Melanoma rates are increasing in indoor workers but not those who work outdoors. Glass blocks UVB light but not UVA. D3 is stored in the skin and calcitriol, the active form of vitamin D, has many anti-cancer properties.

It looks increasing likely that UVA causes melanoma and UVB curtails it. Take one away, by working indoors, or have too much UVA, by using tanning beds which have a higher percentage of UVA, and the risk of melanoma increases.

Before sunlight is abandoned, research needs to establish if vitamin D supplementation is equivalent to UVB D3 for protection against melanoma (and other morbidities) and does supplementation protect against UVA when working indoors without increased pigmentation from a summer tan?

The ‘elephant is in the room’ is that evolution selected paler skin for living at latitude. It is highly likely that skin colour is matched with the UV exposure of a location for exposure typical of a pre-modern lifestyle. If sunlight was so terrible and had no benefits then we’d all be dark-skinned.

I “am” doubting the science you are using to prove some of these claims. What you are presenting as proof is not valid science. Much of what you are writing sounds like the rhetoric that is written in Dr. Michael F. Holick’s book, “The UV Advantage”.

Melanoma was almost unheard of when people covered up from the sun and until 20 years after vitamin D through sun exposure (which was also added to the milk) was discovered to prevent rickets, the amount of time it usually takes Melanoma to develop.

I know there are a number of other scientists claiming the same conclusions about vitamin D3 through UVB exposure but Holick and or the Garland Brothers are used as a reference in most of their research.

Holick has been busy making a name for himself for years and presents himself as the respected vitamin D scientist but further investigation on my part, as well as others, tells me he is being paid thousands of dollars by the tanning bed industry, among other things.

I’ve been investigating this issue for many years. I’ve read countless scientific studies on both sides of the topic and also many different kinds of studies. I was hoping that a small amount of sun was a good thing but the credible evidence is clear. UVR “does” cause cancer. No ifs, ands or buts.

Also, I’ve been taking about 1000 IU’s of vitamin D for 37 years because I think vitamin D is very important and it was “easy” to get enough, even when I was very poor. You can also irridate vedgetables, like mushrooms and get 100% of the daily value.

Most people now days don’t drink milk; they drink soda-pop. I think it is a likely cause of the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency.

I used to believe that a little sun was good until I came down with an auto-immune disease, Ankylosing Spondylitis and a skin disease, Melasma. I had to stay out of the sun and wear a hat and I was not happy about it.

I have stayed out of the sun with sunscreen and a hat for 26 years. I had a complete bone composition test that proved my bones are in excellent condition. That alone tells a story. And before, when I was getting a little sun, my auto-immune disease would flare up and I would get sick.

If Dr. Holick was correct in any of his UVR theories, I wouldn’t be so healthy now. And my mother’s family, who still believes a little sun is necessary, have had everything that the UVR theory proclaims to prevent. My very health conscious “thin” mother came down with invasive breast cancer.

At this point, I can’t understand why anyone would risk radiation, that does cause cancer, because they think the only “real” protection against disease is from vitamin D3 through UVB exposure, the burning rays..The average life span was only 49 years at the turn of the 20th century. Skin cancer and other cancers usually don’t show up until after age 50..It’s not smart to risk skin cancer and auto-immune suppression now days when we know how to “safely” get vitamin D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeXtGHSt-5o

The main points are that melanoma is the most dangerous form of skin cancer and that it’s occurence has risen far too much to be explained by increased sun exposure alone. The main question is that how changed habits aka HOW people get their sun exposure explain this and how sunscreens do seem to associate with an increase on melanoma occurence.

People who get their “sun fix” too fast and are exposured to mostly UVA without enough UVB radiation are in the melanoma risk zone, or so it seems. For example, wind shields of cars let some UVA through but none UVB.

The fact that UVB is very easy to block may be the main problem, because UVA is what causes the most problems _in absence of_ protective vitamin D (and therefore also melanin) on the skin.

It’s too bad that seemingly smart people steer others in dangerous directions. My hope is to save someone from the agony of cancer caused by UV Radiation and to take the time to find reputable information. It is not an easy task to find it on the internet.

There are many more skin cancers than any other type of cancer. The evidence is mounting against all radiation, especially the sun. UVR hurts immunity and damages the DNA of the skin. These two factors contribute to cancer. I’ve read that most cancers and STDs start in, or right after the summer because of lowered immunity.

These crusaders promoting sun exposure to be healthy are fighting against the very people who have been saving lives because of their personal dedication to finding the truth with the ongoing science that follows the “logical sequence of facts”.

Bottom line: All radiation is cumulative and most of us have already had way too much..

“The American Cancer Society says over and over that the number one risk factor for cancer is obesity. Other factors at the top of the list are cigarette smoke and radiation.”

Obesity also seems to count for whopping 90% of variance regarding to Vitamin D dosing. So obese people may need even 10 times more vitamin D than thin people. Their bodies may use it more, but the real problem is that vitamin D binding protein “devours” cholecalsiferol to adipose tissue, where it remains fairly inactive. So real storage for vitamin d seems to be blood serum, in my eyes, for most people. And you MUST get the raw material, Vitamin D, pretty much all the time, probably preferably to the levels that nature uses. I have my take on that “nature” later in this post.

Regarding obesity, vitamin D has been linked to secretion and sensitivity of adinopectin ja leptin – two hormones that seem to affect fat metabolism ja hunger sensations greatly. People tend to be thinner during summer and fatter during winter. This has been observed in cultures that do not “take sun” compared to outdoor cultures. The Arabi women with their burkhas are often obese, believe me.

People who get cancer diagnosis during summer seem to have several times better prognosis than those who are diagnozed during winter. This has been shown over and over and realistically, the ONLY reasonable theory for this phenomenon revolves over Vitamin D.

“It’s easy to get your Vitamin D from food and or supplements!”

If and when we actually open our eyes for a second, what dose do you think that is relevant to human physiology – the “healthy level”? Do you realy think “we” are getting enough D3 from fish, milk and such? The dose we get from food is around 400-600 IU per day, which in my book is a dangerous joke. So supplements are a must and those supplements must be high-dose ones.

Heaney et al. did a landmark study in 2003, when they discovered that healthy humans use between 3000–5000 IU of vitamin D a day (if they can get it). This is approximately 10 times more than what the Food and Nutrition Board says is adequate intake. What’s even more interesting, Heaney himself commented that 3000-5000 IU still counts for only about 80% of vitamin D what we actually physiologically need.

I must assert that any talk about Vitamin D should maintain a context that takes it’s unique pharmacological profile into conversation.

Intentional, full-body sun exposure generates 10 000 – 50 000 IU vitamin D via minimal erythmeral dose towards maximum of several doses, ie the level that makes skin pink before burning.

Creighton trial was impressive, yet I think that unusually high rates of cancer in plasebo group could also be interpreted that vitamin D may have properties that make it even more versatile in cancer prevention. That is, if we believe that calcium alone ja vitamin D:s ability to help calcium bioavailability and absorption wasn’t the reason for diminished cancer count, why anyone wasn’t critisizing the STILL minuscule dose of 2000+ IU? Human body USES and very probably NEEDS at least 3 three to six times that amount, daily.

Where does the “excess” go to? Any ideas? It kills cancer cells! And we know several mechanisms as well. This isn’t rocket science.

I happen to have Crohn’s disease and as Ollie revealed, there are several clinical trials going on vitamin D as a possibel denominator in Crohn’s. Nice to know!

My Crohn’s went to 95% remission when I started to take vitamin D 100-200 µg per day and the change was fast – far faster (8-10 times) than on immunosuppressants. I even had brakes for several weeks 5-6 times and the effect was obvious, every time! More symptoms (even to the stage of going to hospital) when I was off, much less when start taking D3. Of course, no doctor here in my country wants I use or recommend vitamin D physiological doses, because vast majority of doctors still DO NOT read nothing about vitamin D, because it’s not a drug, it’s a vitamin. And vitamins overall are not hot topic these days.

Crohn’s disease is associated with the rise of TNF-alfa activity. Vitamin D affects (dangerously high) pro-inflammatory cytokine TNF-alfa levels in vitro and in vivo, even in humans. Actually, some of the most expensive medications on market for Crohn’s, the biological antibodies like infliximabi and adalimumabi, do the same thing and nothing else. Vitamin D on the other hand, IS a hormone after metabolizing process in the liver and has as many mechanisms of action as over 2000 genes it regulates.

Another epidemiological study came out just 3 months ago which positively linked Crohn’s with lack of sunlight (read: latitude). Somehow I’m not surprised.

Speaking from the topic again, vitamin D may lessen the risk of colon cancer far more than 5-ASA medications, which doctors recommended for years JUST FOR THAT effect on Crohn’s.

I could go on and on. Oliver’s great former text compared adequate sunlight exposure in Scotland and it’s calculated melanoma risk to vitamin D:s positive effect on falls and fractures. The comparison effect was 2000:1 in favor of sunlight/vitamin D. In EU, the same rate could be counted to be 160 billion euros per year. In Canada alone, providing people enough vitamin D would be about 8 billion dollars. Take your pick.

Now that vitamin D deficiency has been established (Mofazzarian et al.) as an INDEPENDENT and strong risk factor coronary heart disease, what are we waiting for here?

I could waste my time ranting about single effects of D3 but instead I pledge you to read just HOW far the vitamin D science has gone – mostly in the last 15 years. The results are nothing short of staggering:

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/research.shtml

One last point on Vitamin D i want to make is it’s cutaneous production rate from sun. Prepare to be surprised:

“Studies show that if you go out in the summer sun in your bathing suit until your skin just begins to turn pink, you make between 10,000 and 50,000 units (250-1000 µg/d) of cholecalciferol in your skin. Professor Michael Holick of Boston University School of Medicine has studied this extensively and believes a reasonable average of all the studies is 20,000 units. (500 µg) That means a few minutes in the summer sun produces 100 times more vitamin D than the government says you need!”

Talking about any studies done on 10 µg (or 400 IU) doses, I would say just one thing:

“HOAX”

Science can’t afford another scientist like Pauling. This type of evidence is dangerous. If what Dr. Gillie proclaims is true, for example, why are many of the new cases of Melanoma coming from young people who were regularly using tanning booths?

If you want the real scientific facts, go to skincancer.org or The American Cancer Society, cancer.org. Dr. Pauling died of cancer. And The American Cancer Society wrote that other vitamins, like beta carotene and folate, that were promoted in the past, actually caused more cancers!

Dr. Len Lichtenfeld from ACS wrote: “If we hadn’t done the research, we would all be taking large doses of vitamin C to prevent cancer (it doesn’t). We would never have found out that beta carotene leads to an increased risk of lung cancer in heavy smokers. We wouldn’t know that vitamin E and selenium–alone or in combination–did nothing to reduce prostate cancer in men. First folate was reported to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. More recently, some research suggests that folate may promote polyp growth for people who already have colon polyps possibly resulting in an increased risk of colon cancer. Next on my list is vitamin D. Maybe we are looking for cancer prevention in all the wrong places.”

I am not only motivated by personal cases of Melanoma, which did not follow the protocol that Dr. Gillie presents. I am baffled by the collection of so-called wisdom of junk science and the countless people hurt by it in my 56 years of life.

And it wasn’t that long ago that cigarette companies had a host of doctors telling the public that cigarettes do not cause cancer.

The average person does not have time to do all of the research to make logical decisions about their health. And the vitamin D hype is a sea of madness when you try and find reputable information from the internet. This is truely scary!

Dr. Mercola, internet, modern day, snake oil salesman is selling sun lamps so people can get the natural vitamin D that you need to protect against cancer? Bullcrap…Junk science.

Another example of the “ecological fallacy” and an explicit non sequitur to go with it.

“In short the explanation most consistent with all the facts we have is that melanoma is caused by burning of the skin by sun in people with low vitamin D levels.”

/Most/ consistent? An explanation is either consistent with the facts or it is wrong. If it is consistent, that still doesn’t make it correct – another non sequitur.

“It seems that vitamin D, obtained mostly from sun exposure, prevents melanoma in the same way that the vitamin prevents a number of other cancers. … Some 25 trials of vitamin D for prevention of cancer have been registered…. We don’t know the results of these trials yet.”

One of us seems to!

—-

@Ed: (“Much of the evidence that vitamin D could protect against cancer comes from studies looking at how rates of different cancers change depending on where in the world you live. These studies are called “ecological studies…”)

*shakes head in disbelief*