Sunshine heals cancer, and the FDA is powerless to stop it, regulate it or ban it

http://www.newstarget.com/019360.html

By Mike Adams


Do you realize that one of the most powerful cures for cancer is streaming
over our heads each and every day, free of charge? It's sunlight, which is
astounding in its ability to prevent and cure cancer. If it were a
mainstream drug, it would probably make the cover of Time magazine and be
heralded as the greatest medical breakthrough in the history of modern
science. It's that good.
Sunlight exposure reduces the risk of many cancers by more than 50 percent
and even helps reverse certain types of cancers through the creation of
vitamin D in the body. It's a magnificent natural healing modality, and it's
been right in front of our eyes, every single day, since before Homo sapiens
even evolved on this planet. Yet somehow, after spending billions of dollars
on so-called medical research to find "cures" for various cancers, almost no
one from the world of mainstream medicine has yet acknowledged the healing
power of natural sunlight and vitamin D.

None of them have actually prescribed sunlight to patients, except for
perhaps a handful of pioneering researchers like Dr. Michael Holick, who was
attacked for speaking out about the truth of sunlight and cancer. By and
large, the medical community has not only ignored this truly miraculous cure
for many types of cancer; it has worked hard to discredit it.

If there were ever a reason to lose faith in conventional medicine, or
so-called modern medicine, it is simply the fact that one of the greatest
cures and prevention strategies for cancer goes completely ignored by nearly
the entire conventional medical community. It's as if there were a miracle
medicine invented, but conventional medical doctors didn't want anyone to
find out about it. Why aren't researchers promoting cures that are available
for free?


Protecting the medical dogma
The medical community doesn't want to promote cures it did not invent. When
nature offers a cure, that's not very satisfying to the egos of drug company
researchers and scientists. A drug company only wants to promote cures that
it can patent and exploit for financial gain. The way it perpetuates the
cycle is to make sure that the cancer treatments it controls get a lot more
press and hype than any natural treatments. You don't see sunlight promoted
in full-page advertisements for its ability to prevent or reverse cancer.
Instead, the medical community uses the full-page advertisement for
high-profit prescription drugs that have negative side effects and actually
kill people.

More at link

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
om...
http://www.newstarget.com/019360.html

By Mike Adams


Do you realize that one of the most powerful cures for cancer is streaming
over our heads each and every day, free of charge? It's sunlight, which is
astounding in its ability to prevent and cure cancer. If it were a
mainstream drug, it would probably make the cover of Time magazine and be
heralded as the greatest medical breakthrough in the history of modern
science. It's that good.
Sunlight exposure reduces the risk of many cancers by more than 50 percent
and even helps reverse certain types of cancers through the creation of
vitamin D in the body. It's a magnificent natural healing modality, and
it's been right in front of our eyes, every single day, since before Homo
sapiens even evolved on this planet.

There is some evidence from observational studies that Vitamin D deficiency
is associated with an increased risk of certain types of cancer. There is
none that either sunlight or Vitamin D can cure cancer, and it is
irresponsible to say so..

This is the same Mike Adams that wrote the deceptive tripe about
supplements.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

Yet somehow, after spending billions of dollars on so-called medical
research to find "cures" for various cancers, almost no one from the world
of mainstream medicine has yet acknowledged the healing power of natural
sunlight and vitamin D.

None of them have actually prescribed sunlight to patients, except for
perhaps a handful of pioneering researchers like Dr. Michael Holick, who
was attacked for speaking out about the truth of sunlight and cancer. By
and large, the medical community has not only ignored this truly
miraculous cure for many types of cancer; it has worked hard to discredit
it.

If there were ever a reason to lose faith in conventional medicine, or
so-called modern medicine, it is simply the fact that one of the greatest
cures and prevention strategies for cancer goes completely ignored by
nearly the entire conventional medical community. It's as if there were a
miracle medicine invented, but conventional medical doctors didn't want
anyone to find out about it. Why aren't researchers promoting cures that
are available for free?


Protecting the medical dogma
The medical community doesn't want to promote cures it did not invent.
When nature offers a cure, that's not very satisfying to the egos of drug
company researchers and scientists. A drug company only wants to promote
cures that it can patent and exploit for financial gain. The way it
perpetuates the cycle is to make sure that the cancer treatments it
controls get a lot more press and hype than any natural treatments. You
don't see sunlight promoted in full-page advertisements for its ability to
prevent or reverse cancer. Instead, the medical community uses the
full-page advertisement for high-profit prescription drugs that have
negative side effects and actually kill people.

More at link

"Peter Moran"

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
om...
http://www.newstarget.com/019360.html

By Mike Adams


Do you realize that one of the most powerful cures for cancer is
streaming over our heads each and every day, free of charge? It's
sunlight, which is astounding in its ability to prevent and cure cancer.
If it were a mainstream drug, it would probably make the cover of Time
magazine and be heralded as the greatest medical breakthrough in the
history of modern science. It's that good.
Sunlight exposure reduces the risk of many cancers by more than 50
percent and even helps reverse certain types of cancers through the
creation of vitamin D in the body. It's a magnificent natural healing
modality, and it's been right in front of our eyes, every single day,
since before Homo sapiens even evolved on this planet.

There is some evidence from observational studies that Vitamin D
deficiency is associated with an increased risk of certain types of
cancer. There is none that either sunlight or Vitamin D can cure cancer,
and it is irresponsible to say so..

Says Peter Moran who was irresponsible in saying there were no cover ups,
which kiiled Jessi Gelsinger...

In FACT...he OUTRIGHT LIED.....

Peter Moran

www.cancerblather

This is the same Mike Adams that wrote the truth about supplements.


Yet somehow, after spending billions of dollars on so-called medical
research to find "cures" for various cancers, almost no one from the world
of mainstream medicine has yet acknowledged the healing power of natural
sunlight and vitamin D.

None of them have actually prescribed sunlight to patients, except for
perhaps a handful of pioneering researchers like Dr. Michael Holick, who
was attacked for speaking out about the truth of sunlight and cancer. By
and large, the medical community has not only ignored this truly
miraculous cure for many types of cancer; it has worked hard to discredit
it.

If there were ever a reason to lose faith in conventional medicine, or
so-called modern medicine, it is simply the fact that one of the greatest
cures and prevention strategies for cancer goes completely ignored by
nearly the entire conventional medical community. It's as if there were a
miracle medicine invented, but conventional medical doctors didn't want
anyone to find out about it. Why aren't researchers promoting cures that
are available for free?


Protecting the medical dogma
The medical community doesn't want to promote cures it did not invent.
When nature offers a cure, that's not very satisfying to the egos of drug
company researchers and scientists. A drug company only wants to promote
cures that it can patent and exploit for financial gain. The way it
perpetuates the cycle is to make sure that the cancer treatments it
controls get a lot more press and hype than any natural treatments. You
don't see sunlight promoted in full-page advertisements for its ability
to prevent or reverse cancer. Instead, the medical community uses the
full-page advertisement for high-profit prescription drugs that have
negative side effects and actually kill people.

More at link

And MORE that Peter Moran does NOT watch....

http://www.newstarget.com/001058.html

http://www.newstarget.com/009415.html

http://www.newstarget.com/007632.html

For your information ... enjoy your day.

H. Gordon Ainsleigh, DC, "Beneficial effects of sun exposure on cancer
mortality", Preventive Medicine, January 1, 1993, Vol. 22, Num. 0, pp.
132-140

"For more than 50 years, there has been documentation in the medical
literature suggesting that regular sun exposure is associated with
substantial decreases in death rates from certain cancers and a
decrease in overall cancer death rates. Recent research suggests that
this is a causal relationship that acts through the body's vitamin D
metabolic pathways. The studies reviewed here show that (a) sunlight
activation is our most effective source of vitamin D; (b) regular
sunlight/vitamin D "intake" inhibits growth of breast and colon cancer
cells and is associated with substantial decreases in death rates from
these cancers; (c) metabolites of vitamin D have induced leukemia and
lymphoma cells to differentiate, prolonged survival of leukemic mice,
and produced complete and partial clinical responses in lymphoma
patients having high vitamin D metabolite receptor levels in tumor
tissue; (d) sunlight has a paradoxical relationship with melanoma, in
that severe sunburning initiates melanoma whereas long-term regular sun
exposure inhibits melanoma; (e) frequent regular sun exposure acts to
cause cancers that have a 0.3% death rate with 2,000 U.S. fatalities
per year and acts to prevent cancers that have death rates from 20-65%
with 138,000 U.S. fatalities per year; (f) there is support in the
medical literature to suggest that the 17% increase in breast cancer
incidence during the 1991-1992 year may be the result of the past
decade of pervasive anti-sun advisories from respected authorities,
coinciding with effective sunscreen availability; and (g) trends in the
epidemiological literature suggest that approximately 30,000 U.S.
cancer deaths yearly would be averted by the widespread public adoption
of regular, moderate sunning. Advising the public to seek regular
moderate sun exposure finds good support in the scientific literature
as a means of lowering cancer mortality."

"In 1941, Apperly reported that overall cancer death rates increased
with distance from the equator, and were further decreased in areas
where a large percentage of the population was engaged in the
sun-intensive occupation of farming. Compared with cities located
between 10° and 30° latitude, cities between 30° and 40° latitude
averaged 85% higher overall cancer death rates, cities between 40° and
50° latitude averaged 118% higher overall cancer death rates, and
cities between 50° and 60° latitude averaged 150% higher overall
cancer death rates. After reviewing his data, the author concluded: "A
closer study of the action of solar radiation on the body might well
reveal the nature of cancer immunity."

"Studies published during the past 20 years demonstrate that the link
between sun exposure and cancer prevention acts through the vitamin D
metabolic pathways."

"Vitamin D and Sunlight - In addition to its low cost and "high
patient acceptance", sunlight activation of 7-dehydrocholesterol in the
skin has significant advantages as a vitamin D source compared with
diet and supplementation. Webb and Hollick have discussed how sunlight
activation bypasses any gastrointestinal vitamin D malabsorption
problem and also avoid the overdose toxicity potential present with
oral vitamin D intake by the self-limiting production of D3-inactive
previtamin D3 photoisomers. The importance of sunlight in supplying
human vitamin D needs was demonstrated by Haddad and Hahn, who reported
that even in high-latitude, often-overcast Britain, sunlight provides
70% or more of the vitamin D present in the blood of Caucasians."

"Breast Cancer - Support for the biochemical relationship between sun
exposure and cancer inhibition came in 1979, when Eisman et al. of the
University of Melborne reported that a human breast cancer cell line
had receptor sites for 1,25-dihydroxyvitmain D3 (1,25-(OH)2-D3), the
most active metabolite of vitamin D. ... in 1990, the Garland-Gorham
team found that women from the areas of the United States with less
available sunlight died 40-60% more frequently of breast cancer than
women who lived in places like Honolulu and Tampa. The dramatic
variation in breast cancer rates according to geographic area in the
United States had been know for some time, but had previously gone
unexplained. The Garland research accounted for the geographic
variation in breast cancer in a way that had been previously
overlooked, showing a very strong negative correlation (R = -0.80, P
0.0001) between available sunlight and breast cancer death rates."
"Colon Cancer - In 1980 Frank and Cedric Garland presented the first
modern epidemiological research suggesting a direct protective effect
of sunlight vitamin D on cancer, showing that colon cancer was
decreased in areas of the United States with greater sun exposure. In
1985, further research by the Garlands showed decreased colon cancer
rates with higher oral vitamin D and calcium intake in a prospective
study. Wargovich and Lointier followed in 1987 with a report that
1,25-(OH)2-D3 suppressed growth of human colon cancer cells in vitro.
In 1989, the Garland brothers, joined Edward Gorham and others,
demonstrated that increased blood levels of 25-hyrdoxyvitamin D were
associated with lower colon cancer incidence rates."

"Melanoma and Squamous-Basal Cancers of the Skin - The recent
increases in melanoma and squamous-basal skin cancers have been used to
justify advising everybody to either stay out of the sun or wear
sunblock. However, as show below, there is reason to believe that these
recommendations are flawed. Koh et al. described squamous and basal
cell skin cancers as most prevelant on the head-neck and forearms-hands
where cumulative sun exposure is greatest, while melanoma is most
prevalent on generally covered parts of the body. Boring et al.
estimated 600,000 cases and 2,000 deaths (0.3% death rate) in 1991 from
squamous-basal skin cancer. Melanoma, however, has a 20% fatality rate
because of its typically early metastasis, producing 6,500 U.S. deaths
in 1991 from 32,000 cases."

"The literature review and four studies that follow suggest a
paradoxical relationship in which melanoma is initiated by severe
sunburning, but inhibited by nonburning sun exposure. Koh et al., in
their 1990 article on sunlight and melanoma, reviewed a substantial
body of research indicating a causative relationship between "blister
and peel" sunburning before the age of 20 and melanoma onset later.
However, a 1981 study by Colston et al. reported that melanoma cells
have receptors for 1,25-(OH)2-D3 and that this vitamin D metabolite
slows the doubling time of melanoma cells in vitro. Also, in 1987,
Eisman et al. demonstrated growth suppression of melanoma cells in a
laboratory environment using 1,25-(OH)2-D3. Consitent with the findings
of Colston and Eisman, Vagero et al. have shown that people who work
outdoors get more total sun exposure but have a lower incidence of
melanoma than office workers. Additionally, Crombie observed that
melanoma seldom occurs on area of the skin that get regular sun
exposure, also suggesting the preventative effect of consistent
sunning."

"Sun-Promoted vs Sun-Inhibited Cancers - For more than 10 years, U.S.
health authorities have pervasively and effectively advised against all
sun exposure, including regular moderate exposure. Since melanoma has
been shown to be inhibited by vitamin D and regular sun exposure, these
advisories against regular moderate exposure can only be correctly
based on solar promotion of squamous-basal skin cancers, which have a
death rate of 0.3% and cause only 2,000 U.S. deaths yearly. In
contrast, about 138,000 people in the United States die each year of
cancer with death rates of 20-65% which have been shown to be inhibited
by vitamin D, its metabolites, and regular sun exposure. The
epidemiological studies show trends suggesting that widespread public
adoption of routine sunbathing would result in approximately a
one-third lowering of breast and colon cancer death rates, or about
32,000 fewer U.S. cancer deaths yearly. An increase in squamous-basal
skin cancer would be expected, but even a 100% increase, with 2,000
additional deaths per year, would still leave a net 30,000 fewer U.S.
cancer deaths. A decrease in deaths from leukemia, lymphoma, and
melanoma would also be expected, but lack the epidemiological studies
makes this prediction more difficult to quantify."

"Sunscreen Use and Cancer Rates - American Cancer Society statistics
show that estimated breast cancer incidence recently increased 17% in 1
year, from 150,000 new cases in 1990 to 175,000 in 1991. In a search
for the cause of this dramatic increase, the following must be
considered: (a) previously cited research showing that decreased sun
exposure causes increased breast cancer; (b) research showing that the
past decade of anti-sun advisories has resulted in decreased sun
exposure with increased sunscreen use; (c) research linking chronic
sunscreen use to decreased blood levels of 25-OH-D3, the necessary
precursor to 1,25-(OH)2-D3; (d) research showing that decreased tissue
levels of 1,25-(OH)2-D3 is associated with increased growth rates of
breast cancer. From these research findings, it appears reasonable to
speculate that the cause of this increase in breast cancer is that for
more than a decade our population has been encouraged as never before
to avoid sun exposure; meanwhile, because of the concurrent emergence
of very effective topical sun blockers, effectively avoiding sun
exposure has become very easy. Furthermore, a substantial body of
knowledge provided in recent literature review suggests that regular
sunscreen use is associated with higher risk of melanoma. Increased
risk of basal cell cancer has been noted among women who use
sunscreen."

"Conclusions and Recommendations - The benefits of regular sun
exposure appear to outweigh substantially the risks of squamous-basal
skin cancer, accelerated aging, and melanoma from burning, all of which
can be mitigated. In contrast to Peller's and Apperly's time, we may,
as a result of improved understanding, be able to use sun exposure now
to dramatically lower our death rates from internal cancers and
melanoma without suffering any consequent increased incidence in
squamous-basal skin cancer. We are also in a position to be able to
mitigate the accelerated aging and melanoma risks."

"Preventing melanoma is largely a matter of preventing sunburning,
especially in children and adolescents. As the melanoma research has
demonstrated, the best prevention is regular exposure, thereby
maintaining a protective tan and high vitamin D blood and tissue
levels. This is especially important in early spring preparation for
the very intense sun of early summer. Sun exposure and burning
potential are dramatically affected by the altitude of the location,
the sun-reflective nature of the environment, the angulation of the sun
in the sky, the purity or pollution of the air, the sensitivity of the
skin, and the degree to which the skin is tanned. These variables must
be considered carefully. Until further guidelines are available, it is
probably best to start with a few minutes a day and increase this
gradually according to individual response. It must be noted that a
very few individuals have abnormal skin conditions that make any sun
exposure harmful."

"The squamous-basal skin cancer and accelerated aging risks can be
mitigated by spreading the exposure over the whole body, while
selectively shading the thin, sensitive, and cancer-prone skin of the
head and neck. It appears that hats should be used. The dramatic
increase in skin cancers over the past decade has been extensively
discussed with regard to ozone depletion. However, the change in styles
of dress that has resulted in the almost complete abandonment of the
hat as an article of clothing for the past 30 years offers a
hypothetical timeframe of carcinogenesis more in line with our
knowledge of skin cancer. In view of the recent suggested link between
sunscreen use and increased melanoma incidence, physical shading
appears to be the safest way to limit sun exposure."

"The research cited here demonstrates the need for regular exposure
to the sun. Additionally, Webb and Holick have shown that vitamin D
synthesis continues for 3 days after sun exposure. Therefore it seems
prudent to recommend sunbathing at least every 3-4 days, if practical.
Short daily exposure, perhaps during lunch time, would appear to be
best."

"Studies of the geographical distribution of cancer deaths in general
and certain cancers in particular show that sun exposure can be an
ineffective source of vitamin D at the higher latitudes, colder
climates, and regions of polluted air, especially during fall and
winter. Personal supplementation or dietary alteration appears to be
seasonally appropriate in these locales. Cross-cultural studies suggest
that diet can be effective source of vitamin D for cancer prevention
and that 400-800 IU daily is an effective safe dose. Sun exposure, if
available, eliminates the risks of vitamin D toxicity and intestinal
malabsorption."

"The research studies presented here suggest that dermal activation
of vitamin D from regular, moderate sun exposure has a strong
protective effect in the prevention of breast cancer and colon cancer;
has a weaker protective effect in melanoma, leukemia, and lymphoma; and
acts to lower overall cancer death rates. These studies emphasize
cancers with high death rates, rather than high-incidence, generally
nonfatal dermal cancers. The combined findings of these studies suggest
that advising the public to seek regular moderate solar exposure is
supported by a broad view of the available scientific research as an
effective means of lowering cancer mortality."

Authors Note:
For years we have been told to avoid sun exposure and apply sun screen
at all times. This advice was fatally flawed having not taken into
account the multiple functions of sunlight and vitamin D. As a result,
in part people are experiencing vitamin D deficiency that will in part
be responsible for increases in breast and colon cancer. And since
vitamin D is involved in bone formation, low amounts of vitamin D will
also contribute to a greater amount of osteoporosis as well as less
healthy gums and gum tissue. We need to all get moderate sunlight
during the day and avoid the use of sunscreens that block that health
giving light. In places where light is limited as in northern climates
or during the winter we can return to the use of proper amounts of fish
oils as a supplement and/or the use of full spectrum lights.

Jan Drew wrote:
"Peter Moran"
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
om...
http://www.newstarget.com/019360.html

By Mike Adams


Do you realize that one of the most powerful cures for cancer is
streaming over our heads each and every day, free of charge? It's
sunlight, which is astounding in its ability to prevent and cure cancer.
If it were a mainstream drug, it would probably make the cover of Time
magazine and be heralded as the greatest medical breakthrough in the
history of modern science. It's that good.
Sunlight exposure reduces the risk of many cancers by more than 50
percent and even helps reverse certain types of cancers through the
creation of vitamin D in the body. It's a magnificent natural healing
modality, and it's been right in front of our eyes, every single day,
since before Homo sapiens even evolved on this planet.
There is some evidence from observational studies that Vitamin D
deficiency is associated with an increased risk of certain types of
cancer. There is none that either sunlight or Vitamin D can cure cancer,
and it is irresponsible to say so..

Says Peter Moran who was irresponsible in saying there were no cover ups,
which kiiled Jessi Gelsinger...

In FACT...he OUTRIGHT LIED.....

When Jan cannot refute, she attacks Peter personally.

Jan does not even have the morals of a child molester.



Peter Moran
www.cancerblather

This is the same Mike Adams that wrote the truth about supplements.

Yet somehow, after spending billions of dollars on so-called medical
research to find "cures" for various cancers, almost no one from the world
of mainstream medicine has yet acknowledged the healing power of natural
sunlight and vitamin D.

None of them have actually prescribed sunlight to patients, except for
perhaps a handful of pioneering researchers like Dr. Michael Holick, who
was attacked for speaking out about the truth of sunlight and cancer. By
and large, the medical community has not only ignored this truly
miraculous cure for many types of cancer; it has worked hard to discredit
it.

If there were ever a reason to lose faith in conventional medicine, or
so-called modern medicine, it is simply the fact that one of the greatest
cures and prevention strategies for cancer goes completely ignored by
nearly the entire conventional medical community. It's as if there were a
miracle medicine invented, but conventional medical doctors didn't want
anyone to find out about it. Why aren't researchers promoting cures that
are available for free?


Protecting the medical dogma
The medical community doesn't want to promote cures it did not invent.
When nature offers a cure, that's not very satisfying to the egos of drug
company researchers and scientists. A drug company only wants to promote
cures that it can patent and exploit for financial gain. The way it
perpetuates the cycle is to make sure that the cancer treatments it
controls get a lot more press and hype than any natural treatments. You
don't see sunlight promoted in full-page advertisements for its ability
to prevent or reverse cancer. Instead, the medical community uses the
full-page advertisement for high-profit prescription drugs that have
negative side effects and actually kill people.

More at link

And MORE that Peter Moran does NOT watch....

http://www.newstarget.com/001058.html

http://www.newstarget.com/009415.html

http://www.newstarget.com/007632.html

"Peter Moran" wrote in message
...



This is the same Mike Adams that wrote the deceptive tripe about
supplements.

Peter Moran


That should be "Allopathic" cancer watcher
http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html

they just watch you die while they pocket the money

Thanks, Roman.

As usual our source of the truth.

Enjoy yours.

Much appreciated.

Jan

"Roman Bystrianyk" wrote in message
oups.com...
For your information ... enjoy your day.

H. Gordon Ainsleigh, DC, "Beneficial effects of sun exposure on cancer
mortality", Preventive Medicine, January 1, 1993, Vol. 22, Num. 0, pp.
132-140

"For more than 50 years, there has been documentation in the medical
literature suggesting that regular sun exposure is associated with
substantial decreases in death rates from certain cancers and a
decrease in overall cancer death rates. Recent research suggests that
this is a causal relationship that acts through the body's vitamin D
metabolic pathways. The studies reviewed here show that (a) sunlight
activation is our most effective source of vitamin D; (b) regular
sunlight/vitamin D "intake" inhibits growth of breast and colon cancer
cells and is associated with substantial decreases in death rates from
these cancers; (c) metabolites of vitamin D have induced leukemia and
lymphoma cells to differentiate, prolonged survival of leukemic mice,
and produced complete and partial clinical responses in lymphoma
patients having high vitamin D metabolite receptor levels in tumor
tissue; (d) sunlight has a paradoxical relationship with melanoma, in
that severe sunburning initiates melanoma whereas long-term regular sun
exposure inhibits melanoma; (e) frequent regular sun exposure acts to
cause cancers that have a 0.3% death rate with 2,000 U.S. fatalities
per year and acts to prevent cancers that have death rates from 20-65%
with 138,000 U.S. fatalities per year; (f) there is support in the
medical literature to suggest that the 17% increase in breast cancer
incidence during the 1991-1992 year may be the result of the past
decade of pervasive anti-sun advisories from respected authorities,
coinciding with effective sunscreen availability; and (g) trends in the
epidemiological literature suggest that approximately 30,000 U.S.
cancer deaths yearly would be averted by the widespread public adoption
of regular, moderate sunning. Advising the public to seek regular
moderate sun exposure finds good support in the scientific literature
as a means of lowering cancer mortality."

"In 1941, Apperly reported that overall cancer death rates increased
with distance from the equator, and were further decreased in areas
where a large percentage of the population was engaged in the
sun-intensive occupation of farming. Compared with cities located
between 10° and 30° latitude, cities between 30° and 40° latitude
averaged 85% higher overall cancer death rates, cities between 40° and
50° latitude averaged 118% higher overall cancer death rates, and
cities between 50° and 60° latitude averaged 150% higher overall
cancer death rates. After reviewing his data, the author concluded: "A
closer study of the action of solar radiation on the body might well
reveal the nature of cancer immunity."

"Studies published during the past 20 years demonstrate that the link
between sun exposure and cancer prevention acts through the vitamin D
metabolic pathways."

"Vitamin D and Sunlight - In addition to its low cost and "high
patient acceptance", sunlight activation of 7-dehydrocholesterol in the
skin has significant advantages as a vitamin D source compared with
diet and supplementation. Webb and Hollick have discussed how sunlight
activation bypasses any gastrointestinal vitamin D malabsorption
problem and also avoid the overdose toxicity potential present with
oral vitamin D intake by the self-limiting production of D3-inactive
previtamin D3 photoisomers. The importance of sunlight in supplying
human vitamin D needs was demonstrated by Haddad and Hahn, who reported
that even in high-latitude, often-overcast Britain, sunlight provides
70% or more of the vitamin D present in the blood of Caucasians."

"Breast Cancer - Support for the biochemical relationship between sun
exposure and cancer inhibition came in 1979, when Eisman et al. of the
University of Melborne reported that a human breast cancer cell line
had receptor sites for 1,25-dihydroxyvitmain D3 (1,25-(OH)2-D3), the
most active metabolite of vitamin D. ... in 1990, the Garland-Gorham
team found that women from the areas of the United States with less
available sunlight died 40-60% more frequently of breast cancer than
women who lived in places like Honolulu and Tampa. The dramatic
variation in breast cancer rates according to geographic area in the
United States had been know for some time, but had previously gone
unexplained. The Garland research accounted for the geographic
variation in breast cancer in a way that had been previously
overlooked, showing a very strong negative correlation (R = -0.80, P
0.0001) between available sunlight and breast cancer death rates."
"Colon Cancer - In 1980 Frank and Cedric Garland presented the first
modern epidemiological research suggesting a direct protective effect
of sunlight vitamin D on cancer, showing that colon cancer was
decreased in areas of the United States with greater sun exposure. In
1985, further research by the Garlands showed decreased colon cancer
rates with higher oral vitamin D and calcium intake in a prospective
study. Wargovich and Lointier followed in 1987 with a report that
1,25-(OH)2-D3 suppressed growth of human colon cancer cells in vitro.
In 1989, the Garland brothers, joined Edward Gorham and others,
demonstrated that increased blood levels of 25-hyrdoxyvitamin D were
associated with lower colon cancer incidence rates."

"Melanoma and Squamous-Basal Cancers of the Skin - The recent
increases in melanoma and squamous-basal skin cancers have been used to
justify advising everybody to either stay out of the sun or wear
sunblock. However, as show below, there is reason to believe that these
recommendations are flawed. Koh et al. described squamous and basal
cell skin cancers as most prevelant on the head-neck and forearms-hands
where cumulative sun exposure is greatest, while melanoma is most
prevalent on generally covered parts of the body. Boring et al.
estimated 600,000 cases and 2,000 deaths (0.3% death rate) in 1991 from
squamous-basal skin cancer. Melanoma, however, has a 20% fatality rate
because of its typically early metastasis, producing 6,500 U.S. deaths
in 1991 from 32,000 cases."

"The literature review and four studies that follow suggest a
paradoxical relationship in which melanoma is initiated by severe
sunburning, but inhibited by nonburning sun exposure. Koh et al., in
their 1990 article on sunlight and melanoma, reviewed a substantial
body of research indicating a causative relationship between "blister
and peel" sunburning before the age of 20 and melanoma onset later.
However, a 1981 study by Colston et al. reported that melanoma cells
have receptors for 1,25-(OH)2-D3 and that this vitamin D metabolite
slows the doubling time of melanoma cells in vitro. Also, in 1987,
Eisman et al. demonstrated growth suppression of melanoma cells in a
laboratory environment using 1,25-(OH)2-D3. Consitent with the findings
of Colston and Eisman, Vagero et al. have shown that people who work
outdoors get more total sun exposure but have a lower incidence of
melanoma than office workers. Additionally, Crombie observed that
melanoma seldom occurs on area of the skin that get regular sun
exposure, also suggesting the preventative effect of consistent
sunning."

"Sun-Promoted vs Sun-Inhibited Cancers - For more than 10 years, U.S.
health authorities have pervasively and effectively advised against all
sun exposure, including regular moderate exposure. Since melanoma has
been shown to be inhibited by vitamin D and regular sun exposure, these
advisories against regular moderate exposure can only be correctly
based on solar promotion of squamous-basal skin cancers, which have a
death rate of 0.3% and cause only 2,000 U.S. deaths yearly. In
contrast, about 138,000 people in the United States die each year of
cancer with death rates of 20-65% which have been shown to be inhibited
by vitamin D, its metabolites, and regular sun exposure. The
epidemiological studies show trends suggesting that widespread public
adoption of routine sunbathing would result in approximately a
one-third lowering of breast and colon cancer death rates, or about
32,000 fewer U.S. cancer deaths yearly. An increase in squamous-basal
skin cancer would be expected, but even a 100% increase, with 2,000
additional deaths per year, would still leave a net 30,000 fewer U.S.
cancer deaths. A decrease in deaths from leukemia, lymphoma, and
melanoma would also be expected, but lack the epidemiological studies
makes this prediction more difficult to quantify."

"Sunscreen Use and Cancer Rates - American Cancer Society statistics
show that estimated breast cancer incidence recently increased 17% in 1
year, from 150,000 new cases in 1990 to 175,000 in 1991. In a search
for the cause of this dramatic increase, the following must be
considered: (a) previously cited research showing that decreased sun
exposure causes increased breast cancer; (b) research showing that the
past decade of anti-sun advisories has resulted in decreased sun
exposure with increased sunscreen use; (c) research linking chronic
sunscreen use to decreased blood levels of 25-OH-D3, the necessary
precursor to 1,25-(OH)2-D3; (d) research showing that decreased tissue
levels of 1,25-(OH)2-D3 is associated with increased growth rates of
breast cancer. From these research findings, it appears reasonable to
speculate that the cause of this increase in breast cancer is that for
more than a decade our population has been encouraged as never before
to avoid sun exposure; meanwhile, because of the concurrent emergence
of very effective topical sun blockers, effectively avoiding sun
exposure has become very easy. Furthermore, a substantial body of
knowledge provided in recent literature review suggests that regular
sunscreen use is associated with higher risk of melanoma. Increased
risk of basal cell cancer has been noted among women who use
sunscreen."

"Conclusions and Recommendations - The benefits of regular sun
exposure appear to outweigh substantially the risks of squamous-basal
skin cancer, accelerated aging, and melanoma from burning, all of which
can be mitigated. In contrast to Peller's and Apperly's time, we may,
as a result of improved understanding, be able to use sun exposure now
to dramatically lower our death rates from internal cancers and
melanoma without suffering any consequent increased incidence in
squamous-basal skin cancer. We are also in a position to be able to
mitigate the accelerated aging and melanoma risks."

"Preventing melanoma is largely a matter of preventing sunburning,
especially in children and adolescents. As the melanoma research has
demonstrated, the best prevention is regular exposure, thereby
maintaining a protective tan and high vitamin D blood and tissue
levels. This is especially important in early spring preparation for
the very intense sun of early summer. Sun exposure and burning
potential are dramatically affected by the altitude of the location,
the sun-reflective nature of the environment, the angulation of the sun
in the sky, the purity or pollution of the air, the sensitivity of the
skin, and the degree to which the skin is tanned. These variables must
be considered carefully. Until further guidelines are available, it is
probably best to start with a few minutes a day and increase this
gradually according to individual response. It must be noted that a
very few individuals have abnormal skin conditions that make any sun
exposure harmful."

"The squamous-basal skin cancer and accelerated aging risks can be
mitigated by spreading the exposure over the whole body, while
selectively shading the thin, sensitive, and cancer-prone skin of the
head and neck. It appears that hats should be used. The dramatic
increase in skin cancers over the past decade has been extensively
discussed with regard to ozone depletion. However, the change in styles
of dress that has resulted in the almost complete abandonment of the
hat as an article of clothing for the past 30 years offers a
hypothetical timeframe of carcinogenesis more in line with our
knowledge of skin cancer. In view of the recent suggested link between
sunscreen use and increased melanoma incidence, physical shading
appears to be the safest way to limit sun exposure."

"The research cited here demonstrates the need for regular exposure
to the sun. Additionally, Webb and Holick have shown that vitamin D
synthesis continues for 3 days after sun exposure. Therefore it seems
prudent to recommend sunbathing at least every 3-4 days, if practical.
Short daily exposure, perhaps during lunch time, would appear to be
best."

"Studies of the geographical distribution of cancer deaths in general
and certain cancers in particular show that sun exposure can be an
ineffective source of vitamin D at the higher latitudes, colder
climates, and regions of polluted air, especially during fall and
winter. Personal supplementation or dietary alteration appears to be
seasonally appropriate in these locales. Cross-cultural studies suggest
that diet can be effective source of vitamin D for cancer prevention
and that 400-800 IU daily is an effective safe dose. Sun exposure, if
available, eliminates the risks of vitamin D toxicity and intestinal
malabsorption."

"The research studies presented here suggest that dermal activation
of vitamin D from regular, moderate sun exposure has a strong
protective effect in the prevention of breast cancer and colon cancer;
has a weaker protective effect in melanoma, leukemia, and lymphoma; and
acts to lower overall cancer death rates. These studies emphasize
cancers with high death rates, rather than high-incidence, generally
nonfatal dermal cancers. The combined findings of these studies suggest
that advising the public to seek regular moderate solar exposure is
supported by a broad view of the available scientific research as an
effective means of lowering cancer mortality."

Authors Note:
For years we have been told to avoid sun exposure and apply sun screen
at all times. This advice was fatally flawed having not taken into
account the multiple functions of sunlight and vitamin D. As a result,
in part people are experiencing vitamin D deficiency that will in part
be responsible for increases in breast and colon cancer. And since
vitamin D is involved in bone formation, low amounts of vitamin D will
also contribute to a greater amount of osteoporosis as well as less
healthy gums and gum tissue. We need to all get moderate sunlight
during the day and avoid the use of sunscreens that block that health
giving light. In places where light is limited as in northern climates
or during the winter we can return to the use of proper amounts of fish
oils as a supplement and/or the use of full spectrum lights.

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
m...
Thanks, Roman.

As usual our source of the truth.


I was aware of this work, of course. Hence my carefully worded comment
about observational studies indicating the possibility of a preventative
role for Vitamin Din this very preliminary research. There is still no
evidence that sunlight or Vitamin D can cure cancer - my main point.

Interestingly, Australians have very high sun exposures, but Muslim women
have low Vitamin D levels presumably through their dress.

Peter Moran

Enjoy yours.

Much appreciated.

Jan

"Roman Bystrianyk" wrote in message
oups.com...
For your information ... enjoy your day.

H. Gordon Ainsleigh, DC, "Beneficial effects of sun exposure on cancer
mortality", Preventive Medicine, January 1, 1993, Vol. 22, Num. 0, pp.
132-140

"For more than 50 years, there has been documentation in the medical
literature suggesting that regular sun exposure is associated with
substantial decreases in death rates from certain cancers and a
decrease in overall cancer death rates. Recent research suggests that
this is a causal relationship that acts through the body's vitamin D
metabolic pathways. The studies reviewed here show that (a) sunlight
activation is our most effective source of vitamin D; (b) regular
sunlight/vitamin D "intake" inhibits growth of breast and colon cancer
cells and is associated with substantial decreases in death rates from
these cancers; (c) metabolites of vitamin D have induced leukemia and
lymphoma cells to differentiate, prolonged survival of leukemic mice,
and produced complete and partial clinical responses in lymphoma
patients having high vitamin D metabolite receptor levels in tumor
tissue; (d) sunlight has a paradoxical relationship with melanoma, in
that severe sunburning initiates melanoma whereas long-term regular sun
exposure inhibits melanoma; (e) frequent regular sun exposure acts to
cause cancers that have a 0.3% death rate with 2,000 U.S. fatalities
per year and acts to prevent cancers that have death rates from 20-65%
with 138,000 U.S. fatalities per year; (f) there is support in the
medical literature to suggest that the 17% increase in breast cancer
incidence during the 1991-1992 year may be the result of the past
decade of pervasive anti-sun advisories from respected authorities,
coinciding with effective sunscreen availability; and (g) trends in the
epidemiological literature suggest that approximately 30,000 U.S.
cancer deaths yearly would be averted by the widespread public adoption
of regular, moderate sunning. Advising the public to seek regular
moderate sun exposure finds good support in the scientific literature
as a means of lowering cancer mortality."

"In 1941, Apperly reported that overall cancer death rates increased
with distance from the equator, and were further decreased in areas
where a large percentage of the population was engaged in the
sun-intensive occupation of farming. Compared with cities located
between 10° and 30° latitude, cities between 30° and 40° latitude
averaged 85% higher overall cancer death rates, cities between 40° and
50° latitude averaged 118% higher overall cancer death rates, and
cities between 50° and 60° latitude averaged 150% higher overall
cancer death rates. After reviewing his data, the author concluded: "A
closer study of the action of solar radiation on the body might well
reveal the nature of cancer immunity."

"Studies published during the past 20 years demonstrate that the link
between sun exposure and cancer prevention acts through the vitamin D
metabolic pathways."

"Vitamin D and Sunlight - In addition to its low cost and "high
patient acceptance", sunlight activation of 7-dehydrocholesterol in the
skin has significant advantages as a vitamin D source compared with
diet and supplementation. Webb and Hollick have discussed how sunlight
activation bypasses any gastrointestinal vitamin D malabsorption
problem and also avoid the overdose toxicity potential present with
oral vitamin D intake by the self-limiting production of D3-inactive
previtamin D3 photoisomers. The importance of sunlight in supplying
human vitamin D needs was demonstrated by Haddad and Hahn, who reported
that even in high-latitude, often-overcast Britain, sunlight provides
70% or more of the vitamin D present in the blood of Caucasians."

"Breast Cancer - Support for the biochemical relationship between sun
exposure and cancer inhibition came in 1979, when Eisman et al. of the
University of Melborne reported that a human breast cancer cell line
had receptor sites for 1,25-dihydroxyvitmain D3 (1,25-(OH)2-D3), the
most active metabolite of vitamin D. ... in 1990, the Garland-Gorham
team found that women from the areas of the United States with less
available sunlight died 40-60% more frequently of breast cancer than
women who lived in places like Honolulu and Tampa. The dramatic
variation in breast cancer rates according to geographic area in the
United States had been know for some time, but had previously gone
unexplained. The Garland research accounted for the geographic
variation in breast cancer in a way that had been previously
overlooked, showing a very strong negative correlation (R = -0.80, P
0.0001) between available sunlight and breast cancer death rates."
"Colon Cancer - In 1980 Frank and Cedric Garland presented the first
modern epidemiological research suggesting a direct protective effect
of sunlight vitamin D on cancer, showing that colon cancer was
decreased in areas of the United States with greater sun exposure. In
1985, further research by the Garlands showed decreased colon cancer
rates with higher oral vitamin D and calcium intake in a prospective
study. Wargovich and Lointier followed in 1987 with a report that
1,25-(OH)2-D3 suppressed growth of human colon cancer cells in vitro.
In 1989, the Garland brothers, joined Edward Gorham and others,
demonstrated that increased blood levels of 25-hyrdoxyvitamin D were
associated with lower colon cancer incidence rates."

"Melanoma and Squamous-Basal Cancers of the Skin - The recent
increases in melanoma and squamous-basal skin cancers have been used to
justify advising everybody to either stay out of the sun or wear
sunblock. However, as show below, there is reason to believe that these
recommendations are flawed. Koh et al. described squamous and basal
cell skin cancers as most prevelant on the head-neck and forearms-hands
where cumulative sun exposure is greatest, while melanoma is most
prevalent on generally covered parts of the body. Boring et al.
estimated 600,000 cases and 2,000 deaths (0.3% death rate) in 1991 from
squamous-basal skin cancer. Melanoma, however, has a 20% fatality rate
because of its typically early metastasis, producing 6,500 U.S. deaths
in 1991 from 32,000 cases."

"The literature review and four studies that follow suggest a
paradoxical relationship in which melanoma is initiated by severe
sunburning, but inhibited by nonburning sun exposure. Koh et al., in
their 1990 article on sunlight and melanoma, reviewed a substantial
body of research indicating a causative relationship between "blister
and peel" sunburning before the age of 20 and melanoma onset later.
However, a 1981 study by Colston et al. reported that melanoma cells
have receptors for 1,25-(OH)2-D3 and that this vitamin D metabolite
slows the doubling time of melanoma cells in vitro. Also, in 1987,
Eisman et al. demonstrated growth suppression of melanoma cells in a
laboratory environment using 1,25-(OH)2-D3. Consitent with the findings
of Colston and Eisman, Vagero et al. have shown that people who work
outdoors get more total sun exposure but have a lower incidence of
melanoma than office workers. Additionally, Crombie observed that
melanoma seldom occurs on area of the skin that get regular sun
exposure, also suggesting the preventative effect of consistent
sunning."

"Sun-Promoted vs Sun-Inhibited Cancers - For more than 10 years, U.S.
health authorities have pervasively and effectively advised against all
sun exposure, including regular moderate exposure. Since melanoma has
been shown to be inhibited by vitamin D and regular sun exposure, these
advisories against regular moderate exposure can only be correctly
based on solar promotion of squamous-basal skin cancers, which have a
death rate of 0.3% and cause only 2,000 U.S. deaths yearly. In
contrast, about 138,000 people in the United States die each year of
cancer with death rates of 20-65% which have been shown to be inhibited
by vitamin D, its metabolites, and regular sun exposure. The
epidemiological studies show trends suggesting that widespread public
adoption of routine sunbathing would result in approximately a
one-third lowering of breast and colon cancer death rates, or about
32,000 fewer U.S. cancer deaths yearly. An increase in squamous-basal
skin cancer would be expected, but even a 100% increase, with 2,000
additional deaths per year, would still leave a net 30,000 fewer U.S.
cancer deaths. A decrease in deaths from leukemia, lymphoma, and
melanoma would also be expected, but lack the epidemiological studies
makes this prediction more difficult to quantify."

"Sunscreen Use and Cancer Rates - American Cancer Society statistics
show that estimated breast cancer incidence recently increased 17% in 1
year, from 150,000 new cases in 1990 to 175,000 in 1991. In a search
for the cause of this dramatic increase, the following must be
considered: (a) previously cited research showing that decreased sun
exposure causes increased breast cancer; (b) research showing that the
past decade of anti-sun advisories has resulted in decreased sun
exposure with increased sunscreen use; (c) research linking chronic
sunscreen use to decreased blood levels of 25-OH-D3, the necessary
precursor to 1,25-(OH)2-D3; (d) research showing that decreased tissue
levels of 1,25-(OH)2-D3 is associated with increased growth rates of
breast cancer. From these research findings, it appears reasonable to
speculate that the cause of this increase in breast cancer is that for
more than a decade our population has been encouraged as never before
to avoid sun exposure; meanwhile, because of the concurrent emergence
of very effective topical sun blockers, effectively avoiding sun
exposure has become very easy. Furthermore, a substantial body of
knowledge provided in recent literature review suggests that regular
sunscreen use is associated with higher risk of melanoma. Increased
risk of basal cell cancer has been noted among women who use
sunscreen."

"Conclusions and Recommendations - The benefits of regular sun
exposure appear to outweigh substantially the risks of squamous-basal
skin cancer, accelerated aging, and melanoma from burning, all of which
can be mitigated. In contrast to Peller's and Apperly's time, we may,
as a result of improved understanding, be able to use sun exposure now
to dramatically lower our death rates from internal cancers and
melanoma without suffering any consequent increased incidence in
squamous-basal skin cancer. We are also in a position to be able to
mitigate the accelerated aging and melanoma risks."

"Preventing melanoma is largely a matter of preventing sunburning,
especially in children and adolescents. As the melanoma research has
demonstrated, the best prevention is regular exposure, thereby
maintaining a protective tan and high vitamin D blood and tissue
levels. This is especially important in early spring preparation for
the very intense sun of early summer. Sun exposure and burning
potential are dramatically affected by the altitude of the location,
the sun-reflective nature of the environment, the angulation of the sun
in the sky, the purity or pollution of the air, the sensitivity of the
skin, and the degree to which the skin is tanned. These variables must
be considered carefully. Until further guidelines are available, it is
probably best to start with a few minutes a day and increase this
gradually according to individual response. It must be noted that a
very few individuals have abnormal skin conditions that make any sun
exposure harmful."

"The squamous-basal skin cancer and accelerated aging risks can be
mitigated by spreading the exposure over the whole body, while
selectively shading the thin, sensitive, and cancer-prone skin of the
head and neck. It appears that hats should be used. The dramatic
increase in skin cancers over the past decade has been extensively
discussed with regard to ozone depletion. However, the change in styles
of dress that has resulted in the almost complete abandonment of the
hat as an article of clothing for the past 30 years offers a
hypothetical timeframe of carcinogenesis more in line with our
knowledge of skin cancer. In view of the recent suggested link between
sunscreen use and increased melanoma incidence, physical shading
appears to be the safest way to limit sun exposure."

"The research cited here demonstrates the need for regular exposure
to the sun. Additionally, Webb and Holick have shown that vitamin D
synthesis continues for 3 days after sun exposure. Therefore it seems
prudent to recommend sunbathing at least every 3-4 days, if practical.
Short daily exposure, perhaps during lunch time, would appear to be
best."

"Studies of the geographical distribution of cancer deaths in general
and certain cancers in particular show that sun exposure can be an
ineffective source of vitamin D at the higher latitudes, colder
climates, and regions of polluted air, especially during fall and
winter. Personal supplementation or dietary alteration appears to be
seasonally appropriate in these locales. Cross-cultural studies suggest
that diet can be effective source of vitamin D for cancer prevention
and that 400-800 IU daily is an effective safe dose. Sun exposure, if
available, eliminates the risks of vitamin D toxicity and intestinal
malabsorption."

"The research studies presented here suggest that dermal activation
of vitamin D from regular, moderate sun exposure has a strong
protective effect in the prevention of breast cancer and colon cancer;
has a weaker protective effect in melanoma, leukemia, and lymphoma; and
acts to lower overall cancer death rates. These studies emphasize
cancers with high death rates, rather than high-incidence, generally
nonfatal dermal cancers. The combined findings of these studies suggest
that advising the public to seek regular moderate solar exposure is
supported by a broad view of the available scientific research as an
effective means of lowering cancer mortality."

Authors Note:
For years we have been told to avoid sun exposure and apply sun screen
at all times. This advice was fatally flawed having not taken into
account the multiple functions of sunlight and vitamin D. As a result,
in part people are experiencing vitamin D deficiency that will in part
be responsible for increases in breast and colon cancer. And since
vitamin D is involved in bone formation, low amounts of vitamin D will
also contribute to a greater amount of osteoporosis as well as less
healthy gums and gum tissue. We need to all get moderate sunlight
during the day and avoid the use of sunscreens that block that health
giving light. In places where light is limited as in northern climates
or during the winter we can return to the use of proper amounts of fish
oils as a supplement and/or the use of full spectrum lights.

Actually, sunshine causes cancer: skin cancer.

Jeff

"Peter Moran" wrote in message
u...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
m...
Thanks, Roman.

As usual our source of the truth.


I was aware of this work, of course.

Yes....Your claim to be a cancerwatcher....

Means....watching ONLY what you care to watch!


Hence my carefully worded comment
about observational studies indicating the possibility of a preventative
role for Vitamin Din this very preliminary research. There is still no
evidence that sunlight or Vitamin D can cure cancer - my main point.

What would you call this?

destroys breast cancer tumors
..

Interestingly, Australians have very high sun exposures, but Muslim women
have low Vitamin D levels presumably through their dress.

Peter Moran

More interesting is the LOW Vitamin D levels shown in Dr. Michael Holick's
Book, *Witness The Healing Power
Of Sunlight and Vitamin D*. Everyone should download the interview on this
website, it is quite amazing.

http://www.newstarget.com/007632.html

http://www.truthpublishing.com




Enjoy yours.

Much appreciated.

Jan

"Roman Bystrianyk" wrote in message
oups.com...
For your information ... enjoy your day.

H. Gordon Ainsleigh, DC, "Beneficial effects of sun exposure on cancer
mortality", Preventive Medicine, January 1, 1993, Vol. 22, Num. 0, pp.
132-140

"For more than 50 years, there has been documentation in the medical
literature suggesting that regular sun exposure is associated with
substantial decreases in death rates from certain cancers and a
decrease in overall cancer death rates. Recent research suggests that
this is a causal relationship that acts through the body's vitamin D
metabolic pathways. The studies reviewed here show that (a) sunlight
activation is our most effective source of vitamin D; (b) regular
sunlight/vitamin D "intake" inhibits growth of breast and colon cancer
cells and is associated with substantial decreases in death rates from
these cancers; (c) metabolites of vitamin D have induced leukemia and
lymphoma cells to differentiate, prolonged survival of leukemic mice,
and produced complete and partial clinical responses in lymphoma
patients having high vitamin D metabolite receptor levels in tumor
tissue; (d) sunlight has a paradoxical relationship with melanoma, in
that severe sunburning initiates melanoma whereas long-term regular sun
exposure inhibits melanoma; (e) frequent regular sun exposure acts to
cause cancers that have a 0.3% death rate with 2,000 U.S. fatalities
per year and acts to prevent cancers that have death rates from 20-65%
with 138,000 U.S. fatalities per year; (f) there is support in the
medical literature to suggest that the 17% increase in breast cancer
incidence during the 1991-1992 year may be the result of the past
decade of pervasive anti-sun advisories from respected authorities,
coinciding with effective sunscreen availability; and (g) trends in the
epidemiological literature suggest that approximately 30,000 U.S.
cancer deaths yearly would be averted by the widespread public adoption
of regular, moderate sunning. Advising the public to seek regular
moderate sun exposure finds good support in the scientific literature
as a means of lowering cancer mortality."

"In 1941, Apperly reported that overall cancer death rates increased
with distance from the equator, and were further decreased in areas
where a large percentage of the population was engaged in the
sun-intensive occupation of farming. Compared with cities located
between 10° and 30° latitude, cities between 30° and 40° latitude
averaged 85% higher overall cancer death rates, cities between 40° and
50° latitude averaged 118% higher overall cancer death rates, and
cities between 50° and 60° latitude averaged 150% higher overall
cancer death rates. After reviewing his data, the author concluded: "A
closer study of the action of solar radiation on the body might well
reveal the nature of cancer immunity."

"Studies published during the past 20 years demonstrate that the link
between sun exposure and cancer prevention acts through the vitamin D
metabolic pathways."

"Vitamin D and Sunlight - In addition to its low cost and "high
patient acceptance", sunlight activation of 7-dehydrocholesterol in the
skin has significant advantages as a vitamin D source compared with
diet and supplementation. Webb and Hollick have discussed how sunlight
activation bypasses any gastrointestinal vitamin D malabsorption
problem and also avoid the overdose toxicity potential present with
oral vitamin D intake by the self-limiting production of D3-inactive
previtamin D3 photoisomers. The importance of sunlight in supplying
human vitamin D needs was demonstrated by Haddad and Hahn, who reported
that even in high-latitude, often-overcast Britain, sunlight provides
70% or more of the vitamin D present in the blood of Caucasians."

"Breast Cancer - Support for the biochemical relationship between sun
exposure and cancer inhibition came in 1979, when Eisman et al. of the
University of Melborne reported that a human breast cancer cell line
had receptor sites for 1,25-dihydroxyvitmain D3 (1,25-(OH)2-D3), the
most active metabolite of vitamin D. ... in 1990, the Garland-Gorham
team found that women from the areas of the United States with less
available sunlight died 40-60% more frequently of breast cancer than
women who lived in places like Honolulu and Tampa. The dramatic
variation in breast cancer rates according to geographic area in the
United States had been know for some time, but had previously gone
unexplained. The Garland research accounted for the geographic
variation in breast cancer in a way that had been previously
overlooked, showing a very strong negative correlation (R = -0.80, P
0.0001) between available sunlight and breast cancer death rates."
"Colon Cancer - In 1980 Frank and Cedric Garland presented the first
modern epidemiological research suggesting a direct protective effect
of sunlight vitamin D on cancer, showing that colon cancer was
decreased in areas of the United States with greater sun exposure. In
1985, further research by the Garlands showed decreased colon cancer
rates with higher oral vitamin D and calcium intake in a prospective
study. Wargovich and Lointier followed in 1987 with a report that
1,25-(OH)2-D3 suppressed growth of human colon cancer cells in vitro.
In 1989, the Garland brothers, joined Edward Gorham and others,
demonstrated that increased blood levels of 25-hyrdoxyvitamin D were
associated with lower colon cancer incidence rates."

"Melanoma and Squamous-Basal Cancers of the Skin - The recent
increases in melanoma and squamous-basal skin cancers have been used to
justify advising everybody to either stay out of the sun or wear
sunblock. However, as show below, there is reason to believe that these
recommendations are flawed. Koh et al. described squamous and basal
cell skin cancers as most prevelant on the head-neck and forearms-hands
where cumulative sun exposure is greatest, while melanoma is most
prevalent on generally covered parts of the body. Boring et al.
estimated 600,000 cases and 2,000 deaths (0.3% death rate) in 1991 from
squamous-basal skin cancer. Melanoma, however, has a 20% fatality rate
because of its typically early metastasis, producing 6,500 U.S. deaths
in 1991 from 32,000 cases."

"The literature review and four studies that follow suggest a
paradoxical relationship in which melanoma is initiated by severe
sunburning, but inhibited by nonburning sun exposure. Koh et al., in
their 1990 article on sunlight and melanoma, reviewed a substantial
body of research indicating a causative relationship between "blister
and peel" sunburning before the age of 20 and melanoma onset later.
However, a 1981 study by Colston et al. reported that melanoma cells
have receptors for 1,25-(OH)2-D3 and that this vitamin D metabolite
slows the doubling time of melanoma cells in vitro. Also, in 1987,
Eisman et al. demonstrated growth suppression of melanoma cells in a
laboratory environment using 1,25-(OH)2-D3. Consitent with the findings
of Colston and Eisman, Vagero et al. have shown that people who work
outdoors get more total sun exposure but have a lower incidence of
melanoma than office workers. Additionally, Crombie observed that
melanoma seldom occurs on area of the skin that get regular sun
exposure, also suggesting the preventative effect of consistent
sunning."

"Sun-Promoted vs Sun-Inhibited Cancers - For more than 10 years, U.S.
health authorities have pervasively and effectively advised against all
sun exposure, including regular moderate exposure. Since melanoma has
been shown to be inhibited by vitamin D and regular sun exposure, these
advisories against regular moderate exposure can only be correctly
based on solar promotion of squamous-basal skin cancers, which have a
death rate of 0.3% and cause only 2,000 U.S. deaths yearly. In
contrast, about 138,000 people in the United States die each year of
cancer with death rates of 20-65% which have been shown to be inhibited
by vitamin D, its metabolites, and regular sun exposure. The
epidemiological studies show trends suggesting that widespread public
adoption of routine sunbathing would result in approximately a
one-third lowering of breast and colon cancer death rates, or about
32,000 fewer U.S. cancer deaths yearly. An increase in squamous-basal
skin cancer would be expected, but even a 100% increase, with 2,000
additional deaths per year, would still leave a net 30,000 fewer U.S.
cancer deaths. A decrease in deaths from leukemia, lymphoma, and
melanoma would also be expected, but lack the epidemiological studies
makes this prediction more difficult to quantify."

"Sunscreen Use and Cancer Rates - American Cancer Society statistics
show that estimated breast cancer incidence recently increased 17% in 1
year, from 150,000 new cases in 1990 to 175,000 in 1991. In a search
for the cause of this dramatic increase, the following must be
considered: (a) previously cited research showing that decreased sun
exposure causes increased breast cancer; (b) research showing that the
past decade of anti-sun advisories has resulted in decreased sun
exposure with increased sunscreen use; (c) research linking chronic
sunscreen use to decreased blood levels of 25-OH-D3, the necessary
precursor to 1,25-(OH)2-D3; (d) research showing that decreased tissue
levels of 1,25-(OH)2-D3 is associated with increased growth rates of
breast cancer. From these research findings, it appears reasonable to
speculate that the cause of this increase in breast cancer is that for
more than a decade our population has been encouraged as never before
to avoid sun exposure; meanwhile, because of the concurrent emergence
of very effective topical sun blockers, effectively avoiding sun
exposure has become very easy. Furthermore, a substantial body of
knowledge provided in recent literature review suggests that regular
sunscreen use is associated with higher risk of melanoma. Increased
risk of basal cell cancer has been noted among women who use
sunscreen."

"Conclusions and Recommendations - The benefits of regular sun
exposure appear to outweigh substantially the risks of squamous-basal
skin cancer, accelerated aging, and melanoma from burning, all of which
can be mitigated. In contrast to Peller's and Apperly's time, we may,
as a result of improved understanding, be able to use sun exposure now
to dramatically lower our death rates from internal cancers and
melanoma without suffering any consequent increased incidence in
squamous-basal skin cancer. We are also in a position to be able to
mitigate the accelerated aging and melanoma risks."

"Preventing melanoma is largely a matter of preventing sunburning,
especially in children and adolescents. As the melanoma research has
demonstrated, the best prevention is regular exposure, thereby
maintaining a protective tan and high vitamin D blood and tissue
levels. This is especially important in early spring preparation for
the very intense sun of early summer. Sun exposure and burning
potential are dramatically affected by the altitude of the location,
the sun-reflective nature of the environment, the angulation of the sun
in the sky, the purity or pollution of the air, the sensitivity of the
skin, and the degree to which the skin is tanned. These variables must
be considered carefully. Until further guidelines are available, it is
probably best to start with a few minutes a day and increase this
gradually according to individual response. It must be noted that a
very few individuals have abnormal skin conditions that make any sun
exposure harmful."

"The squamous-basal skin cancer and accelerated aging risks can be
mitigated by spreading the exposure over the whole body, while
selectively shading the thin, sensitive, and cancer-prone skin of the
head and neck. It appears that hats should be used. The dramatic
increase in skin cancers over the past decade has been extensively
discussed with regard to ozone depletion. However, the change in styles
of dress that has resulted in the almost complete abandonment of the
hat as an article of clothing for the past 30 years offers a
hypothetical timeframe of carcinogenesis more in line with our
knowledge of skin cancer. In view of the recent suggested link between
sunscreen use and increased melanoma incidence, physical shading
appears to be the safest way to limit sun exposure."

"The research cited here demonstrates the need for regular exposure
to the sun. Additionally, Webb and Holick have shown that vitamin D
synthesis continues for 3 days after sun exposure. Therefore it seems
prudent to recommend sunbathing at least every 3-4 days, if practical.
Short daily exposure, perhaps during lunch time, would appear to be
best."

"Studies of the geographical distribution of cancer deaths in general
and certain cancers in particular show that sun exposure can be an
ineffective source of vitamin D at the higher latitudes, colder
climates, and regions of polluted air, especially during fall and
winter. Personal supplementation or dietary alteration appears to be
seasonally appropriate in these locales. Cross-cultural studies suggest
that diet can be effective source of vitamin D for cancer prevention
and that 400-800 IU daily is an effective safe dose. Sun exposure, if
available, eliminates the risks of vitamin D toxicity and intestinal
malabsorption."

"The research studies presented here suggest that dermal activation
of vitamin D from regular, moderate sun exposure has a strong
protective effect in the prevention of breast cancer and colon cancer;
has a weaker protective effect in melanoma, leukemia, and lymphoma; and
acts to lower overall cancer death rates. These studies emphasize
cancers with high death rates, rather than high-incidence, generally
nonfatal dermal cancers. The combined findings of these studies suggest
that advising the public to seek regular moderate solar exposure is
supported by a broad view of the available scientific research as an
effective means of lowering cancer mortality."

Authors Note:
For years we have been told to avoid sun exposure and apply sun screen
at all times. This advice was fatally flawed having not taken into
account the multiple functions of sunlight and vitamin D. As a result,
in part people are experiencing vitamin D deficiency that will in part
be responsible for increases in breast and colon cancer. And since
vitamin D is involved in bone formation, low amounts of vitamin D will
also contribute to a greater amount of osteoporosis as well as less
healthy gums and gum tissue. We need to all get moderate sunlight
during the day and avoid the use of sunscreens that block that health
giving light. In places where light is limited as in northern climates
or during the winter we can return to the use of proper amounts of fish
oils as a supplement and/or the use of full spectrum lights.