D interacts with DNA. Scientists from Oxford University found that the vitamin exerts a direct influence over 229 genes that are known to be involved with certain diseases. Many of the diseases that are implicated are more common in the northern hemisphere than in sunnier, southern climes.

Scotland, for instance, has one of the highest rates of multiple sclerosis in the world. The disease is virtually unknown in Africa. The study, published in the journal Genome Research, lends substantial support to the hypothesis that the migration of humankind, hundreds of thousands of years ago, to the colder and darker parts of the world had an effect both on skin colour and on susceptibility to certain sorts of disease.

Research has previously suggested that the need to make more vitamin D resulted in the lightening of skin and hair of people who migrated to the north.

A lack of vitamin D has long been known to have an effect on bones. The theory runs that women who were unable to make enough vitamin D suffered from contracting pelvises, with the result that they and their unborn babies died in labour.

"Over a very long period of time, there has been a systematic selection for individuals that can cope with diminished sunshine," said Prof George Ebers, Action Medical Research professor of clinical neurology and one of the senior authors of the paper. He added: "It may be we have not had enough time to make all the adaptations we have needed to cope with our northern circumstances."

The good news is that – if the scientists are right – diseases such as MS are not genetically predetermined but a mixture of nature and nurture, says Ebers. The work will increase calls for changes in the advice on taking vitamin D supplements, which is not expected to help those already suffering from the disease, but could help future generations.

At the moment, authorities such as the Food Standards Agency say that most of us should be able to get all we need from a healthy diet, including oily fish and eggs, and "by getting a little sun". Pregnant women and older people might benefit from a small daily dose of vitamin D.

France already gives pregnant women a large supplementary dose of vitamin D, which is fat-soluble, so it stays in the body for some time.

The Scottish government has now agreed to a meeting in September with scientists to review the evidence, largely as a result of the Shine on Scotland campaign launched by 15 year-old Ryan McLaughlin, whose mother has MS, which wants vitamin D supplements for every pregnant woman and child.

Susan Polson, 60, who lives in Fife, was diagnosed with MS at the relatively late age of 46, causing her to have to give up her job as head secretary in a big independent school. She is on the committee of the research network of the MS Society in Scotland and takes vitamin D every day even though, she says, she is not expecting a cure.

"It is too late for me, but my grand-daughter Catriona is two. I don't want to think that because we didn't do anything about vitamin D, she has more risk factors," she said.

Vitamin D found to influence over 200 genes, highlighting links to disease

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:15:45 GMT

The extent to which vitamin D deficiency may increase susceptibility to a wide range of diseases is dramatically highlighted in research published today. Scientists have mapped the points at which vitamin D interacts with our DNA - and identified over two hundred genes that it directly influences. The results are published today in the journal Genome Research.

It is estimated that one billion people worldwide do not have sufficient vitamin D. This deficiency is thought to be largely due to insufficient exposure to the sun and in some cases to poor diet. As well as being a well-known risk factor for rickets, there is a growing body of evidence that vitamin D deficiency also increases an individual's susceptibility to autoimmune conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 diabetes, as well as certain cancers and even dementia.

Now, in a study whose funders include the Medical Research Council (MRC), the MS Society, the Wellcome Trust and the MS Society of Canada, researchers at the University of Oxford have shown the extent to which vitamin D interacts with our DNA. They used new DNA sequencing technology to create a map of vitamin D receptor binding across the genome. The vitamin D receptor is a protein activated by vitamin D, which attaches itself to DNA and thus influences what proteins are made from our genetic code.

The researchers found 2,776 binding sites for the vitamin D receptor along the length of the genome. These were unusually concentrated near a number of genes associated with susceptibility to autoimmune conditions such as MS, Crohn's disease, systemic lupus erythematosus (or 'lupus') and rheumatoid arthritis, and to cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and colorectal cancer.

They also showed that vitamin D had a significant effect on the activity of 229 genes including IRF8, previously associated with MS, and PTPN2, associated with Crohn's disease and type 1 diabetes.

"Our study shows quite dramatically the wide-ranging influence that vitamin D exerts over our health," says Dr Andreas Heger from the MRC Functional Genomics Unit at Oxford, one of the lead authors of the study.

The first author of the paper, Dr Sreeram Ramagopalan from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, adds: "There is now evidence supporting a role for vitamin D in susceptibility to a host of diseases. Vitamin D supplements during pregnancy and the early years could have a beneficial effect on a child's health in later life. Some countries such as France have instituted this as a routine public health measure."

The main source of vitamin D in the body comes from exposing the skin to sunlight, although a diet of oily fish can provide some of the vitamin. Research has previously suggested that lighter skin colour and hair colour evolved in populations moving to parts of the globe with less sun to optimise production of vitamin D in the body. A lack of vitamin D can affect bone development, leading to rickets; in pregnant mothers, poor bone health can be fatal to both mother and child at birth, hence there are selective pressures in favour of people who are able to produce adequate vitamin D.

This new study supports this hypothesis, having found a significant number of vitamin D receptor binding sites in regions of the genome with genetic changes more commonly found in people of European and Asian descent. It is probable that skin lightening as we migrated out of Africa resulted from the necessity to be able to make more vitamin D and prevent rickets: vitamin D deficiency led to pelvic contraction resulting in increased risk of fatality of both mother and unborn child, effectively ending maternal lineages unable to find ways of increasing availability of the vitamin.

"Vitamin D status is potentially one of the most powerful selective pressures on the genome in relatively recent times," says Professor George Ebers, Action Medical Research Professor of Clinical Neurology and one of the senior authors of the paper. "Our study appears to support this interpretation and it may be we have not had enough time to make all the adaptations we have needed to cope with our northern circumstances."

More information: Ramagopalan SV, Heger A, Berlanga AJ, Maugeri NJ, Lincoln MR, Burrell A, Handunnetthi L, Handel AE, Disanto G, Orton S, Watson CT, Morahan JM, Giovannoni G, Ponting CP, Ebers GC, Knight JC. A ChIP-seq-defined genome-wide map of vitamin D receptor binding: Associations with disease and evolution. Genome Res doi:10.1101/gr.107920.110

Provided by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Is sun exposure a major cause of melanoma? No

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:20:00 GMT

¹ Department of Dermatology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich NR4 7UY

sam@shuster.eclipse.co.uk

Every summer we are reminded about the dangers of the sun. ScottMenzies(doi: 10.1136/bmj.a763) argues that the risks of malignantmelanoma are real, but Sam Shuster is unconvinced

The list of harmful things grows daily, freshly mined by descriptiveepidemiology, a substitute for research that confuses associationwith cause. Although most disappear under the weight of theirown inconsequence, the alleged increase in melanoma from ultravioletradiation has survived on the life support of regular promotion.I am therefore setting out what is known, which is rather differentfrom what is believed.

Does ultraviolet light cause melanoma?

There is solid descriptive, quantitative, and mechanistic proofthat ultraviolet rays cause the main skin cancers (basal andsquamous). They develop in pale, sun exposed skin,¹ are relatedto degree of exposure and latitude,² are fewer with avoidanceand protection,³ ⁴ are readily produced experimentally,⁴andare the overwhelmingly predominant tumour in xeroderma pigmentosum,where DNA repair of ultraviolet light damage is impaired.

None of these is found with melanoma. Variation is more ethnic⁵⁶ ⁷ than pigmentary,⁸ and 75% occur on relatively unexposedsites,⁹ especially the feet of dark skinned Africans.⁶ ⁷ Therelation to latitude is small and inconsistent in, for example,Europe¹⁰ and the United States¹¹; incidence and mortality fallwith greater exposure⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ ¹¹ ¹² ¹³ ¹⁴ ¹⁵ ¹⁶ ¹⁷; incidenceis unaffected or increased by use of sunscreens¹⁸ ; and theeffect of sun bed exposure is small and inconsistent.¹⁹ Inaddition, melanomas are difficult to produce experimentallywith ultraviolet ²⁰ light and are far less common than non-melanomacancers in xeroderma pigmentosum.

Therefore, the effect of ultraviolet light can only be minimal,and the case against a major role is clear. Attempts to relatelight exposure to surface area and site are irrelevant, sincethe cell of origin of melanoma and its distribution are unknown.The suggestion that the poor correlation of melanoma to ultravioletlight is because the causal event is sunburn from intermittentexposure in early life¹³ ¹⁴ ¹⁵ ¹⁶ ¹⁷ ²¹ is easily excluded,because the melanomas would then occur at the burn sites; thereis no evidence for this, and it is unlikely that any will befound, because sunburn occurs in sun exposed sites, and theseare not the sites at which melanomas occur.⁷ ⁸

There is an association between melanoma and number of naevi,¹³²² and naevi increase after exposure to ultraviolet light²²²³; but this does not implicate ultraviolet light in the aetiologyof melanoma, for the same reasons related to site. The likelyexplanation of the association is that stimulation of naevusgrowth by ultraviolet light simply increases the number of visible(and therefore countable) lesions. The associated histologicalchanges can be indistinguishable from melanoma, as is the casewith the benign lesions of lentigo maligna in elderly people,sun bed users, and psoriasis patients treated with psoralenand ultraviolet A; benign naevi stimulated by shave excision;and juvenile melanoma. Thus, unlike for squamous and basal cellcancers, there is no proof that ultraviolet light exposure isa significant cause of melanoma.

Is the reported increase in melanoma real?

In the past, naevi were left untreated and usually caused noharm. Then, fear of litigation and the search for early lesionsled to removal of benign lesions; this introduced an ambiguityinto histological classification, which eventually changed thedefinition of malignancy. Those who observed the process believemisdiagnosis of benign naevi explains the melanoma epidemic.²⁴This view is supported by the findings of the Eastern regionof England that the increase in new "melanomas" during 1991-2004was entirely due to benign naevi (Levell et al, personal communication);a melanoma mountain in Australia has also been attributed toconfusion with a benign disease.²⁵ The relation between incidenceof new melanomas and higher social class²⁶ is best explainedby removal of benign naevi after health warnings and encouragementto attend "pigmented lesion clinics"—the middle classesare always first on the scene.²⁷

The subjective histopathological criteria used to diagnose melanomahave become too vague for use and are commonly found in benigndisease. This problem can be resolved only by research, includinga blind re-examination of histological slides used for pastand present diagnoses, and a better distinction between benignand malignant changes in naevi.²⁴ ²⁷ Meanwhile, it can onlybe concluded that the reported increase in melanoma is probablyan erroneous reclassification of benign naevi. Thus the questionof whether ultraviolet light causes melanoma becomes irrelevant,because there is no case to answer.

Balancing the effects of ultraviolet light

Of course we know that ultraviolet light causes the common,virtually benign, and mostly trivial skin cancers and that,like smoking, it makes the skin look as if it has been welllived in. But is this enough to justify blanketing the sun whenbalanced against the possible advantages? We know the sun makesus feel better, although not how²⁸; we need skin synthesis ofvitamin D for our bones; ultraviolet light may protect againstsome forms of cancer²⁹ including melanoma¹⁴; and it has important,unexplained immunological effects.³⁰ We need to know much morebefore we can balance the biological books on ultraviolet radiation,even if we can now close the chapter on melanoma.²⁴

Competing interests: None declared.

References

Urbach F. Ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer. In: Smith KC, ed. Topics in photomedicine. New York: Plenum, 1984:67-104.
Gordon D, Silverstone H. Worldwide epidemiology of pre-malignant and malignant cutaneous lesions. In: Andrade R, ed. Cancer of the skin. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1976:405-55.
David H. Efficacy of sunscreens in protection against skin cancer.Lancet 1999;354:699-700.[Medline]
Honnavara S, Ananthaswamy N, Ullrich SE, Misiodo RE, Fourtanier A, Loughlin SM, et al. Inhibition of solar simulator-induced p53 mutations and protection against skin cancer development in mice by sunscreen.J Invest Derm 1999;112:763-8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Cress RD, Holly A. Incidence of cutaneous melanoma among non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, Asians, and blacks: an analysis of California cancer registry data, 1988-93. Cancer Causes Control1997;8:246-52.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Rolón PA , Kramárová E, Rolón HI, Khlat M, Parkin DM. Plantar melanoma: a case-control study in Paraguay. Cancer Causes Control1997;8:850-6.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Garsaud P, Boisseau-Garsaud AM, Ossondo M, Azaloux H, Escanmant P, Le Mab G, et al. Epidemiology of cutaneous melanoma in the French West Indies (Martinique). Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:66-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Le Marchand l, Saltzman S, Hankin JH, Wilkens LR, Franke SJM, Kolonel N. Sun exposure, diet and melanoma in Hawaii caucasians.Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:232-45.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Armstong K, Kricker A. The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer. J Photochem Biol 2001;63:8-18.[CrossRef]
Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface.Br J Cancer 1981;43:842-9.[Web of Science][Medline]
Crombie IK. Variation of melanoma incidence with latitude in North America and Europe. Br J Cancer 1979;40:774-81.[Web of Science][Medline]
Weinstock MA, Colditz,BA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ. Bronstein, BR, Speizer FE. Nonfamilial cutaneous melanoma incidence in women associated with sun exposure before 20 years of age. Pediatrics1989;84:199-204.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Tucker MA, Goldstein AM. Melanoma etiology: where are we?Oncogene 2003;22:3042-52.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C, et al. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Nat Cancer Inst2005;97:95-199.
Veierød MB, Weiderpass E, Thörn M, Hansson J, Lund E, Armstrong B, et al. A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women. J Natl Cancer Inst2003;95:1530-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Oliveria SA, Saraiya M, Geller AC, Heneghan MK, Jorgensen C. Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:131-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Elwood JM, Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Pearson JCG. Cutaneous melanoma in relation to intermittent and constant sun exposure—the western Canada melanoma study. Int J Cancer 2006;35:427-33.[CrossRef]
Dennis LK Beane LE, Freeman PD, VanBeek MJ. Sunscreen use and the risk for melanoma: a quantitative review. Ann Int Med2003;139:966-78.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Gallagher RP, Spinelli JJ, Lee TK. Tanning beds, sunlamps, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma cancer. Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2005;14:562-6.[CrossRef]
Setlow RB, Woodhead AD, Grist E. Animal model for ultraviolet radiation induced melanoma: platyfish-swordtail hybrid. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1989;86:8922-9026.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Khlat M, Vail A, Parkin M, Green A. Mortality from melanoma in migrants to Australia: variation by age at arrival and duration of stay. Am J Epidemiol 1992;135:1103-13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Van Schanke A, van Venrooij G, Jongsma M, Banus HA, Mullenders LHF, van Kranen HJ, et al. Induction of nevi and skin tumors in Ink4a/Arf Xpa knockout mice by neonatal, intermittent, or chronic UVB exposures.Cancer Res 2006;66:2608-15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Harrison SL, MacLennan R, Speare R, Wronski I. Sun exposure and melanocytic naevi in young Australian children Lancet 1994;344:1529-32.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Shuster S. Sun and the skin; a violation of truth. In: Feldman S, Marks V eds. Panic nation. London: John Blake, 2006:259-82.
Armstrong BK, Kricker A. Cutaneous melanoma. Cancer Surveys 1994;19-20:219-40.
MacKie RM, Hole DJ. Incidence and thickness of primary tumours and survival of patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma in relationship to socioeconomic status. BMJ 1996;312:1125-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Shuster S. Diagnoses of melanoma need further investigation. BMJ1996;313:627/b-8.[Free Full Text]
Nissen JB, Avrach WW, Hansen ES, Stengaard-Petersen K, Kragballe K. Increased levels of enkephalin following natural sunlight (combined with salt water bathing at the Dead Sea) and ultraviolet A irradiation. Br J Derm 1998;139:1012-9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Porojnicu A, Robsahm TE, Dahlback A. Seasonal and geographical variations in lung cancer prognosis in Norway. Does vitamin D from the sun play a role? Lung Cancer 2007;55:263-70.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kripke ML. Ultraviolet radiation and immunology: something new under the sun. Cancer Res 1994;54:6102-5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Vitamin D: one of the most potent antioxidants in the world

Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:36:14 GMT

Exposing the Sunlight/Melanoma Fraud: Part 1

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:28:59 GMT

For the purposes of this article, we discuss regular, non-burning exposure to sunlight--the type of sunlight that slowly produces a tan--and the type of sunlight exposure that can save your life. Never, ever burn yourself in the sunlight. See your medical professional before making any changes in your sunlight habits.

Is melanoma caused by regular sunlight exposure, or are we being defrauded?

The Melanoma International Foundation (MIF), is one the Powers of Darkness--organizations that would have us all become vitamin D deficient and ill by avoiding the healing sun.[i] They, like many other sun phobes, believe that sunlight should be shunned as a detriment to human healthand that “90% or more of melanoma is caused by ultraviolet radiation either from the sun or tanning salons."[ii] The MIF states that “Melanoma is epidemic: rising faster than any other cancer and projected to affect one person in 50 by 2010, currently it affects 1 in 75. In 1935, only one in 1,500 was struck by the disease.” In other words, they say there has been a 3,000% increase in melanoma since 1935. If true, then their statement that sunlight is the cause of melanoma flies in the face of reason. Consider the following:

1. If melanoma has indeed increased exponentially since 1935, and that increase is due to sunlight exposure, then sunlight exposure must also have shown a parallel or at least significant increase in that time. To determine whether that has happened, I analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (BLS) to determine if there was an increase or decrease in human sunlight exposure during the years from 1910 to 2,000.[iii] I paid special attention to the changes since 1935, the year the MIF used as a baseline for measuring increases in melanoma incidence. The data showed that indoor occupations grew from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment between 1910 and 2000, and that during the same period, the outdoor occupation of farming declined from 33% to 1.2% of total employment, a 96% reduction. The data also show that approximately 66% of the decline in the occupation of farmers and 50% of the decline in the occupation of farm laborers occurred after 1935.

Further information from the EPA determined that as of 1986, about 5 percent of adult men worked mostly outdoors, and that about 10 percent worked outside part of the time. The proportion of women who worked outside was thought to be lower. [iv]

This material demonstrates a dramatic shift from outdoor, sunlight-exposed activity to indoor, non-sunlight-exposed activity during the 20th Century, including 1935, the MIF-baseline year. According to these facts, if there is a relationship between sunlight exposure and melanoma, the relationship is inverse—the greater the exposure to sunlight, the less is the risk of melanoma.

It has been theorized that the answer to the statement above, is that a decreasing thickness of the ozone layer (allowing more intense sunlight exposure) is responsible for the increasing incidence of melanoma. However, research by Moan and Dahlback in Norway reported that yearly melanoma incidence increased 350% in men and 440% in women between 1957 and 1984—a period when there was absolutely no thinning of the ozone layer.[v]

2. If melanoma is increasing due to increased exposure to sunlight, it is clear that outdoor workers, being exposed to far more sunlight, would also have far more melanoma. Nevertheless, Godar, et al.[vi] present evidence that outdoor workers, while receiving 3-9 times the UVR exposure as indoor workers,[vii] [viii] have had no increase in melanoma since before 1940, whereas melanoma incidence in indoor workers has increased steadily and exponentially. Many other studies corroborate the Godar findings that outdoor workers have fewer melanomas than indoor workers.[ix] [x] [xi] [xii] [xiii] [xiv] [xv] [xvi] [xvii] [xviii] [xix] [xx] [xxi] [xxii] [xxiii] [xxiv]

I repeat: the greater the exposure to sunlight, the less is the risk of melanoma.

3. If sunlight exposure is the reason for the increase in melanoma, we would expect that areas of the body that receive the most exposure would also be the areas of greatest occurrence of the disease. This is not the case. Research by Garland, et al.,[xxv] assessing the incidence of melanoma occurring at various body sites, found higher rates on the trunk (seldom exposed to sunlight) than on the head and arms (commonly exposed to sunlight). Others have shown that melanoma in women occur primarily on the upper legs, and in men more frequently on the back—areas of little sunlight exposure.[xxvi] In African Americans, melanoma is more common on the soles of the feet and on the lower legs, where exposure to sunlight is almost non-existent.[xxvii]

Again: the greater the exposure to sunlight, the less is the risk of melanoma. How, then can sunlight cause melanoma? Keep in mind that sunscreen use has increased dramatically in the last four decades, paralleling the increase in melanoma. Sunscreens are meant to block sunlight, no? This is one more indication that melanoma risk is increased by sunlight deficiency.

4. A question: If melanoma is caused by sunlight exposure, why do melanomas occur on areas that seldom or never receive sunlight exposure—areas such as inside the mouth,[xxviii] on sexual organs[xxix] and armpits?[xxx]

Mull over this information and you will see that the promoting of sunlight as the cause of melanoma is the promoting of a fraud—a fraud that is creating death and destruction due to vitamin D deficiency, which correlates to more than 100 serious diseases and disorders (see my book for documentation). The Powers of Darkness will continue spreading falsehoods about sunlight and melanoma until the truth is brought forth. Join the sunshine movement and help to spread truth and light. And remember: when you enjoy the sunlight, be sure never to burn.

Be sure to look for Part 2 in my next blog. Perhaps the biggest fraud of all is that some dermatologists are diagnosing harmless skin spots as melanoma--a means to defraud insurance companies and increase profits. We will also show that melanoma incidence may not be increasing at all. Stay tuned. The next blog will provide information from enlightened dermatologists who believe that their own profession is misleading the public!

[i] Melanoma International Foundation, 2007 Facts about melanoma.
[ii] Melanoma International Foundation, 2007 Facts about melanoma.
[iii] Ian D. Wyatt and Daniel E. Hecker. Occupational changes in the 20th century. Monthly Labor Review, March 2006 pp 35-57: Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, Bureau of Labor Statistics
[iv] U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Catching Our Breath: Next Steps for Reducing Urban Ozone, OTA-O-412 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1989).
[v] J. Moan and A. Dahlback. The relationship between skin cancers, solar radiation and ozone depletion. Br J Cancer 1992; 65: 916–21
[vi] Godar DE, Landry RJ, Lucas AD. Increased UVA exposures and decreased cutaneous Vitamin D3 levels may be responsible for the increasing incidence of melanoma. Med hypothesis (2009), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.09.056
[vii] Godar D. UV doses worldwide. Photochem Photobiol 2005;81:736–49.
[viii] Thieden E, Philipsen PA, Sandby-Møller J, Wulf HC. UV radiation exposure related to age, sex, occupation, and sun behavior based on time-stamped personal dosimeter readings. Arch Dermatol 2004;140:197–203.
[ix] Lee J. Melanoma and exposure to sunlight. Epidemiol Rev 1982;4:110–36.
[x] Vågero D, Ringbäck G, Kiviranta H. Melanoma and other tumors of the skin among office, other indoor and outdoor workers in Sweden 1961–1979 Brit J Cancer 1986;53:507–12.
[xi] Kennedy C, Bajdik CD, Willemze R, De Gruijl FR, Bouwes Bavinck JN; Leiden Skin Cancer Study. The influence of painful sunburns and lifetime sun exposure on the risk of actinic keratoses, seborrheic warts, melanocytic nevi, atypical nevi, and skin cancer. Invest Dermatol 2003;120:1087–93.
[xii] Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.
[xiii] Kaskel P, Sander S, Kron M, Kind P, Peter RU, Krähn G. Outdoor activities in childhood: a protective factor for cutaneous melanoma? Results of a case-control study in 271 matched pairs. Br J Dermatol 2001;145:602-09.
[xiv] Garsaud P, Boisseau-Garsaud AM, Ossondo M, Azaloux H, Escanmant P, Le Mab G. Epidemiology of cutaneous melanoma in the French West Indies (Martinique). Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:66-8.
[xv] Le Marchand l, Saltzman S, Hankin JH, Wilkens LR, Franke SJM, Kolonel N. Sun exposure, diet and melanoma in Hawaii Caucasians. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:232-45.
[xvi] Armstong K, Kricker A. The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer. J Photochem Biol 2001;63:8-18
[xvii] Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface. Br J Cancer 1981;43:842-9.
[xviii] Crombie IK. Variation of melanoma incidence with latitude in North America and Europe. Br J Cancer 1979;40:774-81.
[xix]Weinstock MA, Colditz,BA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ. Bronstein, BR, Speizer FE. Nonfamilial cutaneous melanoma incidence in women associated with sun exposure before 20 years of age. Pediatrics 1989;84:199-204.
[xx] Tucker MA, Goldstein AM. Melanoma etiology: where are we? Oncogene 20f03;22:3042-52.
[xxi] Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Nat Cancer Inst 2005;97:95-199.
[xxii] Veierød MB, Weiderpass E, Thörn M, Hansson J, Lund E, Armstrong B. A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1530-8.
[xxiii] Oliveria SA, Saraiya M, Geller AC, Heneghan MK, Jorgensen C. Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:131-8.
[xxiv] Elwood JM, Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Pearson JCG. Cutaneous melanoma in relation to intermittent and constant sun exposure—the western Canada melanoma study. Int J Cancer 2006;35:427-33
[xxv] Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.
[xxvi] Rivers, J. Is there more than one road to melanoma? Lancet 2004;363:728-30.
[xxvii] Crombie, I. Racial differences in melanoma incidence. Br J Cancer 1979;40:185-93.
[xxviii] Burgess, A. et al. Parotidectomy: preoperative investigations and outcomes in a single surgeon practice. ANZ J Surg 2008 Sep;78(9):791-3.
[xxix] Ribé, A Melanocytic lesions of the genital area with attention given to atypical genital nevi. J Cutan Pathol. 2008 Nov;35 Suppl 2:24-7.
[xxx] Rhodes, A. Melanoma’s Public Message. Guest editorial, Skin and Allergy News 2003;34

Exposing the Sunlight/Melanoma Fraud: Part 2

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:27:09 GMT

Is the purported increase in melanoma a fraud?

In the last post, I made a case that sunlight does not cause melanoma, and that if Melanoma is increasing, as stated by the Melanoma International Foundation (MIF), it is doing so while sunlight exposure is decreasing. But suppose that the increase in melanoma is not an increase at all? Some believe that there is no proliferation of melanoma, but only a proliferation of dermatologists, and a proliferation of diagnoses of skin spots as being melanoma by some dermatologists in an attempt to make more money. An article by Harmon Leon,[1] writing for the Huffington Post, served as a reminder of the potential for fraud among (unscrupulous) dermatologists. I strongly suggest you read that article. I am indebted to Mr. Leon for a few of the points made in this post.

I do not mean to suggest that all dermatologists are dishonest. Many of the facts that I gather are derived from research performed by dermatologists who are trying to awaken the public to the fraudulent actions of some members of their profession.

Those who profit from scare tactics regarding melanoma I call The Powers of Darkness. They have frightened us away from the sunlight, or as Dr. Michael Holick (an honest dermatologist) says, “scared the daylights out of us to scare us out of the daylight.” The consequence is widespread vitamin D deficiency that has led to millions of cases of death and disability.
Dr. Arthur Rhodes, a dermatologist, wrote in a 2003 editorial for an independent dermatology newspaper[2] that melanoma’s public message—that sunlight was the sole cause of melanoma—was causing death among patients and medical professionals alike. In it he suggested that many people were not taking care of melanomas that occurred in areas of little or no sunlight exposure; this was because they assumed that only sunlight could cause melanoma. The following are some of the examples that he gathered from his experience with this most deadly of skin cancers:

1. A dermatology trainee died of melanoma at age 28. He watched a mole change in his armpit for years, but because that area never received UV light, he assumed it was not melanoma and delayed seeking help.
2. A 40-year-old woman had a sore on the bottom of her heel and believing only sunlight caused melanoma, she had no idea that it was melanoma. She died three years later.
3. A Harvard-trained lung specialist ignored a sore on his upper back. He and his fiancée, a Harvard-trained pediatric resident, observed the change for several years without having it examined. They didn’t know that melanoma could occur in an area that never received sunlight. He died six months after diagnosis at age 29.

Here is a quote from this enlightened dermatologist:
“If a medical resident can misinterpret public health messages about sun exposure and melanoma, and two Harvard-trained physicians were ignorant about the most important risk factors for developing melanoma, then the general public will tend to make the same potentially fatal mistakes. Those mistakes lead to delayed diagnosis of this potentially lethal cancer—particularly when we pound out the message that the culprit in melanoma is sun, sun, sun, and we are not sufficiently emphasizing the most important risk factors for developing melanoma.”

Dr. Rhodes states that “melanoma is a heterogeneous disease with multiple causes, arising from potential precursor moles that have little or nothing to do with sun exposure [emphasis mine], including dysplastic nevi, congenital nevi, and abnormal moles on acral surfaces and mucous membranes.”

Another celebrated dermatologist, Dr. Bernard Ackerman, wrote a meticulously documented 440 page monograph called The Sun and the “Epidemic” of Melanoma: Myth on Myth.[3] In it he presents nearly every piece of research regarding sunlight and melanoma up until 2008, and concludes that the purported "epidemic" of sunlight-caused melanoma is a myth.

I agree with these dermatologists. The “epidemic” of melanoma is a myth, and dermatologists themselves are paying a price. Their own sunlight avoidance is causing widespread vitamin D deficiency among members of their profession. Australian dermatologists, while living in one of the sunniest areas of the world, have an average blood-vitamin D level of only 13 ng/ml—a level considered to be severely deficient.[4] At least this group is following their own advice to avoid the sun. As you will see, not all dermatologists are following their own advice—especially those in the USA.

There are still other dermatologists who refuse to sing in the official choir of the Powers of Darkness. Writing in the British Medical Journal in 2008, Dr. Sam Shuster argued that the purported increase in melanoma is not really an increase at all, but an artifact due to non-melanoma lesions being diagnosed as melanoma.[5] In 2009, another study by dermatologists— Dr. Nick Levell and his colleagues, including Shuster—this time published by the British Journal of Dermatology, came to a similar conclusion and called the “increase” in melanoma a “midsummer night’s dream.”[6] They concluded, after tracking the reported increase in Melanoma in the Eastern region of the UK between 1991 and 2004, that benign lesions were being classified in increasing numbers as stage-one melanoma. No other stages of the disease increased, and the increase in mortality due to melanoma was either miniscule or non-existent. This was true even though all grades of tumors were diagnosed at first presentation. They also noted that “the distribution of the lesions reported did not correspond to the sites of lesions caused by solar exposure,”—in other words, the “cancers” were occurring on areas of the body seldom exposed to sunlight. Levell and his group also say that “the large increase in reported incidence is likely to be due to diagnostic drift which classifies benign lesions as stage 1 melanoma.”

They further stated that “These findings inevitably challenge the validity of epidemiology studies linking increasing melanoma incidence with UV radiation, and suggest the need for a search for other ways in which the disease may be caused.”

Dr. Ackerman agreed. In his meticulously documented monograph, he notes that “researchers have created an epidemic of melanoma when, in fact, the only change has been an “epidemic” in diagnoses of melanoma.”

Notwithstanding the research presented by these dermatologists, the American Academy of Dermatology (AADA) and other melanoma organizations continue to spread misinformation regarding the disease. Dr. William James, president of the AAD has said that melanoma has become the most common form of cancer for young adults 25-29 years old, testifying to that statement before the FDA.[7] Yet, he did not mention data from the National Cancer Institute indicating that death due to melanoma has decreased by 50% among women of ages 20-49 since 1975.[8] That means young women have less than one chance in 100,000 of dying from melanoma, which does not even place it in the top 15 causes of cancer death.[9] And, the American Cancer Society states that “since 2000 melanoma has been decreasing rapidly in whites younger than 50, by 3% per year in men since 1991 and by 2.3% per year since 1995 in women.” We might ask why these figures are not included in the statements by dermatologists regarding the “epidemic” of melanoma. Could it be because of a cozy financial relationship with pharmaceutical companies that produce sunscreen?[10]

Harmon Leon gave another reason to question the “epidemic” of melanoma: The USA has 4.5% of the world’s population, yet has 52% of the world’s melanoma. The American Cancer Society estimates 68,720 new melanomas in the US during 2009,[11] whereas the World Health Organization estimates 132,000 new cases yearly worldwide.[12] Something is very strange here. It certainly seems that the exceptionally high melanoma figures in the USA might be doctored to produce sunscreen sales, dermatology visits and the removal of benign leisions. If you want to read about how this is done, click on this link. http://www.cnbc.com/id/27087326
In addition, Dr. Ackerman points out the following in his monograph:

1. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the Skin Cancer Foundation and the American Cancer Society sold their seals of recognition to manufacturers of sunscreens, based on research conducted solely by the sunscreen industry. The price, he says, was “substantial in terms of dollars but incalculable in terms of honor.” For instance, for an application of $10,000 and an annual fee of 5,000, sunscreen manufacturers may boast approval of their products in the form of the “Seal of Recognition” of the American Academy of Dermatology. They then display this seal on the front of their tubes. The American Cancer Society allows its logo to be placed on tubes of Neutrogena sunscreens in exchange for $300,000 annually.
2. In 2007, the year in which the Seal of Recognition program for the AAD was implemented, the past president of the board, who chaired the Seal program, and half the members of the board had financial ties to companies that manufacture sunscreen. And in 2008, all four new members of the board had those ties.
3. Darrell Rigel, a former president of the AAD, affirmed how important it was to avoid the sun while he, himself, was on vacation in Hawaii.
4. The AAD ran announcements for and updates on their scientific meetings, stating that they took place in “Sunny San Diego” and “Sunny San Antonio.” [Aren’t they supposed to avoid the sunlight?]

We now have two possibilities (see parts 1 and 2 of this post). (1.) Either melanoma has increased exponentially while sunlight exposure dramatically decreased or (2.) There has been no increase in melanoma; the purported increase is nothing more than an increase in the number of harmless skin spots that are being diagnosed as melanoma by an increasing number of dermatologists. In either case, the idea that regular, non-burning sunlight exposure is the cause of melanoma is a fraud—an idea promulgated by dermatological academies, sunscreen manufacturers and melanoma foundations driven by the desire for profit.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harmon-leon/is-profit-behind-dermatol_b_640929.html
[2] Rhodes, A. Melanoma’s Public Message. Skin & Allergy News 2003;34 (4):1-4
[3] Ackerman, B. The Sun and the “Epidemic” of Melanoma: Myth on Myth. Ardor Scribendi, New York 2008.
[4] D. Czarnecki, C. J. Meehan and F. Bruce. The vitamin D status of Australian dermatologists. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology 2009;34, 624–25.
[5] Shuster, S. Is sun exposure a major cause of melanoma? No. BMJ 2008;337:a764
[6] N.J. Levell, C.C. Beattie, S. Shuster and D.C. Greenberg. Melanoma epidemic: a midsummer night’s dream? British J Dermatol 2009;161:630–34
[7] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-academy-of-dermatology-association-testifies-at-fda-hearing-on-indoor-tanning-devices-89119047.html
[8] Age-adjusted mortality rates by Cancer site, Ages 20-49, White, Female 1975-2007. National Center for Health Statistics, Center for Disease Control, April 10, 2010. National Cancer institute.
[9] http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/59/4/225/TBL6
[10] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4393/is_3_39/ai_n29418761/
[11] American Cancer Society Cancer reference Information 2009. http://nccu.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_melanoma_50.asp?sitearea=
[12] http://www.who.int/uv/faq/skincancer/en/index1.html

Biochemist proposes worldwide policy change to step up daily vitamin D intake

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:22:20 GMT

Vitamin D is effective in reducing frequency of many diseases and cost of medical care, stresses UC Riverside's Anthony Norman



		IMAGE: Anthony Norman, a distinguished professor emeritus of biochemistry and biomedical sciences at UC Riverside, has a car with a vanity license plate that reads "VITAMN D. " Click here for more information.

RIVERSIDE, Calif. – Anthony Norman, a leading international expert in vitamin D, proposes worldwide policy changes regarding people's vitamin D daily intake amount in order to maximize the vitamin's contribution to reducing the frequency of many diseases, including childhood rickets, adult osteomalacia, cancer, autoimmune type-1 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity and muscle weakness.

"A reduction in the frequency of these diseases would increase the quality and longevity of life and significantly reduce the cost of medical care worldwide," said Norman, a distinguished professor emeritus of biochemistry and biomedical sciences at the University of California, Riverside. "It is high time that worldwide vitamin D nutritional policy, now at a crossroads, reflects current scientific knowledge about the vitamin's many benefits and develops a sound vision for the future."

Currently, the recommended daily intake of vitamin D in the United States is 200 international units (IU) for people up to 50 years old; 400 IU for people 51 to 70 years old; and 600 IU for people over 70 years old. Today there is a wide consensus among scientists that the relative daily intake of vitamin D should be increased to 2,000 to 4,000 IU for most adults.

"Worldwide public health is best served by a recommendation of higher daily intakes of vitamin D," Norman said. "Currently, more than half the world's population gets insufficient amounts of this vitamin. At present about half of elderly North Americans and Western Europeans and probably also of the rest of the world are not receiving enough vitamin D to maintain healthy bone."

Reporting in a review paper in the July 28, 2010, issue of Experimental Biology and Medicine, Norman and Roger Bouillon of the Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and Endocrinology at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, warn that if the current nutritional guidelines for vitamin D remain unchanged, rickets and osteomalacia, which could be easily prevented, will continue to occur.

They add that if the present guidelines for vitamin D intake are strictly implemented and applied worldwide to pregnant or lactating women, newborns and children, the occurrence of rickets in infants could be effectively eradicated.

Norman, the first author of the review paper, and Bouillon note that if the daily dietary intake of vitamin D is increased by 600-1000 IU in all adults above their present supply, it would bring beneficial effects on bone health in the elderly and on all major human diseases (e.g., cancer, cardiovascular, metabolic and immune diseases).

The researchers add, however, that if the vitamin D dietary intake were increased to 2000 IU per day and even more for subgroups of the world population with the poorest vitamin D status, it could favorably impact multiple sclerosis, type-1 diabetes, tuberculosis, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk factors and most cancers.

About vitamin D:

Also known as the "sunshine vitamin," vitamin D was discovered 90 years ago as a dietary agent that prevented the bone disease rickets.

Exposure to the sun is the body's natural way of producing the vitamin. Skin exposed to solar UVB radiation can produce significant quantities of vitamin D. But this vitamin D synthesis is reliably available year-round only at latitudes between 40 degrees north and 40 degrees south. A combination of sunshine, food, supplements, and possibly even limited tanning exposure can raise the daily intake of the vitamin to 2000 IU.

Vitamin D is itself biologically inert. Its biological effects result only after it is metabolized first in the liver and then in the kidney – a process that converts the vitamin into a steroid hormone.

The best sources of unfortified foods naturally containing vitamin D are animal products and fatty fish and liver extracts like salmon or sardines and cod liver oil. Vitamin D-fortified food sources in the United States (the fortification levels aim at about 400 IU per day) include milk and milk products, orange juice, breakfast cereals and bars, grain products, pastas, infant formulas and margarines.

Vitamin D excess can cause health problems such as hypercalcemia, vomiting, thirst and tissue damage. The precise upper limit for daily vitamin D intake is not well defined.

The melanoma epidemic? Don't panic... it's all a terrible mistake

Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:00:42 GMT

Summer is a marvellous time. It's when we can all enjoy light and warmth, eat gorgeous seasonal foods and get the chance to wear those colourful clothes we've collected during the rest of the year.

And, of course, it's also holiday time. All because of the sun, the glorious sun. No wonder the ancients worshiped sun-gods!

But in recent years our delight in the sun has been clouded by bullying health warnings. Repeatedly, we are told by the health czars to avoid the sun and never get a tan.

Don't cover up all summer: Some exposure to the sun is good for you

Health organisations that should know better, but rarely do, would have us shun the all-too-short glory of our summer days. Instead, we must cover our arms, wear hats and hide ourselves under a chemical burka of sun-cream.

Next, they'll even be ordering us to shut our curtains during the hours of daylight! All this is because of fear of the dreaded big C: cancer.

As a result, the killjoys spread their terrifying message, and parents are made to feel unreasonably guilty if they as much as let their children out in the sun unprotected for a minute or two.

But if all this miserable propaganda has got you scared and worried, you shouldn't be.

Because the evidence is that the message promoted by the anti-sun brigade isn't true.

Indeed, the great sun scare that would drive us to live our summers in darkness is just a myth that's grown from a bad piece of medical science. So it's time to lay out the facts.

There's no doubt that years of exposure to strong sun wrinkles the skin (as smoking did for the late novelist Beryl Bainbridge), because it loses its elasticity as fibres of collagen - the protein that supports the skin - link together.

But the ultra-violet rays from the sun do not speed up true ageing, which is a completely different process caused by the loss of collagen over the years, which makes skin thinner and saggy.

This ageing loss occurs at the same rate of one per cent a year whether your skin is exposed to the sun or whether it isn't. And it happens at the same rate for both men and women.

The problem is that nature isn't politically correct, and unfairly provides women with 15 per cent less skin collagen than men - the equivalent of 15 years worth of ageing! - so the effects are far more noticeable.

Of course we can live with wrinkles, but what about cancer? Fortunatately, the facts are absolutely clear - and they aren't the ones used by doctors who create panic with the figure of 84,000 new cases of skin cancers a year in the UK.

What they don't explain is that almost all of these so-called skin 'cancers' don't spread or kill; in fact, they are not really cancers at all. Instead, these mild forms of skin cancer - what doctors call basal cell and squamous carcinomas - are benign tumours, something quite different.

Calling them 'cancer' was a wretched historical error and this incorrect name should be abandoned before more people are hurt by it. Not so fast, says the anti-sun brigade. There is another kind of cancer, malignant melanoma. And, true enough, that can be vicious: the smallest of black spots can spread and kill.

But don't panic, that outcome is rare, and the melanoma scare is just as phony as the other sun-scare stories. According to the scaremongers, there has been a great increase in these 'melanomas' in recent years, supposedly caused by the sun.

The puzzle has been why this has not been accompanied by the expected increase in deaths from them. We now know the reason is that they aren't really melanomas at all: it's all a horrible mistake.

'The idea that sun exposure causes melanoma went public before it was proved. (In fact, we don't know what causes melanoma)'

The mistake happened because sunlight makes moles grow, and in pale-skinned people this often gets mistaken for true melanoma. This kind of misdiagnosis, which began in sunny Australia, soon spread to feed the phony melanoma epidemic elsewhere.

And it continued because of fear of litigation if the real thing was missed in the doctor's surgery, and because screening programmes artificially increase false-positive diagnoses.

The big mistake was that the idea that sun exposure causes melanoma went public before it was proved. (In fact, we don't know what causes melanoma.) This erroneous idea was then supported by nonsense 'research' of the sort we read about daily: first we're told standing on the left leg can lead to cancer of the right testicle, then it's the right leg and left testicle; finally new studies show that it's your partner's leg, not yours.

And that story lasts for a few days when it is replaced by yet another study of whether red wine is good or bad for you. Such daily absurdities are typical products of 'descriptive epidemiology' - this is a bastard discipline that counts disease numbers, instead of studying the disease itself. (The problem is if you don't understand that most of the tumours reported as 'melanomas' are not actually melanomas, then your numbers are deeply flawed.)

This type of numerical manipulation has single-handedly destroyed clinical science. It has made such a shambles of melanoma that every single one of its claims is suspect: it has not been shown that UV or sunburn is the cause, that children are more susceptible, or that sun beds are dangerous and sun-screens preventative.

But health advice often bears little relation to the truth, so off went the thoughtless warnings about sun avoidance, and watching for black spots that enlarge, darken, bleed or itch - a crazy idea because we all have spots that do just that without them being cancerous at all.

Anyway, as there's no epidemic of deaths from skin cancer, the risk of spoiling your life by constant worry is far greater than the small chance of finding something that needs treatment. There are very good reasons to ignore these warnings.

Suntan is an evolutionary device: it protects against burning. The anti-solar brigade's claim that it indicates skin damage is a measure of their biological naivety. A suntatan is just a sign of increased pigment - melanin - in the skin and is a natural biological response to the sun, not a sign of skin damage.

So don't keep yourself and your children out of the sun; far better to develop a healthy tan without burning. Sunshine is the dynamo for vitamin D production. Without it your bones will crack, as those practising sun avoidance have found.

Although the profound effect of sun on the immune system is a mystery, it is powerful enough to control many skin diseases. And there's a new chapter in the cancer story, now that epidemiologists have done a UV–turn and claim that sun exposure actually protects against many cancers, including melanoma - a benefit they now say far outweighs the risks that they'd previously claimed!

Finally, there's the happy effect of sun exposure on well-being; it makes you look good and feel good, an effect similar to anti-depressive treatment. What more can you want?

Having fun in the sun has been badly clouded by the pretence that sun exposure is a dangerous habit. It isn't; solar cancer has been massively exaggerated and sun avoidance will break more bones than bad habits. So forget the dark stories and go out and enjoy the sun while it lasts - just don't get burnt!

The Truth About Sunlight, Cancer and Vitamin D

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:36:59 GMT

Is Profit Behind Dermatology's 'Sun Scare' Message?

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:30:54 GMT

There's a strange health tug-of-war going on. Doctors are now telling us to get back into the sun for better health since a large majority of Americans are being deprived of natural vitamin D and other benefits associated with sunshine. Meanwhile, the cosmetic dermatology industry seems to be turning up the heat on their "stay out of the sun, wear sunscreen 24/7" message.

Who's a person to believe?

With balance and common sense seeming pretty obvious, it calls the question: What's really behind the 'sunshine is killing us' message that's pouring out of dermatologists' mouths, via the media, these days?

With the summer months upon us I wanted to find out firsthand what exactly the mantra is that dermatologists are telling patients. So I went undercover to several San Francisco dermatologists in order to see if there is legitimate concern about the sun-scare media hype. Are these doctors being sensible or going overboard when it comes to advice on sunscreen use and skin cancer prevention? Is the sky falling with dangerous UV rays or are we being induced into a media panic?

Let's journey on into the heart of mole darkness and find out.

Dermatologist Appointment #1: Marina District

My first dermatology stop is in the posh San Francisco neighborhood near Union Street. With nothing to read but Botox literature, I'm made to wait in the pristine reception area for a good hour. This place feels more like a cosmetic spa than a doctor's office. With all these pamphlets on wrinkle elimination, the dermatologists' message seems to be centered on beauty rather than health issues. My excuse for wanting an appointment is to get my moles checked out. The message dermatologists constantly trumpet is that moles should be frequently checked for malignant melanoma. Except these are ordinary moles I've had my entire life.

Finally my name is called.

I'm then made to wait another 20 minutes in the examination room. The dermatologist finally comes in. I take off my shirt and point to my moles. She immediately determines that they don't look cancerous. I press her by saying the mole under my arm is of concern because it rubs against my clothes. She takes a closer look:

(Listen to the appointment here.)

DERM: Now as far as this mole right here.

ME: Yeah, how about getting that chopped off?

(The dermatologist then explains the protocol.)

DERM: Because of the insurance we need to get approval. Because, we don't want you to get a bill we want your insurance to pay for what they need to pay for. So that's why we have to ask their permission. It usually takes a week to get their permission. Then we'll ask you to come back here.

(She looks harder at my moles and concocts a plan.)

DERM: This one, I'll remove for you because you said it's become irritated. If you want to get things removed for cosmetic reasons I don't know if your insurance will balk at that. I think if we remove a couple of other spots because it's irritated, you're maybe worried about it, and I want to make sure its not skin cancer, they will pay for that. But I've had patients come in and remove seven moles at once, and they were all for cosmetic reasons, and the insurance said we're not paying for any of that and she got a huge bill.

DERM: I think if we took off a couple of moles they wont say anything like that.

ME: So just a couple of moles?

DERM: Yeah. I think if we do a couple of moles I don't think they'll balk at that. So which moles do you want done? (She looks again at my non-skin-cancerous moles.)

The one here I'm going to say gets irritated sometimes on clothes. And when it gets irritated does it get itchy? You just kind of recognize that its there. I'll just say it's more sensitive. How about that?"

ME: If you can get my insurance to cover it that would be great.

DERM: So right here I'll say that's an irritated mole--the one on the front.

ME: I guess that's irritating too.

DERM: I'll say: rubs on backpack. So sensitive or itchy?"

ME: Let's just go with itchy.

DERM: If it's an irritant mole they will cover it.

Bingo! We go with irritant. Besides being advised that I should never go into the sun without wearing a visor, sunglasses, long sleeves and sunscreen (which needs to be reapplied obsessively every few hours), I can get my non-cancerous moles removed because they are an irritant. (A week later I find out that my insurance approved the removal of these two non-cancerous moles--I'm added to the reported melanoma statistics.)

It happens more often than you might think. A quick Google search shows that in the past years several dermatologists have been sent to prison for flat-out lying about skin cancer to their patients; slicing up healthy skin for insurance dollars. Do these cases show there's money to be made in cutting off skin lesions and calling them cancer? Is this a factor why skin cancer numbers might seem overinflated? Do the numbers add up when you start digging?

A May 2010 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute listed melanoma as one of five cancers over-diagnosed by doctors. Though doctors are removing more and more skin lesions, researchers pointed out that melanoma mortality rates haven't increased since 1975--with insurance companies paying for the procedures.

A 2009 British Journal of Dermatology report also concluded: that melanoma isn't increasing in actual incidence, but merely in reported incidence. What the report found was doctors were simply reporting and removing more lesions that may not actually be cancerous.

Would this explain why the United States has just 4.5 percent of the world's population but has 52 percent of the world's melanomas when you compare the American Cancer Society's numbers (68,720) with those from the World Health Organization (132,000 worldwide)? In contrast, both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer have been declining in Canada. A University of Alberta study this year showed that non-melanoma skin cancer incidence in Canada has been declining for a generation. Riddle me this: how is it possible the U.S. estimates more-than-triple while Canada's real numbers are actually declining? Has the U.S. dermatology-induced media scare propagated more dermatologist visits in our for-profit health care system or are a larger number of Canadians simply staying inside to watch their beloved championship curling teams?

Regardless, by having just a few cosmetic moles chopped off, my dermatologist was able to fix it so my insurance company would foot the bill.

Dermatologist Appointment #2: Fillmore District

More literature on Botox. More pamphlets on wrinkle elimination. More tips on how to look young and pretty. But, unlike the previous dermatology office, after I quickly fill out my paperwork I'm immediately whisked into an examination room. When I tell the dermatologist I'm concerned about moles, she asks me if anyone in my family has ever had skin cancer. I tell her they have. She then asks whether it was melanoma or not.

(Listen to audio here.)

ME: I'm not entirely sure.

DERM: People die from melanoma.

ME: They die from it!? What's the percentage?

DERM: It depends on the stage when diagnosed. It's the fourth-leading cause of death due to cancer. On the list of cancers it's number four.

ME: I always thought it was just mild.

DERM: No, it's not mild. Basal cell cancer, that's mild.

That sounds pretty severe--I mean death is as extreme as it gets. But according to the National Cancer Institute, melanoma only contributes just 0.1 percent of all cancer deaths--it isn't even in the top 15 when it comes to cancer.

This past spring the Association of Health Care Journalists called into question dermatology's math about melanoma. AHCJ reported a person's risk of melanoma is identified at roughly two-to-three per thousand. (Whether they catch sun outdoors or in a tanning bed.) Melanoma is quite rare and it's actually declining in most of the population, except for older men, who get it most often. Oddly, the media marketing campaign for skin cancer prevention is aimed almost entirely at young women, who have less than a one in 100,000 chance of succumbing to melanoma. According to the National Cancer Institute's data, that number has actually gone down more than 50 percent in women 20 to 49 since 1975.

And yet, dermatology leaders regularly state that melanoma is the fastest growing cancer in women between the ages of 25 to 29 -- ignoring men, the group most at risk, altogether. Is there a correlation between young women being the largest consumers of skin care products as well as being the largest demographic group scared into dermatologists' offices to have moles removed? (And Botox injections--the fastest-growing procedure in dermatology today.) Is there a connection between dermatologists getting more press over skin cancer than heart disease or other top cancer killers that have no connection to the multibillion-dollar cosmetics industry?

Back to my appointment: The dermatologist continues to examine my non-cancerous moles. Unlike my previous appointment, she tells me that if I want the moles removed it would be a purely cosmetic procedure and my insurance won't cover it. I press the irritated issue. Candidly, I ask her if she could simply write it up as being cancerous so my insurance will cover it. The dermatologist says she won't but admits a big flaw in the system.

DERM: I'm sorry they don't cover it. You could go to some dermatology offices that would lie and say that it's irritated. I can't do that. It's something I don't want to do--start lying on charts. They might do that for you. But I just like to do things how they are done.

I then ask what measures I should take to prevent skin cancer. I'm told to apply sunscreen 24/7, wear a hat and sunglasses, as well as avoid the sun as much as possible. (The only thing she doesn't mention is to live underground with the mole people.)

(Listen here.)

ME: Do you wear sunblock?

DERM: Everyday. SPF 30 and higher.

ME: Is 100 good?

DERM: 100 is good. Just remember to reapply it. Don't be fooled that it's 100 SPF.

ME: I was reading that some sunblocks are bad for you. Like the toxins.

DERM: We don't believe that. The sun is more harmful to you.

Human beings and our predecessors have been living and working under the sun for millennia. This advice seems like de-evolution. Are we experiencing Darwinism in reverse? Now we're being told to use chemical sunscreen products on a daily basis--even when a sunburn isn't possible.

Some sources suggest that the rise in skin cancer cases is due to the excessive use of sunscreens due to the toxic ingredients that we've recently learned seep into our bodies, rather than the increased exposure to ultraviolet light. Nearly half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivative. According to researchers at Environmental Working Group, their annual report cites problems with bogus sun protection factor (SPF) numbers, the use of the hormone-disrupting chemical oxybenzone (which penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream), overstated claims about performance, and the lack of needed regulations and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration. If their claims are correct, then even though the white sunscreen goop might prevent sunburn don't count on it to prevent skin cancer from forming.

More goop for thought: sunscreen companies can't actually advertise that their product prevents skin cancer because research doesn't support that claim. So companies fork over millions of dollars in "pay for play" endorsements to groups like The American Academy of Dermatology and The Skin Cancer Foundation to make that claim for them. Indeed, most people are surprised to learn that the Skin Cancer Foundation is mainly funded by the very pharmaceutical companies who profit from its anti-sun message.

Could this multimillion-dollar business from cosmetics companies be affecting the objectivity of dermatology lobbying groups and the derms in our communities?

Dermatologist Appointment #3: Large Medical Building In Pacific Heights

These dermatology offices all seem to subscribe to the exact same Botox pamphlets and literature. Sure the sun gets a bad rap from dermatologists, but that's nothing compared to their take on indoor tanning booths. Dermatologists, along with the media, have launched a full out blitzkrieg on the tanning industry. A recent 20/20 report made it seem like indoor tanning was as dangerous as putting the bronze barrel of a gun in your mouth. If I were to believe their reports, an indoor tanning session is as deadly as arsenic and as addictive as heroin.

Meanwhile, dermatologists sell indoor tanning sessions in their own offices for up to $100 a visit to treat cosmetic skin conditions. Could some of their angst at indoor tanning be about profit? A January 2009 New York Times article states that some psoriasis patients have benefited from commercial-grade tanning beds that use UVB radiation; many of which are actively in use in dermatologists office across America. The indoor tanning industry reports that 1 million clients are actually referred to them annually by dermatologists to treat psoriasis, eczema and other cosmetic skin conditions. But stepping into a tanning booth, according to dermatology lobbying groups, is about as dangerous as jumping in front of a speeding truck. UV light, in the form of sun or indoor tanning, produces vitamin D. (Affectionately known as the "sunshine vitamin.") Surely dermatologists must see some benefit in moderate UV light? What suddenly set off their dragon-fire?

(Listen here.)

ME: I was doing some phototherapy for psoriasis. Do you recommend phototherapy?

DERM: Yeah, phototherapy is great.

ME: Do you get the same thing if you go to a tanning booth?

DERM: I wouldn't do a tanning booth because it's not localized to one area and they control the beams that actually go on you.

ME: Are they dangerous?

DERM: Yeah, tanning booths are very dangerous. You can get burnt.

ME: How does the equipment compare?

DERM: The doctor office that has the phototherapy they can control amount of rays that go on and how long you're in there. In the tanning bed it's all over so it's not targeted and you are exposing yourself to all these UVA and UVB rays.

ME: Is it covered by my insurance?

DERM: It should be. Not the tanning beds but going to the phototherapy.

If you refer to the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, back in the early 90s dermatologists used to annually deliver roughly 873,000 phototherapy sessions. By 1998 that number had gone down 94 percent to 53,000 for a procedure they still consider safe and viable. Maybe that's why the dermatologist sternly warned that I should never go into a tanning booth--under any circumstance--even though in often cases the indoor tanning equipment is exactly the same. They're trying to drum up more business.

Dermatologist Appointment #4: Financial District

At my final appointment, the dermatology assistant informs, once again, how I should engage in obsessive daily sunscreen use. She neglects to mention that constant use of sunscreen is suspected to be a factor in vitamin D deficiency--a condition that affects three-quarters of U.S. teens and adults. According to findings in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the deficits are increasingly blamed for everything from cancer and heart disease to diabetes.

Yet the advice--slather it on daily, even in the winter--still flows from the mouths of most dermatologists with little regard to these reports.

(Listen here.)

DERM ASSIST: Do you use any sunblock?

ME: Now and then.

DERM ASSIST: What SPF do you use?

ME: Around 15. What do you recommend?

DERM ASSIST: We do recommend 30 and higher and especially on your face if its in the sun and we recommend you put it on the morning, when you are in sun and reapply it every two to four hours.

ME: Every day? Isn't it bad, everyday? Because doesn't sunblock have toxins in it?

DERM ASSIST: Not if it's only the oxidized zinc. A lot of the ones over the counter have chemicals in there. So you want to pick ones that have those raw materials in there.

DERM ASSIST: So a couple of times a day put on sunblock ... It's recommended.

I ask if sunblock prevents cancer. I'm told it prevents skin damage, which can cause cancer. Linking these two elements together makes it imply that sunscreen is the antidote for skin cancer, rather than a preventative against skin damage. When the dermatologist finally comes in to examine my moles ("These moles are totally normal. Totally normal. Everybody has got moles"), she sings a completely different tune.

(Listen here.)

ME: Do I need to use sunblock everyday?

DERM: Just be responsible. We do need sun to produce vitamin D. Be responsible. If you know you're going to go to the beach for two hours then use sunblock. If you're working in the office all day long there's no reason to use sunblock--just be reasonable.

Amazing. Finally a dermatologist who actually gives sound, sane advice about the use sunscreen, rather than sounding like she's part of some strange sunscreen cult. Does she have similar moderation counseling on phototherapy and tanning booths?

(Listen here.)

ME: I was doing some phototherapy for psoriasis. Could I do that at a tanning booth with ultraviolet rays?

DERM: Yes, it is the same thing.

ME: It's the same thing!?

DERM: They use UVB. Sun or tanning booth or psoriasis treatment box--they all use UVB light.

ME: So, I would get the exact same treatment if I go to a tanning booth as I get with phototherapy?"

DERM: Yes, you could go to a tanning booth and choose UVB not UVA, and it's the same thing mostly.

ME: So it's the exact same equipment and everything like that.

DERM: Yes!

ME: So you would recommend that?"

DERM: Yes!

It only took four separate appointments (six if you count the two appointments where my digital recorder didn't work) to finally find a dermatologist who wasn't spouting the exact same overblown anti-sun mantra as all the rest of the industry. The sun scare message, fueled by dermatologists, has helped sunscreen companies turn a multimillion-dollar industry into a six billion dollar cosmetic juggernaut that uses dermatology endorsements to drive overuse of their product, which in some cases has been implicated in containing undisclosed toxins.

Because of it, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer has called for a full investigation into sunscreen safety. In this nation of panic, cosmetic dermatology is benefiting by driving a fear-based pipeline of customers directly into their offices. But as a whole, the dermatology industry is retreating to their corner of the sandbox, refusing to accept the scientific reality of a balanced message about sun protection in light of research clearly showing the need for regular sun exposure.

Do you feel bombarded by the sun scare messages? Are your fears justified or do you think there a profit motivation behind the dermatology messaging? Let us know what you think.

Follow Harmon Leon on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/harmonleon

Vitamin D-Parkinson's link

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:47:51 GMT

WASHINGTON - GREATER levels of vitamin D have been linked to a lower risk of Parkinson's disease in a study in Finland where low sunlight leads to a chronic lack of the nutrient, researchers said on Monday.

Scientists from the National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland, first hypothesised that Parkinson's 'may be caused by a continuously inadequate vitamin D status leading to a chronic loss of dopaminergic neurons in the brain'.

Vitamin D, supplied chiefly by the sun's ultraviolet rays and a small range of foods, is known to play a role in bone health and may also be linked to cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, the researchers said. The Finnish study, published in the July issue of Archives of Neurology, followed 3,173 Parkinson's-free Finnish men and women aged 50-79 over a 29-year period from 1978-2007.

At the end of the study 50 participants had developed the disease. After adjusting for potentially related factors, including physical activity and body mass index, those with the highest levels of vitamin D (top 25 per cent of the group) were found to have a 67 per cent lower risk of developing Parkinson's disease than those with the lowest level of the vitamin (bottom 25 per cent), the study said.

The researchers could not explain how vitamin D levels may affect Parkinson's risk, but said the nutrient 'has been shown to exert a protective effect on the brain through antioxidant activities, regulation of calcium levels, detoxification, modulation of the immune system and enhanced conduction of electricity through neurons.' 'In intervention trials focusing on effects of vitamin D supplements, the incidence of Parkinson disease merits follow up,' they added.

'This study was carried out in Finland, an area with restricted sunlight exposure, and is thus based on a population with a continuously low vitamin D status,' about half of the suggested optimal level, researchers said. -- AFP

Reap the Sun's Vitamin D Benefits Without Getting Burned

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:59:58 GMT

As we reach the peak season of the summer sun, wisdom suggests that we pay greater attention to protecting our skin. Yet, there are questions about the best way to do this. Should we avoid the sun? Is all sun exposure bad for us? Are all sunscreens created equal? Does clothing afford any protection?

On one hand, we've all been warned of the dangers that lurk behind those healthy-looking tans; most notably, an increased risk of skin cancer and premature wrinkles. On the other hand, there is also reasonable evidence that sun exposure does not induce melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. In fact, there are several studies that demonstrate sun exposure can actually protect us from cancer! To be specific, the exposure to UVB sun radiation has been shown to reduce the risk of 19 major types of cancerthrough the production of vitamin D!

So what's a bikini to do?!

I think it's important we all try to get 20 minutes of unprotected sun-to-skin exposure every day. This is essential for meeting our most basic needs for Vitamin D. Once this is taken care of, I recommend both physical protection; i.e., hats, clothing and umbrellas, as well as chemical protection, sunscreens. However, it must be mentioned that many sunscreens on the market today have come under fire not only due to inaccurate labeling -- a product states it has an SPF (Sun Protection Factor) of 50 and it's actually a 4 -- but many have been found to contain a host of controversial chemicals that include potential carcinogens, cancer promoters, free radical generators, and hormone disruptors. In addition, the use of sunscreen is known to reduce the production of Vitamin D in the body.

Tip: Try and get 20 minutes of unprotected sun exposure daily.

Recently, The Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org/), a non-profit organization with the mission of using the power of public information to protect public health and the environment, came out with a fairly disconcerting report about sunscreens. EWG researchers recommended only 39 of 500 (that's only 8 percent!) beach and sport sunscreens for this season. The reason? As the word got out that the higher the SPF the better, there was a surge among manufacturers misrepresenting that their products contained an SPF over 50. Additionally, there have been new disclosures addressing potentially hazardous ingredients. In particular, recent government data has linked the common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A to accelerated development of skin tumors and lesions.

According to EWG, the best sunscreen is a hat and a shirt. No worries about chemicals that will be absorbed through the skin, and no question about their effectiveness. But if you choose to wear a "teenie weenie yellow polka dotted bikini," or any clothing that provides only partial skin coverage, EWG suggests using sunscreens that provide broad-spectrum (UVA and UVB-sunburn) protection, as well as those that contain fewer hazardous chemicals. For a list of their recommendations, go to:http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/best-beach-sport-sunscreens/.

Tip: Make every effort to avoid burning your skin. There is sufficient data to know that sun burns cause serious, long-term damage.

In an effort to make a wise decision regarding which sunscreen to purchase, many consumers look for The Skin Cancer Foundation's "seal of approval." However, this shouldn't be the sole criteria you use to make a purchasing decision. According to the EWG, The Skin Cancer Foundation (SCF) lends its logo to hundreds of sun protection products that have not necessarily been thoroughly scrutinized.

My Advice:

Get 20 minutes of unprotected sun exposure daily. Even on cloudy days, you can still get up to 80% UV rays and boost your production of vitamin D.

Make every effort to avoid sunburns. Be particularly cautious during mid-day sun exposure or near water where reflections can increase exposure and risk of burns. This can lead to skin damage and injury. Extensive research demonstrates that sunburns -- and particularly repeated burns -- cause serious, long-term damage.

Cover up! The use of hats, shirts and umbrellas offer safe and effective protection from the sun.

Buyer beware. Before purchasing a sunscreen, consult with a website such as www.ewg.org to ensure you are purchasing a product that is both safe and effective.

Author Bio: Keith I. Block, M.D. is Director of Integrative Medical Education at the University of Illinois College of Medicine; Medical Director of the Block Center for Integrative Cancer Treatment in Evanston, Illinois; and founder and Scientific Director of the nonprofit Institute for Integrative Cancer Research and Education. He is also editor in chief of the peer-reviewed professional journal Integrative Cancer Therapiesand a member of the National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Editorial Board.

Official recommended intake for vitamin D is too low

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:56:14 GMT

(NaturalNews) Official government recommendations on vitamin D intake are far too low for optimal health, the director of the Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center has warned.

"The current dietary guideline, approximately 400 IU/day, was based on the amount of vitamin D in a spoonful of cod liver oil, which prevented rickets," William B. Grant said.

Scientists initially assumed that vitamin D's primary role in the body was in producing strong bones and teeth. Newer research, however, shows that at higher levels, vitamin D helps prevent and even treat chronic diseases including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes; bacterial and viral infections; and autoimmune diseases including asthma, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and possibly rheumatoid arthritis.

The body naturally produces vitamin D upon exposure to UVB radiation from sunlight.

"With whole-body exposure to the sun, one can make at least 10,000 IU/day in a short time," Grant said. "Adverse effects such as hypercalcemia have been found in general only for 20,000-40,000 IU/day for very long periods."

Grant warned that in people with certain health conditions (such as certain cancers or hormonal conditions), high levels of vitamin D even from sunlight can be harmful. For others, Grant recommends a daily vitamin D intake of 2,000 IU per day for people with light skin, 3,000 IU per day for those with very dark skin and 6,000 IU per day for pregnant or lactating women.

Current government recommendations for pregnant women are only 200 IU per day.

Sunlight remains the best way to get vitamin D, but only with sufficient exposure.

"Due to current lifestyles in the United States, most people do not spend sufficient time in the sun to produce the higher serum D levels associated with optimal health," Grant warned.

For optimal vitamin D production from sunlight, Grant recommends exposing "as much of the body as possible without sunscreen near solar noon, the time when one's shadow is shorter than one's height, for 10-30 minutes depending on skin pigmentation, being careful not to turn pink or red or burn."

Vitamin D deficiency on the rise

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:28:08 GMT

Research suggests it has health benefits, but doctors say many people not getting enough

Susan Waun remembers her doctor was skeptical when she asked for a vitamin D test.

That changed when the test showed she was deficient. Since then, Waun's doctor has given her a prescription dosage that increased her vitamin D level.

A growing body of research suggests the vitamin -- long known to ward off rickets in children and osteoporosis in adults -- also shows promise in fighting scores of ailments, including heart attacks, cancer, autism, arthritis, migraine headaches and even depression.

More doctors are testing patients' levels as a federal committee prepares a vitamin D report scheduled for release this year.

"I feel better that I've discovered something that could have a long-term effect" on preventing serious disease, said Waun, a Lathrup Village resident.

Vitamin D, found only in a limited number of foods such as salmon and tuna, is produced naturally in the body through sunlight.

But officials say the number of people deficient in vitamin D is reaching epidemic proportions, as more forgo the sun over fears of skin cancer and other skin damage.

Many also live in regions far away from the equator, making it more difficult to get adequate sun exposure to produce vitamin D naturally. The maximum amount of possible sunshine from sunrise to sunset with clear skies in Detroit is 53 percent annually, compared to 70 percent in Miami and 73 percent in Los Angeles, according to Comparative Climatic Data, a report by three federal agencies.

Federal officials issued guidelines for recommended daily vitamin D intake in 1997. The suggested amounts range from 200 to 600 units, depending on age.

But new recommendations could be on the horizon: The Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board has just completed its final meetings of a yearlong examination of vitamin D, and a report on recommended levels is expected later this summer or early fall, said Matthew Spear, senior program assistant.

Vitamin D technically is not a vitamin but a steroid hormone system in the skin. It is critical because it regulates more than 1,000 genes, said Dr. John Cannell, executive director and founder of the Vitamin D Council in San Luis Obispo, Calif.

"Treating vitamin D deficiencies has a good chance to profoundly change the practice of medicine," Cannell said.

More doctors are starting to test their patients' vitamin D levels with a blood test. Although data is not available for Michigan, Quest Diagnostics, one of the world's largest medical testing labs, which is based in Madison, N.J., reported a 50 percent growth in vitamin D tests during the last quarter of 2009 over the previous year, said spokeswoman Wendy Bost.

Vitamin D eases symptoms

Among the doctors who screen patients' vitamin D levels is Dr. James Dowd, a Brighton-based rheumatologist. He personally discovered an optimum level of vitamin D can make a difference when he was struggling with insomnia, muscle cramps and aching joints at age 40. Many of his patients were complaining of the same thing.

He started taking supplements and his symptoms vanished. He has since been testing all of his patients' vitamin D levels and prescribes supplements when necessary.

"It amazing how such a simple change made a difference in how they felt," said Dowd, who wrote the book "The Vitamin D Cure."

Dr. Paul Erhmann, a Royal Oak general practitioner, also tests patients for vitamin D deficiency.

He said it's important to monitor levels since too much of the fat-soluble vitamin can lead to neurological or kidney problems.

"We've been surprised by people who are vitamin D deficient," Erhmann said. "It's an important risk factor for a lot of preventable problems."

Tied to disease prevention

Research began decades ago when epidemiologists noticed fewer people suffered from chronic diseases who lived in regions with more sun exposure. Hundreds of studies have since shown links between optimum level of vitamin D and prevention of disease.

"It's one issue but it's a very, very important issue because it can be so easily addressed and so inexpensively addressed," Cannell said.

New federal research released last month is dashing hopes about the potential that vitamin D could have in reducing the risk of some cancers. Though some studies have shown a risk reduction in colorectal cancer with higher levels of vitamin D, a large study by researchers at the National Cancer Institute found adequate levels of vitamin D offered no protection against cancers such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or cancers of the esophagus, stomach, kidney, ovary or pancreas.

"We did not see lower cancer risk in persons with high vitamin D blood concentrations compared to normal concentrations for any of these cancers," said Demetrius Albanes, an investigator in the study that appeared online in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Even so, many Metro Detroiters are turning to supplements or extra sunshine, just in case.

Leigh Anne Cutcher thought it was funny when she saw her cousin sprawled out in the sun, hoping to boost her vitamin D levels.

But not long after, Cutcher, 47, went to her doctor and found out she needed more of the "sunshine vitamin."

Cutcher, of Farmington Hills, has since been taking vitamin D regularly to give her body what it needs.

"When you have something low or out of balance," she said, "it's important to know it so you can proactively address it and avoid some of those health issues."

Article Tools:
Print
Email
Comment
Read Comments
Share

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100705/LIFESTYLE03/7050326/Vitamin-D-deficiency-on-the-rise#ixzz0tI1caVx5

Vitamin D Low in Patients With Headache and Migraine

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:25:05 GMT

July 6, 2010 (Los Angeles, California) — Patients with headache and migraine may need to have their vitamin D levels assessed, report researchers. Preliminary findings released here at the American Headache Society (AHS) 52nd Annual Scientific Meeting reveal low vitamin D levels in these patients, with levels similar to those found in patients with chronic pain.

"This potential biomarker should be studied in double-blind trials both for epidemiological and clinical reasons and for potential treatment effects," said presenter John Claude Krusz, MD, from Anodyne Headache and Pain Care in Dallas, Texas. "Vitamin D may play some yet unknown role in multiple painful and possibly headache and migraine disorders."

Researchers measured serum vitamin D levels in 900 patients and included 100 of these in the current analysis. About half of the patients had new migraine and headache (n = 55). The remaining patients had chronic pain disorders, including fibromyalgia, rheumatic, and neuropathic pain disorders (n = 45).

Investigators report low levels similar to those found in patients with chronic pain.

The average vitamin D level in patients with predominantly headache and migraine was 26.3 ng/mL. This compared to a mean vitamin D level of 25.2 ng/mL in chronic pain patients with no headache (P < .80).

These findings mirror those of another AHS poster presentation from 2008. In that study, Steven Wheeler, MD, from the Ryan Wheeler Headache Treatment Center in Miami, Florida, found low vitamin D levels in patients with migraine.

"Unfortunately, that study included a significant percentage of patients with coexistent pain disorders as well," Dr. Krusz told Medscape Medical News. "We tried to separate, as much as possible, headache and migraine patients from those with chronic pain syndromes in order to measure and document vitamin D in both groups individually."

In the current study, 15% of those in the headache and migraine group had other transient pain disorders in their medical history. "But not at the time their vitamin D levels were measured," Dr. Krusz said.

He acknowledges this is a small study and neither group was compared to people without these clinical conditions.

"I screen everyone," Dr. Krusz said, "and treat when the levels fall below the blue line" (see graph). "I think there are probably about 5 Nobel prizes to be won in this area. There's still so much we don't know."

Dr. John Claude Krusz

Treat Vitamin D Deficiency

John Cannell, MD, executive director of the Vitamin D Council in San Luis Obispo, California, echoes this view. "We propose vitamin D deficiency syndrome exists when 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels of less than 50 ng/mL are found in patients with 2 or more of the following conditions: osteoporosis, heart disease, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, certain cancers, depression, chronic fatigue, or chronic pain."

The Vitamin D Council is a nonprofit organization set up to educate the public and professionals about vitamin D deficiency. The Vitamin D Council's recommendation of 50 ng/mL is a little lower than the current investigators cutoff of 60 ng/mL.

Dr. Cannell says that deficiency is more common among people with dark skin, elderly individuals, and those who avoid the sun. He suggests that vitamin D is safe when used in physiologic doses of at least 5000 IU/day from all sources, including sunlight, diet, and supplements.

Dr. Cannell points out that vitamin D hypersensitivity can occur in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism, occult cancers — especially lymphoma — or granulomatous disease such as sarcoidosis. "In such cases," he notes, "treatment of vitamin D deficiency should be done under the care of a knowledgeable physician."

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

American Headache Society (AHS) 52nd Annual Scientific Meeting: Poster 51. Presented June 26, 2010.

Vitamin D Fears Lead to Sun Warnings Review

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:18:08 GMT

Warning people to stay out of the sun may have led to vitamin D deficiencies, British newspaper The Independent reported Monday.

The newspaper cited a confidential report from Cancer Research U.K., which revealed the charity was reconsidering its advice about avoiding the sun between 11:00 am and 3:00 pm. The charity was responding to concerns that people were at risk of a lack of vitamin D without adequate exposure to sunlight.

Medical researcher Oliver Gillie told the newspaper the current warnings to stay out of the sun may be causing health problems.

“Lack of sunshine and the vitamin it makes in our skin is probably the most serious single cause of disease in the U.K. today. Vitamin D deficiency is well known as the classic cause of rickets and serious bone diseases," he said.

The draft document states: “Cancer Research U.K’s SunSmart campaign encourages people to enjoy the sun safely and avoid exposures that lead to sunburn. However, for most people, sunlight is also an important source of vitamin D, which is essential for good bone health. It is important to ensure that skin cancer prevention messages are balanced with the need to make enough vitamin D.”

A Cancer Research U.K. spokeswoman said the document was not yet finalized.

Higher Vitamin D Levels Linked to Fewer Infections

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:16:37 GMT

Previously I have highlighted the benefits vitamin D has with regard to improving the immune response and helping keep infections such as flu at bay.

It has been mooted that the upsurge in viral infections during the winter is connected with the generally lower vitamin D levels at this time. The traditional view is that winter infections are due to “indoor crowding.”

However, research indicates that flu epidemics do not occur in the summer in crowded workplaces despite the presence of the flu virus around people who should be susceptible to infection. This is based on research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention team in Atlanta, published in May 2001 in the Emerging Infectious Diseases journal, and other research published in Volume 8 of Epidemiologic Reviews in 1986.

These facts were plucked from a study by the department of medicine at Yale University. Published in June in PLoS One journal, the study looked at the relationship between vitamin D levels and risk of viral respiratory tract infection such as cold and flu. This study assessed blood levels of vitamin D and viral infection in almost 200 American men and women throughout last autumn and winter.

This study produced some interesting findings:

Compared to individuals with vitamin D levels less than 38 ng/ml (95 mmol/l), individuals with levels of 38 ng/ml or above were about half as likely to suffer from a viral respiratory infection during the study period.

Of those with higher vitamin D levels (as defined above), 83 percent had no infections at all during the study period, compared to 55 per cent of those with lower levels.

Those with higher levels of vitamin D who succumbed to flu were ill for an average of two days per infection.

Those with lower levels of vitamin D who succumbed to flu were ill for an average of nine days per infection.

This study showed that as vitamin D levels rose, so did resistance to infection. However, the benefit appeared to plateau at about 38 ng/ml.

Of course, epidemiological studies of this nature cannot be used to prove causality (that is, that higher vitamin D levels protect against viral infection). They indicate only that the higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved resistance to infection.

However, the idea that vitamin D might actually help protect against infection is at least plausible, as the authors of the above study point out: “Vitamin D has known effects on the immune system. The production of the antimicrobial peptides cathelicidin by macrophages and ß-defensin by endothelial cells is upregulated by vitamin D. These peptides may be involved in the direct inactivation of viruses.”

If it is true that optimizing vitamin D can help protect against infection, then this might have particular significance for the elderly, particularly those who are institutionalized.

A combination of low vitamin D, somewhat compromised immune function, and crowding could indeed be a lethal mix for some. Enhanced sunlight exposure or vitamin D supplementation could be a safe and inexpensive way of protecting against illness and preserving life.

Dr. John Briffa is a London-based physician and author with an interest in nutrition and natural medicine. His website is Drbriffa.com

Vitamin D from UV Exposure can decrease cancer by up to 80%

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:40:46 GMT

Critique of the IARC on the association of sunbed use and risk of CMM

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:30:17 GMT

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reported meta-analyses of the association of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM), finding significant correlations with ever use of sunbeds and first use of sunbeds prior to age 35 years; it did not claim that the associations showed causal links. However, some observational studies in the meta-analysis included individuals in the UK with skin phenotype at increased genetic risk of CMM without adjustment for skin phenotype. Treating the five UK studies separately from the other 14 corrected this oversight. In the original study, the summary relative risk (RR) of CMM with respect to sunbed use was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.31). In this study, the similar RR was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.03-1.38). The RR for the five UK studies was 2.09 (95% CI, 1.14-3.84), whereas the RR for the other 14 studies was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.96-1.24). For first use of sunbeds prior to age 35 years, the IARC found a summary RR of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.35-2.36). This study plotted the RRs versus latitude of each study population, with a linear regression analysis carried out for all but the one UK study. The RR increased at 0.077 per degree of latitude and the regression explained 67% of the variance. It is also argued that factors other than sunbed use explain the increasing worldwide trends in CMM. Because solar-UV-simulating sunbeds induce production of vitamin D, the health benefits of their use greatly outweigh any possible risks.

Law curbs teen tanning

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:09:27 GMT

Seventeen-year-old Sophia Ventresca used to drive herself to Body Images Tanning in Wilmington about four times a week.

But when the new year began, she had to bring her mother.

That's because new state regulations require parental consent for teens from 14 to 17 to tan. They also ban any child 13 and under from tanning without a prescription.

"My mom and I go tanning, but I know some of my friends' parents wouldn't approve of their daughters tanning," said Ventresca, a senior at Brandywine High School. "I think it's kind of smart, because I think parents should know what their kids are doing."

Local tanning salons don't take issue with the new rules, which threaten fines from $250 to $1,000. But they say opponents of the tanning industry -- such as some local lawmakers, dermatologists and members of the American Cancer Society -- have been misleading the public into thinking that tanning beds cause cancer without the evidence to back it up.

At least 31 states regulate the use of tanning facilities by minors, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. One county in Maryland recently banned indoor tanning for all minors.

At the national level, U.S. Sen. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., introduced a bill this year to further regulate the tanning industry, calling tanning beds "the cigarettes of our time: cancer-causing and poorly regulated."

The U.S. Senate's health care reform legislation also contains a 10 percent tax on tanning services added because of lobbying by the American Academy of Dermatology. It is expected to bring in $2.7 billion over the next decade.

"It's always something against us," said Eileen Morris, owner of Body Images Tanning. "But they're not using science to back up what they say."

Ultraviolet exposure

Dr. Joseph Andrews of Delaware Dermatology, which has offices in Dover and Lewes, suspects indoor tanning is related to the rising number of melanoma cases he sees each year. Tanning beds, like the sun, give off ultraviolet rays, which are on the federal government's list of cancer-causing chemicals.

"It's like smoking," said Andrews, who has been in practice for 24 years. "I would say that any UV exposure, whether it's natural or in a tanning bed, increases your risk."

While overexposure to UV rays can lead to melanoma, the strength of the link to tanning beds has been in question.

A report published last summer by the World Health Organization summarized that "there was no consistent evidence for a dose-response relationship between indoor tanning exposure and risk of melanoma."

The report's strongest study -- which followed more than 100,000 women over eight years -- found that less than three-tenths of 1 percent who tanned frequently developed melanoma while less than two-tenths of 1 percent who didn't tan developed melanoma. Almost all the other studies in the report did not establish a strong link between the two.

Opponents of indoor tanning have emphasized one statistic in the report to justify increased regulations, a conclusion that the risk of getting melanoma is 75 percent higher among people who begin using tanning salons under age 30, compared with those who don't.

The overall risk of contracting melanoma -- whether using tanning beds or not -- remains well under 1 percent.

For that reason, using the 75 percent statistic is misleading, said Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz, co-author of "Know Your Chances," a consumer-oriented book on understanding health statistics.

"Melanoma is pretty rare and almost all the time, the way to make it look scarier is to present the relative change, the 75 percent increase, rather than to point out that it is still really rare," said Schwartz, a general internist at Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction, Vt.

18,000 salons

The first tanning salons opened in the mid-1970s, and today there are roughly 18,000 across the country. About 30 million Americans tan at least once a year, according to the International Smart Tan Network, the educational institute for North American indoor tanning businesses.

Even as salons proliferated, melanoma struck less than one-half of 1 percent of the U.S. population and fewer than five of every 100,000 people die from melanoma, a rate that has not changed over three decades, according to the federal National Cancer Institute, which tracks deaths and diagnoses of cancer.

Stakeholders in favor of regulations on the tanning industry are quick to bring up the World Health Organization's 75 percent statistic but reluctant to speak about the lack of evidence that frequent tanning-bed use causes melanoma.

"I don't know if it's my role to speak about that," said Sen. Bethany Hall-Long, D-Glasgow, who sponsored the consent legislation. She cited the 75 percent statistic but said she wasn't prepared to discuss the validity of using it.

The Delaware chapter of the American Cancer Society supported the legislation. Jeanne Chiquoine, the public policy initiatives manager for the local chapter, said she didn't "feel comfortable commenting."

Dr. Ron Shelton, of the American Academy of Dermatologists, questioned the World Health Organization's studies when asked about the lack of a strong link between tanning salons and melanoma, even though the academy cites the "75 percent" statistic on its Web site.

"I don't have the lab research but clinically what I've been seeing is that the people diagnosed with melanoma at an early age seem to have more exposure to the sun and are more frequently using suntan parlors," said Shelton, medical director of New York Aesthetic Consultants.

Dermatologists also liken tanning to smoking, which in the United States causes 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and 80 percent in women.

Schwartz said there's no similarity.

"It's not like the researchers are finding very large statistically significant effects from tanning," she said. "It's totally different from smoking, which has compelling evidence that it causes lung cancer."

The intent of the local regulation, Sen. Hall-Long said, was to encourage parents and teens to discuss tanning dangers. Parents of frequent teenage tanners say they dismiss the dangers because they suspect it's politically driven.

"I don't think that they have any scientific proof to back up what they say," said Laura Ventresca, Sophia's mother. "It's just competing interests."

Vitamin D helps Gaucher disease patients

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:45:32 GMT

Editor's note: The enzyme replacement therapy is essential for treatment of gaucher disease. But it is also important to note that many lifestyle parameters affect a person's health status. Vitamin D is one thing that these patients need to pay attention to.

On Feb 26, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it has approved velaglucerase alfa for injection (VPRIV) to treat children and adults with a rare genetic disorder called Gaucher disease.

Gaucher disease results from the deficiency of an enzyme called glucocerebrosidase. Because of the deficiency, patients tend to build up harmful amounts of a certain fatty substance (lipid) in the liver, spleen, bones, bone marrow and nervous system

, making cells and organs dysfunctional.

The enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) is the standard treatment for Gaucher disease.

The FDA says patients who are on Cerezyme, which has been approved earlier to treat the disease, but in short supply currently may be safely switched to this enzyme which studies show is as effective and safe as Cerezyme.

VPRIV is manufactured by Shire Human Genetic Therapies Inc. of Cambridge, Mass.

Type 1 Gaucher disease is the most commonly seen lusosomal storage disorder and frequently lead to osteopenia and osteoporosis.

One study led by Mikosch P and colleagues from State Hospital Klagenfurt in Klagenfurt, Austria suggests that vitamin D supplementation should be recommended for patients with type 1 Gaucher disease to help maintain bone health.

Vitamin D is known to be essential for bone health. The researchers wanted to examine whether sufficiency of vitamin D may help the Gaucher disease patients.

Mikosch et al. tested 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) in blood samples collected from sixty patients aged 17 to 85 years with the disease living at home and with residence in southern or central England. T-scores and Z-scores of the lumbar spine and hip were used in the study.

They found high incidence of vitamin D insufficiency among Gaucher disease patients, particularly during the period between December and May.

Depending on the definition of vitamin D sufficiency (less than 25, 50 or 80 nmol per liter), the insufficiency rates were 15.7%, 63.8%, 92.9% for the December to May period and for the period from June to November, 2.9%, 26.3%, 73.7%, respectively.

Most importantly, the researchers found "The 25(OH)D values representing the seasonal nadir observed during the season December-May showed a significant correlation with T-scores and Z-scores of the lumbar spine and hip."

The study was published in the March 2009 issue of Molecular Genetics and Metabolism.

Vitamin D deficiency extremely common among HIV-positive patients in diverse regions

Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:16:06 GMT

New analyses have found widespread vitamin D insufficiency among American, Italian and Swiss cohorts of HIV-positive patients. These data were presented in a poster session and related discussion at the 17^th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI).

Vitamin D deficiency was consistently less frequent in Caucasians than in other races. Otherwise, the studies were not entirely consistent as to other risk factors, such as duration or type of antiretroviral treatment.

At the CROI discussion session on Wednesday, moderator Peter Reiss from the University of Amsterdam began by noting that vitamin D deficiency can
result in bone density loss, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and insulin resistance, kidney disease, and other metabolic conditions commonly seen in patients with HIV.

Vitamin D levels are generally assessed as blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, also expressed as 25(OH)D. According to a widely accepted reference scale, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are:

"sufficient" if =75 nmol/l (=30 ng/ml),

"insufficient" if between 50–75 nmol/l (20–30 ng/ml), and

"deficient" if <50 nmol/l (<20 ng/ml).

However, Reiss pointed out that these values are not universally used (even within the studies in this session), that they do not account for seasonal variation or ethnic differences (as darker skin is less able to produce vitamin D, and levels are higher in the summer months), and that optimal levels for health have not been well established.

Despite these uncertainties, these newly reported studies were consistent with previous reports in identifying very high rates of vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency among HIV-positive persons. (See, for instance, this Dutch study and these US and UK studies reported at IAS 2009.)

United States: the SUN study
Christine Dao from the Centers for Disease Control presented data from the SUN study, a prospective observational cohort of 700 HIV-positive adults enrolled at clinics in four U.S. cities from March 2004 to June 2006.

The findings were based on 672 participants who had had baseline serum 25-hyrdroxyvitamin D determinations, and who were not taking vitamin D supplements. The cohort was 77% male, 30% black and 10% Hispanic, median age was 41 years, median CD4 count 471 cells/mm³, and most (74%) had viral loads < 400 copies/ml.

In this cohort, 71.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.1 to 74.9) were deemed vitamin D insufficient, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <30 ng/ml. In multivariable analysis, sex, age and bone mineral density (BMD) had no association with vitamin D levels. The following factors were independently associated with higher risk of insufficiency:

black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.59 to 7.85),

Hispanic ethnicity (aOR = 2.78, 95% CI 1.31 to 5.90),

lower exposure to ultraviolet light, as estimated from National Weather Service data for the month of sampling (aOR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.40),

hypertension (aOR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.22),

lack of exercise (aOR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.80 to 5.47), and

exposure to efavirenz (aOR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.34).

Lower odds of vitamin D insufficiency were seen in patients with renal (kidney) insufficiency (GFR <90 mL/min/1.73m²) (aOR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83) and exposure to ritonavir (aOR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.89).

United States: the WIHS
The Women's Interagency Health Study (WIHS) is a longitudinal study of women with and at risk for HIV. The substudy reported here looked at a cross-section of 609 WIHS participants (480 HIV-positive, 122 HIV-negative) from Chicago and New York. Vitamin D deficiency (defined as 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels = 20 ng/ml) was found in 60% of these women, and insufficiency (20 to =30 ng/ml) in 23.5%.

Age, HIV status, and CD4 count were not predictive of vitamin D deficiency in this group. In multivariate analysis, black race was the only significant predictor of deficiency, with an odds ratio [OR] of 3.16 compared to white race (95% CI, 2.06 to 4.89).

Bacterial vaginosis was found in 19% of the study group and was strongly correlated with vitamin D level (r = –0.14, p<0.001). Risk of bacterial vaginosis increased with worsening deficiency: compared to sufficient vitamin D levels, the odds ratio was 2.12 for insufficiency and 3.55 for deficiency.

Italy: ICONA
Findings from an analysis of the Italian ICONA cohort were presented next. A total of 1505 plasma samples from 856 patients were analysed; 262 before ART initiation and 1243 after a median of 14 months of ART. The median age was 36 years, and most patients (93%) were from Italy.
In this cross-sectional sample, vitamin D insufficiency (defined as 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <75 nmol/l) was found in 54% of the samples, and deficiency (levels <30 nmol/l) in 7%.

Levels varied seasonally (much lower in winter and spring). In multivariable analysis, older age increased risk of deficiency (odds ratio [OR] = 1.53 per 10 years older, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.09, p=.009). The following factors decreased risk:

Caucasian origin (OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.42, p=.0001),

higher CD4 count (OR = 0.90 per 100 cells/mm³higher, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99, p=.04),

higher body mass index (BMI) (OR = 0.90 per unit higher, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98, p=.01), and

type of ART (PI use decreased risk compared to NNRTI use: OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.84, p=.01).

Swiss HIV Cohort Study
The third study presented was a retrospective analysis of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in stored serum from 211 Swiss HIV Cohort participants (75% male, 88% Caucasian, median age 37 years). Samples were taken at three time points: before initiating ART, and at twelve and eighteen months after starting ART. Seasonality was thus controlled, as the second sample was taken during the same season as the first, and the final sample in the opposite season (spring/fall, summer/winter).

At the time of the first (baseline) sample, vitamin D deficiency (defined as 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <30 nmol/l) was found in 14% of participants in fall and 42% in spring. These levels were essentially unchanged twelve months after ART initiation (14% in fall, 47% in spring), but showed the expected seasonal change at 18 months (deficiency levels were higher in the spring and lower in the fall).

By multivariable analysis, apart from seasonal variation, the following factors increased vitamin D levels:

Caucasian ethnicity (multivariable coefficient 14.1, 95% CI 6.0 to 22.1, p=.001), and

duration since HIV diagnosis (6.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 11.7, p=.02).

Factors that decreased vitamin D levels were:

injection drug use (-11.2, 95% CI -21.0 to -1.5, p=.02), and

NNRTI use (-8.2, 95% CI -13.3 to -3.0, p=.002).

In a subset of 74 patients, the study researchers also looked at levels of 1,25(OH)₂D, the actual active molecule of vitamin D which the body produces from the parent molecule 25-hydroxyvitamin D. By multivariate analysis, higher 1,25(OH)₂D levels were found with higher BMI and with use of tenofovir; lower levels were found with higher CD4 cell count, hepatitis C infection, and a previous AIDS diagnosis.

Tanzania
Rather than assessing prevalence and risk factors for vitamin D deficiency, this study looked at health outcomes in Tanzanian women with low vitamin D levels. In the first two years of follow-up, compared to women with adequate vitamin D levels, women with low vitamin D status (defined as 25-hydroxyvitamin D <32 ng/ml had:

a 45% higher chance of wasting (reaching a body mass index <18 kg/m² (incidence rate ratio [RR] = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.01),

a 28% higher chance of acute upper respiratory infections (RR =1.28, 95% CI,1.05 to 1.55), and

a 192% higher chance of thrush (RR = 2.92, 95% CI, 1.43 to 5.96).

Conclusions
These studies add to a growing body of evidence that insufficient or deficient vitamin D levels are extremely prevalent among persons with HIV. While prevalence figures (and the cutoff values used to define them) vary, these studies reported insufficiency rates of 54% to 72%; figures which are generally consistent with other reports. Studies in women linked vitamin D deficiency with risk of bacterial vaginosis, thrush, and other health problems.

The single factor invariably associated with insufficiency or deficiency was non-Caucasian race. Otherwise, reported risk factors were not entirely consistent, although several studies identified NNRTI and/or efavirenz use.

Investigators agreed that vitamin D deficiency is prevalent among HIV-positive individuals, has harmful effects on health, and is easily addressable through supplementation. Remaining research questions include the link between deficiency and clinical health outcomes, the impact of supplementation, the best doses for supplementation, and closer comparisons of deficiency rates in people with HIV and in the general population, where deficiency is also common.

References
Dao C et al. Assessment of vitamin D levels among HIV-infected persons in the study to understand the natural history of HIV/AIDS in the era of effective therapy: SUN Study. 17^th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, poster abstract 750, San Francisco, 2010.

Borderi M et al. Prevalence of hypovitaminosis D among HIV+ patients enrolled in a large Italian cohort. 17^th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, poster abstract 751, San Francisco, 2010.

Mueller N et al. High prevalence of severe vitamin D deficiency in cART-naïve and successfully treated Swiss HIV patients. 17^th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, poster abstract 752, San Francisco, 2010.

Mehta S et al. Vitamin D and HIV-related complications and HIV disease progression in women in Tanzania. 17^th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, poster abstract 753, San Francisco, 2010.

French A et al. Vitamin D deficiency and bacterial vaginosis among HIV-infected and -uninfected women in the United States. 17^th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, poster abstract 754, San Francisco, 2010.

Pregnancy in Winter Months Increases Risk of Newborn Neurological Problems

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:19:13 GMT

Sunlight is important for our health. In these days when people are afraid of skin cancer and smother on sunscreen, Vitamin D absorption has been reduced. Vitamin D is also vital to infant development, and new research suggests that mothers who are pregnant during winter months have an increased risk of delivering babies with neurological issues. Of particular concern is the increase in babies with multiple sclerosis (MS) born in April.

According to research published in the European Journal of Neurology, lack of vitamin D in pregnancy “predisposes” individuals to MS. The Telegraph reports:

Vitamin D, which is largely gained through sunlight and food, is known to regulate a gene that can predispose individuals to MS. If the gene is passed on to the unborn child, without being regulated by a sufficient amount of vitamin D, it could “hard wire” them to develop the disease in later life…

Professor George Ebers, from Oxford University’s department of clinical neurology at the John Radcliffe Hospital, said: “The difference [in developing MS in Scotland] between being born in April versus November is an astounding 50per cent. This is real, there’s no doubt of a seasonal link. There are different theories, but I think the April excess of births could be linked to a sunlight deficiency.

Should parents living in climates that lack winter sun try to conceive at times to avoid winter pregnancies? Researchers believe this may be prudent if there is a family history of neurological disorders, such as MS, but most women can simply take a vitamin D supplement.

Tan To Fight Fibromyalgia

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:56:00 GMT

It impacts up to 6 million people in the U.S. -- mainly women -- who can't get through the day without pain shooting through their bodies. There are very few effective treatments for fibromyalgia, so one doctor decided to try a controversial method to treat his patients. He said it works. Other dermatologists said it's dangerous.

"All I could say to my doctors is, 'I feel like I've been hit by a truck," Laura Hemrick said.

A constant, aching pain put Laura Hemrick's body and brain in slow motion.

"I see people, and I think, 'I've known you all my life, but I don't remember your name," Hemrick said.

After more than 15 tests and six months of doctors appointments, she found out she had fibromyalgia -- a chronic condition that causes widespread pain, fatigue and fogginess. Exercise provides some relief, but the drugs made her sick.

"I would deal with the pain before I go back to those again," Hemrick said.

Then, a dermatologist wrote a prescription that shocked her: spend time tanning.

"If I were to give a lecture to my dermatology colleagues about this almost certainly some would find some tomatoes to throw at me," said Dr. Steven Feldman, a dermatologist at the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center in North Carolina.

Feldman led a study that found fibromyalgia patients who were exposed to UV rays in a tanning bed over six weeks felt a decrease in pain compared to those who were in non UV beds. He says the UV rays cause the skin to release endorphins -- feel-good molecules that ease pain and increase relaxation. Other dermatologists say young people who use tanning beds have a 75-percent higher risk for melanoma.

"Just once using the tanning bed will give you enough DNA damage to increase your chance of skin cancer," said Dr. Shasa Hu, a dermatologist at the University of Miami School of Medicine.

Hemrick said, so far, tanning is the only thing that provides relief.

"Nothing is completely free of any possible risk," she said.

She's taking the risk because she says the alternative is to live in pain.

Hemrick spent 12 to 15 minutes three times a week in a tanning booth to ease the pain. Feldman said UV tanning beds have also been helpful in easing psoriasis. He would not recommend them for anyone who doesn't have these conditions. The idea for this started during a tanning addiction study when doctors realized patients were repeatedly going to tanning beds to ease aching backs.

Genetic link found between vitamin D and congestive heart failure

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:24:28 GMT

Ann Arbor, MI - A variant of the gene responsible for the activation of vitamin D is associated with the development of congestive heart failure in individuals with hypertension, new research shows [1]. The results confirm previous studies suggesting that vitamin D is an important player in cardiovascular health, according to researchers.

"There is a great deal of information out there now about vitamin D and how important it is for cardiovascular health," said senior investigator Dr Robert Simpson (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI). "My lab was the first to study it in animals back in the early 1980s. We became interested because of information that the vitamin-D receptor existed in heart tissue. Subsequently, there have now been a number of clinical studies showing the importance of adequate vitamin-D status for human heart health."

The results of the study are published in the November 2009 issue of Pharmacogenomics.

CYP27B1 needed for vitamin D activation

Vitamin-D insufficiency has been linked in previous studies to increased risks of coronary heart disease. Speaking with heartwire, Simpson said that previous studies have shown vitamin-D insufficiency specifically influences the severity and progression of congestive heart failure. Because enzyme CYP27B1 is responsible for the bioactivation of vitamin D, the researchers hypothesized that individuals with heart failure would be more likely to have a genetic variant of CYP27B1, a mutation that inactivates the enzyme and subsequently reduces the conversion of vitamin D into an active hormone.

Analyzing the genetic profiles of 617 individuals, they selected functional polymorphisms from five candidate genes—CYP27B1, CYP24A1, VDR, REN, and ACE—involved in the regulation of vitamin-D production and activation. Of the 617 subjects, 205 had hypertension and congestive heart failure, 206 had hypertension alone, and 206 served as age- and gender-matched controls.

Regression analyses showed that a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in CYP27B1 was associated with congestive heart failure among individuals with hypertension. Hypertensive individuals homozygous for the C allele of SNP rs4646536 had a more than twofold increased risk of congestive heart failure, report researchers (odds ratio 2.14, 95% CI 1.05-4.39).

For rs4646536, the homozygous CC genotype was present in 12.7% of individuals with hypertension and heart failure and 8.7% of those with hypertension alone.

"The results confirm other studies that show that vitamin D is important for cardiovascular health, and second, it shows that a population of patients already not capable of making sufficient vitamin D or the hormone from vitamin D might be more susceptible to heart failure," Simpson told heartwire.

Researchers are unclear of the mechanism linking rs4646536 to heart failure. It is possible that rs4646536 tags an unrecognized causative allele or that it disrupts a regulatory function withinCYP27B1. They point out that a genetic variability in the metabolism of 25(OH)D would alter the role of 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)₂D within metabolic feedback loops responsible for regulating the hormones.

The researchers note that participants in the study were predominantly white, so further studies are needed in more diverse ethnic populations. If confirmed in other studies, Simpson said that genetic mutations of CYP27B1 would allow clinicians to potentially screen patients for risk of developing heart failure.

A National Institutes of Health-sponsored study looking at whether vitamin-D and/or omega-3 fatty-acid supplementation can reduce the risk of developing heart disease, stroke, or cancer is currently under way. Known as the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), more than 20 000 subjects are to be enrolled, and results are expected in 2014.

Schoolboy Ryan McLaughlin wins vitamin D campaign

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:20:54 GMT

Pregnant women are to be educated about the importance of taking vitamin D supplements thanks to a campaign by a 14-year-old Glasgow schoolboy.

Ryan McLaughlin, whose mother Kirsten has multiple sclerosis, took his case to the Scottish Parliament's petitions committee earlier this year.

He believes taking vitamin D can help prevent the condition.

In a written response, the Scottish government said it would put in place an action plan to increase awareness.

It said recent research had found there was an "urgent need" to provide information to all health professionals who work with pregnant women and young children about current guidance on vitamin D.

"There is also a need to educate women about the importance of taking vitamin D supplement when pregnant and the importance of giving their children a vitamin D supplement until the age of four," the response added.

“ These actions will make a big difference to the health of generations of Scots ”
Ryan McLaughlin

The Scottish government will now agree a co-ordinated programme of action with NHS Health Scotland, and has pledged to keep the McLaughlins informed of developments.

Mrs McLaughlin, a former European Taekwondo champion, was diagnosed with MS two years ago.

Ryan, from Drumchapel, said: "I am so happy to hear that the Scottish government are being so proactive and really getting behind my campaign.

"These actions will make a big difference to the health of generations of Scots, and it will go a long way to giving Scots children some protection against disease caused by vitamin D deficiency and gives parents proper advice.

"I am now looking forward to the summit next year when we'll hopefully be able to tackle the recommended levels but this is such great news."

Fortified milk

Ryan became the face of a YouTube campaign to publicise the use of vitamin D, and led hundreds of supporters down Edinburgh's Royal Mile to Holyrood before he put his proposals to the petitions committee in June.

He told MSPs research into the genetic effect of vitamin D deficiency showed a link to the development of MS. Vitamin D, which the body needs for healthy, strong bones is largely gained through sunlight and food.

The Scottish government has already ruled out free vitamin D supplements for all pregnant and breastfeeding women, and said there were no plans to introduce the supplements in the form of fortified milk or other drinks at school.

Scotland is thought to have the highest rate of MS in the world.

The Powers of Vitamin D

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:17:38 GMT

VAIL, Colorado — What is Vitamin D? Vitamin D is more like a hormone than a vitamin. Our bodies manufacture Vitamin D when sunlight hits our skin. As we are going into the winter season, risk of Vitamin D deficiency increases. The rays of the sun are inadequate during the winter months if you live north of the 37 north latitude as we are here in Eagle County. A white person needs approximately 6 to 8 minutes with 25 percent of body exposure (arms and legs) to make 1,000 IU Vitamin D at noon on June 21. For an African American person, the need increases 18 minutes and of course this is without sunscreen.

Unfortunately, there are only a few foods that naturally contain Vitamin D, making it very difficult to obtain enough from the diet. Milk is fortified and natural sources primarily come from fish and seafood. Because of our long winter months and low dietary intake of Vitamin D, supplementation is often necessary to maintain proper levels.

Risks of Vitamin D deficiency

Risk factors for vitamin D deficiency include being over 65 years old, exclusively breast-fed infants, dark skin, low sunlight exposure, sedentary lifestyle and obesity. According to a recent article from Harvard Medical School, approximately one-third of adults are either in the deficient or insufficient vitamin D categories. Also, 75 percent of those with cardiovascular disease are low in Vitamin D. In fact, having adequate Vitamin D levels between 30 and 60 ng/ml can: have a 35 percent decreased risk of cancer, up to 80 percent reduced risk of breast cancer, up to 60 percent reduced risk of colon cancer, decreased risk of cancers of the pancreas, advanced prostate, ovary, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney, leukemia, and endometrial, 49 percent decreased risk of fractures, 72 percent decreased risk of falls, 13 percent reduction in blood pressure, and even a 77 percent reduced risk of influenza. Vitamin D deficiency is also associated with increased risk of auto-immune deficiencies such as Multiple Sclerosis, Type 1 Diabetes and Lupus. Therefore, eliminating Vitamin D deficiency could be one of the most important public health advances of our time.

Know your level

Just like knowing your cholesterol, it is important to have your Vitamin D level checked. You can have your doctor add the level to your yearly blood work. Another option is to get a $40 home test kit from Grassroots Health (www.grassrootshealth.org), a nonprofit that focuses on Vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is defined as levels less than 20 ng/ml and insufficiency at 20 to less than 30 ng/ml. Normal levels are 30-100 ng/ml (see Table 4). Repletion guidelines for deficient and insufficient levels are to take 50,000 IU per week for eight weeks then recheck, repeat as necessary until normal levels are reached.

Supplementation recommendations

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that infants and children have 400 IU/day within first few days of life with supplementation, formula or milk. For adults, the Harvard article recommends 800 to 1,000 IU Vitamin D supplementation as the easiest way to obtain adequate amounts.

A new study funded by the National Institute of Health is looking for participants. The study is called The VITamin D and Omega-3 TriaL (VITAL) and will be investigating men and women taking 2,000 IU vitamin D and 1 gram Omega-3 daily for reduced risk of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. If you are interested in participating or want more information, visit their Web site at www.vitalstudy.org.

Vitamin D can be a large factor in chronic disease prevention, but only if you know your levels are adequate. Please spread the word to your physician to check not only your level, but the levels of ALL their clients, it could be life-saving.

Melaine Hendershott is a register dietician oncology specialist at Shaw Regional Cancer Center in Edwards. She can be reached at hendershott@vvmc.com.

More Evidence Supports the Importance of Vitamin D in Heart Disease Prevention

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:13:53 GMT

(NaturalNews) Although the link between low Vitamin D status and chronic disease has been well known for some time, a new study has shed further light on the role of Vitamin D in cases of hypertension and congestive heart failure.

Researchers from the Medical College of Wisconsin analysed genetic data from 617 individuals stored at the Marshfield Clinical Personalized Medicine project, a DNA databank. They separated the group equally into a healthy control group, those with high blood pressure and those with high blood pressure and congestive heart failure, and it became clear that there was a striking correlation between those who suffered from both ailments and a deviation in the CYP27B1 gene, which reduces the rate that the body converts stored vitamin D into its active form.

Robert Simpson was one of the authors of the study. "This study revealed that a critical enzyme absolutely required for production of the vitamin D hormone has a genetic variant associated with the development of congestive heart failure," he said. "If subsequent studies confirm this finding and demonstrate a mechanism, this means that in the future, we may be able to screen earlier for those most vulnerable and slow the progress of the disease."

Although more likely to suffer from hypertension and CHD, individuals with this genetic disposition will not necessarily succumb to poor health. It is important to note that not individuals who expressed the deviation in the CYP27B1 showed chronic disease and this altered gene does not stop the body from using Vitamin D; instead, it slows the rate that calcidiol is converted into calcitriol (this is the `active` form of Vitamin D). This means that affected individuals may require significantly more UVB exposure/dietary Vitamin D than average, although this research is still to be done before any true comparison can be made. "This initial study needs to be confirmed with a larger study that would permit analysis of the full cardiovascular profile of the population possessing the gene variant," added Simpson.

A variation in the CYP27B1 gene has previously been associated with an increased risk of developing Type 1 Diabetes, and more research is expected to further elucidate both the role of this gene and Vitamin D in general in a range of degenerative disease. Meanwhile, this latest research is unlikely to change recommendations made in nutritional clinics, although it gives rise to the possibility that, in future, tests may exist to identify those who require more Vitamin D than average. Mainstream medicine is yet to welcome the use of Vitamin D, regardless of the wide array of protective effects it has been shown to have on cancer, CHD, hypertension, depression, auto-immune conditions and insulin sensitivity. This latest research represents more useful insight into the function of this powerful nutrient, and another slow step towards acceptance of this fat-soluble vitamin as an important weapon in the fight against chronic disease.

Reference:

American Heart Association (2008). Lack Of Vitamin D May Increase Heart Disease Risk. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 5.

Bailey R, Cooper JD et al (2007). Association of the vitamin D metabolism gene CYP27B1 with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes, 56(10):2616-21

Wilke RA, McCarthy CA et al (2009). Genetic variation in CYP27B1 is associated with congestive heart failure in patients with hypertension. Pharmacogenomics, 10(11):1789-97

Vitamin D Linked to Survival in Lymphoma Patients

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:11:14 GMT

Supplementation might slow cancer, preliminary study suggests

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 9 (HealthDay News) -- The levels of vitamin D in patients with a type of lymphoma appear to be connected to cancer progression and the likelihood of survival, researchers have found.

"These are some of the strongest findings yet between vitamin D and cancer outcome," said lead investigator Dr. Matthew Drake, an endocrinologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. "While these findings are very provocative, they are preliminary and need to be validated in other studies. However, they raise the issue of whether vitamin D supplementation might aid in treatment for this malignancy, and thus should stimulate much more research."

The study authors looked at 374 patients who had been newly diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Tests suggested that half of the patients didn't have enough vitamin D in their systems, and those patients had a 1.5-fold greater risk of disease progression. After the researchers adjusted their figures to account for the influence of other factors, the risk of death among patients with vitamin D deficiencyduring the study period was doubled compared to patients with ideal levels of vitamin D.

"The exact roles that vitamin D might play in the initiation or progression of cancer is unknown, but we do know that the vitamin plays a role in regulation of cell growth and death, among other processes important in limiting cancer," Drake said.

What to do? "It is fairly easy to maintain vitamin D levels through inexpensive daily supplements or 15 minutes in the sun three times a week in the summer, so that levels can be stored inside body fat," Drake said
.

Autism rate on the rise, vitamin D may help

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:52:53 GMT

Prevalence of autism or autism spectrum disorders has increased 57 percent from 2002 to 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in its Dec 18 publication of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  The prevalence of autism in 2006 was one in every 110 children.

Although the method for diagnosis has improved over the years, thereby increasing the diagnosis rate, the report claims that "a true increase in the risk for children to develop ASD symptoms cannot be ruled out."

The survey of 307,790 children aged eight years was conducted in 11 sites in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

The report does not give any speculation as to what may be the cause for the increased prevalence of autism in children.

Some prior studies suggest that mercury in pediatric vaccines may attribute to the elevated risk. But not all studies are consistent.  Further recent studies have shown that the prevalence of autism has not declined, even though mercury has been taken out of most pediatric vaccines.

Many factors may affect the risk of developing autism in children, but few are confirmed to be true risk factors for the disorders that affect autistic children's lives.

One theory proposed by Dr. John Cannell, director of the Vitamin D Council, suggests that vitamin D deficiency could be at least one risk factor for autism.

Autism spectrum disorders are a group of developmental disabilities characterized by atypical behavior in socialization and communication.  It has also been linked to children's IQ levels and can greatly affect their daily lives, as well as the lives of their family members.

Dr. Cannell says in his article, which was published in the Oct 2008 issue of Medical Hypotheses, that the increase in the prevalence of autism over the last 20 years corresponds with increasing medical advice to avoid the sun, leading to reduced levels of vitamin D in the blood.

The reduced levels of vitamin D may further reduce the activated vitamin D (calcitriol) levels in the brain, which needs the hormone for its development.

He wrote that "severe vitamin D deficiency during gestation dysregulates dozens of proteins involved in brain development and leads to rat pups with increased brain size and enlarged ventricles, abnormalities similar to those found in autistic children."

Dr. Cannell also listed a great deal of other evidence in his article that all suggest vitamin D is involved in the development of autism in children.

Vitamin D Doubles Colon Cancer Survival Rates

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:23:16 GMT

A recent study shows that optimizing vitamin D has the ability to improve survival rates even of individuals that have already contracted the disease. That information has not been widely publicized, but the results of this study can be added to the volumes of studies that indicate that vitamin D produce incredible protection against a huge variety of cancers.

To date there are 800 plus studies that support the idea that vitamin D is very effective in preventing and treating cancer. One study that dates back all the way to 1989 was conducted on over 25,000 people for over eight years showed that people with vitamin D levels of 33 to 41 ng/ml lowered their risk of colon cancer by 80 percent. Vitamin D levels must be above 50 ng to crawl out of the sub-optimal category according to today’s standards. In fact, 65 to 90 ng/ml is the recommended level for cancer treatment.

Raising Your Vitamin D Levels

Since raising your vitamin D levels is very easy, inexpensive and can prevent countless chronic illnesses, this is something that everyone should consider. Contemplate whether these easy steps are worth avoiding the misery of colon cancer.

Increase your appropriate exposure to sunshine regularly.
Take a daily vitamin D supplement.
Consume foods that are high in calcium and vitamin D.

Other Proven Methods of Preventing Colon Cancer

While increasing your intake of vitamin D is definitely high on the list of importance for preventing colon cancer, there are other methods that should be incorporated into a healthy lifestyle. Some of these include:

Eat plenty of raw vegetables
Exercise on a regular basis
Consume high quality fish oil or krill oil to rebalance your level of omega-3 fats
Stay away from sugar
Avoid processed meats
Control your iron levels
Get plenty of fiber, but use caution - water soluble fiber could actually increase your risk of colon cancer.
Maintain your weight at a level that is appropriate for you.

Recent studies indicate that vitamin D successfully prevents and treats colon cancer. The massive numbers of studies that support this fact are staggering. This type of supplement can be added to a healthy lifestyle quite inexpensively and simply. By implementing a fundamentally healthy diet, exercising routinely, and increasing your vitamin D levels you will take great strides toward preventing colon cancer.

This information is definitely food for thought and very enlightening for those that have had a family history of colon cancer. Upon considering the scientific evidence and ease of implementing steps to increase vitamin D levels, the choice is yours.

Physicians Explore Link Between Vitamin D Deficiency and Hypertension

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:59:37 GMT

Vitamin D is known to be important to bone health, but what about heart health?

UConn Health Center physician-scientists are looking into a possible link between vitamin D deficiency and high blood pressure.

“Often patients don’t realize they have a vitamin D deficiency, or are unaware of its relationship with health problems other than bone disorders,” says Dr. William B. White, professor of medicine and a hypertension expert in the Pat and Jim Calhoun Cardiology Center. White served as the study’s principal investigator.

White and Dr. Pooja Luthra, assistant professor of medicine and an endocrinologist in the New England Musculoskeletal Institute, are recruiting patients with a diagnosis of treated or untreated high blood pressure and a vitamin D level in the insufficient range of 12 to 29. They also must not be taking regular doses of vitamin D.

“Epidemiologic studies have shown an association between measured vitamin D deficiency and increased risk for incident hypertension that is independent of age, body mass index, physical activity, race, and menopausal status,” Luthra says. “There is a need for clinical research studies that evaluate the effects of antihypertensive drugs in hypertensive patients with documented vitamin D insufficiency.”

“One of the possible mechanisms of elevated blood pressure in patients with vitamin D deficiency is the activation of renin, an enzyme produced in the kidney,” White says.

Research involving genomic mouse models found that those with vitamin D deficiency developed elevated production of renin and the protein angiotensin II, leading to hypertension.

In the 14-week, double-blind, randomized trial, participants will first receive either vitamin D replacement or the renin inhibitor aliskiren, then both medications in combination. White and Luthra will assess the corresponding changes in blood pressure both in the office setting and over a 24-hour period using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, calcium and vitamin D concentrations, and biochemical parameters involving the renin-angiotensin system.

“We have reason to believe there’s a connection here, and this research will increase our knowledge regarding vitamin D as a cardiovascular risk factor,” White says. “We will try to establish the effects of vitamin D replacement and the impact of direct inhibition of renin in patients with vitamin D deficiency on blood pressure. In the end, we hope that we can spread awareness about the association so that if patients with hypertension ask their doctors, ‘What if I have vitamin D deficiency?’ then their doctors will be prepared to make informed decisions about what to do about this problem.”

The UConn Health Center study is supported by an independent $480,000 investigator-initiated grant from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in East Hanover, N.J., over the next three years.

More information about the study is available by calling study coordinator Patricia Keltonic, at 860-679-4116.

Eradicate Breast Cancer With Vitamin D?

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:12:40 GMT

Breast cancer risk 'virtually eradicated' by elevated vitamin D levels, researchers suggest >> TORONTO (CNW) - Breast cancer is a disease so directly related to vitamin D deficiency that a woman's risk of contracting the disease can be 'virtually eradicated' by elevating her vitamin D status to what vitamin D scientists consider to be natural blood levels.

That's the message vitamin D pioneer Dr. Cedric Garland delivered in Toronto Tuesday as part of the University of Toronto School of Medicine's "Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency" conference - the largest gathering of vitamin D researchers in North America this year. More than 170 researchers, public health officials and health practitioners gathered at the UT Faculty club for the landmark event.

Garland's presentation headlined a conference that reviewed many aspects of the emerging vitamin D research field - a booming discipline that has seen more than 3,000 academic papers this calendar year alone, conference organizers said. That makes vitamin D by far the most prolific topic in medicine this year, with work connecting it with risk reduction in two dozen forms of cancer, heart disease, multiple scleroses and many other disorders.

Dr. Reinhold Vieth, Associate Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at University of Toronto, and Director of the Bone and Mineral Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital, organized the event in conjunction with Grassroots Health - an international vitamin D advocacy group founded by breast cancer survivor Carole Baggerly.

Baggerly implored the research group to take action and encourage Canadians to learn more about vitamin D and to raise their vitamin D levels.

An estimated 22,700 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009, according to the Canadian Cancer Society's latest figures.

As much as 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient at some point in the year, according to University of Calgary research - largely due to Canada's northerly latitudes and weak sun exposure. Sunshine is by far the most abundant source of vitamin D - called 'The Sunshine Vitamin' - with salmon and fortified milk being other sources. Vitamin D supplementation helps raise levels for many as well.

Grassroots Health's "D-action" panel - 30 of the world's leading researchers on vitamin D and many other vitamin D supporters - recommend 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily and vitamin D blood levels of 100-150 nanomoles-per-liter as measured by a vitamin D blood test.

Vieth pointed out that natural vitamin D levels of mammals who live outdoors in sunny climates is higher than that - up to 200 nanomoles-per liter. And Garland, whose presentation was entitled "Breast Cancer as a Vitamin D Deficiency Disease" presented data showing that raising one's vitamin D status near those levels decreased breast cancer risk more than 77 percent.

'The Sunshine Vitamin' was once thought of only for bone health, helping the body process calcium. But more recent work has shown that all cells in the body have "vitamin D receptors" which help control normal cell growth.

Additionally, Garland presented new evidence that low vitamin D status compromises the integrity of calcium-based cellular bonding within tissues, which when eroded allow rogue cancer cells to spread more readily.

Grassroots Health is trying to raise vitamin D awareness among Canadians.

Despite epidemic-level vitamin D deficiency in Canada, fewer than nine per cent of Canadians have ever had their vitamin D levels checked by a professional and most who have do not know their vitamin D blood level.

-0- 11/04/2009 /For further information: or to set up an interview with Dr. Vieth, please contact: Michelle Di Rocco, (416) 360-6522 ext. 251 or michelle(at)punchcanada.com/ CO: GrassrootsHealth ST: Ontario IN: SU: -30- CNW 13:19e 04-NOV-09

The sunscreen myth: How sunscreen products actually promote cancer

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:37:54 GMT

The idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is a myth. It's a myth promoted by a profit-seeking tag-team effort between the cancer industry and the sunscreen industry. The sunscreen industry makes money by selling lotion products that actually contain cancer-causing chemicals. It then donates a portion of that money to the cancer industry through non-profit groups like the American Cancer Society which, in turn, run heart-breaking public service ads urging people to use sunscreen to "prevent cancer."

The scientific evidence, however, shows quite clearly thatsunscreen actually promotes cancer by blocking the body's absorption of ultraviolet radiation, which produces vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D, as recent studies have shown, prevents up to 77 of ALL cancers in women (breast cancer, colon cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer, brain tumors, multiple myeloma... you name it). Meanwhile, the toxic chemical ingredients used in most sunscreen products are actually carcinogenic and have never been safety tested or safety approved by the FDA. They get absorbed right through the skin (a porous organ that absorbs most substances it comes into contact with) and enter the bloodstream.

The benefits of sunscreen are a myth. Proponents say sunscreen prevents sunburn, but in fact, the real cause of sunburn is not merely UV exposure: It is a lack of antioxidant nutrition. Start eating lots of berries and microalgae (spirulina, astaxanthin, blue-green algae, etc.), and you'll build up an internal sunscreen that will protect your skin from sunburn from the inside out. Sunburn is actually caused by nutritional deficiencies that leave the skin vulnerable to DNA mutations from radiation, but if you boost your nutrition and protect your nervous system with plant-based nutrients, you'll be naturally resistant to sunburn. The same nutrients, by the way, also protect the optic nerve and eyes from radiation damage. That's why the consumption of berries and carrots, for example, has historically been associated with healthy eye function. (The same nutrients that protect the eyes also protect the skin.)

Medical nonsense

If sunscreen is so bad for humans, you might ask, then why do so many doctors recommend using it? This might be hard for you to believe, but it wasn't too long ago that doctors routinely recommended smoking cigarettes, too. The Journal of the American Medical Association, in fact, ran numerous ads promoting Camels as "recommended by more doctors than any other cigarette!" Doctors talked up the "benefits" of smoking cigarettes, urging people to start smoking in order to improve brain function or even -- get this -- make their teeth stronger!

The truth is doctors are easily influenced by commercial interests and can be readily convinced to recommend practically any product, no matter how toxic, unhealthy or deadly to consumers. Just look at how many doctors wrote prescriptions for Vioxx, for example, after being visited by a Vioxx drug rep pushing it as a "miracle drug" for joint pain.

Also keep in mind that doctor-prescribed medications are the fourth leading cause of death in America today. About 100,000 Americans die each year from following the advice of their doctor. Does it really make any sense to get yourhealth advice from a group of professionals who kill more Americans each year than all the terrorists have ever killed in the history of this country? Besides, doctors know that if they start recommending sunlight and vitamin D, they'll lose patients and profits because people will start getting well and have no need to keep visiting the doctor. Vitamin D, as you will learn in our free report, The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D, prevents not only cancer, but also diabetes, osteoporosis, depression, heart disease and obesity. It's the miracle nutrient of the millennium, and yet the entire medical profession tries desperately to pretend that vitamin D has no biological function whatsoever. Hence the support of sunscreen (the anti-vitamin D product).

Sunscreen directly promotes vitamin D deficiency. You show me a person who regularly uses sunscreen, and I'll show you a person who's on the road towards cancer and other degenerative diseases. People who use sunscreen are killing themselves and they don't even know it!

The sunscreen marketing con

The marketing of sunscreen is another great example of consumer product companies fabricating a need in order to sell a high-profit product made mostly with toxic chemicals. There is no need for sunscreen, but the cancer industry and sunscreen manufacturers have created a fictitious need through a campaign of fear and disinformation, hypnotizing practically the entire population into believing one of the most ridiculous ideas in the universe: that sunlight is bad for human health.

Think about it. Our ancestors did not have indoor lighting; they exposed their skin to the sun regularly. They didn't run and hide from the sun, they used it as nourishment to generate a crucial vitamin that supports human health in a multitude of ways. The idea that "the sun is bad for you" makes about as much sense as "water is bad for you" or "the Earth is flat." This persistent myth was invented, marketed and publicized by an industry that profits from a gullible public believing demonstrable falsehoods.

But why would the cancer industry go along with the deception, you might ask? Because the continued commercial success of the cancer industry depends on more people getting cancer. In previous articles, I've clearly shown that the cancer industry has no interest whatsoever in preventing cancer. The industry, in fact, takes steps to interfere with prevention efforts and thereby ensure the growth in the number of future cancer patients.

The American Cancer Society, for example, still will not recommend that anyone take vitamin D supplements, even though the vitamin can prevent nearly 4 out of 5 cancers. The cancer industry simply has no interest in preventing cancer. It is only interested in treating cancer and profiting from those treatments. (That's why genuine cancer cures have been routinely suppressed, censored or discredited in the United States.) Read my book, Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them, to learn the shocking truth about how the cancer industry really operates in America today.

The promotion of sunscreen products is a way for the cancer industry to ensure future profits from the treatment of cancer. The more people use sunscreen products, the more they'll get cancer. And that's due to two primary reasons: 1) Sunscreen blocks vitamin D production, a nutrient that strongly prevents cancer, and 2) Sunscreen products almost always contain cancer-causing chemicals that are absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream where they cause severe DNA damage, leading to cancer.

Seven important questions about sunscreen

The next time you see some public service advertisement urging you to smother yourself and your children with sunscreen chemicals, think hard before taking action. Ask yourself these seven commonsense questions:

1) Is the sun really dangerous to humans? If so, how did humans survive for the last 350,000 years on planet Earth?

2) Have the chemicals used in sunscreen products ever been safety tested or approved by the FDA? (The answer is no.)

3) Who financially benefits when you keep buying and using sunscreen products?

4) What is the environmental impact of sunscreen chemicals washing off into the ocean, a lake, a swimming pool or being washed down the drain in your shower?

5) Sunscreen manufacturers say the skin doesn't absorb their chemicals. If that's true, then how do nicotine patches work? How do transdermal drugs get absorbed through the skin if sunscreen chemicals don't? (Answer: ALL these chemicals get absorbed through the skin. The skin is not selective about what it chooses to absorb.)

6) If the sun is so dangerous, then why is the vitamin generated by sunlight (vitamin D) so healthy for humans? Why would humans evolve a mechanism for generating a vitamin from sunlight if we weren't supposed to be exposed to sunlight in the first place?

7) If sunlight is so dangerous, then why is virtually every living creature on planet Earth dependent on sunlight for survival? Plants use sunlight to generate their nutrition, too, and most animals eat either plants or other animals that originally ate plants. Nearly all life on planet Earth is powered by sunlight. Why does the cancer industry believe sunlight causes death when, in reality, sunlight delivers life?

Once you answer these questions, the reality of the situation becomes obvious: Sunlight is good for you, and sunscreen is a hoax.

Action items

Be sure to read our free report on this: The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D. This provides tips on how to safely gauge your level of exposure to sunlight. Don't just rush out and get burned; boost your nutrition and work up a natural tan as nature intended.

See the article: Vitamin D slashes cancer risk by 77 percent.

Visit our topic page on Vitamin D.

If you choose to buy sunscreen, only buy natural sunscreen products containing no petrochemicals! One brand I recommend is Caribbean Blue Natural Basics "Sun Shield." You can find more at http://www.gocaribbeanblue.com/

Smearing berries on your skin also works as a natural sunscreen, as does smearing aloe vera gel on your skin. Amazon Herb Co. distributors use a product called Camu C Serum as a natural suncreen. It works great!http://www.amazondreams.amazonherb.net/

The best sunscreen, however, is an internal sunscreen built with nutrition. Eat chlorella, spirulina, goji berries, raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, astaxanthin, carrots and nutrient-rich superfoods to boost your skin's natural UV protection (takes about 30 days of nutrition to boost skin levels).

Vitamin D and Endurance Exercises

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:02:20 GMT

Low vitamin D levels are very likely limiting your running performance, and may compromise your health.

As runners we want to do everything possible to perform well and have a great season. We are meticulous about our training schedules, hydration, sleeping habits, etc. Yet many times we fall short when it comes to nutrition.

My Story

In the summer of 2008 I started to feel rather lethargic during workouts and I struggled to maintain my normal training paces. My recovery from my harder efforts and long runs took longer than usual. I immediately and incorrectly assumed I had low serum ferritin levels indicating iron deficiency anemia.

One colleague to whom I lamented about my chronic fatigue asked me if I had checked my vitamin D levels. “Vitamin D levels?” I exclaimed. I live in California, it is summer, and I am outside way more than the recommended 20 to 30 minutes a day. There is no way I could be vitamin D deficient, especially since in addition to being exposed to sun most days, I eat a very balanced diet that includes a daily multivitamin supplement. However, a visit to my doctor confirmed that my serum 25–hydroxy-vitamin D (25(OH)D) value was dangerously low (18 ng/ml). Normal levels are between 40-70 ng/ml. And for those with chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis, normal blood levels should be between 55-70 ng/ml. I was shocked.

I immediately started daily supplementation with 1000 IU of vitamin D (Vitamin D3). After 8 weeks, my 25(OH)D level had improved somewhat (28 ng/ml). I did feel slightly better, but I wanted to recover completely, so I upped my dosage to 2000 IU daily. A few weeks later my levels were within the normal range (56 ng/ml). I felt noticeably stronger and was able to hit my usual paces during training. And in October 2008, I set a half marathon personal record.

Deficiency

This was my very first experience with vitamin D deficiency and I have since learned that vitamin D deficiency is becoming an epidemic worldwide, not only in geographic regions where sun exposure is limited. And my discussions with fellow dietitians working with college runners and professional athletes in generally sunny states (Texas and Florida) confirmed the alarming prevalence of vitamin D deficiency across ethnicity and gender.

Athletes who live in northern latitudes (north of 35 degrees), or use sunscreen consistently, perform their sport indoors, or keep their skin covered are at the greatest risk. Melanin affects the production of vitamin D. So those with more melanin or darker skin produce less vitamin D. Since vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, athletes with fat malabsorption problems such as cystic fibrosis, Crohn’s disease, and celiac disease are at risk for deficiency. Those who have normal levels typically (around 50 ng/ml) live in sub-equatorial Africa and work outdoors for most of the summer.

Once thought of as being primarily involved in bone development, activated vitamin D (calcitriol), a steroid hormone, is responsible for regulating more than 1000 human genes. Almost every cell in the human body has receptors for vitamin D. Recent research shows that vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of different types of cancer (such as breast cancer and prostate cancer), as well as heart disease, diabetes, depression, autoimmune diseases, hypertension, obesity, gum disease, chronic pain, muscle wasting, inflammation, birth defects, osteoporosis, influenza and colds, etc.

Importance for Endurance Athletes

We are only just beginning to understand the complexity and importance of vitamin D in relation to health. Of importance to athletes is the function of vitamin D as it relates to overall health, bone density, innate immunity, muscle wasting, and exercise-related inflammation and immunity. To train and race optimally, an athlete should not have any nutrient deficiencies.

Bone Health:

Deena Kastor, Olympic Marathoner, broke her foot in Beijing during the 2008 Olympic Marathon. It was discovered that her calcium levels were normal, but her 25(OH)D levels were reported to be around 15 ng/ml. And Kastor lives in sunny California. Because of an early scare with skin cancer, she is known to apply sunscreen for all of her outdoor runs, thus limiting her ability to manufacture vitamin D from sun exposure. Even with the extensive research to show vitamin D and calcium’s role in preventing osteoporosis, elite, college, and high school athletes continue to be deficient in one or both nutrient(s). Stress fractures are quite prevalent in runners and yet so preventable.

Increased VO2 max:

German research studies dating back to the 1950s show that athletes exposed to vitamin D-producing ultraviolet light had improved athletic performance. Other studies showed that athletic performance peaked at the end of the summer. Peak performance was also associated with 25(OH)D levels around 50 ng/ml. In addition, maximal oxygen uptake was found to drop when less ultraviolet rays reached the earth, for example, in the late fall. This is particularly a problem for marathoners training through the summer for fall marathons.

Reduced Inflammation:

After intense exercise, endurance athletes experience inflammation due to elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Vitamin D reduces the production of these cytokines while increasing the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines, thereby speeding the recovery process between hard workouts.

Improved Immunity:

In a February 2009 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, vitamin D3 levels were tested in 19, 000 Americans. Those with low levels of vitamin D had the highest incidence of colds and influenza. This is important information for endurance athletes who strive to balance heavy training loads and staying healthy.

What can be done?

Check 25(OH)D levels regularly and supplement as needed.
Check for total 25(OH)D and not 1, 25(OH)D, which will tell you nothing about your blood stores. Total 25(OH)D reflects all sources of vitamin D – from food, UV energy (photo-production), and supplementation.
Deficient athletes measuring less than 30 ng/ml should supplement with 20,000 IU to
50, 000 IU of vitamin D3 per week for 8 weeks andrecheck serum 25(OH)D until normal values are attained.

Get regular, safe, twice-daily (5-30 minutes) exposure to sun between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm. Note that sunscreen and glass (being indoors) reduce or block UV energy.
Supplement with 1000 IU to 2000 IU of vitamin D3 to maintain normal levels.
For those living or competing in northern latitudes (north of Atlanta, GA) little to no vitamin D production will occur, so consumption of fortified foods and supplements is a necessity.
Food Sources of vitamin D

There aren’t many naturally occurring foods that contain vitamin D. Most of the foods containing vitamin D have been fortified, for example milk and certain juices.

Table 1. Food Sources of Vitamin D

FOOD Serving IU per serving *
Fish liver oils (cod liver oil) 1TBSP 1360
Herring, cooked 3 oz 1383
Wild salmon, cooked 3.5 oz 981
Farm salmon, cooked 3.5 oz 249
Tuna, canned in oil 3.5 oz 200
Milk, non fat, reduced fat, whole (fortified) 8 oz 100
Margarine, fortified 1 TBSP 60
Egg 1 whole 18
Beef, liver 3.5 oz 15
Cheese 1 oz 12
*IU = International Units

Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet. National Institute of Health (2007)

Caution

High intakes of vitamin D can cause nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, weakness, and constipation. Current safe upper limits are set at 2000 IU by the National Institute of Health, but there are newer data supporting upper limits as high as 10,000 IU per day.

Estrogen, Testosterone and Vitamin D

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:41:50 GMT

Low vitamin D levels are now found to be linked to sex hormones that can affect bone, and heart health in men. According to building studies, low levels of vitamin D leads to long term ill effects that are intensified by lower levels of the sex hormone estrogen, but not testosterone. The finding, from Johns Hopkins researchers is thought to be the first that links how estrogen, testosterone and Vitamin D work together to prevent heart and bone disease.

Lead study investigator and cardiologist Erin Michos, M.D., M.H.S, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and its Heart and Vascular Institute says, "All three steroid hormones – vitamin D, estrogen and testosterone – are produced from cholesterol, whose blood levels are known to influence arterial and bone health. Our study gives us a much better understanding of how the three work in concert to affect cardiovascular and bone health."

The researchers, as part of a larger studied, looked at the link between low levels of vitamin D and heart disease risk in a subset of men taking part in a cancer study who are also a part of an ongoing national health survey that includes women and men. The study was designed to compare disease risk among people with low levels of vitamin D to those with higher levels.

Free chemical forms of testosterone and estrogen in the men were measured for the study. No link was found between low testosterone levels, vitamin D, heart disease and bone health. However, lower estrogen levels, combined with low vitamin D levels revealed increased risk for heart disease and osteoporosis in the men.

"These results reinforce the message of how important proper quantities of vitamin D are to good bone health, and that a man's risk of developing osteoporosis and heart disease is heavily weighted on the complex and combined interaction of how any such vitamin deficits interact with both their sex hormones, in particular, estrogen," Michos says.

The researchers plan to study blood samples in women to see if the findings are the same. The new research supports past studies that low levels of vitamin D increase an individual’s risk for heart disease. According to Dr. Michos, a source of confusion exists because estrogen replacement in women does not reduce, and may even increase heart disease risk.

In the meantime, studies are ongoing to clearly define the role of vitamin D for preventing heart disease, stroke and for keeping bones healthy. For now, Dr. Michos recommends boosting vitamin D intake by consuming cod, sardines, and fortified dairy products, in addition to vitamin supplements. She also recommends briefly exposing skin to UV rays during warmer weather to boost vitamin D levels.

Study links Vitamin D deficiency to cardiovascular disease & death

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:23:42 GMT

New study links vitamin D deficiency to cardiovascular disease and death
Study finds inadequate levels of Vitamin D may significantly increase risk of stroke, heart disease and death
MURRAY, UT – While mothers have known that feeding their kids milk builds strong bones, a new study by researchers at the Heart Institute at Intermountain Medical Center in Salt Lake City suggests that Vitamin D contributes to a strong and healthy heart as well – and that inadequate levels of the vitamin may significantly increase a person's risk of stroke, heart disease, and death, even among people who've never had heart disease.

For more than a year, the Intermountain Medical Center research team followed 27,686 patients who were 50 years of age or older with no prior history of cardiovascular disease. The participants had their blood Vitamin D levels tested during routine clinical care. The patients were divided into three groups based on their Vitamin D levels – normal (over 30 nanograms per milliliter), low (15-30 ng/ml), or very low (less than 15 ng/ml). The patients were then followed to see if they developed some form of heart disease.

Researchers found that patients with very low levels of Vitamin D were 77 percent more likely to die, 45 percent more likely to develop coronary artery disease, and 78 percent were more likely to have a stroke than patients with normal levels. Patients with very low levels of Vitamin D were also twice as likely to develop heart failure than those with normal Vitamin D levels.

Findings from the study will be presented at the American Heart Association's Scientific Conference on Monday, Nov. 16 in Orlando, Florida.

"This was a unique study because the association between Vitamin D deficiency and cardiovascular disease has not been well-established," says Brent Muhlestein, MD, director of cardiovascular research of the Heart Institute at Intermountain Medical Center and one of the authors of the new study. "Its conclusions about how we can prevent disease and provide treatment may ultimately help us save more lives."

A wealth of research has already shown that Vitamin D is involved in the body's regulation of calcium, which strengthens bones — and as a result, its deficiency is associated with musculoskeletal disorders. Recently, studies have also linked Vitamin D to the regulation of many other bodily functions including blood pressure, glucose control, and inflammation, all of which are important risk factors related to heart disease. From these results, scientists have postulated that Vitamin D deficiency may also be linked to heart disease itself.

"Utah's population gave us a unique pool of patients whose health histories are different than patients in previous studies," Dr. Muhlestein says. "For example, because of Utah's low use of tobacco and alcohol, we were able to narrow the focus of the study to the effects of Vitamin D on the cardiovascular system."

The results were quite surprising and very important, says Heidi May, PhD, MS, an epidemiologist with the Intermountain Medical Center research team and one of the study authors.

"We concluded that among patients 50 years of age or older, even a moderate deficiency of Vitamin D levels was associated with developing coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, and death," she says. "This is important because Vitamin D deficiency is easily treated. If increasing levels of Vitamin D can decrease some risk associated with these cardiovascular diseases, it could have a significant public health impact. When you consider that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in America, you understand how this research can help improve the length and quality of people's lives."

Because the study was only observational, definitive links between Vitamin D deficiency and heart disease could not be assigned — but the findings create an impetus for further study, says Dr. Muhlestein.

"We believe the findings are important enough to now justify randomized treatment trials of supplementation in patients with Vitamin D deficiency to determine for sure whether it can reduce the risk of heart disease," he says.

H1N1 Linked To Vitamin D Deficiency

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:28:11 GMT

According to a recent study, as many as 77 percent of all Americans may be deficient in the vitamin essential for bone health and which may prevent H1N1 (Swine Flu) and seasonal flu, wheezing, winter-related eczema, upper respiratory infections and may help prevent cancer, autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Type 1 diabetes, certain infectious diseases, myocardial infarctions – heart attacks – and many other serious diseases.

When subgroups of the population are considered, depending on which of the many reasonable definitions of deficiency are accepted, the picture is even more ominous. For example, an important new study from Children's Hospital in Boston found that as many as 80 percent of Hispanic children and 92 percent of black children, what the study calls non-Hispanic black children, may also be deficient in this vitamin.

We're talking about vitamin D, also called the sunshine vitamin and often considered the nutrient of the year, if not the decade. Its power as a determinant of human health can be captured by what happens when someone is D deficient. They are at risk for what is called rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults.

In its most extreme form, the bones soften and almost melt, making them so fragile that the simple act of walking up steps may cause bones to fracture and slight movement may cause excruciating pain. In its most severe form, a blood test for vitamin D may show zero. Dr. Fred Kaplan, an eminent orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, whose patient had zero D, said this is rare even in Third World countries.

Why, in the land of plenty and, now, also in the land of over-consumption, overweight and obesity, can there be an epidemic of a vitamin D deficiency or any other nutrient? The reasons may not be fully understood, but the picture is still clear: Over time, we have obtained most of our vitamin D from the sun. When ultraviolet B rays hit the skin they cause the formation of vitamin D. But, in an age of sunscreens and well-placed fear of skin cancer, we tend to either stay out of the sun or use a sunscreen to shield us from its rays, including the ultraviolet B ray.

Even if you stayed in the sun all day in some locations, you would not get enough vitamin D. For example, north of Philadelphia, between November and March, the suns rays are not strong enough to precipitate the formation of vitamin D. And, during early morning and late afternoon, the sun’s rays are not strong enough to generate vitamin D. That’s a big part of the picture, as authorities find that exposure to the sun is the main determinant of vitamin D in humans. This leads us to the next source of vitamin D — our food. Some dairy products, such as milk, are fortified with vitamin D, but we tend to avoid dairy products due to their cholesterol and saturated fat content. Other sources are fatty fish such as salmon, tuna, mackerel, and herring. Still other sources are fortified cereal and other foods such as orange juice, now, often fortified both with vitamin D and calcium. But, most people don’t eat enough of these foods to get enough vitamin D. So, that leaves supplementation with multi-vitamins that include D, combination calcium and vitamin D pills, or vitamin D stand-alones.

There may be another reason for the epidemic – the epidemic of the overweight and obese, who cannot process vitamin D efficiently and are, consequently, more likely to be vitamin D deficient. One final reason for identifying the epidemic is better testing methods for vitamin D. There is a simple blood test now used to determine vitamin D status.

Still another reason for the D epidemic is the aging of the population, as older people — even the middle-aged — are more likely to have D deficiency.

There are other risk factors for a D deficiency, but they probably don’t play a big role in the growing number of people with that deficiency. Consumer Reports catalogued the following risk factors: “Being dark-skinned, middle-aged, or overweight; having a history of gastric-bypass surgery or a condition that interferes with the ability to absorb nutrients from food, such as celiac disease; having a history of kidney or liver disease, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, or thyroid problems; taking medications that reduce blood levels of vitamin D, such as cholestyralmine (Questran and generic), colestripel (Colestid and generic), certain anticonvulsants; or orlistat (Alli, Xenical)” (Consumer Reports on Health, Nov. 2009).

This epidemic of vitamin D deficiency recently came into focus with the publication of an important study led by Dr. Jonathan Mansbach at Children’s Hospital In Boston. The study appears in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics. The study looked at vitamin D levels of 5,000 children and, extrapolating to the entire U.S. population of children, found that millions were receiving what the study called suboptimal levels of D. As noted above, depending on the definition of deficiency or suboptimal levels, the study found 80 percent of Hispanics and 92 percent of black children were at the suboptimal levels. Others have previously documented widespread vitamin D deficiency in children. For example, Dr. Babette Zemel, a vitamin D expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), who is Director of the Nutrition and Growth Laboratory of that hospital and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Penn’s medical school, found that 55 percent of children she studied were vitamin D deficient, in a study published in 2007.

The Mansbach study notes that we’re far from knowing everything we should about how to bring children and adults up to optimal levels, how to avoid any long-run adverse consequences and exactly what level of vitamin D is optimal.

It does recommend, in view of its findings, that children take vitamin D supplements because of the clear health benefits from doing so. The study doesn’t make specific recommendations, but the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children with inadequate sun exposure get a daily intake of at least 400 International Units of vitamin D — vitamin D3 is now recommended as it is better absorbed than D2. The adult recommendations, according to a report in The American Family Physician, as cataloged by www.medscape.com, are as follows:

• In older adults, vitamin D supplementation of 700 to 800 IU per day is associated with a lower risk for falls ... and fractures.

• To prevent vitamin D deficiency, adults with inadequate sun exposure should have a vitamin D intake of 400 to 600 IU per day.

• Adults with vitamin D deficiency, except for those with malabsorption syndromes, should receive maintenance dosages of 800 to 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day.

Dr. Zemel recommends that most adults take vitamin D supplementation of between 1,000 and 2,000 IU of vitamin D, which seems to make the most sense in view of the evidence that I’ve reviewed. Of course, you may want to run this issue past your doctor at your next visit. She said there is some variability in the response to vitamin D so, some may reach optimal levels with 1,000 IU, while others may require more. In severe deficiency cases, more aggressive supplementation may be called for, such as 500,000 IU by injection.

The Medscape report also notes that excessive amounts of vitamin D can be toxic. It states, “Because vitamin D is fat soluble and can be stored in fat, there are concerns regarding toxicity from excessive supplementation. Signs and symptoms of vitamin D toxicity may include headache, metallic taste, nephrocalcinosis or vascular calcinosis, pancreatitis, nausea, and vomiting.” There is a study indicating toxicity is reached at 10,000 I.U. daily. Dr. Zemel told me vitamin D toxicity is extraordinarily rare.

You can be sure there will be continuing and extensive studies of vitamin D to answer many questions. Dr. Mansbach says, “We need to perform randomized controlled trials to understand if vitamin D actually improves these wide-ranging health outcomes. At present, however, there are a lot of studies demonstrating associations between low levels of vitamin D and poor health. Therefore, we believe many U.S. children would likely benefit from more vitamin D.”

Although evidence is not clear on how to prevent H1N1 flu, the suggestions for prevention include taking vitamin D supplements, especially in the winter. In a report in the Examiner.com, five simple steps are recommended to prevent H1N1:

• Get enough vitamin D.

• Use proper hygiene — for example, frequent hand washing, cough into your elbow instead of your hands and avoid contact with public surfaces with your hands whenever possible.

• Adequately rinse the nose and throat.

• Get enough sleep.

• Consume plenty of garlic and other antiviral herbs.

Dr. Zemel believes it is too early to make hard and fast conclusions on the vitamin D/H1N1 connection. Dr. Charlene Compher, an expert on diet and health at Penn, agrees it is too early to draw conclusions on H1N1. But, Dr. Zemel and others note that vitamin D does strengthen the immune response and, therefore, may be useful in preventing H1N1.

Dr. James E. Dowd, a professor of medicine at Michigan State University and Diane Stafford stated, in their book The Vitamin D Cure, about the flu/vitamin D connection, “More respiratory infections during the winter are probably directly related to lower vitamin D production.” They note several factors contribute to the winter infection scenario. In the winter, there aren’t as much ultraviolet B rays, which inactivate many viruses. With less ultraviolet B getting through, humans produce less vitamin D of their own. Finally, vitamin D is important to mobilize the immune system response to infections. As a result of all this, respiratory infections start to rise in late September and peak in February. So, Dr. Dowd’s final advice is to forget the chicken soup with too many noodles, too much salt, and too little chicken and take vitamin D instead. My final advice is to get chicken soup that doesn’t have too much salt, too many noodles, and too little chicken and get someone who can make unsalted chicken soup, with the noodles and chicken you want and, then, take your vitamin D.

Dr. Bruce Kinosian, a geriatrician at Penn and an expert on diet and health, did sound a cautionary note, that vitamins thought to be a magical cure-all often turn out to have quite the opposite effect. He cites a long list of such vitamins of the year, which later fizzled. The most prominent case involved vitamin E, which, in excessive doses, was found to cause lung cancer in a segment of the population.

Perhaps the most fundamental preventive approach was recently recommended by Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Health Research Group. He said take the most powerful and effective drug — a healthy lifestyle. This is the same prescription written over 800 years ago by the eminent Jewish physician and philosopher Maimonides, who said most of us die as a result of our lifestyle. Sometimes ancient wisdom is more powerful than modern technology.

I can’t resist one more observation on Maimonides. He was born In Cordoba, Spain in 1135. But Cordoba was soon taken over by a Muslim sect that demanded all infidels convert to Islam. So the family had to emigrate. He ended up in Cairo, where he practiced medicine. Of course, I doubt, if he were alive today, even the greatest physician of his time would not be allowed to practice medicine there. Does this piece of history suggest, the more things change, the more they stay the same, and does it also after a sad commentary on the state of human progress?

Herb Denenberg can be reached at advocate@thebulletin.us.

Teenage obesity link to future MS

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:09:43 GMT

Being obese as a teenager may be linked with an increased risk of multiple sclerosis as an adult, researchers say.

A 40-year study of 238,000 women found those who were obese at 18 had twice the risk of developing MS compared to women who were slimmer at that age.

Yet body size during childhood or adulthood was not found to be associated with MS risk, the US researchers report in Neurology.

But an MS charity warned more research was needed to confirm the findings.

“ Our results suggest that weight during adolescence, rather than childhood or adulthood, is critical in determining the risk of MS ”
Dr Kassandra Munger Harvard School of Public Health
Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health used data from nurses taking part in a large study on diet, lifestyle factors and health.

Over the course of the study, 593 women were diagnosed with MS, a condition caused by the loss of nerve fibres and their protective myelin sheath in the brain and spinal cord, which causes neurological damage.

The researchers compared the risk of the disease with body mass index (BMI) - a ratio of weight to height - at age 18.

Participants were also asked to describe their body size using a series of diagrams at the age of five, 10 and 20.

The study showed that those with an "obese" BMI of 30 or larger at age 18 had more than twice the risk of developing MS.

There was also a smaller increased risk in those who were classed as overweight .

The results were the same after accounting for smoking status and physical activity level.

Body shape

When comparing the risk of MS with self-reported body shape, the researchers found no association between childhood obesity and the future chances of developing the disease.

They also found no risk associated with adult obesity.

But women who had a larger body size at 20 years of age also had almost twice the risk of MS compared to women who reported a thinner body size.

Previous research has linked high levels of vitamin D with a reduced risk of MS and the researchers point out that obesity is associated with low vitamin D levels in the body.

The researchers suggest fatty tissue produces substances that affect the immune system, which may also provide a link with the chances of developing MS.

Further research should look at confirming the findings in men and individuals from different ethnic groups as well as comparing with vitamin D levels, they said.

"Our results suggest that weight during adolescence, rather than childhood or adulthood, is critical in determining the risk of MS," said study author Kassandra Munger, ScD, of Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

"There's a lot of research supporting the idea that adolescence may be an important time for development of disease, so what we have found is consistent with that."

She added: "Teaching and practicing obesity prevention from the start - but especially during teenage years - may be an important step in reducing the risk of MS later in life for women."

Susan Kohlhaas, research communications officer for the MS Society, said: "This study does not account for several other factors that may play a role in causing MS. Based on that, more work is needed.

"As such, it is difficult to determine whether teenage obesity could be a possible factor in causing MS in women."

Avoid Flu Shots, Get Some Sun Instead

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:20:00 GMT

We’re in the middle of another influenza season in the northern temperate zone, and our government’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has again strongly urged Americans to get a flu shot. Health officials will say that every winter 5–20 percent of the population catches the flu, 200,000 people are hospitalized, and 36,000 people will die from it.

The CDC’s 15-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) makes recommendations each year on who should be vaccinated. Ten years ago, for the 1999–2000 season, the committee recommended that people over age 65 and children with medical conditions have a flu shot. Seventy-four million people were vaccinated.

Next season (2000–01), the committee lowered the age for universal vaccination from 65 to 50 years old, adding 41 million people to the list. For the 2002–03 season, the ACIP added healthy children 6 months to 23 months old, and for 2004–05, children up to 5 years old. For the 2008–09 season the committee has advised that healthy children 6 months to 18 years old have a flu shot each year.

Its recommendation for influenza vaccination now covers 256 million Americans – 84 percent of the US population. Only healthy people ages 19–49 not involved in some aspect of health care remain exempt. Pharmaceutical companies have made 146 million influenza vaccines for the US market this flu season.

Almost all the ACIP members who make these recommendations have financial ties to the vaccine industry. The CDC therefore must grant each member a conflict-of-interest waiver.

The CDC mounts a well-orchestrated campaign each season to generate interest and demand for flu shots. Along with posters for the public, flyers, and health care provider materials, it encourages doctors to “recommend/urge flu shots.” Medical groups, nonmedical organizations (like the YMCA), and the media trumpet CDC-released messages on influenza, notably: “Flu kills 36,000 per year,” “This could be a bad/serious flu year,” and “Flu vaccine is the best defense against flu.”

The government promotes National Vaccination Week, which this past year was December 8–14. This time, however, rather than uniformly following the government’s “Seven-Step Recipe” for generating demand for flu shots, the mainstream media has questioned their benefits.

The New York Times had an article in the September 2, 2008 issue titled “Doubts Grow Over Flu Vaccine in Elderly,” which says, “The influenza vaccine, which has been strongly recommended for people over 65 for more than four decades, is losing its reputation as an effective way to ward off the virus in the elderly.

A growing number of immunologists and epidemiologists say the vaccine probably does not work very well for people over 70, the group that accounts for three-fourths of all flu deaths.” The article refers to a study done by the Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle on 3,500 people, age 65–94, to determine if flu vaccines are effective in protecting older people against developing pneumonia (Lancet 2008;372:398–405).

The National Vital Statistics Reports compiled by the CDC show that only 1,138 deaths a year occur due to influenza alone (257 in 2001, 727 in 2002, 1,792 in 2003, 1,100 in 2004, and 1,812 in 2005). Bacterial pneumonia causes some 60,000 deaths each year, mainly in the winter, when surveillance data show increased prevalence of the flu virus. Using a mathematical (Poisson) regression model, officials estimate that the flu virus triggers some of the wintertime deaths from pneumonia, along with deaths in people with cardiovascular disease and other chronic illnesses. More than 34,000 of those “36,000” flu deaths are what officials estimate are “influenza-associated” pneumonic and cardiovascular deaths, not deaths from the flu.

The Group Health study reported in the New York Times and other newspapers around the country found that flu shots do not protect elderly people against developing pneumonia. Pneumonia occurs with equal frequency in people over age 65 with or without a flu shot. Earlier studies, biased by the “healthy-user effect,” over-estimated the vaccine’s effect on pneumonia because they did not adjust for the presence and severity of other diseases in unvaccinated people.

Group Health authors explain the health-user bias: “The study found that people who were healthy and conscientious about staying well were the most likely to get an annual flu shot. Those who are frail may have trouble bathing or dressing on their own and are less likely to get to their doctor’s office or a clinic to receive the vaccine. They are also more likely to be closer to death.”

Other investigators question that there is a mortality benefit with influenza vaccination. Vaccination coverage among the elderly increased from 15% in 1980 to 65% now, but there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza and pneumonia (Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;178:527–33). As one vaccine researcher puts it, “I think the evidence base [for mortality benefits from flu shots] we have leaned on is not valid” (Lancet Infect Dis 2007;7:658–66).

There is also a lack of evidence that young children benefit from flu shots. A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;1:CD004879).

Randomized controlled trials are the most reliable way to determine the efficacy and safety of a given treatment. No randomized trials show that flu shots reduce mortality from influenza or flu-related pneumonia. Some do show that the flu vaccine is somewhat effective in preventing influenza. In one widely quoted study, 1838 volunteers age 60 and over were randomized to receive a flu shot or placebo (a shot of saline).

The flu shot reduced the relative risk of contracting (serologically confirmed, clinical) influenza by a seemingly impressive 50%. But the incidence of influenza in the unvaccinated people in this study was only 3%, compared to 2% in the vaccinated group (JAMA 1994;272:1661–5). Flu shots reduced the absolute risk of contracting influenza by a meager 1%. In other words, this study showed that for every 100 people that have a flu shot only one will benefit from it – and all 100 risk being harmed by the vaccine.

Another randomized trial by Zaman and coworkers published recently (NEJM 2008;359: published online September 17, 2008, in print October 9) found that the incidence of influenza in infants whose mothers had a flu shot during their pregnancy was 4% (6/159). The incidence of flu in infants whose mothers did not have a flu shot was 10% (16/157).

In this study (done in Bangladesh and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, and others) flu shots reduced the relative risk of influenza illness in infants by a seemingly impressive 63%. But only 6 out of 100 infants benefited from the shot. The other 94 received no benefit – 4 got influenza anyway – and all are at risk from being harmed by the vaccine, particularly from the mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde in it.

After officials select the three strains of flu virus that they think are most likely to be circulating during the next winter season (they picked the wrong ones last year, as is often the case), vaccine makers grow the viruses in fertilized chicken eggs, with 500,000 eggs per day (each examined by hand) for up to eight months. Formaldehyde is used to inactivate the virus. It is a known cancer-causing agent. Aluminum is added to promote an antibody response. It is a neurotoxin that may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease. Other additives and adjuvants in the flu vaccine include Triton X-100 (a detergent), Polysorbate 80, carbolic acid, ethylene glycol (antifreeze), gelatin, and various antibiotics – neomycin, streptomycin, and gentamicin – that can cause allergic reactions in some people.

Two-thirds of the vaccines made for the 2008–09 flu season, 100 million of them, contain full-dose thimerosal, an organomercury compound, which is 49% mercury by weight. (The remaining 50 million vaccines contain either “no” or “trace” amounts of thimerosal.) It is used to disinfect the vaccine. Each one of these 100 million flu shots contain 25 micrograms of mercury, a mercury content that is 50,000 part per billion, 250 times more than the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety limit. Mercury is a neurotoxin, which has a toxicity level 1,000 times that of lead.

There is some evidence that flu shots cause Alzheimer’s disease. This most likely is a result of combining mercury with aluminum and formaldehyde, which renders them much more toxic together through a synergistic effect. One investigator has reported that people who received the flu vaccine each year for three to five years had a ten-fold greater chance of developing Alzheimer’s disease than people who did not have any flu shots (Int J Clin Invest 2005;1:1–4).

The brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease display three pathologic hallmarks characteristic of nanomolar doses of mercury: neurofibillary tangles, amyloid plaques, and phosphorylation of tau protein.

Mercury in vaccines has also been implicated as a cause of autism. Vaccine makers have now removed thimerosal from all childhood vaccines, except flu shots. For more on this subject see my article “Mercury on the Mind,” (www.wafreepress.org/72/mercuryOnTheMind.htm) with its recommended reading list, and Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy by David Kirby.

Three serious, acknowledged adverse reactions to the flu vaccine are joint inflammation and arthritis, anaphylactic shock (and other life-threatening allergic reactions), and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a paralytic autoimmune disease that fells people several weeks after their flu shot. One woman with post-vaccination GBS writes:

“I had a flu shot in November, and by December I became weak and continued to get weaker until I collapsed and was taken to the hospital… I was helpless, totally paralyzed with Guillain-Barré syndrome… I was in ICU for three weeks and then transferred to a rehabilitation center. Three months later I was released to come home because I could ambulate approximately 100 feet with a walker. I continued rehabilitation as an outpatient for the next three months until I could walk with hand crutches. Today, I need a cane. I was not forewarned of any possible hazard when they gave me the flu shot.”

Another woman, diagnosed with GBS after a flu shot, spent 16 months in the hospital paralyzed on a ventilator and life support. After several subsequent multi-month hospitalizations she writes:

“On my last visit to my neurologist I was able to walk about 6 feet holding his hand, not much but it took years to be able to do that. I scratch my head when I hear them promoting flu shots… Most people that I come into contact with – in the hospital and out (nurses, doctors, and regular people) – after hearing my story, feel that it is better to chance the flu and not get the shot.” (from Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners: Guide to Immunizations Risks and Protection by Neil Miller [no relation to this author], pages 84–86.)

The package inserts that come with the flu vaccine note that GBS is a potential complication, and that there are one to two cases of GBS per million vaccinated persons. But there were ten times that many cases of GBS in 1976 with the flu vaccine used that year. Taking a flu shot is essentially the same as buying a lottery ticket for acquiring GBS.

Perhaps that’s why seventy percent of doctors do not get a flu shot.

Not the temperature, but the sun

Flu virus exists in people year-round, and new strains seed a population during the “off-season.” In the northern and southern temperate zones, flu epidemics occur in the cold part of the year, October–March and April–September respectively. Flu epidemics occur in the tropics during the rainy season.

Explanations for why flu epidemics occur in the winter when it is cold – people being indoors in close contact, drier air dehydrating mucus and preventing the body from expelling virus particles, the virus lingering longer on exposed surfaces, like doorknobs, with colder temperatures – do not explain why flu epidemics occur in the tropics.

Something that can explain why flu epidemics also occur both in warm and cold climates is this: During a flu epidemic, wherever it may be, the atmosphere blocks ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation from the Sun. In the temperate zones above latitude 35 degrees North and South, the sun is at a low enough angle in the winter that the ozone layer in the atmosphere absorbs and blocks the short-wavelength (280–315 nanometers) UVB rays. In the tropics during the wet season, thick rain clouds block UVB rays.

Skin contains a cholesterol derivative, 7-dehydrocholesterol. UVB radiation on skin breaks open one of the carbon rings in this molecule to form vitamin D. Vitamin D regulates the expression of more than 1,000 genes throughout the body, including genes in macrophages, cells in the immune system that attack and destroy viruses. Vitamin D switches on genes in macrophages to produce peptides, which are both antibiotic and antiviral: they destroy both bacteria and viruses.

Vitamin D also expresses genes that stop macrophages from overreacting to an infection and releasing too many inflammatory agents – cytokines – that can damage infected tissue. Cytokines were a factor in the 1918–19 Spanish flu pandemic that killed 500,000 Americans. Young healthy adults would wake up in the morning feeling well, then start drowning in their own inflammation as the day wore on. They would be dead by midnight, as happened to my 22-year-old grandmother and my wife’s 24-year-old grandmother.

Autopsies showed complete destruction of the epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract resulting, researchers now know, from a macrophage-induced severe inflammatory reaction to the virus. In a terribly misguided way, these victims’ own immune system attacked and killed them, not the virus, something in future pandemics vitamin D, in appropriate doses, can prevent.

A creditable hypothesis that explains the seasonal nature of flu is that influenza is a vitamin D deficiency disease. Cannell and colleagues offer this hypothesis in “Epidemic Influenza and Vitamin D” (Epidemiol Infect 2006;134:1129–40). They quote Hippocrates (circa 400 B.C.), who said, “Whoever wishes to investigate medicine properly should proceed thus: in the first place to consider the seasons of the year.”

Vitamin D levels in the blood fall to their lowest point during flu seasons. Unable to be protected by the body’s own antibiotics (antimicrobial peptides) that this gene-expresser engineers, a person with a low vitamin D blood level is more vulnerable to contracting colds, influenza, and other respiratory infections.

Studies show that children with rickets, a vitamin D-deficient skeletal disorder, suffer from frequent respiratory infections; and children exposed to sunlight are less likely to get a cold. Given vitamin D’s wide-ranging effects on gene expression, other studies show that people diagnosed with cancer in the summer have an improved survival compared with those diagnosed in the winter (Int J Cancer 2006;119:1530–36).

A growing body of evidence indicates that rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults (both a softening of bones due to defective bone mineralization) are just the tip of a vitamin-deficiency iceberg.

Tuberculosis and various autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, lupus, and type I diabetes have a causal association with low vitamin D blood levels. Vitamin D deficiency plays a causal role in hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and stroke. It is also a risk factor for metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes, chronic fatigue, seasonal affective disorder, depression, cataracts, infertility, and osteoporosis.

At the bottom of the vitamin D iceberg lies cancer. There is good evidence that vitamin D deficiency is a causal factor in some 15 different common cancers. (NEJM 2007;357:266–81.)

The increased number of deaths that occur in winter, largely from pneumonia and cardiovascular diseases, are much more likely due to vitamin D deficiency than to an increased prevalence of serologically-positive influenza virus (which also results from vitamin D deficiency).

Experts reckon that an optimum blood level of vitamin D is 4,000 to 5,000 IU (international units) a day, about ten times the US government’s recommended daily allowance.

A light-skinned person will synthesize 20,000 IU of vitamin D in 20 minutes sunbathing on a tropical beach, at which point vitamin D synthesis shuts down for the day (it takes a dark-skinned person 6 to 10 times longer to make this amount).

Human breast milk does not contain vitamin D, since, from an evolutionary standpoint, our African ancestors’ infants, reared near the equator, could readily synthesize the nutrient from sunlight on their skin. Food contains very little vitamin D. The highest natural concentrations are in wild salmon, mackerel, sardines, and cod liver oil, but even a typical daily dose of cod liver oil supplement contains only about 400 IU. Federal regulations now require that some foods, like milk, be fortified with vitamin D. But one would have to drink 200 glasses of milk to obtain the amount of vitamin D a light-skinned person can make in 20 minutes sunbathing.

The majority of Americans are vitamin D deficient. Cheap vitamin D supplements (D3 is regarded by many nutritionists as better than D2) provide the only way most of us can maintain a good year-round vitamin D blood level. That requires taking 4–5,000 IU of vitamin D a day.

Taking vitamin D in these doses is safe, far safer than a flu shot with all the bad chemicals it contains. Concerns about vitamin D toxicity are overblown. One can take a 10,000 IU vitamin D supplement on a daily basis without any adverse effects. In healthy persons, toxicity is only reached with long-term consumption of more than 40,000 IU a day (Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:694–97).

If you’re interested, check your vitamin D (25-hydroxy D) blood level. People with granulomatous diseases like sarcoidosis should also check their blood level of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, the active form.

Doctors in India and Canada give people a once-yearly injection of 600,000 IU of vitamin D (MJA 2005;183:10–12). That would be better, and safer, than having a flu shot. Daily, weekly, or monthly vitamin D tablets work just as well. For more on this subject see my article “Vitamin D in a New Light” (www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller25.html) and visit Dr. Cannell’s Vitamin D Council website (www.vitamindcouncil.org).

Investigators have completed one double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that shows vitamin D prevents colds and influenza significantly better than a placebo pill (Epidemiol Infection 2007;135:1095–6). A large multi-center randomized trial conducted over multiple flu seasons comparing vitamin D to a flu shot can show conclusively which is better, and safer. But given the financial stakes underpinning flu shots, and the unpatentable nature of vitamin D, who will fund it?

In the meantime, considering what is most likely to be the outcome of such a trial, if it is ever conducted, I avoid flu shots and take vitamin D instead.

Other things you can do to prevent the flu

Avoid sugar. It suppresses immunity. Avoid Omega-6 vegetable oils (corn, safflower, sunflower, peanut, canola, and soybean oil). Americans consume 50 times more of these oils than are necessary for good health. In this amount they are powerful immune suppressants. Take a well-balanced multivitamin/mineral capsule on a daily basis. Eat garlic. Manage stress. Exercise. Get enough rest. And wash your hands. Viruses spread most often from touching contaminated objects, like doorknobs, phones, shared computer keyboards, and shaking hands.

One caveat: what doctors diagnose as “influenza” is often an influenza-like illness caused by a respiratory virus other than the flu. Serologic tests are necessary to prove that one’s respiratory illness is actually caused by the flu virus.