Can sun exposure lower the rates of MS
bigvince
lower risk of MS"
"People who spent more time in the sun as children may have a lower
risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) than people who had less
sun exposure during childhood, according to a study published in the
July 24, 2007, issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the
American Academy of Neurology.
For the study, researchers surveyed 79 pairs of identical twins with
the same genetic risk for MS in which only one twin had MS. The twins
were asked to specify whether they or their twin spent more time
outdoors during hot days, cold days, and summer, and which one spent
more time sun tanning, going to the beach and playing team sports as a
child.
The study found the twin with MS spent less time in the sun as a child
than the twin who did not have MS. Depending on the activity, the twin
who spent more hours outdoors had a 25 to 57 percent reduced risk of
developing MS. For example, the risk of developing MS was 49 percent
lower for twins who spent more time sun tanning than their siblings.
"Sun exposure appears to have a protective effect against MS," said
study authors Talat Islam, MBBS, PhD, and Thomas Mack, MD, MPH, with
the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California
in Los Angeles. "Exposure to ultra violet rays may induce protection
against MS by alternative mechanisms, either directly by altering the
cellular immune response or indirectly by producing immunoactive
vitamin D." full story at
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/childhood-sun-exposure-may-lower-risk-ms-13768.html
As recent studies have shown vitamin d linked to a 50 % or greater
reduction in certain cancers . One can only wonder if conventional
medicines advice to avoid sun exposure [ the most natural source of
vitamin d ] has caused more harm then good. Thanks Vince
Bryan Heit
> Vitamin d [sun exposure] and MS " Childhood sun exposure may
> lower risk of MS"
> "People who spent more time in the sun as children may have a lower
> risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) than people who had less
> sun exposure during childhood, according to a study published in the
> July 24, 2007, issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the
> American Academy of Neurology.
<snip abstract>
An interesting finding, but not unexpected. There is a long-established
link between UV exposure and immune function - notably that UV exposure
results in immune suppression (this is why people often get sick after
getting a bad sunburn). Since MS is an autoimmune disease - i.e. caused
by excessive immune function, anything which reduces immune function
could potentially reduce the incidence & severity of MS.
There is also the vitamin d angle, although that is still an early
result and is somewhat controversial.
Unfortunately, the authors of the study did not look for correlations
between MS and skin cancer - this finding is only useful if the
additional sun exposure was not enough to increase rates of skin cancer.
After all, exchanging MS for melanoma isn't exactly "therapy".
> http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/childhood-sun-exposure-may-lower-risk-ms-13768.html
> As recent studies have shown vitamin d linked to a 50 % or greater
> reduction in certain cancers . One can only wonder if conventional
> medicines advice to avoid sun exposure [ the most natural source of
> vitamin d ] has caused more harm then good. Thanks Vince
That's a no-brainer. Firstly, medical advice is not to avoid sun, but
rather to protect yourself from UV. Since conventional methods of UV
protection (sunscreen, clothes) do not block enough of the light
responsible for Vit D synthesis - even in patients who have to wear
sunscreen full-time due to pigmentation problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9418761
The reasons are simple - firstly, only some of the frequencies of light
which can "fix" VitD are blocked by sunscreen, meaning that sunscreen
has only a small impact on the rate of synthesis. Secondly, many foods
(i.e. dairy products) have high levels of the "fixed" form of VitD
already (and some have extra added during processing), so you can get it
from your diet.
The second point worth making is that the recently reported advantages
of high VitD intake are controversial - only a few studies have
identified the supposed benefits, and the levels of VitD where those
benefits were observed are close to levels where VitD becomes toxic (and
are far above normal intakes). So until additional studies, including
those looking for long-term consequences, are undertaken, those studies
seeing advantages to high vitD intake should be taken with a grain of salt.
The final point worth making is that the link between excessive UV
exposure and melanoma is well established and unquestioned. The form of
skin cancer caused by UV exposure (melanoma) is also one of the most
lethal cancers out there. So if you're worried about VitD, take a VitD
supplement and slap on the sunscreen. Because the potential benefits of
high VitD are far, far, far outweighed by the risks of melanoma.
Bryan
Medusa
> bigvince wrote:
> > Vitamin d [sun exposure] and MS " Childhood sun exposure may
> > lower risk of MS"
> > "People who spent more time in the sun as children may have a lower
> > risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) than people who had less
> > sun exposure during childhood, according to a study published in the
> > July 24, 2007, issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the
> > American Academy of Neurology.
>
> <snip abstract>
>
> An interesting finding, but not unexpected. There is a long-established
> link between UV exposure and immune function - notably that UV exposure
> results in immune suppression (this is why people often get sick after
> getting a bad sunburn). Since MS is an autoimmune disease - i.e. caused
> by excessive immune function, anything which reduces immune function
> could potentially reduce the incidence & severity of MS.
>
> There is also the vitamin d angle, although that is still an early
> result and is somewhat controversial.
>
> Unfortunately, the authors of the study did not look for correlations
> between MS and skin cancer - this finding is only useful if the
> additional sun exposure was not enough to increase rates of skin cancer.
> After all, exchanging MS for melanoma isn't exactly "therapy".
>
> > As recent studies have shown vitamin d linked to a 50 % or greater
> > reduction in certain cancers . One can only wonder if conventional
> > medicines advice to avoid sun exposure [ the most natural source of
> > vitamin d ] has caused more harm then good. Thanks Vince
>
> That's a no-brainer. Firstly, medical advice is not to avoid sun, but
> rather to protect yourself from UV. Since conventional methods of UV
> protection (sunscreen, clothes) do not block enough of the light
> responsible for Vit D synthesis - even in patients who have to wear
> sunscreen full-time due to pigmentation problems.
>
>
> The reasons are simple - firstly, only some of the frequencies of light
> which can "fix" VitD are blocked by sunscreen, meaning that sunscreen
> has only a small impact on the rate of synthesis. Secondly, many foods
> (i.e. dairy products) have high levels of the "fixed" form of VitD
> already (and some have extra added during processing), so you can get it
> from your diet.
>
> The second point worth making is that the recently reported advantages
> of high VitD intake are controversial - only a few studies have
> identified the supposed benefits, and the levels of VitD where those
> benefits were observed are close to levels where VitD becomes toxic (and
> are far above normal intakes). So until additional studies, including
> those looking for long-term consequences, are undertaken, those studies
> seeing advantages to high vitD intake should be taken with a grain of salt.
Exactly. The Vitamin D helps prevent MS is only a theory. And
excessive sun exposure causes cancer is not a theory; it's pretty much
an accepted fact.
> The final point worth making is that the link between excessive UV
> exposure and melanoma is well established and unquestioned. The form of
> skin cancer caused by UV exposure (melanoma) is also one of the most
> lethal cancers out there. So if you're worried about VitD, take a VitD
> supplement and slap on the sunscreen. Because the potential benefits of
> high VitD are far, far, far outweighed by the risks of melanoma.
Don't take too much Vitamin D, either; it is a 'fat soluable" vitamin
that will stay in your body, A Vitamin D overdose is toxic.
Medusa
bigvince
> bigvince wrote:
> > Vitamin d [sun exposure] and MS " Childhood sun exposure may
> > lower risk of MS"
> > "People who spent more time in the sun as children may have a lower
> > risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) than people who had less
> > sun exposure during childhood, according to a study published in the
> > July 24, 2007, issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the
> > American Academy of Neurology.
>
> The final point worth making is that the link between excessive UV
> exposure and melanoma is well established and unquestioned. The form of
> skin cancer caused by UV exposure (melanoma) is also one of the most
> lethal cancers out there. So if you're worried about VitD, take a VitD
> supplement and slap on the sunscreen. Because the potential benefits of
> high VitD are far, far, far outweighed by the risks of melanoma.
>
Well Let me just correct you most blatant error first. The link
between sun exposure and melanoma is neither well established nor
unguestioned .It does however sell a lot of sunscreen from a recent
NYT article...
"Doctors balk at Cancer ad; cite lack of evidence" July 10 /07
" ' And the link between melanoma and sun exposure is not
straightforward. Dr. Marianne Berwick, an epidemiologist at the
University of New Mexico who studies skin cancer, led a study
published in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2005
finding that people who had a lot of sun exposure up to the time they
got a diagnosis of melanoma actually had better survival rates than
those who had little sun exposure.'
And ...from times story
"Until that is made clear, many doctors say, it is premature to
suggest that people are endangering their lives by failing to use
sunscreen.
"It's just not that simple," said Dr. Barry Kramer, associate director
for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health.
"We do have some pretty good evidence that sunscreen will reduce your
risk of the less lethal forms of skin cancer," Dr. Kramer added.
"There's very little evidence that sunscreens protect you against
melanoma, yet you often hear that as the dominant message."
full story http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/health/10skin.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Recent studies have indicated that vitamin d can reduce several
cancers by 50% .Most melanoma have very little to do with sun exposure
from same times piece
" Howard L. Kaufman, co-director of the Melanoma Center at Columbia
University and author of "The Melanoma Book" (Gotham, 2005), estimates
that only 20 percent of melanomas are related to sun exposure, but
says, "It's the one risk factor that we can control." While he calls
the advertisements "a little bit alarmist" he says they are meant to
raise awareness and they achieve that goal." and as Dr. Berwick noted
sun exposure helps survival rates in those cases..
Your statements simplify a complex relationship . Good for sunscreen
sales not for health.
Thanks Vince
bigvince
But do not expect the sunscreen to protect you from melanoma from a
recent Times article
"It's just not that simple," said Dr. Barry Kramer, associate director
for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health.
"We do have some pretty good evidence that sunscreen will reduce your
risk of the less lethal forms of skin cancer," Dr. Kramer added.
"There's very little evidence that sunscreens protect you against
melanoma, yet you often hear that as the dominant message."
full story http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/health/10skin.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
I'd give considerable weight to Doctor Kramers comments
Jan Drew
"Bryan Heit" <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:f8d2m1$9et$1...@news.ucalgary.ca...
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
Don Wiss
>Don't take too much Vitamin D, either; it is a 'fat soluable" vitamin
>that will stay in your body, A Vitamin D overdose is toxic.
Medusa,
Toxicity isn't a problem until you are taking over 10,000 units a day. I
take 5,000 units a day, and have taken 4,000 or 5,000 units a day for
years. I measure the level in my blood regularly and it still is not over
the level that some consider optimal for cancer prevention.
Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
David Wright
Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
>bigvince wrote:
>> Vitamin d [sun exposure] and MS " Childhood sun exposure may
>> lower risk of MS"
>> "People who spent more time in the sun as children may have a lower
>> risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) than people who had less
>> sun exposure during childhood, according to a study published in the
>> July 24, 2007, issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the
>> American Academy of Neurology.
>
><snip abstract>
>
>An interesting finding, but not unexpected. There is a long-established
>link between UV exposure and immune function - notably that UV exposure
>results in immune suppression (this is why people often get sick after
>getting a bad sunburn). Since MS is an autoimmune disease - i.e. caused
>by excessive immune function, anything which reduces immune function
>could potentially reduce the incidence & severity of MS.
>
>There is also the vitamin d angle, although that is still an early
>result and is somewhat controversial.
>
>Unfortunately, the authors of the study did not look for correlations
>between MS and skin cancer - this finding is only useful if the
>additional sun exposure was not enough to increase rates of skin cancer.
> After all, exchanging MS for melanoma isn't exactly "therapy".
The vitamin D angle is particularly interesting, though, because it
does explain the observed phenomenon that multiple sclerosis becomes
more common the further north you go (and thus, the less sun exposure
people get, on average).
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
-- Bill Maher
Bryan Heit
That's one study, Vince. And even it did not disagree with the concept
that UV exposures leads to skin cancer. All that study showed is the
prognosis of patients with skin cancer *may* do better if they have
higher sun exposure.
As for the medical field at large, the conclusion that UV exposure (i.e.
unprotected exposure to sunlight) is a major factor in the formation of
melanoma is unquestioned, and UV exposure is oft used in-lab to induce
melanoma in experimental systems:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17469761&ordinalpos=19&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17641487&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17620090&ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Oh, and sunscreen works very well at preventing melanoma and other skin
cancers, despite the claims of detractors like yourself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16113595&ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16311163&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
> And ...from times story
Gee, a news paper article. I guess I should consider such a source -
written by a non-expert and published purely for profit, over the
scientific studies and medical experience of my peers...
> "Until that is made clear, many doctors say, it is premature to
> suggest that people are endangering their lives by failing to use
> sunscreen.
Absolutely retarded claim. Especially given the claim below...
> "It's just not that simple," said Dr. Barry Kramer, associate director
> for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health.
>
> "We do have some pretty good evidence that sunscreen will reduce your
> risk of the less lethal forms of skin cancer,"
So should we wear them or not. Note that its "less lethal", not
"non-lethal". I'm confused how not taking an action against something
which is "less lethal" (but still lethal) is not endangering yourself...
Under that rational its OK to drink gasoline - afterall, gasoline is
less toxic then cyanide.
> Dr. Kramer added.
> "There's very little evidence that sunscreens protect you against
> melanoma, yet you often hear that as the dominant message."
Aside from the 385 scientific articles (as of today) written on the
subject, of which the vast majority support the conclusion that UV
protection, including sunscreen, reduces incidence of melanoma.
> " Howard L. Kaufman, co-director of the Melanoma Center at Columbia
> University and author of "The Melanoma Book" (Gotham, 2005), estimates
> that only 20 percent of melanomas are related to sun exposure,
So now your claiming that melanoma is caused by UV exposure. Maybe you
should make up your mind before arguing against the point...
> but
> says, "It's the one risk factor that we can control." While he calls
> the advertisements "a little bit alarmist" he says they are meant to
> raise awareness and they achieve that goal." and as Dr. Berwick noted
> sun exposure helps survival rates in those cases..
>
> Your statements simplify a complex relationship .
Hardly. Of the factors which may lead to melanoma we can control one -
UV exposure. Hence, why you should wear sunscreen.
> Good for sunscreen sales not for health.
So letting patients get an otherwise preventable cancer is "poor for
health"? In the absence of any evidence that the preventative measures
are harmful! You live in a very, very weird world.
Bryan
@there Vernono O
"David Wright" <wri...@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:B15ri.1604$Yz6...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <f8d2m1$9et$1...@news.ucalgary.ca>,
> Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
>>bigvince wrote:
>>> Vitamin d [sun exposure] and MS " Childhood sun exposure may
>>> lower risk of MS"
>>> "People who spent more time in the sun as children may have a lower
>>> risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) than people who had less
>>> sun exposure during childhood, according to a study published in the
>>> American Academy of Neurology.
>>
>><snip abstract>
>>
>>An interesting finding, but not unexpected. There is a long-established
>>link between UV exposure and immune function - notably that UV exposure
>>results in immune suppression (this is why people often get sick after
>>getting a bad sunburn). Since MS is an autoimmune disease - i.e. caused
>>by excessive immune function, anything which reduces immune function
>>could potentially reduce the incidence & severity of MS.
>>
>>There is also the vitamin d angle, although that is still an early
>>result and is somewhat controversial.
>>
>>Unfortunately, the authors of the study did not look for correlations
>>between MS and skin cancer - this finding is only useful if the
>>additional sun exposure was not enough to increase rates of skin cancer.
>> After all, exchanging MS for melanoma isn't exactly "therapy".
>
> The vitamin D angle is particularly interesting, though, because it
> does explain the observed phenomenon that multiple sclerosis becomes
> more common the further north you go (and thus, the less sun exposure
> people get, on average).
Yes, there is some very outdated information going around about Vitamin D
and also sun exposure.
The worst is that the mere sun exposure is ANY cause for melanoma. Several
sun burns can increase the probability of melanoma. Very few farmers in the
past who spent nearly every day, all day, of their life in the sun got
melanoma.
The other misinformation was the "danger" of too much D. Yes, danger of
WAAAYYYY too much D and many avoided D in vitamins altogether..
The negative results of misinformation outshine any sun or D exposure.
al...@webtv.net
(positive, I believe)
This may be beneficial to one's health.
Bryan Heit
Unfortunately, it is not that simple. We know that there is a genetic
link - meaning that MS is more prevalent in some human populations (i.e.
northern Europeans). Quite excitingly, a brand-spanking new study
identified a few gene alleles directly associated with MS - specifically
variants of the IL-2 and IL-7 receptors.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/07/29/ms-studies.html
We also know that there are environmental factors, although those are
unidentified - that said, sun exposure is probably not it. For example,
where I live in Canada is the worlds greatest MS hot-spot; there is no
where else in the world where MS rates are higher. And yet, you drive
800km west (over a range of mountains), and although you're at the same
latitude, have the same genetic background, the same sun exposure, etc,
MS rates are much, much lower. Likewise, if you look inside my own city
(who's residents are obviously living in the same environment) you see
huge differences in the European vs. non-European populations.
Another example would be east asia - at the same latitudes where you
find at-risk populations in Europe and North America you find very few
MS patients in East Asia, highlighting the importance of genetics in the
disease.
Bryan
bigvince
>
> That's one study, Vince. And even it did not disagree with the concept
> that UV exposures leads to skin cancer. All that study showed is the
> prognosis of patients with skin cancer *may* do better if they have
> higher sun exposure.
>
> As for the medical field at large, the conclusion that UV exposure (i.e.
> unprotected exposure to sunlight) is a major factor in the formation of
> melanoma is unquestioned, and UV exposure is oft used in-lab to induce
> melanoma in experimental systems:
How can you speak for the medical field at large. AS to wheater UV
rays are a major factor in the development of melanoma . From the
times piece
" Doctors Balk at Cancer Ad, Citing Lack of Evidence "
Published: July 10, 2007 NYT
The young woman in the American Cancer Society advertisement holds up
a photograph of a smiling blonde. "My sister accidentally killed
herself. She died of skin cancer," reads the headline.
The public service announcement, financed by the sunscreen maker
Neutrogena, is running in 15 women's magazines this summer. It warns
readers that "left unchecked, skin cancer can be fatal," and urges
them to "use sunscreen, cover up and watch for skin changes."
The woman in the picture is a model, not a skin cancer victim. And the
advertisement's implicit message - that those who die of skin cancer
have themselves to blame - has provoked a sharp response from some
public-health doctors, who say the evidence simply does not support
it.
As the advertisement says, skin cancer is the most common form of
cancer. But most skin cancer is not life-threatening: it represents
less than 2 percent of all cancer deaths, an estimated 10,850 people
this year. Almost all of those deaths are from melanoma, which makes
up only 6 percent of all skin-cancer cases.
And the link between melanoma and sun exposure is not straightforward.
Dr. Marianne Berwick, an epidemiologist at the University of New
Mexico who studies skin cancer, led a study published in The Journal
of the National Cancer Institute in 2005 finding that people who had a
lot of sun exposure up to the time they got a diagnosis of melanoma
actually had better survival rates than those who had little sun
exposure..
Until that is made clear, many doctors say, it is premature to suggest
that people are endangering their lives by failing to use sunscreen.
"It's just not that simple," said Dr. Barry Kramer, associate director
for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health.
It seems that neither Dr Berwick a renowed researcher nor Dr. Kramer
share you view that sun exposure is the major cause of melannoma as
they are ' The researchers are conducting a large-scale follow-up
aimed at clarifying the relationship between sun exposure and melanoma
Even some who believe that there is some connection admit it is far
from major from same story
"Howard L. Kaufman, co-director of the Melanoma Center at Columbia
University and author of "The Melanoma Book" (Gotham, 2005), estimates
that only 20 percent of melanomas are related to sun exposure, but
says, "It's the one risk factor that we can control." While he calls
the advertisements "a little bit alarmist" he says they are meant to
raise awareness and they achieve that goal. " and later
Dr. Schwartz says getting a sunburn should not be a cause for panic.
"You're taking a small risk and raising it somewhat," she said, "but
it's still a small risk."
> Oh, and sunscreen works very well at preventing melanoma and other skin
> cancers, despite the claims of detractors like yourself
Again from the Times piece
"It's just not that simple," said Dr. Barry Kramer, associate director
for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health.
"We do have some pretty good evidence that sunscreen will reduce your
risk of the less lethal forms of skin cancer," Dr. Kramer added.
"There's very little evidence that sunscreens protect you against
melanoma, yet you often hear that as the dominant message."
Again "It's just not that simple," said Dr. Barry Kramer, associate
director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health.
In case you missed it
," Dr. Kramer added. "There's very little evidence that sunscreens
protect you against melanoma, yet you often hear that as the dominant
message."
>
> Gee, a news paper article. I guess I should consider such a source -
> written by a non-expert and published purely for profit, over the
> scientific studies and medical experience of my peers...
Maybe this is more to your liking
Annals of Internal Medicine
Sunscreen Use and the Risk for Melanoma: A Quantitative Review
Leslie K. Dennis, MS, PhD; Laura E. Beane Freeman, PhD; and Marta J.
VanBeek, MD
16 December 2003 | Volume 139 Issue 12 | Pages 966-978
Background: Originally developed to protect against sunburn, sunscreen
has been assumed to prevent skin cancer. However, conflicting reports
include claims that sunscreen increases risk for melanoma.
Objective: To examine the strength and consistency of associations
between melanoma and sunscreen use in the published literature
Data Sources: A comprehensive MEDLINE search of articles published
from 1966 to 2003 that reported information on sunscreen use and
melanoma in humans.
Lets Jump to the conclusions
Conclusions: No association was seen between melanoma and sunscreen
use. Failure to control for confounding factors may explain previous
reports of positive associations linking melanoma to sunscreen use. In
addition, it may take decades to detect a protective association
between melanoma and use of the newer formulations of
sunscreens. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/139/12/966
let me say that again
Conclusions: No association was seen between melanoma and sunscreen
use. Failure to control for confounding factors may explain previous
reports of positive associations linking melanoma to sunscreen use. In
addition, it may take decades to detect a protective association
between melanoma and use of the newer formulations of sunscreens.
Bryan thats peer reviewed ; no EVIDENCE that sunscreen use effects
melanoma
>
> > "Until that is made clear, many doctors say, it is premature to
> > suggest that people are endangering their lives by failing to use
> > sunscreen.
>
> Absolutely retarded claim. Especially given the claim below...
Lets look at some facts some facts From Times piece
As the advertisement says, skin cancer is the most common form of
cancer. But most skin cancer is not life-threatening: it represents
less than 2 percent of all cancer deaths, an estimated 10,850 people
this year. Almost all of those deaths are from melanoma, which makes
up only 6 percent of all skin-cancer cases.
> So should we wear them or not. Note that its "less lethal", not
> "non-lethal". I'm confused how not taking an action against something
> which is "less lethal" (but still lethal) is not endangering yourself...
Find some data on the deaths caused by non melonoma skin cancer
deaths
> Under that rational its OK to drink gasoline - afterall, gasoline is
> less toxic then cyanide.
>
To compare sun exposure to drinking gasoline.Beggers the imagination
> Aside from the 385 scientific articles (as of today) written on the
> subject, of which the vast majority support the conclusion that UV
> protection, including sunscreen, reduces incidence of melanoma.
Conclusions: No association was seen between melanoma and sunscreen
use. Failure to control for confounding factors may explain previous
reports of positive associations linking melanoma to sunscreen use. In
addition, it may take decades to detect a protective association
between melanoma and use of the newer formulations of
sunscreens. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/139/12/966
,
>
> So now your claiming that melanoma is caused by UV exposure. Maybe you
> should make up your mind before arguing against the point...
>
> > but
> > says, "It's the one risk factor that we can control." While he calls
> > the advertisements "a little bit alarmist" he says they are meant to
> > raise awareness and they achieve that goal." and as Dr. Berwick noted
> > sun exposure helps survival rates in those cases..
>
> > Your statements simplify a complex relationship .
>
> Hardly. Of the factors which may lead to melanoma we can control one -
> UV exposure. Hence, why you should wear sunscreen.
> Conclusions: No association was seen between melanoma and sunscreen use. Failure to control for confounding factors may explain previous reports of positive associations linking melanoma to sunscreen use. In addition, it may take decades to detect a protective association between melanoma and use of the newer formulations of sunscreens. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/139/12/966
> > Good for sunscreen sales not for health.
>
As good science has linked low Vitamin D levels to several types of
cancer ; MS ; heart diesese and other disorders this unjustified fear
of the sunlight may actually cause harm
Another opinion From
I BEG TO DIFFER; A Dermatologist Who's Not Afraid to Sit on the Beach
By GINA KOLATA
Published: July 20, 2004 NYT
Dr. A. Bernard Ackerman, a dermatologist, spends much of his time
diagnosing the potentially deadly cancer melanoma and other skin
diseases.
But when he returned from a recent trip to Israel, he was, well,
deeply tanned.
Burnished brown, in fact.
Dr. Ackerman did not use sunscreen on his trip. He did not give any
thought to the hundreds of moles that speckle his body. He did not
even put a hat on his bald head.
Other dermatologists may worry about getting melanoma from exposure to
ultraviolet rays. But Dr. Ackerman, 67, a renowned expert in the field
and the emeritus director of the Ackerman Academy of Dermatopathology
in New York, said the link between melanoma and sun exposure was ''not
proven.''
He has scrutinized, one by one, the widely held precepts about
melanoma and the sun, and found the evidence wanting. ''The field is
just replete with nonsense,'' he said.
For example, it is commonly assumed that painful or blistering
sunburns early in life set the stage for the skin cancer later on. But
while some studies show a small association, Dr. Ackerman says, others
show none. And even studies that do show an effect disagree on when
the danger period for sunburns is supposed to be.
Taken as a whole, Dr. Ackerman argues, the research is inconsistent
and fails to make the case.
Common wisdom also has it that sunscreens protect against melanoma.
But Dr. Ackerman points to a recent editorial in the journal Archives
of Dermatology concluding that there was no evidence to support that
idea.
Full story http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E4DD103AF933A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=health
Thanks Vince
Bryan Heit
> On Jul 29, 3:29 pm, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>> That's one study, Vince. And even it did not disagree with the concept
>> that UV exposures leads to skin cancer. All that study showed is the
>> prognosis of patients with skin cancer *may* do better if they have
>> higher sun exposure.
>>
>> As for the medical field at large, the conclusion that UV exposure (i.e.
>> unprotected exposure to sunlight) is a major factor in the formation of
>> melanoma is unquestioned, and UV exposure is oft used in-lab to induce
>> melanoma in experimental systems:
>
> How can you speak for the medical field at large.
Because I am a member of it, which gives me a degree of insight you
can't even imagine.
> AS to wheater UV
> rays are a major factor in the development of melanoma . From the
> times piece
It's a news paper. Here's a hint, instead of reading a sensationalist
rag, read up on what scientists and doctors are actually saying - from
their own mouths. Go to google scholar, or pubmed, and you can search
our publications. As I pointed out in my last post there are over 300
publications on the topic of UV and melanoma, and they all agree that UV
exposure is a risk factor for melanoma.
> And the link between melanoma and sun exposure is not straightforward.
> Dr. Marianne Berwick, an epidemiologist at the University of New
> Mexico who studies skin cancer, led a study published in The Journal
> of the National Cancer Institute in 2005 finding that people who had a
> lot of sun exposure up to the time they got a diagnosis of melanoma
> actually had better survival rates than those who had little sun
> exposure..
I addressed this in my last post; maybe you should try reading it...
<snip abstracts>
> Bryan thats peer reviewed ; no EVIDENCE that sunscreen use effects
> melanoma
What about the 300-ish articles which disagree - of which I have a few
examples in my last post. Why didn't you mention them? Hell, even your
own prized newspaper article supported the claim that UV is a factor in
melanoma formation.
>> So should we wear them or not. Note that its "less lethal", not
>> "non-lethal". I'm confused how not taking an action against something
>> which is "less lethal" (but still lethal) is not endangering yourself...
>
> Find some data on the deaths caused by non melonoma skin cancer
> deaths
>
>
>> Under that rational its OK to drink gasoline - afterall, gasoline is
>> less toxic then cyanide.
>>
> To compare sun exposure to drinking gasoline.Beggers the imagination
Wow, you're apparently not familiar with basic literary motifs...
>> Aside from the 385 scientific articles (as of today) written on the
>> subject, of which the vast majority support the conclusion that UV
>> protection, including sunscreen, reduces incidence of melanoma.
>
> Conclusions: No association was seen between melanoma and sunscreen
> use. Failure to control for confounding factors may explain previous
> reports of positive associations linking melanoma to sunscreen use. In
> addition, it may take decades to detect a protective association
> between melanoma and use of the newer formulations of
> sunscreens. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/139/12/966
Wow, one paper in disagreement with hundreds. Why don't you mention
those - i.e. like the ones I linked to in my last post.
>> So now your claiming that melanoma is caused by UV exposure. Maybe you
>> should make up your mind before arguing against the point...
>>
>>> but
>>> says, "It's the one risk factor that we can control." While he calls
>>> the advertisements "a little bit alarmist" he says they are meant to
>>> raise awareness and they achieve that goal." and as Dr. Berwick noted
>>> sun exposure helps survival rates in those cases..
>>> Your statements simplify a complex relationship .
>> Hardly. Of the factors which may lead to melanoma we can control one -
>> UV exposure. Hence, why you should wear sunscreen.
>
>> Conclusions: No association was seen between melanoma and sunscreen use. Failure to control for confounding factors may explain previous reports of positive associations linking melanoma to sunscreen use. In addition, it may take decades to detect a protective association between melanoma and use of the newer formulations of sunscreens. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/139/12/966
Repeating something doesn't make it true. I ask again, why haven't you
bothered mentioning the hundreds of scientific research articles which
directly refute your study?
Search Terms: melanoma UV
Hits: 385
First 20 articles:
1: Heneghan MK, Hazan C, Halpern AC, Oliveria SA.
Skin cancer coverage in a national newspaper: a teachable moment.
J Cancer Educ. 2007 Summer;22(2):99-104.
PMID: 17605623 [PubMed - in process]
2: Garbe C, Eigentler TK.
Diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous melanoma: state of the art 2006.
Melanoma Res. 2007 Apr;17(2):117-27. Review.
PMID: 17496787 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Mitchell D, Paniker L, Sanchez G, Trono D, Nairn R.
The etiology of sunlight-induced melanoma in Xiphophorus hybrid fish.
Mol Carcinog. 2007 May 3;46(8):679-684 [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 17477377 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
4: Masnec IS, Voda K, Situm M.
UV radiation: what we know and do we protect ourselves adequately?
Coll Antropol. 2007 Jan;31 Suppl 1:97-100.
PMID: 17469761 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Oztas P, Ilhan MN, Polat M, Alli N.
Clinical and dermoscopic characteristics of melanocytic nevi in
Turkish children
and their relationship with environmental and constitutional factors.
Dermatol Surg. 2007 May;33(5):607-13.
PMID: 17451586 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Autier P, Boniol M, Dore JF.
Sunscreen use and increased duration of intentional sun exposure:
still a burning
issue.
Int J Cancer. 2007 Jul 1;121(1):1-5. Review.
PMID: 17415716 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Seo JW, Chung H, Kim MY, Lee J, Choi IH, Cheon J.
Development of water-soluble single-crystalline TiO2 nanoparticles for
photocatalytic cancer-cell treatment.
Small. 2007 May;3(5):850-3. No abstract available.
PMID: 17385208 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8: Lund LP, Timmins GS.
Melanoma, long wavelength ultraviolet and sunscreens: controversies
and potential
resolutions.
Pharmacol Ther. 2007 May;114(2):198-207. Epub 2007 Feb 15. Review.
PMID: 17376535 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9: Meyer N, Pruvost-Balland C, Bourdon-Lanoy E, Maubec E, Avri MF.
Awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards sun protection among skin
cancer-treated patients in France.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007 Apr;21(4):520-5.
PMID: 17373981 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10: Baumann L, Rodriguez D, Taylor SC, Wu J.
Natural considerations for skin of color.
Cutis. 2006 Dec;78(6 Suppl):2-19. Review.
PMID: 17354519 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11: Prok LD, Arbuckle HA.
Nevi in children: a practical approach to evaluation.
Pediatr Ann. 2007 Jan;36(1):39-45.
PMID: 17269282 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12: Yusuf N, Irby C, Katiyar SK, Elmets CA.
Photoprotective effects of green tea polyphenols.
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2007 Feb;23(1):48-56. Review.
PMID: 17254040 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
13: Bissonnette R, Claveau J, Gupta AK.
Ultraviolet a radiation and the need for protection.
J Cutan Med Surg. 2006 Jun;10 Suppl 1:1-7.
PMID: 17241602 [PubMed - in process]
14: Lee TK, Brazier AS, Shoveller JA, Gallagher RP.
Sun-related behavior after a diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma.
Melanoma Res. 2007 Feb;17(1):51-5.
PMID: 17235242 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15: Carli P, Nardini P, Chiarugi A, Crocetti E, Salvini C, Carelli G, De
Giorgi
V.
Predictors of skin self-examination in subjects attending a pigmented
lesion
clinic in Italy.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007 Jan;21(1):95-9.
PMID: 17207175 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16: Thomson MA, Suggett NR, Nightingale PG, Milford DV, Baumann U, Kelly
DA, Moss
C, Hill VA.
Skin surveillance of a U.K. paediatric transplant population.
Br J Dermatol. 2007 Jan;156(1):45-50.
PMID: 17199565 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
17: Nie L, Gao L, Feng P, Zhang J, Fu X, Liu Y, Yan X, Wang T.
Three-dimensional functionalized tetrapod-like ZnO nanostructures for
plasmid DNA
delivery.
Small. 2006 May;2(5):621-5. No abstract available.
PMID: 17193097 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
18: Heymann WR.
Screening for melanoma.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007 Jan;56(1):144-5.
PMID: 17190631 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
19: Ambros-Rudolph CM, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Richtig E, Muller-Furstner
M, Soyer
HP, Kerl H.
Malignant melanoma in marathon runners.
Arch Dermatol. 2006 Nov;142(11):1471-4.
PMID: 17116838 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
20: Francis SO, Mahlberg MJ, Johnson KR, Ming ME, Dellavalle RP.
Melanoma chemoprevention.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Nov;55(5):849-61. Epub 2006 Sep 18. Review.
PMID: 17052492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Number which disagree with UV-melanoma link: 0
Number which support the link explicitly: 18
What does that say about your one little study?
Bryan
bigvince
>
> What does that say about your one little study?
>
> Bryan
Bryan obviously you either did not read or do not understand what I
posted . It was not a "study' it was a meta analysis . It looked at
many studies.
>From the meta analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine
Sunscreen Use and the Risk for Melanoma: A Quantitative Review
Leslie K. Dennis, MS, PhD; Laura E. Beane Freeman, PhD; and Marta J.
VanBeek, MD
16 December 2003 | Volume 139 Issue 12 | Pages 966-978
Background: Originally developed to protect against sunburn, sunscreen
has been assumed to prevent skin cancer. However, conflicting reports
include claims that sunscreen increases risk for melanoma.
Objective: To examine the strength and consistency of associations
between melanoma and sunscreen use in the published literature.
Data Sources: A comprehensive MEDLINE search of articles published
from 1966 to 2003 that reported information on sunscreen use and
melanoma in humans.
Study Selection: Analytic studies reporting data on sunscreen use
before diagnosis of melanoma.
Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted data.
Inconsistencies were rereviewed until agreement was achieved. When
necessary, a third party resolved discrepancies.
Data Synthesis: Odds ratios were pooled across studies by using
standard meta-analytic techniques. Pooled odds ratios for ever use
among 18 heterogeneous studies did not support an association between
melanoma and sunscreen use. Variation among odds ratios was explained
by studies that did not adjust for confounding effects of sun
sensitivity. The lack of a dose-response effect with frequency of use
(never, sometimes, or always) or years of use provided further
evidence of a null association.
Conclusions: No association was seen between melanoma and sunscreen
use. Failure to control for confounding factors may explain previous
reports of positive associations linking melanoma to sunscreen use. In
addition, it may take decades to detect a protective association
between melanoma and use of the newer formulations of sunscreens.
Bryan most of what you posted has no relationship to the subject. and
you do not seem to understand the differences between a study and a
meta analysis .Let me restate the conclusion of a group who looked at
numerous studies and found
Sunscreen Use and the Risk for Melanoma: A Quantitative Review
Leslie K. Dennis, MS, PhD; Laura E. Beane Freeman, PhD; and Marta J.
VanBeek, MD
16 December 2003 | Volume 139 Issue 12 | Pages 966-978
Background: Originally developed to protect against sunburn, sunscreen
has been assumed to prevent skin cancer. However, conflicting reports
include claims that sunscreen increases risk for melanoma.
Objective: To examine the strength and consistency of associations
between melanoma and sunscreen use in the published literature.
Data Sources: A comprehensive MEDLINE search of articles published
from 1966 to 2003 that reported information on sunscreen use and
melanoma in humans.
Study Selection: Analytic studies reporting data on sunscreen use
before diagnosis of melanoma.
Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted data.
Inconsistencies were rereviewed until agreement was achieved. When
necessary, a third party resolved discrepancies.
Data Synthesis: Odds ratios were pooled across studies by using
standard meta-analytic techniques. Pooled odds ratios for ever use
among 18 heterogeneous studies did not support an association between
melanoma and sunscreen use. Variation among odds ratios was explained
by studies that did not adjust for confounding effects of sun
sensitivity. The lack of a dose-response effect with frequency of use
(never, sometimes, or always) or years of use provided further
evidence of a null association.
'Conclusions: No association was seen between melanoma and sunscreen
use. Failure to control for confounding factors may explain previous
reports of positive associations linking melanoma to sunscreen use. In
addition, it may take decades to detect a protective association
between melanoma and use of the newer formulations of sunscreens. '
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/139/12/966
If you have compelling evidence that contradicts that print it. Not
the generic I have 775 studies that prove statement
Bryan Heit
> On Jul 30, 4:43 pm, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>> What does that say about your one little study?
>>
>> Bryan
>
> Bryan obviously you either did not read or do not understand what I
> posted . It was not a "study' it was a meta analysis . It looked at
> many studies.
As were one of the articles I posted - which found the exact opposite
result.
<snip repeated material>
> Bryan most of what you posted has no relationship to the subject. and
> you do not seem to understand the differences between a study and a
> meta analysis .Let me restate the conclusion of a group who looked at
> numerous studies and found
Given that I do medical research I probably have a far, far grater idea
about what the difference between the two are then you do. And having
worked in the area for over a decade I'm also well aware of the severe
problems meta-analysis face. It is near-impossible to accurately
compare results from studies with different methadologies, different
forms of data collection, and different forms of statistical analysis -
particularity when you lack access to the raw data from those studies
(which is usually the case).
As for the study you keep posting, pulling it apart is pretty easy:
1) They used studies going back to the 1960's; meaning the majority of
their data comes from a time period before UVA/UVB protective sunscreens
were available. It is well established, in more recent studies, that
UVA exposure is a risk factor for melanoma development. Effective UVA
protective sunscreens did not become readily available until the mid-1990's.
2) They did not control for studies which looked at individuals with
different skin colours. It is well established that people with lighter
coloured skins are of higher risk for photo-induced tumors, including
melanoma. Likewise, protective effects of lowering UV exposure tend to
be much greater in light-skinned populations.
3) They only looked at low-SPF sunscreens (below 15), which provide
minimal UV protection; none of the studies they analyzed used
UVA-protective sunscreens.
4) They failed to account for the fact that while many people use
sunscreens, the use of sunscreen is often done inappropriately (i.e. not
reapplied sufficiently), and promotes people to spend more time in the
sun. Which is why nearly all modern studies look at risk vs. exposure.
From the paper itself:
Contribution
This meta-analysis of 18 case– control studies found no
good evidence for an increased risk for melanoma with
sunscreen use. Several studies did not account for patients’
sensitivity to sunlight, which could increase both sunscreen
use and melanoma. A few studies found protective relationships
between sunscreen use and melanoma.
Implications
Previous reports of increased risk for melanoma with sunscreen
use were misleading.
Cautions
Studies that were reviewed did not evaluate newer sunscreens
with a sun protection factor greater than 15, protection
against ultraviolet A radiation, or water resistance.
You'll note that the authors themselves, as well as the editors,
EXPLICITLY state that the power of their study is extremely limited. In
fact, the only finding of theirs which achieved statistical significance
was the observation that sunscreen use does not *cause* melanoma.
It's also worth noting that this specific paper has been subject to a
great deal of criticism from other scientists, largely due to their
complete lack of controls, and failure to take into account the effects
of newer sunscreens:
> If you have compelling evidence that contradicts that print it. Not
> the generic I have 775 studies that prove statement
Aside from the 20 I posted yesterday? Lets see:
UV causes melanoma:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15998366&ordinalpos=22&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17477377&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17469742&ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16681655&ordinalpos=27&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16221052&ordinalpos=42&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15519506&ordinalpos=73&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Sunscreen is protective against melanoma:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17254040&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16311163&ordinalpos=38&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16113595&ordinalpos=45&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16076815&ordinalpos=48&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15858467&ordinalpos=56&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/22/2955?ijkey=77cbb46a7b5a7b45b946d44dbdda3c66bb4d1130&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15627079&ordinalpos=66&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Bryan
bigvince
> good evidence for an increased risk for melanoma with
> sunscreen use. Several studies did not account for patients'
> sensitivity to sunlight, which could increase both sunscreen
> use and melanoma. A few studies found protective relationships
> between sunscreen use and melanoma.
>
> Implications
> Previous reports of increased risk for melanoma with sunscreen
> use were misleading.
>
> Cautions
> Studies that were reviewed did not evaluate newer sunscreens
> with a sun protection factor greater than 15, protection
> against ultraviolet A radiation, or water resistance.
>
> You'll note that the authors themselves, as well as the editors,
> EXPLICITLY state that the power of their study is extremely limited. In
> fact, the only finding of theirs which achieved statistical significance
> was the observation that sunscreen use does not *cause* melanoma.
>
> It's also worth noting that this specific paper has been subject to a
> great deal of criticism from other scientists, largely due to their
> complete lack of controls, and failure to take into account the effects
> of newer sunscreens:
>
>
Bryan lets print this abstract ;
1: Br J Dermatol. 2005 Aug;153(2):378-81. Links
Sunscreens and melanoma: the future looks bright.Diffey BL.
Regional Medical Physics Department, Newcastle General Hospital,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 6BE, UK. b.l.d...@ncl.ac.uk
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of observational case-control studies have
demonstrated no association between sunscreen use and the development
of malignant melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether this observation
is to be expected given the period during which the case-control
studies were conducted, the sunscreens prevalent at that time, and how
sunscreen is used and applied in practice. To predict whether modern
sunscreens are likely to be effective as a preventative agent in
melanoma. METHODS: The protection against solar ultraviolet radiation
delivered by sunscreens available prior to the early 1990s (when the
data used in most published case-control studies were collected) was
estimated by combining their absorption properties with the amount
applied in a way reflecting common usage. Similar estimates were made
for the protection offered by modern sunscreens. RESULTS: It is not
surprising that case-control studies have failed to find any
association between sunscreen use and the risk of melanoma when
consideration is given to the sunscreens in common usage at the time
and the way in which sunscreen is applied in practice. Modern high Sun
Protection Factor, broad-spectrum sunscreens, on the other hand, can
be expected to be an effective measure in helping to prevent melanoma
compared with sunscreens typical of those used 10-20 years ago.
CONCLUSIONS: It is reasonable to suppose that the improvement in
performance of modern sunscreens will lead to a worthwhile benefit as
a preventative agent against melanoma, although these benefits may not
be seen for several decades.
PMID: 16086753 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
The first abstact you posted acknowledges
"BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of observational case-control studies have
demonstrated no association between sunscreen use and the development
of malignant melanoma.
Then concers with the conclusion;
RESULTS: It is not surprising that case-control studies have failed to
find any association between sunscreen use and the risk of melanoma
when consideration is given to the sunscreens in common usage at the
time and the way in which sunscreen is applied in practice
Then takes a guess
Modern high Sun Protection Factor, broad-spectrum sunscreens, on the
other hand, can be expected to be an effective measure in helping to
prevent melanoma compared with sunscreens typical of those used 10-20
years ago. CONCLUSIONS: It is reasonable to suppose that the
improvement in performance of modern sunscreens will lead to a
worthwhile benefit as a preventative agent against melanoma, although
these benefits may not be seen for several decades.
See Bryan evidence that may show in decades is not proven science.
This study actually confirms the one I posted I'll print the
conclusion here;
'Conclusions: No association was seen between melanoma and sunscreen
use. Failure to control for confounding factors may explain previous
reports of positive associations linking melanoma to sunscreen use.
In
addition, it may take decades to detect a protective association
between melanoma and use of the newer formulations of sunscreens. '
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/139/12/966
Heres the study that you posted
Modern high Sun Protection Factor, broad-spectrum sunscreens, on the
other hand, can be expected to be an effective measure in helping to
prevent melanoma compared with sunscreens typical of those used 10-20
years ago. CONCLUSIONS: It is reasonable to suppose that the
improvement in performance of modern sunscreens will lead to a
worthwhile benefit as a preventative agent against melanoma, although
these benefits may not be seen for several decades.
The agreements ; no PROVEN benefit of sunscreen ; newer sunscreen MAY
show benefit in decades; they also MAY NOT tHEY COULD ALSO DEMONSTARE
INCREASED RISK.
your posting just simply does not agree with your conclusions.
Thanks Vince
Bryan Heit
<snip>
First thing I would point out is I posted multiple studies; you
cherry-picked one which fit your bias. Why didn't you bother with the
others?
We, of course, all know the answer to that. You're too cowardly to
actually read the papers who's abstracts appear to counter your beliefs.
I read the entirety of your paper (which you apparently have not read
yourself). At the very least you could try and read a few of the
multiple papers I linked too....
As for your re-posting of the abstract, as I've pointed out before the
abstract isn't the paper. If you read the entirety of your paper,
rather then its abstract, you'll see the authors are more negative about
the accuracy of their results then the abstract will suggest, and that
the looked exclusively at studies using sunscreens which don't block UVA
- the known risk-factor for melanoma. You'd also notice that most of
their studies were conducted decades ago; long before effective
sunscreens even existed.
Bryan
John H.
Just today there was a news release from Australia that found low vitamin D
levels double the risk of the breast cancer. This mirrors other studies and
no you don't have to take excessive amounts of vitamin D. Sunshine is best,
it is not UV exposure but UV damage that is the problem One study I read
found that overall cancer incidence declined with sun exposure but not sun
damage. The timing is tricky, avoid those high UV times. Incidentally, a
Lancet study found that sun exposure increased serotonin levels. Hence
cloudy days and gloomy spirits ... .
Vitamin D, or more specifically a downstream product, tgf beta, plays a very
important role in protecting the brain from alzheimers. The list is long,
you don't need that much sun to get damage, many supplements simply are not
absorbed well (vitamin D must be oil based), and the sun helps stabilise
circadian rhythms which improves sleeping patterns. And vitamin D plays an
important role in modulating inflammatory responses, this via tgf beta
presumably.
It for these and many other reasons that Professor Holick recently
published, "The UV Advantage". I haven't read it but I've seen enough of the
research. As for the skin cancer epidemic, well all those people do want to
get tanned the silly buggers ... .
PS: MS and vitamin D linkage known for decades. MS is a "Th 1 mediated
autoimmune disease". That is, it has an inflammatory component. Vitamin D
tends to shift the immune response to a Th 2 type, which is often
preferable. Chronic inflammation itself is increasingly been seen as a
cancer driver.
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6%wqi.59$qa3...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
tedhutchinson
> > > That's a no-brainer. Firstly, medical advice is not to avoid sun, but
> > > rather to protect yourself from UV. Since conventional methods of UV
> > > protection (sunscreen, clothes) do not block enough of the light
> > > responsible for Vit D synthesis - even in patients who have to wear
> > > sunscreen full-time due to pigmentation problems.
>
> Search=9418761
Since that research was issued in 1999 idea of what NORMAL and what is
OPTIMAL Vitamin d status has moved on as has the accuracy of measuring
Vitamin d status.
Without reading the whole paper is difficult to guess what they
understand by " mean values of serum 25-OHD were low normal," But
OPTIMAL vitamin d status is now regarded as 125nmol/L and Hollis
argues in http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096
Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans: that we
should regard 100nmol/L as the safe minimum levels that ensures all
the body's systems can operate without being limited by lack of
substrate.
Any idea you can obtain OPTIMAL vitamin D status while wearing full
sunblock/clothing photoprotection is misguided.
Heaney shows in Effects of Above Average Summer Sun Exposure on Serum
25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Calcium Absorption
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/11/4952?ijkey=4c6193988d513e548c9972a8680cfecb6476a7bd&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
that outdoor workers (Omaha) obtain only 2800iu/d vitamin D averaged
over the year and were thus insufficient during the Winter.
Safe non-burning regular limited full body sun exposure is the best
way of ensuring your bodies largest peripheral endocrine organ
functions as nature intended and manufactures the Vitamin D needed to
power those 51 tissue types and 200+ gene driven enzyme actions that
produce the anti inflammatory, anti cancer, and anti biotic functions
where and when they are needed.
era...@gmail.com
The book Manav Mootra (auto-urine therapy) clearly records a case
where "Multiple Sclerosis" is cured.
You can ask questions of Dr Lodha at Lodha's Urine Therapy.
Here is an extract of the book "Manav Mootra". I am finishing the
extract and will put more.
*********
Erach
*********
URINE THERAPY EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK "Manav Mootra, Seventh Edition,
May 1997 by Raojibhai Manibhai Patel
(this book is available on amazon.co.uk) This book has a foreword by
Dr Jivraj N. Mehta, Former Chief Minister, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad
and
Its First English Edition is in December 1963.
(page xxiii: Auto-urine therapy at a glance)
Auto-urine treatment is a sort of nature-cure treatment. A patient
suffering from any disease can take this treatment without any
hesitation as it is harmless and innocent. If this experiment may not
cure the disease, at least it won't do any harm to the patient. A
person who wants to take this treatment, should ordinarily observe the
following instructions:
1. Beginning/Fasting and Drinking of Urine:
Auto-urine treatment should be started by observing fasts for one to
four days as per one's own capacity. During the fast auto-urine
should be taken three to four times a day. Boiled water may be taken
during the fasts. The first portion and last portion of the morning
urine should be discarded and the rest of the urine should be taken.
After the fasts are over the urine should be taken regularly during
the whole treatment. If the patient is not able to observe fast he
may begin with taking cow's milk or goat's milk with "moong" water in
a small quantity.
(Comment: moong is a very light pulse or dal. In Mumbai, you get
jaljeera which is "moong" water).
2. Restrictions on Diet:
After the fasts are over, as stated above, liquid food should be taken
viz., cow's or goat's milk, moong water, vegetable soups and then
gradually should take simple food like well-cooked rice, fruits other
than bananas and chikus being very sweet. Black peppers, spices,
oil, chilis, etc. must be totally avoided. Tea and coffee should also
be given up. If the patient has got the habit of taking tea or
coffee, it should be gradually given up and meanwhile the tea and
coffee when taken should be taken in milk form. Non-vegetarian diet,
smoking of bidi or cigarettes and alcoholic drinks should totally be
stopped.
3. Massage:
Alongwith drinking one's own urine the massaging with one's own urine
is also necessary and important. The patient should massage softly
his whole body particularly the affected part with one's own four to
five days old urine as per the instructions given in the book "Manav
Mootra". The cotton cloth-pad wetted with one's own urine can be laid
on the affected part. A patient with eye disease should wash his eyes
thrice of four times a day with one's own urine with the help of an
eye bowl.
A cloth-pad wetted with auto-urine can be placed on the eyes at night.
(COMMENT: For mental illness Dr Lodha of google group "Lodha's Urine
Therapy" advises one to drink urine through the nose throughout the
day. This is done by lying on the ground and taking a plastic syringe
without injection and squeezing urine into the nostrils. This is also
good for eye diseases. For eye diseases one is advised to wash one's
eye in an eye bowl full of urine. You can ask Dr Lodha of google
group "Lodha's Urine Therapy" questions on Urine Therapy).
After massaging or rubbing the whole body lightly with auto-urine, two
to three hours should be allowed to pass before taking the bath. If
possible sun-rays should be taken in the interval before taking the
bath. At the time of taking bath, use of soap should be avoided.
"Aritha" should be used instead of a bath soap. (Comment: Or one could
use gram-flour/besan mixed with yogurt/dahi and sandalwood powder
optionally and scrub one self with it).
4. Motion should be clear:
It is most important to see that the patient should have a clear
motion in the morning daily. If the patient does not get clear
motion, enema should be taken of auto-urine with warm water.
Glycerine syringe can also be taken. CLEAR MOTION CAN BE HAD by
applying cloth-pad wetted with auto-urine on the lower port of the
abdomen.
(COMMENT: The liver removes toxic material through the gall bladder
into the bile duct and hence into the intestine).
5. General
ALL SORTS OF MEDICINES SHOULD BE stopped generally when the auto-urine
treatment is going on. IF IT IS INEVITABLE TO TAKE ANY MEDICINE, IT
MAY BE TAKEN DURING THE COURSE OF THE AUTO-URINE EXPERIMENT BUT SHOULD
BE GRADUALLY STOPPED.
Thus the important aspects of auto-urine therapy are, fasts, drinking
of the auto-urine, massaging, restriction on diet, and regular clear
motion. Drinking of auto-urine and massaging with auto-urine of four
to five days old should be regularly continued during the experiment.
Liquid-food like "moong" water, goat's or cow's milk, soups of
different leafy green vegetables are all advantageous and helpful.
Only vegetarian food should be taken.
(COMMENT: Fine flour and baked goods of fine flour are not
recommended. Also, you can eat a little food daily. And preferably
use breads of different grains or foods of different grains like rye,
bajra, wheat, mueslix cereal to get all the food.)
Ten to fifteen days after the auto-urine treatment, one should look to
the result achieved during the time. If the patient finds that he is
getting good results the experiment should be continued with full
faith. The experiment should be continued looking to the condition of
the patient's health. Light physical exercise in the morning may be
also help bringing good result. The result of the experiment may be
communicated to the advisory center. The patient should remain in
contact with the centre.
As stated earlier the Auto-Urine Therapy is a Natural Treatment. If
the disease is treated in the early stages, the treatment is very
effective as shown by practical experiments of various diseases.
Moreover there is no harmful effect in any case.
While making correspondence with us the patient's name, the name of
the disease, age of the patient, duration of the disease, etc. must be
clearly mentioned. During the experiment of the auto-urine, the above
particulars as well as the result of the experiment, may please be
mentioned. Please state the number given by us while making
correspondence with us.
Bharat Sevak Samaja (Gujarat)
SHIVAMBU-AUTO URINE THERAPY ADVISORY CENTRE
Lalbhai Sheth's Vanda, Pankore Naka, Ahmedabad.
Phone: 356933, 354345
And
Nashabandhi Mandal
Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad-1
Phone: 352595
(COMMENT: New Address:
Bharat Sevak Samaj (State office),
B/2 Kruti Apartment,
Near Jahanvi Restaurant, Besides
L.D. Engg. College, University Area,
Ahmedabad 380015
Phone # : -079-26301787
Or call:
Chairman, Bharat Sevak Samaj
Jayantibhai Trivedi: 27432172)
EXPERIMENT ON SELF BY the author of the book presumably.
The author is: Raojibhai Manibhai Patel. This book has a foreword by
Dr Jivraj N. Mehta, Former Chief Minister, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad
and
Its First English Edition is in December 1963.
I came to know of urine therapy during my own ailment. I read the
book on this new system and deliberated on it. But I felt that mere
reading or writing or preaching has no value.
I had gone to Mount Abu for rest in the summer of 1954. There I had
the first attack of asthma. The heart failed to perform its proper
function due to weakness. Consequently, the trachea got filled with
water and my heart began to pant like an engine causing further
weakness. Wrong habits, intemperate living or irregularity of diet,
cause a disorder in the digestive system which affects the heart and
the latter becomes weak and unable to perform its function properly.
My disease began with hyperacidity due to some of these causes which
later on affected the heart. Though hyperacidity was cured by medical
treatment, the weakness of the heart continued.
In February 1958, the attack of the disease was so serious that
doctors and relatives had given up all hopes of my life. The will of
Providence was supreme and I did not die. But due to the weakness of
the heart, asthma, cough, phlegm etc. still persisted. The doctor
diagnosed it as the asthma of the heart. Consequently, he warned me
not to take part in any social activity. I heeded to the warning but
the phlegm and cough did not stop. It was so intense that I could not
take any rest nor get any peace.
On 8th February 1958, I rang up my doctor Shri Jashubhai Bhatt and
acquainted him of my condition. Next day, I went to the Sheth
Lallubhai G. Hospital. The doctor examined me. He screened my heart
and lungs and found some moisture in the right lung which was the
cause of cough and phlegm. The condition was not serious. He
prescribed an injection of Naphtol in order to drain out the water
deposited in the lungs and said that I should pass about 60-70 oz. Of
urine by this treatment. This would clear the lungs and cough and
phlegm would subside. The condition of the heart was not serious. On
the third day I took the same injection and passed about 80 oz. Of
urine in 24 hours but cough and phlegm did not abate. Meanwhile it so
happenned that Shri Juthabhai Shah of Harijan Ashram, Sabarmati, came
to see me. During the conversation he talked about urine treatment.
In February of antecedent year, when I was in a hospital, a friend had
written to me that I could be cured with urine treatment. But I was
helpless at that time.
After almost one year the same proposal came again. Shri Juthabhai
gave me a copy of "The Water of Life" to read and also related his own
experience thereof. I went through the book. It interested me more
and more as I went through its pages. It appeared as if it was
discussing my own case. The old memories about urine were revived. I
was convinced that this treatment must have great possibilities. In
spite of all social and psychological taboos, I made up my mind to
make an experiment with urine. I wished to make it scientific. So I
sent for a doctor whose sincerity was unquestionable and consulted him
and decided to begin the experiment.
(COMMENT: You should massage urine first. There are rapid
palpitations of the heart a few days after starting urine therapy and
the massage reduces the palpitations. I got the palpitations only
once for a few minutes when I started drinking urine).
To keep on the safe side, I began with external application of urine
only. Week-old urine was rubbed on the entire body, my son Shashikant
joyfully undertook this duty. He used to rub me with urine for one
and half hours daily. The time devoted to different parts was as
follows: (1) soles - 10 minutes, (2) legs - 20 minutes; (3) arms - 12
minutes; more time for palms and fingers; (4) chest, stomach, and
abdomen - 15 minutes; (5) back, waist, and both sides - 13 minutes;
(6) head, face, and neck - 20 minutes. In this way the rubbing
continued for 90 minutes in all. This experiment showed that rubbing
if done with love, is very beneficial. Urine massage produced the
following effects on my body : (1) After two days, i.e., 20th february
urine was clear and its passage unobstructed. For this purpose
formerly I used to take Dymox pills which were efficacious only for
two days. An injection used to squeeze out water from all the tissues
took time to recover. By massaging with urine, only that much of
urine was passed as is normal, for a healthy person (2) Before this
rubbing, I suffered from an acute pain in the waist and for standing
up and sitting down, I needed assistance. After a week, I could stand
up and move without any support. (3) The pain in the back also
disappeared. (4) On the ningth day, one more wonderful change was
observed. Before the treatment I felt itching sensation on certain
portions in the upper parts of the legs