Vitamin D3 and Solar Power for Optimal Health

Another study confirms the sunscreen deception.

2011-11-22T03:02:00.000-08:00

It is undeniable that sunscreen use has profoundly increased in the past few decades, and in spite of that increase, the incidence of melanoma (CMM) continues to climb in the US. A new report, actually a clinical review in the Journal or the American Board of Family Practice,[1] comes to the following conclusions:

1. “Despite the availability and promotion of sunscreen for decades, the incidence of CMM continues to increase in the U.S. at a rate of 3% per year.”

2. There currently is little evidence that sunscreens are protective against CMM.

3. A number of studies suggest that the use of sunscreen does not significantly decrease the risk CMM, and may actually increase the risk of both CMM and sunburns.

The author of the report, Dr. Margaret Planta, also notes that the environmental protection Agency (EPA), states that “there is no evidence that sunscreens protect you from malignant melanoma.”[2]

The Melanoma International Foundation has (MIF) has stated, “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 1500 was struck by the disease.” In other words, as sun exposure has dramatically decreased, melanoma has exponentially increased.[3] Quite obviously, the use of sunscreens has been one reason for the decrease in sunlight exposure. Consider this: if UVR exposure is the cause of CMM as stated by the IMF, there should be a concomitant decrease in melanoma as sunscreen use has increased. However, according to Kline & Company, a research group, sales of sunscreens in 1972 were $33 million; in 2008, sales were $650 million.[4] In addition, according to the Fredonia Market Research Group Company, the sales of sunscreens used in cosmetics in 2007 were $130 million.[5] Interestingly, the MIF suggests that we must do a better job of teaching people to avoid the sun. Isn’t there something terribly wrong with that reasoning?

Sunscreen is a big business that is of no real value to anyone but those who sell it. Follow the money and you will see the reason for the continuing promotion of sunscreens. So hats off to Dr. Planta, who has done her part to expose the sunscreen swindle. After her analysis, she states … “providers may need to alter their advice regarding sunscreen use for CMM prevention.” Amen.

[1] Margaret B. Planta, MD Sunscreen and Melanoma: Is Our Prevention Message Correct? J Am Board Fam Med 2011;24:735–739.

[2] United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sunscreen: The Burning Facts. Available at: http://

www.epa.gov/sunwise/doc/sunscreen.pdf.

[3] Melanoma International Foundation, 2007 Facts about melanoma. Sources: : National Cancer Institute 2007 SEER Database, American Cancer Society's 2007 Facts and Figures, The Skin Cancer Foundation, The American Academy of Dermatology.

[4] Kline & Company's Cosmetics & Toiletries USA Annual Service (1972 and 2008 editions).

[5] Fredonia market research group report, 2009.

Skin cancer and nutrition—stop blaming the sun!

2011-11-18T23:45:00.000-08:00

In the rush by dermatologists and sunscreen companies to demonize sunlight exposure as the universal cause of skin cancers, there has been a total disregard for another factor that strongly protects against or strongly promotes skin damage. That factor is what we eat. Nutrition, according to whether it is healthful or noxious, can have either profoundly positive or negative influences on the skin.

As an example, polyphenols are antioxidant phytochemicals that prevent free-radical damage and thus protect the skin. Polyphenols are prevalent in foods such as nuts, seeds, onions, green tea, pomegranates, apples, berries, cherries and other fruits, grape seeds, as well as vegetables and dried legumes. They also exist in such nutrients as resveratrol and silymarin (milk thistle extract). These nutritional superstars are able to reduce inflammation, quench oxidative stress and thereby prevent free-radical damage to DNA, inhibit immunosuppression, and diminish dysregulation of cellular signaling pathways, thereby reducing the potential for skin cancers.[i]^,[ii]

Particularly interesting is the fact that green tea extract and other polyphenol-containing products such as grape-seed proanthocyanadins, have been shown to inhibit the formation of skin tumors. Two researchers, writing in the Archives of Dermatological Research, made the following conclusion after a thorough review of literature regarding polyphenols and skin cancer: “Based on the epidemiological evidence and laboratory studies conducted using in vitro and in vivo systems, it is suggested that routine consumption or topical treatment of these polyphenols may provide efficient protection against the harmful effects of solar ultraviolet radiation in humans.”ii

We might conclude that protective nutrition would include the consumption of several glasses of green tea daily, some dark green vegetables such as broccoli, spinach and other deep greens, and the daily habit of eating dark berries, cherries and other such fruits. But there are other vegetables involved in the fight against skin cancer.

Some of the best skin protectants are tomatoes, which contain the antioxidant lycopene. One investigation showed that among individuals who consumed forty grams of tomato paste daily for ten weeks, sunburn-resistance time increased by 40%,[iii] and other research demonstrated that eating other tomato-based products correlated to significantly reduced risk of sunburn after exposure to ultraviolet radiation.[iv] And it is also known that individuals with the lowest intake of alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, cryptoxanthin, lutein, and lycopene (all carotenoid antioxidants found in such vegetables as carrots and tomatoes) had a 50% increased risk for melanoma.[v]

And what are factors that have negative influences on the risk of skin cancer? Alcohol consumption is one such factor; research indicated a 250% increased melanoma risk among those who consumed two or more alcoholic drinks per day.[vi] There are at least two other negative dietary aspects that correlate to increased skin-cancer risk: first, the highest dairy-product consumption has also been shown to correlate to a 2 ½ times increase in risk of developing a squamous-cell carcinoma (common skin cancer, not melanoma).[vii] Secondly, the types of fats we consume are exceptionally important. In my book, I have discussed and documented this topic thoroughly, but suffice it to say that the types of fats we consume in junk foods are deadly, both for overall health and for skin cancer. They are filled with free-radical molecules that wreak havoc on the skin; if we eat such fats without massive quantities of colorful fruits and veggies, we will be much more susceptible to skin damage and potential cancer.

To summarize: to the extent that sunlight causes skin damage, it does so due to lack of proper nutrients in the diet, and there is little doubt that there will be some damage caused by sun exposure without proper nutrition. Even vitamin D, which protects against so many cancers (including skin cancer), will not be able to completely overcome the deleterious effect of the “suicide diet” that most of us consume.

[i] Afaq F, Katiyar SK. Polyphenols: Skin Photoprotection and Inhibition of Photocarcinogenesis. Mini Rev Med Chem 2011 Oct 28. [Epub ahead of print]

[ii] Afaq F, Katiyar SK. Skin photoprotection by natural polyphenols: Anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and DNA repair mechanisms. Arch Dermatol Res 2010;302:71.

[iii] Stahl, W. et al. Dietary Tomato Paste Protects against Ultraviolet Light–Induced Erythema in Humans. J Nutr 2001;131:1449-51.

[iv] Aust, O. et al. Supplementation with tomato-based products increases lycopene, phytofluene, and phytoene levels in human serum and protects against UV-light-induced erythema. Int J Vitam Nutr Res 2005;75:54-60.

[v] Millen A. et al. Diet and melanoma in a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:1042-51

[vi] Bain, C. et al. Diet and melanoma. An exploratory case-control study. Ann Epidemiol 1993;3:235-38.

[vii] Hughes, M. et al. Food intake and risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin in a community: The Nambour skin cancer cohort study. Int J Cancer 2006; online publication ahead of print.

Lack of Sunlight, Chronic, Unbearable Pain and a Vitamin D Miracle.

2011-08-23T11:51:00.000-07:00

Can vitamin D overcome chronic pain? In many cases the answer is yes!

Some time ago an acquaintance of mine listened to one of my presentations and purchased a copy of my book. On reading the section about pain, he remembered a lady friend of his whose teenage daughter was suffering from chronic pain. The condition had progressed to the point that in order for her to survive without excruciating agony, her doctors were giving her maximum doses of the most potent pain killers. These drugs were not sufficiently effective to stop the pain, so they also gave her equally potent sleeping pills. You can probably imagine her physical and mental state at that point.

My acquaintance then took my book to the young lady’s mother and asked her to read the pain section. She complied and then gave her daughter 5,000 IU of vitamin D daily. Within three days, the pain was gone and the young woman had her life back.

This is all very impressive, but there is one more very important aspect of the story: the young woman never ventured out into the sunlight. Her need for vitamin D could probably have been prevented if she had been doing some tanning in the summer sunlight around noon each day, or at least leading an outdoor lifestyle.

The results obtained by this girl were no surprise to me, because I have seen pain subside in may people who have taken vitamin D. The research also corroborates the efficacy of vitamin D—whose only natural source is UVB light from sunlight or sun lamps—in reducing pain. A most impressive result comes from a clinical observation of five vitamin D-deficient patients who suffered from myopathy, a disease of bone and muscle tissue. They were confined to wheelchairs and experienced severe fatigue, weakness, and chronic pain. After receiving 50,000 IU per week of vitamin D, all regained enough strength and energy within four to six weeks to be mobile and functional, and their aches and pains disappeared.[1] In another study, five chronic-pain patients at John Hopkins University Medical School were treated with vitamin D, and their pain resolved within a week.[2] The study was conducted in 1991, and considering the plague of chronic pain in the world, it amazes me that no one seems to have paid any attention to this research. Certainly it is a piece of information that the pharmaceutical companies would like to keep well-hidden.

Many other pieces of research indicate a close relationship between vitamin D levels and various types of pain. Remember that the cause of vitamin D deficiency is sunlight deprivation or lack of exposure to other types of UVB light such that produced by sun lamps. Be careful when tanning and never burn.

[1] Prabhala, A. et al. Severe myopathy associated with vitamin D deficiency in Western New York. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1199-1203.

[2] Gloth, F. et al. Can vitamin D deficiency produce an unusual pain syndrome? Arch Intern Med 1991;152:1662-4

More evidence that sunlight prevents breast cancer and other cancers—at all ages.

2011-06-14T12:50:00.000-07:00

Those who would frighten us away from the sun continue to propagandize that sunlight causes cancer. They sometimes have the decency to say “melanoma” rather than lump all cancers together, but they are dead wrong on that front also; most major cancers, including melanoma, are dramatically reduced by regular sunlight exposure (for references, see the cancer section in my book). There have been so many papers written on the protective effects of sunlight and vitamin D on cancer, that most of the newer papers serve primarily as reinforcement for what is already known. A recent study from Ontario, Canada is a case in point.[1] The researchers determined the amount of time spent outdoors by 3,101 women with breast cancer and compared them with 3,471 women who were cancer-free. The ages of the women was also compared to the risk of cancer to determine the differences in breast-cancer risk during different periods of life. High sunlight exposure was considered to be greater than 21 hours outdoors per week; low exposure was considered to be six hours per week or less.

Among teenagers, high sunlight exposure correlated to reduced risk of breast cancer of 29% compared to those who had the lowest exposure; among those in their 20s and 30s, high sunlight exposure correlated to a reduced risk of 36%; among those in their 40s and 50s, a 26% reduced risk; and among those in their 60s and 70s, a 50% reduced risk.

Other researchers have made similar observations. One group demonstrated that girls who had the greatest exposure to sunlight during the ages of 10-19 had a 35% decreased risk of breast cancer as adults when compared to those who had the least exposure.[2]

And what about prostate cancer? It has been established that men who are in the lowest forth of sunlight exposure have three times the risk of developing prostate cancer compared to those in the highest forth.[3] And young boys who are exposed to lots of sunshine have only about one-fifth the risk of contracting prostate cancer—as adults—when compared to those who have had little sun exposure.[4]

So, are the dermatologists doing us a favor by frightening us away from the sun? You may make your own conclusions. Just remember to avoid burning if you choose to enjoy the health benefits of your solar friend.

[1] Anderson LN, Cotterchio M, Kirsh VA, Knight JA. Ultraviolet Sunlight Exposure During Adolescence and Adulthood and Breast Cancer Risk: A Population-based Case-Control Study Among Ontario Women. Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun 9. [Epub ahead of print]

[2] Knight J. et al. Vitamin D and reduced risk of breast cancer: a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:422-29.

[3] Moon, S. et al. Ultraviolet radiation: effects on risks of prostate and other internal cancers. Mutat Res 2005; 571:207–219.

[4] Luscombe, C. et al. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation: association with susceptibility and age at presentation with prostate cancer. Lancet 2001;358:641–42.

Could the asthma upsurge be due to sunlight and vitamin D deficiency?

2011-05-30T14:55:00.000-07:00

According to the Centers for Disease Control in May 2011, “about one in 12 people in the United States now has asthma—a total of 24.6 million people and an increase of 4.3 million since 2001.”[1]

Researchers in Boston have hypothesized that the decrease in sunlight exposure and resultant vitamin D deficiency is responsible for the asthma epidemic.[2] Others show the same facts: the increase in asthma has paralleled the decline in sunlight exposure, and asthma risk is 40% lower in children of women who have the highest vitamin D consumption during pregnancy.[3]Is it time to return to the sun?

Another study shows an asthma reduction of 52-67%.[4] In that study, THREE-YEAR- OLD CHILDREN WHOSE MOTHERS WERE IN THE HIGHEST QUARTILE OF VITAMIN D CONSUMPTION DURING PREGNANCY HAVE A 61% REDUCED RISK OF A “RECURRENT WHEEZE,” A SYMPTOM OF ASTHMA, WHEN COMPARED TO THOSE WHOSE MOTHERS WERE IN THE LOWEST QUARTILE. The researchers believed that inadequate D levels in the fetus leads to improper development of the lungs and immune system, and they demonstrated that each 100-IU increase in vitamin D consumption resulted in a 19% risk reduction.

A scientific experiment from Australia also demonstrated that when asthmatic mice were exposed to ultraviolet light, before being exposed to an asthma-causing allergen, asthma symptoms were reduced.[5] Considering the yearly $700-million expenditure for Australian asthma-treatment, regular sunlight exposure seems a small price to pay. Tanning beds, like the sun, put forth ultraviolet light to produce vitamin D. These researchers were really using tanning beds for mice! Finally, another recent study from Spain has shown that children exposed to the most sunlight have lower risks of asthma.[6]

Steroids are used as an asthma therapy, but in some individuals, asthma is resistant to steroids. However, when vitamin D3 is added to the steroid treatment, symptoms are greatly reduced.[7]Perhaps sufficient supplementation or sunlight exposure could eliminate steroid need completely. This is the bottom line: children and adults are meant to play outdoors or otherwise be exposed to non-burning ultraviolet B (UVB) light—the most natural way to produce vitamin D. Every child should have a natural life playing outdoors, and both children and adults should regularly have sunlight exposure. It is critical for human health. What a travesty to deprive our children of healthy, normal lives because the Powers of Darkness need to make money selling sunscreens. Be careful not to burn, and enjoy the sun!

[1]Vital Signs: Asthma Prevalence, Disease Characteristics, and Self-Management Education --- United States, 2001--2009 MMWR, 2011; 60(17);547-552

[2]Litonjua, A. et al. Is vitamin D deficiency to blame for the asthma epidemic? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120:1031-35

[3] Camargo, C. et al. Maternal intake of vitamin D during pregnancy and risk of recurrent wheeze in children at 3 y. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:788-95.

[4] Devereux, G. et al. Maternal vitamin D intake and early childhood wheezing. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:853-59

[5]Hart, P. et al. Sunlight may protect against asthma. Perth (Australia) Telethon institute for child health research. Quoted in Australian AP Oct 24, 2006.

[6] Arnedo-Pena, A et al. Sunny hours and variations in the prevalence of asthma in schoolchildren according to the International Study of Asthma and Allergies (ISAAC) Phase III in Spain. Int J Biometeorol 2011;55:423-434.

[7]Xystrakis, E. et al. Treatment of Steroid-Resistant Asthma. J Clin Invest 2006;116:146-55

Can sunlight influence fertility and sexual behavior?

2011-05-30T14:08:00.000-07:00

Now that I have your undivided attention, let’s look at the evidence.

Sperm quality and number is superior in men with high vitamin D levels compared with men who are deficient,[i] and other research shows that FEMALE RATS MATED TO DEFICIENT MALES HAVE 73% FEWER SUCCESSFUL PREGNANCIES THAN THOSE MATED TO VITAMIN D-SUFFICIENT MALES.[ii] The ovaries and testes of rats that lack vitamin D receptors (VDR) do not function properly,[iii]and vitamin D deficiency profoundly reduces sperm production;[iv] but that condition is reversible when vitamin D is optimized,[v]--an important fact—since human sperm also contains VDR.[vi]

Dr. Anne Clark assessed the vitamin D levels of about 800 men who were unable to produce a pregnancy in their wives.[vii] About a third had low D levels. After lifestyle changes and vitamin D supplementation, 40% of the men were able to impregnate their wives.

If vitamin D increases fertility, we would expect conception rates to be higher in summer than in winter—and, so it is. Conception rates are highest in late summer.⁵⁴ For those who are having difficulty producing a pregnancy, conception may be as simple as a sunny vacation.

And what about sexuality? There is a direct correlation between high D levels and high testosterone levels in men.[viii] Since testosterone is the “love hormone” in both sexes, libido might be increased by sunlight exposure. Also, D supplementation in testosterone-deficient men increases testosterone by 25% in one year.[ix]

This has been known for decades; in 1939, Dr. Myerson measured circulating testosterone in men and exposed their various body parts to UV.[x] AFTER FIVE DAYS OF CHEST EXPOSURE, TESTOSTERONE INCREASED 120%. WHEN GENITALS WERE EXPOSED, TESTOSTERONE INCREASED BY 200%! Considering the current cultural obsession with sex, I’m surprised that no one has followed up on Myerson’s work. The light emitted from tanning beds is the same type of light used by Dr. Myerson. I expect that many people may have a totally new concept of the much-maligned tanning bed if this information is widely promulgated.

[i] Bjerrum, Poul et al. Vitamin D is positively associated with sperm motility and increases intracellular calcium in human spermatozoa. Human Reproduction 2011;26:1307-1317.

[ii] Kwiecinski, G. et al. Vitamin D is necessary for reproductive functions of the male rat. J Nutr 1989;119:741-44.

[iii] Kinuta, K. et al. Vitamin D is an important factor in estrogen biosynthesis in both female and male gonads. Endocrinology 2000;141:1317.

[iv] Sood, S. et al. Effect of vitamin D deficiency on testicular function in the rat. Ann Nutr Metab 1992;36:203-8.

[v] Sood, S. et al. Effect of vitamin D repletion on testicular function in vitamin-D deficient rats. Ann Nutr Metab 1995;95-98

vi] Corbett, S. et al. Vitamin d receptor found in human sperm. Urology 2006;68:1345-49

[vii] Clark, Anne. Fertility Society of Australia conference in Brisbane - paper presented by D. Clark - research was part of a doctoral study by University of Sydney student Laura Thomson. News.com.au Oct 19 2008

[viii] Wehr, E et al. Association of vitamin D status with serum androgen levels in men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2010;73(2):243-8

[ix] Pilz, S. et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on testosterone levels in men. Horm Metab Res 2011;43(3):223-5

[x] Myerson, A. Influence of ultraviolet radiation on excretion of sex hormones in the male. Endocrinology 1939;25:7-12

Vitamin D, Sunlight and Pneumonia

2011-05-14T18:35:00.001-07:00

A new analysis of vitamin D levels among winter pneumonia patients has produced some very interesting observations:

1. Those admitted to the Waikato, New Zealand hospital with severe vitamin D deficiency were more likely to die within a month compared to those who had normal or only slightly low levels.

2. The overall death rate was 29% for those with severe D deficiency, and only 4% for those with higher levels. This could indicate that vitamin D deficiency causes a 700% increase in the risk of death by pneumonia. Follow this link to read more about the research: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/health/2011-05/13/c_13873372.htm

The authors noted that sunlight is the best source of vitamin D, and that winters in Hamilton, New Zealand area, like most temperate areas of the world, do not allow sufficient sunlight to stimulate vitamin D production. They also state that pneumonia is the single largest cause of death in children worldwide, killing about 1.6 million children under the age of five each year.

What a horror that so many countries, by means of their health departments and dermatological societies, are frightening children and their parents away from the sunlight during the seasons of the year when it is available. This ensures that vitamin D deficiency will ensue in winter. Also, at the very least, supplementation of vitamin D3 should be recommended during winter—supplementation of about 1,000 IU for every 25 pounds of bodyweight.

This is not the first time the relationship between pneumonia and sunlight has been observed. In 2003, Dr. Dowell and his colleagues showed that the disease is seasonal, with the lowest rates in summer, an increase in fall and a peak in winter.[1] This relationship exactly mimics the quantity of sunlight exposure available in different seasons. Other research has pointed out the same relationship,[2] [3]and still other studies have shown the importance of vitamin D in prevention of pneumonia and related infections to it,[4]

A popular fitness guru used to scream the slogan, “Stop the insanity!” I agree with her advice as it relates to sunlight exposure and would like to scream that it is insane for medical and governmental organizations to frighten their citizens out of the sunlight. Sunshine has become one of our most critical health needs, and those who would have us avoid it at all costs have blood on their hands.

[1] Dowell, S. et al. Seasonal patterns of invasive pneumococcal disease. Emerg Infect Dis 2003;9:573-9.

[2] Leow L, Simpson T, Cursons R, Karalus N, Hancox RJ. Vitamin D, innate immunity and outcomes in community acquired pneumonia. Respirology. 2011;16(4):611-6

[3] White AN, Ng V, Spain CV, Johnson CC, Kinlin LM, Fisman DN. Let the sun shine in: effects of ultraviolet radiation on invasive pneumococcal disease risk in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. BMC Infect Dis. 2009 Dec 4;9:196.

[4] Oduwole AO, Renner JK, Disu E, Ibitoye E, Emokpae E. Relationship between Vitamin D Levels and Outcome of Pneumonia in Children. West Afr J Med 2010;29(6):373-8.

Tanning beds, sunlight, vitamin D and superb bone strength. Can tanning beds produce the World’s strongest bones?

2011-05-06T08:19:00.000-07:00

Can tanning beds or sunlight produce sufficient vitamin D to produce superbly strong bones? The answer appears to be “yes.”

I am part of an email list of persons who are intensely interested in vitamin D research and who share articles on vitamin D and sunlight as preventive therapies for various diseases. I recently received a most interesting email from Rufus Greenbaum, who lives in the UK and who organizes vitamin D symposiums there. He had met a man who had been using a tanning bed twice weekly since 1970 and who had just completed a bone densitometer test, known as a DEXA scan. On viewing the results of the scan, his doctor told him “You have the strongest bones that I have ever seen.”

That news certainly came as no shock. Conventional tanning beds produce vast quantities of vitamin D in short periods of time,[1] and vitamin D is absolutely essential for optimal absorption of calcium in the gut.[2] [3] Without calcium absorption, vast quantities of ingested calcium will make little difference to bone strength; much of the calcium will be passed through the intestine and flushed down the toilet. It is already known that people who use tanning beds have dramatically stronger bones and higher blood-vitamin D levels than those who don’t use them.[4]

Both tanning beds and sunlight enhance the levels of vitamin D in the skin by producing UVB light, which converts cholesterol in the skin to vitamin D. In fact, ninety percent of the vitamin D produced in the US population is due to sunlight exposure.[5]

Research has shown that daily sunlight exposure in elderly women, during a period of one year, increased serum vitamin D levels by 400% and decreased the risk of hip fractures dramatically.[6] A control group, who did not receive sunlight exposure, had six fractures for each fracture experienced by the sunlight-exposed group. The message is that sunlight exposure may decrease the risk of osteoporotic fractures by 84%! Finally, and even more impressively, research from Spain showed that among women who actively sought the sunlight, the risk of fractures was only one-eleventh that of women who spent most of their lives indoors.[7] This begs the questions: Should we really avoid sunlight and tanning beds like the plague? Is such avoidance worth the risk of dying from osteoporotic fractures?

The key to safe exposure to sunlight or sunlamps is to be sure not to burn. And for those who are frightened about melanoma, please read my previous blogs on the subjects: http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2010/07/exposing-melanoma-fraud-part-1.html

http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2010/07/exposing-sunlightmelanoma-fraud-part-2.html

http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2011/03/sunshine-weekends-and-vitamin-d-may.html

http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2009/12/melanoma-midsummer-nights-dream-or.html

[1] Grant, W. Personal communication with the author, June, 2006

[2] Heaney, R. et al. Calcium Absorption Varies within the Reference Range for Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 2003; 22: 142–146.

[3] Heaney, R. Vitamin D and calcium interactions: functional outcomes. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88(suppl):541S–4S

[4 Tangpricha V. et al. Tanning is associated with optimal vitamin D status (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration) and higher bone mineral density. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80:1645-49.

[5] Reichrath J. The challenge resulting from positive and negative effects of sunlight: how much solar UV exposure is appropriate to balance between risks of vitamin D deficiency and skin cancer? Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2006;92(1):9-16

[6 Sato Y, Metoki N, Iwamoto J, Satoh K. Amelioration of osteoporosis and hypovitaminosis D by sunlight exposure in stroke patients. Neurology 2003;61(3):338-42.

[7] Larrosa, M. Vitamin D deficiency and related factors in patients with osteoporotic hip fracture. Med Clin (BARC) 2008;130:6-9.

Can Sunlight and Vitamin D reduce the risk of Crohn’s Disease?

2011-04-08T07:22:00.000-07:00

Crohn’s Disease is a nasty autoimmune bowel disease that causes abdominal pain, inflammation and fibrous tissue buildup. It is increasing in incidence, particularly among people younger than 20,[1] a group that spends less time outdoors each passing year. Unfortunately and unnaturally, young people spend their time in indoor activities, and when venturing outdoors are advised by their parents and medical “experts” to dutifully apply sunscreen, which can reduce the production of vitamin D in the skin by up to 99%.[2]

Crohn’s is closely correlated to vitamin D deficiency, and moderate sunlight exposure coupled with winter supplementation has been recommended in the past to reduce its severity. Fifty percent of Crohn’s patients have levels of vitamin D below 20 ng/ml (very deficient) in winter and 19% in summer.[3]

Suffice it to say (without reviewing the copious research indicating that sunlight and vitamin D correlate to lower risk of many autoimmune diseases), it appears that sunlight exposure may help to reduce the risk of Crohn’s. The latest indication is a study from France, demonstrating that people living in geographic areas of lowest sunlight exposure have a substantially higher risk of Crohn’s disease.[4] This disease is just one of more than 100 that correlate closely to deficiency of sunlight and vitamin D, yet we continue to see warnings by dermatologists to avoid the sun. When will they ever learn?

Non-burning sunlight exposure is a boon to mankind, and it does not cause melanoma. Read my book for more information or see my earlier blogs on the subject of melanoma and sunlight.

[1] Chouraki V, et al "The changing pattern of Crohn's disease incidence according to age in northern France: a constant increase in the 0-19 years age group (1988-2005)" DDW 2009; Abstract 114.

[2] Matsuoka, L. et al. sunscreens suppress cutaneous vitamin D3 synthesis. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 1987; 64:1165-68

[3] Gilman, J. et al. Determinants of vitamin D status in adult Crohn’s disease patients, with particular emphasis on supplemental vitamin D use. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006;60(7):889-96

[4] Nerich, V. et al. Low exposure to sunlight is a risk factor for Crohn's disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;33(8):940-945.

Sunshine weekends and vitamin D may save you from melanoma

2011-03-16T11:09:00.000-07:00

Sunlight, and plenty of it, may be the best method for reducing the risk of melanoma. An impressive piece of research on melanoma and sunlight appeared recently in the European Journal of Cancer.[1] Dr. Julia Newton Bishop and colleagues (thirteen scientists in all) researched sunlight exposure habits and compared those habits to the risk of melanoma in an English population. Among other notable findings was a considerable reduction in melanoma risk among those who received the highest summer sunlight exposure on weekends. Compared to those with the least exposure to sunlight on weekends, those who received 4-5 hours of sunlight during the weekends had a reduced risk of melanoma of 28%, and those who received more than 5 hours had a reduced risk of melanoma of 33%.

In general, the English have very light complexions—complexions that are known to be more susceptible to melanoma, a fact that makes the research even more interesting. One can only conclude from this information that regular sunlight exposure protects against melanoma. In reality, this result should come as no surprise; at least 16 studies have shown indoor workers are much more likely to contract melanoma than outdoor workers.[2] Other research points out that melanomas occur much more frequently on areas of the body that receive little or no exposure to sunlight.[3]

Finally, it is quite obvious that outdoor living has decreased dramatically since 1935. Based on materials furnished by the Department of Labor Statistics, I calculated that sunlight exposure has decreased by at least 83%..[4] Yet, the Melanoma International Foundation has stated, “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 1500 was struck by the disease.” In other words, as sunlight exposure has dropped profoundly, melanoma risk has increased by 3,000%! Based on those facts, the idea—that sunlight exposure is the cause of melanoma—is counterintuitive at best, and ludicrous at worst.

It is likely that vitamin D production in the skin, in response to sunlight, is a major player in reducing the risk of melanoma. Enzymes in melanoma cells form active vitamin D[5], which in turn can lead to melanoma cell death,[6] and in lab experiments, active vitamin D can destroy melanoma cells.[7] In fact, vitamin D works in many ways to reduce cancer. Here are just a few:

1. Vitamin D promotes apoptosis (normal cell death) so that cancer cells die normally.[8]

2. Vitamin D inhibits proliferation (out-of-control growth) of cancer cells.[9]

3. Vitamin D inhibits angiogenesis in cancerous tissue. Angiogenesis is the formation of blood vessels. It is a process that provides blood and nutrients to newly formed tissue. If angiogenesis in cancer cells can be stopped, the cells die. Vitamin D acts a selective angiogenesis inhibitor—it retards the growth of new, undesirable “feeder” blood vessels into cancer cells.[10]

4. Vitamin D inhibits metastasis (the spreading of cancer cells from the initial location of the disease to another location).[11]

The key to safe sunlight exposure is to avoid burning and to gradually develop a tan. Caution is always in order. To prevent melanoma, we need not to avoid the sunlight but safely embrace it!

[1] Newton-Bishop, J et. al. Relationship between sun exposure and melanoma risk for tumours in different body sites in a large case-control study in a temperate climate. European Journal of Cancer 2011; 4 7; 7 3 2 –7 4 1.

[2] Lee J. Melanoma and exposure to sunlight. Epidemiol Rev 1982;4:110–36.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Armstong K, Kricker A. The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer. J Photochem Biol 2001;63:8-18

Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface. Br J Cancer 1981;43:842-9.

Crombie IK. Variation of melanoma incidence with latitude in North America and Europe. Br J Cancer 1979;40:774-81.

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.

Tucker MA, Goldstein AM. Melanoma etiology: where are we? Oncogene 20f03;22:3042-52.

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.

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.

Oliveria SA, Saraiya M, Geller AC, Heneghan MK, Jorgensen C. Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:131-8.

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

[3] 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.

Rivers, J. Is there more than one road to melanoma? Lancet 2004;363:728-30.

Crombie, I. Racial differences in melanoma incidence. Br J Cancer 1979;40:185-93.

[4] 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.

[5] Chida K, Hashiba H, Fukushima M, Suda T, Kuroki T. Inhibition of tumor promotion in mouse skin by 1 alpha, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. J Cancer Res 1985;45:5426–30.

[6] Evans SR, Houghton AM, Schumaker L, Brenner RV, Buras RR, Davoodi F, et al. Vitamin D receptor and growth inhibition by 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 in human malignant melanoma cell lines. J Surg Res 1996;61:127–33.

[7] Seifert M, Diesel B, Meese E, Tilgen W, Reichrath J. Expression of 25-hydroxyvitamin D-1alpha-hydroxylase in malignant melanoma: implications for growth control via local synthesis of 1,25(OH)D and detection of multiple

splice variants. Exp Dermatol 2005;14:153–4.

[8] Diaz, G. et al. Apoptosis is induced by the active metabolite of vitamin D3 and its analogue EB1089 in colorectal adenoma and carcinoma cells: possible implications for prevention and therapy. Cancer Res 2000;60:2304-12.

Swamy, N. et al. Inhibition of proliferation and induction of apoptosis by 25-hydroxyvitamin D3-3beta-(2)-Bromoacetate, a nontoxic and vitamin D receptor-alkylating analog of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in prostate cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:8018-27.

Miller, E. et l. Calcium, vitamin D, and apoptosis in the rectal epithelium. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 2005;14: 525-28.

[9] Swamy, N. et al. Inhibition of proliferation and induction of apoptosis by 25-hydroxyvitamin D3-3beta-(2)-Bromoacetate, a nontoxic and vitamin D receptor-alkylating analog of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in prostate cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:8018-27.

[10] Mantell, D. et al. 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 inhibits angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo. Circulation Research. 2000;87:214.

[11] Nakagawa K. et al. 1alpha,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D(3) is a preventive factor in the metastasis of lung cancer. Carcinogenesis 2005;26:429-40.

El Abdaimi, K. et al. The vitamin D analogue EB 1089 prevents skeletal metastasis and prolongs survival time in nude mice transplanted with human breast cancer cells. Cancer Research 2000;60:4412-4418.

Lokeshwar B. et al. Inhibition of prostate cancer metastasis in vivo: a comparison of 1,23-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol) and EB1089. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Rev. 1999;8:241-48.

The Institute of Medicine recommendations on vitamin D are a new low in ignorance and data suppression.

2010-12-18T11:05:00.000-08:00

By Marc Sorenson, EdD

The Institute of Medicine (IOM), a health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has just released its long-awaited vitamin D supplementation recommendations. To the disappointment of the world’s leading vitamin D scientists, those recommendations make a mockery of an exhaustive body of scientific research.

The IOM suggests that 600 international units (IU) of supplemented vitamin D3 per day is ideal, and that a blood level of 20 ng/ml is sufficient for optimal human health. The IOM also suggests that supplementation with higher quantities of vitamin D could be harmful and that there are no randomized controlled trials to prove the safety or efficacy of higher levels of supplementation.

The Sunlight Institute declares that the IOM’s recommendations are ill-conceived and dangerous for the following seven reasons:

1. Extensive research indicates that if there were no other dietary source of vitamin D, 600 IU per day in adults would produce a blood level, on average, of about 6 ng/ml, a level so low that it correlates to the occurrence of the disease osteomalacia or “adult rickets.” Incredibly, in the press conference, it was stated that 600 IU would be adequate at the North and South Poles.

2. The IOM considers the 600-IU-per-day recommendation, added to dietary sources and sunlight exposure, to be sufficient for optimal health. In reality, little vitamin D is present in foods. For example, three glasses of vitamin D-fortified milk provides only 300 IU; 3.5 oz. of farmed salmon, 200 IU; a glass of fortified orange juice, 100 IU totaling a mere 1,200 IU per day including the IOM-recommended 600 IU supplement. Sunlight exposure, the most natural and productive source of vitamin D, could easily fill in the gap to a 2,000 IU level during the summer, but in the winter, north of latitude 340,(On a line from Los Angeles to Atlanta, for example) little or no vitamin D is produced. In the northern US and in Canada, “vitamin D winter” (the time during which the body cannot produce any vitamin D from the reduced amount of available sunshine) lasts for several months. Ninety-five percent of Canadians are considered (by non-IOM measures) to be D deficient in winter, and Americans in the Northern states are not much better. A 600-IU supplement plus the IOM’s recommended food sources is a recipe for a winter health disaster, which may include highly increased susceptibility to colds, influenza, cancer, heart disease MS, septicemia and numerous other maladies. It was also stated at the IOM press conference that the average American gets 200-300 IU from food.

3. Vitamin D blood level of 20 ng/ml are not really even sufficient for bone health, and that number sets research back several years. The “normal vitamin D range” printed on laboratory blood-test results prior to 2005 was from 8.9 ng/ml to 46.7 ng/ml. Based on newer research findings, that range changed after 2005, and lab test results began carrying the statement, “Recent studies consider the lower limit of 32 ng/ml to be a threshold for optimal health” with a reference to research conducted by Dr. Bruce Hollis who is widely regarded as one of the world’s top vitamin D scientists. (Hollis BW. J Nutr 2005;135:317-22) Dr. Hollis stated: “The current adult recommendations for vitamin D, 200-600 IU per day, are very inadequate when one considers that a 10-15 min whole-body exposure to peak summer sun will generate and release up to 20,000 IU vitamin D-3 into the circulation.” Hollis has also established that pregnant and lactating women need as much as 6,000 IU daily to provide for their own and their infants’ needs (Hollis, BW. J Bone Miner Res 2007;22, suppl 2:V39-44). The IOM’s low recommendations attempt to take us back to the Dark Ages of vitamin D knowledge.

4. The fact that up to 20,000 IU of vitamin D can be produced by sunlight exposure (the natural source of vitamin D) defines the IOM recommendation of 600 IU as being ludicrous. 600 IU is produced in summer sunlight in less than one minute in a light skinned individual. If God or nature created a system that produces such a vast quantity of D, there is a reason for it, and it is obvious that 5,000 IU per day is not harmful. Dr. Reinhold Vieth has presented compelling information that there is no evidence of any toxicity or adverse effects at prolonged intakes of 10,000 IU per day (Vieth, R Ann Epidemiol;2009;19:441-5).

5. The IOM also inexplicably recommended the same vitamin D intake for infants as for adults (600 IU), which to any reasonable person, is illogical.

6. The IOM used only bone health to make its recommendations, but bone health is a terrible indicator of adequate vitamin D levels because only very small quantities of vitamin D are adequate to ensure bone health. The IOM, by ignoring both observational and randomized controlled trials showing that low levels of vitamin D correlate to a multitude of health problems including cancer, heart disease, depression, influenza, Multiple Sclerosis, and autism, has done a dreadful disservice to those struggling with these and other health issues that are impacted by low vitamin D levels.

7. Ironically, the IOM consulted with several leading vitamin D researchers but then completely ignored their recommendations. This indicates a bias that may extend beyond simple ignorance and descend into the realm of concealing information.

Another of the most prolific researchers in the vitamin D field, Dr. William Grant, gave the Sunlight Institute this statement regarding his feelings about the IOM report:

“The Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin D and Calcium committee of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies was essentially a tool of the agencies that funded the study, including the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health. Federal sponsors defined the key questions, and a technical expert panel was assembled to refine the questions and establish inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies to be reviewed. By excluding ecological studies and case-control studies in which serum 25(OH)D levels were measured at time of diagnosis, they in essence dictated the conclusion that vitamin D has no health benefits other than for healthy bones. Since 90% of our vitamin D comes from the sun, they throw out 90% of the evidence. The work of this committee contrasts with well-conducted scientific reviews such as that by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which included over 600 scientists contributing to the report and 500 scientists as reviewers. The process was open rather than behind closed doors and resulted in a Nobel Prize for the contributors. If only health policy were treated as a science instead of a business tool.”
William B. Grant, Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC), San Francisco

In putting forth its report, the IOM has destroyed any credibility it might have had with those who conduct the science of vitamin D. The IOM has misled the public and placed itself on a level with those who, in the past, ignorantly told us to avoid sunlight exposure at all costs. If the public follows their recommendations we will return to the Dark Ages of health awareness; the report is an absurd suppression of critically important research.

Is there a 45% reduction of breast-cancer risk with a combination of sunlight and vitamin D?

2010-12-17T13:36:00.000-08:00

--
A new study from France has shown that women who were exposed to a combination of sunlight and dietary vitamin D had up to a 45% reduced risk of contracting breast cancer (BC).[1] The researchers noted that “high” dietary vitamin D by itself did not correlate to a reduced risk of BC, whereas sunlight exposure alone did correlate to a lowered risk.

This research should come as no surprise, since there is a miniscule amount of vitamin D in the typical diet. For instance, the typical 3 ½-oz piece of farmed salmon contains about 175 International Units (IU) of vitamin D; 8 oz. of fortified milk 100 IU; 8 oz. fortified orange juice 100 IU. The amounts typically derived from eggs, oils and margarine is negligible. It is now felt by many experts in the vitamin D field that 4,000-5,000 IU of vitamin D supplementation is necessary for optimal health, so it can be seen that trying to optimize breast health with the paltry 400-500 IU from diet is like trying to color the ocean red with a cup of tomato paste.

Conversely, 20 minutes full-body exposure to summer sunlight at noon can produce as much as 20,000 IU;[2] so this study, showing that sunlight correlates far better to lowered BC risk than does dietary vitamin D, would be expected. However, most people are not actively seeking the sunlight and are not even close to producing the 20,000 IU mentioned. Therefore, in this French BC study, it was probably the combination of both sunlight-produced vitamin D and dietary vitamin D that sufficiently increased blood levels to a threshold that triggered vitamin D’s cancer protection mechanisms, which are numerous.

Other research—a double blind, placebo controlled interventional study—has shown that when vitamin D supplementation is over 1,100 IU daily, there is a profound correlation to a lowered risk (from 60-77%)of all cancers in women.[3]

And as to sunlight per se, Dr. Esther John and colleagues conducted research on the sun-exposure habits of women and correlated those habits to the risk of developing BC. Those women who had the greatest exposure to sunlight were 65% less likely to develop BC.[4]

After the Institute of Medicine (IOM) made their inanely low recommendations for vitamin D supplementation (600 IU daily for all ages), it is good to see that research belying that foolishness continues to surface. We must remember that sunlight exposure is the most natural way to produce vitamin D, and that if supplements are going to be used when sunlight is not available, a minimum of 2,000-4000 IU daily is necessary to optimize blood levels for best health.

[1] Engel P, Fagherazzi G, Mesrine S, Boutron-Ruault MC, Clavel-Chapelon F. Joint effects of dietary vitamin D and sun exposure on breast cancer risk: results from the French E3N cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010 Dec 2. [Epub ahead of print]
[2] Hollis BW. J Nutr 2005;135:317-22
[3] Lappe J, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies M, Recker R, Heaney R. Vitamin
D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:1586 –91.
[4] John, E. et al. Vitamin D and breast cancer risk: The HANES 1 epidemiologic follow-up study, 1971-1975 to 1992. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 1999;8:399-406.

Sunlight Deficiency and Rickets--a Terrible, Unnecessary Disease

2010-11-15T15:32:00.000-08:00

--
The Front page of a British newspaper, The Telegraph, leads with this headline, "Middle Class Children Suffering Rickets." [1] It continues by stating that rickets is a 17th Century disease that is now caused by covering children in sunscreen and limiting time outside in the sunshine.

Dr. Nicholas Clarke, who is alarmed about the dramatic increase in the disease in just 24 months, states, “We are facing the daunting prospect of an area like Southampton, where it is high income, middle class and leafy in its surroundings, seeing increasing numbers of children with rickets, which would have been inconceivable only a year or so ago.”

Every physician in the world knows that rickets is a vitamin D-deficiency disease caused by a lack of sunlight, which is the most natural source of vitamin D. The fear of developing melanoma has driven us to slather ourselves with sunscreens that block up to 99% of vitamin D production. It has also caused us to otherwise avoid the sun like the plague, which ironically, brings on a plague of rickets, other bone diseases, cancer and heart disease, as well as myriad other maladies I discuss in my book.

The advice by the Powers of Darkness to avoid sunlight is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the public, whether in England or America. We know from an impressive analysis by Dr. Robyn Lucas and colleagues[2] that if those who would have us avoid the sunlight were totally successful, the outcome would be disastrous: for every case of death and disability caused by sunlight avoidance, there would be 2,000 cases of death and disability (caused by bone diseases alone) caused by sunlight avoidance! Of course, one of those diseases is rickets. Rickets, originally thought to be a disease of poor children who didn’t get enough sunlight due to working indoors, was thought to have been eradicated 80 years ago. It is now increasing rapidly. The blame can be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who profit from frightening us out of the sunlight. Non-burning sunlight, when available, can easily prevent or reverse this disease, and vitamin D supplements or tanning lamps can help raise vitamin D levels in pregnant mothers and their offspring-to-be. It is time to return to the sunlight! Just be sure not to burn.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8128781/Middle-class-children-suffering-rickets.html
[2] Robyn M Lucas, Anthony J McMichael, Bruce K Armstrong and Wayne T Smith. Estimating the global disease burden due to ultraviolet radiation exposure. International Journal of Epidemiology ;37(3):667-8.

GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER: IS VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY A MAJOR PLAYER IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES, DIABETES AND HIGH CHOLESTEROL?

2010-11-04T16:54:00.000-07:00

-
A most interesting piece of research on the relationship of heart disease to blood levels of vitamin D was recently published in the American Journal of Cardiology.[1] Researchers from the Intermountain Heart Collaborative (IHC) Study Group studied 41,497 subjects with at least one vitamin D measurement from 2000-2009. The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the subjects was 63.6%. The researchers found that during that time period, those with the lowest levels of vitamin D had highly significantly increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension (high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol and triglycerides) and peripheral vascular disease, all diseases in their own right, and all risk factors for developing heart disease. They also found that those who had none of these risk factors, but who had severe D deficiency, had an increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia.

Low vitamin D levels were also correlated closely to coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction (heart attack), heart failure, stroke and overall risk of death (not surprising). Of particular interest was the fact that hypertension was nearly 90% more likely in those with low vitamin D levels (less than 15 ng/ml) compared to those who had high levels (greater than 30 ng/ml). Unfortunately, the analysis did not compare those who were severely deficient with those who had "optimal levels," which I would consider to be 60 ng/ml or more. Had they done that, it is likely that the differences in disease and death rates would have been even more impressive. Other findings of this study showed that infections, kidney failure and fractures were more likely among those with the lowest levels of vitamin D.

This research is one of the best conducted and controlled that I've seen, but it is hardly the only finding that showed a dramatic increase in these diseases when comparing people with low vitamin D levels to those with higher levels. One of the most impressive compared the risk of heart attack with vitamin D levels and found those with the lowest D levels to have 2.4 times the risk of heart attack compared to those with the higher levels.[2]

As you can see, vitamin D makes a difference. if you'd rather not have a heart attack, it behooves you to optimize your vitamin D levels!

There are another dozen research papers that point out a terrific difference in heart disease rates among people with different vitamin D blood levels; however, they all come to the same conclusion. Get some sunlight and optimize your vitamin D levels!

[1] Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, Heidi T. May, PhD, MSPH Benjamin D. Horne, PhD, MPH
Tami L. Bair, BS Nathaniel L. Hall, MD,, John F. Carlquist, PhD, Donald L. Lappé, MD, and
Joseph B. Muhlestein, MD Relation of Vitamin D Deficiency to Cardiovascular Risk Factors,
Disease Status, and Incident Events in a General Healthcare Population. Am J Cardiol 2010;106:963–968)
[2] Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Hollis BW, Rimm EB. 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and risk of myocardial infarction in men. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1174–1180.

Sunlight, vitamin D and brain disorders. If you want to stay smart, get some sunlight!

2010-10-12T11:25:00.000-07:00

Remember that when you read an article regarding blood levels of vitamin D, you are usually reading an article about sunlight: in the general population, the source of 90% of vitamin D is sunlight exposure.

A recent study on the relationship between cognitive impairment (thinking disorders) and vitamin D levels came to some very interesting conclusions. Dr. David Llewellyn, the lead researcher, stated the following: “Compared with those patients with sufficient levels of vitamin D, those participants who were very vitamin D deficient had a 6-fold higher risk for cognitive impairment, with a doubling of risk still for those who were considered deficient (≥25 to <50)"[1]” Dr. Llewellyn also stated that "low levels of vitamin D are just genuinely bad for the brain."

Vitamin D research continues to amaze. The evidence mounts that vitamin D deficiency has a profound negative influence on the function of the brain. Previously, I wrote of the compelling evidence that autism is a vitamin D deficiency disease and also presented research indicative of a role of vitamin D in reducing depression, elevating mood and increasing happiness. I also came across a small study of 17 psychiatric patients. Of these patients, two were borderline deficient and 15 were deficient. Seven had such low levels that blood tests could not produce an accurate reading. Encouragingly, the researchers recommended that mental-health inpatients receive adequate exposure to sunlight.[2]

In my book, I documented the critical importance of sunlight/vitamin D to the development and health of the brain:

1. Prenatal vitamin D deficiency in animals profoundly alters brain development.[3] [4]] Dr. Darryl Eyles and his colleagues state, “rats born to vitamin D-deficient mothers had profound alterations in the brain at birth.” The cortex was longer but not wider, the lateral ventricles were enlarged, the cortex was proportionally thinner and there was more cell proliferation throughout the brain… Our findings would suggest that low maternal vitamin D(3) has important ramifications for the developing brain."

2. Rats born to vitamin D-deficient mothers also have permanently damaged brains into adulthood[5] and exhibit hyperlocomotion (excessive movement from place to place) at the age of ten weeks.[6] Could this relate to hyperactivity in our children? Such rats also show impairment in learning and memory skills.

3. People hospitalized for bipolar disorder, and who are exposed to sunlight daily, are able to leave the hospital almost four days earlier than those who are not exposed,[7] and people hospitalized for seasonal affective disorder (SAD) also have shorter stays when they are placed in rooms on the sunny side of the hospital.[8]

4. Two studies of mice with abnormal vitamin D receptors (VDR) in the brain found an increase in anxiety, aggression, poor grooming, maternal pup neglect and cannibalism.[9] [10] Abnormal VDR cause a situation similar to vitamin D deficiency; the vitamin D that is available cannot properly stimulate the genes that prevent the anxiety, cannibalism, etc.

5. Another vital function of vitamin D is in inducing the production of nerve-growth factor (NGF), a protein that is essential for proper development of nerve cells in the brain and elsewhere.[11] [12] It is obvious that if vitamin D is not present, nerve cells will simply not develop as they should in the central nervous system and brain, leading to the mental disorders we discuss here.

Can it be that the Powers of Darkness (the “sunscare” promoters) are partially responsible for the widespread depression, negativism, anxiety and psychological disorder that plague our society to a greater extent each year? Their efforts, coupled with modern indoor lifestyles, are leading to increases in a plethora of diseases, some of which are disorders of the brain. I believe it will be only a matter of time until vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women will be correlated to abnormally low IQ in the children they bear. In another blog, I have already discussed autism as a vitamin D deficiency disease, and there is an indication that women who conceive in the fall and winter tend to bear more dyslexic children,[13] as well as children with other learning and reading disabilities.[14] [15] [14] The nervous system’s critical time to develop neural connections is in the first months after conception. If the pregnant woman is low in vitamin D during that time, it could affect the development of the fetal brain.Activated vitamin D is a potent hormone that is essential for proper brain development.

As a society and as parents, we cannot wait for more research before acting on the crying need for optimal vitamin D levels. Our mental and physical health, as well as that of our children, depends on regular, non-burning exposure sunlight, or other sources of vitamin D.

[1] Susan Jeffery, Low Vitamin D Levels Associated With Increased Risk for Cognitive Impairment Medscape Today, July 13,2010.
[2] Tiangga, E. et al. Psychiatric Bulletin 2008;32:390-93
[3] Eyles, D. et al. Vitamin D3 and brain development. Neuroscience 2003;118:641-53.
[4] McGrath, J. et al. Vitamin D3-implications for brain development. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2004;89-90:557-60.
[5] Feron, F. et al. Developmental vitamin D3 deficiency alters the adult rat brain. Brain Res Bull. 2005 Mar 15;65(2):141-8.
[6] Burne, T. et al. Transient prenatal Vitamin D deficiency is associated with hyperlocomotion in adult rats. Behav Brain Res 2004;154:549-55.
[7] Benedetti, F. et al. Morning sunlight reduces length of hospitalization in bipolar depression. J Affect Disord 2001;62:221-23.
[8] Beauchemin, K. et al. sunny hospital rooms expedite recovery from severe and refractory depressions. J Affect Disord 1996;40:49-51.
[9] Kalueff, A. et al. Increased anxiety in mice lacking vitamin D receptor gene. Neuroreport 2004;15:1271-74.
[10] Kalueff, A. et al. Behavioral anomalies in mice evoked by Tokyo disruption of the vitamin D receptor gene. Neurosci Res 2006;54:254-60.
[11] Kiraly,S et al. Vitamin D as a neuroactive substance: review. Scientific World Journal 2006;6:125-139.
[12] Carlson, A. et al. Is vitamin D deficiency associated with peripheral neuropathy? The Endocrinologist 2007;17:319-25.
[13] Livingston, R. et al. Season of birth and neurodevelopmental disorders: summer birth is associated with dyslexia. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1993;32:612-6.
[14] Badian, N. Reading Disability in an Epidemiological Context: Incidence and Environmental Correlates. J Learn Disabil. 1984;17:129-36.
[15] Martin, R. Season of birth is related to child retention rates, achievement, and rate of diagnosis of specific LD. J Learn Disabil 2004;37:307-17

Exposing the Sunlight/Melanoma Fraud: Part 2

2010-07-31T20:32:00.000-07:00

--
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

Exposing the Sunlight/Melanoma Fraud: Part 1

2010-07-30T12:15:00.000-07:00

-
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

Food poisoning is increasing rapidly. Is vitamin D deficiency the reason?

2010-07-08T15:36:00.000-07:00

--
According to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), there has been an explosion in USA food poisoning since 1994.[1] In addition, the OCA states, “Food related illnesses are on the increase. At the end of 2000, more than 250 foodborne diseases were described, but in the vast majority of cases, the causal agent is unknown. Diarrhea and vomiting are the most common symptoms, with serious after-effects that include blood poisoning, abortion, infections, blood in the urine, and death. Chronic disorders of the heart and nervous system can also result, as well as arthritis, renal disease, and disease of the digestive system.”

The OCA further emphasizes, “To see foodborne illnesses in perspective, total illnesses from known pathogens are estimated at 38.6 million, and that includes 5.2 million (13%) due to bacteria, 2.5 million (7%) due to parasites and 30.9 million (80%) due to viruses. The breakdown for foodborne illnesses in terms of known etiological agents is similar, with the highest proportion due to viruses.”

The OCA’s main concern is the proliferation of genetically modified foods (GMF), which it feels may be responsible for the increase in foodborne disease, and indeed GMF may be one of the causes. However, recent research regarding vitamin D may provide further answers to the surging risk of these illnesses. In a previous post I stated that blood levels of this all-important hormone are dropping precipitously in the American population, with a near doubling of the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency that existed 10 years ago. Now, 90% of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, and 75% of the white population suffer from the disorder. [2]

But how does that fact relate to foodborne illnesses? Research by Wu and colleagues[3] showed that pathogens such as salmonella are killed in the intestine by vitamin D, provided that there are vitamin D receptors available. The researchers found that in mice with no vitamin D receptors (VDR), intestinal salmonella quickly caused severe illness and death; in those with receptors, there was little or no illness.

Of course, VDR’s do not work unless vitamin D is available. Since 90% of vitamin D in the body is provided by the stimulation of cholesterol in the skin, non-burning sunlight exposure is vitally important in keeping vitamin D at optimal levels.

Here are the mechanisms by which vitamin D may thwart food poisoning:
Vitamin D has been known for some time to be able to stimulate the production of a potent antibiotic, known as cathelicidin, which breaks down the cell walls of both bacteria and viruses. However, it is not a “broad-spectrum” antibiotic, defined as an antibiotic that kills both the disease-causing pathogens, and friendly intestinal bacteria that work to keep such pathogens at bay. Vitamin D also works by stimulating the immune system’s army of cells such as T cells[4] and macrophages[5] to attack and destroy pathogens.

So, it is entirely possible that the surge in foodborne illnesses is due to vitamin D deficiency, which results in a compromised intestinal immune system. It is time to return to the sun.

Also, see my blog on vitamin D and Diarrhea. http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2010/05/vitamin-d-deficiency-and-death-from.html

[1] http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/foodpoison111101.cfm
[2] Adams, J and Hewison, M. Update in Vitamin D. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010;95: 471–478.
[3] Wu S, Liao AP, Xia Y, Li YC, Li JD, Sartor RB, Sun J. Vitamin D Receptor Negatively Regulates Bacterial-Stimulated NF-{kappa}B Activity in Intestine. Am J Pathol 2010;Jun 21. [Epub ahead of print]
[4] von Essen MR, Kongsbak M, Schjerling P, Olgaard K, Odum N, Geisler C.. Vitamin D controls T cell antigen receptor signaling and activation of human T cells. Nat Immunol 2010;11:344-49.
[5] Kamen DL, Tangpricha V. Vitamin D and molecular actions on the immune system: modulation of innate and autoimmunity. J Mol Med 2010;88:441-50.

The Sunlight-avoidance insanity is causing severe vitamin D deficiency. Will you die from sunlight deprivation?

2010-07-07T16:16:00.000-07:00

--
Due to fear of melanoma, a deadly disease that has been erroneously attributed to sunlight exposure, the people are leaving the sunlight and becoming more like cave dwellers. For those of you who believe in evolution, can you imagine that after millions of years under the sun, human beings have been frightened away from their heritage?

There is an inconvenient truth about melanoma that the Powers of Darkness (those who would take away our sunlight) would prefer you not know: people who work regularly outdoors have a lower risk of melanoma than those who work indoors.

Godar, et al.[1] present evidence that outdoor workers, while receiving 3-9 times the UVR exposure as indoor workers,[2] [3] have had no increase in melanoma since before 1940, whereas melanoma incidence in indoor workers has increased steadily and exponentially. Other research corroborates the idea that outdoor workers have fewer melanomas than indoor workers.[4] Vagero, et al.[5] showed that melanomas were more common among indoor office workers and other indoor workers than among outdoor workers, and Kennedy, et al.[6] showed that a lifetime of sunlight exposure correlated to a reduced risk of melanoma. Garland, et al.[7] showed that those who worked indoors had a 50% greater risk of melanoma than those who worked both indoors and outdoors, and Kaskel, et al.[8] demonstrated that children who engage in outdoor activities are less likely to develop melanoma than those who do not. Many other papers in the scientific literature show that both incidence and death rate from melanoma are reduced with increasing exposure to sunlight.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

This is not to say that sunburn does not contribute to melanoma, but it certainly shows that habitual, non-burning sun exposure correlates to a reduced risk of this deadly disease. In addition, there are approximately 105 additional diseases that are reduced among those who have higher sunlight exposure and therefore have higher levels of vitamin D (see my book for a discussion on each disease). We cannot live without vitamin D, which is not a vitamin at all, but in its most active form is a potent steroid hormone that controls at least 1,000 genes.[20] It is also important to understand that 90% of all vitamin D is produced in the skin by the action of sunlight on skin.[21]

However, blood levels of this important hormone are dropping precipitously in the American population, with a near doubling of the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency that existed 10 years ago, and with 90% of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, and 75% of the white population now suffering from the disorder.[22]

So what does this mean to the health of US citizens? I have calculated in a manuscript currently in preparation, that the diseases that correlate to sunlight deprivation/vitamin D deficiency kill approximately 1.42 million people per year in the US. Diseases that correlate to sunlight exposure kill approximately 1,500 people per year. That produces a ratio of about 948:1. I will continue with my mid-day sunbathing, thank you!

Remember that no one is advising the injudicious use of sunlight; baking in the sun for hours is neither necessary nor desirable, but regular sunlight exposure is a sine qua non for vibrant health. To say that we should avoid sunlight is like saying we should avoid water. Water correlates to drowning, but no one asks us to avoid water; if we did the results would be catastrophic, as are the results of vitamin D deficiency due to sunlight deprivation.

Of course, there are some extremely rare conditions that may preclude sunlight exposure. Check with your (enlightened) physician.

Is it time to return to reasonable, habitual, non-burning sunlight exposure? It could save your life!

[1] 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
[2] Godar D. UV doses worldwide. Photochem Photobiol 2005;81:736–49.
[3] 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.
[4] Lee J. Melanoma and exposure to sunlight. Epidemiol Rev 1982;4:110–36.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] Armstong K, Kricker A. The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer. J Photochem Biol 2001;63:8-18
[12] Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface. Br J Cancer 1981;43:842-9.
[13] Crombie IK. Variation of melanoma incidence with latitude in North America and Europe. Br J Cancer 1979;40:774-81.
[14]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.
[15] Tucker MA, Goldstein AM. Melanoma etiology: where are we? Oncogene 20f03;22:3042-52.
[16] 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.
[17] 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.
[18] Oliveria SA, Saraiya M, Geller AC, Heneghan MK, Jorgensen C. Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:131-8.
[19] 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
[20] Luz E. Tavera-Mendoza and John H. White. Cell Defenses and the Sunshine Vitamin. Scientific American 2007;November, p.42.
[21] Reichrath J. The challenge resulting from positive and negative effects of sunlight: how much solar UV exposure is appropriate to balance between risks of vitamin D deficiency and skin cancer? Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2006;92(1):9-16.
[22] Adams, J and Hewison, M. Update in Vitamin D. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010;95: 471–478.

Vitamin D for rheumatic diseases: how much is “sufficient?”

2010-06-26T11:19:00.000-07:00

--
Two June research reports show that most patients with rheumatic diseases have levels below the “normal” range of vitamin D, considered in the report to be 48-145 nmol/L. In US measurements, that number is equivalent to 19.2-58 ng/ml. The diseases assessed within the reports were inflammatory joint disease, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, myalgia, and osteoporosis. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-06/elar-vdd061710.php

The research also showed that supplementation of 800-1,000 international units (IU) was not sufficient to normalize vitamin D levels in most patients.

A problem with such studies is that researchers must be in the dark ages not to know that 32 ng/ml is considered the lowest healthful level of vitamin D, and that optimal levels are 50-60. Therefore, when people are below the level of 19, they are not only below deficient, they are severely deficient. In these studies, it is likely that 80% of the people would have been deficient if the appropriate measure of 32 ng/ml had been used, and it is also likely that 100% were suboptimal.

An important fact is this: one minute of full-body sunlight exposure around noon can produce as much as 1,000 IU of vitamin D. This is Nature’s way. It is counterintuitive to suppose that a supplement of only 1,000 IU would be sufficient to achieve optimal levels of vitamin D, if Nature produces vastly more with within 20 minutes. And, in those seasons when vitamin D is not available, many vitamin D scientists now recommend 3,000-5,000 IU daily. Using the miniscule quantities of 400 IU (multivitamin tablet) to 1,000 IU to eliminate the inflammation of diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, unexplained muscle pain and chronic back pain is like trying to attack an elephant with a bb gun.

In all cases in these research papers, the subjects who had the lowest vitamin D levels also had the greatest disease activity, which is not surprising; vitamin D is powerful antiinflammatory hormone, and without it we suffer. More research need to be conducted, using 3,000-5,000 IU daily, or getting people outside with a lot of skin exposure when the sun is direct (without burning of course).

About one year ago I posted a blog that explained a great deal about rheumatoid arthritis and the influence of vitamin D in preventing and reducing the risk of the disease. The following is a repost of that blog, which fits in nicely with what we have just discussed:

Do you suffer from rheumatoid arthritis (RA)? Can vitamin D help?

Both dietary and supplemental vitamin D reduce the risk of RA, which is an autoimmune disease—a disease in which the body’s immune system attacks its own tissue. In a study of 29,000 women, those who ranked in the top third of vitamin D consumption had one-third less risk of RA.[1] It is likely that a greater vitamin D intake would have produced much better results, since it is virtually impossible to ingest sufficient vitamin D from food and multivitamins.

In studies performed on mice, vitamin D was shown to inhibit the progression of rheumatoid arthritis and minimize or prevent symptoms.[2] The same is true in humans. In subjects diagnosed with a form of the disease known as inflammatory arthritis, the lower the vitamin D levels are, the higher is the disease activity.[3] Vitamin D's anti-inflammatory properties and its ability to reduce the autoimmune response are likely responsible for the improvement in RA.[4]

Investigations also find that RA is more common in winter, consistent with the idea that vitamin D is a major factor in reducing the risk.[5] In a report from researchers in Ireland, it was shown that 70% of patients had low vitamin D levels and that 26% were severely deficient.[6] However, in that report, 21 ng/ml was considered as the deficiency level and 10 as the severe deficiency level. A level of 21 is dangerously deficient. The ideal level of vitamin D is 50-60 ng/ml. Using those numbers, it is likely that all of these patients ranged between deficient and severely deficient.

In our health institute/resort, we observed that guests with arthritis often regained full range of motion in their joints from a week to a month after beginning a program. I assumed that our anti-inflammatory vegetarian nutrition was responsible for the positive results. Now I realize that many of the benefits came from sunlight exposure during outdoor exercise.

RA prevention and relief are two more reasons to obtain regular, non-burning sunlight exposure. Remember that sunscreens can prevent 99% of vitamin D production by the skin.

[1] Merlino, L. et al. Vitamin D intake is inversely associated with rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2004;50:72-77.
[2] Cantorna, M. et al. 1,25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol inhibits the progression of arthritis in murine models of human arthritis. J Nutr1998;128:68-72.
[3] Patel, S. et al. Serum vitamin D metabolite levels may be inversely associated with current disease activity in patients with early inflammatory polyarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56;2143-49.
[4] Cutolo, M. et al. Vitamin D in rheumatoid arthritis. Autoimmune Rev 2007;7:59-64.
[5] Cutolo, M. et al. Circannual vitamin D serum levels and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: Northern versus Southern Europe. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006;24:702-4.
[6] Haroon, M. Report to European Union League Against Rheumatism , June 13, 2008.

Gwyneth Paltrow has “seen the light.”

2010-06-22T10:05:00.000-07:00

--
I’m a fan of Gwyneth Paltrow—a talented actress who performs well in any movie genre. She recently performed a great service by posting a “sunlight” article on her newsletter: http://goop.com/?page=newsletter_vn&id=most_recent. In it, she related the fact that her tibia had been fractured, and that on having her vitamin D assessed, she was told that her levels were the lowest her doctors had ever seen. She obviously had a disease called osteomalacia, or adult rickets. They suggested strong vitamin D supplementation and that she spend time in the sunlight. Her statement about sunlight was followed by an exclamation point, suggesting her surprise at such a heretical idea. Gwyneth also included an excellent article by her physician, Frank Lipman, which beautifully puts to rest the notion that after thousands or millions of years under the sunlight, we should avoid any contact with it.

Kudos is due Ms. Paltrow and her physicians, especially Dr. Lipman. When celebrities speak, their fans listen. The Powers of Darkness (POD)—those who would have us avoid the sunlight and have even suggested that we live underground to avoid it[1]—are responsible for the weakened bones of Gwyneth and millions more in the US alone. As stated by Susan Brown, PhD, in a research review in Alternative Medicine Review, “Each year in the United States, more than 1.5 million low-trauma osteoporotic fractures occur, including more than 300,000 hip fractures.”[2]

In spite of the fact that calcium cannot be absorbed without sufficient vitamin D, and that “normal” levels of at least 32 ng/ml are needed to optimize absorption,[3] [4] the POD continue to spew their anti-sun venom.

I recently had the opportunity to work with a woman—who had been away from of the sunlight for years—as she worked as a massage therapist in a large resort hotel. She had experienced a great deal of bone and muscle pain and told me that she had to quit her job; her hands hurt too severely to continue. She also informed me that her bones had begun to shift across her chest as she did massages, and she sometimes had to use crutches to walk. I suggested that she have her vitamin D assessed and she complied. Her D measurement was 6 ng/ml, a level indicative of severe deficiency (we now consider optimal levels to be about 60). After bringing her levels to 45, all of her bone disorders disappeared, and she is now able to resume her career in massage therapy.

Those who read the medical literature are not surprised about Ms. Paltrow’s experience. For instance, one of the most compelling studies on fracture risk and sunlight was done by Dr. Sato and his colleagues in Japan.[5] They studied the effects of sunlight exposure—or the lack thereof—on the bone mass of elderly women who were either exposed to sunlight or were kept inside a care facility. Over twelve months, 129 women were exposed to sunlight every day, and another 129 received no sunlight exposure. The results were startling: in these sedentary women, the sunlight group increased bone mass by an average 3.1%; in the non-sunlight-exposed group, it decreased by 3.3%, a difference of 6.4%. This is important, because high bone mass prevents fractures. The risk of fracture increases two to three times for every 10 percent drop in bone density.[6] In Sato’s study, however, the women who stayed indoors had six-times as many fractures as those who sunbathed outdoors. Also interesting to note is that vitamin D levels in the sunlight-exposed group increased by 400%.

In addition, an investigation in Spain concluded that women who actively participated in sun exposure had one-eleventh the chance of a hip fracture as those who did not![7] Another in Switzerland found that only 4% of hip fracture patients had vitamin D blood levels of 30 ng/ml.[8] In other words, 96% were vitamin D-deficient.

Gwyneth, we appreciate your willingness to help spread the truth about sunlight, one of God’s greatest gifts to the world and the only natural way to obtain vitamin D. We hope that more celebs will speak out against the Powers of Darkness and help us “stop the insanity.”

[1] Dr. Wilma Bergfeld, then-president of the American Academy of Dermatology at Derm Update, the AAD’s 1996 annual media day, Nov. 13, 1996.
[2] Brown, S. Vitamin D and Fracture Reduction: An Evaluation of the Existing Research. Altern Med Rev 2008;13:21-33.
[3] Heaney RP. The vitamin D requirement in health and disease. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2005;97:13-19.
[4] Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Giovannucci E, Willett WC, et al. Estimation of optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D for multiple health outcomes. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:18-28.
[5] Sato, Y. et al. Amelioration of osteoporosis and hypovitaminosis D by sunlight exposure in stroke patients. Neurology 2003;61:338-42.
[6] Nguyen, T. et al. Prediction of osteoporotic fractures by postural instability and bone density. BMJ 1993;307:1111-15.
[7] Larrosa, M. Vitamin D deficiency and related factors in patients with osteoporotic hip fracture. Med Clin (BARC) 2008;130:6-9.
[8] Bischoff-Ferrari, H. et al. Severe vitamin D deficiency in Swiss hip-fracture patients. Bone 2008;42:597-602.

Do serum levels of vitamin D correlate to reduced cancer risk or not?

2010-06-21T17:47:00.000-07:00

--
The American Journal of Epidemiology just released several studies on vitamin D and cancer that concluded vitamin D levels were not correlated to several cancers; that is, higher levels of vitamin D did not correlate to lowered cancer rates.[1] The key to understanding this finding is that in each case, the levels were measured prior to the diagnoses of cancer. Prediagnostic measurements occur at one point in time and do not measure changes that occur between the measurement and the onset of the disease. If, after the moment of vitamin D measurement, habits of sunlight exposure or diet change, vitamin D levels can fluctuate considerably. I believe that Vitamin D levels at the time of diagnosis are much more indicative of the affects of vitamin D on the risk of disease, and my opinion is that optimal higher vitamin D levels that are maintained for long periods are much more likely to reduce disease risk. Dr. William Grant, in an email today, told me he believed …”serum 25(OH)D levels measured several years ago aren't a good indication of either lifetime 25(OH)D or recent 25(OH)D." 25(OH)D is the measurement labs use to assess serum levels of vitamin D.

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) that maintains similar supplementation amounts for a period of years could give a good indication of whether consistently higher vitamin D levels have a protective affect on cancers. Let’s suppose, for instance, that one group of randomly chosen women received a vitamin D supplement for four years and another group received a placebo during that same time. All of the women would be free of cancer when the study began. Then, at the end of four years, the women would be assessed for the number of cancers in each group, and it could be determined if the supplemented group fared better than the placebo group. This is known as a randomized, placebo-controlled interventional study, and is considered the “gold standard” of research. Obviously, if the vitamin D group fared far better than the placebo group, we could confidently state that consistently higher vitamin D levels over four years correlated strongly with reduced risk of cancer. But wait—we already have such a study. Lappe and colleagues already conducted the study described above and found that the vitamin D group had 60-77% lesser risk of all cancers, compared to the placebo group, after four years.[2] None of the studies published by the American Journal of Epidemiology were RCT’s. This is strong indication that the use of prediagnostic levels of vitamin D may not be of much value.

Also interesting is the fact that the authors of these papers mention that research shows sunlight exposure correlates to a rather impressive risk reduction in most of the cancers studied. There are two outstanding papers, one very recent, which demonstrate that relationship.[3] [4]
Based on what we have just discussed, it is possible that (1) regular sunlight exposure maintains consistently higher levels of vitamin D and results in reductions of cancer similar to those demonstrated in the research conducted by Lappe and colleagues, or (2) sunlight has positive influences of cancer beyond the production of vitamin D. My opinion is that the answer lies in a combination of both. We are beginning to see more research showing that in both cancer and multiple sclerosis, sunlight exposure may have its own anti-cancer benefits. Sunshine is, of course, the most natural way to produce vitamin D. Just be very careful not to sunburn.

[1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/papbyrecent.dtl
[2] Lappe, J. et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:1586–91.
[3] Grant WB. Does solar ultraviolet irradiation affect cancer mortality rates in China? .Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2007;8(2):236-42.
[4] Chen W, Clements M, Rahman B, Zhang S, Qiao Y, Armstrong BK. Relationship between cancer mortality/incidence and ambient ultraviolet B irradiance in China. Cancer Causes Control.2010 Jun 16. [Epub ahead of print]

Air pollution, sunlight, vitamin D and type-two diabetes

2010-06-01T02:33:00.000-07:00

Does air pollution cause diabetes, or does pollution cause vitamin D deficiency, which then leads to diabetes?

New research from Germany showed that women who lived in heavily air-polluted areas were at greater risk for type-two diabetes than those who lived in less-polluted areas. Those who lived within 100 meters of busy roadways doubled the diabetes risk. http://www.newswise.com/articles/study-suggests-link-between-air-pollution-and-type-2-diabetes-in-women

The authors assumed that the inhalation of pollutants was responsible for the increased risk of diabetes among those living in heavily-polluted areas, but I suggest another possibility: It is well-known that air pollution filters out sunlight and correlates to profoundly lower vitamin D levels. [1] [2] [3]

But do vitamin D levels have an influence on type-two diabetes? Research shows that Vitamin D levels correlate closely to insulin sensitivity; the higher the vitamin D levels, the more receptive the body is to the action of insulin, which makes carbohydrates easier to metabolize.[4] This same study shows that the higher the vitamin D levels are, the lower are the blood sugar levels. Other research shows that men with the highest vitamin D levels had a 30% reduced risk of type-2 diabetes compared to those with low levels,[5] probably because the beta cells of the pancreas (the insulin producing cells) have vitamin D receptors[6] and function more efficiently when vitamin D levels are higher.[7]

It is highly likely that the reason for the increased risk for diabetes was not the inhalation of air pollutants, but rather the lack of sunlight and subsequent vitamin D deficiency. It is time to leave the pollution and return to the sun.

[1] Mims FM., 3rd Significant reduction of UVB caused by smoke from biomass burning in Brazil. Photochem Photobiol. 1996 Nov;64(5):814–816.
[2] Agarwal, K et al. The impact of atmospheric pollution on vitamin D status of infants and toddlers in Delhi, India. Arch Dis Child 2002;87:111-113
[3] Holick MF. Environmental factors that influence the cutaneous production of vitamin D. Am J Clin Nutr 1995;61:(Suppl):638S-645S.
[4] Chiu K. et al. Hypovitaminosis D is associated with insulin resistance and beta cell dysfunction. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;79:820-25.
[5] Mattila, C. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and subsequent risk of type-2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2007;30:2569-70.
[6] Brown, A. et al. Vitamin D. American J of Physiol 1999;277(2 Pt 2):F157-75.
[7] Norman, A. et al. Vitamin D deficiency inhibits pancreatic secretion of insulin. Science 1980;209:823-25.

Sunlight, vitamin D and asthma in children

2010-05-26T04:56:00.000-07:00

A current study shows African-American children with asthma are significantly more likely to have low levels of vitamin D than healthy African-American children.[1] Vitamin D deficiency in children with asthma was twenty times more likely than in healthy children.

This research is simply one of the latest proofs that the profound increase in asthma in the last few decades has been caused to a great extent by our societal exodus from sunlight exposure, along with the increased use of sunscreen, which can inhibit up to 99% of vitamin D production by the skin.[2]

Drs Litonjua and Weiss, in a medical hypothesis presented in 2007, made a strong case for vitamin D deficiency as a major player in the increase in asthma incidence among both children and adults.[3] They stated the following:

1. “… as populations grow more prosperous, more time is spent indoors, and there is less exposure to sunlight, leading to decreased cutaneous vitamin D production.”
2. “Vitamin D has been linked to immune system and lung development in utero, and our epidemiologic studies show that higher vitamin D intake by pregnant mothers reduces asthma risk by as much as 40% in children 3 to 5 years old.”
3. "Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with obesity, African American race (particularly in urban, inner-city settings), and recent immigrants to westernized countries, thus reflecting the epidemiologic patterns observed in the asthma epidemic."

These researchers might have also said that the Powers of Darkness—those who have a vested interest in convincing the populace to avoid all sunlight exposure and to cover up with sunscreens—are to a great extent responsible for the asthma pandemic that is gripping the nation. Reasonable, non burning sunlight exposure sunlight is normal and natural for children and adults, and those who would deprive us of that critically important contributor to human health should have the guilt of their actions weighing heavily on their consciences.

[1] Freishtat RJ, Iqbal SF, Pillai DK, Klein CJ, Ryan LM, Benton AS, Teach SJ. High prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among inner-city African American youth with asthma in Washington, DC. J Pediatr 2010;156:948-52.
[2] Matsuoka, L. et al. sunscreens suppress cutaneous vitamin D3 synthesis. Journal Clini Endocrinol Metab 1987; 64:1165-68.
[3] Litonjua AA, Weiss ST. Is vitamin D deficiency to blame for the asthma epidemic? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120:1031–1035.

Vitamin D deficiency and death from diarrhea—another reason to return to the sunlight

2010-05-06T04:33:00.000-07:00

--
WebMD just posted an article regarding research on vitamin D levels and a particular “superbug,” clostridium difficile or C. diff, which causes severe diarrhea and death. http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20100505/c-diff-may-be-worse-with-low-vitamin-d

C. Diff occurs primarily in people who have been taking broad-spectrum antibiotics that kill the friendly bacteria that would keep this superbug under control.

The author noted that 53% of the patients with “normal” levels of vitamin D were able to resolve the infection and then remain free of diarrhea after 30 days. In those with “low” vitamin D levels, only 26% resolved the infection and remained free of diarrhea after 30 days.

The researchers defined low vitamin D levels as 21 ng/ml, which is very low indeed, since a level of 32 is considered the lowest level for good health, and most scientists now recommend levels of about 60 ng/ml as optimal. I’m assuming that “normal” levels were considered to be anything over 21 ng/ml.

Vitamin D has been known for some time to be a potent antibiotic which breaks down the cell walls of both bacteria and viruses. However, it is not a “broad-spectrum” antibiotic—an antibiotic that kills not only the disease-causing pathogens—but also the friendly bacteria in the intestine that work to keep such pathogens at bay. Vitamin D recognizes only the foreign invader (pathogen) that can damage the body. Unfortunately, many pathogens develop resistance to antibiotic drugs, and the drugs cannot then kill the pathogen, which has a heyday because it is unopposed by the friendly bacteria that would normally thwart its action; hence, we have the term “superbug.”

Vitamin D works by stimulating the immune system’s army of cells such as T cells[1] and macrophages[2] to attack and destroy pathogens. There is no research I am aware of indicating that any pathogen develops a resistance to vitamin D. As antibiotics become less and less effective in fighting pathogens, optimal levels of vitamin D may become our last line of defense.

The WebMD article also points out that “Overall, 40% of the patients died during the month." A total of 67% of patients with low vitamin D levels died compared with 44% of those with normal vitamin D levels…” This indicates that the levels considered normal were not normal at all, and probably came nowhere near the optimal levels of 60 ng/ml.

And who is responsible for this loss of life? It is obviously the Powers of Darkness, those organizations that profit from teaching us that we should “protect” ourselves from any contact with sunlight or other sources of natural vitamin D production such as sun lamps. It behooves us to return to the habit of regular, non-burning sunlight exposure, such as sunbathing, preferably around midday. That certainly seems like a terrific alternative to death by diarrhea. Would you agree?

[1] von Essen MR, Kongsbak M, Schjerling P, Olgaard K, Odum N, Geisler C.. Vitamin D controls T cell antigen receptor signaling and activation of human T cells. Nat Immunol. 2010;11:344-49 .
[2] Kamen DL, Tangpricha V. Vitamin D and molecular actions on the immune system: modulation of innate and autoimmunity. J Mol Med 2010 May;88(5):441-50.

Rheumatoid arthritis, sunlight deprivation and vitamin D—so what’s new?

2010-05-03T04:57:00.000-07:00

--
An interesting study on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and latitude appeared recently in the online journal, Environmental Health Perspectives.[1] The researchers found that the disease was considerably more prevalent among those living at higher latitudes than at lower latitudes. They had expected to find a relationship between air pollution and RA, but such a relationship did not exist. They concluded that the correlation of high latitudes to RA was probably due to less vitamin-D producing sunlight exposure and consequent vitamin D deficiency. My response is, “This is news?”

There should have been so expression of surprise about the results. RA is one of many autoimmune diseases, and it has long been known that vitamin D has a profound, positive influence on those diseases.[2] These are diseases in which the immune system attacks the body’s own healthy tissue, mistaking that tissue for a foreign invader. When this happens, a specialized immune-system cell (called a T cell) assaults and kills some of the tissue of a targeted organ. Autoimmune diseases, then, are caused by T cells gone awry. In the case of rheumatoid arthritis the immune system attacks the collagen-producing cells of the joints. T cells in a person with an autoimmune disease lack the “intelligence” to recognize that they are attacking the wrong tissue. That intelligence, in part, comes from vitamin D, the receptors of which are found in large quantities in mature T cells and even larger concentrations in immature T cells produced in the thymus gland. Without vitamin D stimulation of the receptor sites, these cells will not function properly. When vitamin D is present however, they have the ability to discern between foreign invaders and the body’s own tissue. Animal experiments show that vitamin D acts as a “selective immunosuppressant” (see footnote 2), meaning that it gives T cells the ability to distinguish between “good and evil.” It is this ability to reduce the autoimmune response, as well as its anti-inflammatory properties that are likely responsible for the lessened risk of RA in sun-deprived areas, and this is further corroborated by the fact that RA is also more severe in winter,[3] a time of less sunshine, and a time when sunlight exposure in northern latitudes does not produce vitamin D.

In another report from researchers in Ireland (a northern country with little sunlight exposure), it was shown that 70% of patients had low vitamin D levels and that 26% were severely deficient.[4] However, in that report, 21 ng/ml was considered as the deficiency level and 10 ng/ml as the severe deficiency level. In reality, a level of 21 is dangerously deficient. It is likely that all of these patients had levels under 32 ng/ml, now considered the lowest level for good health. My opinion is that levels of 50 to 60 are optimal.

Considering this information, it should have come as no surprise that RA was more common at higher latitudes. It is time to return to the sun in the summer and to find ways of maintaining optimal vitamin D levels in the winter through the use of sun lamps.

[1] http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.0901861
[2] http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/15/14/2579
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17967727
[4] http://fatlies.wordpress.com/2008/06/

Will vitamin D stop the new killer strain of drug-resistant tuberculosis, or is sunlight the cure?

2010-01-01T14:55:00.000-08:00

***
It appears that the first case of drug-resistant TB has arrived in the US from Peru.[1] It is nearly 100% resistant to antibiotics, and does not bode well for the country, since it could cause an immense killer epidemic. There seems to be no answer to the “superbug” that causes it. Or is there an answer? Could sunlight and its skin-produced hormone, vitamin D, provide answers to this latest health threat?

Sunlight has a long history of treatment for tuberculosis. Much of the following discussion of TB comes from Dr. Fielder’s history of heliotherapy.[2]

As early as 1857 Madame Duhamel of France exposed children with TB to sunshine because it hastened their recovery. Many doctors of that same era used heliotherapy (sunlight treatments) with great success, and as Dr. Fielder states, “As a general rule, the experience of all the Hygienists in their use of sunbathing was so successful that all question of doubt as to its place in the Hygienic System was ensured.”

Madame Duhamel was correct about sunbathing healing tuberculosis (TB). Later on, a disillusioned physician, Dr. Rollier, gave up a promising surgical practice and moved to the mountains of the Swiss countryside to practice medicine there. However, he discovered that the people needed little help, as they were seldom sick. People were always telling him, “Where the sun is, the doctor ain’t [sic].” In fact, Dr. Rollier’s fiancée had TB and would have died without intervention. He brought her to the Alpine area, exposed her regularly to sunshine, and she completely recovered.

Dr. Rollier opened a sanatorium in 1903 that was really just an extremely large solarium (sunbathing facility) with patient living quarters. There were 2,167 patients under Dr. Rollier’s care for TB following World War One. Of these, 1,746 completely recovered their health. Only those in the most advanced stages of the disease failed to recover.

In 1895, Dr. Niels Finsen made use of the first artificial UV light in treating patients with a particularly virulent form of TB known as lupus vulgaris (a skin disease). Though the disease was considered incurable, 41 of every 100 patients under his care recovered. Finsen’s work earned the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1903.

These researchers and physicians were not alone in their observations of the therapeutic power of sunlight. In 1877 two scientists, Arthur Downes and Thomas Blunt, discovered that sunlight was bactericidal. In 1890, the German microbiologist Robert Koch (who had isolated and described the tuberculosis bacterium in 1882), showed that sunlight killed TB bacteria.[3]

Recently, the interest in Vitamin D to thwart TB is being revisited.[4] [5] [6] and it has been shown that Black immigrants to Australia have much lower vitamin D levels than the general population and a much higher risk of TB.[7] Moreover, the effectiveness of vitamin D was demonstrated against the TB bacteria in an experiment in which a single dose of vitamin D (100,000 IU) significantly increased immunity to the TB bacterium.[8] The effectiveness of vitamin D against TB is determined by the production of cathelicidin,[9] an antibacterial peptide, which we could call the “body’s natural antibiotic.”

Further corroborating vitamin D’s essential role is that people who lack vitamin D receptors (VDR) are three times more likely to contract TB as those with normal VDR.[10] Vitamin D also inhibits the body’s inflammatory response to TB infection in the lungs.[11] [12] Considering the efficacy of sunlight therapy and vitamin D in inhibiting or even curing tuberculosis, doesn’t it seem that it’s time to return to the sun? Remember that you should never burn yourself in the sunlight.

[1] http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/first-case-of-highly-drug-resistant-tuberculosis-in-us/19294836?icid=mainhtmlws-main-ndl1link3http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Ffirst-case-of-highly-drug-resistant-tuberculosis-in-us%2F19294836
[2] Fielder, J. Heliotherapy: the principles & practice of sunbathing. Soil and Health Library (online) http://www.soilandhealth.org/index.html.
[3] Hobday, R. The Healing sun. Findhorn Press 1999:132
[4] Martineau, A. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on anti-mycobacterial immunity: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial in London tuberculosis contacts. Int J Tuberculosis Lung Dis 2005;9:S173.
[5] Martineau, A. et al. Vitamin D status of tuberculosis patients and healthy blood donors in Samara City, Russia. Int J Tuberculosis Lung Dis 2005;9:S225.
[6] Nnoaham, K. et al. Low serum vitamin D levels and tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2008;37:113-19.
[7]Gibney, K. et al. vitamin D deficiency is associated with tuberculosis and latent tuberculosis infection in immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. Clin Infect Dis 2008’46:443-46.
[8]Martineau, A et al. A single dose of vitamin D enhances immunity of mycobacteria. A J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;176:208-13.
[9]Liu, P. et al. vitamin D mediated human antimicrobial activity against mycobacterium tuberculosis is dependent on the induction of cathelicidin. J Immunol 2007;179:2060-63.
[10]Liu, W. et al. A case-control study on the vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms and susceptibility to pulmonary tuberculosis. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 2003;24:389-92.
[11] Selvaraj, P et al. Regulatory role of promoter and 3’ UTR variants of vitamin D receptor gene on cytokine response in pulmonary tuberculosis. J Clin Immunol 2008; January 30. Epub ahead of print.
[12]Vidyarani, M. et al. 1, 25 Hydroxyvitamin D3 modulated cytokine response in pulmonary tuberculosis. Cytokine 2007;40:128-34.

Do 250,000 North American babies die each year due to vitamin D deficiency?

2009-12-21T12:32:00.000-08:00

Recent evidence has shown that pregnant mothers who were given 4,000 IU (ten times the usual dose) of vitamin D daily had only half the risk of giving birth to premature babies as those who were not supplemented. [1] That amount can also be produced by about 20 minutes of full- body exposure to non-burning sunlight at midday.

The importance of this information is shown in the fact that annually, half of all premature babies die in the first month after birth, according to the March of Dimes.[2] In North America, about 500,000 premature births occur annually.[2] If vitamin D supplementation could prevent half of these deaths, that would save the lives of 250,000 babies per year. Worldwide, the lives saved might be as many as 7 million, since approximately 13 million babies are born prematurely each year. We also know that the average cost for each premature baby in the first year of life is about $49,000. http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/22684_55250.asp

Premature babies, of course, are also low-birth-weight babies in most cases, which present an additional problem. Here is one more reason for mothers to get back in the sunlight: the potential for low birth weight in their babies.

Low birth weight is associated with poor mood, anxiety, depression, high blood pressure and other problems during childhood and afterward. Recent research shows that low birth weight is related to exposure by pregnant women to winter temperatures during a critical developmental time for the fetus.[3] [4] This could indicate vitamin D deficiency of the pregnant mother during “vitamin D winter,” the time of year in northern latitudes when the sun is too low in the sky to produce vitamin D. The answer, of course, is to use a tanning bed or take vitamin D3 supplements (3,000-5,000 IU) during the winter. Remember never to burn!

Those who make a living frightening people out of the sunlight are responsible for much of the vitamin D deficiency in the population of North America. Don’t expect them to change. Non-burning sunlight is a wonderful gift for health, and we must stop the insanity that is causing vitamin D deficiency. The child needs every possible advantage prior to birth, and one of the advantages is a mom with high vitamin D levels. The only source of vitamin D for the fetus is the mother’s body, and the only natural way to obtain vitamin D is exposure to sunlight.

[1] Hollis, B. and Wagner C. Report from an international conference on vitamin D in Bruges, Belgium.
[2] March of Dimes statement Oct 4, 2009, based on World Health Organization (WHO) statistics.
[3] [1] Elter K, et al. Exposure to low outdoor temperature in the midtrimester is associated with low birth weight. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 2004;44:553-7.
[4] Murray, L. et al. Links of Season and outdoor ambient temperature: effects on birth weight. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Nov;96(5 Pt 1):689-95.

Melanoma: Midsummer Night’s Dream or Vitamin D-Deficiency Nightmare?

2009-12-14T08:30:00.000-08:00

One of the most interesting medical research papers to arrive in recent memory is a 2009 study reported in the British Journal of Dermatology entitled, “Melanoma epidemic: a midsummer night’s dream?” [1] In it the authors make the case that melanoma is not caused by sunlight, but rather by an increasing diagnosis of benign lesions as melanoma. In other words, small spots on the skin that are harmless, and that in the past would have been classified as benign, are now being called stage-one melanoma. The authors point out that new diagnoses of stage-one melanoma have increased dramatically over the past few years, but new diagnoses of stage-two, -three and -four melanomas have not increased at all.

Some have suggested that the lack of increase in the latter stages of Melanoma is due to quick removal of the type-one melanomas, which prevents their progression to full-blown cancers. However, the authors point out that those in the study with type-two, three and four melanomas had not been previously diagnosed with type-one, and therefore could not have been “saved” by removal of type-one; the advanced cases were new presentations--people who had not been previously diagnosed with any stage of melanoma.

The case of these dermatologists—that melanoma is a “midsummer night’s dream”—is compelling. Obviously, millions of people who had nothing more than harmless lesions have been diagnosed with melanoma and have had their lesions removed surgically.

The researchers ended their analysis with this statement: “These findings should lead to a reconsideration of the treatment of ‘early’ lesions, a search for better diagnostic methods to distinguish them from truly malignant melanomas, re-evaluation of the role of ultraviolet radiation and recommendations for protection from it, as well as the need for a new direction in the search for the cause of melanoma.”

I can only say “amen” to this conclusion. However, these are not the first dermatologists to question the “epidemic” of melanoma and deny that sunlight is the cause. Dr. Bernard Ackerman, a celebrated dermatologist, wrote a monograph of several hundred pages entitled, Sunlight and the “Epidemic’ of Melanoma, Myth on Myth, in which he made the same argument about the supposed melanoma epidemic being due to incorrect diagnoses.[2] Dr. Arthur Rhodes, another dermatologist, has also given examples of many people who have died with real melanoma that occurred on areas of the body that were never exposed to sunlight.[3] These unfortunate people, believing that the lesions they discovered could not be melanoma because there was no sun exposure, failed to get help until it was too late.

Meanwhile, the world becomes more and more deficient in vitamin D due to the efforts of the “sunscare” movement that would have us believe that sunlight, one of God’s greatest gifts to living beings, is public enemy number one. This has resulted in incredible rates of vitamin D deficiency which have further resulted in an increase in at least 18 major cancers including breast, prostate and colon cancers. It has also resulted in increasing rates of heart disease, infections including flu, autism, and numerous other maladies that I discuss and fully document in my book. Never has there been a greater fraud than the push to scare people out of the sun to avoid a disease—melanoma—that is not an epidemic at all, and whose risk is increased by sun avoidance. Non-burning sunlight exposure is absolutely necessary for optimal human health.

Not only is the “epidemic” of melanoma a midsummer night’s dream, it has become a vitamin D-deficiency nightmare.

[1] N.J. Levell, C.C. Beattie,* S. Shuster and D.C. Greenberg* Melanoma epidemic: a midsummer night’s dream? British Journal of Dermatology 2009;161:630–634
[2] Ackerman, A. Sun and the “Epidemic” of Melanoma, Myth on Myth. Ardor Scribendi, LTD, New York, 2008
[3] Rhodes, A. Guest editorial, Melanoma’s Public Message. Skin and Allergy News 2003;34:1-4

Will vitamin D help the U.S. dominate the 2012 Olympics?

2009-05-12T20:59:00.000-07:00

Vitamin D may indeed help the U.S. dominate the next summer Olympics. So says an online article at http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212229302.shtml

The article cites a new scientific paper, of which I was a coauthor(1), that presents compelling evidence that optimal vitamin D levels, produced by exposure to sunlight or sunlamps, dramatically improves strength, reaction time and endurance while profoundly reducing athletic injuries. It also increases the number and size of fast-twitch muscle fibers.

Most athletes, particularly winter athletes, are very low in vitamin D levels. When there is a correction of that deficiency, performance improves and injuries subside.

I have tried to get this information to the Utah Jazz for more than two years, but have not been able to get an appointment. The Jazz had more injuries than any team I have ever seen and still managed to make the playoffs. Their coaching is superb; no one is better than Jerry Sloan. But their listless play on the road and their incredible injury count screams that the team is vitamin D deficient. So, we might also have a headline that says, "Vitamin D may help the Utah Jazz (or some other struggling team) win the NBA championship in 2010." I will continue to try to find a team that will listen. Interested parties may contact me at megamarc1@aol.com

Dr. John Cannell (the lead author of the paper) and I have nearly finished a book entitled "Quicker, Stronger, Faster with vitamin D." It will expatiate on the materials in the paper and furnish additional information.

In the meantime, all of you who are athletes should have your vitamin D levels assessed. If you are deficient, a bit more sunshine and vitamin D may just help you win your next competition.

Reference:
(1) Cannell JJ, Hollis BW, Sorenson MB, Taft TN, Anderson JJ. Athletic Performance and Vitamin D. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Apr 3. [Epub ahead of print]

Vitamin D: Our best protection against swine flu?

2009-04-28T09:32:00.000-07:00

A headline reads, “Officials Race to Contain Swine Flu.” Another says, “CDC: Swine Flu Cases In NYC Rise To 45.” Still another screams, “Swine flu spreads to Middle East, Asia-Pacific.”

Strangely, there are no headlines that read, “Government delivers vitamin D3 to the masses to thwart flu pandemic.” It is worrisome that the least expensive, most effective therapy for flu prevention is hardly ever mentioned, probably because it sells no expensive drugs. For those who fear the flu and seek the best method of protection against it, I refer them to my earlier blogs on the subject in hopes that the information may ease apprehensions and save a few lives along the way. Here are four posts that explain the critical importance of high vitamin D levels to prevent flu.

http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2008/12/vitamin-d-immune-system-and-yearly.html

http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2008/12/vitamin-d-flu-and-immune-system-part-2.html

http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2009/02/most-popular-flu-drug-is-now-99.html

http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2009/02/killer-virus-grips-britain-and-so-does.html

I implore you to read the posts and the references that accompany them. The information could save your life!

NIF is back. The sunlight and vitamin D health resort will open in June!

2009-04-17T20:34:00.000-07:00

Come learn about vitamin D, sunlight, and health while you lose weight, lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure and blood sugar and improve your vitality and wellbeing. Most people are severely vitamin D-deficient, and the education they receive may save their lives.

My wife, Vicki, and I previously owned one of the most popular destination health resorts (or “spas”) in the world, known as National Institute of Fitness (NIF). We are now opening another at our Nevada ranch, located next to Great Basin National Park. We will have one of the lowest prices in the industry and in addition to our work with nutrition and exercise, our education will also concentrate on the health benefits of vitamin D. We will still be known as NIF (Nevada Institute of Fitness).

Here are some of the results our guests experienced at our first resort:
During our 20+ years at NIF, our clients lost 110 tons of fat, two thirds of diabetic guests were free of all medication in less than two weeks, and many others recovered from high cholesterol, lupus, arthritis, migraines, hypertension, angina, arthritis and allergies. The institute was consistently ranked as one of the world’s best destination spas and was featured in major newspaper articles in the New York Times as well as other papers throughout the US and in Japan and Singapore.

You can learn more about our operation at http://nifathcr.com/

Do you suffer from rheumatoid arthritis (RA)? Can vitamin D help?

2009-04-08T08:43:00.000-07:00

Both dietary and supplemental vitamin D reduce the risk of RA, which is an autoimmune disease—a disease in which the body’s immune system attacks its own tissue. In a study of 29,000 women, those who ranked in the top third of vitamin D consumption had one-third less risk of RA.[1] It is likely that a greater vitamin D intake would have produced much better results, since it is virtually impossible to ingest sufficient vitamin D from food and multivitamins.

In studies performed on mice, vitamin D was shown to inhibit the progression of rheumatoid arthritis and minimize or prevent symptoms.[2] The same is true in humans. In subjects diagnosed with a form of the disease known as inflammatory arthritis, the lower the vitamin D levels are, the higher is the disease activity.[3] Vitamin D's anti-inflammatory properties and its ability to reduce the autoimmune response are likely responsible for the improvement in RA.[4]

Investigations also find that RA is more common in winter, consistent with the idea that vitamin D is a major factor in reducing the risk.[5] In a report from researchers in Ireland, it was shown that 70% of patients had low vitamin D levels and that 26% were severely deficient.[6] However, in that report, 21 ng/ml was considered as the deficiency level and 10 as the severe deficiency level. A level of 21 is dangerously deficient. The ideal level of vitamin D is 50-60 ng/ml. Using those numbers, it is likely that all of these patients ranged between deficient and severely deficient.

In our health institute/resort, we observed that guests with arthritis often regained full range of motion in their joints from a week to a month after beginning a program. I assumed that our anti-inflammatory vegetarian nutrition was responsible for the positive results. Now I realize that many of the benefits came from sunlight exposure during outdoor exercise.

RA prevention and relief are two more reasons to obtain regular, non-burning sunlight exposure. Remember that sunscreens can prevent 99% of vitamin D production by the skin.

[1] Merlino, L. et al. Vitamin D intake is inversely associated with rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2004;50:72-77.
[2] Cantorna, M. et al. 1,25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol inhibits the progression of arthritis in murine models of human arthritis. J Nutr1998;128:68-72.
[3] Patel, S. et al. Serum vitamin D metabolite levels may be inversely associated with current disease activity in patients with early inflammatory polyarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56;2143-49.
[4] Cutolo, M. et al. Vitamin D in rheumatoid arthritis. Autoimmune Rev 2007;7:59-64.
[5] Cutolo, M. et al. Circannual vitamin D serum levels and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: Northern versus Southern Europe. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006;24:702-4.
[6] Haroon, M. Report to European Union League Against Rheumatism , June 13, 2008.

Our medical advisory institutions need to wake up and smell the vitamin D!

2009-04-08T08:18:00.000-07:00

The following is an approximate copy of a letter I sent to the Institute of Medicine, regarding their forthcoming vitamin D recommendations.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions regarding the forthcoming determination by the Institute of Medicine as to whether the current recommended daily allowance of vitamin D should be revised to a higher level. In my opinion, the decision will be one of the most important in the annals of medicine, as it could positively or negatively affect the health of millions in the US. We have, as a society, ceased to spend as much time in the sunlight as we once did. This is due to our habits of working indoors and scrupulously avoiding sunlight when we venture outdoors. In consequence, we have become critically deficient in vitamin D, a potent steroid hormone whose chemical receptors are found throughout the body. Vitamin D levels are declining in the US population,[1] and that does not bode well for the health US citizens. It has been estimated that maintaining serum levels 25(OH)D of 55 ng/ml could prevent 85,000 cases of breast cancer and 60,000 cases of colon cancer.[2] If there were no other source of vitamin D, achieving that serum level would require the ingestion of about 5,500 IU of vitamin D3 daily for men and slightly less for women. It is obvious that the current recommendations of 400 IU are woefully inadequate.

In addition, sudden death from heart attack is about 2.4 times higher in men with the lowest levels of vitamin D compared to those with the highest levels.[3] It would be possible to go through a long list of diseases that correlate closely to vitamin D deficiency, such as MS, osteoporosis, twenty major cancers, hypertension, arthritis, Lupus, etc., but that would be laborious for both of us. My book, Vitamin D3 and Solar Power, has 800 references to the medical/scientific literature and discusses the influence of vitamin D on more than 100 diseases and conditions.

One double-blind, placebo controlled, interventional study has already determined that four years of vitamin D and calcium supplementation correlated to a 60-77% reduced risk of all cancers in women.[4] The researchers have just received a $4,000,000 grant to continue that research with higher dosages of vitamin D. Science often demands that such studies be conducted before any changes in recommendations are made. However, this may cause delays in action that could cost millions of lives. No such study could ever be attempted among smokers. Such a study would require that half of a group of non-smokers was given cigarettes, taught to smoke and then compared with the other half for death rates. Such a study was never done to furnish conclusive proof that smoking increased the risk of lung cancer. The reasons: (1) it would not have been ethical, and (2) the evidence from observation made the conclusion obvious and compelling. In my opinion, the evidence for higher vitamin D recommendations, either as supplementation or as sunlight exposure, is just as compelling. The researchers in the aforementioned cancer study for instance, stated that the reduction in cancer produced by vitamin D supplementation was about twice that which would be expected if all women stopped smoking.[4]

We cannot afford to wait for more studies to find conclusive proof of the need for higher supplemental recommendations while millions more people die. There is not one whit of evidence that vitamin D supplementation of 10,000 IU per day for an adult is toxic.[5]
I also suggest that you recommend regular, non-burning sunlight exposure as the most natural way to achieve optimal levels of vitamin D.

Marc Sorenson, EdD

[1] Looker, A. et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D status of the US population: 1988-1994 compared with 2000-2004. Am J Clin Nutr December 2008; vol 88: pp 1519-1527.
[2]Garland, C et al. What is the dose-response relationship between vitamin D and cancer risk? Nutrition Reviews 2007;65:S91-5.
[3]Giovannucci, E. et al. 25-hydroxy-vitamin D and risk of myocardial infarction in men. Ann Intern Med 2008;168:1174-80.
[4]Lappe, J. et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:1586–91.
[5]Vieth, R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and safety. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:842-56.

Vitamin D deficiency is costing Europe a fortune in lives and money!

2009-04-08T08:03:00.000-07:00

Dr. William B Grant and his colleagues have just released a paper that analyzes the terrible financial burden that Europe is bearing due to lack of sunlight and vitamin D.[1] The diseases they mention that are related to vitamin D deficiency and have severe economic effects are “several types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, several bacterial and viral infections, and autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis.”

The reasons offered for the deficiency are high latitudes, indoor living (lack of sunlight exposure), lack of sufficient dietary vitamin D and lack of vitamin D fortification in most European countries. The cost is estimated at a staggering 187,000 million Euros per year.

These researchers estimate that the cost to educate and test the population and furnish the supplementation that would eliminate the deficiency—and thereby eliminate the diseases caused by it—would be about 10,000 million Euros yearly. What a great return on investment that would be! For every Euro spent on the program 18.7 would be saved.

Let’s hope that the heads of state listen to Dr Grant and his colleagues, and let’s pray that the U.S. and Canada do the same. We cannot allow vitamin D deficiency to take the lives of millions of people while we wait for more research to be sure. The research on the marvelous benefits of optimal vitamin D levels piles up weekly; the time to act is now.

Dr. Grant, by the way wrote the foreword for my book, and there is a tribute to his work therein. His dedication to informing the public and saving lives is second to none.

[1] Grant, W.B., et al., Estimated benefit of increased vitamin D status in reducing the economic burden of disease
in western Europe, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology (2009), doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2009.02.003

Vitamin D reduces joint pain!

2009-03-09T10:28:00.000-07:00

This interesting snippet appeared in the Houston Chronicle a few days back as a part of a question and answer session with Dr. Mitchell Hecht.

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/02/23/Peoples_Pharmacy_Vitamin_D_can_ease_joint_pain/ “A couple of weeks ago, my husband saw his endocrinologist, and the doctor ordered a test of his vitamin D level. It was very low, so my husband was put on 2,000 units per day. My Husband has been having pain in his shoulder with a limited range of motion. An orthopedic surgeon told him he had a tear in his rotator cuff and the only option was surgery. In less than a week and a half on the vitamin D supplement, he has no pain and full range of motion. This is like a miracle! I think we need a second opinion on that surgery.”

As Dr. Hecht pointed out, it is unlikely that vitamin D could reverse a rotator-cuff tear, so there must have been a misdiagnosis. A rotator cuff tear is something that cannot be fixed without surgery, so it is likely that the pain was due to inflammation in the joint due to arthritis. As my posts have previously documented, vitamin D is a potent anti-inflammatory hormone. The total recovery from pain, along with a recovery of full range of motion, was likely due to its anti-inflammatory properties.

Chalk up one more victory for this amazing hormone!

Will your statin drug kill you? Is vitamin D a better choice for preventing heart disease?

2009-03-06T19:28:00.000-08:00

Drs BA Golomb and MA Evans recently wrote a review of the many papers that dealt with the adverse effects of statins, an immensely popular (and profitable) class of drugs that lowers blood cholesterol levels.[1] One of the potential little side effects is rhabdomyolysis, a devastating muscle-wasting disease described by Stedman’s Medical dictionary as “an acute, fulminant, potentially fatal disease that destroys skeletal muscle and is often accompanied by the excretion of myoglobin in the urine.” Others side effects are cognitive loss (decreased ability to think soundly), neuropathy (nerve deterioration), pancreatic and liver dysfunction and sexual dysfunction. The authors also mentioned that most physicians are unaware of these problems.

I recently commissioned research that shows that most physicians, as well as their patients are woefully ignorant of the importance of vitamin D. So how do the two tie together? In an earlier post on heart disease, I cited the research by Dr Ed Giovannucci and his colleagues at Harvard.[2] They showed that men with the lowest levels of serum (blood) vitamin D were about 2.4 times as likely to suffer a heart attack as those whose levels were highest. They also showed that those with the lowest vitamin D levels also had the lowest HDL, the “good cholesterol.” As also pointed out in my earlier blogs, vitamin D has the ability to reduce arterial calcification and reduce inflammation, both risk factors for heart disease.

Vitamin D also increases muscle strength rather than reducing it and increases fertility in men and women as well as protecting the nervous system and enhancing cognitive abilities. This can all be done for about $15 per year worth of supplementation, and sunlight is free. Compare that to the thousands of dollars required to poison oneself with statin drugs. Which way would you like to bet? Remember to check with your doctor before reducing or changing medications, as withdrawal could also be dangerous. Meanwhile, stop eating junk food and get some healthful outdoor exercise!

[1] Golomb BA, Evans MA. Statin adverse effects: a review of the literature and evidence for a mitochondrial mechanism. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2008;8(6):373-418.
[2] Giovannucci, E. et al. 25-hydroxy-vitamin D and risk of myocardial infarction in men. Ann Intern Med 2008;168:1174-80.

Can sunlight reduce the risk of type-one diabetes in children?

2009-03-06T19:14:00.000-08:00

A recent study conducted in Newfoundland, Canada, compared sunlight exposure at different times and locations to the risk of type-one diabetes in children.[i] As I would have expected, the children who received the least sunlight were at greatest risk for type-one diabetes. Sunlight stimulates the production of vitamin D, so the results were probably exactly what the researchers anticipated. Why should they have anticipated that result? An earlier study showed that among children who were supplemented with 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily, the risk of type-on diabetes was only 1/5 of the risk among children who were supplemented with less than 2,000 IU.[ii] Among those who were not supplemented at all, the risk was 8 times greater.

“Protecting” children from the sunlight is creating a terrible burden of poor health, and type-one diabetes is only one of its many manifestations. Safe, non-burning sun exposure is an integral part of childhood that should not be neglected.

[i] Sloka, S. Time series analysis of ultraviolet B radiation and type 1 diabetes in Newfoundland. Pediatric Diabetes 2008:9:81–6.
[ii] Hypponen, E. et al. Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study. Lancet 2001;358:1500-03.

When is the safest time to sun tan?

2009-03-06T18:58:00.000-08:00

I have never believed that the advice to stay out of the sunlight at midday was correct. Now, science is beginning to agree with me. Dr. J Moan and colleagues have explained that vitamin D production by the skin is much greater at midday than in early morning or late afternoon, and that the risk of developing melanoma is also much less at midday.[1]

This is thoroughly explained in my book; a greater percentage of UVA, which can cause damage to the lower layers of the skin, is available in the sunlight in the morning hours. A greater percentage of UVB that stimulates vitamin D production is available at midday. Therefore, the greatest potential for healthful D production and the least potential for damage occur at midday. The researchers stated it thusly: “To get an optimal vitamin D supplement from the sun at a minimal risk of getting cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM), the best time of sun exposure is noon. Thus, common health recommendations given by authorities in many countries, that sun exposure should be avoided for three to five hours around noon and postponed to the afternoon may be wrong and may even promote CMM.”

Let’s face it. Nearly everything we have been told by the sunscare/sunscreen industry is false. And remember that people who are regularly in the sunlight develop fewer melanomas than those who are cloistered indoors, as I have discussed in my previous posts. Another author has written a book called “Naked at Noon.” Sounds like she is on to something!

[1] Moan, J et al. At what time should one go out in the sun? Adv Exp Med Biol. 2008;624:86-8.

Can vitamin D prevent the common cold in asthmatics?

2009-02-26T08:12:00.000-08:00

New research shows that people with the lowest vitamin D blood levels are about one-third more likely to catch an upper respiratory tract infection (cold) than those with the highest levels[1] (the “high” vitamin D group, however was nowhere near optimal levels). This study is no surprise, considering the research that I posted earlier on this blog regarding colds and flu.[2] There is something that makes this research different, however. Among asthmatics, the risk of catching cold was 5.7 times higher in the people with the lowest levels of vitamin D.

One of my previous posts already discussed the profound correlation of low vitamin D levels to asthma.[3] With all of the suffering asthmatics must go through, an upper respiratory tract infection is not something that needs to be added to it. The evidence indicates that the risk of both asthma and colds can be reduced substantially by maintaining high levels of vitamin D. Act accordingly!

[1] Ginde, A. et al. Association Between Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Level and Upper Respiratory Tract Infection in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey ARCH INTERN MED;169:4:384-90.
[2] http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2008/12/vitamin-d-immune-system-and-yearly.html
[3] http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2008/12/vitamin-d-flu-and-immune-system-part-2.html

KILLER VIRUS GRIPS BRITAIN and so does vitamin D deficiency.

2009-02-21T13:07:00.000-08:00

The Headline in Britain’s Daily Express read, “KILLER VIRUS GRIPS BRITAIN.”[1]
For several years, Britain has experienced outbreaks of norovirus, which causes severe vomiting. Here is the way this winter’s outbreak was described prior to Christmas:

“MILLIONS face being struck down by a deadly winter vomiting bug sweeping the country. Scores of hospitals have been forced to close wards to new patients as they struggle to cope with the influx of norovirus sufferers. One of London’s leading hospitals has even had to turn away 999 emergency patients after being overwhelmed with cases of the virus, while another hospital has drafted in GPs to cover for staff hit by the bug. As the crisis deepens, health campaigners are warning that hospitals face going into “complete meltdown” over Christmas and New Year.”
“At its height last year the virus, which causes projectile vomiting, diarrhoea, mild fever and headaches, was striking down more than 200,000 a week. The illness can prove deadly for the vulnerable—children and the elderly.”

In my book, and in previous posts on this blog [http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2008/12/vitamin-d-flu-and-immune-system-part-2.html], I have documented the antiviral and anti-flu effects of vitamin D. Cathelicidin, an antimicrobial peptide that is extremely effective in breaking down the walls of viruses and bacteria, is dependent on vitamin D to stimulate its production in the immune system. Without cathelicidin, immune function is compromised. It would therefore be expected that in the winter, when vitamin D levels are lowest due to lack of sunlight, viral diseases would be prevalent. In addition to my previous post on the subject of flu, there is an excellent paper by Dr. John Cannell that thoroughly discusses it.[2]

Britain’s northern climate, cloudy weather and “sunscare program” during summer ensure that vitamin D levels in that country are critically low, especially in winter, when no vitamin D can be produced by the sun at that latitude.

A few dollars worth of vitamin D or a couple of weekly (non-burning) sessions at a tanning salon could, in my opinion, quickly put a stop to the norovirus and the misery it causes.

[1] Brown, M and Dawar, A. Killer Virus Grips Britain. Daily Express, December 15, 2008.
[2] Cannell, J. et al. Epidemic Influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiol Infect 2006;134:1129-40.

Television viewing in teens is linked to adult depression. Lack of sunlight and vitamin D may be the reason.

2009-02-20T19:11:00.000-08:00

Television viewing in teens is linked to adult depression. Lack of sunlight and vitamin D may be the reason.

An interesting study from the University of Pittsburgh has found that the more TV teenagers watch, the more likely they are to be depressed as adults.[1] The study author theorized that because there is so much depressing news and programming on TV, the more exposure, the more the internalizing or the depressing programming. For each hour of TV watched, the rate of depression increased significantly.

The researchers may be correct, or it could be that hours of sedentary life in front of the TV, watching commercials for junk food, leads to obesity and poor health as the teenager’s age. I have another theory that may supplant, or at least add to those theories. In an earlier post, I discussed the dramatically increased rate of depression among people who were vitamin D deficient.[2] Vitamin D is absolutely critical for the central nervous system (CNS) to function at optimal levels; it is possible that years of unnatural indoor habits create vitamin D deficiency, which damages the CNS, and—combined with the previously mentioned deleterious influences of excessive TV watching, result in depression. Sunlight and vitamin D are absolutely necessary for human health and happiness. An indoor lifestyle is unnatural and damaging to the human body and psyche.

Get away from the TV, video game and other sedentary, sunless activity and get outdoors. And, stop eating toxic foods. You will be glad you did!

[1] Primack, B. Association between media use in adolescence and depression in young adulthood: a longitudinal study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Feb;66(2):181-8
[2] http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2009/01/vitamin-d-and-depression-how-sad.html

Living longer and better with Vitamin D and sunlight

2009-02-20T18:50:00.000-08:00

Low vitamin D levels have once again proven to be a risk factor for earlier death. In a study of Asian women, low levels of vitamin D correlated to a doubling of the risk of death over 6.9 years.[1] Osteoporosis and cancer that existed when the study began were also predictive of early death, which would be expected. What intrigues me is that both osteoporosis and cancer are closely correlated to low vitamin D levels; it is therefore plausible that low levels of vitamin D were not only directly responsible for a higher death rate, but also at least partially responsible for the increased risk of the two deadly diseases that also predicted more deaths.

This is at least the third study to show that lower vitamin D levels correlate to shortened life spans. The evidence is incontrovertible: for a long life with fewer diseases, keep your vitamin D levels high.

[1] Kuroda, T et al. Contributions of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, co-morbidities and bone mass to mortality in Japanese postmenopausal women. Bone 2009;44:168–172

Do you need pain relief? Have you considered a tanning bed?

2009-02-18T18:03:00.000-08:00

As I previously posted, vitamin D deficiency correlates quite closely to chronic pain, and pain is usually reduced or eliminated by bringing blood levels of D to optimum. Another scientific paper on vitamin D and pain was recently brought to my attention; it discussed the case of a woman with Crohn’s disease, which tends to cause vitamin D deficiency.[1] She complained of bone pain and muscle weakness and had critically low vitamin D levels—only 7 ng/ml—which will do little more than sustain life. The woman was treated by putting her in a tanning bed three times weekly for ten minutes over a period of six months. She wore a one-piece bathing suit during these sessions. After the six months of treatments, she was “free of muscle weakness and bone and muscle pain.”

It is difficult to find anyone outside the tanning industry, other than vitamin D scientists, who has anything good to say about tanning beds. I am an exception, and use one in my home in winter when I cannot get any vitamin D from sunlight. I am careful not to burn in a tanning bed just as I am careful not to burn in the summer sunlight. It elevates my mood and gives me the vitamin D I need to lessen my risk of at least 105 diseases and disorders. However you decide to obtain your vitamin D3, make sure you get enough to produce a serum level of 50-60 ng/ml. If vitamin D supplementation is your only source, that will require about 4,000-5,000 IU per day, according to your size. Remember never to burn.

Here’s wishing you a pain-free future!

[1]Koutkia, P et.al. Treatment of vitamin D deficiency due to Crohn's disease with tanning bed ultraviolet B radiation. Gastroenterology. 2001;121:1485-8.Here’s to a pain-free future!

Losing your mind: Is Alzheimer’s disease in your future or your parents’ future? Can sunlight and vitamin D prevent it?

2009-02-16T12:04:00.000-08:00

I have previously posted regarding the effect of vitamin D on cognitive disability, autism and other brain disorders. With all of these disorders, there is a clear correlation between sunlight and/or vitamin D deficiency and decreased brain function. Considering that most elderly people are severely vitamin D deficient and that there are vitamin D receptors throughout the brain, it would not be surprising to also find the same correlation with Alzheimer’s, which is a brain disease. An excellent paper by Dr Frederick Dyer[1] makes a case that Alzheimer’s is, at least in part, a vitamin D-deficiency disease.

Dr Dyer makes the point that many diseases or disorders—those that are well-established as correlating to vitamin D deficiency—are themselves risk factors for Alzheimer’s. These include depression, osteoporosis, diabetes, poor cognitive abilities, periodontal disease, dental caries, inflammation, tooth loss, low cognitive performance, poor strength, depression, congestive heart failure, peripheral artery disease, hypertension and arterial plaque. In other words, Alzheimer’s shows a "co-morbidity” with these disorders, meaning that they may have the same underlying causes. Lack of sunlight/vitamin D is likely one of those causes.

Until we know for sure, it is certainly a great idea to maintain high levels of vitamin D in ourselves and in our aging parents; there is no downside, and it may prevent us from losing our minds.

Another excellent paper on vitamin D and Alzheimer’s will be published soon; I will keep you posted.

[1] Dyer, F. Deficient Vitamin D in the Pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease. Unpublished manuscript furnished to author December 2008. Used by permission.

Mammograms correlate to a 22% increase in the risk of Breast Cancer: What does this have to do with vitamin D?

2009-02-09T09:52:00.000-08:00

A new research report has just been released; it is only the latest of several to suggest that mammograms are not effective or actually counterproductive.[1] Among women who were screened regularly for breast cancer by mammogram, the risk of the cancer was 22% higher than among those who were not screened for the cancer.

This is another example where the only people who benefit from some types of medicine are the physicians, the hospitals and the companies that build the technology; certainly mammograms are of no value to the most important people; women who are attempting to prevent breast cancer. It is possible that the radiation from the machines does a great deak of harm. Sunlight and vitamin D have both been proven to dramatically reduce the risk of cancers, including breast cancer, in women. Proper nutrition and exercise are also profoundly effective. See my previous posts: (http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2009/02/another-method-by-which-vitamin-d.html) (http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2009/02/should-you-remove-your-breasts-to.html) (http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2008/11/dont-be-deceived-adequate-vitamin-d.html)

Remember, when it comes to cancer, an ounce of prevention is worth TONS of cure!

[1] Zahl, P. The Natural History of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Mammography. Arch Intern Med;168:21:2311-16

Still more for expectant moms: Sunlight/vitamin D during pregnancy increases the strength of bone in children and leads to greater height.

2009-02-09T07:49:00.000-08:00

Another new research paper provides one more reason for pregnant women to get out in the sunlight during the season when UVB light is available (UVB light is the wavelength that produces vitamin D); that habit by expectant mothers predicts that their children will have heavier bones that are less susceptible to osteoporosis, and in addition, they will be taller at the age of 9.[1] Greater lean muscle mass in the boys and girls studied was also related to higher UVB exposure during their fetal stage, meaning that both muscle and bone were enhanced-quite an advantage for youngsters considering athletics, and a boon in later stages of life for reducing the risk of osteoporosis and muscle wasting.

Moderate, consistent sunlight exposure to a large area of skin is vital to the health of the pregnant mother and her children. In winter, when no UVB is available in sunlight, and when sunlight itself is far less available, tanning beds are very effective in producing vitamin D (be careful not to burn). For those who prefer not to use tanning beds, vitamin D3 supplementation of 3,000-5,000 IU per day is critical.

[1] Sayers, A. et al. Estimated maternal ultraviolet B exposure levels in pregnancy influence skeletal development of the child. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Dec 30. [Epub ahead of print]

More for expectant mothers: Will your vitamin D deficiency lead to Multiple Sclerosis in your children?

2009-02-09T07:03:00.000-08:00

A new multiple sclerosis (MS) study has shown that vitamin D has the ability to reduce a genetic susceptibility to the disease by reducing the force of genes that lead to MS.[1] In other words, vitamin D reduces the action of genes that trigger the autoimmune response leading to the disease. The researchers indicated that vitamin D supplements during pregnancy and early in life might act to prevent the disease.

In MS, the body’s own immune system attacks the myelin sheath—insulation that surrounds nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord. When nerve tissue loses its myelin sheath, it is analogous to electric wiring that has lost its rubber insulation; it fails to carry the body’s electrical impulses properly and becomes “short circuited.” Those who suffer from MS experience numbness, poor coordination and balance, weakness, stiffness and poor vision.

This study simply gives one more reason to believe that vitamin D is a major player in reducing the risk of MS. The skin produces vitamin D when exposed to sunlight during spring, summer and early fall; the more sunlight available, the more vitamin D is produced. It has been known for about 70 years that MS is much less prevalent in sunny, warm areas. More recent research has also shown that in Australia, there is a seven-fold increase in MS incidence between tropical Northern Queensland and Southern Hobart, located in the less sunny part of the country.[2] And when we observe the rates of MS worldwide, the geographical distribution of MS confirms the direct correlation between latitude and MS; the further from the equator, where there is less sunlight, the greater the incidence of MS.[3] [4] [5] There is more than 100 times the rate of MS in far northern areas as in equatorial areas, where sunlight is intense and the rate of MS approaches zero!

For a complete discussion of MS, see my chapter on the subject in my book. Meanwhile, If behooves all parents to be sure that they, their spouses and their children have high levels of vitamin D. The optimal levels are 50-60 ng/ml. Moderate, non-burning sunlight exposure is the most natural way to obtain vitamin D.

[1] Ramagopalan, S. et al. Expression of the multiple sclerosis-associated MHC class II Allele HLA-DRB1*1501 is regulated by vitamin D. PLoS Genet. 2009 Feb;5(2):e1000369. Epub 2009 Feb 6.
[2] McLeod, J. et al. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Australia. With NSW and SA survey results. Med J Aust 1994;160:117-22.
[3] Alter, M. et al. Multiple sclerosis and nutrition. Arch Neurol l974;31:267-72.
[4] Kurtkze, J. et al. Geography in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 1977;215:1-26.
[5] Hayes, C. et al. Vitamin D and multiple sclerosis. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1997;216:21-27.

Expectant mothers: will your newborn die of heart failure due to your vitamin D deficiency?

2009-02-06T21:21:00.000-08:00

Tragically, newborns sometimes suffer heart failure, and until lately physicians had not considered vitamin D deficiency as a possible cause. However, in a study conducted in southeast England, sixteen infants were identified that had suffered heart failure and low blood calcium between 2000 and 2006[1]. Six were of Indian and ten of African ethnicity (dark skinned people do not make vitamin D efficiently).

Six of these unfortunate children suffered cardiac arrest, three died, eight were placed on lung machines, and two were referred for heart transplants. Can you imagine an innocent baby needing a heart transplant because his/her mother was severely deficient and passed that deficiency to the child? The average serum vitamin D level was only 7.4 ng/ml (50-60 is optimal), and some of the infants had undetectable levels.

Hypocalcaemia is usually caused by insufficient vitamin D in the blood and often results in convulsions and death. But the care givers had not even tried to assure that vitamin D levels were adequate. The researchers concluded with this statement: “Vitamin D deficiency and consequent hypocalcaemia are seen in association with severe and life-threatening infant heart failure. That no infant or mother was receiving the recommended vitamin supplementation highlights the need for adequate provision of vitamin D to ethnic minority populations."

Obviously, a few dollars worth of vitamin D or a lot of summer sunshine or tanning bed use could have prevented this catastrophe. At least the word is getting out.

[1][1] Maiya, S. et al. Hypocalcaemia and vitamin D deficiency: an important, but preventable cause of life-threatening heart failure. Heart 2008;94:581-84

Are you looking for help for anemia? Vitamin D may be your answer.

2009-02-06T20:50:00.000-08:00

Anemia is a disorder caused by a reduction of the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. It causes pallor, weakness, breathlessness and fatigue. It has been shown that in patients with kidney disuse, each 10 ng/mL increase in serum levels of 25 (OH) D is associated with a 29% reduced risk of anemia, whereas each increase of 10 mg/dl of c-reactive protein (CRP) were associated with dramatically increased risk.[1] There is every reason to believe that those without kidney disease would have the same benefit from higher levels of vitamin D. In my book, I discussed the profound association of higher vitamin D levels with lowered levels of CRP, an inflammatory chemical that is a strong promoter of heart disease. Vitamin D's ability to control CRP may also be the reason for the impressive, positive influence of vitamin D on anemia.

Let's get back in the sunlight (without burning, of course).

[1] Kendrick, J. et al. Report to the conference of the National Kidney Foundation, Spring Clinical Meetings. May 16, 2008

The most popular flu drug is now 99% ineffective. Another reason to keep vitamin D levels high!

2009-02-04T17:54:00.000-08:00

The headline in the International Herald Tribune reads, “Flu in U.S. found resistant to main antiviral drug.” The article then goes on to say, “Virtually all the flu in the United States this season is resistant to the leading antiviral drug Tamiflu, and scientists and health officials are trying to figure out why.”[1]

According to this article, flu is now 99% resistant to Tamiflu, the most popular flu drug.
My earlier posts presented evidence that vitamin D is exceptionally effective against flu, in fact, nearly 100% effective in winter. [http://drsorenson.blogspot.com/2008/12/vitamin-d-flu-and-immune-system-part-2.html]

Wake up world, and wake up drug companies; the answer to flu prevention is already here!

[1] drsiht.com/articles/2009/01/08/america/09flu.php

More for expectant mothers: will your baby be born with a soft skull due to your vitamin D deficiency?

2009-02-04T17:16:00.000-08:00

Craniotabes is a skull condition characterized by thin, soft areas, and it has recently been defined as the earliest sign of vitamin D deficiency in newborns.[1] It may signal impending rickets, but until recently, it was considered a physiological anomaly needing no treatment. Obviously, any newborn diagnosed with craniotabes should be immediately checked for vitamin D deficiency to avert full-blown rickets.

Remember that it is virtually impossible for a newborn to be vitamin D deficient if the mother’s blood is replete with vitamin D. And as we have already discussed in a previous post, it is imperative that a woman who is breastfeeding take in 6,400 IU of vitamin D3 daily in order to maintain optimal levels in both herself and her infant.[2]

Moms, you are responsible for the health of your infant; you need sunlight or supplements. Act now!

[1] Yorifuji J. et al. Craniotabes in normal newborns: the earliest sign of subclinical vitamin D deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008 [Epub]
[2] Wagner C. et al. High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in a cohort of breastfeeding mothers and their infants: a 6-month follow-up pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2006;1:59-70.

Another method by which vitamin D prevents breast cancer.

2009-02-04T10:47:00.000-08:00

In view of my just-completed post on breast cancer, I felt it appropriate to follow up with another piece of research that relates to the subject. Vitamin D has now been found to stimulate a protein that suppresses the growth of breast cancer tumors.[1] This is important research, because it indicates that breast cancer tumors that are already developed can be inhibited in their growth by vitamin D.

Let’s return to the sun and keep our vitamin D levels high!

[1] Dhawan, P. et al. CCAAT Enhancer-binding Protein {alpha} Is a Molecular Target of 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 in MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cells.