Vitamin D in spotlight

[Cetacea]

Source: ABC

n a second study, Lappe and colleagues followed nearly 1,200 women from a nine-county area in eastern Nebraska to see whether vitamin D and calcium supplements might reduce not just breast cancer, but all cancers.

Compared to those women taking a placebo, cancer risk of any kind over 10 years decreased by 60 percent in those taking both calcium and vitamin D, and by 47 percent in those taking calcium alone.

Moreover, when they excluded those cancers that occurred in the first year of the study — based on the assumption that these cancers were likely present at the start of the study — the benefit of calcium plus vitamin D appeared even more dramatic: a 77 percent decrease in cancer risk.

Read more: http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/7891432.html

---

What's amazing is the type of cancers this study addresses. Lung, colon,prostate, breast, and lymphoma.

[NashVegas]

1. Got Milk?

...

[defendandprotect]

54. Vegetables/Fruits are your nutrition and your medicine --

Too few people understand that our plants are our nutrition and our medicines.
When you take enough Vitamin C it works as an antibiotic.

You shouldn't take it without studying what the recommended daily doses are.

Calcium from animals is good for the baby animal --
Cow's milk is not good for humans --

[postulater]

2. Yet another reason to get out and take a walk in the sunshine.

[redacted]

8. NO, IT ISN'T. My brother DIED OF SKIN CANCER (MALIGNANT MELANOMA)

that turned into lymphoma and then brain cancer, and then a nasty and protracted wrongful death court case followed that amounted to years of suffering for everybody else in our family. And I personally am a skin cancer survivor myself.

"Needing to get Vitamin D" should never be used as a reason to "get some sun." The FACT is that these days, most Americans are advised by their dermatologists that they should apply SPF 30+ sunscreen routinely before they leave for work in the morning, especially if they commute in a car. Most of us don't, because it's hard to do that while wearing white shirts and ties. But the BEST amount of sun exposure is NO sun exposure.

Don't learn the hard way, like my brother did, from doctors who told him that he was a terminal case with only a few months to live--and were right. If you want to take Vitamin D supplements, great. But the risks of sun exposure outweigh by many thousands of times any possible benefits from the tiny amount of Vitamin D any sun exposure might give a person.

Moreover, perpetuating this obsolete myth that "sunshine is good for you" in an age of global warming does a grave disservice to the health of anybody who ends up believing that nonsense. Exposing skin to the sun is NOT good for anybody, and hearing that absurd old wife's tale over and over is infuriating to those of us who live with the after-effects of skin cancer every day of our lives.

[TalkingDog]

9. Sunshine is good for you. SunBURNS are not.

There are sane, reasonable ways to get enough D via sun exposure.

It only takes 20 minutes a day of direct sun on the skin to build adequate D. It can be before 10 and after 3 when the angle is much more oblique and less penetrating.

If sunshine were bad for you, every life-guard (or outdoorsman) that ever lived would be dead of skin cancer. I was a life guard 30 years ago and I can't name even one (including all the outdoorsmen) that has had any type of melanoma.

In fact, the only people I know who have had this type of problem are people who routinely avoid the sun, then accidentally get overexposed. Sun BURNS cause the cellular damage, SunSHINE does not.

I'm extremely sorry for your loss and sympathize, as I lost my mother to lung cancer that turned to brain cancer last May. But as with anything, moderation and risk management is the key, making sure to avoid the extremes.

[kskiska]

10. I was watching one of those programs on the morbidly obese

and one man was having terrible pain and believed he had cancer in his bones. He weighed 7-800 lbs and had been bedridden for years. After finding an x-ray machine large enough, the diagnosis turned out to be rickets due to a lack of Vitamin D. Since he never left the house, he hadn't even absorbed any Vitamin D from sunshine.

[eridani]

14. Not only that, but no load-bearing exercise either

A real shame--just walking a little would have been extensive load-bearing exercise in his case.

[redacted]

17. What makes YOU such an expert on skin cancer?

I'm very sorry for your losing your Mom to cancer as well. But just because I can relate to your experience of losing a relative to cancer does not mean I'm willing to let you spread without challenge what is essentially disinformation about the disease.

In other words, I mean, who the hell are you to preach the gospel about skin cancer to me and to other DUers like this? Are you a dermatologist? Researcher? If not, I think you should stop patronizing me and other DUers who are skin cancer patients or family members of patients and who know a hell of a lot more of the facts than you do--and stop spreading a load of information that's basically bullshit.

If sunshine were bad for you, every life-guard (or outdoorsman) that ever lived would be dead of skin cancer. I was a life guard 30 years ago and I can't name even one (including all the outdoorsmen) that has had any type of melanoma.

Are you serious? You call that a logical argument? That's twisted logic. No, not every single outdoorsman or lifeguard that ever lived will eventually die of skin cancer, just like not every smoker who ever smoked will eventually die of lung cancer. But that proves nothing. And I don't know what kind of sample size you're talking about in your statistical sample of buddies; it's probably tiny compared to the statistics compiled by government agencies like the National Institutes of Health.

The fact is that these days, if you forget about meaningless personal anecdotes and look at the overall statistics that matter, the rates of skin cancer in the United States general population are many times what they were 30, 40 or 50 years ago. In Australia right now, it's essentially an epidemic.

Back in the day, when you were a lifeguard, there were many fewer cases of skin cancer because we had an atmosphere that was less compromised, one that was more effective at blocking UV rays.

However, there's no dispute in the scientific literature that the effects of sun exposure on skin is cumulative. Damage does build up over time, and the risks of skin cancer do increase with age. So just because there was less UV exposure back then overall doesn't necessarily mean you're not necessarily at risk.

In fact, the only people I know who have had this type of problem are people who routinely avoid the sun, then accidentally get overexposed. Sun BURNS cause the cellular damage, SunSHINE does not.

That's absolute and total nonsense. This is the kind of rubbish I hear all the time from people in denial of the risk of sun exposure, kind of like alcoholics in denial about the effects of their drinking. They can't handle the fear, so denying the risk makes them feel less anxious.

Sunburns are a serious problem. In fact, recent evidence suggests that it only takes one single whopper of a sunburn early in life to lead to a skin cancer outbreak decades later.

But what you're saying, that avoidance/overexposure is the ONLY mechanism that causes cellular damage, is absolutely not backed up by the science. I challenge you to show me some current statistics or studies that back up this assertion. Make some coffee, because finding them is going to take quite awhile.

You sure do draw a lot of conclusions about 350 million Americans from your circle of friends, don't you? There's all sorts of fantasies one can indulge in based on "the only people I know," a sample size of 5 or 10 people, but that's just not logical and it's not scientific.

The fact is that cumulative sunSHINE causes a tremendous amount of cell damage. What's the reason we don't all have skin similar to those of infants? Cell damage. Not aging, and not necessarily sunburns. Plenty of people who claim to never have had a sunburn in their lives end up with skin like shoe leather. That's cell damage.

Skin cancer, like any form of cancer, is horrible. But misinformation about the disease is worse. Stop spreading this kind of nonsense, and stop putting others' lives unnecessarily at risk.

[Occulus]

27. I think you need to provide some links

because you've made some hella serious claims and they need backing up.

[TalkingDog]

33. Why I dislike fundamentalism…. (of any stripe)

Any time someone throws out the ultimatums of ALWAYS (do this)or NEVER (do that) my antennae go up. I am and was suggesting RISK MANAGEMENT.

And I’m also suggesting an open-minded skepticism, critical thinking and a non-paternalistic approach to providing pertinent information to people. Then, letting them make their own decisions about what they find to be an ACCEPTABLE RISK regarding what they choose to do with their own bodies. (and with other peoples’ bodies, providing consent of course)

Now, after this post I will not be able to respond. No offense, but I (literally) have more important things to do. I’m suggesting people do their own research and make up their own minds.

For myself (admittedly the definitive non-expert), I find sun exposure, within given parameters, to be a low risk, high gain activity.

And I must provide this caveat. In my earlier post, I accidentally switched the hours of suggested exposure given below. (which is why I always do MY OWN research rather than relying on the word of “people who know”.) People make mistakes:

“Sun exposure at higher latitudes before 10 am or after 2 pm will cause burning from UV-A before it will supply adequate vitamin D from UV-B. This finding may surprise you, as it did the researchers.
It means that sunning must occur between the hours we have been told to avoid. Only sunning between 10 am and 2 pm during summer months (or winter months in southern latitudes) for 20-120 minutes, depending on skin type and color, will form adequate vitamin D before burning occurs.9”

from: http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html


Those heretics at the Journal of National Cancer Institute cite this study (where I am merely citing the conclusion…I suggest you DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH)

Conclusions: Sun exposure is associated with increased survival from melanoma.

from: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/3/195


“Insufficient exposure to ultraviolet radiation may be an important risk factor for cancer in Western Europe and North America, according to a new study published in the prominent Cancer journal that directly contradicts official advice about sunlight.

The research examined cancer mortality in the United States. Deaths from a range of cancers of the reproductive and digestive systems were approximately twice as high in New England as in the southwest, despite a diet that varies little between regions.

An examination of 506 regions found a close inverse correlation between cancer mortality and levels of ultraviolet B light. The likeliest mechanism for a protective effect of sunlight is vitamin D, which is synthesized by the body in the presence of ultraviolet B.

The study's author, Dr William Grant ([e-mail]) , says northern parts of the United States may be dark enough in winter that vitamin D synthesis shuts down completely.

While the study focused on white Americans, the same geographical trend affects black Americans, whose overall cancer rates are significantly higher. Darker skinned people require more sunlight to synthesize vitamin D.

There are 13 malignancies that show this inverse correlation, mostly reproductive and digestive cancers. The strongest inverse correlation is with breast, colon, and ovarian cancer.

Other cancers apparently affected by sunlight include tumors of the bladder, uterus, esophagus, rectum, and stomach. “

From: Cancer March 2002; 94:1867-75

And: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070428.wxvitamin28/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home


Sunscreens? What a JOKE!

Given that the FDA does not regulate the ingredients in sunscreen (which are absorbed through the skin and directly into the body) I feel safe in asserting that rather than completely preventing cancer, certain sunscreens cause cancer via the following ingredients:

Suspected Carcinogens

”DEA (diethanolamine), TEA (Triethanolamine) are almost always in products that foam: bubble bath, body washes, shampoos, soaps and facial cleansers. They are used to thicken, wet, alkalise and clean. While they are irritating to the skin, eyes and respiratory tract (Rev Environ Contam Toxicol, 1997; 149: 1-86)

DEA, MEA and TEA are not considered particularly toxic in themselves. However once added to the product these chemicals readily react with any nitrites present to form potentially carcinogenic nitrosamines, such as NDEA (N-nitrosodiethanolamine). Of the three, MEA and DEA pose the greatest risk to human health. Prolonged exposure to these can alter liver and kidney function (J Am Coll Toxicol, 1983; 2: 183- 235) and even lead to cancer (Rev Environ Contam Toxicol, 1997; 149: 1-86).”

“Nitrites get into personal care products in several ways. They can be added as anticorrosive agents, they can be released as a result of the degradation of other chemicals, specifically 2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (BNDP), or they can be present as contaminants in raw materials.

Ingredients such as formaldehyde or formaldehyde-forming chemicals, or 2-bromo-2-nitropropane (also known as Bronopol) which can break down into formaldehyde, can also produce nitrosamines.

The long shelf life of most toiletries also increases the risk of creating a carcinogenic reaction. Stored for a long time at elevated temperatures, nitrates will continue to form in a product, accelerated by the presence of other chemicals, such as formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde, thiocyanate, nitrophenols and certain metal salts (Science, 1973; 182: 1245-6; J Nat Cancer Inst, 1977; 58:409;Nature, 1977; 266: 657-8; Fd Cosmet Toxicol, 1983; 21: 607-14)”

“Inadequate and confusing labeling means that consumers may never know which products are most likely to be contaminated. However, in a recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report, approximately 42% of all cosmetics were contaminated with NDEA, with shampoos having the highest concentrations (National Toxicology Program, Seventh Annual Report on Carcinogens, Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1994).”

“In Europe, where more safeguards are in place regarding nitrosating agents, the picture is somewhat better. For instance, in Germany, after the Federal Health Office issued a request to eliminate all secondary amines (such as DEA) from cosmetics in 1987 a report confirmed that only 15 per cent of products tested were contaminated with NDEA (Eisenbrand, G, et al in O'neill, IK, et al
“Manufactures insist that DEA and its relatives are "safe" in products designed for brief or discontinuous use or those which wash off. However there is evidence from both human and animal studies that NDEA can be quickly absorbed through the skin (J Nat Cancer Inst, 1981; 66: 125-7; Toxicol Lett, 1979; 4: 217-22). “

And from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1051314,00.html

I feel very safe in asserting that sunscreen does absolutely no good and may in fact be very harmful.

From the book: Naked at Noon:

“For a number of years clinicians, physicians, national media, and the National Institute of Health have been warning Americans to stay out of the sun. The purpose of this warning is intended to prevent melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer. In spite of the ever-increasing use of sunscreens and intentional reduction of sun exposure, incidence of this cancer continues to rise. There is evidence that the advice to avoid sunlight may be contributing to the increased incidence of melanoma. One possible reason for this may be issues relating to genetics and extended exposure to UV-A light. When sunscreen is used sun burning is reduced or eliminated and the sunscreen user's time in the sun is extended. While UV-A is not as strong as UV-B it does cause damage over time and most sunscreens either do not block or poorly block UV-A no matter what the SPF may be. Whatever the cause, the expected reduction in skin cancer with sunscreen use has not occurred.

One of the known protectors of skin cells from pre-cancerous changes is vitamin D and your skin actually contains the enzyme that converts sunlight D into active 1,25(OH)2D, calcitriol. For most Americans the primary source of vitamin D is sunlight. UV-B, the only band of light producing vitamin D, is significantly present only midday during summer months in most of the U.S., the exact time we are advised to avoid sunlight. UV-B is blocked by sunscreen. We have an international disaster in progress due to a misunderstanding of the nature of and need for UV-B and vitamin D.”

“Sunlight is a safe source for most persons in the US with the exception of light skinned persons living in Hawaii, Florida or other locations with elevated levels of UV-B.”


As for universal supplementation (big Pharma would just LOVE that wouldn’t it?)

From the Vitamin D Expert Panel Meeting in Atlanta GA in 2001

(my note: The entire panel was in constant disagreement over the risks of Vit. D via sunlight …which you can never overdose on… vs. risks of toxic supplementation, but did provide these eye opening tidbits):

“I.Experience in childhood
Jeans and Sterns (1938)-Vitamin D in doses ranging from 45 to 90 µ g (1800 –3600 IU) given to nine healthy infants for 9 to 12 months.Their linear growth decelerated after 6 of normal growth and recovered after the doses of vitamin D were reduced.This observation to the conclusion that vitamin D doses >45 µg (1800 IU)can suppress growth.”

British experience -In the 1950s, milk and cereals were enriched with vitamin D <45 to 50 µg (1800 to 2000 IU)> in the United Kingdom. An epidemic of hypercalcemia was observed in the following years. The number of children with hypercalcemia declined when the vitamin D enrichment was lowered to 10 to 15 µg (400 to 600 IU).This observation led to the conclusion that even a modest amount of vitamin D can cause vitamin D intoxication. Of the thousands of children who ingested 100 µg (4000 IU)or more of vitamin D per day, a few hundred developed hypervitaminosis (Bransby et al.1964).Most of the affected children had distinct phenotypic features, therefore, their hypersensitivity to vitamin D might be attributed to other causes,such as Williams syndrome.
UVB rays make vitamin D when skin is exposed to sunlight. However, little vitamin D is made in the winter months, particularly at higher latitudes. Sunscreen,if used correctly,reduces the UVB rays absorbed by the skin. SPF 8 reduces vitamin D production by 97.5%;SPF 15 reduces vitamin D production by 99%.

Exposure of an individual ’s whole body to one MED of sunlight is equivalent to ingesting about 250 µg (10,000 IU)of vitamin D (Holick 1999).Therefore, exposure to 1 MED of sunlight is 17 to 50 times the recommended AI for vitamin D from dietary sources <5 to 15 µg (200 to 600 IU)> (IOM 1997).Therefore, for an older woman to obtain the equivalent of 15 µ g (600 IU)of vitamin D per day (AI for women >70 years of age),she would need to expose 6%of her body surface to sunlight for 15 to 30 minutes two or three times a week.
In Britain, UVB lamps have been used as ambient lighting in nursing homes, and residents have maintained their vitamin D concentrations all year long. There have been reductions in fractures and depression in these facilities as a result of the lights.

The average Caucasian in Boston needs to expose hands, face, and arms to 5 to 15 minutes of sunlight two or three times per week in the summer, before applying sunscreen. The average African American may need up to ten times as much sunlight as Caucasians to produce the same amount of vitamin D (Clemens et al.1982).

Muslims who are covered from head to toe present a major problem in terms of vitamin D synthesis. Their vitamin D production is almost 0,and all will need vitamin D supplementation.

The industrial revolution increased air pollution. Tall buildings blocked sunlight, so people were not synthesizing vitamin D. As a result, rickets became a common disease. Cesarean section became a common method of delivery in Great Britain because women had malformed pelvises from rickets and were unable to deliver their babies vaginally.

In 1822,Sniadecki noted that “strong and obvious is the influence of sun on the cure of rickets and the frequent occurrence of the disease in densely populated towns where the streets are narrow and poorly lit.” Sunlight, a source of vitamin D, was used to treat disease throughout the last century.

In 1905,phototherapy was used to treat tuberculosis, and rickets was first cured with sunlight in 1921.By 1939,phototherapy was a popular treatment for many diseases, including lupus.


Vitamin D deficiency can lead to osteoporosis.Many cases of fibromyalgia are often caused by vitamin D deficiency. Up to 50%of women over 50 years of age are vitamin D deficient (Malabanan et al.1998). In those over age 65,sunlight deprivation is the leading cause of vitamin D deficiency.

Vitamin D and cancer
There may be a relationship between vitamin D and cancer. As early as 1941, it was discovered that there were higher cancer rates at higher latitudes (Apperly 1941).Breast (Garland et al.1990),colon (Garland et al.1990),and prostate (Hanchette and Schwartz 1992) cancer rates are all higher in northern than in southern latitudes.1,25(OH)2D is the active form of vitamin D. 1,25(OH)2D3 inhibits proliferation of benign and malignant prostate cancer cells (T.C.Chen, G.G.Schwartz,and M.F.Holick,unpublished data,1998).But increased vitamin D intake or sunlight exposure does not increase 1,25(OH)2D.It is possible that prostate cells make 1,25(OH)2D to maintain normal cell growth activity by increasing 1 .-OHase activity. Research by Schwartz et al,(1998)suggests that benign and malignant prostate cancer cells metabolize
25(OH)D to 1,25(OH)2D to control cell growth.”

From:
www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/Vitamin_D_Expert_Panel_Meeting.pdf

[Joe Chi Minh]

46. An excellent and measured rebuttal. Not too anecdotal, I think.

I read a small item from an Australian newspaper to similar effect, concerning the propensity of exaggerated avoidance of sunlight to be counter-productive as regards succumbing to skin cancers.

[AngryAmish]

35. Easy on the all caps

And maybe just take it easy in general.

[Psephos]

52. Your post is rude, and it didn't need to be

Your chance of convincing someone of your point of view evaporates the moment you raise the hair on the back of their necks.

So not only do you increase the world's supply of cruelty by a small amount, but you also insure that your argument goes for naught.

I don't get it.

My opinion, no more, no less.

[Nikia]

56. My skin started changing when I was almost 25

Not when I was in high school or college where I was exposed to sunlight without wearing sunscreen while I ran outdoors. After college, I also had exposure to sun when I ran (less frequently than when I was in school) and walked and biked, not having a driver's license yet. I got my license when I was almost 24. At that point, I worked during the day and spent much less time outside with skin exposed. It was in the fall when I was 24 that I noticed that my skin was getting dry, unlike how it had been before. After a couple of months, I began using moisturizers in an attempt to save my skin and it has worked to some extent. I believe that my change in skin was due to changes in physiology due to me getting older and perhaps not exercising as much, but not unprotected sun exposure.
You might have a point in regards to people who purposely get crispy year after year, but I don't believe that regular sun exposure for short periods of time greatly accelerates the skin aging process. If you have any links to studies about people who are not exposed to sunlight beginning in their teens or younger extending through middle age or older, please include them. I don't believe that a child never exposed to sunlight would not have skin changes by the time they were middle age.

[silverojo]

58. Redacted, please chill out a little :-)

There are many studies that suggest a need for MODERATE exposure to the sun several times a week, to stay healthy and get enough vitamin D. We're talking around 10 minutes a day, not even enough to tan, let alone sustain damage.

The problem arises when people think they can spend loads of time outdoors, unprotected--playing golf, hanging out at the beach, etc. There are far too many people around who still believe there's no need to use sunscreen.

If you avoid sun exposure continually, you'll end up very, very sick. That's not misinformation, but a fact of life. :)

[0007]

61. Dud!

...."who the hell are you to preach the gospel about skin cancer to me and to other DUers like this?"

[dropkickpa]

42. Look at Australian skin cancer rates

saw an interesting study on lifeguards of the beaches there, many of whom suffered numerous (those that lived) bouts with skin cancer, above and beyond the already high normal rates. Skin cancer is the #1 cancer there. I'm too lazy to look for the article myself right now. Here's some other things to look at.

http://www.ilsf.org/medical/policy_04.htm
http://www.rmsunscreen.com/UploadedDocuments/Skin_Cancer_Prevention_and_YOUR_liability.pdf
http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/brewsterskincancer.html

[TalkingDog]

50. This study IS from Australia....

Conclusions: Sun exposure is associated with increased survival from melanoma.

from: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/...

[dropkickpa]

55. bad link

Here's a working link to the article I think you tried to cite (after doing a search for all Journal of the National Cancer Institute volume 97 publications from jan 1988 to dec 2007 that mention melanoma and sun exposure), which was conducted in Connecticut, a far cry from Australia, if I know my geography. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/97/3/195

and an excerpt

Patients

We conducted a population-based case–control study of melanoma in Connecticut; the details of this study have been described previously (6). In brief, case subjects were ascertained through the rapid case ascertainment mechanism of the Connecticut Tumor Registry, with a mean time of 3 months between pathologic diagnosis and interview (i.e., entry into the case–control study). All procedures were reviewed by the relevant institutional review boards, and all subjects provided written informed consent. In the original study, physician approval was given to contact 87% of eligible patients; 85% of these patients were interviewed, for an overall response rate of 75%. The original study enrolled 650 Caucasian residents of Connecticut diagnosed with invasive cutaneous melanoma from January 15, 1987, through May 15, 1989. For this analysis, we excluded 26 patients whose melanoma was diagnosed with lymph node or organ metastases. In addition, because lentigo maligna melanoma is closely related to solar elastosis, we excluded 95 patients who were diagnosed with lentigo maligna melanoma. We also excluded one patient who was missing follow-up status, leaving 528 patients in the database for the current analysis.

They acknowleged several limitations of thier study, not the least of which was that it was conducted in the 80's when sunscreen use was NOT prevalent

The results of this population-based study of survival from melanoma suggest that some factors associated with high levels of sun exposure, such as solar elastosis and, to a lesser extent, sunburns and intermittent sun exposure, are inversely associated with death from melanoma. The association between survival and solar elastosis was not explained by confounding with early detection or screening behaviors, represented by skin awareness, skin self examination, and physician examination, or by confounding by social class, represented by educational level, all of which were also inversely associated with death from melanoma in univariate analyses. The inverse associations of solar elastosis and skin awareness with death from melanoma were also independent of its strong associations with melanoma site, lesion thickness, and mitoses.
One limitation of this study was the crude evaluation of sunscreen use. Moreover, the study was conducted during the 1980s, when few individuals would have used sunscreen regularly during most of their life. Thus, the weak and nonstatistically significant reductions in the risk of melanoma death may or may not be relevant to any contribution sunscreen use might make to an outcome of melanoma.

Our study was also limited by the use of the simple qualitative variables in a questionnaire assessment of early detection behaviors. Skin awareness, however, was a strong and independent predictor of survival of patients with melanoma and is a plausible indicator of likelihood of detecting melanoma early. Our study also lacked complete information on number of nevi, which could be confounded with sun exposure. However, analyses that included number of nevi as a covariate—based on the 80% data set that had nurse-assessed numbers of nevi—found no difference in point estimates of the solar exposure variables or other independent variables from those without adjustment of nevi from the full data set.

and the full statement that I think you were trying to quote

In summary, we found that intermittent sun exposure may increase survival from melanoma. If these results are confirmed, our findings have the potential to lead to interventions, such as stimulation of the vitamin D pathway or DNA repair capacity, that would increase survival from melanoma and, perhaps, from other cancers.

A response to the article by a group that conducted a data study using the guidelines (and using 28,444 patients as opposed to the Berwick 548) set forth in the Berwick study had this to say http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/97/23/1789

It appears that, unlike the association between sun exposure and melanoma risk, the association between sun exposure and survival for melanoma patients is not reflected in the SEER populations. There are, of course, possible explanations, e.g., UVB flux may not be the appropriate measure of population sun exposure for survival of melanoma patients. However, our findings do introduce a note of caution in the interpretation of the findings of Berwick et al. Specifically, it is important to discourage those who would seek sun exposure in the hope of improving survival after melanoma occurrence. Rather, it is most important to continue to strongly encourage people to avoid the sun to reduce the risk of melanoma occurrence.

[TalkingDog]

57. Oops, you read the article: I read the Abstract..... here's the text.

When I read the description of the abstract I somehow got the idea the research was done in Australia (probably from one of the author's schools)....thanks for catching that.

But the conclusion I quoted, was directly and verbatim from the abstract and is quoted at the end of the paragraph below.

And I agree with later commentary that sensible sun exposure is, well, sensible. What I disagree with are the blanket statements in this thread that ALL sun must be avoided at ALL times. The suggestion that melanoma can be irrevocably avoided by avoiding the sun. And that sunscreen is a safe and effective way to mediate risk. The variables are incredibly complex and as I emphasized up-thread, Risk Management is something we all have to determine for ourselves.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/3/195

Background: Melanoma incidence and survival are positively associated, both geographically and temporally. Solar elastosis, a histologic indicator of cutaneous sun damage, has also been positively associated with melanoma survival. Although these observations raise the possibility that sun exposure increases melanoma survival, they could be explained by an association between incidence and early detection of melanoma. We therefore evaluated the association between measures of skin screening and death from cutaneous melanoma. Methods: Case subjects (n = 528) from a population-based study of cutaneous melanoma were followed for an average of more than 5 years. Data, including measures of intermittent sun exposure, perceived awareness of the skin, skin self-screening, and physician screening, were collected during in-person interviews and review of histopathology and histologic parameters (i.e., solar elastosis, Breslow thickness, and mitoses) for all of the lesions. Competing risk models were used to compute risk of death (hazard ratios , with 95% confidence intervals ) from melanoma. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Sunburn, high intermittent sun exposure, skin awareness histories, and solar elastosis were statistically significantly inversely associated with death from melanoma. Melanoma thickness, mitoses, ulceration, and anatomic location on the head and neck were statistically significantly positively associated with melanoma death. In a multivariable competing risk analysis, skin awareness (with versus without, HR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3 to 0.9, P = .022) and solar elastosis (present versus absent, HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2 to 0.8, P = .009) were strongly and independently associated with melanoma death after adjusting for Breslow thickness, mitotic index, and head and neck location, which were also independently associated with death.

Conclusions: Sun exposure is associated with increased survival from melanoma.

[CountAllVotes]

45. excellent points - all of them

I too lost a brother to cancer at a young age. It was not skin cancer but it was cancer nonetheless. I believe it was of an environmental origin myself but I have no real answers.

I am sorry to hear about your brother and you have my sympathy. :hug: I know what this is like and it is really awful.

I agree, don't go out in the sun. If vitamin D might be of help, take supplements. This is not the world it was c. 1950-1980. The earth is quickly becoming a cancer ridden waste dump! The food supply is no different than the sky or the rest of this fragile earth we are living on. It gets little respect and people wonder why things are so messed up! :mad:

This is why so many are dying of cancer! Can you say Global Warming? I can! :(

:dem:

[seatless-in-seattle]

60. walk in the sunshine

skin cancer anyone :)?

[lonestarnot]

3. That's good, mmmmilk in the sun.

[Mark D.]

4. Good Post.

I take a natural multi-vitamin/mineral supplement so I
get the RDA every day of Vitamin D in that...plus what
I get from other foods. I still wear sunblock if I am
in the sun too long, and avoid most dairy. If I'd get
it from that safe source, without increasing risks of
skin cancer /premature aging from sun, or all of that
crap they put in the milk, I'm better for it. It is a
widely believed notion that the hormones given to cows
are why more girls are hitting puberty a lot younger...

[Pastiche423]

18. Not all cows are given hormones

Recently when I was purchasing milk from a new source, I asked one of the grocery workers about hormones. She thanked me for asking, because she had forgotten to put the "There are no hormones in this milk" sign out.

I always ask because I drink a lot of 2%.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. OH NO!

watch big PHARMA crap on this study and sue to keep it secret.

bastards.

but great news, anyway, until it is commercially censored.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Vitamin W is killing people left and right.

:shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. My brother the doctor has advocated Vitamin D for a long time

He says that the RDA is merely the amount needed to prevent symptoms of deficiency, and that it would be nearly impossible to reach a toxic level.

[jbnow]

12. D3 (cholecalciferol)

is more bioavailable, as opposed to D2 (ergocalciferol). Either form has to be converted by the body but D3 is converted much faster and more efficiently. I could go on but it's easy to look up if you want more info.
d3 is what to use if you take supplements.

It is hard to OD and the RDA is much too low. My doctor has been interested in it for a long time because of breast cancer, I have been for a longer time due to MS.
People in northern climates tend to have even lower levels, probably due to less time outside in some seasons and a weaker winter sun.
My doctor does monitor my levels, I am still lower than optimal levels and have been taking 1200 units of D-3 for a year!

It is good to get a blood check before taking amounts that high (though that is below toxic levels)

Vitamin D has been linked to many disorders besides cancer...but cancer is convincing enough.

[Mark D.]

39. You CAN Get Too Much

Another potentially toxic action of vitamin D is the effect on fat metabolism. There is some evidence that 700IU to 2,500IU daily in adults may raise the plasma cholesterol level.

Maternal ingestion of large doses of vitamin D may cause hypercalcaemia in nursing infants. Vitamin D toxicity may also manifest in the foetus. It may also result in suppression of parathyroid function in the newborn which will lead to hypocalcaemia, tetany and seizures. Excess maternal; vitamin D intake or extreme sensitivity to the vitamin has been shown to cause some congenital birth defects.

Massive doses of vitamin D up to a concentration of 10,000IU/kg during pregnancy are teratogenic. Vitamin D intake of 1,000IU to 4,000IU per day may be toxic to infants. The toxic dose for children ranges from 10,000IU/day for four months to 200,000IU/day for two weeks. Twenty per cent of normal adults receiving 100,000IU/day for several weeks or months develop hypercalcaemia.

Serious toxicity may result from excessive ingestion of the vitamin. The supplemental requirements vary not only with age, pregnancy and lactation, but also with the quality of the diet. It is clear therefore that any recommendation for vitamin D supplementation must be made only after careful scrutiny of the diet. The indiscriminate use of over-the-counter vitamin D preparations for irritional purposes can be dangerous. People must be made aware of the potential hazards of overdosage.

(The writer is a pharmacist at the National Poison Centre, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.)

[TalkingDog]

51. Did you know that you can never overdose on Vit. D. via sunshine?

Never.

This alone should suggest that the oral administration of D does not work in the body in exactly the same manner as that of the body's preferred method of generating D via sun exposure.

You can't make money off of it, which is why few are interested in exploring it as a viable option.


Just sayin'

[candice]

11. Can anyone give me brands of Calcium and Vitamin D that are not Chinese?

I've stopped taking vitamins or supplements for which the companies cannot tell me the origin of the ingredients. So far, I haven't been able to determine if my vitamins/supplements from Dr. Weil or my Vit. C tabs from Country Life contain ingredients from or are made in China. I was told that the latter was imported from Japan and since there is only one company left in the West that manufactures Vit. C, it is a good bet that their Vit. C is made in China. When I asked if any of the "ingredients were from China," no reply.


I feel betrayed by the vitamin/supplement industry. I thought I was paying for something of value. Now I'm not taking anything unless I can be sure it is NOT made in China. Rep. Waxman laments the high level of lead in the little bit that does get checked by our underfunded FDA.

See the following articles:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201163.html

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17306227.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

And for more background:


New York Times

When Fakery Turns Fatal



By DAVID BARBOZA
Published: June 5, 2007

WUDI, China — They might be called China’s renegade businessmen, small entrepreneurs who are experts at counterfeiting and willing to go to extraordinary lengths to make a profit. But just how far out of the Chinese mainstream are they?

Equipment at the fake-feed factory, now closed.

Here in Wudi in eastern China, a few companies tried to save money by slipping the industrial chemical melamine into pet food ingredients as a cheap protein enhancer, helping incite one of the largest pet food recalls ever.

In Taixing, a city far to the south, a small business cheated the system by substituting a cheap toxic chemical for pharmaceutical-grade syrup, leading to a mass poisoning in Panama. And in the eastern province of Anhui, a group of entrepreneurs concocted a fake baby-milk formula that eventually killed dozens of rural children.

[otohara]

59. When Taking D

or any other vitamin that comes in an oil for and dry form....take the oil, it's much better. Take your calcium separately, or better yet take a cal/mag/ or cal/mag & zinc. Health food stores don't sell crappy brands, read the label for where it's from.

[daleo]

13. This seems like a well designed study

So, I don't want to dismiss it. The one thing that troubles me, is if Vitamin D is so central, why isn't there a very clear geographic gradient in cancer incidence.

For example, in the U.S. there ought to be a very noticeable increase in cancer rates from Florida to Minnesota (at least among light skinned people), if Vitamin D is so effective at blocking cancer. But I am unaware of any such epidemiological finding.

I have yet to see this point addressed in any articles that I have read on this matter.

On edit - I note that the article does mention a slight gradient has been observed, but this finding of a 60% protective effect should show a much vaster effect from natural sun exposure in the observational evidence.

[candice]

15. I have read that breast cancer is less prevalent in the Sunbelt/Western

states with more sunlight. Humans are meant to have some sunlight.

[daleo]

16. I do agree with you on the general point about sunlight

I always thought the "stay out of the sun at all costs" mantra was an overreaction, as was the "bake in the sun as long as you can".

Still, a 60% protective effect is so unprecedented that it should have shown up very prominently before this small study. Although this study was well done, in my opinion.

[womanofthehills]

20. melanoma

my dad died of melanoma on his stomach which never saw the sun. In fact, while my mom and I sunbathed at the beach, he always stayed out of the sun. I recently read that melanoma rates are much higher in the north than the south especially in factory and indoor workers. I believe many cancers are related to environmental chemicals and melanoma could be one of them

[TalkingDog]

34. while i'm here: welcome to DU!

I posted the info below up-thread, but agree with you in that saying any dis-ease is caused by one definitive thing or another shows that the person who posits the argument suffers from 1)a deficit of imagination, 2)a lack of critical thinking skills.

We are not all carbon (pun intended) copies of each other. We are a spectrum of chemical balances, immunological differences and genetic tendencies, with a literally infinite number of mental, physical and chemical slights over a lifetime that can affect our well-being.

Sorry 'bout your dad. But I'm glad you found us. Again: Welcome to DU.

.........................
Those heretics at the Journal of National Cancer Institute cite this study (where I am merely citing the conclusion…I suggest you DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH)

Conclusions: Sun exposure is associated with increased survival from melanoma.

from: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/...

[Locrian]

40. not just environmental chemicals...

Ever wonder if the actual reason for increase in skin cancers is not so much sun exposure but the CHEMICALS ie PETROLEUM products in almost ALL sunscreens?????? All that crap slathered all over your skin???? Read the labels on "suncare" products and look up what the actual chemicals are.

Sunlight is not bad. SunBURN is bad.

[mike_c]

30. part of the reason for the lack of a clear gradient might be...

...that MOST humans are vitamin D deficient to some degree. We're adapted to produce the right amount when we live outdoors, naked, in the tropics.

[hedgehog]

38. Don't forget that when we lived outdoors, naked in the tropics,

there may not have been any of us who were melanin deficient. One theory is that melanin deficiency is a mutation that became successful only recently when some of us moved into higher latitudes. Covering up is a very recent custom, a function of the availability of cloth and the Little Ice Age!

Going back a little farther, we weren't naked, we were covered with hair!

[farmboxer]

19. Kevin Trudeau was right once again!

FDA did not like it though.

[Odin2005]

22. Wasn't he that fradulant crank?

:eyes:

[FlaGranny]

24. Trudeau

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/09/trudeaucoral.shtm

"The settlement announced today permanently bans Trudeau and the other defendants, Shop America (USA), LLC, Shop America Marketing Group, LLC, and Trustar Global Media, Limited (“defendants”), from appearing in, producing, or disseminating infomercials that advertise any product, service, or program and, regardless of the advertising medium used to make the claim, from making representations that any product, program, or service can cure, treat, or prevent any disease or provide health benefits. The order’s ban on future infomercials exempts infomercials for books, newsletters, and other informational publications."

It seems Trudeau would NOT be allowed to say that vitamin D and calcium provide health benefits. It also seems it would be illegal for him to claim that vitamin C prevents scurvy, at least from the above settlement statement. So, yes, he has been convicted of scams. From what I can tell, he is only the most well known and visible of hundreds or thousands of people still doing the very same kind of advertising and has been used as a "example" to others. We must take ALL advertising with a grain of salt, but is he really any worse than drug manufacturers pushing their sometimes dangerous drugs on TV (at least vitamins and minerals are not dangerous). Statins and ED drugs come to mind. ED especially makes me laugh, as "erectile dysfunction" is a term completely made up by a drug manufacturer, I guess to shield the sensitive guy from having to say he is impotent. Statins are now used to treatment cholesterol levels that were once considered within normal limits and with devastating side effects for some people.

People actually need vitamins and minerals to survive. A healthy lifestyle and a good supply of nutrients (mostly from diet - but supplementing to be on the safe side) can take the place of many drugs, and much more safely.

[StarryNite]

36. No! No!

Don't take it with a grain of salt! That much salt would be bad for us!

:sarcasm:

[DemBones DemBones]

21. Just a note on sunshine and skin cancer: not only

does melanoma kill but basal cell carcinoma can also metastasize and be fatal.

It does not matter if you have olive skin and tan easily, as some people think, as I knew someone like that who died of melanoma in his thirties.

Dermatologists say wear sunscreen all the time, even indoors if you sit near a window, and wear a hat outside. Your sunscreen should screen out UVA and UVB rays and have an SPF of 20 or more. These days, I wouldn't buy one made in China, given all the
recent problems with Chinese food products.

Don't forget you have to reapply suncreen if you're out in the sun for hours, especially after swimming or sweating.

Sunlight can also affect your eyes so wear sunglasses that screen out UVA and UVB rays.

The FDA or the AMA or somebody has raised the bar for Vitamin D recently. I was told I was low in Vitamin D by one doctor but another doctor, looking at the bloodwork report, said I wasn't low, they'd just raised the bar. He did say I could take more.

I'm glad to know it's good protection against cancers as well.

[FlaGranny]

23. You've just got to

wonder why and how the human race even survived. If we had followed the advice of dermatologists a million years ago, we would be cave dwellers. If we ever ventured into the sunlight we would have all died from cancer and humans would be no more. What kind of sunscreen did our African ancestors wear anyway?

I had a few bad sunburns when I was young and I am light skinned. I have some skin damage and I had one tiny skin cancer, but I am in my late 60s. Basal cell does occur on sun exposed areas, but melanoma frequently shows up on skin never exposed to the sun. Melanoma is deadly, but basal cell not much.

http://www.sunarc.org/

This site has a lot of interesting information. Florida is a little higher in the death rates than would would expect, but you have to remember how many elderly northerners have moved to Florida, and how many "snowbirds" there are. The rates are higher in the very areas you would expect - the areas populated by transplanted northerners.

[DarkTirade]

25. the areas populated by transplanted northerns.

... that would be about 90% of the state. :)

[FlaGranny]

26. Well then, let me qualify

- the areas MOST populated by transplants. :)

[donsu]

29. Granny, yrs. ago the sunlight came through the ozone and you could

be out in the sun for 1/2 hr. or more without burning. (if wet it was less time)

nowadays the ozone is depleted and so the sun's UV rays damages skin and eyes. it takes about 15 min. now to get a burn.

the ozone is depleting because of mostly car exhausts, etc. we have caused our own skin cancers.

[hedgehog]

32. I wonder if melanoma is really tied to sun exposure or not.

This is purely speculation, of course. Obviously, other types of skin cancer are tied to sun exposure. Having any type of skin cancer removed is unpleasant, and basal cell and squamous cell cancers are enough to make anyone take care with sun exposure.

On edit: wouldn't it be a paradox if lack of Vitamin D was part of the trigger process for melanoma?

[StarryNite]

37. I've wondered that too.

It seems to be quite a bit different from the other two major forms of skin cancer.

[Locrian]

41. chemicals

See my post above. Wouldnt it be even more ironic is the "suncare / sunsreen" products (full of petrochemicals etc) were the cause of increased cancer??!

[StarryNite]

47. Stranger things have happened

Look at all the anti depression meds that cause people to commit suicide. These are strange times in which we live. Your above post sure makes one want to rethink whether or not to use sunblock.

[kimmerspixelated]

48. Any skin care product

filled with chemicals is going to bad for you- period. It is worrisome that people are slathering on the sunblock as if there is no tomorrow and they are really poisoning themselves! Thank God there are alternatives available at your local Health Food Stores, AND THEY WORK! ....The sun has ALWAYS been good for you- just like everything else-moderation.

[StarryNite]

49. Many people don't realize

that skin can soak in so many poisons. This made me think of the dryer sheets that somebody had mentioned not long ago on here and how toxic they are too. They might be responsible for some of the melanomas too.

[mike_c]

28. most people cannot make enough of their own vitamin D....

I started taking vitamin D supplements about a year ago after lab work revealed that my blood vitamin D levels were extremely low. Most people don't spend enough time in the sun to make enough vitamin D, it turns out. Yes, we can manufacture it response to sun exposure, but we evolved that mechanism living outdoors, naked, in the tropics. Most modern humans simply do not receive enough sun exposure to produce as much vitamin D as our ancestors.

My doctor started me on vitamin D therapy-- starting with HUGE increases for the first six weeks-- in response to a whole bunch of annoying degenerative problems that I assumed were age related, like joint pain in my knees and wrists. Those have mostly disappeared altogether.

Now I take 1000 IU daily, along with a calcium supplement.

[hedgehog]

31. There are a number of different studies out there focusing on

other vitamins as well. I think the RDA numbers are set to prevent obvious deficiency diseases such as scurvy or pellagra. Now that people are living longer and now that our food supply is degraded, the more subtle long term effects of vitamin deficiencies are being recognized. It's not only processing that's stripping the vitamins from our food. Fruits and vegetables raised using modern fertilizers and pesticides actually contain fewer nutrients than fruits and vegetables raised using organic methods. I would speculate the same applies for our meat animals. I know the eggs from my free range hens taste better than the ones from the store. Who knows what extra unrecognized nutrients are in those eggs?

[brentspeak]

43. Another recent study suggested that not getting enough Vitamin D can lead to multiple sclerosis

[TexasLawyer]

44. Interesting-- the researchers were not even looking for a cancer connection

<snip>

The researchers intended to check mainly for the effects of calcium on bone health. Their interest in cancer risk was secondary.

But the lower cancer risk stood out. Only 13 women, or 3 percent, developed cancer over four years of calcium and vitamin D supplements. With calcium alone, 17 women, or 4 percent, got cancer. With dummy pills, cancer appeared in 20 women, or 7 percent.

[ismnotwasm]

53. Interesting

Vitamin D also has an unproven relationship with Multiple Sclerosis. There was some conjecture that the reason you find higher incidences of MS in the North was because of less manufacture of Vit D from sunshine.

My brother is really in to all this stuff, and tells me about different Vitamins that help prevent certain conditions. I don't think anything is a panacea, but the vitamin and diet studies being done are certainly worth looking at

An example; when I worked in long term care, we took care of many complex wounds, or pressure ulcers. We started to see Vitamin C and Zinc prescribed along with a multivitamin to promote wound healing (As well as proper protein intake)It was very helpful, often with great results. Interestingly, in the hospital I work at I see less--if any-- of this, but then we do very few slow healing complex wounds on my floor.