Another study shows that vitamin D reduces the risk of heart failure
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009
Tanning News
DEC. 2, 2009 (UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS RELEASE) — Previous studies have shown a link between low vitamin D status and heart disease. Now a new study shows that patients with high blood pressure who possess a gene variant that affects an enzyme critical to normal vitamin D activation are twice as likely as those without the variant to have congestive heart failure.
“This study is the first indication of a genetic link between vitamin D action and heart disease,” says Robert U. Simpson, professor of pharmacology at the University of Michigan Medical School and one of the authors of the study in the journal Pharmacogenomics.
“This study revealed that a critical enzyme absolutely required for production of the vitamin D hormone has a genetic variant associated with the development of congestive heart failure,” Simpson says. “If subsequent studies confirm this finding and demonstrate a mechanism, this means that in the future, we may be able to screen earlier for those most vulnerable and slow the progress of the disease.” Such a screening test would be years away.
Study co-authors Russel A. Wilke of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Catherine A. McCarthy of the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation in Marshfield, Wis., analyzed the genetic profiles of 617 subjects from the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Project, a large DNA biobank. They looked for variants in five candidate genes chosen for their roles in vitamin D regulation and hypertension. One-third of the subjects had both hypertension and congestive heart failure, one-third had hypertension alone and one-third were included as healthy controls.
The results showed that a variant in the CYP27B1 gene was associated with congestive heart failure in patients with hypertension. It is already known that mutations that inactivate this gene reduce the required conversion of vitamin D into an active hormone.
“This initial study needs to be confirmed with a larger study that would permit analysis of the full cardiovascular profile of the population possessing the gene variant,” Simpson says. A future study also would need to include people of more diverse origins than this study’s population of mostly European ancestry, the authors say.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Multiple health concerns surface as winter, vitamin D deficiences arrive
Contact: Adrian Gombart
adrian.gombart@oregonstate.edu
541-737-8018
Oregon State University
Multiple health concerns surface as winter, vitamin D deficiences arrive
CORVALLIS, Ore. – A string of recent discoveries about the multiple health benefits of vitamin D has renewed interest in this multi-purpose nutrient, increased awareness of the huge numbers of people who are deficient in it, spurred research and even led to an appreciation of it as "nature's antibiotic."
On issues ranging from the health of your immune system to prevention of heart disease and even vulnerability to influenza, vitamin D is now seen as one of the most critical nutrients for overall health. But it's also one of those most likely to be deficient – especially during winter when production of the "sunshine vitamin" almost grinds to a halt for millions of people in the United States, Europe and other northern temperate zones.
Analogs of the vitamin are even being considered for use as new therapies against tuberculosis, AIDS, and other concerns. And federal experts are considering an increase in the recommended daily intake of the vitamin as more evidence of its value emerges, especially for the elderly.
"About 70 percent of the population of the United States has insufficient levels of vitamin D," said Adrian Gombart, a principal investigator with the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University. "This is a critical issue as we learn more about the many roles it may play in fighting infection, balancing your immune response, helping to address autoimmune problems, and even preventing heart disease."
Those issues were just outlined in a new publication in Future Microbiology, a professional journal, on the latest findings on vitamin D research, at OSU and in many other programs around the world.
Of particular interest are findings made recently by OSU scientists that vitamin D induces the "expression" of cathelicidin, an antimicrobial peptide gene. This explains in part how it helps serve as the first line of defense in your immune response against minor wounds, cuts, and both bacterial and viral infections. Experts believe advances in the use of cathelicidin may form the basis for new therapies.
Once believed to be related primarily to bone health and rickets – a disease caused by chronic deficiency of vitamin D – it's now understood that optimal levels of this nutrient influence much more than that.
"Vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency is a world-wide, public health problem in both developed and developing nations," the new report concluded. "Nearly one billion people world-wide are deficient."
Vitamin D can be obtained from the diet, often through supplemented foods such as milk, but those sources are rarely adequate, experts say. Most people get the bulk of this fat-soluble vitamin from the UV-B radiation in sun exposure, which naturally causes the skin to produce it. However, people with dark skin, infants and almost anyone living north of about 40 degrees latitude – which is a huge portion of the U.S. population and most of Europe– are often deficient after months of inadequate winter sunshine.
Among the values and observations about vitamin D that are outlined in the new report:
Low levels of circulating vitamin D are associated with increased risk and mortality from cancer.
Vitamin D plays an important role in activating the immune system, fostering the "innate" immune response and controlling over-reaction of adaptive immunity, and as such may help control autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis.
Cathelicidin can profoundly boost the innate immune system, and could form the basis for new therapies to combat pathogenic infections.
The regulation of cathelicidin by vitamin D, a unique biological pathway for the function of vitamin D that could help explain its multiple roles in proper immune function, is so important that it's only known to exist in two groups of animals - humans and non-human primates - and has been conserved in them through millions of years of evolution.
Vitamin D deficiency is a risk factor for tuberculosis, was historically used to treat it, and analogs of it may provide the basis for new therapeutic approaches not only to that disease but also HIV infection.
Epidemiological studies show a link between vitamin D deficiency and increased rates of respiratory infection and influenza, and it has been hypothesized that flu epidemics may be the result of vitamin D deficiency.
Higher levels of a protein linked to vitamin D have been associated with reduced infections and longer survival of dialysis patients.
Vitamin D has important roles in reducing inflammation, blood pressure and helping to protect against heart disease.
There is still much to explore about the mechanisms of action of vitamin D, the potential use of synthetic analogs of it in new therapies, and its role in fighting infection, Gombart said. Since only primates and humans have the same biological pathways for use of vitamin D to regulate cathelicidin, studies have been constrained by the lack of appropriate animal models for research, he said. OSU scientists hope to address that by creation of a line of genetically modified mice that have some of these characteristics.
One compelling new study just done by researchers at the Intermountain Medical Center in Utah, and presented at a meeting of the American Heart Association, followed for more than a year nearly 28,000 patients ages 50 or older with no prior history of cardiovascular disease. It found that in patients with very low levels of vitamin D – compared to those with normal levels – 77 percent were more likely to die, 45 percent were more likely to develop coronary artery disease, and 78 percent were more likely to have a stroke.
Research at OSU on vitamin D and cathelicidin has been supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.
adrian.gombart@oregonstate.edu
541-737-8018
Oregon State University
Multiple health concerns surface as winter, vitamin D deficiences arrive
CORVALLIS, Ore. – A string of recent discoveries about the multiple health benefits of vitamin D has renewed interest in this multi-purpose nutrient, increased awareness of the huge numbers of people who are deficient in it, spurred research and even led to an appreciation of it as "nature's antibiotic."
On issues ranging from the health of your immune system to prevention of heart disease and even vulnerability to influenza, vitamin D is now seen as one of the most critical nutrients for overall health. But it's also one of those most likely to be deficient – especially during winter when production of the "sunshine vitamin" almost grinds to a halt for millions of people in the United States, Europe and other northern temperate zones.
Analogs of the vitamin are even being considered for use as new therapies against tuberculosis, AIDS, and other concerns. And federal experts are considering an increase in the recommended daily intake of the vitamin as more evidence of its value emerges, especially for the elderly.
"About 70 percent of the population of the United States has insufficient levels of vitamin D," said Adrian Gombart, a principal investigator with the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University. "This is a critical issue as we learn more about the many roles it may play in fighting infection, balancing your immune response, helping to address autoimmune problems, and even preventing heart disease."
Those issues were just outlined in a new publication in Future Microbiology, a professional journal, on the latest findings on vitamin D research, at OSU and in many other programs around the world.
Of particular interest are findings made recently by OSU scientists that vitamin D induces the "expression" of cathelicidin, an antimicrobial peptide gene. This explains in part how it helps serve as the first line of defense in your immune response against minor wounds, cuts, and both bacterial and viral infections. Experts believe advances in the use of cathelicidin may form the basis for new therapies.
Once believed to be related primarily to bone health and rickets – a disease caused by chronic deficiency of vitamin D – it's now understood that optimal levels of this nutrient influence much more than that.
"Vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency is a world-wide, public health problem in both developed and developing nations," the new report concluded. "Nearly one billion people world-wide are deficient."
Vitamin D can be obtained from the diet, often through supplemented foods such as milk, but those sources are rarely adequate, experts say. Most people get the bulk of this fat-soluble vitamin from the UV-B radiation in sun exposure, which naturally causes the skin to produce it. However, people with dark skin, infants and almost anyone living north of about 40 degrees latitude – which is a huge portion of the U.S. population and most of Europe– are often deficient after months of inadequate winter sunshine.
Among the values and observations about vitamin D that are outlined in the new report:
Low levels of circulating vitamin D are associated with increased risk and mortality from cancer.
Vitamin D plays an important role in activating the immune system, fostering the "innate" immune response and controlling over-reaction of adaptive immunity, and as such may help control autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis.
Cathelicidin can profoundly boost the innate immune system, and could form the basis for new therapies to combat pathogenic infections.
The regulation of cathelicidin by vitamin D, a unique biological pathway for the function of vitamin D that could help explain its multiple roles in proper immune function, is so important that it's only known to exist in two groups of animals - humans and non-human primates - and has been conserved in them through millions of years of evolution.
Vitamin D deficiency is a risk factor for tuberculosis, was historically used to treat it, and analogs of it may provide the basis for new therapeutic approaches not only to that disease but also HIV infection.
Epidemiological studies show a link between vitamin D deficiency and increased rates of respiratory infection and influenza, and it has been hypothesized that flu epidemics may be the result of vitamin D deficiency.
Higher levels of a protein linked to vitamin D have been associated with reduced infections and longer survival of dialysis patients.
Vitamin D has important roles in reducing inflammation, blood pressure and helping to protect against heart disease.
There is still much to explore about the mechanisms of action of vitamin D, the potential use of synthetic analogs of it in new therapies, and its role in fighting infection, Gombart said. Since only primates and humans have the same biological pathways for use of vitamin D to regulate cathelicidin, studies have been constrained by the lack of appropriate animal models for research, he said. OSU scientists hope to address that by creation of a line of genetically modified mice that have some of these characteristics.
One compelling new study just done by researchers at the Intermountain Medical Center in Utah, and presented at a meeting of the American Heart Association, followed for more than a year nearly 28,000 patients ages 50 or older with no prior history of cardiovascular disease. It found that in patients with very low levels of vitamin D – compared to those with normal levels – 77 percent were more likely to die, 45 percent were more likely to develop coronary artery disease, and 78 percent were more likely to have a stroke.
Research at OSU on vitamin D and cathelicidin has been supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
HEADLINE STORY: Vitamin D might be just as important as vaccine to prevent effects of H1N1 swine flu, researchers say
HEADLINE STORY: Vitamin D might be just as important as vaccine to prevent effects of H1N1 swine flu, researchers say
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009
Headline Story
DEC. 3, 2009 — The world’s leading vitamin D experts say that raising your levels of “the sunshine vitamin” this winter might be the best way to help your body naturally raise its resistance to all forms of the flu virus — including the H1N1 swine flu virus.
That’s the message vitamin D advocate Dr. William Grant wants you to take to the bank.
“I’m a little hesitant to say it will reduce your risk of being infected, but it certainly will reduce your risk of dying from the complications, such as pneumonia, if you are infected,” says Grant, founder of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center — a vitamin D research and advocacy group.
Grant is concerned that epidemic vitamin D deficiency in Canada — 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient in the winter due to Canada’s northerly latitudes and relatively weak sunlight 4-6 months of the year — means that Canadians could be more susceptible to flu virus in the winter.
Grant points to research suggesting:
Higher vitamin D levels assist the body’s innate immune system. Some studies suggest taking 2,000 IU of vitamin D/day will decrease your risk of seasonal flu.
The groups most affected by the H1N1 swine flu virus have been those most likely to be vitamin D deficient: pregnant women, obese people, those with Type II diabetes and children with neurological disorders.
Many of the deaths associated with the H1N1 virus have been pneumonia related, which means anything that would assist your body’s innate immune system would make you less likely to be affected.
The worldwide vitamin D research community now recommends getting your vitamin D levels checked with a calcidiol test and maintaining vitamin D levels of 40-60 ng/ml.
For more information visit:
www.vitaminDsociety.org
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009
Headline Story
DEC. 3, 2009 — The world’s leading vitamin D experts say that raising your levels of “the sunshine vitamin” this winter might be the best way to help your body naturally raise its resistance to all forms of the flu virus — including the H1N1 swine flu virus.
That’s the message vitamin D advocate Dr. William Grant wants you to take to the bank.
“I’m a little hesitant to say it will reduce your risk of being infected, but it certainly will reduce your risk of dying from the complications, such as pneumonia, if you are infected,” says Grant, founder of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center — a vitamin D research and advocacy group.
Grant is concerned that epidemic vitamin D deficiency in Canada — 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient in the winter due to Canada’s northerly latitudes and relatively weak sunlight 4-6 months of the year — means that Canadians could be more susceptible to flu virus in the winter.
Grant points to research suggesting:
Higher vitamin D levels assist the body’s innate immune system. Some studies suggest taking 2,000 IU of vitamin D/day will decrease your risk of seasonal flu.
The groups most affected by the H1N1 swine flu virus have been those most likely to be vitamin D deficient: pregnant women, obese people, those with Type II diabetes and children with neurological disorders.
Many of the deaths associated with the H1N1 virus have been pneumonia related, which means anything that would assist your body’s innate immune system would make you less likely to be affected.
The worldwide vitamin D research community now recommends getting your vitamin D levels checked with a calcidiol test and maintaining vitamin D levels of 40-60 ng/ml.
For more information visit:
www.vitaminDsociety.org
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Vitamin D deficiency soars in the U.S., study says
Vitamin D deficiency soars in the U.S., study says
New research suggests that most Americans are lacking a crucial vitamin.
By Jordan Lite
DEPRIVED OF SUNSHINE Most Americans lack vitamin D. Some 99 percent of the vitamin D we make comes from exposure to the sun.
Five years after being fired from one post, sun exposure proponent keeps up the fight
Cell Defenses and the Sunshine Vitamin
Three-quarters of U.S. teens and adults are deficient in vitamin D, the so-called "sunshine vitamin" whose deficits are increasingly blamed for everything from cancer and heart disease to diabetes, according to new research.
The trend marks a dramatic increase in the amount of vitamin D deficiency in the U.S., according to findings set to be published tomorrow in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Between 1988 and 1994, 45 percent of 18,883 people (who were examined as part of the federal government's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) had 30 nanograms per milliliter or more of vitamin D, the blood level a growing number of doctors consider sufficient for overall health; a decade later, just 23 percent of 13,369 of those surveyed had at least that amount.
The slide was particularly striking among African Americans: just 3 percent of 3,149 blacks sampled in 2004 were found to have the recommended levels compared with 12 percent of 5,362 sampled two decades ago.
"We were anticipating that there would be some decline in overall vitamin D levels, but the magnitude of the decline in a relatively short time period was surprising," says study co-author Adit Ginde, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine. Lack of vitamin D is linked to rickets (soft, weak bones) in children and thinning bones in the elderly, but scientists also believe it may play a role in heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
"We're just starting to scratch the surface of what the health effects of vitamin D are," Ginde tells ScientificAmerican.com. "There's reason to pay attention for sure."
But Mary France Picciano, a senior nutrition scientist in the National Institutes of Health's Office of Dietary Supplements, is skeptical that the dip is as deep or widespread as suggested, noting that there's disagreement on how much vitamin D is needed. She notes that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines insufficiency as less than11 nanograms per milliliter. Using that as a threshold, some 10 percent of U.S. adults are vitamin D deficient, according to a study published in November in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
That earlier study, co-authored by Picciano, also found that vitamin D deficiency had become more common between the late 1980s and 2004, but that between half and 75 percent of that difference was due to changes in the test used to measure those blood levels and therefore wasn’t a true gauge. "The results are far overstated and their findings are not as accurate as ours," Picciano says. "There is some deficiency — I don't want to minimize that — but it's not as high as they're saying."
Ginde insists the results are reliable. "There's potential for methodology contributing to some of what we found," he says, but the magnitude of the change and other research "argue that this is the reality in the U.S. right now."
Ginde, who last month linked vitamin D deficiency to catching more colds, blames increasing use of sunscreen and long sleeves following skin cancer-prevention campaigns for the change. Using a sunscreen with as little as a 15-factor protection cuts the skin's vitamin D production by 99 percent, the study notes, and there are few sources of the vitamin in our diets. Some food sources are salmon, tuna, mackerel and vitamin D-fortified dairy products, such as milk.
IOM recommends that people get 200-600 International Units (IU) of vitamin D daily, but it's reviewing whether to increase that recommendation in the wake of new studies. An update is expected in May 2010. Ginde believes that whatever those recommendations turn out to be, blacks should take double the amount of vitamin D supplements, because they have more melanin or pigment in their skin that makes it harder for the body to absorb and use the sun's ultraviolet rays to synthesize vitamin D. He adds that people should also take greater amounts of vitamin D in the winter when there's less sunlight.
Jim Fleet, a professor of foods and nutrition at Purdue University who wasn’t involved in the study, agrees with Picciano that failing to consider differences in the vitamin D testing methods (used during the two survey periods) was "a fatal mistake." But he tells ScientificAmerican.com that real deficiencies in vitamin D exist, even when they're defined by the lower cutoff, and that some 40 percent of African Americans are vitamin D deficient according to that threshold.
"If you look at people in the categories that we worry about," he says, "that’s still a lot of people."
New research suggests that most Americans are lacking a crucial vitamin.
By Jordan Lite
DEPRIVED OF SUNSHINE Most Americans lack vitamin D. Some 99 percent of the vitamin D we make comes from exposure to the sun.
Five years after being fired from one post, sun exposure proponent keeps up the fight
Cell Defenses and the Sunshine Vitamin
Three-quarters of U.S. teens and adults are deficient in vitamin D, the so-called "sunshine vitamin" whose deficits are increasingly blamed for everything from cancer and heart disease to diabetes, according to new research.
The trend marks a dramatic increase in the amount of vitamin D deficiency in the U.S., according to findings set to be published tomorrow in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Between 1988 and 1994, 45 percent of 18,883 people (who were examined as part of the federal government's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) had 30 nanograms per milliliter or more of vitamin D, the blood level a growing number of doctors consider sufficient for overall health; a decade later, just 23 percent of 13,369 of those surveyed had at least that amount.
The slide was particularly striking among African Americans: just 3 percent of 3,149 blacks sampled in 2004 were found to have the recommended levels compared with 12 percent of 5,362 sampled two decades ago.
"We were anticipating that there would be some decline in overall vitamin D levels, but the magnitude of the decline in a relatively short time period was surprising," says study co-author Adit Ginde, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine. Lack of vitamin D is linked to rickets (soft, weak bones) in children and thinning bones in the elderly, but scientists also believe it may play a role in heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
"We're just starting to scratch the surface of what the health effects of vitamin D are," Ginde tells ScientificAmerican.com. "There's reason to pay attention for sure."
But Mary France Picciano, a senior nutrition scientist in the National Institutes of Health's Office of Dietary Supplements, is skeptical that the dip is as deep or widespread as suggested, noting that there's disagreement on how much vitamin D is needed. She notes that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines insufficiency as less than11 nanograms per milliliter. Using that as a threshold, some 10 percent of U.S. adults are vitamin D deficient, according to a study published in November in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
That earlier study, co-authored by Picciano, also found that vitamin D deficiency had become more common between the late 1980s and 2004, but that between half and 75 percent of that difference was due to changes in the test used to measure those blood levels and therefore wasn’t a true gauge. "The results are far overstated and their findings are not as accurate as ours," Picciano says. "There is some deficiency — I don't want to minimize that — but it's not as high as they're saying."
Ginde insists the results are reliable. "There's potential for methodology contributing to some of what we found," he says, but the magnitude of the change and other research "argue that this is the reality in the U.S. right now."
Ginde, who last month linked vitamin D deficiency to catching more colds, blames increasing use of sunscreen and long sleeves following skin cancer-prevention campaigns for the change. Using a sunscreen with as little as a 15-factor protection cuts the skin's vitamin D production by 99 percent, the study notes, and there are few sources of the vitamin in our diets. Some food sources are salmon, tuna, mackerel and vitamin D-fortified dairy products, such as milk.
IOM recommends that people get 200-600 International Units (IU) of vitamin D daily, but it's reviewing whether to increase that recommendation in the wake of new studies. An update is expected in May 2010. Ginde believes that whatever those recommendations turn out to be, blacks should take double the amount of vitamin D supplements, because they have more melanin or pigment in their skin that makes it harder for the body to absorb and use the sun's ultraviolet rays to synthesize vitamin D. He adds that people should also take greater amounts of vitamin D in the winter when there's less sunlight.
Jim Fleet, a professor of foods and nutrition at Purdue University who wasn’t involved in the study, agrees with Picciano that failing to consider differences in the vitamin D testing methods (used during the two survey periods) was "a fatal mistake." But he tells ScientificAmerican.com that real deficiencies in vitamin D exist, even when they're defined by the lower cutoff, and that some 40 percent of African Americans are vitamin D deficient according to that threshold.
"If you look at people in the categories that we worry about," he says, "that’s still a lot of people."
Monday, October 26, 2009
Can Vitamin D protect us from swine flu?
From the Vitamin D Council Website
The Vitamin D Newsletter September 2009 — Special Report
Vitamin D and H1N1 Swine Flu
This is an announcement to alert readers to a crucial email I received from a physician who has evidence vitamin D is protective against H1N1. I ask you, the reader, to contact your representatives in Washington to help protect Americans, especially children, from H1N1 before winter comes.
Dr. Cannell: Your recent newsletters and video about Swine flu (H1N1) prompted me to convey our recent experience with an H1N1 outbreak at Central Wisconsin Center (CWC). Unfortunately, the state epidemiologist was not interested in studying it further so I pass it on to you since I think it is noteworthy.
CWC is a long-term care facility for people with developmental disabilities, home for approx. 275 people with approx. 800 staff. Serum 25-OHD has been monitored in virtually all residents for several years and patients supplemented with vitamin D.
In June, 2009, at the time of the well-publicized Wisconsin spike in H1N1 cases, two residents developed influenza-like illness (ILI) and had positive tests for H1N1: one was a long-term resident; the other, a child, was transferred to us with what was later proven to be H1N1.
On the other hand, 60 staff members developed ILI or were documented to have H1N1: of 17 tested for ILI, eight were positive. An additional 43 staff members called in sick with ILI. (Approx. 11–12 staff developed ILI after working on the unit where the child was given care, several of whom had positive H1N1 tests.)
So, it is rather remarkable that only two residents of 275 developed ILI, one of which did not develop it here, while 103 of 800 staff members had ILI. It appears that the spread of H1N1 was not from staff-to-resident but from resident-to-staff (most obvious in the imported case) and between staff, implying that staff were susceptible and our residents protected. Sincerely, Norris Glick, MD Central Wisconsin Center Madison, WI
This is the first hard data that I am aware of concerning H1N1 and vitamin D. It appears vitamin D is incredibly protective against H1N1. Dr. Carlos Carmago at Mass General ran the numbers in an email to me. Even if one excludes 43 staff members who called in sick with influenza, 0.73% of residents were affected, as compared to 7.5% of staff. This 10-fold difference was statistically significant (P<0.001).
Dr. Cannell: Thanks for your update about the hospital in Wisconsin. I have had similar anecdotal evidence from my medical practice here in Georgia. We are one of the 5 states with widespread H1N1 outbreaks.
I share an office with another family physician. I aggressively measure and replete vitamin D. He does not. He is seeing one to 10 cases per week of influenza-like illness.
In my practice— I have had zero cases. My patients are universally on 2000–5000 IU to maintain serum levels 50–80 ng/ml. Ellie Campbell, DO Campbell Family Medicine 3925 Johns Creek Court Ste A Suwannee GA 30024
That’s good news. Now, if we just had a way for the CDC and the NIH to pay attention.
Critics say we should not recommend vitamin D to prevent influenza until it is proven to do so (It has not been).
The critics are thus saying, although they seem not to know it, you should be vitamin D deficient this winter until science proves being vitamin D sufficient is better than being Vitamin D deficient. Such advice is clearly unethical and has never ever been the standard of care.
This is not rocket science. If I am wrong, and Vitamin D does not prevent influenza, what is lost? A few dollars. If they are wrong, and it does prevent influenza, what is lost? So far, the CDC says 41 kids are dead from H1N1, and the flu season has not yet started.
John Jacob Cannell MD Executive Director
The Vitamin D Newsletter September 2009 — Special Report
Vitamin D and H1N1 Swine Flu
This is an announcement to alert readers to a crucial email I received from a physician who has evidence vitamin D is protective against H1N1. I ask you, the reader, to contact your representatives in Washington to help protect Americans, especially children, from H1N1 before winter comes.
Dr. Cannell: Your recent newsletters and video about Swine flu (H1N1) prompted me to convey our recent experience with an H1N1 outbreak at Central Wisconsin Center (CWC). Unfortunately, the state epidemiologist was not interested in studying it further so I pass it on to you since I think it is noteworthy.
CWC is a long-term care facility for people with developmental disabilities, home for approx. 275 people with approx. 800 staff. Serum 25-OHD has been monitored in virtually all residents for several years and patients supplemented with vitamin D.
In June, 2009, at the time of the well-publicized Wisconsin spike in H1N1 cases, two residents developed influenza-like illness (ILI) and had positive tests for H1N1: one was a long-term resident; the other, a child, was transferred to us with what was later proven to be H1N1.
On the other hand, 60 staff members developed ILI or were documented to have H1N1: of 17 tested for ILI, eight were positive. An additional 43 staff members called in sick with ILI. (Approx. 11–12 staff developed ILI after working on the unit where the child was given care, several of whom had positive H1N1 tests.)
So, it is rather remarkable that only two residents of 275 developed ILI, one of which did not develop it here, while 103 of 800 staff members had ILI. It appears that the spread of H1N1 was not from staff-to-resident but from resident-to-staff (most obvious in the imported case) and between staff, implying that staff were susceptible and our residents protected. Sincerely, Norris Glick, MD Central Wisconsin Center Madison, WI
This is the first hard data that I am aware of concerning H1N1 and vitamin D. It appears vitamin D is incredibly protective against H1N1. Dr. Carlos Carmago at Mass General ran the numbers in an email to me. Even if one excludes 43 staff members who called in sick with influenza, 0.73% of residents were affected, as compared to 7.5% of staff. This 10-fold difference was statistically significant (P<0.001).
Dr. Cannell: Thanks for your update about the hospital in Wisconsin. I have had similar anecdotal evidence from my medical practice here in Georgia. We are one of the 5 states with widespread H1N1 outbreaks.
I share an office with another family physician. I aggressively measure and replete vitamin D. He does not. He is seeing one to 10 cases per week of influenza-like illness.
In my practice— I have had zero cases. My patients are universally on 2000–5000 IU to maintain serum levels 50–80 ng/ml. Ellie Campbell, DO Campbell Family Medicine 3925 Johns Creek Court Ste A Suwannee GA 30024
That’s good news. Now, if we just had a way for the CDC and the NIH to pay attention.
Critics say we should not recommend vitamin D to prevent influenza until it is proven to do so (It has not been).
The critics are thus saying, although they seem not to know it, you should be vitamin D deficient this winter until science proves being vitamin D sufficient is better than being Vitamin D deficient. Such advice is clearly unethical and has never ever been the standard of care.
This is not rocket science. If I am wrong, and Vitamin D does not prevent influenza, what is lost? A few dollars. If they are wrong, and it does prevent influenza, what is lost? So far, the CDC says 41 kids are dead from H1N1, and the flu season has not yet started.
John Jacob Cannell MD Executive Director
Thursday, October 22, 2009
HEADLINE STORY: ACS bombshell admits cancers are being over-diagnosed. Melanoma could lead the list.
Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 Headline Story
OCT. 22, 2009 — An American Cancer Society bombshell declaring that cancer screenings themselves are responsible for over-diagnosis of cancer most likely applies more to skin cancer diagnosis than any other cancer.
“Over-diagnosis” of cancer — the practice of calling benign growths “cancer” thereby creating a cavalcade of unintended health care consequences - is enough of a public issue that ACS this week issued a statement saying that the benefits of “screening” for many cancers, which in many cases leads to overdiagnosis, has been overstated.
“We don’t want people to panic. But I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated,” Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, told the New York Times in a story published Wednesday.
The story targeted mainly prostate cancer screenings. “The cancer society, which with more than two million volunteers is one of the nation’s largest voluntary health agencies, does not advocate testing for all men. And many researchers point out that the PSA prostate cancer screening test has not been shown to prevent prostate cancer deaths,” the Times reported.
But a study published in the British Medical Journal last month showed that melanoma skin cancer incidence is not really increasing, but that aggressive screening has led to an increase in diagnosis — a finding suggested more than a decade ago by Emory University dermatologists.
“In recent years there has been a sharp rise in reported cases of malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. But a British study has found evidence that the epidemic may be due at least in part to ‘diagnostic drift,’ a growing tendency to identify and treat benign lesions as malignant cancers,” The Times reported in a Sept. 28 story. “The findings may raise the temperature in an already-heated controversy.”
Broken down by thickness, the British study showed that only the thinnest lesions were increasing and that the cure rate of removal of those lesions was 100 percent, raising questions as to whether or not they were truly malignant lesions or simply benign tissue.
“Overdiagnosis is pure, unadulterated harm,” Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, told The Times.
According to The Times article, “Finding those insignificant cancers is the reason the breast and prostate cancer rates soared when screening was introduced, Dr. Kramer said. And those cancers, he said, are the reason screening has the problem called overdiagnosis — labeling innocuous tumors cancer and treating them as though they could be lethal when in fact they are not dangerous.”
OCT. 22, 2009 — An American Cancer Society bombshell declaring that cancer screenings themselves are responsible for over-diagnosis of cancer most likely applies more to skin cancer diagnosis than any other cancer.
“Over-diagnosis” of cancer — the practice of calling benign growths “cancer” thereby creating a cavalcade of unintended health care consequences - is enough of a public issue that ACS this week issued a statement saying that the benefits of “screening” for many cancers, which in many cases leads to overdiagnosis, has been overstated.
“We don’t want people to panic. But I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated,” Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, told the New York Times in a story published Wednesday.
The story targeted mainly prostate cancer screenings. “The cancer society, which with more than two million volunteers is one of the nation’s largest voluntary health agencies, does not advocate testing for all men. And many researchers point out that the PSA prostate cancer screening test has not been shown to prevent prostate cancer deaths,” the Times reported.
But a study published in the British Medical Journal last month showed that melanoma skin cancer incidence is not really increasing, but that aggressive screening has led to an increase in diagnosis — a finding suggested more than a decade ago by Emory University dermatologists.
“In recent years there has been a sharp rise in reported cases of malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. But a British study has found evidence that the epidemic may be due at least in part to ‘diagnostic drift,’ a growing tendency to identify and treat benign lesions as malignant cancers,” The Times reported in a Sept. 28 story. “The findings may raise the temperature in an already-heated controversy.”
Broken down by thickness, the British study showed that only the thinnest lesions were increasing and that the cure rate of removal of those lesions was 100 percent, raising questions as to whether or not they were truly malignant lesions or simply benign tissue.
“Overdiagnosis is pure, unadulterated harm,” Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, told The Times.
According to The Times article, “Finding those insignificant cancers is the reason the breast and prostate cancer rates soared when screening was introduced, Dr. Kramer said. And those cancers, he said, are the reason screening has the problem called overdiagnosis — labeling innocuous tumors cancer and treating them as though they could be lethal when in fact they are not dangerous.”
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
UV Exposure Is Good For What Ails You
UV Exposure Is Good For What Ails You by Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith 10/16/2009
In “The Truth About The Recent IARC Report,” we said that a deficient/insufficient blood level of vitamin D (25-OH-D) plays a critical role in the development of more than 60 diseases and medical conditions. But why is vitamin D so critical for our health and wellbeing? Because every cell and organ in the human body requires an optimal level of vitamin D to function normally.
Let’s play the “What If” game for a moment: What if one of the large pharmaceutical companies announced that they had developed a new wonder drug that promised to reduce the incidence and mortality of more than 60 diseases and conditions? Needless to say, the stock price of the company would skyrocket and they would be hard-pressed to keep up with the demand for this product.
But, what if the company announced that, for every 500 deaths prevented by this new product, one person might die prematurely each year because of the adverse side effects of the product? Most likely, people would conclude that a benefit-to-risk ratio of 500 to 1 indicates the benefits exceed the risks.
And what if there was an alternative to the new drug that promised the same benefits but it was known to have toxicity problems if ingested in high doses and there had never been a long-term prospective study proving that the alternative is as good as the new drug? It’s quite possible that those two factors might influence people to opt for the wonder drug rather than the alternative.
OK, game over. Back to vitamin d—also known as ...
Mother Nature’s Wonder Drug
Individuals who maintain an optimal health blood level of vitamin D significantly reduce their risk of developing many diseases and conditions. And, recent studies show that individuals with the highest vitamin D blood levels dramatically reduce their risk of dying from any cause. We have long recommended maintaining a vitamin D blood level of 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) even when most vitamin D experts were only recommending 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL). Although we are pleased most experts are currently recommending our target level, new evidence leads us to believe that 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) should really be the minimum level for optimal health and that the new target level should be 175 – 200 nmol/L (70 – 80 ng/mL). (And, we predict that new target level will be universally adopted within the next five years.)
So, what is the average vitamin D level? A recent study indicates that the average vitamin D (25-OH-D) blood level worldwide is 54 nmol/L (21.5 ng/mL). Another study showed that―in sunlight-drenched southern Arizona―the average level was only 10 nmol/L higher at 64 nmol/L (25.6 ng/mL). Clearly, there is a huge gap between the level required for optimal health and the average level found around the world, even for individuals who live in sunlight-rich environments year-round.
What does the average vitamin D level tell us? The huge gap between the actual and recommended blood level of vitamin D tells us three things. First, it tells us that the recommendation for five to 15 minutes of sunlight exposure to your face and hands two or three times per week is woefully inadequate. Second, it tells us that either people are not taking daily vitamin D supplements or they are not taking a supplement with a dose high enough to raise their vitamin D to the optimal health level. Third, it tells us that the recommendation by the dermatology community to avoid UVR exposure and to slather on sunscreen every day of the year has taken a toll on the health of the public.
How can we get enough vitamin D? You cannot get enough vitamin D from the food you eat or the vitamin D-fortified milk you drink to reach an optimal health level. You must obtain the equivalent of approximately 3,000 IUs each day just to break even with the daily demand for vitamin D and 80 percent of this amount (2,400 IUs) must come from UVR stimulation. Therefore, the question that must be answered about UVR-induced vitamin D is not whether there is a need for vitamin D stimulated by UVR exposure but how to get the required UVR exposure. Also, it is very important to remember that there has never been a reported incidence of vitamin D toxicity from UVR stimulation—but there is a very real danger of toxicity if supplements are used. Here are the two options for UVR exposure:
Uncontrolled ultraviolet radiation exposure. Although we can stimulate production of vitamin D through exposure to sunlight, this source is uncontrolled. By that, we mean there is no way for the average person to accurately determine a “safe” level of sunlight exposure to accomplish vitamin D synthesis without burning. In addition, sunlight is an unreliable source of vitamin D-effective energy because it varies by time of day, season of the year, weather conditions and geography. Similarly, there have been numerous studies indicating that vitamin D levels rise during the spring and summer, and decrease during the fall and winter—therefore, sunlight cannot be depended upon to stimulate an optimal health level of vitamin D year-round. Controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure. Professional indoor tanning salons utilize equipment in which the maximum allowable dose of UVR that can be delivered during a tanning session is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And, the conservative FDA-recommended exposure schedule has a built-in safety margin of 50 percent to help prevent overexposure. In addition, the skin type/subtype of each individual is measured prior to allowing the person to tan, so as to determine the initial session time that will avoid overexposure. The bottom line is that all critical variables are carefully controlled by a professional indoor tanning salon—that is why salons are the only year-round public source of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure.
Where’s All the UVR and Vitamin D Research? One of the questions that scientists conducting studies utilizing vitamin D supplements don’t want to ask is: What if, five to 10 years down the road, we find out that supplemental vitamin D doesn’t have the biological potency that UVR-induced vitamin D offers? Think about it—if the premise of these types of studies is that vitamin D has the ability to prevent a variety of diseases and conditions, wouldn’t it make sense to determine whether or not supplemental-induced vitamin D is as good as UVR-induced vitamin D?
We think so—which is why we asked a leading vitamin D scientist why he wasn’t including UVR-induced vitamin D in his studies at a recent meeting we attended. The answer was that, although such research would be a great idea, he “didn’t need the grief” that would come from dermatologists if he included UVR exposure in the protocol.
So there you have it. One vested-interest group―dermatologists―is hindering research comparing whether supplement-induced vitamin D has the same biological potency as UVR-induced vitamin D.
Here’s what is needed ASAP: an answer to the critical question of whether increasing the average vitamin D blood level of the American public to at least 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) via supplemental-induced vitamin D has the same biological potency as does reaching this level via UVR-induced vitamin D. Once that question has been answered, the required dose of the vitamin D supplement and/or the required time/frequency for UVR exposure can be determined.
A simple benefit versus risk ratio supports our position. Our data shows that 500 to 1,000 individuals die prematurely each year due to the adverse consequences of underexposure to UVR for every one individual who dies prematurely each year due to the adverse consequences of overexposure to UVR. And you don’t have to just take our word for it. A recent study, titled “Estimating the Global Disease Burden Due to Ultraviolet Radiation,” stated that the relative risk of underexposure to UVR was 3,000 times greater than the relative risk of overexposure to UVR. This new data indicates that our 500 – 1,000 to 1 ratio between the risks of underexposure and overexposure to UVR is actually too conservative—a 2,000 – 3,000 to 1 benefit versus risk ratio is more realistic.
What We Believe
Based on our decade-long, comprehensive study of vitamin D, we conclude that a combination of supplements and routine, controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure is the best way to maintain an optimal-health blood level of vitamin D year-round.
If every individual would take a 1,000 – 2,000 IU supplement each day and tan for at least 10 minutes per session (after building up a level of photoprotective facultative pigmentation, or tan, gradually) once or twice each week, the incidence of vitamin D insufficiency would be significantly reduced. In addition, this would dramatically improve the health status of millions of people. (Of course, individuals with darker skin or those who are older will require both a higher supplemental dose and more frequent tanning sessions in order to maintain an optimal health vitamin D level year-round.)
The bottom line is: Controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure is good for what ails you.
Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith operate the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute in Tucson, Ariz. They have written many articles promoting the benefits of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure (CURE). You can e-mail comments or questions to reyksmith@aol.com.
In “The Truth About The Recent IARC Report,” we said that a deficient/insufficient blood level of vitamin D (25-OH-D) plays a critical role in the development of more than 60 diseases and medical conditions. But why is vitamin D so critical for our health and wellbeing? Because every cell and organ in the human body requires an optimal level of vitamin D to function normally.
Let’s play the “What If” game for a moment: What if one of the large pharmaceutical companies announced that they had developed a new wonder drug that promised to reduce the incidence and mortality of more than 60 diseases and conditions? Needless to say, the stock price of the company would skyrocket and they would be hard-pressed to keep up with the demand for this product.
But, what if the company announced that, for every 500 deaths prevented by this new product, one person might die prematurely each year because of the adverse side effects of the product? Most likely, people would conclude that a benefit-to-risk ratio of 500 to 1 indicates the benefits exceed the risks.
And what if there was an alternative to the new drug that promised the same benefits but it was known to have toxicity problems if ingested in high doses and there had never been a long-term prospective study proving that the alternative is as good as the new drug? It’s quite possible that those two factors might influence people to opt for the wonder drug rather than the alternative.
OK, game over. Back to vitamin d—also known as ...
Mother Nature’s Wonder Drug
Individuals who maintain an optimal health blood level of vitamin D significantly reduce their risk of developing many diseases and conditions. And, recent studies show that individuals with the highest vitamin D blood levels dramatically reduce their risk of dying from any cause. We have long recommended maintaining a vitamin D blood level of 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) even when most vitamin D experts were only recommending 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL). Although we are pleased most experts are currently recommending our target level, new evidence leads us to believe that 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) should really be the minimum level for optimal health and that the new target level should be 175 – 200 nmol/L (70 – 80 ng/mL). (And, we predict that new target level will be universally adopted within the next five years.)
So, what is the average vitamin D level? A recent study indicates that the average vitamin D (25-OH-D) blood level worldwide is 54 nmol/L (21.5 ng/mL). Another study showed that―in sunlight-drenched southern Arizona―the average level was only 10 nmol/L higher at 64 nmol/L (25.6 ng/mL). Clearly, there is a huge gap between the level required for optimal health and the average level found around the world, even for individuals who live in sunlight-rich environments year-round.
What does the average vitamin D level tell us? The huge gap between the actual and recommended blood level of vitamin D tells us three things. First, it tells us that the recommendation for five to 15 minutes of sunlight exposure to your face and hands two or three times per week is woefully inadequate. Second, it tells us that either people are not taking daily vitamin D supplements or they are not taking a supplement with a dose high enough to raise their vitamin D to the optimal health level. Third, it tells us that the recommendation by the dermatology community to avoid UVR exposure and to slather on sunscreen every day of the year has taken a toll on the health of the public.
How can we get enough vitamin D? You cannot get enough vitamin D from the food you eat or the vitamin D-fortified milk you drink to reach an optimal health level. You must obtain the equivalent of approximately 3,000 IUs each day just to break even with the daily demand for vitamin D and 80 percent of this amount (2,400 IUs) must come from UVR stimulation. Therefore, the question that must be answered about UVR-induced vitamin D is not whether there is a need for vitamin D stimulated by UVR exposure but how to get the required UVR exposure. Also, it is very important to remember that there has never been a reported incidence of vitamin D toxicity from UVR stimulation—but there is a very real danger of toxicity if supplements are used. Here are the two options for UVR exposure:
Uncontrolled ultraviolet radiation exposure. Although we can stimulate production of vitamin D through exposure to sunlight, this source is uncontrolled. By that, we mean there is no way for the average person to accurately determine a “safe” level of sunlight exposure to accomplish vitamin D synthesis without burning. In addition, sunlight is an unreliable source of vitamin D-effective energy because it varies by time of day, season of the year, weather conditions and geography. Similarly, there have been numerous studies indicating that vitamin D levels rise during the spring and summer, and decrease during the fall and winter—therefore, sunlight cannot be depended upon to stimulate an optimal health level of vitamin D year-round. Controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure. Professional indoor tanning salons utilize equipment in which the maximum allowable dose of UVR that can be delivered during a tanning session is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And, the conservative FDA-recommended exposure schedule has a built-in safety margin of 50 percent to help prevent overexposure. In addition, the skin type/subtype of each individual is measured prior to allowing the person to tan, so as to determine the initial session time that will avoid overexposure. The bottom line is that all critical variables are carefully controlled by a professional indoor tanning salon—that is why salons are the only year-round public source of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure.
Where’s All the UVR and Vitamin D Research? One of the questions that scientists conducting studies utilizing vitamin D supplements don’t want to ask is: What if, five to 10 years down the road, we find out that supplemental vitamin D doesn’t have the biological potency that UVR-induced vitamin D offers? Think about it—if the premise of these types of studies is that vitamin D has the ability to prevent a variety of diseases and conditions, wouldn’t it make sense to determine whether or not supplemental-induced vitamin D is as good as UVR-induced vitamin D?
We think so—which is why we asked a leading vitamin D scientist why he wasn’t including UVR-induced vitamin D in his studies at a recent meeting we attended. The answer was that, although such research would be a great idea, he “didn’t need the grief” that would come from dermatologists if he included UVR exposure in the protocol.
So there you have it. One vested-interest group―dermatologists―is hindering research comparing whether supplement-induced vitamin D has the same biological potency as UVR-induced vitamin D.
Here’s what is needed ASAP: an answer to the critical question of whether increasing the average vitamin D blood level of the American public to at least 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) via supplemental-induced vitamin D has the same biological potency as does reaching this level via UVR-induced vitamin D. Once that question has been answered, the required dose of the vitamin D supplement and/or the required time/frequency for UVR exposure can be determined.
A simple benefit versus risk ratio supports our position. Our data shows that 500 to 1,000 individuals die prematurely each year due to the adverse consequences of underexposure to UVR for every one individual who dies prematurely each year due to the adverse consequences of overexposure to UVR. And you don’t have to just take our word for it. A recent study, titled “Estimating the Global Disease Burden Due to Ultraviolet Radiation,” stated that the relative risk of underexposure to UVR was 3,000 times greater than the relative risk of overexposure to UVR. This new data indicates that our 500 – 1,000 to 1 ratio between the risks of underexposure and overexposure to UVR is actually too conservative—a 2,000 – 3,000 to 1 benefit versus risk ratio is more realistic.
What We Believe
Based on our decade-long, comprehensive study of vitamin D, we conclude that a combination of supplements and routine, controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure is the best way to maintain an optimal-health blood level of vitamin D year-round.
If every individual would take a 1,000 – 2,000 IU supplement each day and tan for at least 10 minutes per session (after building up a level of photoprotective facultative pigmentation, or tan, gradually) once or twice each week, the incidence of vitamin D insufficiency would be significantly reduced. In addition, this would dramatically improve the health status of millions of people. (Of course, individuals with darker skin or those who are older will require both a higher supplemental dose and more frequent tanning sessions in order to maintain an optimal health vitamin D level year-round.)
The bottom line is: Controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure is good for what ails you.
Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith operate the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute in Tucson, Ariz. They have written many articles promoting the benefits of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure (CURE). You can e-mail comments or questions to reyksmith@aol.com.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Lack of Vitamin D Linked to High Blood Pressure
Lack of Vitamin D Linked to High Blood Pressure Effect seen 15 years later, researchers report
By Ed EdelsonHealthDay Reporter
THURSDAY, Sept. 24 (HealthDay News) -- Low blood levels of vitamin D in younger women tripled their risk of high blood pressure 15 years later, new research has found.
Vitamin D deficiency, defined as less than 80 nanomoles per liter of blood, was measured in 1993 at the start of the Michigan Bone Health and Metabolism Study, explained study author Flojaune C. Griffin, a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
By that measure, more than 80 percent of the 559 women first tested in the study had vitamin D deficiency, while 2 percent were being treated for high blood pressure and another 4 percent had undiagnosed high blood pressure.
No association between vitamin D levels and high blood pressure was seen at that time. But in 2008, when 19 percent of the women had been diagnosed with high blood pressure and 6 percent had the condition but didn't know it, the incidence of high blood pressure was three times higher for women who had vitamin D deficiency at the study's start, after adjusting for the effects of age, obesity and smoking, Griffin said.
Griffin was to report on the findings Thursday at the American Heart Association's High Blood Pressure Research Conference in Chicago.
What happened to the women in the intervening years in terms of vitamin D intake is unknown, Griffin said. "We don't have any information about how the women were eating beyond that baseline measurement," she noted.
The recommended intake of vitamin D has risen since the study began. Current guidelines call for an intake of 400 International Units (IU) for people under 60 and 600 IUs for those aged 60 and older, Griffin said.
"Exposure of skin to the sun is the most potent way to increase vitamin D levels," she added. "The main food sources include fatty fish, such as wild salmon. Also, milk and milk products are fortified with vitamin D."
There is no way of knowing whether increased vitamin D intake over the years might have affected the incidence of high blood pressure, a major risk factor for such cardiovascular problems as heart attack and stroke, Griffin said.
"This study underscores a growing amount of accumulated data that low vitamin D levels are associated with high blood pressure," said Dr. John P. Forman, an associate physician in the renal division of Brigham and Women's Hospital.
But it's still not certain that raising vitamin D intake can help prevent high blood pressure, Forman added. "We need large randomized trials on that," he said.
Still, he noted, "there are a growing number of studies associating lower vitamin D levels and high blood pressure. This one probably has the longest follow-up."
More information
By Ed EdelsonHealthDay Reporter
THURSDAY, Sept. 24 (HealthDay News) -- Low blood levels of vitamin D in younger women tripled their risk of high blood pressure 15 years later, new research has found.
Vitamin D deficiency, defined as less than 80 nanomoles per liter of blood, was measured in 1993 at the start of the Michigan Bone Health and Metabolism Study, explained study author Flojaune C. Griffin, a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
By that measure, more than 80 percent of the 559 women first tested in the study had vitamin D deficiency, while 2 percent were being treated for high blood pressure and another 4 percent had undiagnosed high blood pressure.
No association between vitamin D levels and high blood pressure was seen at that time. But in 2008, when 19 percent of the women had been diagnosed with high blood pressure and 6 percent had the condition but didn't know it, the incidence of high blood pressure was three times higher for women who had vitamin D deficiency at the study's start, after adjusting for the effects of age, obesity and smoking, Griffin said.
Griffin was to report on the findings Thursday at the American Heart Association's High Blood Pressure Research Conference in Chicago.
What happened to the women in the intervening years in terms of vitamin D intake is unknown, Griffin said. "We don't have any information about how the women were eating beyond that baseline measurement," she noted.
The recommended intake of vitamin D has risen since the study began. Current guidelines call for an intake of 400 International Units (IU) for people under 60 and 600 IUs for those aged 60 and older, Griffin said.
"Exposure of skin to the sun is the most potent way to increase vitamin D levels," she added. "The main food sources include fatty fish, such as wild salmon. Also, milk and milk products are fortified with vitamin D."
There is no way of knowing whether increased vitamin D intake over the years might have affected the incidence of high blood pressure, a major risk factor for such cardiovascular problems as heart attack and stroke, Griffin said.
"This study underscores a growing amount of accumulated data that low vitamin D levels are associated with high blood pressure," said Dr. John P. Forman, an associate physician in the renal division of Brigham and Women's Hospital.
But it's still not certain that raising vitamin D intake can help prevent high blood pressure, Forman added. "We need large randomized trials on that," he said.
Still, he noted, "there are a growing number of studies associating lower vitamin D levels and high blood pressure. This one probably has the longest follow-up."
More information
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
WHY LOTION?
Using a quality indoor tanning lotion when you tan is extremely important to the health of your tan and your skin. If you don't use an indoor tanning lotion you actually waste about half of your tanning session because the light reflects off your skin instead of being absorbed by it. Many of our high quality indoor tanning lotions contain skin firming and anti-aging products too which can actually take the place of many of your skin care products that you may currently be using. We cannot stress enough about how using a lotion is essential to developing and maintaining your tan. Tanning without lotion is like brushing your teeth without toothpaste!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
HEADLINE STORY: New study shows ‘The Sunshine Vitamin’ fights off deadly skin cancer
Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009
Headline Story
Headline Story
Another research study now shows that high levels of ‘The Sunshine Vitamin’ improve survival for those with melanoma skin cancer — adding to the data that suggest melanoma’s correlation with sunshine isn’t as straightforward as those in the dermatology community try to convey.
“Two studies published yesterday showed that vitamin D produced by the action of the sun on the skin may help improve survival for patients with skin and bowel cancer,” the London Independent reported Monday. “The bizarre finding suggests that health warnings to avoid the sun have been too simplistic. Some exposure to the sun is necessary for health — it is excessive exposure leading to burning of the skin that does the damage.”
According to the Independent, “A research team from the University of Leeds working with the US National Institutes of Health found a high level of vitamin D — suggestive of high sun exposure — protected patients with malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. Those with the lowest levels of the vitamin D in their blood at the time of diagnosis were 30 per cent more likely to suffer a recurrence of the disease after treatment than those who had the highest levels.”
Natural vitamin D levels — consistent with outdoor living — are now connected with lower risk of more than two dozen forms of cancer, as well as heart disease, multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases as well as flu and possibly the H1N1 virus.
“Patients with the highest levels of the vitamin also had the thinnest tumours at diagnosis,” the Independent reported. “Results of the study, funded by Cancer Research UK and the NIH, are published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.”
The research team’s suggestion — that people strive to avoid sunburn and not to overdo a good thing — matches the indoor tanning community’s recommendations. Indoor tanning clients are less likely to sunburn outdoors as compared to non-tanners.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
More evidence links vitamin D with lower rates of lupus, multiple sclerosis
HEADLINE STORY: More evidence links vitamin D with lower rates of lupus, multiple sclerosis
Wednesday, September 9th, 2009 Headline Story
SEPT. 9, 2009 — A research paper in the September Annals of the New York Academy of Science has added more evidence to the connection between low vitamin D levels and higher incidence of autoimmune diseases such as lupus and multiple sclerosis.
“Vitamin D (also called cholecalciferol) is important in both men and women, and at first glance it would seem that it should behave the same way in both sexes. It has no role in sex-specific hormonal regulation like some of the sex hormones, but it has recently been discovered that a special molecule, called a receptor, that binds to one of the forms of vitamin D is more abundant in women than men. The receptor to which vitamin D binds is important in the activation of the innate immune response,” Bryan Ness wrote in the Napa County Science News Examiner.
According to Ness, “The key to how vitamin D plays its part is to understand what the VDR does. When the correct form of vitamin D (a form known as 1,25-D or calcitriol) binds to VDR, VDR then directly causes the expression of over 900 genes to occur. Two of the genes that are turned on produce proteins that are directly responsible for kicking the immune response into active mode. The reason for VDR in the endometrium is that it provides protection against infection for the developing fetus.”
Wednesday, September 9th, 2009 Headline Story
SEPT. 9, 2009 — A research paper in the September Annals of the New York Academy of Science has added more evidence to the connection between low vitamin D levels and higher incidence of autoimmune diseases such as lupus and multiple sclerosis.
“Vitamin D (also called cholecalciferol) is important in both men and women, and at first glance it would seem that it should behave the same way in both sexes. It has no role in sex-specific hormonal regulation like some of the sex hormones, but it has recently been discovered that a special molecule, called a receptor, that binds to one of the forms of vitamin D is more abundant in women than men. The receptor to which vitamin D binds is important in the activation of the innate immune response,” Bryan Ness wrote in the Napa County Science News Examiner.
According to Ness, “The key to how vitamin D plays its part is to understand what the VDR does. When the correct form of vitamin D (a form known as 1,25-D or calcitriol) binds to VDR, VDR then directly causes the expression of over 900 genes to occur. Two of the genes that are turned on produce proteins that are directly responsible for kicking the immune response into active mode. The reason for VDR in the endometrium is that it provides protection against infection for the developing fetus.”
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Oprah Winfrey’s Medical Advisor Now In Favor Of Sunbathing In Moderation
Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
Tanning News
Tanning News
AUG. 24, 2009 — Regular sunbathing in non-burning dosages is something Oprah Winfrey’s personal health advisor now endorses — a huge addition to the growing group of physicians now willing to publicly refute Big Dermatology and Chemical Sunscreen’s antiquated “Sun Scare” advice.
“Although we are taught to fear the sun, sunbathing in moderation — exposing but never burning the skin — is good for us,” international women’s health expert Dr. Christine Northrup wrote in a column posted on the web site www.HuffingtonPost.com this week. “This may explain why the incidence of breast cancer is higher in northern latitudes than at the equator.”
Northrup joins a growing group of experts who have come out in favor of re-evaluating sun scare, including many in the British dermatology community most recently. “There’s a paradigm shift going on in medicine as new research reveals a far greater role for vitamin D. Vitamin D is not just for kids — or the prevention of rickets. Optimal levels of Vitamin D (40-80 ng/ml) enhance the creation and functioning of healthy cells throughout the body. In addition to protecting the bones and boosting the immune system, studies show that Vitamin D helps prevent certain cancers, including breast, ovarian, prostate, and colorectal. Exciting new research shows that in the U.S. alone, thousands of new cases of breast cancer could be prevented every year if more women had optimal levels of vitamin D.”
HEADLINE STORY: Supplements alone will not solve the vitamin D problem, ‘Medical News Today’ tells Big Dermatology
AUG 26, 2009 — A leading medical news source has chastised the American Academy of Dermatology directly for advice the group says is contributing to skyrocketing vitamin D deficiency in the United States today.
“Telling people to get their vitamin D from just food and supplements obviously does not work,” Medical News today reported in a story published Aug. 24. “People have been told that for the last twenty years and vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency has increased significantly.”
According to the Medical News Today story, “For decades we have been told to stay out of the sun, to wear hats and cover ourselves with sun block to protect against skin cancer - and also significantly reducing our levels of vitamin D. Add to that a growingly sedentary lifestyle where we and our children spend more time indoors either watching TV or in front of a computer monitor, and it is not surprising that millions of people have excessively low levels of vitamin D in our system. Then we are told that sunlight can rapidly make up for any vitamin D shortfall, while at the same time the American Academy of Dermatology continues to recommend that the public obtain vitamin D from nutritional sources and dietary supplements, and not from unprotected exposure to ultraviolet radiation because of the skin cancer risk, and we despair.”
Although the report acknowledges that dermatologists feel they are justified because of their daily exposure to skin cancer cases, “However, millions of people are and will develop other very serious diseases because their vitamin D levels are too low. Skin cancer is one factor, but there are many other factors.”
The report is the second in a month from a major organization slamming a dermatology industry group for being myopic when it comes to UV light. British doctors last month questioned the Skin Cancer Foundation for its role in encouraging behavior that leads to vitamin D deficiency.
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Sunshine Vitamin
The Sunshine Vitamin
By Colleen Pierre, R.D., September & October 2009
Are you getting enough?
As many as 75 percent of Americans may not be getting enough vitamin D for optimal health, according to a new report in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Doctors have known for years that vitamin D is good for bones, but now researchers are finding that vitamin D—often called the sunshine vitamin because your body produces it when exposed to the sun—may help ward off a whole host of illnesses, including cancer and heart disease. A team of Harvard scientists recently discovered that among 18,000 men they've been tracking since 1993, those with the highest blood levels of vitamin D were the least likely to have heart attacks, while those with the lowest levels had the highest risk. Other studies have found that increasing vitamin D intake reduces the risk of colorectal cancer, hip fractures, and tooth loss and significantly increases muscle strength.
Ironically, just as researchers are discovering the added importance of vitamin D, Americans are getting less and less of it. Average blood levels of the vitamin declined between 1994 and 2004, report University of Colorado researchers, in part because we've been told to cover up to avoid skin cancer. Those over age 50 may be particularly susceptible to vitamin D deficiency because our skin's ability to produce the vitamin declines as we age, as does our kidneys' ability to convert vitamin D into its active form.
Now some doctors are recommending 10 to 15 minutes of sun exposure a few times a week. Those who don't go out much should consider a 1,000-IU (international units) vitamin D supplement daily.
The Sun Outshines Food as Your Best Source of Vitamin DTo get the vitamin D value of ten minutes' exposure to sunlight, you'd have to eat...
6 1/2 pounds of shiitake mushrooms, or150 egg yolks, or3 3/4 pounds of fresh farmed salmon, or30 servings of fortified cereal, or2 1/6 pounds of sardines, or30 cups of fortified orange juice
SOURCE: Michael F. Holick, Ph.D., M.D., the Vitamin D, Skin, and Bone Research Laboratory, Boston University Medical Center, Boston
By Colleen Pierre, R.D., September & October 2009
Are you getting enough?
As many as 75 percent of Americans may not be getting enough vitamin D for optimal health, according to a new report in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Doctors have known for years that vitamin D is good for bones, but now researchers are finding that vitamin D—often called the sunshine vitamin because your body produces it when exposed to the sun—may help ward off a whole host of illnesses, including cancer and heart disease. A team of Harvard scientists recently discovered that among 18,000 men they've been tracking since 1993, those with the highest blood levels of vitamin D were the least likely to have heart attacks, while those with the lowest levels had the highest risk. Other studies have found that increasing vitamin D intake reduces the risk of colorectal cancer, hip fractures, and tooth loss and significantly increases muscle strength.
Ironically, just as researchers are discovering the added importance of vitamin D, Americans are getting less and less of it. Average blood levels of the vitamin declined between 1994 and 2004, report University of Colorado researchers, in part because we've been told to cover up to avoid skin cancer. Those over age 50 may be particularly susceptible to vitamin D deficiency because our skin's ability to produce the vitamin declines as we age, as does our kidneys' ability to convert vitamin D into its active form.
Now some doctors are recommending 10 to 15 minutes of sun exposure a few times a week. Those who don't go out much should consider a 1,000-IU (international units) vitamin D supplement daily.
The Sun Outshines Food as Your Best Source of Vitamin DTo get the vitamin D value of ten minutes' exposure to sunlight, you'd have to eat...
6 1/2 pounds of shiitake mushrooms, or150 egg yolks, or3 3/4 pounds of fresh farmed salmon, or30 servings of fortified cereal, or2 1/6 pounds of sardines, or30 cups of fortified orange juice
SOURCE: Michael F. Holick, Ph.D., M.D., the Vitamin D, Skin, and Bone Research Laboratory, Boston University Medical Center, Boston
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Virus Linked To Some Cases Of Common Skin Cancer
Virus Linked To Some Cases Of Common Skin Cancer
ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2009) — A virus discovered last year in a rare form of skin cancer has also been found in people with the second most common form of skin cancer among Americans, according to researchers at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute.
The researchers examined tissue samples from 58 people with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a highly curable form of skin cancer that is expected to affect more than 200,000 Americans this year.
They identified the virus in more than a third of the patients and in 15 percent of the tumors tested. In addition, all of the virus found in tumor cells had a mutation that could enable the viral DNA to integrate into the DNA of the host cell.
“This is indirect evidence that the virus might play a role in causing some cases of squamous cell carcinoma,” says principal investigator Amanda E. Toland, assistant professor of molecular virology, immunology and medical genetics and a researcher with the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute.
The findings are published in a recent issue of the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
The virus was first discovered in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma, a rare, aggressive skin cancer that occurs mainly in the elderly and people with a suppressed immune system. The people in the new study all had a healthy immune system.
“Originally it was thought that this virus caused only this rare skin cancer, but our findings indicate that it is a lot more prevalent than we initially thought.”
To learn if people with SCC harbored the virus, Toland, working closely with first author and graduate research associate Amy Dworkin and Ohio State pathologists O. Hans Iwenofu and Sara B. Peters, examined DNA samples from SCC tumors, from normal-appearing skin adjacent to the tumor, when available; from white blood cells, and from cells washed from the mouth.
The investigators detected the virus in 26 of 177 SCC samples, 11 of 63 adjacent-skin samples, and one sample from a mouthwash. They found no viral DNA in any of the blood samples from 57 patients. In all, 21 of 58 SCC patients, or 36 percent, tested positive for the virus.
By sequencing the viral DNA from 31 normal and tumor samples, the researchers showed that the same mutation was present in all the viruses tested from tumors, and in 60 percent of the viruses tested from adjacent healthy-looking tissue.
“That suggests that the virus may develop a mutation that causes it to integrate into host-cell DNA, and, therefore, may play a role in causing the cancer,” Toland says.
Next, Toland wants to test normal skin in healthy individuals to learn how common this virus is in people generally and to learn whether the virus actually integrates with the host DNA.
“If it proves to be a cancer-causing virus, and if it proves to be common in the general population, it might be something we should begin screening people for,” she says.
Funding from the American Cancer Society supported this research. Ohio State researchers Stephanie Y. Tseng and Dawn C. Allain were also involved in this study.
Adapted from materials provided by Ohio State University Medical Center.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
HEADLINE STORY: The math showing that indoor tanning is a great source of vitamin D is indisputable
Monday, August 3rd, 2009
Headline Story
Headline Story
AUGUST 1, 2009 — Tanning beds may be even more effective as a vitamin D producer than was previously believed. That’s the consensus of new research published by Dr. Michael Holick’s group at Boston University. Holick’s group studied 15 people aged 20-53, tracking their vitamin D blood levels as they tanned in tanning equipment three times a week. How’d they do?
-
50 percent higher vitamin D blood levels after one week of tanning.
- 150 percent higher vitamin D blood levels after 5 weeks of tanning.
Bottom line: Un-natural supplements can’t do that! Not at over-the-counter levels. Consider: Three tanning sessions a week will deliver the equivalent of 30,000-75,000 international units of vitamin D (depending on skin type and other factors) – levels that cannot possibly be obtained through any other source. Even fresh salmon from the stream has a maximum of only 1,000 IU of vitamin D – not enough to move vitamin D blood levels nearly as much as tanning.
Response to ludicrous claims by the IARC
ACADEMIC FRAUD?
IARC Report Declaring UV "Carcinogenic to Humans" ignored conflicting information
JACKSON, Mich. (July 29) - The International Agency for Research on Cancer ignored conflicting information in its classification of ultraviolet light as 'carcinogenic to humans' - a one-dimensional conclusion that benefits the $35 billion sunscreen industry, which has strong financial ties to most of the dermatology community today, and forgets the fact that humans need UV light to live.
"If a pharmaceutical company sold you sunshine, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now," International Smart Tan Network Vice President Joseph Levy said. "Instead, we are dealing with a report that now has the press comparing Mother Nature's most important creation - sunlight - to arsenic and mustard gas. It's ludicrous."
"Saying that UV exposure is harmful and should be avoided is as wrong as saying that water causes drowning, and therefore we should avoid water."
No data has ever been presented suggesting that UV exposure in a non-burning fashion is a significant risk factor for any skin damage, nor has a mechanism been established whereby UV causes melanoma, which is more common in indoor workers than in outdoor workers and which occurs most commonly on parts of the body that don't get regular UV exposure.
IARC cited its own report alleging "risk of skin melanoma is increased by 75 per cent when people started using tanning beds before age 30." Ignored in this statement is confounding information pointing out that:
• IARC's analysis was flawed. When the palest individuals who cannot tan (called Skin Type I - people who are not allowed to tan in North American tanning facilities) were removed from the IARC data set, there was no increase in risk for the group being studied.
• In fact, 18 of 22 studies on this topic show no statistically signficant relationship between indoor tanning and melanoma - including the largest and most recent study.
"Ignoring conflicting information in the publication of a report and elevating your conclusion without bringing confounding information to light constitutes academic fraud," Levy said. "This report presents no new data, ignores confounding information and attempts to reach a new conclusion with no new information. While it remains prudent for individuals to avoid sunburn, it should be noted that there is NO RESEARCH suggesting that non-burning UV exposure is a significant risk factor for humans. None."
Levy continued, "Further, it is clearer now more than ever that humans NEED regular UV exposure as the only true natural way to make vitamin D. It is called 'The Sunshine Vitamin' for a reason: You produce more vitamin D by getting a tan in a non-burning fashion than you would from drinking 100 glasses of whole milk. We are very concerned that the politics of profit-motivated anti-UV groups are misrepresenting the balanced message about sunlight that a true, independent evaluation of the science supports.
The U.S. government in 2000 placed ultraviolet light on the federa l government's list of known human carcinogens. But the criteria to be labeled a carcinogen does not take into account the dosage of a substance required to increase risk - which means that the listing only indicts sunburn, not non-burning exposure. According to that report, "The Report does not present quantitative assessments of carcinogenic risk. Listing of substances in the Report, therefore, does not establish that such substances present carcinogenic risks to individuals in their daily lives." This exclusion makes this listing meaningless.
In doing so, ultraviolet light became the first item on that list that humans need to live and would die if they didn't receive.
1. This list means nothing more than SUNBURN is harmful. There's no research suggesting that non-burning exposure is harmful.
2. Many of the parties promoting this list have ties to the $35 billion sunscreen industry, which wants you to over-use their product.
3. Saying that ultraviolet light causes skin cancer and therefore should be avoided is just like saying water causes drowning and therefore should be avoided. You need water in order to live and survive - just as you need ultraviolet light in order to live and survive.
4. By including UV light on a list of carcinogens without making the statement clear that overexposure, and not mere exposure, is the danger, the makers of this list have made a glaring and fraudulent omission.
IARC Report Declaring UV "Carcinogenic to Humans" ignored conflicting information
JACKSON, Mich. (July 29) - The International Agency for Research on Cancer ignored conflicting information in its classification of ultraviolet light as 'carcinogenic to humans' - a one-dimensional conclusion that benefits the $35 billion sunscreen industry, which has strong financial ties to most of the dermatology community today, and forgets the fact that humans need UV light to live.
"If a pharmaceutical company sold you sunshine, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now," International Smart Tan Network Vice President Joseph Levy said. "Instead, we are dealing with a report that now has the press comparing Mother Nature's most important creation - sunlight - to arsenic and mustard gas. It's ludicrous."
"Saying that UV exposure is harmful and should be avoided is as wrong as saying that water causes drowning, and therefore we should avoid water."
No data has ever been presented suggesting that UV exposure in a non-burning fashion is a significant risk factor for any skin damage, nor has a mechanism been established whereby UV causes melanoma, which is more common in indoor workers than in outdoor workers and which occurs most commonly on parts of the body that don't get regular UV exposure.
IARC cited its own report alleging "risk of skin melanoma is increased by 75 per cent when people started using tanning beds before age 30." Ignored in this statement is confounding information pointing out that:
• IARC's analysis was flawed. When the palest individuals who cannot tan (called Skin Type I - people who are not allowed to tan in North American tanning facilities) were removed from the IARC data set, there was no increase in risk for the group being studied.
• In fact, 18 of 22 studies on this topic show no statistically signficant relationship between indoor tanning and melanoma - including the largest and most recent study.
"Ignoring conflicting information in the publication of a report and elevating your conclusion without bringing confounding information to light constitutes academic fraud," Levy said. "This report presents no new data, ignores confounding information and attempts to reach a new conclusion with no new information. While it remains prudent for individuals to avoid sunburn, it should be noted that there is NO RESEARCH suggesting that non-burning UV exposure is a significant risk factor for humans. None."
Levy continued, "Further, it is clearer now more than ever that humans NEED regular UV exposure as the only true natural way to make vitamin D. It is called 'The Sunshine Vitamin' for a reason: You produce more vitamin D by getting a tan in a non-burning fashion than you would from drinking 100 glasses of whole milk. We are very concerned that the politics of profit-motivated anti-UV groups are misrepresenting the balanced message about sunlight that a true, independent evaluation of the science supports.
The U.S. government in 2000 placed ultraviolet light on the federa l government's list of known human carcinogens. But the criteria to be labeled a carcinogen does not take into account the dosage of a substance required to increase risk - which means that the listing only indicts sunburn, not non-burning exposure. According to that report, "The Report does not present quantitative assessments of carcinogenic risk. Listing of substances in the Report, therefore, does not establish that such substances present carcinogenic risks to individuals in their daily lives." This exclusion makes this listing meaningless.
In doing so, ultraviolet light became the first item on that list that humans need to live and would die if they didn't receive.
1. This list means nothing more than SUNBURN is harmful. There's no research suggesting that non-burning exposure is harmful.
2. Many of the parties promoting this list have ties to the $35 billion sunscreen industry, which wants you to over-use their product.
3. Saying that ultraviolet light causes skin cancer and therefore should be avoided is just like saying water causes drowning and therefore should be avoided. You need water in order to live and survive - just as you need ultraviolet light in order to live and survive.
4. By including UV light on a list of carcinogens without making the statement clear that overexposure, and not mere exposure, is the danger, the makers of this list have made a glaring and fraudulent omission.
WELCOME!
Welcome to Baja Beach Tanning Clubs blog on everything there is to know about getting the best tan for your time and money. We will feature blog entries on tanning news, tanning products, and tanning tips. Thanks for stopping by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)