Oprah Winfrey’s Medical Advisor Now In Favor Of Sunbathing In Moderation

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
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.

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

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.

HEADLINE STORY: The math showing that indoor tanning is a great source of vitamin D is indisputable

Monday, August 3rd, 2009
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.

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.