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

--

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?

--
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

--
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?

-
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!

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

--
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

-
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?

--
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?

--
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?”

--
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.”

--
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.