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.

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

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

Bryan 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".

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/childhood-sun-exposure-may-lower-risk-....
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...

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.

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".


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

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.

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".

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

On Jul 27, 11:23 am, 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.

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."

" 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.

In article <f8d2m1$9et$1@news.ucalgary.ca>,
Bryan Heit <bjheit@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

In article <f8d2m1$9et$1@news.ucalgary.ca>,
Bryan Heit <bjheit@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

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:

Oh, and sunscreen works very well at preventing melanoma and other skin
cancers, despite the claims of detractors like yourself

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

AS to wheater UV
rays are a major factor in the development of melanoma . From the
times piece

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..

Bryan thats peer reviewed ; no EVIDENCE that sunscreen use effects
melanoma

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

What does that say about your one little study?

Bryan

From the meta analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine

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.

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

If you have compelling evidence that contradicts that print it. Not
the generic I have 775 studies that prove statement

bigvince wrote:
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:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView...

Bryan lets print this abstract ;