Sunlight Could Reduce Death Rate From All Causes

By Heather Callaghan

Here’s something I never thought we’d hear in this lifetime:

We suspect that the benefits to heart health of sunlight will outweigh the risk of skin cancer.

A lot of us are secretly, boldly basking for reasons like vitamin D, mood enhancement, happiness, skin issues, liver health, pain and more. Now there’s never a reason to fear harm or feel guilty – you could save your heart – and prevent an untimely death!

The espoused fear for about 50 years has been skin cancer rates (which continue to rise), but researchers are finally surmising that years of hiding from the sun could lead to increased heart attacks – a much sooner demise than the risk of skin cancer in later years. Sunlight does so much more than vitamin D production.

A recent landmark study could turn the modern thought on sun exposure right on its head…

UK scientists from the University of Edinburgh discovered that when sunlight touches our skin it releases a compound in our blood called nitric oxide. This helps lower blood pressure and protect the heart from disease, cardiac arrest, strokes, and attacks. 


Senior Lecturer in Dermatology, Richard Weller, and his colleagues believe there is such a greater effect overall from the sun in reducing life shortening events like strokes and heart attacks, that sun bathing should not only be “risked” but incorporated into a healthy lifestyle. There was such proof and such emphasis that the world’s largest gathering of skin experts flocked to hear about it recently at the International Investigative Dermatology event in Edinburgh.

The main emphasis is sunlight for heart health. They have connected some interesting dots:

  • Heart disease and high blood pressure rise in winter time
  • Heart issues correlate with location. Example: higher rates of problems in Northern Europe versus Southern Europe
  • Anywhere between 60 to 100 people die from strokes and heart disease for every person who dies from skin cancer (at least in Europe)
  • Vitamin D can lower heart disease rates but not so much with store bought supplements – it’s sun-induced vitamin D
  • However, this production of nitric oxide is completely separate from vitamin D production, so it’s something about sun-induced nitric oxide that is badly needed for heart health – does not come from vitamin D supplements
  • In past studies, sunlight has been found to zap infectious disease like chicken pox

A couple dozen volunteers basked in two separate 20 minute sunlamp sessions; one with only heat and one session with heat plus both types of UV rays. Blood pressure sank and heart rates rose for the UV session only – and the lowered blood pressure lasted for almost an hour. 

Weller, certain that overall benefits far outweigh cancer risks, also said:

The work we have done provides a mechanism that might account for this, and also explains why dietary vitamin D supplements alone will not be able to compensate for lack of sunlight. 

If this confirms that sunlight reduces the death rate from all causes, we will need to reconsider our advice on sun exposure. [emphasis added]

This study that was published in Journal of Investigative Dermatology in April was done with sun lamps – so you can imagine reaping the natural benefits of Good Ol’ Mr. Golden Sun. Sunlamps did not produce vitamin D. Get the real deal, and not that God-forsaken chemical spray that makes people look like Oompa-Loompa Kardashians.

The sun is sexy again – just don’t want to barbecue that lovely skin. Please avoid any sunblock containing these chemicals – nanoparticles are on the rise, which means they can penetrate further into skin and blood. Have fun and make your own natural sunscreen and use after you get some pure sunshine.


Can a Tanning Bed Be Healthy?

Are Tanning Beds Safe?

UVB is the type of ultraviolet light that causes your skin to convert cholesterol into vitamin D. It is possible to get UVB from a tanning bed, but the EMFs produced by magnetic ballasts used by the vast majority of tanning beds are of major concern. You want to make sure you’re using a tanning bed that employs newer electronic ballasts, which virtually eliminate this risk and are safe. They also use about 30 percent less electricity and produce more light, so they are far more economical to run.

But doesn’t ultraviolet light cause melanoma?

Rates of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, have been rising for at least the last three decades, and this increase has been largely blamed on exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun.However, research published in the British Journal of Dermatology1 shows that the sun is likely nothing more than a scapegoat in the development of melanoma, and the sharp increase may actually be “an artifact caused by diagnostic drift.”Researchers believe the rising rates of melanoma are due to an increase in diagnoses of non-cancerous lesions classified, misleadingly, as “stage 1 melanoma.”

Exposure to sunlight, particularly UVB, is actually protective against melanoma—or rather, the vitamin D your body produces in response to UVB radiation is protective.

Oral Vitamin D Supplementation

If natural sunlight exposure or a safe tanning bed are both unavailable to you, then the third option is to take an oral vitamin D supplement, in the form of vitamin D3. The oral non-sulfated form of vitamin D might not provide all of the same benefits as the vitamin D created in your skin from sun exposure, as it cannot be converted to vitamin D sulfate. However, an oral supplement is better than no vitamin D at all.

Based on the research available as of 2011,it appears as though most adults need about 8,000 IU’s of vitamin D daily in order to get their serum levels above 40 ng/ml. In 2007 the recommended level was between 40 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). Since then, the optimal vitamin D level has been raised to 50-70 ng/ml, and when treating cancer or heart disease, as high as 70-100 ng/ml. This means your risk of overdosing is very slim, even if you take 8,000 IU’s of vitamin D3 a day.

vitamin d levels

I recommend having your vitamin D level regularly tested (it’s a blood test) to make sure you’re within the therapeutic range. Your physician can do this for you, or another alternative is to join the D*Action study. D*Action is a worldwide public health campaign aiming to solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic through focus on testing, education, and grassroots word of mouth. For more information about D*Action, please see this link.

The Perils of Vitamin D Deficiency

There are only about 25,000 genes in your body, and vitamin D has been shown to influence about 3,000 of them. That is one of the primary reasons it influences so many diseases (as seen in the table below).

 Cancer  Hypertension  Heart disease
 Autism  Obesity  Rheumatoid arthritis
 Diabetes 1 and 2  Multiple Sclerosis  Crohn’s disease
 Flu  Colds  Tuberculosis
 Septicemia  Aging  Psoriasis
 Eczema  Insomnia  Hearing loss
 Muscle pain  Cavities  Periodontal disease
 Athletic performance  Macular degeneration  Myopia
 Preeclampsia  Seizures  Fertility
 Asthma  Cystic fibrosis  Migraines
 Depression  Alzheimer’s disease  Schizophrenia

Vitamin D really isn’t a vitamin at all, but rather a potent neuroregulatory steroidal hormone. It has become very clear that vitamin D deficiency is a growing epidemic across the world and is contributing to many chronic debilitating diseases.

By: Dr. Mercola

Tanning Truths


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 2009New 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 invitamin 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.

Article by: Huffington Post – Sting Catches Dermatology Lies

A Message From George


Got your Attention!  Just like the pernicious headlines that declared, “Tanning is as dangerous as arsenic and mustard gas”, this past summer and again as we approach the coming of spring; it is truthful if one engages in yellow or tabloid journalism.  Using the same mis-leading criteria provided by IARC (International Agency For Research On Cancer), red wine along with beer, birth control pills, salted fish, arsenic, mustard gas, tobacco, sunlight and the list goes on and on, are all carcinogens.  They all have been placed in a like category.  But in what context?  Most of the aforementioned could become potentially dangerous if not used properly.  What wasn’t brought out, was that only when excessive or abusive use or behavior was considered did they become carcinogenic.

Please forgive the digression to make the point of how some research is agenda driven.  Like the so-called global warming researchers out of the University of East Anglia in England; IARC also works under the United Nations.   The track record of any affiliation with the U.N. begs closer scrutiny.  Just ask climate scientist Phil Jones who has taken a leave of absence in disgrace when he and his conspirator’s e-mails disclosed deceptions, omissions, suppressions, assumptions and blatant falsifications.  And usually there are large sums of money involved with the predisposed agenda.  Is it any wonder that according to a current Rasmussen Poll, 58 percent of us believe science is manipulated?

The misinformation campaigns waged by anti-sun profiteers has grown into a $35 billion cosmeceutial skin care industry.  In March of 2008 The ACS (The American Cancer Society) and AAD (The American Academy of Dermatology) came under fire from doctors and researchers for allowing cosmetic and sunscreen manufacturers to use their logos on their products in exchange for millions of dollars in royalties.

New York dermthpathologist  Dr. Bernard Ackerman, the foremost pioneer in this field stated it’s “revolting” and along with his peers petitioned AAD to stop accepting royalties.  Dr. Ackerman has more than 700 published papers and studies to his name in a career spanning over 45 years.  He has also been honored by AAD with its highest honors, the designation “master dermatologist” for his life contributions to the filed.  To sum it up Dr. Ackerman states ” there is no compelling evidence that sun tan parlors have induced a single melanoma and the tanning industry…. has every right to accuse the the American Academy of Dermatology, the Skin Cancer Foundation, and the American Cancer Society of “scare tactics” when it comes to the issue of melanoma”.

The American Cancer Society was also criticized in a New York Times story connecting the collusion between the ACS and multibillion  dollar sun “scare”  purveyor Neutrogena for its funding of a bogus ACS public service announcement.  The multimillion dollar ad campaign which carried ONLY the ACS logo was paid for completely by Neutrogena.  To make matters worse the ad featured the photo of a woman who said her sister died of melanoma, which wasn’t true.  The woman in the ad was a paid model.

When ACS deputy chief medical officer,  Dr. Len Lichtenfeld was asked for an explanation from the New York Times he admitted that “ACS had taken some license in taking that message and using it the way we’ve used it because that’s the way to get the message to our target audience”.  Let’s quit being politically correct – they flat out lied and they got paid for it!

The collusion between the $35 billion cosmeceutical sun scare industry and ACS and AAD doesn’t end there.  Enter the so-called beauty magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Vogue, Allure and Self.  They all receive in excess of one million dollars per issue in anti-sun advertising.  Is it any wonder that all these magazines have more articles on anti-sun than they do on anti-tobacco?  To drive my point home, how about some stats from ACS and AAD?  Lung cancer is the #1 cause of cancer death in men and women in the US.  Breast cancer is #2 followed by colon, uterine and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.  About 1/3 of all U.S. cancer deaths are related to obesity and nutrition.  And with all the hype and hysteria – melanoma actually represents about only 4% of cancer in woman.  According to the AAD 70%  of indoor tanners are women but more men develop melanoma skin cancer.  According to the ACS, melanoma wasn’t even in the top ten causes of death among women.  Women have a 1-in-8 chance of developing breast cancer and ONLY 1-in 58 chance of developing melanoma.  If you are however one of the misfortunate ones, there is hope according to the ACS; the five-year survival rate for melanoma has increased over the past three decades – from 82% to 87% to 92%.  The positive note is due to early detection.

The scores of doctors, nurses and other medical- field related personnel that tan on a weekly basis tell you that they know the real science.  Like the AMA (American Medical Association), whose membership has dropped to about 17 percent, it is of my opinion that the legitimate rank and file dermatologists  have been misrepresented by the extremists that have hi-jacked the AAD.

Looking at the recommendations being put forth by ACS, AAD and the Skin Cancer Foundation, anyone with a basic understanding of high school biology and common sense can’t help but wonder what planet these jack-asses are from.  Here are their recommendations to a wonderful healthy life; courtesy of Arizona Skin Cancer Institute, which is pretty much the same as all the other collaborators.  First, always wear a sun-block 365 days a year even though in the northern hemisphere and in fall and winter months there is virtually no possibility of burning.  Before even thinking of going outside, dress in long sleeved shirts and long pants and don’t forgot your hat, the kind that covers head, face, ears and neck.  Didn’t Elmer Fudd wear a hat like that in the cartoons?  I almost forgot the sunglasses with the large frames.  You know – the kind the ophthalmologist gives you after cataract surgery.  After all this, if you insist on going outside seek shade and avoid exposure to reflective surfaces such as water, glass, concrete, sand and snow.  Heck, who in their right mind likes boating, fishing, swimming or long walks on a sunny beach?  Thank GOD I don’t have kids, because how do you explain that watching or playing baseball or soccer could be so hazardous to your health.  Sure hope all the outdoor concerts I want to attend at the Fraze Pavilion are after dark.  While I’m at it I might as well sell my convertible because I can’t put the top down.  The brighter side – no pun intended – I could save on hairspray.  Oh, we might as well shut the bike – way down too, because with all the garb on, how are you going to peddle?

Fanaticism does little to promote sensible and educated decisions in healthy behavior.  Have you noticed that there isn’t anything you can eat, drink, think, do or say that some self-appointed expert tells you it’s hazardous to your health?  I refer to this as the “Cry Wolf Syndrome”

Headline driven media outlets have become mere dupes of the hysterical ideologues in promoting the asinine proposition of total abstention from sun exposure, whether GOD made or man made. This radical position suggests that our Great Creator put this element in our natural environment with the intent to harm us.  To the contrary UV sunlight is the very essences of life itself.  It provides energy, stored in plants in the form of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats that are transferred by consumption to humans.  Humans produce up to 90% of their Vitamin D3 the “Sunshine vitamin” form sun exposure “naturally”.  Surface fish such as salmon, and tuna can also help but not to the extent the body can do with moderate exposure.  Most supplements contain D2 a less potent form which can be problematic.  Your skin “naturally” makes more Vitamin D in one tanning session than you would get from 100 glasses of fortified whole milk.  According to Dr. John Cannell founder of Vitamin D Council, ” Humans make thousands of units of Vitamin D within minutes of whole body exposure to sunlight.  From what we know of nature, it is unlikely that such a system evolved by chance”.  As of today there are no studies what – so -ever linking tanning in a “non – burning” fashion with a significant increase in risk of permanent skin damage.  To the contrary research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by researchers at the London School of Medicine, St. Thomas Hospital in London, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, found that with everything else being equal in a study of 2,100 female twin pairs, that those with the highest Vitamin D levels had longer leukocyte telomere length, a genetic marker, which would represent a five year aging difference.  A few years ago research indicated that when the skin is slightly pinkened the body produces a protein blocking agent that prevents cellular mutation and degeneration.  Plainly put, prevents or reduces the possibilities for skin cancer and pre-mature aging.

More good news from the American Journal of Epidemiology; when research teams from Wake Forest University School of Medicine, the Northern California Cancer Center, and the University of Southern California have found that increased exposure to sunlight may decrease the risk of advanced breast cancer.  According to Esther John, PH.D. lead researcher of the study “We believe that sunlight helps to reduce women’s risk of breast cancer because the body manufactures the active form of vitamin D from exposure to sunlight”.  Since many risk factors for breast cancer are not modifiable, our finding that a modifiable factor – Vitamin D- may reduce risk is important”, said Sue Ingles, Ph.D., a co-researcher from USC’s Keck School of Medicine.  Interesting how Good News rarely makes the front page.

If you are unfortunate enough to experience chronic pain there is promising research from Mayo Comprehensive Pain Rehabilitation Center in Rochester, Minn.  The research found that about one in four patients who have chronic pain also have inadequate blood levels of Vitamin D.   According to          W Michael Hooten M.D., Medical Director at the Mayo Pain Center, “This is the first time that we have established the prevalence of Vitamin D inadequacy among a diverse group of chronic pain patients”.  “The implications are that in chronic pain patients, Vitamin D inadequacy is not the principal cause of pain and muscle weakness, however, it could be a contributing but unrecognized factor”.

To enlighten the uniformed or misinformed, I would suggest a close examination of research performed by Dr. Cedric F. Garland an epidemiologist and co-author of a report with Dr. George W. Comstock of John Hopkins which was based on blood samples taken from 25000 healthy men and women and which spanned 15 years.  The purpose of the study was to determine the link between Vitamin D deficiencies and cancer.  Frank C. Garland, Ph.D. who is head of occupational medicine at the Naval Health Research Center and assistant adjunct professor of community and family medicine at the University of California at San Diego concurs with his brother’s findings.  “The evidence suggests that vitamin D can play a role in reducing risk of colon and breast cancer”.  Dr. Cedric F. Garland states, “one has to access the entire picture when making sweeping public health recommendations”.  Dr. Frank C. Garland states, “dermatologists tend to have an unrealistic view of tanning and people who have healthy tans in the U.S. have one -third to one-half of the incidence of breast cancer and colon cancer.  Those diseases nearly vanish as you approach the equator “.

Dr. Michael Holick, research scientist at Boston University Medical Center has spent more than 30 years studying the relationship between UV and humans.  He states, “Vitamin D deficiency is a major cause of hip fractures among the elderly, and the body receives most of its Vitamin D from exposure to sunlight.  Dr. Holick points out that Vitamin D deficiency is an “unrecognized epidemic” being exasperated by sun avoidance recommendation.  He is a strong advocate of Non – Burning tanning.

In yet another study performed by researchers at Jefferson medical College in Philadelphia, bright light therapy was shown to effectively treat individuals exhibiting seasonal affective depression (SAD).  This disorder is more prominent in regions where dark overcast conditions exist during fall and winter.  Now, with the sun avoidance hysteria one can expect an escalations of SAD.

Since there is no money to be made form revealing research data linking sunscreen agents as potential carcinogens, little appears in the press.  Kerry M. Hanson, research scientist from the University of California – Riverside, stated,  “Sunscreen do an excellent job protecting against sunburn when used correctly”.  Our data shows, however, that if coverage at the skin surface is low, the UV filters in the sunscreens that have penetrated into the epidermis can potentially do more harm than good”.  I’ll be the first to acknowledge that sunscreen is a good product when used correctly to prevent sunburn-not total sun avoidance.  Using sunscreens year round along with cosmetics ladened with sunscreen we are virtually preventing what the body does naturally – making vitamin D.  Take advantage of this natural gift from GOD with a moderate and intelligent approach.

One of the most amazing pieces of scientific research was brought to my attention by local endocrinologist Dr. David Westbrock.  In November 2007 issue of Scientific American, research scientist had mapped more that 1000 different genes in at least a dozen tissues and cell types throughout the body that are dependant upon Vitamin D3 as the trip mechanism for proper functioning.  Coming foreword to present time over 3,000 different genes have been linked to Vitamin D3 and proper functioning.  Here are some of the tissues and cells where Vitamin D3 has been established:  Bone, Brain , Breast, Fat, Intestine, Immune cells, Kidneys, Liver, Nerves, Pancreas, Parathyroid gland, Prostate, Skin keratinocytes.   The authors of this research, Luz E. Tavera-Mendoza and John H. White have also uncovered aspects of Vitamin D3’s role in cancer prevention along with the autoimmune conditions and infectious diseases.  The overwhelming science is so compelling that both authors take vitamin D supplements during the parts of the year when sunlight is too weak for the skin to produce adequate amounts in the skin naturally.

Even dirty politics has entered the stage.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D – Nev. eliminated a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery do to    strong lobbying from Allergen, the maker of Botox.  In its place a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning was imposed because the tanning industry has become the condemnation of choice.  On the home front we have our own version of Senator Reid, enter State Rep. Courtney Combs, R – Hamilton, who is promoting a bill he wrote that would ban tanning without a prescription for anyone under 18.  It currently requires parental consent under 18.  Mr. Combs, like to many politicians, think they know what’s best for you and me.  His thinking, is to hell with your GOD given rights as parents to decide what is best for your children.  It sounds to me like someone stands to make a lot of money with each office visit to get permission on how to raise your children.  These are the same politicians that pass legislation that allow mere children as young as 12 years of age the responsibility to make life threatening decisions on abortion without parental consent or notification, but cannot tan until the age of 18.  Makes a lot of sense if you buy into stupidity and socialism.

In summation when one looks at the real and compelling science that grows exponentially daily and compares it to the academic fraud derived from a money driven agenda, truth will eventually prevail.  To say UV light causes skin cancer and therefore should be avoided is just like saying water causes drowning and therefore should be avoided.  I implore those in the medical community to stand up and speak out against this charade and adhere to the Hipporcratic Oath “Do No Harm”.  Yes, the threat of reprisal can be great when one speaks out against the diatribe being marketed by the profiteers.  But, if you are of the mind-set that I have in anyway engaged in deception, take my challenge, debate me in a public forum and we can go line by line and determine the validity of what I’ve stated.  If I’ve erred on any level I will literally eat my words at the corner of 48 and Franklin.  And if you have the courage to debate me, I can assure you will be going away red -faced and not do to a sunburn.  To quote Sir Winston Churchill; “With integrity, nothing else counts” Without integrity nothing else counts”.  For more information:  UV,Vitamin D, Vitamin D, Tanning and                   

 Respectfully Seeking Truth,

George A. Houser II

 Owner: Bronze Salon Tanning Center