Does UV exposure decrease the risk of melanoma?

Posted By
4/4/2012 11:19pm
View other posts by
Replies: 22

Before reading the link posted below, I am fully aware that there will always be some readers of this forum group that still believe that the SUN causes melanoma...

It's time to get them educated and move forward...

As we learn more about the causes of melanoma , it is becoming a fact that the LACK of sunlight is the biggest cause of melanoma.

Sure tanning beds are to blame and rightly so because they are providing the wrong type of  UV's.  What needed to be addressed here is the fact that almost all melanoma's occur on parts of the body that never receive any sun light!  Also that the increase in melanoma is due to the fact that more people never get the benefits of the sun as they are working indoors for their day job and so in my case are working night turn and sleeping during the day!

Below is a link with more up to date info, see:

PS. In my opinion every person reading this thread should be tested for the 25-hydroxy vitamin D-3 test.

However, don't wait until it is to late thinking that your oncologist will recommend this test for you.

Best wishes,


Live 4 today. Thank God for all he has done for us. Looking forward to enjoying tomorrow.

As a blonde haired, fair skinned,  person aged 67 with metastatic stage 4 melanoma who grew up in the Bahamas before anyone really knew about sunscreen, I can not agree with your assertions. You may yet be proven correct, but I doubt it. If you know of more studies by reputable researchers I would be pleased to see their published results.

If you fight, you may lose,
If you don’t fight, you will lose.

Anonymous - (4/5/2012 - 7:25pm)

So, Gene, explain how a women age 61, who never used sunscreen as a child or young adult( sunscreen was not available back than) gets melanoma. I certain got enough sun exposure with vit. D. Do you believe melanoma is all a hereditary mutation?

RE: I certain got enough sun exposure with vit. D.

Was this as a child or currently?  Have you had a vitamin D-3 test lately?

RE:  Do you believe melanoma is all a hereditary mutation?

I don't believe so, at least  not in my case. I am the first one to

get melanoma in my family. I am convinced that my melanoma was caused

by a lack of sunlight since I worked over 40 years at night and slept

during the day. I also believe that my treatment is being helped along

with the high dosage of vitamin D-3 that I am taking. The testing range for vitamin D-3

is 0 to 30 too low, 30 to 70 normal and 80 to 100 high. It is suggested that ALL cancer

patients be in the high range. My last test I was a 90!

Another concern is sugar in ones diet. see:;storyMediaBox

Live 4 today. Thank God for all he has done for us. Looking forward to enjoying tomorrow.

I have limit my sugar intake and have done so for many years. LOL empty calories! As for getting vit. D I had my levels check and do take a supplement.

My melanoma was started before I was deficient in vit D. I can't believe a lack of vit D is the cause of melanoma or any other cancer. I do believe it helps fight off the cancer

I have hereditary melanoma...mother's 2 sister and their mother. Don't know about my mother. So for me I believe it is sun and hereditary mutation.

I am glad the vit D is helping your treatment. I wish you good health.

"Contrary to what many people are being led to believe, a lot of emphasis placed on genes determining human behavior is nothing but theory and doctrine," writes Konstantin Erikseni .

"We are free to make decisions that impact our lives and those of others. …

Our beliefs can change our biology.

 We have the power to heal ourselves, increase our feelings of self-worth and improve our emotional state."

Complete article at:

Live 4 today. Thank God for all he has done for us. Looking forward to enjoying tomorrow.

Anonymous - (4/12/2012 - 3:46am)



Mercola links the following article by quote author  Konstantin Eriksen

"About the Author


Konstantin Eriksen is a former stock-trader. After quiting his job, he studied biochemistry and got into natural health and the internal martial arts. He writes the Life Sucks self-improvement blog where you can read his recent post on What Is Happiness?"



Life Sucks

What are you going to DO about it?






Have you ever felt that something was wrong with the world as it is? As though the world were full of lies, deceit, bull (EDIT)   politics, dogmatic beliefs, unreality? Have you ever thought “life sucks, I hate life, I don’t belong here” or anything similar? That there was no way to be authentic in this life and get what you want?

That you had to fake it, to falsify yourself for job interviews, bullshit office politics, university life, social clique status? Do you feel that you have to falsify yourself in order to make your relationships successful? Do you have to succumb to social pressure in order to achieve success? Could it be that it’s all hopeless and that happiness is an unreachable ideal? No wonder life sucks! ...


I believe that in the midst of this constant stream of pre-programmed gibberish:

We, as individual conscious beings, have the power to come to a crucial realization:

That our own personal web of thoughts could be false as well.




( speehless  )

Have you ever wondered WHY hemp is illegal?
It's not what you think but it won't surprise you: (read below)
Help spread the word about our next show. We'll talk
about the healing power of hemp. Post your comments below:
And, do you know someone suffering with Parkinson's disease?
Send them this (simple) article and hopefully it helps:
Join us for the next NaturalNews Talk Hour online or by telephone
Exact show details are posted below - help us spread the word!
(2) ways to hear this show - LIVE!
Thu. Apr. 12, 2012 - 9:00 pm (EST) / 6:00 pm (PST)
Phone Number: 760-569-7676
Access Code: 815676#
or listen to our LIVE webcast - use the link below:
Talk soon,
Jonathan Landsman, Host
NaturalNews Talk Hour

Live 4 today. Thank God for all he has done for us. Looking forward to enjoying tomorrow.

Anonymous - (4/8/2012 - 2:09pm)


"Before reading the link posted below, I am fully aware that there will always be some readers of this forum group that still believe that the SUN causes melanoma...

It's time to get them educated and move forward... "


" I also believe that my treatment is being helped along with the high dosage of vitamin D-3 that I am taking."


In this effort to get us 'educated'   you appear to be promoting Sun exposure (not tanning beds) , yet you are taking high dose D -3. ( Do you see the irony or am I the only one... )



Since I live where the sun doesn't shine enough to be beneficial, the vitamin D-3 supplements are necessary!

IMHO, it's time to stop all the myths that the sun is bad for you!  The sun has great healing powers. Read the following carefully:

Best wishes,


Live 4 today. Thank God for all he has done for us. Looking forward to enjoying tomorrow.

Anonymous - (4/9/2012 - 5:45pm)


regarding getting educated, please read the following discussion carefully (  the author is a medical professional writing on his blog about Mercola  )


the rest is here -


".....Dr. Oz asked him whether he didn't have a conflict of interest because he makes money selling all these "natural" remedies. A lot of money. Mercola's response, you might recall, was in essence that it was OK because he was selling only "natural" products, that he didn't sell anything the first three years of his website's existence, and that he believes in what he sells. Never mind the quackery like Tullio Simoncini's claim that all cancer is due to a fungus and that all cancer can be cured with baking soda.

Now here's the most depressing part. Remember how I said I was bummed out to have the differential in influence between various science-based medicine websites and that of someone like Dr. Mercola:

According to traffic-tracking firm Quantcast, draws about 1.9 million unique visitors per month, each of whom returns an average of nearly ten times a month. That remarkable "stickiness" puts the site's total visits on a par with those to the National Institutes of Health's website. (Mercola claims his is "the world's No. 1 natural health website," citing figures from Mercola's 200,000-plus "likes" on Facebook are more than double the number for WebMD. And two of his eight books--2003's The No-Grain Diet and 2006's The Great Bird Flu Hoax--have landed on the New York Times bestseller list.

That's right. Mercola's website has traffic equivalent to that of the NIH website. Think about that for a second. On one side, we have a reliable, science-based website (well, except for the NCCAM section). On the other side, we have a quack website. Both get the same traffic.

One thing the article nails is the root of Mercola's appeal to the gullible. First, he taps into the distrust of government and institutions that is so prevalent today. His messages of "don't trust the government" and "don't trust pharmaceutical companies" resonate in our Tea Party-infused time. Mercola, as we have seen, is a master at this, and his followers lap it up. Second, he's, as the article says, a "gifted marketer." That much is true. Mercola even says he studied marketing, and it shows:

If there were any doubt about the importance of marketing to the operation, it was dispelled when I was given a quick tour of Mercola's sprawling headquarters. The lobby of Dr. Mercola's Natural Health Center looks like the kind of well-appointed suburban office where you'd expect vanity procedures such as face-lifts to be offered. As it turns out, only one short hallway is dedicated to patient services. "Marketing and customer service take up most of the rest," a new-patient coordinator told me.

Based on what I know about Mercola, that sounds about right. One little section of his empire devoted to actual patient care, the rest all devoted to marketing and fulfilling online orders. That's very telling and entirely consistent with Mercola's behavior. He might have been a real doctor at one time, but in 2012 he exists only to enrich himself by selling a mixture of the unremarkable, the unproven, and what I consider to be quackery. Certainly the archive of articles on his website is a treasure trove of quackery, antivaccine rants, quack apologia, and rants against the government and big pharma, interspersed with videos and radio interviews, and more. Truly, it's a multimedia empire of woo. Whenever anyone criticizes him, he invokes the "pharma shill" gambit:

I can see things that are just obvious and clear to me. I don't need 30 more years of science to support it. Am I wrong sometimes? Sure. Everyone's wrong [sometimes]. . . . People call me a snake-oil salesman, of course. They're free to do that.

Consider this Orac exercising his freedom to do just that. After all, Mercola just said he didn't mind."






 Dr Cannell from the Vitamin D Council shares a similar conviction..

. "In implying physicians should not act until scientists conclusively prove a point, Professor Gilchrest misses the point. Sometimes physicians must act before scientists conclusively prove a point. Physicians can't wait. Scientists can wait."


About the Vitamin D Council

The Vitamin D Council is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) educational corporation in the State of California, founded in 2003 by Executive Director John J. Cannell, M.D., on the conviction that humans all over the world are needlessly suffering from vitamin D deficiency.

Our mission

Our mission is to end the worldwide vitamin D deficiency epidemic by means of outreach and awareness, treatment, research and activism.

Our approach
Outreach and awareness

Our foremost goal is to reach out, bring awareness and educate the general populace, the health industry, and policy makers on the importance of vitamin D. We bridge the gap between the latest peer-reviewed research on the health implications of vitamin D and the general populace, the health industry and policy makers.



We believe every human ought to know their own vitamin D status and how they can effectively treat deficiency or insufficiency and maintain healthy vitamin D levels. We strive to educate the public on the measures they can take to treat their vitamin D deficiency.


Peer-reviewed research on vitamin D and its association to various diseases and illnesses is the driving force behind our actions, and an area we closely monitor to best serve the public. There is an unprecedented amount of clinical research being conducted on vitamin D today, and we work hard to objectively process this information and bring it to the public’s attention in a quick and efficient manner.


With the quantity of research currently being conducted on vitamin D, evidence on the importance of this prohormo is outpacing the decision making of governments and agencies. The Vitamin D Council routinely makes recommendations to appropriate governmental agencies, in effort to educate policy makers and make an impact in their policy decision making.


Our funding


Foundations and organizations

 ....The Vitamin D Council receives support from:

The Vitamin D Council is actively seeking further support from foundations and organizations. We hope to receive program support from these sources in the near future.

If you are a foundation or organization and are interested in the possibility of supporting the work that we do, please email Brant Cebulla at


Our current sponsors are:


The ESB Enterprise link goes to  MERCOLA.COM's  TANNING BED Sales area. )




Tanning industry's Vitamin D " industry links"


Industry Links

"These links should provide you with resources from throughout the vitamin D community and the tanning industry. If we've overlooked an important source, please e-mail"


Vitamin D Council
The Vitamin D Council is a group of concerned citizens who believe many humans are needlessly suffering and dying from Vitamin D Deficiency.
Vitamin D Society




Website Links

Vitamin D Society







who is it who can't wait?


Anonymous - (4/10/2012 - 1:10pm)

Vitamin D Council disclaimer..


*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. The products and information presented on this website are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.





An internist's take..


(PalMD is a practicing internist in the Great Lakes region of the U.S.. Aside from the great joy he finds in his family and his work, he likes communicating some of that joy to others. He has a special interest in the ways patients---and we are all patients at one time or another---are deceived by charlatans. He aims to change the world, one reader at a time. )




"Quack Miranda Warning

Category: Absurd medical claims • Medicine
Posted on: January 14, 2008 8:24 AM, by PalMD

"These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

This "Quack Miranda Warning" is on every just about every woo-meister's website. I see dozens of patients every day, and I never Mirandize them, so whats the deal?

There are three ways to look at this: the truthful way, the sinister way, and the bat-shit insane way.





  • Truth: Anyone who wants to sell you something that's a load of crap must use this statement to cover themselves legally.








  • Sinister: Variation of above--someone wants to sell you something that you are supposed to believe is medically useful, but at the same time they tell you in fine print that it is notmedically useful. When it doesn't work, they don't get sued. I wonder why anyone would buy something with that disclaimer attatched to it? When I treat someone for a medical problem, I pretty much say that I intend to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent a disease. Why would I say otherwise? It would be a lie. Also, who would go to see a doctor that told you that they didn't intend to diagnose or treat disease. The whole thing is bizarre.








  • Bat-shit insane: The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer.












    I can't really help the people who believe #3, but people who are willing to suspend their paranoia should read #'s 1 and 2 a few times. Unless you're being arrested, no one should be reading you your rights. The Quack Miranda Statement is the red flag that should send you running."

    Anonymous - (4/8/2012 - 1:33pm)

    "What needed to be addressed here is the fact that almost all melanoma's occur on parts of the body that never receive any sun light! "

    National Cancer Institute findings
    "Melanoma can occur on any skin surface. In men, it's often found on the skin on the head, on the neck, or between the shoulders and the hips. In women, it's often found on the skin on the lower legs or between the shoulders and the hips"

    Gene, why don't you have our cure then if you are so smart about it?

    We don't know how strong we are until being strong is the only choice we have.

    I doing my best!  Lets start here... get your vitamin D-3 levels checked!

    Locate a Labs Corp near you and have it tested. 

    "If I told you there was something you could do to cut your risk of cancer by 60 percent -- and it wouldn’t cost you a dime -- would you do it?

    Well there is, and it’s called sun exposure."

    This latest study, published in the Annals of Epidemiology, is yet another piece in what’s turning into a mountain of evidence showing vitamin D’s effectiveness for a wide variety of cancers. See below for complete article...

    Live 4 today. Thank God for all he has done for us. Looking forward to enjoying tomorrow.

    I'm not sure using "dr" mercola as a source is the right idea. How about the Skin Cancer Foundation, National Institute of Health? What do they say?
    The sun causes skin cancer. Period. Amen.

    We don't know how strong we are until being strong is the only choice we have.

    RE: What do they say?

    You tell me!

    I do know that The American Cancer Society will admit that they are not yet

    sure what really causes melanoma!

    RE: The sun causes skin cancer. Period. Amen.

    So go to your grave believing this is the truth. Just remember who is brain washing you!

    The sun screen and sun blocker companies that are making money keeping this myth alive.

    Why not ask them for some proof?

    Here is some more information for you on the sun and melanoma.
    Please note that  A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, is an exceptionally distinguished dermatologist and one of the world's foremost authorities on the subject of skin cancer.
    Best wishes,

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

    Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

    Live 4 today. Thank God for all he has done for us. Looking forward to enjoying tomorrow.

    Anonymous - (4/9/2012 - 2:37am)

     National Institute of Health 

    "Despite the importance of the sun to vitamin D synthesis, it is prudent to limit exposure of skin to sunlight [36] and UV radiation from tanning beds [37]. UV radiation is a carcinogen responsible for most of the estimated 1.5 million skin cancers and the 8,000 deaths due to metastatic melanoma that occur annually in the United States [36]. Lifetime cumulative UV damage to skin is also largely responsible for some age-associated dryness and other cosmetic changes. It is not known whether a desirable level of regular sun exposure exists that imposes no (or minimal) risk of skin cancer over time."




    Vitamin D Sufficiency vs. Sun
    Protection: Must We Choose?

    Kavitha K. Reddy
    Barbara A. Gilchrest 

    Kavitha K. Reddy, MD, is a Resident,
    Boston University and Tufts University School
    of Medicine Dermatology Program, Boston,


    Barbara A. Gilchrest, MD, is a Professor
    and Chair-Emeritus, Department of
    Dermatology, Boston University School of
    Medicine, Boston, MA.


    ( Note -effective June 1, 2012  Dr Gilchrest will be the editor of the Journal of Investigative Dermatology   ttp:// )


    This continuing nursing educational (CNE) activity is designed for nurses
    and other health care providers who are interested in vitamin D and sun protection.
    For those wishing to obtain contact hour credit, an evaluation follows. After
    studying the information presented in this article, the nurse will be able to:
    1. Explain how vitamin D levels are defined.
    2. Identify sources of vitamin D.
    3. Discuss sources of vitamin D.
    4. Describe how to obtain sufficient levels of vitamin D safely.


    "The same problems of inconsistent and unreliable
    results from UV light seen with
    sunlight apply to tanning beds.
    In addition to often complex
    environmental conditions and tanning
    bed dynamics, which make
    risk-benefit ratios in use of UVB to
    obtain vitamin D quite complicated,
    what UVB does reach the skin often
    does not result in adequate vitamin
    D synthesis.
    Many people with abundant sun
    exposure, even including young
    Hawaiian surfers, do not achieve recommended
    vitamin D levels
    (Binkley et al., 2007; Harinarayan,
    Ramalakshmi, & Venkataprasad,
    2004; Levis et al., 2005; Webb et al.,
    1988). Importantly, more dark-complexioned
    or elderly individuals,
    who are at highest statistical risk of
    low vitamin D levels, produce vitamin
    D inefficiently: melanin in dark
    skin absorbs the UVB photons and
    epidermal thinning in elderly skin
    reduces the amount of 7-dehydro -
    cholesterol, the cell membrane component
    that is converted to vitamin
    D. Oral sources of vitamin D avoid
    these barriers to correction of low
    vitamin D levels.
    Importantly, people with vitamin
    D deficiency from a variety of
    causes have been able to increase
    vitamin D to the desired level by taking
    a supplement (Wolpowitz &
    Gilchrest, 2006). Therefore many
    consider a supplement to be the best
    way to get a consistent and reliable
    amount of vitamin D, while also
    avoiding photodamage (AAD, 2009;
    Boucher, 2001; Grant & Boucher,
    2009; Moyad, 2009; Utiger, 1998).
    One physician has counseled
    patients that vitamin D from the sun
    is more healthful than vitamin D
    from oral supplements (Holick,
    2009). He has also stated that any
    resultant skin cancer is “easily treated
    and often cured” (Holick, 2009),
    and resurrected a statement from
    1941 in the Journal of Cancer suggesting
    increased non-melanoma skin
    cancer was “one of the prices to be
    paid” for decreased systemic cancers
    (Holick & Jenkins, 2003). This last
    point is highly arguable and appears
    to be directly contradicted by recent
    evidence that the risk of internal cancers
    is instead increased in patients
    with non-melanoma skin cancers
    (Chen et al., 2008; Troyanova,
    Danon, & Ivanova, 2002). Further -
    more, many patients with skin cancer
    may disagree that the disease is
    trivial. In any case, such an argument
    sadly fails to highlight that the
    same form of vitamin D produced
    by sunlight is easily obtained from
    oral supplements costing less than
    $20/year (CVS, 2009), without causing
    damage to the skin. For all these
    reasons, getting more sun or UV
    exposure to correct a low vitamin D
    level is not in the best interest of the
    vast majority of people (AAD, 2009;
    Boucher, 2001; Grant & Boucher,
    2009; Wolpowitz & Gilchrest, 2006)."

    Vitamin D is an intriguing molecule, critical for bone health, and
    new information regarding its roles
    in health and disease is rapidly accumulating. Whether optimal health
    and resistance to disease require far
    higher levels of vitamin D than those
    required for bone health is
    unknown. However, based on epidemiologic associations between low
    normal vitamin D levels and certain
    diseases, some authorities advocate
    oral supplements of at least 1,000
    IU/day of vitamin D, which appears
    quite safe. Unfortunately, some also
    encourage unprotected sun exposure
    or tanning bed use to increase vitamin D photosynthesis in skin. This is
    not safe, especially for fair-skinned
    persons, as the same UV wavelengths that produce vitamin D also
    cause skin cancer and accelerate skin

    Canadian Paediatric Society position statement



    Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) has a wavelength longer than x-rays but shorter than visible light and constitutes an invisible form of electromagnetic radiation (1). UVR can be further divided into three categories with separate wavelength ranges: UVA (315 to 400 nm), UVB (280 to 315 nm) and UVC (100 to 280 nm) (1). Both UVA and UVB contribute to darkening of the skin by stimulating the synthesis of melanin molecules in the skin. UVA is responsible for immediate pigment darkening upon exposure (1). UVB is responsible for the further darkening of the skin in days following exposure, signalling activation of skin melanocytes (1). Erythema and sunburn are acute reactions to an excessive amount of UVR (2). UVA, like UVB radiation, damages DNA and induces discrete mutations. Moreover, UV radiation may be carcinogenic without causing sunburn (3). While the precise roles of specific UV wavelengths in both melanin production and carcinogenesis are still to be fully elucidated, DNA damage appears to be the key intermediary for both. Tanning induced by UVR that is devoid of carcinogenic risk may be scientifically impossible (4)."


    "CMM, while the most deadly, is not the only skin cancer linked to UVR exposure. Basal cell carcinomas (BCC) and squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), classified as non-melanocytic skin cancer (NMSC), account for an estimated Canadian incidence of 227.6 per 100,000 skin cancer cases in 2009 (11).  Despite their high incidence, most of these lesions can be successfully treated at an early stage; however, metastasis persistently occurs in a small minority of such lesions, at which point cure is rare. Although the overall rate of death from SCC is low, the high incidence of this form of cancer means that it accounts for up to 25% of skin cancer-related deaths (11).  The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reported a 2.5 times greater risk for SCC and a 1.5 times increased risk for BCC associated with the use of tanning beds (38). Early life UVR exposure increases the risk of BCC, whereas chronic or total exposure is associated with increased risk for SCC (6,38)."







    Shining light on the vitamin D

    Michael F Holick


    “The association of excessive exposure to solar ultraviolet B radiation and increased risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancer is well documented."




    Nonmelanoma skin cancer and the risk of second primary cancers: a systematic review.




    Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.


    Based on empirical evidence, a personal history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) has been hypothesized to be a risk factor for other cancers. Others hypothesize that NMSC may be a marker of high cutaneous vitamin D synthesis and therefore inversely associated with risk of other malignancies. To reconcile these divergent views, we carried out a systematic review to determine the association between NMSC and subsequent risk of other cancers.


    Bibliographic databases were searched through March 2009. Studies were included if sufficient information was presented to estimate the risk of developing other cancers following NMSC. Studies were reviewed and data were abstracted independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by consensus.


    Of the 21 included studies, 15 reported the association between NMSC and risk of all other cancers combined. NMSC was significantly associated with increased risk of another malignancy among cohort studies based on cancer registries summary random-effects relative risk (SRR), 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-1.17; n = 12 studies) and those with individual-level data (SRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-1.98; n = 3). In stratified analyses of registry studies, this association held true for both squamous (SRR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.12-1.23; n = 7) and basal cell carcinoma (SRR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17; n = 7), and both men (SRR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.09-1.20; n = 12) and women (SRR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15; n = 12).


    Strong, consistent evidence indicates that a personal history of NMSC is associated with increased risk of developing other malignancies.


    For unknown reasons, NMSC may be a risk factor for other cancers.





    Dr. Joseph Mercola 's website states that the Vitamin D council recommends his  tanning beds

    “Recommended by the Vitamin D Council
    Scientists at the Vitamin D Council agree that both children and adults should have a Vitamin D level of 50 ng/ml all year-round. They recommend the use of any Mercola Tanning Systems as a safe and effective way to help you achieve natural levels of Vitamin D. The Vitamin D Council is a nonprofit organization whose aim is to educate the public about Vitamin D deficiency and how to prevent it.





     Dr Cannell  (of VitaminD Council fame ) co authored an Epidemic influenza and vitamin D paper ..

     J. J. CANNELL, R. VIETH, J. C. UMHAU, M. F. HOLICK, W. B. GRANT, S. MADRONICH, C. F. GARLAND and E. GIOVANNUCCI (2006). Epidemic influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiology and Infection, 134 , pp 1129-1140 doi:10.1017/S0950268806007175

    "An interventional study showed that vitamin D reduces the incidence of respiratory infections in children. We conclude that vitamin D, or lack of it, may be Hope-Simpson's ‘seasonal stimulus’."



    Dr Cannell later made the following comments

    “Like all theories, our theory must withstand attempts to be disproved with dispassionately conducted and well-controlled scientific experiments.”



      And said the following about a leading dermatologist's lecture ( the same year or thereabouts)

     “Dr. Barbara Gilchrest, who fired Dr. Michael Holick from one of his professorships several years ago after Holick wrote a book saying God knew what she was doing when she created sunlight, gave the Plenary Lecture. Wisely, Dr. Gilchrest overwhelmed the audience with graphic pictures of invasive skin cancer to support her argument that sunlight is evil. Of course, it’s harder to show pictures of invasive colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and the 15 other internal cancers caused by sunlight deprivation.”





       This study makes it look like the 'theory' needs more defending..


    Vitamin D supplementation did not prevent influenza-like illness as diagnosed retrospectively by questionnaires in subjects participating in randomized clinical trials.



    Our results do not support the hypothesis that high doses of vitamin D supplementation will have a pronounced effect on influenza-like disease in populations not targeted for high influenza risk.



    A review by the Institute of Medicine

    IOM Endorses Vitamin D, Calcium Only
    for Bone Health, Dispels Deficiency Claims



    "And in a blow to a growing number
    of claims that vitaminDcan help protect
    cardiovascular disease, diabetes,immune
    dysfunction, multiple sclerosis, and preeclampsia
    in pregnancy, to name just
    a few—the IOM committee flatly declared
    that “the data just aren’t there”
    to recommend that people consume
    higheramountsof vitaminDor calcium"



    "In evaluating vitamin D’s “purported”
    role in preventing numerous diseases,
    the IOM committee said the paucity
    of randomized clinical trials and
    conflicting evidence from observational
    studies led it to conclude that the
    nutrient’s links to outcomes other than
    bone health is “best described as hypotheses
    of emerging interest.” Added Ross,
    “We describe the biological plausibility
    that vitaminDmay have an effect on certain
    cancers, for example, and we know
    that in animal models there are some
    good data. But we were not able to take
    the currently available clinical data and
    use that information to define DRIs"






    Vitamin D on Trial


    IF WIDESPREAD DEFICIENCY OF VITAmin D is a “silent epidemic” plaguing North America, as some researchers have warned, then a recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report has just restored us to good health. The majority of persons in the United States and Canada are getting enough vitamin D and calcium to maintain bonehealth, concluded a committee of 14 scientists charged by the US and Canadian governments with updating theDietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for the 2 interrelated nutrients.And in a blow to a growing number of claims that vitamin D can help protect against other conditions—such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, immune dysfunction, multiple sclerosis, and preeclampsia in pregnancy, to name just a few—the IOM committee flatly declared that “the data just aren’t there” to recommend that people consume higher amounts ofvitamin D or calcium.

    In  evaluating  vitamin D’s  “purported” role in preventing numerous diseases, the IOM committee said the paucity of randomized clinical trials and conflicting evidence from observational studies led it to conclude that the nutrient’s links to outcomes other than bone health is “best described as hypotheses of emerging interest.” Added Ross, “We describe the biological plausibility that vitamin D may have an effect on certain cancers, for example, and we know that in animal models there are some good data. But we were not able to take the currently available clinical data and use that information to define DRIs.”

    Enticing observations

    In 2008, epidemiologist JoAnn Manson at Harvard Medical School in Boston received NIH funding to lead the largest vitamin D intervention trial yet. In observational studies, Vitamin D had shown promise for lowering the risk of a wide range of diseases, but Manson felt the field would benefit from a large clinical trial that more rigorously tested the vitamin’s power. This sentiment only grew when she analyzed about 1,000 reports on vitamin D metabolism, intake, and impact on human health as a member of a panel convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2009. The panel decided that while the benefit of the nutrient for bones is real, helping to promote bone strength while staving off diseases such as rickets, osteomalacia, and osteoporosis, the evidence of nonskeletal benefits was inconclusive1—an uncertainty that continues to linger.2

    The decision infuriated many scientists—some of whom had documented the correlation between high blood levels of vitamin D and lower rates of colorectal cancer, diabetes, asthma, influenza, multiple sclerosis, and an array of other ailments. And in many cases, researchers can point to ways the vitamin might bring about benefits. The hormone derived from vitamin D, called 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, or calcitriol, can turn on or off hundreds of genes in the body, thereby participating in processes ranging from cell proliferation to immune system regulation. But the IOM panel concluded that without large-scale prevention trials confirming the ultimate result of high levels of vitamin D, it could not say for certain whether insufficiency contributes to cancer or any other nonskeletal disease.

    Others argue that the correlational studies provide enough evidence to recommend that people maintain a higher concentration of vitamin D in their blood, and that difficult, expensive, and often inconclusive prevention trials, particularly those for relatively rare or unpredictable diseases, are a waste of time. “The success of the RCT [randomized controlled trial] in evaluating medical treatments has, perhaps, blinded nutritionists, regulators, and editors to the fact that it is a method ill-suited for the evaluation of nutrient effects,” Robert Heaney, an endocrinologist at Creighton University School of Medicine wrote in a 2008 commentary published in The Journal of Nutrition.3

    And it seems the public isn’t waiting for clinical trial data. Spurred by headlines about its potential benefits, US consumer sales of vitamin D supplements rocketed from $50 million in 2005 to $550 million in 2010, according to estimates from the Nutrition Business Journal. Enthusiasm for the vitamin echoes among doctors and natural-food advocates, who are pushing for doses higher than the 400 to 600 International Units (IU) that the government currently recommends for maintaining healthy bones.

    However, Manson, a refined woman of measured words, is acutely aware of the disappointment that has trailed the hyping of vitamins over the decades. Vitamin E, a fat-soluble antioxidant, gained a reputation for fighting cancer in the 1990s, when observational studies found that people who took supplements had lower rates of the disease.  But the buzz died out in 2008 when a 35,000-person clinical trial on vitamin E and selenium was terminated prematurely after people taking the supplements showed a slightly higher risk of developing prostate cancer than the control group. Similarly, in 1996 two large clinical trials dumbfounded fans of beta-carotene, a substance that humans convert into vitamin A after consuming it in fruits and vegetables. One trial found that it raised the risk of lung cancer and heart disease, and the other ended anticlimactically after 12 years with the conclusion that beta-carotene supplements performed no differently than placebo. “You have to look at these previous randomized trials as cautionary tales,” Manson says, “because they show that time and time again, everyone jumped on the bandwagon and then the randomized trials did not have favorable results, and in fact, the risks outweighed the benefits.”

    At the same time, however, this is exactly why large-scale trials are necessary, she says. Though they aren’t perfect, such trials are the only way to discover whether vitamin D causes better health, or simply indicates it. “For example, people who are physically active tend to spend more time outdoors walking, hiking, or playing tennis. They get more sun exposure”—and thus more vitamin D—“but the real benefit might be physical activity,” says Manson. “There are so many potential confounders, and this is just one we know about.”












    As a child growing up on long islnd, I was always in the sun. Top that off with a severe sunburn about 8 yrs pre-Mel, that left my skin permanently de-pigmented in the exact
    spot that my Mel started, I will never believe it was anything other than sun exposure plus a few tanning-bed sessions that caused my melanoma.

    Don't Stop Believing

    One problem with this whole debate is the difference in the words 'Cause and catalyst.'. 

    Most melanomas i am aware of are in areas that have likely suffer sun burns, but there are enough in areas that have  never seen sun that there has to be additional causes for some of us.  (Very little is absolute in this life, especially with melanoma,)

    I am quite sure in my case that UVA/UVB  was neither. (I don't burn either.)  However, there is enough empirical examples (evidence?) that sunburns (due to UVA/UVB) have a high relationship to melanoma DNA mutations.  I do not know it this is a cause or a catalyst relationship.  I do believe that not placing oneself in the position to burn is a very prudent action.  I do not believe that total avoidance of the sun is prudent.  i wish my wife would get more sun.  i do not want her to burn, which she has often done with more than 15 minutes exposure at a time duriing most  of her life.  Different people do react differently, so does their bodies. 

        The one thing I have not heard any reports of is that sun exposure leds to metastises versus primary tumors.  i personally amaze some on this board by going outside without a shirt in the summer and seldom use sunscren, unless I plan on being out for a long time.  I do recommend my wife wearing it if she is going more than to the car.  (Should use it on her arms if even going for a ride!) 

    I'm me, not a statistic. Praying to not be one for years yet.

    As a blonde, fair skinned person of 71 who has spent his life in the sun, I could not agree more with you.   Those who claim Dr. Mercola and others who advocate a moderate amount of the right kind of sun exposure might benefit from recalling:

    Because someone makes his living promoting distrust of government, the health industry and selling alternative health remedies and may even be a quack, charlaton, liar, (fill in the blanks)- does NOT make him wrong.   Just because someone is a highly respected medical doctor and member of the AMA does NOT make him right.  

    Use your own best judgement.   Better to make our own errors- instead of someone else's.   You agree?

    The Only Good Legend is a Dead Legend.

    Wow, there's a lot to read and absorb here.

    I am stage III, unknown primary, one positive node under my left arm. There is no history of melanoma in my family. I do not work outdoors, I am not involved in any outdoor sports, I go out of my way to make sure I don't burn when I'm in the sun. I am blonde and of northern European ancestry.

    I do not have a lot of moles so even if I did ever have one near my left arm it would have caught my attention. I did have a few sunburns as a kid but not many because I covered up to avoid getting them. Why? They hurt! LOL. I've always been vigiliant about covering up in order to not burn.

    So where the hell my melanoma came from is a puzzle, indeed.

    Stage III, Unknown Primary; 1 positive node in left axilla

    Really, it IS a puzzle.   Some sort of link between sun exposure and skin cancer is undeniable.   By their location- I can't prove it, of course-  my two primary melanomas may well have resulted from extreme sunburns since I was 15 years old.   But as my oncologist says, the relationship between the sun and skin cancer is "very complex".   There are links of some kind between many other factors, genetic and environmental- and melanoma.   Which factors and how important?   Very poorly understood.   

    While we wait for medical science to catch up, everyone wants a Simple Answer.   Human nature gravitates to the most obvious bogeyman- the convention or mantra doctors (and sunscreen manufacturers) have repeated for 30 years:  

    "It's the sun!" 

    A significant percentage of cases are in no way related to sun exposure.   So, what to do?    Moderation.   Regular, limited sun exposure and avoid tanning beds.  And above all, self-awareness, assiduous skin examination, the best possible prevention.   

    The Only Good Legend is a Dead Legend.