Fighting juvenile diabetes with vitamin D
By Dr. Cedric Garland
March 02, 2010
With 15,000 new cases diagnosed each year in the U.S., juvenile Type 1 diabetes is a significant health problem, a silent killer of sorts. In fact, Type 1 diabetes is the second most common chronic disease in kids today, second only to asthma.
While Type 2 diabetes tops headlines as the nation struggles with the obesity epidemic, Type 1 diabetes shouldn't be taken too lightly. I recently co-authored a medical study where we found that children who live in areas with higher sun exposure — a vitamin D source — were 80 percent less likely to develop this chronic disease than those who live in areas with low sun exposure. This disease can lead to severe problems like blindness, kidney failure, and heart trouble. No child should have to go through this.
Winter is the time when vitamin D levels are the lowest. Sadly, it's also when the sun plays a game of hide-and-seek. That's why we need to find alternative ways of getting this vital nutrient on a daily basis through sun exposure when possible as well as through vitamin D rich foods like milk and supplementation. This winter, I am cooperating with GOT MILK? on an educational campaign meant to inform parents and families of this urgent health concern.
The easiest solution is the sun! Kids want to go out and play anyway, so let them out to catch some rays for about 10 to 15 minutes a day. If your children have limited access to sun, one way to increase their intake is milk. Like with the sun, vitamin D is present in milk (100IU per glass). It is also available all year around.
Also, keep in mind that vitamin D intake is just as important for adults as it is for kids. According to studies, about two-thirds of Americans are vitamin D deficient, so moms and dads should also follow these tips:
Advanced Supplements
advertisement
• Outdoor play: The sun can be your friend, not to mention the easiest, most fun way to obtain vitamin D. Experts suggest children go outside and play for 10 to 15 minutes a day between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. Limit unprotected sun exposure to that time period. Afterward, rely on clothing for sun protection or a clay-based sunscreen.
• Got milk?: Milk is a natural source of vitamin D, plus it has calcium perfect for building strong bones, muscles and teeth. It is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics that children get at least 1000 mg of calcium daily, which is the equivalent of three cups of milk.
• Eat right: Some food options are rich in vitamin D, making it easy to keep up with the daily requirements. Some brands of yogurt may contain vitamin D and some fatty fishes contain it.
• Regular check-ups: Get your vitamin D levels checked annually. Ask your doctor for the 25-hydroxyvitamin D test, also called a 25(OH)D. Getting tested is the only way to determine if you're deficient. Vitamin D levels are usually lowest in March. Tests are also available through www.grassrootshealth.org.
• Watch out for supplements: While supplements are readily available in stores, not all supplements are created equal. Vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, is the most effective form of vitamin D supplement. Almost all milk contains vitamin D3. Check the label.
For more information on getting the most of your calcium and vitamin D, visit www.gotmilk.com.
Dr. Cedric Garland is a professor at the University of California, San Diego, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine and co-author of the study titled, "The Association Between Ultraviolet B Irradiance, Vitamin D Status and Incidence Rates of Type 1 Diabetes in 51 Regions Worldwide," which was published in the journal Diabetologia.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Vitamin D found to influence over 200 genes, highlighting links to disease
August 23, 2010
The extent to which vitamin D deficiency may increase susceptibility to a wide range of diseases is dramatically highlighted in research published today. Scientists have mapped the points at which vitamin D interacts with our DNA - and identified over two hundred genes that it directly influences. The results are published today in the journal Genome Research.
It is estimated that one billion people worldwide do not have sufficient vitamin D. This deficiency is thought to be largely due to insufficient exposure to the sun and in some cases to poor diet. As well as being a well-known risk factor for rickets, there is a growing body of evidence that vitamin D deficiency also increases an individual's susceptibility to autoimmune conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 diabetes, as well as certain cancers and even dementia.
Now, in a study whose funders include the Medical Research Council (MRC), the MS Society, the Wellcome Trust and the MS Society of Canada, researchers at the University of Oxford have shown the extent to which vitamin D interacts with our DNA. They used new DNA sequencing technology to create a map of vitamin D receptor binding across the genome. The vitamin D receptor is a protein activated by vitamin D, which attaches itself to DNA and thus influences what proteins are made from our genetic code.
The researchers found 2,776 binding sites for the vitamin D receptor along the length of the genome. These were unusually concentrated near a number of genes associated with susceptibility to autoimmune conditions such as MS, Crohn's disease, systemic lupus erythematosus (or 'lupus') and rheumatoid arthritis, and to cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and colorectal cancer.
They also showed that vitamin D had a significant effect on the activity of 229 genes including IRF8, previously associated with MS, and PTPN2, associated with Crohn's disease and type 1 diabetes.
"Our study shows quite dramatically the wide-ranging influence that vitamin D exerts over our health," says Dr Andreas Heger from the MRC Functional Genomics Unit at Oxford, one of the lead authors of the study.
The first author of the paper, Dr Sreeram Ramagopalan from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, adds: "There is now evidence supporting a role for vitamin D in susceptibility to a host of diseases. Vitamin D supplements during pregnancy and the early years could have a beneficial effect on a child's health in later life. Some countries such as France have instituted this as a routine public health measure."
The main source of vitamin D in the body comes from exposing the skin to sunlight, although a diet of oily fish can provide some of the vitamin. Research has previously suggested that lighter skin colour and hair colour evolved in populations moving to parts of the globe with less sun to optimise production of vitamin D in the body. A lack of vitamin D can affect bone development, leading to rickets; in pregnant mothers, poor bone health can be fatal to both mother and child at birth, hence there are selective pressures in favour of people who are able to produce adequate vitamin D.
This new study supports this hypothesis, having found a significant number of vitamin D receptor binding sites in regions of the genome with genetic changes more commonly found in people of European and Asian descent. It is probable that skin lightening as we migrated out of Africa resulted from the necessity to be able to make more vitamin D and prevent rickets: vitamin D deficiency led to pelvic contraction resulting in increased risk of fatality of both mother and unborn child, effectively ending maternal lineages unable to find ways of increasing availability of the vitamin.
"Vitamin D status is potentially one of the most powerful selective pressures on the genome in relatively recent times," says Professor George Ebers, Action Medical Research Professor of Clinical Neurology and one of the senior authors of the paper. "Our study appears to support this interpretation and it may be we have not had enough time to make all the adaptations we have needed to cope with our northern circumstances."
More information: Ramagopalan SV, Heger A, Berlanga AJ, Maugeri NJ, Lincoln MR, Burrell A, Handunnetthi L, Handel AE, Disanto G, Orton S, Watson CT, Morahan JM, Giovannoni G, Ponting CP, Ebers GC, Knight JC. A ChIP-seq-defined genome-wide map of vitamin D receptor binding: Associations with disease and evolution. Genome Res doi:10.1101/gr.107920.110
Provided by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (news : web)
The extent to which vitamin D deficiency may increase susceptibility to a wide range of diseases is dramatically highlighted in research published today. Scientists have mapped the points at which vitamin D interacts with our DNA - and identified over two hundred genes that it directly influences. The results are published today in the journal Genome Research.
It is estimated that one billion people worldwide do not have sufficient vitamin D. This deficiency is thought to be largely due to insufficient exposure to the sun and in some cases to poor diet. As well as being a well-known risk factor for rickets, there is a growing body of evidence that vitamin D deficiency also increases an individual's susceptibility to autoimmune conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 diabetes, as well as certain cancers and even dementia.
Now, in a study whose funders include the Medical Research Council (MRC), the MS Society, the Wellcome Trust and the MS Society of Canada, researchers at the University of Oxford have shown the extent to which vitamin D interacts with our DNA. They used new DNA sequencing technology to create a map of vitamin D receptor binding across the genome. The vitamin D receptor is a protein activated by vitamin D, which attaches itself to DNA and thus influences what proteins are made from our genetic code.
The researchers found 2,776 binding sites for the vitamin D receptor along the length of the genome. These were unusually concentrated near a number of genes associated with susceptibility to autoimmune conditions such as MS, Crohn's disease, systemic lupus erythematosus (or 'lupus') and rheumatoid arthritis, and to cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and colorectal cancer.
They also showed that vitamin D had a significant effect on the activity of 229 genes including IRF8, previously associated with MS, and PTPN2, associated with Crohn's disease and type 1 diabetes.
"Our study shows quite dramatically the wide-ranging influence that vitamin D exerts over our health," says Dr Andreas Heger from the MRC Functional Genomics Unit at Oxford, one of the lead authors of the study.
The first author of the paper, Dr Sreeram Ramagopalan from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, adds: "There is now evidence supporting a role for vitamin D in susceptibility to a host of diseases. Vitamin D supplements during pregnancy and the early years could have a beneficial effect on a child's health in later life. Some countries such as France have instituted this as a routine public health measure."
The main source of vitamin D in the body comes from exposing the skin to sunlight, although a diet of oily fish can provide some of the vitamin. Research has previously suggested that lighter skin colour and hair colour evolved in populations moving to parts of the globe with less sun to optimise production of vitamin D in the body. A lack of vitamin D can affect bone development, leading to rickets; in pregnant mothers, poor bone health can be fatal to both mother and child at birth, hence there are selective pressures in favour of people who are able to produce adequate vitamin D.
This new study supports this hypothesis, having found a significant number of vitamin D receptor binding sites in regions of the genome with genetic changes more commonly found in people of European and Asian descent. It is probable that skin lightening as we migrated out of Africa resulted from the necessity to be able to make more vitamin D and prevent rickets: vitamin D deficiency led to pelvic contraction resulting in increased risk of fatality of both mother and unborn child, effectively ending maternal lineages unable to find ways of increasing availability of the vitamin.
"Vitamin D status is potentially one of the most powerful selective pressures on the genome in relatively recent times," says Professor George Ebers, Action Medical Research Professor of Clinical Neurology and one of the senior authors of the paper. "Our study appears to support this interpretation and it may be we have not had enough time to make all the adaptations we have needed to cope with our northern circumstances."
More information: Ramagopalan SV, Heger A, Berlanga AJ, Maugeri NJ, Lincoln MR, Burrell A, Handunnetthi L, Handel AE, Disanto G, Orton S, Watson CT, Morahan JM, Giovannoni G, Ponting CP, Ebers GC, Knight JC. A ChIP-seq-defined genome-wide map of vitamin D receptor binding: Associations with disease and evolution. Genome Res doi:10.1101/gr.107920.110
Provided by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (news : web)
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Is Profit Behind Dermatology's 'Sun Scare' Message?
Harmon Leon
Harmon Leon
Author
Posted: July 13, 2010 04:03 PM
Harmon Leon
Author
Posted: July 13, 2010 04:03 PM
Is Profit Behind Dermatology's 'Sun Scare' Message?
2010-07-09-20080107t221238z_01_nootr_rtridsp_2_healthcancersundc.jpg
There's a strange health tug-of-war going on. Doctors are now telling us to get back into the sun for better health since a large majority of Americans are being deprived of natural vitamin D and other benefits associated with sunshine. Meanwhile, the cosmetic dermatology industry seems to be turning up the heat on their "stay out of the sun, wear sunscreen 24/7" message.
Who's a person to believe?
With balance and common sense seeming pretty obvious, it calls the question: What's really behind the 'sunshine is killing us' message that's pouring out of dermatologists' mouths, via the media, these days?
With the summer months upon us I wanted to find out firsthand what exactly the mantra is that dermatologists are telling patients. So I went undercover to several San Francisco dermatologists in order to see if there is legitimate concern about the sun-scare media hype. Are these doctors being sensible or going overboard when it comes to advice on sunscreen use and skin cancer prevention? Is the sky falling with dangerous UV rays or are we being induced into a media panic?
Let's journey on into the heart of mole darkness and find out.
Dermatologist Appointment #1: Marina District
My first dermatology stop is in the posh San Francisco neighborhood near Union Street. With nothing to read but Botox literature, I'm made to wait in the pristine reception area for a good hour. This place feels more like a cosmetic spa than a doctor's office. With all these pamphlets on wrinkle elimination, the dermatologists' message seems to be centered on beauty rather than health issues. My excuse for wanting an appointment is to get my moles checked out. The message dermatologists constantly trumpet is that moles should be frequently checked for malignant melanoma. Except these are ordinary moles I've had my entire life.
Finally my name is called.
I'm then made to wait another 20 minutes in the examination room. The dermatologist finally comes in. I take off my shirt and point to my moles. She immediately determines that they don't look cancerous. I press her by saying the mole under my arm is of concern because it rubs against my clothes. She takes a closer look. Then mentions we need to get approval from insurance so that I don't get stuck with the bill. It takes a week to get their permission and it must be for medical reasons. She decides to bill them for the removal of a couple of moles. "I don't think they'll balk at that," she said.
I then point to another mole that gets irritated on clothes and ask if she can get my insurance to pay for that. She asks if it's sensitive or itchy. Itchy, I say. She's pretty sure insurance will cover an irritant mole. Bingo! We go with irritant.
Besides being advised that I should never go into the sun without wearing a visor, sunglasses, long sleeves and sunscreen (which needs to be reapplied obsessively every few hours), I can get my non-cancerous moles removed because they are an irritant. (A week later I find out that my insurance approved the removal of these two non-cancerous moles--I'm added to the reported melanoma statistics.)
It happens more often than you might think. A quick Google search shows that in the past years several dermatologists have been sent to prison for flat-out lying about skin cancer to their patients; slicing up healthy skin for insurance dollars. Do these cases show there's money to be made in cutting off skin lesions and calling them cancer? Is this a factor why skin cancer numbers might seem overinflated? Do the numbers add up when you start digging?
A May 2010 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute listed melanoma as one of five cancers over-diagnosed by doctors. Though doctors are removing more and more skin lesions, researchers pointed out that melanoma mortality rates haven't increased since 1975--with insurance companies paying for the procedures.
A 2009 British Journal of Dermatology report also concluded: that melanoma isn't increasing in actual incidence, but merely in reported incidence. What the report found was doctors were simply reporting and removing more lesions that may not actually be cancerous.
Would this explain why the United States has just 4.5 percent of the world's population but has 52 percent of the world's melanomas when you compare the American Cancer Society's numbers (68,720) with those from the World Health Organization (132,000 worldwide)? In contrast, both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer have been declining in Canada. A University of Alberta study this year showed that non-melanoma skin cancer incidence in Canada has been declining for a generation. Riddle me this: how is it possible the U.S. estimates more-than-triple while Canada's real numbers are actually declining? Has the U.S. dermatology-induced media scare propagated more dermatologist visits in our for-profit health care system or are a larger number of Canadians simply staying inside to watch their beloved championship curling teams?
Regardless, by having just a few cosmetic moles chopped off, my dermatologist was able to fix it so my insurance company would foot the bill.
Dermatologist Appointment #2: Fillmore District
More literature on Botox. More pamphlets on wrinkle elimination. More tips on how to look young and pretty. But, unlike the previous dermatology office, after I quickly fill out my paperwork I'm immediately whisked into an examination room. When I tell the dermatologist I'm concerned about moles, she asks me if anyone in my family has ever had skin cancer. I tell her they have. She then asks whether it was melanoma or not. I wasn't sure. She told me that people die from it, but that it depends on the stage its diagnosed. She throws out a figure, "It's the fourth-leading cause of death due to cancer."
That sounds pretty severe--I mean death is as extreme as it gets. But according to the National Cancer Institute, melanoma only contributes just 0.1 percent of all cancer deaths--it isn't even in the top 15 when it comes to cancer.
This past spring the Association of Health Care Journalists called into question dermatology's math about melanoma. AHCJ reported a person's risk of melanoma is identified at roughly two-to-three per thousand. (Whether they catch sun outdoors or in a tanning bed.) Melanoma is quite rare and it's actually declining in most of the population, except for older men, who get it most often. Oddly, the media marketing campaign for skin cancer prevention is aimed almost entirely at young women, who have less than a one in 100,000 chance of succumbing to melanoma. According to the National Cancer Institute's data, that number has actually gone down more than 50 percent in women 20 to 49 since 1975.
And yet, dermatology leaders regularly state that melanoma is the fastest growing cancer in women between the ages of 25 to 29 -- ignoring men, the group most at risk, altogether. Is there a correlation between young women being the largest consumers of skin care products as well as being the largest demographic group scared into dermatologists' offices to have moles removed? (And Botox injections--the fastest-growing procedure in dermatology today.) Is there a connection between dermatologists getting more press over skin cancer than heart disease or other top cancer killers that have no connection to the multibillion-dollar cosmetics industry?
Back to my appointment: The dermatologist continues to examine my non-cancerous moles. Unlike my previous appointment, she tells me that if I want the moles removed it would be a purely cosmetic procedure and my insurance won't cover it. I press the irritated issue. Candidly, I ask her if she could simply write it up as being cancerous so my insurance will cover it. The dermatologist says she won't but admits a big flaw in the system. She was certain they don't cover it. She told me point blank that I could go to some dermatology offices that may lie and say it's irritated but she won't do that.
I then ask what measures I should take to prevent skin cancer. I'm told to apply sunscreen 24/7, wear a hat and sunglasses, as well as avoid the sun as much as possible. (The only thing she doesn't mention is to live underground with the mole people.) I ask her if she wears sunblock. She does, SPF 30 and higher. She reminds me to reapply. I told her I read that some sunblocks are bad for you. "We don't believe that," she said. "The sun is more harmful."
Human beings and our predecessors have been living and working under the sun for millennia. This advice seems like de-evolution. Are we experiencing Darwinism in reverse? Now we're being told to use chemical sunscreen products on a daily basis--even when a sunburn isn't possible.
Some sources suggest that the rise in skin cancer cases is due to the excessive use of sunscreens due to the toxic ingredients that we've recently learned seep into our bodies, rather than the increased exposure to ultraviolet light. Nearly half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivative. According to researchers at Environmental Working Group, their annual report cites problems with bogus sun protection factor (SPF) numbers, the use of the hormone-disrupting chemical oxybenzone (which penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream), overstated claims about performance, and the lack of needed regulations and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration. If their claims are correct, then even though the white sunscreen goop might prevent sunburn don't count on it to prevent skin cancer from forming.
More goop for thought: sunscreen companies can't actually advertise that their product prevents skin cancer because research doesn't support that claim. So companies fork over millions of dollars in "pay for play" endorsements to groups like The American Academy of Dermatology and The Skin Cancer Foundation to make that claim for them. Indeed, most people are surprised to learn that the Skin Cancer Foundation is mainly funded by the very pharmaceutical companies who profit from its anti-sun message.
Could this multimillion-dollar business from cosmetics companies be affecting the objectivity of dermatology lobbying groups and the derms in our communities?
Dermatologist Appointment #3: Large Medical Building In Pacific Heights
These dermatology offices all seem to subscribe to the exact same Botox pamphlets and literature. Sure the sun gets a bad rap from dermatologists, but that's nothing compared to their take on indoor tanning booths. Dermatologists, along with the media, have launched a full out blitzkrieg on the tanning industry. A recent 20/20 report made it seem like indoor tanning was as dangerous as putting the bronze barrel of a gun in your mouth. If I were to believe their reports, an indoor tanning session is as deadly as arsenic and as addictive as heroin.
Meanwhile, dermatologists sell indoor tanning sessions in their own offices for up to $100 a visit to treat cosmetic skin conditions. Could some of their angst at indoor tanning be about profit? A January 2009 New York Times article states that some psoriasis patients have benefited from commercial-grade tanning beds that use UVB radiation; many of which are actively in use in dermatologists office across America. The indoor tanning industry reports that 1 million clients are actually referred to them annually by dermatologists to treat psoriasis, eczema and other cosmetic skin conditions. But stepping into a tanning booth, according to dermatology lobbying groups, is about as dangerous as jumping in front of a speeding truck. UV light, in the form of sun or indoor tanning, produces vitamin D. (Affectionately known as the "sunshine vitamin.") Surely dermatologists must see some benefit in moderate UV light? What suddenly set off their dragon-fire?
I told her I was doing some phototherapy for psoriasis and asked if she recommends it. She says it's great. After I asked if it does the same thing as a tanning booth she explained that tanning booths can't control the beams, so they're not localized like in phototherapy. After some prodding she tells me that tanning booths are dangerous but the doctor has control over the intensity of the beams so you can't get burnt. So, is it covered by insurance? You bet it is! The phototherapy that is, but not the tanning beds.
If you refer to the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, back in the early 90s dermatologists used to annually deliver roughly 873,000 phototherapy sessions. By 1998 that number had gone down 94 percent to 53,000 for a procedure they still consider safe and viable. Maybe that's why the dermatologist sternly warned that I should never go into a tanning booth--under any circumstance--even though in often cases the indoor tanning equipment is exactly the same. They're trying to drum up more business.
Dermatologist Appointment #4: Financial District
At my final appointment, the dermatology assistant informs, once again, how I should engage in obsessive daily sunscreen use. She neglects to mention that constant use of sunscreen is suspected to be a factor in vitamin D deficiency--a condition that affects three-quarters of U.S. teens and adults. According to findings in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the deficits are increasingly blamed for everything from cancer and heart disease to diabetes.
Yet the advice--slather it on daily, even in the winter--still flows from the mouths of most dermatologists with little regard to these reports.
She asks me if I use sunblock. Honestly, I answered, how and then. She asked what SPF -- I usually use around 15. She says she recommends 30 and higher -- especially on your face and to reapply every two to four hours. When I inquired about the toxins in sunblock, she said that oxidized zinc doesn't have toxins -- it's important to choose a raw mineral. She told me to reapply a couple times a day.
I ask if sunblock prevents cancer. I'm told it prevents skin damage, which can cause cancer. Linking these two elements together makes it imply that sunscreen is the antidote for skin cancer, rather than a preventative against skin damage. When the dermatologist finally comes in to examine my moles ("These moles are totally normal. Totally normal. Everybody has got moles"), she sings a completely different tune.
Do I need to use sunblock everyday? I ask. She recommends to be responsible -- like if you're going to the beach -- but that we need the sun to produce vitamin D.
Amazing. Finally a dermatologist who actually gives sound, sane advice about the use sunscreen, rather than sounding like she's part of some strange sunscreen cult. Does she have similar moderation counseling on phototherapy and tanning booths?
I mentioned I was doing some phototherapy for psoriasis and asked if I could use a tanning booth with ultraviolet rays. She told me that's fine and tanning booths are the same thing as phototherapy -- they both use UVB light. You just have to choose to have UVB.
It only took four separate appointments to finally find a dermatologist who wasn't spouting the exact same overblown anti-sun mantra as all the rest of the industry. The sun scare message, fueled by dermatologists, has helped sunscreen companies turn a multimillion-dollar industry into a six billion dollar cosmetic juggernaut that uses dermatology endorsements to drive overuse of their product, which in some cases has been implicated in containing undisclosed toxins.
Because of it, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer has called for a full investigation into sunscreen safety. In this nation of panic, cosmetic dermatology is benefiting by driving a fear-based pipeline of customers directly into their offices. But as a whole, the dermatology industry is retreating to their corner of the sandbox, refusing to accept the scientific reality of a balanced message about sun protection in light of research clearly showing the need for regular sun exposure.
Do you feel bombarded by the sun scare messages? Are your fears justified or do you think there a profit motivation behind the dermatology messaging? Let us know what you think.
Follow Harmon Leon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/harmonle
From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harmon-leon/is-profit-behind-dermatol_b_640929.html
Harmon Leon
Author
Posted: July 13, 2010 04:03 PM
Harmon Leon
Author
Posted: July 13, 2010 04:03 PM
Is Profit Behind Dermatology's 'Sun Scare' Message?
2010-07-09-20080107t221238z_01_nootr_rtridsp_2_healthcancersundc.jpg
There's a strange health tug-of-war going on. Doctors are now telling us to get back into the sun for better health since a large majority of Americans are being deprived of natural vitamin D and other benefits associated with sunshine. Meanwhile, the cosmetic dermatology industry seems to be turning up the heat on their "stay out of the sun, wear sunscreen 24/7" message.
Who's a person to believe?
With balance and common sense seeming pretty obvious, it calls the question: What's really behind the 'sunshine is killing us' message that's pouring out of dermatologists' mouths, via the media, these days?
With the summer months upon us I wanted to find out firsthand what exactly the mantra is that dermatologists are telling patients. So I went undercover to several San Francisco dermatologists in order to see if there is legitimate concern about the sun-scare media hype. Are these doctors being sensible or going overboard when it comes to advice on sunscreen use and skin cancer prevention? Is the sky falling with dangerous UV rays or are we being induced into a media panic?
Let's journey on into the heart of mole darkness and find out.
Dermatologist Appointment #1: Marina District
My first dermatology stop is in the posh San Francisco neighborhood near Union Street. With nothing to read but Botox literature, I'm made to wait in the pristine reception area for a good hour. This place feels more like a cosmetic spa than a doctor's office. With all these pamphlets on wrinkle elimination, the dermatologists' message seems to be centered on beauty rather than health issues. My excuse for wanting an appointment is to get my moles checked out. The message dermatologists constantly trumpet is that moles should be frequently checked for malignant melanoma. Except these are ordinary moles I've had my entire life.
Finally my name is called.
I'm then made to wait another 20 minutes in the examination room. The dermatologist finally comes in. I take off my shirt and point to my moles. She immediately determines that they don't look cancerous. I press her by saying the mole under my arm is of concern because it rubs against my clothes. She takes a closer look. Then mentions we need to get approval from insurance so that I don't get stuck with the bill. It takes a week to get their permission and it must be for medical reasons. She decides to bill them for the removal of a couple of moles. "I don't think they'll balk at that," she said.
I then point to another mole that gets irritated on clothes and ask if she can get my insurance to pay for that. She asks if it's sensitive or itchy. Itchy, I say. She's pretty sure insurance will cover an irritant mole. Bingo! We go with irritant.
Besides being advised that I should never go into the sun without wearing a visor, sunglasses, long sleeves and sunscreen (which needs to be reapplied obsessively every few hours), I can get my non-cancerous moles removed because they are an irritant. (A week later I find out that my insurance approved the removal of these two non-cancerous moles--I'm added to the reported melanoma statistics.)
It happens more often than you might think. A quick Google search shows that in the past years several dermatologists have been sent to prison for flat-out lying about skin cancer to their patients; slicing up healthy skin for insurance dollars. Do these cases show there's money to be made in cutting off skin lesions and calling them cancer? Is this a factor why skin cancer numbers might seem overinflated? Do the numbers add up when you start digging?
A May 2010 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute listed melanoma as one of five cancers over-diagnosed by doctors. Though doctors are removing more and more skin lesions, researchers pointed out that melanoma mortality rates haven't increased since 1975--with insurance companies paying for the procedures.
A 2009 British Journal of Dermatology report also concluded: that melanoma isn't increasing in actual incidence, but merely in reported incidence. What the report found was doctors were simply reporting and removing more lesions that may not actually be cancerous.
Would this explain why the United States has just 4.5 percent of the world's population but has 52 percent of the world's melanomas when you compare the American Cancer Society's numbers (68,720) with those from the World Health Organization (132,000 worldwide)? In contrast, both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer have been declining in Canada. A University of Alberta study this year showed that non-melanoma skin cancer incidence in Canada has been declining for a generation. Riddle me this: how is it possible the U.S. estimates more-than-triple while Canada's real numbers are actually declining? Has the U.S. dermatology-induced media scare propagated more dermatologist visits in our for-profit health care system or are a larger number of Canadians simply staying inside to watch their beloved championship curling teams?
Regardless, by having just a few cosmetic moles chopped off, my dermatologist was able to fix it so my insurance company would foot the bill.
Dermatologist Appointment #2: Fillmore District
More literature on Botox. More pamphlets on wrinkle elimination. More tips on how to look young and pretty. But, unlike the previous dermatology office, after I quickly fill out my paperwork I'm immediately whisked into an examination room. When I tell the dermatologist I'm concerned about moles, she asks me if anyone in my family has ever had skin cancer. I tell her they have. She then asks whether it was melanoma or not. I wasn't sure. She told me that people die from it, but that it depends on the stage its diagnosed. She throws out a figure, "It's the fourth-leading cause of death due to cancer."
That sounds pretty severe--I mean death is as extreme as it gets. But according to the National Cancer Institute, melanoma only contributes just 0.1 percent of all cancer deaths--it isn't even in the top 15 when it comes to cancer.
This past spring the Association of Health Care Journalists called into question dermatology's math about melanoma. AHCJ reported a person's risk of melanoma is identified at roughly two-to-three per thousand. (Whether they catch sun outdoors or in a tanning bed.) Melanoma is quite rare and it's actually declining in most of the population, except for older men, who get it most often. Oddly, the media marketing campaign for skin cancer prevention is aimed almost entirely at young women, who have less than a one in 100,000 chance of succumbing to melanoma. According to the National Cancer Institute's data, that number has actually gone down more than 50 percent in women 20 to 49 since 1975.
And yet, dermatology leaders regularly state that melanoma is the fastest growing cancer in women between the ages of 25 to 29 -- ignoring men, the group most at risk, altogether. Is there a correlation between young women being the largest consumers of skin care products as well as being the largest demographic group scared into dermatologists' offices to have moles removed? (And Botox injections--the fastest-growing procedure in dermatology today.) Is there a connection between dermatologists getting more press over skin cancer than heart disease or other top cancer killers that have no connection to the multibillion-dollar cosmetics industry?
Back to my appointment: The dermatologist continues to examine my non-cancerous moles. Unlike my previous appointment, she tells me that if I want the moles removed it would be a purely cosmetic procedure and my insurance won't cover it. I press the irritated issue. Candidly, I ask her if she could simply write it up as being cancerous so my insurance will cover it. The dermatologist says she won't but admits a big flaw in the system. She was certain they don't cover it. She told me point blank that I could go to some dermatology offices that may lie and say it's irritated but she won't do that.
I then ask what measures I should take to prevent skin cancer. I'm told to apply sunscreen 24/7, wear a hat and sunglasses, as well as avoid the sun as much as possible. (The only thing she doesn't mention is to live underground with the mole people.) I ask her if she wears sunblock. She does, SPF 30 and higher. She reminds me to reapply. I told her I read that some sunblocks are bad for you. "We don't believe that," she said. "The sun is more harmful."
Human beings and our predecessors have been living and working under the sun for millennia. This advice seems like de-evolution. Are we experiencing Darwinism in reverse? Now we're being told to use chemical sunscreen products on a daily basis--even when a sunburn isn't possible.
Some sources suggest that the rise in skin cancer cases is due to the excessive use of sunscreens due to the toxic ingredients that we've recently learned seep into our bodies, rather than the increased exposure to ultraviolet light. Nearly half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivative. According to researchers at Environmental Working Group, their annual report cites problems with bogus sun protection factor (SPF) numbers, the use of the hormone-disrupting chemical oxybenzone (which penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream), overstated claims about performance, and the lack of needed regulations and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration. If their claims are correct, then even though the white sunscreen goop might prevent sunburn don't count on it to prevent skin cancer from forming.
More goop for thought: sunscreen companies can't actually advertise that their product prevents skin cancer because research doesn't support that claim. So companies fork over millions of dollars in "pay for play" endorsements to groups like The American Academy of Dermatology and The Skin Cancer Foundation to make that claim for them. Indeed, most people are surprised to learn that the Skin Cancer Foundation is mainly funded by the very pharmaceutical companies who profit from its anti-sun message.
Could this multimillion-dollar business from cosmetics companies be affecting the objectivity of dermatology lobbying groups and the derms in our communities?
Dermatologist Appointment #3: Large Medical Building In Pacific Heights
These dermatology offices all seem to subscribe to the exact same Botox pamphlets and literature. Sure the sun gets a bad rap from dermatologists, but that's nothing compared to their take on indoor tanning booths. Dermatologists, along with the media, have launched a full out blitzkrieg on the tanning industry. A recent 20/20 report made it seem like indoor tanning was as dangerous as putting the bronze barrel of a gun in your mouth. If I were to believe their reports, an indoor tanning session is as deadly as arsenic and as addictive as heroin.
Meanwhile, dermatologists sell indoor tanning sessions in their own offices for up to $100 a visit to treat cosmetic skin conditions. Could some of their angst at indoor tanning be about profit? A January 2009 New York Times article states that some psoriasis patients have benefited from commercial-grade tanning beds that use UVB radiation; many of which are actively in use in dermatologists office across America. The indoor tanning industry reports that 1 million clients are actually referred to them annually by dermatologists to treat psoriasis, eczema and other cosmetic skin conditions. But stepping into a tanning booth, according to dermatology lobbying groups, is about as dangerous as jumping in front of a speeding truck. UV light, in the form of sun or indoor tanning, produces vitamin D. (Affectionately known as the "sunshine vitamin.") Surely dermatologists must see some benefit in moderate UV light? What suddenly set off their dragon-fire?
I told her I was doing some phototherapy for psoriasis and asked if she recommends it. She says it's great. After I asked if it does the same thing as a tanning booth she explained that tanning booths can't control the beams, so they're not localized like in phototherapy. After some prodding she tells me that tanning booths are dangerous but the doctor has control over the intensity of the beams so you can't get burnt. So, is it covered by insurance? You bet it is! The phototherapy that is, but not the tanning beds.
If you refer to the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, back in the early 90s dermatologists used to annually deliver roughly 873,000 phototherapy sessions. By 1998 that number had gone down 94 percent to 53,000 for a procedure they still consider safe and viable. Maybe that's why the dermatologist sternly warned that I should never go into a tanning booth--under any circumstance--even though in often cases the indoor tanning equipment is exactly the same. They're trying to drum up more business.
Dermatologist Appointment #4: Financial District
At my final appointment, the dermatology assistant informs, once again, how I should engage in obsessive daily sunscreen use. She neglects to mention that constant use of sunscreen is suspected to be a factor in vitamin D deficiency--a condition that affects three-quarters of U.S. teens and adults. According to findings in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the deficits are increasingly blamed for everything from cancer and heart disease to diabetes.
Yet the advice--slather it on daily, even in the winter--still flows from the mouths of most dermatologists with little regard to these reports.
She asks me if I use sunblock. Honestly, I answered, how and then. She asked what SPF -- I usually use around 15. She says she recommends 30 and higher -- especially on your face and to reapply every two to four hours. When I inquired about the toxins in sunblock, she said that oxidized zinc doesn't have toxins -- it's important to choose a raw mineral. She told me to reapply a couple times a day.
I ask if sunblock prevents cancer. I'm told it prevents skin damage, which can cause cancer. Linking these two elements together makes it imply that sunscreen is the antidote for skin cancer, rather than a preventative against skin damage. When the dermatologist finally comes in to examine my moles ("These moles are totally normal. Totally normal. Everybody has got moles"), she sings a completely different tune.
Do I need to use sunblock everyday? I ask. She recommends to be responsible -- like if you're going to the beach -- but that we need the sun to produce vitamin D.
Amazing. Finally a dermatologist who actually gives sound, sane advice about the use sunscreen, rather than sounding like she's part of some strange sunscreen cult. Does she have similar moderation counseling on phototherapy and tanning booths?
I mentioned I was doing some phototherapy for psoriasis and asked if I could use a tanning booth with ultraviolet rays. She told me that's fine and tanning booths are the same thing as phototherapy -- they both use UVB light. You just have to choose to have UVB.
It only took four separate appointments to finally find a dermatologist who wasn't spouting the exact same overblown anti-sun mantra as all the rest of the industry. The sun scare message, fueled by dermatologists, has helped sunscreen companies turn a multimillion-dollar industry into a six billion dollar cosmetic juggernaut that uses dermatology endorsements to drive overuse of their product, which in some cases has been implicated in containing undisclosed toxins.
Because of it, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer has called for a full investigation into sunscreen safety. In this nation of panic, cosmetic dermatology is benefiting by driving a fear-based pipeline of customers directly into their offices. But as a whole, the dermatology industry is retreating to their corner of the sandbox, refusing to accept the scientific reality of a balanced message about sun protection in light of research clearly showing the need for regular sun exposure.
Do you feel bombarded by the sun scare messages? Are your fears justified or do you think there a profit motivation behind the dermatology messaging? Let us know what you think.
Follow Harmon Leon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/harmonle
From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harmon-leon/is-profit-behind-dermatol_b_640929.html
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
We answer your tough tanning questions
"Is Indoor Tanning Safe?"
We Use the term "smart". Here's why. "Safe" means you can do something recklessly without hurting yourself. And that's not what we're teaching. We're teaching the "Golden Rule of Smart Tanning": sunburn prevention. Our belief is this: Moderate indoor tanning - for individuals who can develop a tan - is the smartest way to maximize the potential benefits and minimize the potential risks associated with either too much or too little sunlight.
"Isn't it true that any sun exposure can cause skin cancer?"
Ultraviolet light - sun exposure - has been linked to skin cancer, but no one knows exactly how. It appears most likely that sunburn particularly among fair-skinned people - is the biggest risk factor. So saying that UV light causes skin cancer and therefore should be avoided is like saying water causes drowning and therefore should be avoided. You need water in order to live, and you need ultraviolet light in order to live.
Heredity, diet and repeated sunburn are the biggest risk factors for non-melanoma skin cancer. Consider that one 1995 study that people who followed a low-fat diet had 90 percent fewer skin cancers. So it's clear that sun exposure isn't the only factor at work in the development of skin cancer.
"Is indoor tanning riskier than outdoor tanning?"
That is absolutely false. Indoor tanning clients are exposed to a scientifically controlled dosage of ultraviolet light carefully formulated to tan the skin while minimizing the risk of sunburn. That kind of control is virtually impossible outdoors, where variables such as seasonality, time of day, geography, weather conditions, altitude, and ozone levels make sunburn much more likely. because sunburn is the main risk factor for skin damage, it's actually smarter to tan indoors in a professional salon that practices smart tanning.
"Every once in a while, a story goes around about a woman who fried her internal organs from too much tanning. How do you explain that?"
We call that "The Legend of the Roasted Tanner," and the story is just that - an urban legend. It can't happen. Ultraviolet light, whether from the outdoor sun or an indoor tanning unit, does not penetrate past the skin. You can't even fry an egg in a tanning bed, let alone fry internal organs!
"I hear that tanning isn't as popular as it used to be. Is this true?"
Actually, that's not true. More than 28 million Americans tan indoors and that number increases steadily year after year. More and more people are tanning for the control, convenience, speed and pure enjoyment of tanning in a salon.
"Isn't it true that tanning is just like a cigarette for the skin?"
No, and it's a ridiculous comparison. Smoking subjects your lungs to unnatural toxins that your body is not designed to process. Tanning on the other hand, is the body's natural reaction to sunlight. The body is designed to tan, to help prevent it from sunburning. The body is not designed to process cigarette smoke. Furthermore, a smoker's risk of contracting lung cancer is hundreds of times higher than a non-smoker's risk. That's not the case with those who tan. Most importantly, there are no known benefits to cigarette smoking. But research suggests that there may be many benefits derived from regular, controlled exposure to sunlight.
"If all this is true, why do we still hear that any sign of a tan is skin damage?"
Money. More money is made scaring people out of the sun than will ever be made encouraging people to tan responsibly. $30 billion in anti-sun products. And the "anti-tanning lobby" had monopolized rhetoric on this issue, distorting the truth and exceeding the data in an effort to scare people out of the sun. What they're missing is the fact that there are benefits associated with UV light exposure and that consumers know these benefits exist, even if salons cannot advertise them.
Sunshine is free. If sunshine were something that were sold to consumers, you can bet there would be massive advertising campaigns pushing sunshine as the elixir of life, and research into the positive effects of UV light would receive massive funding instead of the spotty priority it is given today.
We Use the term "smart". Here's why. "Safe" means you can do something recklessly without hurting yourself. And that's not what we're teaching. We're teaching the "Golden Rule of Smart Tanning": sunburn prevention. Our belief is this: Moderate indoor tanning - for individuals who can develop a tan - is the smartest way to maximize the potential benefits and minimize the potential risks associated with either too much or too little sunlight.
"Isn't it true that any sun exposure can cause skin cancer?"
Ultraviolet light - sun exposure - has been linked to skin cancer, but no one knows exactly how. It appears most likely that sunburn particularly among fair-skinned people - is the biggest risk factor. So saying that UV light causes skin cancer and therefore should be avoided is like saying water causes drowning and therefore should be avoided. You need water in order to live, and you need ultraviolet light in order to live.
Heredity, diet and repeated sunburn are the biggest risk factors for non-melanoma skin cancer. Consider that one 1995 study that people who followed a low-fat diet had 90 percent fewer skin cancers. So it's clear that sun exposure isn't the only factor at work in the development of skin cancer.
"Is indoor tanning riskier than outdoor tanning?"
That is absolutely false. Indoor tanning clients are exposed to a scientifically controlled dosage of ultraviolet light carefully formulated to tan the skin while minimizing the risk of sunburn. That kind of control is virtually impossible outdoors, where variables such as seasonality, time of day, geography, weather conditions, altitude, and ozone levels make sunburn much more likely. because sunburn is the main risk factor for skin damage, it's actually smarter to tan indoors in a professional salon that practices smart tanning.
"Every once in a while, a story goes around about a woman who fried her internal organs from too much tanning. How do you explain that?"
We call that "The Legend of the Roasted Tanner," and the story is just that - an urban legend. It can't happen. Ultraviolet light, whether from the outdoor sun or an indoor tanning unit, does not penetrate past the skin. You can't even fry an egg in a tanning bed, let alone fry internal organs!
"I hear that tanning isn't as popular as it used to be. Is this true?"
Actually, that's not true. More than 28 million Americans tan indoors and that number increases steadily year after year. More and more people are tanning for the control, convenience, speed and pure enjoyment of tanning in a salon.
"Isn't it true that tanning is just like a cigarette for the skin?"
No, and it's a ridiculous comparison. Smoking subjects your lungs to unnatural toxins that your body is not designed to process. Tanning on the other hand, is the body's natural reaction to sunlight. The body is designed to tan, to help prevent it from sunburning. The body is not designed to process cigarette smoke. Furthermore, a smoker's risk of contracting lung cancer is hundreds of times higher than a non-smoker's risk. That's not the case with those who tan. Most importantly, there are no known benefits to cigarette smoking. But research suggests that there may be many benefits derived from regular, controlled exposure to sunlight.
"If all this is true, why do we still hear that any sign of a tan is skin damage?"
Money. More money is made scaring people out of the sun than will ever be made encouraging people to tan responsibly. $30 billion in anti-sun products. And the "anti-tanning lobby" had monopolized rhetoric on this issue, distorting the truth and exceeding the data in an effort to scare people out of the sun. What they're missing is the fact that there are benefits associated with UV light exposure and that consumers know these benefits exist, even if salons cannot advertise them.
Sunshine is free. If sunshine were something that were sold to consumers, you can bet there would be massive advertising campaigns pushing sunshine as the elixir of life, and research into the positive effects of UV light would receive massive funding instead of the spotty priority it is given today.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
"Tanning Salon Clients Show Addictive Behavior, Study Finds." - Are you kidding me? Don't drink the Kool Aid gang!
Humans are not addicted to UV exposure, we are attracted to it. By nature's design, we are supposed to get regular UV exposure to be healthy.
To say anyone is addicted to UV is like saying they are addicted to air, food or water. We are naturally attracted to these things because we need them.
Vitamin D is now linked to lower risk of most cancers, heart disease and other disorders. The only way to achieve high enough vitamin D levels for this prevention is through regular UV exposure.
Not a single study anywhere in the world shows that UV exposure in a non-burning fashion is a significant factor for skin damage.
This was a junk study. They passed out a questionnaire to 421 people, all of which were college students. Of those people, 229 were tanners. Of those 229 tanners, 30% answered in a way that the researchers say made them meet the "criteria for addiction." There was no individual analysis, it is all based on a survey given to college students.
To say anyone is addicted to UV is like saying they are addicted to air, food or water. We are naturally attracted to these things because we need them.
Vitamin D is now linked to lower risk of most cancers, heart disease and other disorders. The only way to achieve high enough vitamin D levels for this prevention is through regular UV exposure.
Not a single study anywhere in the world shows that UV exposure in a non-burning fashion is a significant factor for skin damage.
This was a junk study. They passed out a questionnaire to 421 people, all of which were college students. Of those people, 229 were tanners. Of those 229 tanners, 30% answered in a way that the researchers say made them meet the "criteria for addiction." There was no individual analysis, it is all based on a survey given to college students.
Monday, April 19, 2010
10 Reasons You Should Be Tested for Vitamin D
Nalini Chilkov.Leader/Expert: Alternative Medicine and Integrative Cancer Care doctornalini.com
Posted: April 16, 2010 08:24 AM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index .
10 Reasons You Should Be Tested for Vitamin D
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of the flu and complications of flu. Vitamin D contributes to lowering the incidence of infections and inflammation during the fall-winter flu season. The Canadian government has recommended increased Vitamin D intake as part of their flu prevention strategy, including prevention of H1N1 Swine Flu.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of depression. Low levels of Vitamin D are associated with depression. Sun exposure is known to be a factor in relieving depression, especially winter depression also known as seasonal affective disorder.
Vitamin D can reduce chronic muscle aching and pain. Vitamin D helps to normalize blood calcium which is required for tight shortened muscles to soften, lengthen and relax out of spasm. When calcium is available to the muscles, menstrual cramps lessen.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of cancer. Low levels of Vitamin D are associated with increased incidence of many cancers. Vitamin D normalizes cell to cell communication, impacts uncontrolled cell growth and allows cells to differentiate into normal cells with a normal life cycle.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, heart attack and >atherosclerosis. Vitamin D has been shown to protect the lining of your blood vessels.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of developing Type 1 Diabetes by 80%. Low levels of Vitamin D are found in diabetics.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of getting autoimmune diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Lupus. Low levels of Vitamin D are associated with increased auto- immune attack, breakdown of your own tissues and loss of normal functions. Vitamin D supplementation has been shown to reduce the risk of multiple sclerosis by 40%.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of bone fractures, bone loss and osteoporosis. Low levels of Vitamin D prevent your body from normal calcium metabolism and normal bone formation. Both men and women are at increased risk for bone loss and fractures as they age.
Did you think your body could make Vitamin D??
While the body can make Vitamin D when the skin is exposed to sunlight, modern life affords inadequate sun exposure to meet our Vitamin D needs.
Dark skinned people make less Vitamin D than those with light skin.
Aging skin makes 75% less Vitamin D than young skin.
Use of sunscreens blocks Vitamin D production in the skin.
Most people living modern life spend a larger proportion of their time indoors and with most of their skin surface covered by clothing or sunscreen when outdoors.
Ask your doctor to check your blood levels of 25-OH Vitamin D (Vitamin D3)
Blood levels of Vitamin D3 associated with OPTIMAL HEALTH are in the range of 70-120nmol/L, far above the "normal" ranges of the past decades before the recent surge of Vitamin D research changed our understanding of this essential vitamin.
Vitamin D rich foods include cold water fish such as wild salmon, wild cod and sardines and cod liver oil. However, it is difficult to regularly eat enough of these foods to build up your Vitamin D stores.
Get some sun exposure on your skin without sunscreen for 20-30 minutes in the morning or late afternoon. Do use sunscreen during the midday to protect your skin.
Be sure to take the correct biologically active form of Vitamin D which is Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), not Vitamin D2.
Be sure to get retested to monitor your Vitamin D levels. A thorough health care provider will also monitor your blood levels of calcium and phosphorus and parathyroid hormone and may also monitor your urine for evidence of bone loss or order a bone density test.
Please do so under the supervision of a knowledgeable health care provider who can assess the risks and benefits of Vitamin D supplementation and recommend the appropriate dose for you as an individual, taking into account your complete health history and any current medications.
For more on the confluence of natural healing and modern biomedicine and alternative cancer answers find me at doctornalini.com.
Dr Chilkov has been recognized as a go to clinician in Suzanne Somers' book "Knockout: Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer--And How to Prevent Getting It in the First Place."
She also serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Mederi Foundation, which serves to promote a holistic, integrative approach to healing through education and clinical research programs with an emphasis on providing primary healthcare to those with cancer and chronic illnesses.
http://www.doctornalini.com
Posted: April 16, 2010 08:24 AM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index .
10 Reasons You Should Be Tested for Vitamin D
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of the flu and complications of flu. Vitamin D contributes to lowering the incidence of infections and inflammation during the fall-winter flu season. The Canadian government has recommended increased Vitamin D intake as part of their flu prevention strategy, including prevention of H1N1 Swine Flu.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of depression. Low levels of Vitamin D are associated with depression. Sun exposure is known to be a factor in relieving depression, especially winter depression also known as seasonal affective disorder.
Vitamin D can reduce chronic muscle aching and pain. Vitamin D helps to normalize blood calcium which is required for tight shortened muscles to soften, lengthen and relax out of spasm. When calcium is available to the muscles, menstrual cramps lessen.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of cancer. Low levels of Vitamin D are associated with increased incidence of many cancers. Vitamin D normalizes cell to cell communication, impacts uncontrolled cell growth and allows cells to differentiate into normal cells with a normal life cycle.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, heart attack and >atherosclerosis. Vitamin D has been shown to protect the lining of your blood vessels.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of developing Type 1 Diabetes by 80%. Low levels of Vitamin D are found in diabetics.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of getting autoimmune diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Lupus. Low levels of Vitamin D are associated with increased auto- immune attack, breakdown of your own tissues and loss of normal functions. Vitamin D supplementation has been shown to reduce the risk of multiple sclerosis by 40%.
Vitamin D can reduce your risk of bone fractures, bone loss and osteoporosis. Low levels of Vitamin D prevent your body from normal calcium metabolism and normal bone formation. Both men and women are at increased risk for bone loss and fractures as they age.
Did you think your body could make Vitamin D??
While the body can make Vitamin D when the skin is exposed to sunlight, modern life affords inadequate sun exposure to meet our Vitamin D needs.
Dark skinned people make less Vitamin D than those with light skin.
Aging skin makes 75% less Vitamin D than young skin.
Use of sunscreens blocks Vitamin D production in the skin.
Most people living modern life spend a larger proportion of their time indoors and with most of their skin surface covered by clothing or sunscreen when outdoors.
Ask your doctor to check your blood levels of 25-OH Vitamin D (Vitamin D3)
Blood levels of Vitamin D3 associated with OPTIMAL HEALTH are in the range of 70-120nmol/L, far above the "normal" ranges of the past decades before the recent surge of Vitamin D research changed our understanding of this essential vitamin.
Vitamin D rich foods include cold water fish such as wild salmon, wild cod and sardines and cod liver oil. However, it is difficult to regularly eat enough of these foods to build up your Vitamin D stores.
Get some sun exposure on your skin without sunscreen for 20-30 minutes in the morning or late afternoon. Do use sunscreen during the midday to protect your skin.
Be sure to take the correct biologically active form of Vitamin D which is Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), not Vitamin D2.
Be sure to get retested to monitor your Vitamin D levels. A thorough health care provider will also monitor your blood levels of calcium and phosphorus and parathyroid hormone and may also monitor your urine for evidence of bone loss or order a bone density test.
Please do so under the supervision of a knowledgeable health care provider who can assess the risks and benefits of Vitamin D supplementation and recommend the appropriate dose for you as an individual, taking into account your complete health history and any current medications.
For more on the confluence of natural healing and modern biomedicine and alternative cancer answers find me at doctornalini.com.
Dr Chilkov has been recognized as a go to clinician in Suzanne Somers' book "Knockout: Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer--And How to Prevent Getting It in the First Place."
She also serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Mederi Foundation, which serves to promote a holistic, integrative approach to healing through education and clinical research programs with an emphasis on providing primary healthcare to those with cancer and chronic illnesses.
http://www.doctornalini.com
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Get on the Go with H10O Vitamin Water
It started with the recognition that, with today's hectic lifestyles, many of us aren't getting the proper nutrition in our daily diets.
• we don't consume enough water.
• we don't get the recommended daily allowance
of vitamins and minerals necessary for good health.
• Our diets include too much sugar, much of which
comes from soft drinks, processed fruit drinks
and "vitamin" beverages made with sugar and
high-fructose corn syrup.
H10O. is dedicated to providing a range of healthy, vitamin infused waters as alternatives to these sugar drinks that have become mainstays of the American diet. Our unique combination of 10 essential vitamins, plus minerals and other nutrients help provide the support for a wide range of vital systems necessary to help you maintain your good health, in a delicious beverage with NO SUGAR, NO CARBOHYDRATES and ZERO CALORIES.
Proper hydration, a sensible diet including the recommended amount of vitamins and minerals, along with regular exercise can help provide the support necessary to maintain your Good Health. The Human Body is a remarkably efficient machine when properly hydrated and nourished.
• we don't consume enough water.
• we don't get the recommended daily allowance
of vitamins and minerals necessary for good health.
• Our diets include too much sugar, much of which
comes from soft drinks, processed fruit drinks
and "vitamin" beverages made with sugar and
high-fructose corn syrup.
H10O. is dedicated to providing a range of healthy, vitamin infused waters as alternatives to these sugar drinks that have become mainstays of the American diet. Our unique combination of 10 essential vitamins, plus minerals and other nutrients help provide the support for a wide range of vital systems necessary to help you maintain your good health, in a delicious beverage with NO SUGAR, NO CARBOHYDRATES and ZERO CALORIES.
Proper hydration, a sensible diet including the recommended amount of vitamins and minerals, along with regular exercise can help provide the support necessary to maintain your Good Health. The Human Body is a remarkably efficient machine when properly hydrated and nourished.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Skin Cancer Myth
The Skin Cancer Myth
By Jon Herring 03/03/2010
I sat down for lunch last week and began thumbing through a local health magazine. I came across the headline: “Are You Aware of the Dangers of Skin Cancer?”
This ought to be interesting, I thought.
The article was written by a dermatologist. He spent half the time talking about the “dangers” of skin cancer. Then he stressed the importance of avoiding the sun. He also recommended the near-constant use of sunscreen (a brand you can buy at his office, of course). And he concluded with a recommendation to come in for a screening.
What he failed to mention in his efforts to demonize sunlight is that moderate sun exposure is some of the best “medicine” God ever gave us. Maintain optimal vitamin D levels from sun exposure and your risk of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes falls dramatically.
He also forgot to mention that the sunscreen he recommends has no fewer than FOUR proven carcinogenic chemicals.
But I’ve covered the topics of toxic sunscreens and the miraculous benefits of vitamin D in this space before. And Dr. Sears and I go into great detail in our book, Your Best Health Under the Sun.
Today, let’s look at the widely held and mistaken belief that “the sun” is responsible for the growing epidemic of skin cancer.
There is no doubt that skin cancer is rampant. It is by far the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer. According to the Centers for Disease Control, well over a million Americans will be diagnosed this year. Current research suggests that one in every five people will develop skin cancer in their lifetime.
But consider the following…
Before the 1930s, skin cancer was rare. Since that time the incidence has increased dramatically. The incidence of melanoma (the deadly form of skin cancer) has gone up 1,800%. In just the last 30 years, the death rate from melanoma has increased more than fourfold, while the incidence of all types of skin cancer has more than doubled.
Is Sunlight Really the “Cause” of Skin Cancer?
But how could these massive increases be “caused” by the sun? Our sun is billions of years old – has it suddenly changed in the last 80 years? Not likely.
Or are the growing rates of skin cancer because we spend more time in the sun than we used to? No, that’s not it either. In fact, we spend far less time outdoors today than we used to. At the start of the twentieth century, more than 75% of people in the U.S. worked outdoors. Today, only 10% of the population works outside.
And not only do we spend less time in the sun, we now cover ourselves in sunscreen. In the last 30 years, the use of sunscreen has increased by orders of magnitude. Chemical-based sunscreens are now a $6 billion-a-year industry.
Your Health “Homework” Is Already Done for You
You don’t have to have own a jet and fly all over the world to find the best cures for your most stressful and threatening health problems. A privately funded team of doctors and health scientists has already done the work for you.
They’ve discovered:
A treatment from Central America that can literally burn cancer out of your body.
The highly concentrated extract of a Chinese herb that has been proven in double-blind studies to make you look and feel up to 20 years younger.
A simple treatment for cardiac patients that can supercharge your heart from a doctor who used it to save his own life (and thousands of others).
Click here and learn how to claim these private reports for yourself.
Understanding the REAL Causes of Skin Cancer
The increase in skin cancer is not the result of changes to the world around us. It is the result of changes within us. Because of alterations that have occurred in the human diet – particularly in the last 100 years – we have become far more vulnerable to all types of cancer, including skin cancer.
Science has proven that some foods can promote skin cancer. As a population, we now eat these foods in great abundance. On the other hand, there are other foods that strongly prevent skin cancer. Unfortunately, we now consume far too few of these foods.
In other words, we have artificially raised our risk factors for skin cancer, while simultaneously removing our natural defenses against it. Is it any wonder that the rates of skin cancer have increased?
Sunlight is simply a cofactor that comes into play only after our defenses have been compromised. But what if moderate sun exposure can actually protect us from cancer?
In the case of melanoma (the deadly form of skin cancer), that appears to be the case.
Dozens of studies have shown that those whose occupations keep them outdoors have a much lower incidence of melanoma than do those who work inside. For example, construction workers, lifeguards, and farmers have much lower rates of malignant melanoma than office workers.
Population studies also clearly show an inverse relationship between UV exposure and melanoma. For example, rates of melanoma are higher in Minnesota than Arizona, and higher in Norway than the South of France.
The combination of all of these studies plainly indicates that those who spend more time in the sun (without burning) have less risk of melanoma – quite the opposite of what the anti-sun proponents would have you believe.
Lab studies have also shown that vitamin D (which is highly protective against internal cancers) is also protective against melanoma. In several studies, vitamin D was shown to cause melanoma cells to self-destruct. And finally, moderate sun exposure was also shown to DOUBLE the survival rates of those suffering from melanoma.
The more common (though less dangerous) forms of skin cancer – basal cell and squamous cell – are more closely associated with sun exposure than melanoma. But as you will see, the sun is merely the cofactor. It is our poor diet and nutritional deficiencies that make our skin prone to damage from UV rays.
The Role of Free Radicals in Skin Cancer
The underlying cause of most skin cancer is oxidative stress. Skin cells (like all healthy cells) are rich in oxygen. When the ultraviolet rays of the sun strike these oxygen molecules, they can cause some of them to lose an electron. The result is an unstable and reactive molecule – the oxygen free radical.
Antioxidants are free radical scavengers. These electron-rich molecules donate their electrons to free radicals, stabilizing them and preventing cellular damage.
But if antioxidants are in short supply, or if so many free radicals are formed that they overwhelm the antioxidant defense system, then tissue damage, accelerated aging, and eventually, degenerative disease (i.e., skin cancer) will occur.
The Dietary Connection to Skin Cancer
For millions of years, man thrived under the sun. And for all of that time, skin cancer was rare. It has only been in the last 70 years or so that the incidence has increased dramatically. There is a very simple explanation for this.
The standard American diet (which is rapidly becoming the world’s diet) is abundant in foods that promote the formation of free radicals… and it is deficient in the foods that provide antioxidant protection against these free radicals.
Besides the use of chemical sunscreens, the real causes for the rise in skin cancer are two primary changes in the modern diet:
1. A dramatic increase in the consumption of omega-6 fatty acids and a corresponding decrease in the consumption of omega-3s.
At the beginning of the 1900s there were almost no vegetable oils in our diet. Today, the average American consumes 70 pounds of vegetable fat. We are not designed to eat these fats in the quantities we do.
The makeup of fat in the human body is normally about 97% monounsaturated and saturated. Only about 3% should be polyunsaturated. But the fat in your diet dictates the type of fat in your cells. And if you consume plant oils, your cell membranes will incorporate these fat molecules.
The problem with polyunsaturated fats displacing saturated fats in cell structures is that these fats are highly unstable. This means that they are extremely vulnerable to oxidative stress, especially in the skin, where they are exposed to oxygen and UV light.
Numerous studies have also shown that polyunsaturated fats stimulate cancer while saturated fats do not, and further that saturated fats do not break down to form free radicals. The results of having too much vegetable, corn, and seed oil in the diet are that your skin will sunburn faster and more intensely and you will be more prone to skin cancer.
2. A lack of antioxidant-rich foods.
Research also shows that low consumption of fruits and vegetables increases your skin cancer risk. This should come as no surprise. The role of antioxidants in the protection against many forms of cancer has been clearly established. And it appears that these nutrients are especially protective against skin cancer.
Carotenoids are especially protective. These colorful plant pigments are literally Mother Nature’s sunblock. When you consume carotenoids they are deposited in your skin, where they provide protection against sunburn and skin damage. These nutrients are also powerful antioxidants that scavenge for free radicals and repair cells that might become damaged. You could say they reflect and protect, forming a physical barrier and a nutritional barrier against skin damage.
The leading sources of carotenoids are eggs, spirulina, chlorella, tomatoes, dark green leafy vegetables (kale, collards, and spinach), and yellow-orange fruits and vegetables (apricots, cantaloupe, carrots, sweet potatoes, yams, and squash).
To slow the aging of your skin and dramatically reduce your risk of skin cancer, you must gain control over all of the factors that contribute to the degeneration process. Don’t believe the hype that skin cancer is exclusively “caused” by the sun. The sun is your ally in good health… and used wisely, it can even provide powerful protection against skin cancer
To Your Health,
Jon Herring
Total Health Breakthroughs
http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.com/2010/03/the-skin-cancer-myth/
By Jon Herring 03/03/2010
I sat down for lunch last week and began thumbing through a local health magazine. I came across the headline: “Are You Aware of the Dangers of Skin Cancer?”
This ought to be interesting, I thought.
The article was written by a dermatologist. He spent half the time talking about the “dangers” of skin cancer. Then he stressed the importance of avoiding the sun. He also recommended the near-constant use of sunscreen (a brand you can buy at his office, of course). And he concluded with a recommendation to come in for a screening.
What he failed to mention in his efforts to demonize sunlight is that moderate sun exposure is some of the best “medicine” God ever gave us. Maintain optimal vitamin D levels from sun exposure and your risk of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes falls dramatically.
He also forgot to mention that the sunscreen he recommends has no fewer than FOUR proven carcinogenic chemicals.
But I’ve covered the topics of toxic sunscreens and the miraculous benefits of vitamin D in this space before. And Dr. Sears and I go into great detail in our book, Your Best Health Under the Sun.
Today, let’s look at the widely held and mistaken belief that “the sun” is responsible for the growing epidemic of skin cancer.
There is no doubt that skin cancer is rampant. It is by far the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer. According to the Centers for Disease Control, well over a million Americans will be diagnosed this year. Current research suggests that one in every five people will develop skin cancer in their lifetime.
But consider the following…
Before the 1930s, skin cancer was rare. Since that time the incidence has increased dramatically. The incidence of melanoma (the deadly form of skin cancer) has gone up 1,800%. In just the last 30 years, the death rate from melanoma has increased more than fourfold, while the incidence of all types of skin cancer has more than doubled.
Is Sunlight Really the “Cause” of Skin Cancer?
But how could these massive increases be “caused” by the sun? Our sun is billions of years old – has it suddenly changed in the last 80 years? Not likely.
Or are the growing rates of skin cancer because we spend more time in the sun than we used to? No, that’s not it either. In fact, we spend far less time outdoors today than we used to. At the start of the twentieth century, more than 75% of people in the U.S. worked outdoors. Today, only 10% of the population works outside.
And not only do we spend less time in the sun, we now cover ourselves in sunscreen. In the last 30 years, the use of sunscreen has increased by orders of magnitude. Chemical-based sunscreens are now a $6 billion-a-year industry.
Your Health “Homework” Is Already Done for You
You don’t have to have own a jet and fly all over the world to find the best cures for your most stressful and threatening health problems. A privately funded team of doctors and health scientists has already done the work for you.
They’ve discovered:
A treatment from Central America that can literally burn cancer out of your body.
The highly concentrated extract of a Chinese herb that has been proven in double-blind studies to make you look and feel up to 20 years younger.
A simple treatment for cardiac patients that can supercharge your heart from a doctor who used it to save his own life (and thousands of others).
Click here and learn how to claim these private reports for yourself.
Understanding the REAL Causes of Skin Cancer
The increase in skin cancer is not the result of changes to the world around us. It is the result of changes within us. Because of alterations that have occurred in the human diet – particularly in the last 100 years – we have become far more vulnerable to all types of cancer, including skin cancer.
Science has proven that some foods can promote skin cancer. As a population, we now eat these foods in great abundance. On the other hand, there are other foods that strongly prevent skin cancer. Unfortunately, we now consume far too few of these foods.
In other words, we have artificially raised our risk factors for skin cancer, while simultaneously removing our natural defenses against it. Is it any wonder that the rates of skin cancer have increased?
Sunlight is simply a cofactor that comes into play only after our defenses have been compromised. But what if moderate sun exposure can actually protect us from cancer?
In the case of melanoma (the deadly form of skin cancer), that appears to be the case.
Dozens of studies have shown that those whose occupations keep them outdoors have a much lower incidence of melanoma than do those who work inside. For example, construction workers, lifeguards, and farmers have much lower rates of malignant melanoma than office workers.
Population studies also clearly show an inverse relationship between UV exposure and melanoma. For example, rates of melanoma are higher in Minnesota than Arizona, and higher in Norway than the South of France.
The combination of all of these studies plainly indicates that those who spend more time in the sun (without burning) have less risk of melanoma – quite the opposite of what the anti-sun proponents would have you believe.
Lab studies have also shown that vitamin D (which is highly protective against internal cancers) is also protective against melanoma. In several studies, vitamin D was shown to cause melanoma cells to self-destruct. And finally, moderate sun exposure was also shown to DOUBLE the survival rates of those suffering from melanoma.
The more common (though less dangerous) forms of skin cancer – basal cell and squamous cell – are more closely associated with sun exposure than melanoma. But as you will see, the sun is merely the cofactor. It is our poor diet and nutritional deficiencies that make our skin prone to damage from UV rays.
The Role of Free Radicals in Skin Cancer
The underlying cause of most skin cancer is oxidative stress. Skin cells (like all healthy cells) are rich in oxygen. When the ultraviolet rays of the sun strike these oxygen molecules, they can cause some of them to lose an electron. The result is an unstable and reactive molecule – the oxygen free radical.
Antioxidants are free radical scavengers. These electron-rich molecules donate their electrons to free radicals, stabilizing them and preventing cellular damage.
But if antioxidants are in short supply, or if so many free radicals are formed that they overwhelm the antioxidant defense system, then tissue damage, accelerated aging, and eventually, degenerative disease (i.e., skin cancer) will occur.
The Dietary Connection to Skin Cancer
For millions of years, man thrived under the sun. And for all of that time, skin cancer was rare. It has only been in the last 70 years or so that the incidence has increased dramatically. There is a very simple explanation for this.
The standard American diet (which is rapidly becoming the world’s diet) is abundant in foods that promote the formation of free radicals… and it is deficient in the foods that provide antioxidant protection against these free radicals.
Besides the use of chemical sunscreens, the real causes for the rise in skin cancer are two primary changes in the modern diet:
1. A dramatic increase in the consumption of omega-6 fatty acids and a corresponding decrease in the consumption of omega-3s.
At the beginning of the 1900s there were almost no vegetable oils in our diet. Today, the average American consumes 70 pounds of vegetable fat. We are not designed to eat these fats in the quantities we do.
The makeup of fat in the human body is normally about 97% monounsaturated and saturated. Only about 3% should be polyunsaturated. But the fat in your diet dictates the type of fat in your cells. And if you consume plant oils, your cell membranes will incorporate these fat molecules.
The problem with polyunsaturated fats displacing saturated fats in cell structures is that these fats are highly unstable. This means that they are extremely vulnerable to oxidative stress, especially in the skin, where they are exposed to oxygen and UV light.
Numerous studies have also shown that polyunsaturated fats stimulate cancer while saturated fats do not, and further that saturated fats do not break down to form free radicals. The results of having too much vegetable, corn, and seed oil in the diet are that your skin will sunburn faster and more intensely and you will be more prone to skin cancer.
2. A lack of antioxidant-rich foods.
Research also shows that low consumption of fruits and vegetables increases your skin cancer risk. This should come as no surprise. The role of antioxidants in the protection against many forms of cancer has been clearly established. And it appears that these nutrients are especially protective against skin cancer.
Carotenoids are especially protective. These colorful plant pigments are literally Mother Nature’s sunblock. When you consume carotenoids they are deposited in your skin, where they provide protection against sunburn and skin damage. These nutrients are also powerful antioxidants that scavenge for free radicals and repair cells that might become damaged. You could say they reflect and protect, forming a physical barrier and a nutritional barrier against skin damage.
The leading sources of carotenoids are eggs, spirulina, chlorella, tomatoes, dark green leafy vegetables (kale, collards, and spinach), and yellow-orange fruits and vegetables (apricots, cantaloupe, carrots, sweet potatoes, yams, and squash).
To slow the aging of your skin and dramatically reduce your risk of skin cancer, you must gain control over all of the factors that contribute to the degeneration process. Don’t believe the hype that skin cancer is exclusively “caused” by the sun. The sun is your ally in good health… and used wisely, it can even provide powerful protection against skin cancer
To Your Health,
Jon Herring
Total Health Breakthroughs
http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.com/2010/03/the-skin-cancer-myth/
Thursday, March 11, 2010
I-Natural and Natural Radiance Tanning Products
I - Natural
The exclusive Pure Melanocyte Energizer stimulates the highest levels of natural Melanin production, intense natural moisturizers/energizers produce subtle, helathy looking skin. Infused with Aloe, Shea Butter, Hemp Extract, Sunflower Oil and other "friendly" ingredients, the use of I-Natural results in beautiful tanning with a maximum use of plant based, efficacious ingredients.
Natural Radiance
The Natural way to a rich golden tan and exceptional, healthy looking, radiant skin. This soothing, Tan Enhancer Bronzer combines the benefits of organic poisturizers, soy extracts, geranium extract, natural bronzers, and melanocyte accelerators to produce a rich, bronze tan, and exceptional smooth skin. Avaiable in pure lotion, natural bronzer, and dry oil spray.
The exclusive Pure Melanocyte Energizer stimulates the highest levels of natural Melanin production, intense natural moisturizers/energizers produce subtle, helathy looking skin. Infused with Aloe, Shea Butter, Hemp Extract, Sunflower Oil and other "friendly" ingredients, the use of I-Natural results in beautiful tanning with a maximum use of plant based, efficacious ingredients.
Natural Radiance
The Natural way to a rich golden tan and exceptional, healthy looking, radiant skin. This soothing, Tan Enhancer Bronzer combines the benefits of organic poisturizers, soy extracts, geranium extract, natural bronzers, and melanocyte accelerators to produce a rich, bronze tan, and exceptional smooth skin. Avaiable in pure lotion, natural bronzer, and dry oil spray.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Scientists find why "sunshine" vitamin D is crucial
Scientists find why "sunshine" vitamin D is crucial
Kate Kelland
LONDON
Sun Mar 7, 2010 1:12pm EST
LONDON (Reuters) - Vitamin D is vital in activating human defenses and low levels suffered by around half the world's population may mean their immune systems' killer T cells are poor at fighting infection, scientists said on Sunday.
The findings by Danish researchers could help the fight against infectious diseases and global epidemics, they said, and could be particularly useful in the search for new vaccines.
The researchers found that immune systems' killer cells, known as T cells, rely on vitamin D to become active and remain dormant and unaware of the possibility of threat from an infection or pathogen if vitamin D is lacking in the blood.
"When a T cell is exposed to a foreign pathogen, it extends a signaling device or 'antenna' known as a vitamin D receptor, with which it searches for vitamin D," said Carsten Geisler of Copenhagen University's department of international health, immunology and microbiology, who led the study.
"This means the T cell must have vitamin D or activation of the cell will cease. If the T cells cannot find enough vitamin D in the blood, they won't even begin to mobilize."
Scientists have known for a long time that vitamin D is important for calcium absorption, and that there is a link between levels of the vitamin and diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis.
"What we didn't realize is how crucial vitamin D is for actually activating the immune system -- which we know now," Geisler wrote in the study in the journal Nature Immunology.
Most Vitamin D is made by the body as a natural by-product of the skin's exposure to sunlight. It can also be found in fish liver oil, eggs and fatty fish such as salmon, herring and mackerel, or taken as a supplement.
Almost half of the world's population has lower than optimal levels of vitamin D and scientists say the problem is getting worse as people spend more time indoors.
Geisler and his research team said the findings offered much needed information about the immune system and would be of particular use when developing new vaccines.
"This is important not only in fighting disease but also in dealing with anti-immune reactions of the body and the rejection of transplanted organs," they wrote.
Active T cells multiply at an explosive rate and as well as fighting infection, can also mistakenly attack the body itself.
After and an organ transplant, for example, T cells can attack the new organ as a "foreign invader," and in autoimmune disease, hypersensitive T cells mistake parts of the body's own cells as threats, prompting the body to attack itself.
Geisler said there were no definitive studies on the optimal daily vitamin D dose but experts recommend 25 to 50 micrograms.
Kate Kelland
LONDON
Sun Mar 7, 2010 1:12pm EST
LONDON (Reuters) - Vitamin D is vital in activating human defenses and low levels suffered by around half the world's population may mean their immune systems' killer T cells are poor at fighting infection, scientists said on Sunday.
The findings by Danish researchers could help the fight against infectious diseases and global epidemics, they said, and could be particularly useful in the search for new vaccines.
The researchers found that immune systems' killer cells, known as T cells, rely on vitamin D to become active and remain dormant and unaware of the possibility of threat from an infection or pathogen if vitamin D is lacking in the blood.
"When a T cell is exposed to a foreign pathogen, it extends a signaling device or 'antenna' known as a vitamin D receptor, with which it searches for vitamin D," said Carsten Geisler of Copenhagen University's department of international health, immunology and microbiology, who led the study.
"This means the T cell must have vitamin D or activation of the cell will cease. If the T cells cannot find enough vitamin D in the blood, they won't even begin to mobilize."
Scientists have known for a long time that vitamin D is important for calcium absorption, and that there is a link between levels of the vitamin and diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis.
"What we didn't realize is how crucial vitamin D is for actually activating the immune system -- which we know now," Geisler wrote in the study in the journal Nature Immunology.
Most Vitamin D is made by the body as a natural by-product of the skin's exposure to sunlight. It can also be found in fish liver oil, eggs and fatty fish such as salmon, herring and mackerel, or taken as a supplement.
Almost half of the world's population has lower than optimal levels of vitamin D and scientists say the problem is getting worse as people spend more time indoors.
Geisler and his research team said the findings offered much needed information about the immune system and would be of particular use when developing new vaccines.
"This is important not only in fighting disease but also in dealing with anti-immune reactions of the body and the rejection of transplanted organs," they wrote.
Active T cells multiply at an explosive rate and as well as fighting infection, can also mistakenly attack the body itself.
After and an organ transplant, for example, T cells can attack the new organ as a "foreign invader," and in autoimmune disease, hypersensitive T cells mistake parts of the body's own cells as threats, prompting the body to attack itself.
Geisler said there were no definitive studies on the optimal daily vitamin D dose but experts recommend 25 to 50 micrograms.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
What Vitamin D Means to Your Technology Profits
What Vitamin D Means to Your Technology Profits
Jan 27th, 2010 | By Patrick Cox | Category: Featured, Technology
leadimage
The “scientific consensus” that has held sway for four decades regarding both exposure to the sun and vitamin D has collapsed. What has emerged in place of the old “settled science” is the knowledge that most people in America are seriously vitamin D deficient or insufficient. The same is true for Canada and Europe, and the implications are staggering.
Simply put, unless you are one of the few people with optimal serum D levels, such as lifeguards and roofers in South Florida, you can cut your risks from most major diseases by 50 to 80 percent. All you have to do is get enough D. This also means we can significantly reduce healthcare costs by taking a few simple steps.
As a financial writer, I bemoan the fact that no one can patent sunshine. I’d buy stock in any company that did. Biotechs with therapies supported by far less evidence have exploded in value. GlaxoSmithKline, for example, bought Sirtris for $720 million to acquire IP for certain resveratrol-like substances. If you compare the evidence supporting the benefits of resveratrol vs. sunshine, sunshine leaves resveratrol in the dust.
I realize, incidentally, that such bold claims probably inspire skepticism. They should, in fact, and I’m going to make even more bold claims. So allow me to make the necessary disclaimers and move on.
I’ve come to the conclusions I’ve written here because my job, as a tech investment researcher, requires that I survey thousands of the most recent scientific studies. In the last few years, an overwhelming flood of new evidence has been produced supporting the view that the medical and nutritional establishments have been fundamentally wrong about vitamin D’s physiological role and optimal dosage.
If researchers on the cutting edge are right, the benefits of raising your serum D levels to about 40 ng/ml are enormous. If they are wrong, the risks associated of the recommended therapy are trivial if not nonexistent, especially if done through supplementation. This is simple Bayesian analysis.
What You Aren’t Being Told About Vitamin D
Behind the scenes even as I write today, the NIH is looking for a face-saving way to change positions on vitamin D without taking too much blame for having resisted those who have urged reassessment for decades.
The stakes are huge as are the benefits of attaining optimal vitamin D levels. The embarrassment for those who must admit past error, however, may be even greater. The reason is that untold millions have suffered and died prematurely because those who challenged the “settled science” regarding sunshine and D decades ago were treated like crackpots and demonized.
Now we know that very few people have optimal serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], the principal form of vitamin D circulating in the blood.
Dr. Michael Holick, the researcher most responsible for this radical change in thinking, has described the current state of widespread vitamin D deficiency as a “silent epidemic.”
Vitamin D deficiency is not one of those metaphoric “epidemics.” It is an extremely serious public health problem that affects virtually all diseases. To understand this change in thinking, we need to review briefly the history of vitamin D and our understanding of its function.
After Decades of Bumbling, One Researcher Strikes Out on His Own Path
In the 1890s, the bone-softening children’s disease rickets was still widespread in northern states, which has more pollution and a thicker ozone layer than the northwest. Ozone blocks the invisible component of sunshine, ultraviolet-B, which produces vitamin D in the skin.
In the early 1900s, it was demonstrated that summer midday sunshine prevented rickets. As a result, there was an effort to educate the public and nearly everybody learned that a little sunshine was good for you. If you’re of baby boom age, your mother undoubtedly told you to “go outside and get some sun.” That’s why.
Ironically, the beginning of the end of this attitude came in 1923 when a means of producing dietary D was found. UW-Madison biochemistry professor Harry Steenbock discovered that the vitamin D content of milk could be increased with ultraviolet (UV) irradiation. This led to the enrichment of milk and the near elimination of rickets. Slowly, the perception of sunshine as healthy began to fade.
For the most part, scientists lost interest in the biological role of sunshine for higher animals. Dr. Michael Holick was the notable exception. For the last thirty years, Holick has been gathering data, doing research and studying the role of sunshine and vitamin D.
When Science Overcomes Conventional Wisdom, Opportunities Pop Up
We now know, however, that D is not actually a vitamin. It is prohormone, meaning that it is a precursor form of a steroid hormone created by conversion in various organs. This active hormone acts to regulate multiple important biological functions. Every single cell in the body has a D receptor; even stem cells.
Holick, a professor of dermatology himself, lost his teaching position when he published his findings. When he wrote a book on the subject, he was targeted by a well-funded PR campaign, aimed at debunking him, by the leading dermatological organization.
Supposedly objective journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, refused to publish his exhaustively documented research; research now accepted as both accurate and pioneering.
About five years ago, the vitamin D climate began to change. Holick has finally begun to get the recognition he deserves and now serves on multiple prestigious boards as well as advising the NIH. He is, incidentally, Professor of Medicine, Physiology and Biophysics at the Boston University School of Medicine. Holick is also director of the General Clinical Research Center, the Vitamin D, Skin and Bone Research Laboratory and the Biologic Effects of Light Research Center at the Boston University Medical Center.
Holick explains that new breakthroughs in the biological sciences have helped him make his case. With the decoding of the human genome, for example, it now appears that a remarkable 2000 genes are influenced by vitamin D.
A Trend to Watch – Vitamin D Awareness and Opportunities for Investors
Optimal vitamin D serum blood levels, attained through sunlight or supplementation, dramatically reduces the risk of many diseases other than bone maladies. Many of the most serious are ameliorated by an astonishing 50 to 85 percent. These diseases include cancers, from breast and colon to deadly melanoma skin cancers.
Yes, that’s right. The really nasty skin cancers can be prevented by getting moderate, sensible sunshine or through vitamin D supplementation. Non-melanoma skin cancers do increase somewhat with sun exposure, especially with sunburns. These skin cancers, however, are relatively benign as they tend not to spread into other parts of the body. They are easily detected and removed because they appear on skin exposed to the sun.
Melanoma, on the other hand, is the deadly skin cancer that most people erroneously relate to sunshine. Melanomas, however, do not tend to occur on parts of the body that get direct sunlight. The bottom line, which is worth repeating, is that the incidence of truly nasty melanoma skin cancers goes down significantly with sensible exposure to UVB-containing sunshine or with vitamin D3 supplementation.
This is not the end of the list, though. The big killers and most expensive diseases respond similarly to adequate D. I’m talking about hypertension, cardiovascular disease and stroke. So do type 1 diabetes, type 2 to a lesser extent, rheumatoid arthritis, peripheral vascular disease, multiple sclerosis, dementia, autoimmune diseases and apparently even viral diseases such as H1N1 and AIDs.
I predict, in fact, that other diseases will also be linked to vitamin D insufficiencies as more studies are performed. I’ll keep you posted on any further developments I discover. In the meantime, you might benefit from doing some personal research on vitamin D.
Your body and your portfolio might thank you…
For transformational profits,
Patrick Cox
January 27, 2010
Jan 27th, 2010 | By Patrick Cox | Category: Featured, Technology
leadimage
The “scientific consensus” that has held sway for four decades regarding both exposure to the sun and vitamin D has collapsed. What has emerged in place of the old “settled science” is the knowledge that most people in America are seriously vitamin D deficient or insufficient. The same is true for Canada and Europe, and the implications are staggering.
Simply put, unless you are one of the few people with optimal serum D levels, such as lifeguards and roofers in South Florida, you can cut your risks from most major diseases by 50 to 80 percent. All you have to do is get enough D. This also means we can significantly reduce healthcare costs by taking a few simple steps.
As a financial writer, I bemoan the fact that no one can patent sunshine. I’d buy stock in any company that did. Biotechs with therapies supported by far less evidence have exploded in value. GlaxoSmithKline, for example, bought Sirtris for $720 million to acquire IP for certain resveratrol-like substances. If you compare the evidence supporting the benefits of resveratrol vs. sunshine, sunshine leaves resveratrol in the dust.
I realize, incidentally, that such bold claims probably inspire skepticism. They should, in fact, and I’m going to make even more bold claims. So allow me to make the necessary disclaimers and move on.
I’ve come to the conclusions I’ve written here because my job, as a tech investment researcher, requires that I survey thousands of the most recent scientific studies. In the last few years, an overwhelming flood of new evidence has been produced supporting the view that the medical and nutritional establishments have been fundamentally wrong about vitamin D’s physiological role and optimal dosage.
If researchers on the cutting edge are right, the benefits of raising your serum D levels to about 40 ng/ml are enormous. If they are wrong, the risks associated of the recommended therapy are trivial if not nonexistent, especially if done through supplementation. This is simple Bayesian analysis.
What You Aren’t Being Told About Vitamin D
Behind the scenes even as I write today, the NIH is looking for a face-saving way to change positions on vitamin D without taking too much blame for having resisted those who have urged reassessment for decades.
The stakes are huge as are the benefits of attaining optimal vitamin D levels. The embarrassment for those who must admit past error, however, may be even greater. The reason is that untold millions have suffered and died prematurely because those who challenged the “settled science” regarding sunshine and D decades ago were treated like crackpots and demonized.
Now we know that very few people have optimal serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], the principal form of vitamin D circulating in the blood.
Dr. Michael Holick, the researcher most responsible for this radical change in thinking, has described the current state of widespread vitamin D deficiency as a “silent epidemic.”
Vitamin D deficiency is not one of those metaphoric “epidemics.” It is an extremely serious public health problem that affects virtually all diseases. To understand this change in thinking, we need to review briefly the history of vitamin D and our understanding of its function.
After Decades of Bumbling, One Researcher Strikes Out on His Own Path
In the 1890s, the bone-softening children’s disease rickets was still widespread in northern states, which has more pollution and a thicker ozone layer than the northwest. Ozone blocks the invisible component of sunshine, ultraviolet-B, which produces vitamin D in the skin.
In the early 1900s, it was demonstrated that summer midday sunshine prevented rickets. As a result, there was an effort to educate the public and nearly everybody learned that a little sunshine was good for you. If you’re of baby boom age, your mother undoubtedly told you to “go outside and get some sun.” That’s why.
Ironically, the beginning of the end of this attitude came in 1923 when a means of producing dietary D was found. UW-Madison biochemistry professor Harry Steenbock discovered that the vitamin D content of milk could be increased with ultraviolet (UV) irradiation. This led to the enrichment of milk and the near elimination of rickets. Slowly, the perception of sunshine as healthy began to fade.
For the most part, scientists lost interest in the biological role of sunshine for higher animals. Dr. Michael Holick was the notable exception. For the last thirty years, Holick has been gathering data, doing research and studying the role of sunshine and vitamin D.
When Science Overcomes Conventional Wisdom, Opportunities Pop Up
We now know, however, that D is not actually a vitamin. It is prohormone, meaning that it is a precursor form of a steroid hormone created by conversion in various organs. This active hormone acts to regulate multiple important biological functions. Every single cell in the body has a D receptor; even stem cells.
Holick, a professor of dermatology himself, lost his teaching position when he published his findings. When he wrote a book on the subject, he was targeted by a well-funded PR campaign, aimed at debunking him, by the leading dermatological organization.
Supposedly objective journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, refused to publish his exhaustively documented research; research now accepted as both accurate and pioneering.
About five years ago, the vitamin D climate began to change. Holick has finally begun to get the recognition he deserves and now serves on multiple prestigious boards as well as advising the NIH. He is, incidentally, Professor of Medicine, Physiology and Biophysics at the Boston University School of Medicine. Holick is also director of the General Clinical Research Center, the Vitamin D, Skin and Bone Research Laboratory and the Biologic Effects of Light Research Center at the Boston University Medical Center.
Holick explains that new breakthroughs in the biological sciences have helped him make his case. With the decoding of the human genome, for example, it now appears that a remarkable 2000 genes are influenced by vitamin D.
A Trend to Watch – Vitamin D Awareness and Opportunities for Investors
Optimal vitamin D serum blood levels, attained through sunlight or supplementation, dramatically reduces the risk of many diseases other than bone maladies. Many of the most serious are ameliorated by an astonishing 50 to 85 percent. These diseases include cancers, from breast and colon to deadly melanoma skin cancers.
Yes, that’s right. The really nasty skin cancers can be prevented by getting moderate, sensible sunshine or through vitamin D supplementation. Non-melanoma skin cancers do increase somewhat with sun exposure, especially with sunburns. These skin cancers, however, are relatively benign as they tend not to spread into other parts of the body. They are easily detected and removed because they appear on skin exposed to the sun.
Melanoma, on the other hand, is the deadly skin cancer that most people erroneously relate to sunshine. Melanomas, however, do not tend to occur on parts of the body that get direct sunlight. The bottom line, which is worth repeating, is that the incidence of truly nasty melanoma skin cancers goes down significantly with sensible exposure to UVB-containing sunshine or with vitamin D3 supplementation.
This is not the end of the list, though. The big killers and most expensive diseases respond similarly to adequate D. I’m talking about hypertension, cardiovascular disease and stroke. So do type 1 diabetes, type 2 to a lesser extent, rheumatoid arthritis, peripheral vascular disease, multiple sclerosis, dementia, autoimmune diseases and apparently even viral diseases such as H1N1 and AIDs.
I predict, in fact, that other diseases will also be linked to vitamin D insufficiencies as more studies are performed. I’ll keep you posted on any further developments I discover. In the meantime, you might benefit from doing some personal research on vitamin D.
Your body and your portfolio might thank you…
For transformational profits,
Patrick Cox
January 27, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Dr. claims Breast cancer virtually "eradicated" with higher levels of vitamin D
Breast cancer virtually "eradicated" with higher levels of vitamin D
(NaturalNews) In a gathering of vitamin D researchers recently held in Toronto, Dr. Cedric Garland delivered a blockbuster announcement: Breast cancer can be virtually "eradicated" by raising vitamin D levels.
Vitamin D is "the cure" for breast cancer that the cancer industry ridiculously claims to be searching for. The cure already exists! But the breast cancer industry simply refuses to acknowledge any "cure" that doesn't involve mammography, chemotherapy or high-profit pharmaceuticals.
Vitamin D is finally gaining some of the recognition it deserves as a miraculous anti-cancer nutrient. It is the solution for cancer prevention. It could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the U.S. alone. Even Dr. Andrew Weil recently raised his recommendation of vitamin D to 2,000 IU per day.
This is the vitamin that could destroy the cancer industry and save millions of women from the degrading, harmful cancer "treatments" pushed by conventional medicine. No wonder they don't want to talk about it! The cancer industry would prefer to keep women ignorant about this vitamin that could save their breasts and their lives.
Below I'm reprinting the full statement from Dr. Cedric Garland following the Vitamin D conference recently held in Toronto.
Statement from Dr. Cedric Garland
Breast cancer is a disease so directly related to vitamin D deficiency that a woman's risk of contracting the disease can be 'virtually eradicated' by elevating her vitamin D status to what vitamin D scientists consider to be natural blood levels.
That's the message vitamin D pioneer Dr. Cedric Garland delivered in Toronto Tuesday as part of the University of Toronto School of Medicine's "Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency" conference - the largest gathering of vitamin D researchers in North America this year. More than 170 researchers, public health officials and health practitioners gathered at the UT Faculty club for the landmark event.
Garland's presentation headlined a conference that reviewed many aspects of the emerging vitamin D research field - a booming discipline that has seen more than 3,000 academic papers this calendar year alone, conference organizers said. That makes vitamin D by far the most prolific topic in medicine this year, with work connecting it with risk reduction in two dozen forms of cancer, heart disease, multiple scleroses and many other disorders.
Dr. Reinhold Vieth, Associate Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at University of Toronto, and Director of the Bone and Mineral Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital, organized the event in conjunction with Grassroots Health - an international vitamin D advocacy group founded by breast cancer survivor Carole Baggerly.
Baggerly implored the research group to take action and encourage Canadians to learn more about vitamin D and to raise their vitamin D levels.
An estimated 22,700 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009, according to the Canadian Cancer Society's latest figures.
As much as 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient at some point in the year, according to University of Calgary research - largely due to Canada's northerly latitudes and weak sun exposure. Sunshine is by far the most abundant source of vitamin D - called 'The Sunshine Vitamin' - with salmon and fortified milk being other sources. Vitamin D supplementation helps raise levels for many as well.
Grassroots Health's "D-action" panel - 30 of the world's leading researchers on vitamin D and many other vitamin D supporters - recommend 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily and vitamin D blood levels of 100-150 nanomoles-per-liter as measured by a vitamin D blood test.
http://www.naturalnews.com/028119_vitamin_D_brst_cancer.html
(NaturalNews) In a gathering of vitamin D researchers recently held in Toronto, Dr. Cedric Garland delivered a blockbuster announcement: Breast cancer can be virtually "eradicated" by raising vitamin D levels.
Vitamin D is "the cure" for breast cancer that the cancer industry ridiculously claims to be searching for. The cure already exists! But the breast cancer industry simply refuses to acknowledge any "cure" that doesn't involve mammography, chemotherapy or high-profit pharmaceuticals.
Vitamin D is finally gaining some of the recognition it deserves as a miraculous anti-cancer nutrient. It is the solution for cancer prevention. It could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the U.S. alone. Even Dr. Andrew Weil recently raised his recommendation of vitamin D to 2,000 IU per day.
This is the vitamin that could destroy the cancer industry and save millions of women from the degrading, harmful cancer "treatments" pushed by conventional medicine. No wonder they don't want to talk about it! The cancer industry would prefer to keep women ignorant about this vitamin that could save their breasts and their lives.
Below I'm reprinting the full statement from Dr. Cedric Garland following the Vitamin D conference recently held in Toronto.
Statement from Dr. Cedric Garland
Breast cancer is a disease so directly related to vitamin D deficiency that a woman's risk of contracting the disease can be 'virtually eradicated' by elevating her vitamin D status to what vitamin D scientists consider to be natural blood levels.
That's the message vitamin D pioneer Dr. Cedric Garland delivered in Toronto Tuesday as part of the University of Toronto School of Medicine's "Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency" conference - the largest gathering of vitamin D researchers in North America this year. More than 170 researchers, public health officials and health practitioners gathered at the UT Faculty club for the landmark event.
Garland's presentation headlined a conference that reviewed many aspects of the emerging vitamin D research field - a booming discipline that has seen more than 3,000 academic papers this calendar year alone, conference organizers said. That makes vitamin D by far the most prolific topic in medicine this year, with work connecting it with risk reduction in two dozen forms of cancer, heart disease, multiple scleroses and many other disorders.
Dr. Reinhold Vieth, Associate Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at University of Toronto, and Director of the Bone and Mineral Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital, organized the event in conjunction with Grassroots Health - an international vitamin D advocacy group founded by breast cancer survivor Carole Baggerly.
Baggerly implored the research group to take action and encourage Canadians to learn more about vitamin D and to raise their vitamin D levels.
An estimated 22,700 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009, according to the Canadian Cancer Society's latest figures.
As much as 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient at some point in the year, according to University of Calgary research - largely due to Canada's northerly latitudes and weak sun exposure. Sunshine is by far the most abundant source of vitamin D - called 'The Sunshine Vitamin' - with salmon and fortified milk being other sources. Vitamin D supplementation helps raise levels for many as well.
Grassroots Health's "D-action" panel - 30 of the world's leading researchers on vitamin D and many other vitamin D supporters - recommend 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily and vitamin D blood levels of 100-150 nanomoles-per-liter as measured by a vitamin D blood test.
http://www.naturalnews.com/028119_vitamin_D_brst_cancer.html
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
D is the new C: Sunshine vitamin is suddenly hot
D is the new C: Sunshine vitamin is suddenly hot
Sales of once-neglected nutrient eclipse those of vitamin C for the first time, suppliers say
Martin Mittelstaedt and Anna Mehler Paperny
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published on Friday, Jan. 08, 2010 12:03AM EST
Last updated on Friday, Jan. 08, 2010 2:56AM EST
.Vitamin D used to be the Rodney Dangerfield of vitamins – often overlooked and certainly neglected by consumers.
But these days, with the sunshine vitamin hyped for everything from reducing the risk of cancer to boosting the immune system against the flu, Canadians are becoming a nation of vitamin D-poppers. The nutrient is flying off pharmacy shelves in amounts that are astonishing players in the nutritional supplement business.
Jamieson Laboratories, Canada's largest supplement maker, says its vitamin D sales eclipsed those of vitamin C for the first time ever last month, capping a year of huge growth for the product.
The company said its vitamin D shipments rose steadily month by month throughout last year to experience an eye-popping 300-per-cent increase in December over the same month in 2008. For the year as a whole, sales were up 24 per cent.
“It's just been unbelievable,” said Vic Neufeld, the company's president. He said Jamieson has never experienced a sales increase of this magnitude for a supplement that has been on the market for decades.
Shoppers Drug Mart spokeswoman Tammy Smitham said the store's sales of private-label vitamin D also experienced “substantial growth” last year, although she declined to reveal the percentage increase.
It was much the same story at Rexall. The Edmonton-based drugstore giant has seen an unprecedented spike in demand for the sunshine vitamin: It was the company's fastest growing vitamin category last year, jumping 34 per cent. Sales outpaced those of vitamin C by 28 per cent. Vitamin C, the erstwhile go-to vitamin supplement, is still seeing double-digit year-on-year growth.
Not only are Canadians purchasing more vitamin D pills, but increasingly they're popping the strongest doses they can get. Rexall spokeswoman Donna Araujo said sales for the company's strongest vitamin D pill, which contains a 1,000 international unit dose, grew 56 per cent in the last year.
Ms. Smitham of Shoppers attributed some of the rise to consumers taking vitamin D as a step to help fight the H1N1 flu, because sales of other natural products linked to influenza worries, such as echinacea, also rose.
But the rise in demand also comes as a flurry of research reports link low levels of vitamin D to a variety of ailments, including cancer, multiple sclerosis and diabetes.
Surveys of Canadians have found that at least a quarter of the population has insufficient levels of the nutrient, with 5 per cent of Canadians so deficient they risk developing bone disease. It doesn't help that residents of the Great White North have trouble getting enough of the vitamin naturally – exposing naked skin to powerful ultraviolet light – during dark fall and winter months.
Ms. Smitham said Shoppers has seen a seasonal spike in demand for vitamin D that reflects worries among some consumers that they're not getting enough of the sunshine vitamin in winter.
This coincides with research indicating people need much more daily vitamin D than Health Canada has been recommending: A study from the University of California, San Diego recommended doses as high as 2,000 international units a day – far more than the 200 to 600 governments recommend.
A few months ago, nutritionist Jennifer Trecartin would never have had people come to her Vancouver office asking about vitamin D, of all things. Now, it's all they want to talk about.
“There's been a huge demand: I see people that don't know much about anything saying, ‘I need my vitamin D, I've been told,'” she said. “It definitely would have a correlation with the whole H1N1 outbreak, and everyone working on enhancing their immune systems. ... Vitamin D kept coming up over and over again.”
The hype is warranted she said, especially given the new research pointing to the vitamin's utility beyond simply a bone-strength booster. Ms. Trecartin said she knows people who pop as much as 5,000 International Units of the vitamin, although she wouldn't recommend more than 2,000 daily.
The supplements are increasingly popular because although natural sunlight is still the best way, northern-hemisphere climates aren't conducive to long periods spent in weak sunlight. “It's definitely the ‘it' vitamin of the season.”
Canadians have been so eager to find out their blood levels of vitamin D that provinces are struggling to pay for a surge in demand for vitamin D tests. Last year, Ontario alone conducted more than 732,000 of the tests, which cost the province as much as $52 each when performed in private labs. Ontario's Health Ministry is reconsidering whether it's worth covering the cost of vitamin D tests for otherwise healthy individuals.
At the same time, harried but health-conscious Canadians are popping more vitamin supplements overall than ever before. Jamieson's Mr. Neufeld said 45 per cent of adult Canadians are taking some kind of vitamin supplement, compared with about 40 per cent a few years ago.
Sales of once-neglected nutrient eclipse those of vitamin C for the first time, suppliers say
Martin Mittelstaedt and Anna Mehler Paperny
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published on Friday, Jan. 08, 2010 12:03AM EST
Last updated on Friday, Jan. 08, 2010 2:56AM EST
.Vitamin D used to be the Rodney Dangerfield of vitamins – often overlooked and certainly neglected by consumers.
But these days, with the sunshine vitamin hyped for everything from reducing the risk of cancer to boosting the immune system against the flu, Canadians are becoming a nation of vitamin D-poppers. The nutrient is flying off pharmacy shelves in amounts that are astonishing players in the nutritional supplement business.
Jamieson Laboratories, Canada's largest supplement maker, says its vitamin D sales eclipsed those of vitamin C for the first time ever last month, capping a year of huge growth for the product.
The company said its vitamin D shipments rose steadily month by month throughout last year to experience an eye-popping 300-per-cent increase in December over the same month in 2008. For the year as a whole, sales were up 24 per cent.
“It's just been unbelievable,” said Vic Neufeld, the company's president. He said Jamieson has never experienced a sales increase of this magnitude for a supplement that has been on the market for decades.
Shoppers Drug Mart spokeswoman Tammy Smitham said the store's sales of private-label vitamin D also experienced “substantial growth” last year, although she declined to reveal the percentage increase.
It was much the same story at Rexall. The Edmonton-based drugstore giant has seen an unprecedented spike in demand for the sunshine vitamin: It was the company's fastest growing vitamin category last year, jumping 34 per cent. Sales outpaced those of vitamin C by 28 per cent. Vitamin C, the erstwhile go-to vitamin supplement, is still seeing double-digit year-on-year growth.
Not only are Canadians purchasing more vitamin D pills, but increasingly they're popping the strongest doses they can get. Rexall spokeswoman Donna Araujo said sales for the company's strongest vitamin D pill, which contains a 1,000 international unit dose, grew 56 per cent in the last year.
Ms. Smitham of Shoppers attributed some of the rise to consumers taking vitamin D as a step to help fight the H1N1 flu, because sales of other natural products linked to influenza worries, such as echinacea, also rose.
But the rise in demand also comes as a flurry of research reports link low levels of vitamin D to a variety of ailments, including cancer, multiple sclerosis and diabetes.
Surveys of Canadians have found that at least a quarter of the population has insufficient levels of the nutrient, with 5 per cent of Canadians so deficient they risk developing bone disease. It doesn't help that residents of the Great White North have trouble getting enough of the vitamin naturally – exposing naked skin to powerful ultraviolet light – during dark fall and winter months.
Ms. Smitham said Shoppers has seen a seasonal spike in demand for vitamin D that reflects worries among some consumers that they're not getting enough of the sunshine vitamin in winter.
This coincides with research indicating people need much more daily vitamin D than Health Canada has been recommending: A study from the University of California, San Diego recommended doses as high as 2,000 international units a day – far more than the 200 to 600 governments recommend.
A few months ago, nutritionist Jennifer Trecartin would never have had people come to her Vancouver office asking about vitamin D, of all things. Now, it's all they want to talk about.
“There's been a huge demand: I see people that don't know much about anything saying, ‘I need my vitamin D, I've been told,'” she said. “It definitely would have a correlation with the whole H1N1 outbreak, and everyone working on enhancing their immune systems. ... Vitamin D kept coming up over and over again.”
The hype is warranted she said, especially given the new research pointing to the vitamin's utility beyond simply a bone-strength booster. Ms. Trecartin said she knows people who pop as much as 5,000 International Units of the vitamin, although she wouldn't recommend more than 2,000 daily.
The supplements are increasingly popular because although natural sunlight is still the best way, northern-hemisphere climates aren't conducive to long periods spent in weak sunlight. “It's definitely the ‘it' vitamin of the season.”
Canadians have been so eager to find out their blood levels of vitamin D that provinces are struggling to pay for a surge in demand for vitamin D tests. Last year, Ontario alone conducted more than 732,000 of the tests, which cost the province as much as $52 each when performed in private labs. Ontario's Health Ministry is reconsidering whether it's worth covering the cost of vitamin D tests for otherwise healthy individuals.
At the same time, harried but health-conscious Canadians are popping more vitamin supplements overall than ever before. Jamieson's Mr. Neufeld said 45 per cent of adult Canadians are taking some kind of vitamin supplement, compared with about 40 per cent a few years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)