Protect our children with sunlight. By Marc Sorenson, Ed.D
Protect our children and we save the world.
And, we can’t protect our children unless we provide them with sufficient sunlight. This is part three of a series concerned with protecting our children from sun deprivation and the Powers of Darkness. Consequently, we have already covered the dangers of sun deprivation on the childhood diseases of melanoma, myopia, asthma, and AIDS. So, please read the previous two blogs on http://sunlightinstitute.org/ and let’s keep the anti-sun demons at bay!
Protect our children with sunlight and reduce the risk of acute lower respiratory infections (ALRI).
First of all, the definition of ALRI usually includes acute bronchitis and bronchiolitis, influenza and pneumonia. ALRI is a leading cause of sickness and mortality both in children and adults worldwide. According to the World Health Organization, 20% of all deaths in children 5 years old or younger are due to ALRI, and several studies indicate that sun exposure has a protective effect against the disease.
How well does sunlight protect our children from ALRI?
So, in one piece of research, children who were placed outside in the sun, uncovered, were less than half as likely to suffer ALRI. Also, those who had the lowest levels of vitamin D were ten times more likely to contract this infection than those with the highest levels. Therefore, we can obviously protect our children from ALRI with the sun. So there is no sane reason to deprive our children of sunlight. Also, an investigation compared the vitamin D levels and sun exposure habits in children with and without ALRI. In conclusion, there was virtually no difference in vitamin D levels between the sick and healthy groups. Yet, those children who had a higher percentage of the body exposed to sunlight were less likely to have ALRI. This reinforces the fact that sun exposure has many healing effects beyond its ability to stimulate the production of vitamin D.
Can sunlight help protect our children from dental cavities?
It seems like the answer is yes. One finding showed a direct correlation between hours of available sun per year and the number of dental caries (cavities) in Caucasian boys 12 to 14 years of age: And in geographic areas with less than 2,200 hours of available sunlight, there were, on average, 486 cavities per-year in each group of 100 boys.
In areas where there were 3,000 hours of sunlight, there were only 290 cavities per year per hundred boys. The frequency of cavities was also higher in winter than in summer months. This indicates that sunlight played a big part in reducing cavities.
As a result of this information, we build on the truth that children’s optimal health suffers when they have insufficient sunlight. For more information, read the new book, Embrace the Sun.
 WHO statistics. Accessed 8, 2010. http://www.who.int/fch/depts/cah/resp_infections/en/
 McBeath, E. The role of vitamin D in control of dental caries in children. J Nutr 1938;15:547.
Saving the children by Marc Sorenson, EdD.
Saving the children is a multi-part discussion that emphasizes the critical need for sun exposure in children because of sun deprivation. In the last blog on the subject, we first of all talked about saving the children from myopia (nearsightedness). And this blog will discuss several additional aspects of childhood health that are positively related to sunlight.
Why are we depriving our children of sunlight? Because $ are involved. So, we must not fail to be about the business of saving the children from the Powers of Darkness.
Saving the children from melanoma. With sunlight!
First of all, much noise is made about removing children from sun exposure to protect them from future melanoma. Consequently, we “protect” them from sunlight by keeping them indoors and dutifully slathering them with sunscreen. Furthermore, our children are taught to fear the sun. That is strange, since research shows that children who engage in outdoor activities are less likely to develop melanoma. In that research, outdoor exercise such as soccer and gardening were mentioned as the most noteworthy activities to protect against melanoma.
Saving the children from asthma. With sunlight!
Asthma, an inflammation of the air passages, has become a scourge of both children and adults. And according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation, each day 40,000 people miss school or work due to asthma. In addition, 30,000 people have an attack daily, and 5,000 people visit the emergency room. Especially relevant is the fact that the disease is increasing most rapidly among black children. Dark skins need more sunshine to produce vitamin D, which may make these children more susceptible. So what does the research say about sunshine and asthma in children? The most important study was probably one from Spain. It showed that children exposed to the most sunlight had much lower risks of asthma than those who were least-exposed. Thus, each with each hour of added sun exposure per day predicted a decreased risk of the disease.
Saving the children from HIV infection (AIDS)
AIDS is a fearful disease, and it is most noteworthy that the children, the most vulnerable among us are victims. Saving the children from AIDS should be a priority, no?
Sunlight exposure leads to the production of vitamin D, and vitamin D may have a profound influence on the development of AIDS. Thus, HIV-positive pregnant women with lowest vitamin D levels had 50% greater risk of transmission of HIV to their children. Also, there was a two-fold increase of HIV transmission by breast feeding. In addition, there was also a 61% increased death risk among children born to women with low Vitamin D levels. Therefore, sunlight is key to saving the children from this horrible disease.
In conclusion, melanoma, asthma and
AIDS are diseases our children should never need to suffer. Furthermore, regular,
non-burning sun exposure should be a part of the daily lives of children
Learn more my visiting http://sunlightinstitute.org/ And read
the new book, Embrace
 Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America: Asthma Facts and Figures. http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=42
 Arnedo-Pena A, et al. Sunny hours and variations in the prevalence of asthma in schoolchildren according to the International Study of Asthma and Allergies (ISAAC) Phase III in Spain. Int J Biometeorol 2011;55:423-434.
 Mehta S, Hunter DJ, Mugusi FM, Spiegelman D, Manji KP, Giovannucci EL, Hertzmark E, Msamanga GI, Fawzi WW: Perinatal Outcomes, Including Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV, and Child Mortality and Their Association with Maternal Vitamin D Status in Tanzania. J Infect Dis 2009;200:1022-30.
New Melanoma Incidence, by Marc Sorenson, EdD
New melanoma incidence, first of all, should be highest in states with the highest sun exposure. That is, of course, if we listen to the dermatological organizations and sunscreen manufacturers. Those organizations state ad nauseam that new melanoma is caused by sun exposure, and the facts be damned. Because both of these sunscreen pushers are financially involved in the anti-sun message, they seem little interested in the truth. Why? Because the truth sells few sunscreens.
Insurance companies should be a good source for information on new melanoma rates and risks.
However, new information, which refutes the anti-sun message, continues to emerge and throw a wrench into the works. Insurance companies, who must pay a fortune in insurance costs for new melanoma, probably know the truth about the disease. So, let’s look at one of those latest assessments. Quote wizard Insurance news released a study on new melanoma rates by state, and it probably stunned the anti-sun lobby. Furthermore, they stunned themselves with what they discovered. So, here are their major findings as listed in their report:
- Opposite of what was expected, cooler, northern states have the highest rate of new melanoma cases.
- In addition, warmer, southern states actually have lower rates.
- Furthermore, behaviors in sun protection are likely the biggest factor inmelanoma cases (I vehemently disagree!).
- Finally, males are disproportionately affected compared to women.
Don’t mess with Texas when it comes to new melanoma cases.
Another stunner was that the fewest cases were in Texas. The highest number of cases were in Utah, followed closely by Vermont, Minnesota and New Hampshire.
It is rather interesting that the authors tied themselves in knots trying to explain away their findings. Hence, they tried to make the case that people residing in warmer areas had learned to avoid the sun. And, they had also learned to use protective measures to a greater extent than those who dwelt in cooler areas. That is rather silly. Why? Because we know that sunscreen use increased 400% in the past four decades, while melanoma also increased by 400%. And even more impressive, go back a few more years to 1935. We find that since 1935, sun exposure decreased by 90%, while melanoma increased by 3,000%!
The bottom line regarding new melanoma:
So let’s face the facts: regular, non-burning sun exposure protects against melanoma, new or otherwise. Only occasional blasts of sun to an unprepared body (a practice that is rather mindless), can lead to the disease. Consequently, be sure to gradually work into regular, safe, non-burning sun exposure to protect against becoming a melanoma case.
Save the children with sunlight. by Marc Sorenson, EdD
Save the children is a refrain heard throughout the world, and a great refrain it is. It truly is time to save the children. There is so much child abuse and so many childhood health disasters that it is a burden we cannot ignore. It is especially relevant that our children are addicted to noxious foods and sedentary lives. And, the sun robbery they experience is equally harmful. This article is the first of several discussing the necessity for sun exposure if we are to save the children.
Save the children from myopia.
First of all, myopia (nearsightedness) among children is pandemic and increasing at an alarming rate. And, researchers demonstrated as early as 2008 that the lowest myopia risk was among those with highest outdoor activity. Some have surmised that the key ingredient that could save the children from myopia was exercise. But, the researchers refuted that idea because they also demonstrated that indoor exercise did not reduce myopia risk.
Most noteworthy, the same research showed the prevalence of myopia among Chinese children living in Singapore was 29.1%. Furthermore, the prevalence among Chinese children living in Sydney, Australia was only 3.3%. Is this because the Sydney children spent about 13.8 hours per week outdoors compared to 3.1 hours in Singapore? Hence, the children who spent most of their lives indoors had 9.5 times the risk of developing myopia! So adults in Sidney who let their kids play in the sun, certainly knew how to save them from myopia.
How much sunshine does it take?
Children under six should spend three hours daily in sunshine, according to other researchers who want to save them. So what could be a more natural? Just be sure the children do not burn.
Consequently, the next time someone tells you that it is not good for children to play outside, tell them the facts. Outdoor activity in the sunlight is absolutely necessary to save them from myopia. For more information: sunlightinstitute.org, and read my book, Embrace the Sun.
Sunlight and obesity, by Marc Sorenson, EdD
Sunlight and obesity have a very interesting association, according to recent research. Hence, if the relationship is inverse (more sunlight=less obesity), it is time to add sun exposure to weight control programs. And, sunlight deprivation is also associated with other problems such as cardiovascular disease, according to the study’s authors.
The authors’ important statement regarding sunlight and obesity.
“Animal studies have confirmed that ultraviolet (UV)-B radiation, independently of vitamin D, can limit diet-induced obesity, metabolic syndrome and atherosclerosis.”
Furthermore, all of those conditions can lead to severe disability and death. So, the relationship between sunlight and disease is transcendentally important.
In this study, mice were the subjects, because, I suppose, most humans do not have time to spend being researched.
The important takeaway regarding sunlight and obesity
First of all, the mice were subjected to a diet high in fat and sugar. Then, the effect of sunlight was determined by irradiating one group of mice with UV light. UV light, of course, is also found in sunlight. As a result, the researchers determined that “solar-simulated UV can significantly limit diet-induced obesity.” This is most noteworthy. There is probably no bariatric physician who knows about the inverse relationship between sunlight and obesity.
In addition, another important finding coupling sunlight and obesity to vascular diseases.
It is especially relevant that another exceptionally important finding emerged in the irradiated mice. The development of atheromas, plaques that indicate cardiovascular disease, was remarkably reduced due to the “sunlight.” Rather important, don’t you think?
When we study sunlight and obesity (or another topic), remember it is not always possible to extrapolate from mice. Usually, however, the research is sound and can be used to simulate outcomes among humans. That is particularly true for humans who eat the same diet that the mice ate: filled with fat and sugar. But in conclusion, humans who believe that sunning will overcome or prevent all maladies of junk nutrition are sadly mistaken. So, sun exposure is a marvelous help, but in this case serves as an antidote to the nutritional poison. Lack of sunlight itself is not the cause of obesity, even though sunlight and obesity have a strong inverse relationship. It almost makes one want to sunbathe, does it not?
To read much more on the relationship of sunlight and obesity, use the following links:
Also, read the new book, Embrace the Sun. https://www.amazon.com/Embrace-Sun-Marc-B-Sorenson/dp/069207600X
Sunshine and gut inflammation by Marc Sorenson, EdD
Sunshine dampens chronic gut inflammation: Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis.
Sunshine helps to reduce chronic gut inflammation, which is usually due to two diseases: Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis. These two diseases are known as inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), and worldwide, there are 800,000 people who live with those two life-long disorders. And, these diseases are autoimmune diseases, where the body attacks itself.
In addition, these diseases are hard to live with because they cause diarrhea, abdominal pain, inflammation and general misery. Each year more children contract IBD and each year, they contract it at younger ages. Most noteworthy, in my opinion, is the fact that IBD is, to a great extent, a sunshine deprivation disease. Children’s sunshine deprivation is horrific because it is child abuse, due to erroneous messages of dermatologists, AKA the Powers of Darkness.
Especially relevant is the fact that sunshine may profoundly decrease IBD. And, new research shows that the anti-inflammatory effects of sunshine are remarkably helpful.
And here are the salient messages of this new sunshine research:
- First of all, children who were outside and exposed to sunshine for an extra half hour a day were protected. Thus, they had a 20% lower risk of developing IBD.
- Another finding was reported by Dr. Robyn Lucas, the lead researcher. Each 10 minutes of sun exposure was associated with a six% lower risk of developing IBD, [so do you want to deprive your children of sun exposure?]
- She also stated: “At this stage what we have shown is there is a link between lack of sun exposure and increased risk of IBD…”
- Furthermore, Dr. Lucas made this observation: “Taking children to play outside in the sun could be life-changing.”
Also, I should add that what is true for these children is also true for adults. Read more in the new book, Embrace the Sun, by Marc Sorenson and William Grant. https://www.amazon.com/Embrace-Sun-Marc-B-Sorenson/dp/069207600X
Find more information on http://sunlightinstitute.org/, particularly at this link: http://sunlightinstitute.org/low-levels-of-sunlight-exposure-predispose-to-inflammatory-bowel-disease-and-fractures/
So be sure to obtain regular, non-burning sunshine, whether for yourselves or your children. Happy sunning!
 Holmes EA, Ponsonby AL, Pezic A, Ellis JA, Kirkwood CD, Lucas RM. Higher Sun Exposure is Associated with Lower Risk of Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Matched Case-Control Study. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 2019; May 15 (Epub ahead of print).
Sunlight and Cancer. By Marc Sorenson, Ed.D
Sunlight and cancer are subjects that are misunderstood by most of the populace, and the press. Furthermore, sunlight and cancer are believed by most to have a cause and effect relationship. Thus, sunlight exposure to humans is thought to be dangerous and deadly, and is deemed carcinogenic by many health organizations. Yet, the research continues to indicate that sunlight and cancer have an entirely different relationship than the pundits propose. Let’s examine and comment on important sunlight and cancer research that belies the idea that more sun equals more cancer.
An impressive recent study on the protective influence of sunlight on cancer.
First of all, consider this sunlight and cancer association: sun exposure’s association to gastrointestinal cancers (esophagus, stomach, and colon). A sunlight and cancer from Iran study shows a strong negative correlation between sun exposure and the risk of these cancers. A strong negative correlation means that these cancers are profoundly decreased due to sunlight. And, a salient point of this research was that for each increment of sun exposure increase, there was a corresponding drop in the risk of cancer. As regards sunlight and cancer, then, it is probably not a great idea to excessively limit sun exposure. This research, therefore may cause many people to alter their misconceptions regarding the sunlight and cancer relationship.
Another notable indication that sunlight and cancer work in opposition: more sunlight, less breast cancer.
Because of the sunlight and cancer relationship just established, we would expect more confirming research. Probably the most jaw-dropping study showed that women who were always covered had 10 times the risk of breast cancer. That is, compared to women who were out and about in the sun.
More on sunlight and cancer, particularly exposure to sunlight among young girls
Also, another investigation regarding sunlight and cancer showed and interesting relationship. The influence of sunlight on breast cancer may start early in life. It is most noteworthy that girls who had the greatest sun exposure during the ages of 10-19 were strongly protected against breast cancer. And due to their sun habits, they had a 35% decrease in the risk of breast cancer as adults, compared to those who had the least sun exposure. So, what do you think now about sunlight and cancer?
The sunlight and cancer relationship as regards prostate cancer
Another group of researchers used childhood sunburn as a measure of sun exposure. They determined that men who had the most sunburns as children had one-fifth the risk of contracting prostate cancer as those who had fewer sunburns! Also realize I am not advocating sunburns to prevent prostate cancer. Sunburns were used as a way to measure sun exposure and another measurement would have worked as well to show the sunlight and cancer relationship.
Finally, there are approximately 18 major cancers that have a negative correlation with sunlight. Read about all of them in the book, Embrace the Sun. Also, be sure to follow my blogs at sunlightinstitute.org.
Enjoy your regular, non-burning sun exposure.
 Najafi E, Khanjani N, Ghotbi MR, Masinaei Nejad ME. The association of gastrointestinal cancers (esophagus, stomach, and colon) with solar ultraviolet radiation.
 Bidgoli SA, Azarshab H. Role of vitamin D deficiency and lack of sun exposure in the incidence of premenopausal breast cancer: a case control study in Sabzevar, Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(8):3391-6.
 Knight JA, Lesosky M, Barnett H, Raboud JM, Vieth R. Vitamin D and reduced risk of breast cancer: a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(3):422-9.
 Moon SJ, Fryer AA, Strange RC. Ultraviolet radiation: effects on risks of prostate cancer and other internal cancers. Mutat Res 2005;571(1-2):207-19.
Flesh-eating Bacteria and genitals. The drug companies strike again. By Marc Sorenson, EdD.
What is flesh-eating bacteria of the genitals?
Flesh-eating bacteria of the genitals is a rare, alarming disease associated with a class of type-two diabetes drugs (SGLT2 inhibitors). While many people take these drugs, only a few are unfortunate enough to contract the disease. So the publication, Medical Express, states, “one day you notice pain, redness and a foul odor in your genital area.” As much as I wanted to include an image of this disease, it was too nauseating for me to do it.
Do flesh-eating bacteria really eat flesh?
Of course, bacteria infect, and they don’t eat flesh. The term flesh-eating bacteria is probably used as a description for the rapidity of the infection.
There is a better way to stop diabetes than using a drug that could cause flesh-eating bacteria.
First of all, the real tragedy of this finding is that type-two diabetes is the easiest of all degenerative diseases to reverse. And, I might say, the easiest to prevent. So we don’t need a diabetes drug that could cause flesh-eating bacteria of the genitals. In the health resort that my wife, Vicki and I founded, we had spectacular results. Two-thirds of diabetic clients ceased all medications in about 11.6 days (and no flesh eating bacteria occurred). And if the clients stayed for a month, 85% were off all medication. Furthermore, most of the remaining 15% dramatically reduced their medication. The people became well due to proper nutrition, exercise and plenty of sunshine. So, knowing that, why would the medical community not use that simple method? The answer: there is no money to be made by pharmaceuticals when diabetics heal themselves because of changed lifestyles.
Is flesh-eating bacteria a new phenomenon?
Flesh-eating bacteria have been around for some time, but until the advent of these drugs, diabetes has not been involved. The “old” flesh-eating bacteria disease was called necrotizing fasciitis–another rarity due to strep bacteria. It is most noteworthy that the disease is most common in seasons of low sun exposure, with the highest incidence in winter. Probably, sun-stimulated vitamin D produces the cathelicidins (an antimicrobial peptide) necessary to keep the disease at bay during the summer.
A great new book.
In our book, Embrace the Sun, Dr. William Grant and I make a calculation. For each death caused by diseases associated with sun exposure, there are 328 deaths because of diseases associated with sun deprivation. And two of the diseases associated with sun deprivation are type-two diabetes and necrotizing fasciitis.
The message for preventing diabetes stopping the use of flesh-eating drugs is this: Stop eating junk foods and start getting some regular, non-burning sun exposure (without noxious sunscreens). Happy sunning!For more information on the marvels of sun exposure, visit http://sunlightinstitute.org/ Also read the new book, Embrace the Sun.
Sepsis and septicemia, major killers that associate with sun deprivation. By Marc Sorenson, EdD
Sepsis is an infection of tissues by bacteria, and septicemia is a form of sepsis that infects the blood. Septicemia is a severe and often deadly blood infection. Noxious bacteria attack tissue or blood, and when they die or when their cell walls rupture, they release poison (endotoxin). So, these dying organisms may do more harm than the bacterial attack itself. In addition, the disease accounts for 500,000 emergency-room hospital visits per year in the USA. And, it is followed by a typical stay of 6 to 9 days. As a result, it is one of the worst medical conditions. And, it often results in multiple organ failure and death. There are about 750,000 cases per year, and about 3% of all hospital admissions result in a case of sepsis. Read more.
Sepsis and hospitals
Hospitals are hotbeds of antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” and other infectious agents. In cases of severe sepsis, antibiotics have not improved survival. In fact, antibiotics may produce molecules that exacerbate sepsis. Therefore, the health system must urgently find and implement non-antibiotic solutions to this crisis.
Also, it should be remembered that sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant. The annual cost of care for sepsis is about $17 billion. And, in the case of severe sepsis, antibiotics have not improved survival. In fact, it is especially relevant that antibiotics may produce molecules that exacerbate it. Sepsis is one of the top-ten causes of death and the second leading cause of hospital-associated deaths. So only coronary intensive care units end up having more deaths. In North America, sepsis and its related disorders kill more hospitalized people than heart attacks, colon cancer, breast cancer or AIDS.
Dr. William B. Grant’s research with sepsis and septicemia.
Dr. William Grant hypothesized that vitamin D deficiency, due to inadequate sun exposure, is a risk factor. That is true for both sepsis and septicemia. He points out that septicemia incidence is also highest in winter and lowest in the autumn. Another point is that rates are highest in the Northeast (low sunlight) and lowest in the Southwest (high sunlight). Therefore, all of this leads to the idea that sun deficiency is a major cause this disorder.
Consequently, sun deficiency could play a strong causal role in the disease, since deficiency inhibits the production of cathelicidins. Cathelicidins are antimicrobial peptides which facilitate the destruction of pathogenic germs’ cell walls, leading to their death. In addition, these peptides also help inactivate the endotoxins released as a result of that destruction., , 
Stay well and thereby avoid hospitals (and sepsis).
Finally, it would be best to avoid hospitals and their superbugs. The formula? Obtain some regular, non-screened, non-burning sunlight around noon when available. Happy sunning! And be sure to read my new book, Embrace the Sun.
 Mookherjee N, Rehaume LM, Hancock RE. Cathelicidins and functional analogues as antisepsis molecules. Expert Opinions on Therapeutic Targets 2007;11:993-1004
 Mookherjee N, Rehaume LM, Hancock RE. Cathelicidins and functional analogues as antisepsis molecules. Expert Opinions on Therapeutic Targets 2007;11:993-1004.
 Grant, WB. Solar ultraviolet-B irradiance and vitamin D reduce the risk of septicemia. Dermatoendocrinol 2009;1:37-42.
 Danai PA, Sinha S, Moss M, Haber MJ, Martin GS. Seasonal variation in the epidemiology of sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:410–15.
 Giacometti A, Cirioni O, Ghiselli R, Mocchegiani F, D’Amato G, Circo R, Orlando F, Skerlavaj B, Silvestri C, Saba V, Zanetti M, Scalise G. Cathelicidin peptide sheep myeloid antimicrobial peptide-29 prevents endotoxin-induced mortality in rat models of septic shock. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;169:187-94.
 Giacometti A, Cirioni O, Ghiselli R, Bergnach C, Orlando F, D’Amato G, Mocchegiani F, Silvestri C, Del Prete MS, Skerlavaj B, Saba V, Zanetti M, Scalise G. The antimicrobial peptide BMAP-28 reduces lethality in mouse models of staphylococcal sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:2485–90.
 Cirioni O, Giacometti A, Ghiselli R, Bergnach C, Orlando F, Silvestri C, Mocchegiani F, Licci A, Skerlavaj B, Rocchi M, Saba V, Zanetti M, Scalise G. LL-37 protects rats against lethal sepsis caused by gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:1672–9
Melanoma risk is prevented by sun exposure. Case closed! -By Marc Sorenson, EdD
Melanoma risk between persons with high and low vitamin D levels
Melanoma risk is probably the most misunderstood topic in medicine. I recently wrote about the inverse association between vitamin D and melanoma. But I finally decided that my case had insufficient passion and surety. Consequently, I decided to write this addition and provide some new and restated information.
Melanoma risk is directly associated with low levels of vitamin D. That is the conclusion of recent study published in the European Journal of Cancer. The investigators measured the blood vitamin D levels of 137 subjects who had been diagnosed with melanoma. They collected the blood samples at the time of diagnosis of the disease. Another group of 99 healthy subjects served as the control group. The investigators collected the samples of the control group between October and April. The scientists then compared the blood collections of the melanoma group with those of the control group. They then determined whether vitamin D levels had an association with melanoma risk.
The study produced convincing results regarding vitamin D and melanoma risk.
The results were as follows:
- The controls (no melanoma) had vitamin D levels 50% higher than the melanoma group (27.8 ng/ml vs. 18 ng/ml).
- 66.2% of the melanoma group had vitamin D “deficiency,” compared to only 15.2% of the health controls. The scientists defined vitamin D deficiency as being equal to or less than 20 ng/ml. So, the melanoma group had more than four-times the risk of deficiency.
- The scientists defined vitamin D “sufficiency” as being equal to or greater than 30 ng/ml. They found that only 7.4% of melanoma patients were sufficient, compared to 37.4% of healthy controls. Hence, the melanoma group had about one-fifth the likelihood of having sufficient D levels.
More scientific analysis on vitamin D measurements vs. melanoma risk
The scientists then adjusted the data for possible confounding factors such as age, sex and body mass. Then, they performed an analysis that showed the following:
- First of all, a significant inverse association was demonstrated with vitamin D sufficiency versus deficiency. Those who had sufficient levels had only 4% of the melanoma risk when compared to those who were deficient! Hence, this would indicate that those with the lowest vitamin D levels (after adjusting for confounding factors) had 25-times the melanoma risk!
- And, vitamin D insufficiency vs. deficiency was significantly inversely associated with melanoma. Those who were insufficient had a definite advantage over those who were deficient. They had only 13% of the melanoma risk.
Now, let’s get to the most important point about melanoma risk:
In addition, this research proves conclusively that sun deprivation is a major cause of melanoma. Therefore, vitamin D levels are surrogate measurements for sun exposure in nearly every case. And why do I say than this research conclusively proves that sun exposure reduces melanoma risk? Because about 90% of serum vitamin D is produced by sun exposure to the skin. So, the aforementioned research is really research on sun exposure. It indicates that regular sun exposure leads to a profoundly higher vitamin D levels and therefore a profoundly reduced melanoma risk. So, let’s restate the facts about vitamin D, sunlight and melanoma.
- First of all, sunlight exposure to skin produces 90% of the vitamin D levels in the public.
- Secondly, the higher the vitamin D levels, the lower is the risk of melanoma.
- Therefore, high sun exposure reduces melanoma risk.
- Case closed!
Nevertheless, there is more corroborating evidence for the case.
In addition, here are a few more facts indicative of sun exposure’s protective effect against melanoma risk:
- Another supporting fact: 75% of melanomas occur on body areas that are seldom if never exposed to sunlight.
- In addition, sun exposure decreased by 90% since 1935, while melanoma increased by 3,000%.
- Also, in the past four decades, melanoma has increased 400% while sunscreen use also increased 400%.
- Furthermore, sunburn is said to increase melanoma risk. And recent research shows that sunscreen use increases the risk of sunburn from 300-600%.
Could sunlight reduce melanoma through photoproducts beyond vitamin D?
In conclusion: In my new book, Embrace the Sun (coauthored by Dr. William Grant), we note that sun exposure provides more than vitamin D. It also provides other photoproducts such as nitric oxide, serotonin, endorphin, and brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF). All of these photoproducts are vital to human health. Could these photoproducts have a positive and protective effect against melanoma risk beyond vitamin D? And, who is to say that the vitamin D produced by sunlight is not superior to that given in pill form?
Finally, this research gives us one more reason to embrace the sun safely without burning. And who would have thought that safe sunlight could be one of the best prophylactics against melanoma risk?
Happy sunning! Do not burn.
The book is available at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Embrace-Sun-Marc-B-Sorenson/dp/069207600X
 Cattaruzza MS, Pisani D, Fidanza L, Gandini S, Marmo G, Narcisi A, Bartolazzi A, Carlesimo M. 25-Hydroxyvitamin D serum levels and melanoma risk: a case-control study and evidence synthesis of clinical epidemiological studies. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2018 Feb 12. [Epub ahead of print]
 Reichrath J. The challenge resulting from positive and negative effects of sun: how much solar UV exposure is appropriate to balance between risks of vitamin D deficiency and skin cancer? Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2006;92(1):9-16
 Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface.Br J Cancer. 1981 Jun;43(6):842-9.
 Melanoma International Foundation, 2007 Facts about melanoma. Sources: National Cancer Institute 2007 SEER Database, American Cancer Society’s 2007 Facts and Figures, The Skin Cancer Foundation, The American Academy of Dermatology.
 Joseph C DiNardo and Craig A Downs. Should We Use Products Containing Chemical UV Absorbing Sunscreen Actives on Children? Clin Dermatol Res J 2019, 4:1.
 Kasey L. Morris, PhD; Frank M. Perna, EdD, PhD. Decision Tree Model vs Traditional Measures to Identify Patterns of Sun-Protective Behaviors and Sun Sensitivity Associated With Sunburn. JAMA Dermatol. Published online June 27, 2018.