» NewsSunlight Institute » Spreading Sunshine

Uncategorized / 2.9.2013 / No Comment

Sunlight may reduce the Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Women

By: Marc Sorenson–

A recent research paper published in the journal Annals of Rheumatic Diseases[1] showed that older women, who lived in areas where the most sunlight was available, were at about a 20% reduced risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Younger women did not see the same reduction in RA. In my opinion that is because younger women have been brainwashed by the Powers of Darkness (The American Academy of Dermatology, Skin Cancer Foundation, etc.) into staying indoors and slathering on sunscreen. The older (30-55 in 1976) group of women was followed from 1976 to 2008; the younger (25-42 in 1989) group was followed from 1989 until 2009.

This study is not the first to show a positive effect of sunlight and vitamin D on RA. RA is one of several rheumatic diseases that affect bones, muscles, joints and tendons. In a study of 29,000 women, those who ranked in the top third of vitamin D consumption had one-third less risk of RA.[2] In mice studies, vitamin D treatment inhibits the progression of rheumatoid arthritis and minimizes or prevents the symptoms.[3] And in another human study, subjects diagnosed with a form of the disease known as inflammatory arthritis, the lower the vitamin D levels are, the higher is the disease activity.[4] Vitamin D’s anti-inflammatory properties and its ability to reduce the autoimmune response are likely responsible for the improvement in RA.[5] Investigations also find that RA is more common in winter; consistent with the idea that vitamin D, or sunlight itself, is a major factor in reducing the risk.[6] We must remember in all of this research showing a positive effect of vitamin D, that 90% percent of vitamin D is produced by sunlight. Safe Sunlight exposure is the key, because it will furnish the correct amount of vitamin D and simultaneously lead to the production or nitric oxide, endorphins, serotonin and other factors that enhance human health. Vitamin D is only one product of Sunlight, which is the King!

However, sunlight exposure and vitamin D levels are not the only factors in arthritis. The inflammatory foods we consume also lead to deterioration of the joints. At our health resort, about 4 weeks ago, we had a guest show up with severe rheumatoid arthritis in her hands. We put her on a pure, plant-based diet with lots of greens and colorful fruit. increased her exercise and told her to take more vitamin D (no D-producing sunlight when she arrived). In one week she was off all arthritis meds, lost 12 pounds and 12 inches and felt renewed. Can you imagine what we could do for arthritis with a combination of sunlight and a plant-based diet?

Read the journal abstract.

[1] Elizabeth V Arkema, Jaime E Hart, Kimberly A Bertrand, et al. Exposure to ultraviolet-B and risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis among women in the Nurses’ Health Study. Ann Rheum Dis doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202302. <?xml:namespace prefix = o />

[2] Merlino LA, Curtis J, Mikuls TR, Cerhan JR, Criswell LA, Saag KG. Vitamin D intake is inversely associated with rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2004;50:72-77.

[3] Cantorna MT, Hayes CE, DeLuca HF. 1,25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol inhibits the progression of arthritis in murine models of human arthritis. J Nutr1998;128:68-72.

[4] Patel S, Farragher T, Berry J, Bunn D, Silman A, Symmons, D. Serum vitamin D metabolite levels may be inversely associated with current disease activity in patients with early inflammatory polyarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56;2143-49.

[5] Cutolo M, Otsa K, Uprus M, Paolino S, Seriolo B.. Vitamin D in rheumatoid arthritis. Autoimmune Rev 2007;7:59-64.

[6] Cutolo, M. et al. Circannual vitamin D serum levels and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: Northern versus Southern Europe. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006;24:702-4.

Uncategorized / 2.7.2013 / No Comment

The Skin Cancer Foundation (SCF) misstates the facts about Sunlight and vitamin D. Could it be an effort to promote sunscreens?

By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–

The Skin Cancer Foundation recently posted a press release on their website stating that they have busted the “myths surrounding vitamin D and sun exposure.” In it they quote Perry Robins, president of the foundation, as saying, “The misconception that exposure to UVB radiation is the optimal source of vitamin D puts people at risk for potentially life-threatening skin cancer. Furthermore, in most cases the body stops producing vitamin D after just a few minutes of sun exposure.”[1]

The idea, that sunlight exposure is the optimal source of vitamin D, is not a misconception–as will be explained below. We will also discuss the fact, that while the skin may cease producing vitamin D after 20 minutes of full-body exposure, it is because it has produced all the vitamin D the body needs—up to an impressive 20,000 international units (IU). Since many multi-vitamin supplements contain only 400-600 IU, it is obviously best to make sunlight the primary source of vitamin D.

In addition, the SCF press release states that “About 86 percent of melanomas (the most dangerous form of skin cancer) and 90 percent of nonmelanoma skin cancers are associated with exposure to UV radiation.”[2] The citation, of course, comes from a dermatological journal, Archives of Dermatology. Here are a few facts the SCF should have considered: (a) Whereas common skin cancers such as squamous-cell carcinoma is more common among those who are regularly in the sunlight, the risk of the deadly melanoma is considerably reduced by regular sunlight exposure.[3] (b) In addition, it should be known that most melanoma occurs on areas of the body that are seldom or never exposed to sunlight.[4] [5] [6]

Other facts that belie the aforementioned statements made by the SCF in their press release are these: (a) Outdoor workers, while receiving 3-9-times the sunlight exposure as indoor workers, have had no increase in melanoma since 1940, (b)whereas melanoma in indoor workers has increased steadily and exponentially.[7] Quite obviously, if sunlight exposure led to melanoma, outdoor workers would have the greatest incidence of the disease and indoor workers would have a lesser incidence. That the opposite is the case is also manifested by numerous scientific papers showing that those with more regular exposure to sunlight have a lesser risk of melanoma.[8]

It should also be noted that sunlight exposure has profoundly decreased in the last hundred and ten years due to a population that has moved indoors. For example, indoor occupations such as “professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers (except private household service workers) grew from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment between 1910 and 2000.” The outdoor occupation of farming decreased by 96%.[9] Yet, the Melanoma International Foundation (MIF) has stated that ultraviolet radiation from sunlight causes melanoma and should be avoided as a detriment to human health. They also state that melanoma incidence has increased by 3,000% since 1935.[10] Try to figure out that reasoning! Considering that the population has moved indoors, it becomes obvious that there is a terrible disconnect between the facts and the statements of both the SCF and the MIF. The SCF is closely allied with sunscreen manufacturers. Could this press release be nothing more than a ploy to increase sunscreen sales?

And speaking of sunscreens, the increase in sunscreen sales is dramatic,[11] [12] and the incidence of melanoma continues to skyrocket in spite of its use.[13] The blockage of sunlight by sunscreens correlates to an increased risk of melanoma, and yet the MIF and SCF state that we need to avoid the sunlight? Give me a break! Still, the SCF has stated that “for adequate protection against melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancers and photo-aging, everyone over the age of six months should use sunscreen daily year-round, in any weather.” Yes, they are suggesting that we use sunscreen even in cloudy weather in the winter! How convenient for an organization, which works closely with sunscreen manufacturers, to make such a statement. Could there be a conflict of interest here?

The SCF press release discusses three statements that they label as “myths.” Let’s look at these statements by the Skin Cancer Foundation to determine which are really myths, and which are really facts.

The Foundation lists the following statements as myths:

1. UVB radiation is a good source of vitamin D.

2. Sun exposure is the only source of vitamin D

3. Tanning beds are a healthy option for boosting vitamin D levels.

Let’s take a look at each statement and then look at the facts:

#1 UVB radiation is a good source of vitamin D. This is not a myth! UVB radiation from 10-15 minutes of full-body exposure to peak summer sunshine can stimulate the production of up to 20,000 IU of vitamin D.[14] Indeed, UVB radiation is an incredibly effective source of vitamin D, and that is no myth. Any statement to the contrary is false.

#2 Sun exposure is the only source of vitamin D. No such myth, to my knowledge, has been propagated. A myth is an unproved or false collective belief. There is no false collective belief that sun exposure is the only source of vitamin D. However, sunlight is certainly by far the best source of vitamin D. For example, cod liver oil has about 400 IU per teaspoon; salmon, 400 IU per 3.5 oz. serving; fortified milk, 100 IU per 8 oz. glass; and fortified orange juice 100 IU per 8 oz. glass. Compare this to 20,000 IU from sun exposure; it’s no contest.[15]

#3 Tanning beds are a healthy option for boosting vitamin D levels. This is not a myth!

An excellent study compared 50 people who used tanning beds regularly with 106 who did not. The tanning-bed group had 90% higher vitamin D levels and significantly higher bone density.[16] Other research has shown that (a) Women who use tanning beds have a reduced risk of endometrial cancer of 40-50%.[17] (b) There is a significantly lowered risk of venous thrombotic events among women who use tanning beds when compared with those who do not.[18] (c) Tanning-bed use is inversely correlated to breast-cancer risk.[19]

Fortunately, organizations beyond the SCF are “seeing the light.” Cancer Research UK has joined with other health organizations to make a consensus statement regarding sunlight and vitamin D.[20] Those organizations are British Association of Dermatologists, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Heart Forum, the National Osteoporosis Society and the Primary Care Dermatology Society. Here is the first part of the statement: “Vitamin D is essential for good bone health, and for most people sunlight is the most important source of vitamin D. The time required to make sufficient vitamin D varies according to a number of environmental, physical and personal factors, but is typically short and less than the amount of time needed for skin to redden and burn. Enjoying the sun safely, while taking care not to burn, can help to provide the benefits of vitamin D without unduly raising the risk of skin cancer.”

The aforementioned dermatological and other health societies of the UK do not consider the health benefits of responsible sun exposure to be a myth. Why, then, does the SCF consider themselves so much more intelligent than these organizations? This may be the clue: There are 69 corporate sponsors of the SCF, each of which pays at least $10,000 per year for the privilege of belonging to the “Corporate Council.[21] If you look at the SCF Corporate-Council page, you will note that many of the members are involved in producing or selling products for skin protection, i.e. sunscreens. Is it any wonder that the SCF suggests year-round sunscreen use, even in cloudy, wintry weather? It certainly smacks of some quid pro quo, no?

Let’s get some safe sunlight as recommended by Cancer Research UK and other reputable organizations across the pond and forget about the biased and irresponsible SCF.

[1] http://www.skincancer.org/media-and-press/press-release-2013/vitamin-d

[2] Koh HK, Geller AC, Miller DR, Grossbart TA, Lew RA. Prevention and early detection strategies for melanoma and skin cancer: Current status. Archives of Dermatology 1996; 132: 436-442.

[3] Grant, WB. An ecologic study of cancer mortality rates in Spain with respect to indices of solar UVB irradiance and smoking. Int J Cancer. 2007 Mar 1;120(5):1123-8.

[4] Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.

[5] Rivers, J. Is there more than one road to melanoma? Lancet 2004;363:728-30.

[6] Crombie, I. Racial differences in melanoma incidence. Br J Cancer 1979;40:185-93.

[7] Godar DE, Landry RJ, Lucas AD. Increased UVA exposures and decreased cutaneous Vitamin D3 levels may be responsible for the increasing incidence of melanoma. Med hypothesis (2009), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.09.056

[8] Lee J. Melanoma and exposure to sunlight. Epidemiol Rev 1982;4:110–36.

Vågero D, Ringbäck G, Kiviranta H. Melanoma and other tumors of the skin among office, other indoor and outdoor workers in Sweden 1961–1979 Brit J Cancer 1986;53:507–12.

Kennedy C, Bajdik CD, Willemze R, De Gruijl FR, Bouwes Bavinck JN; Leiden Skin Cancer Study. The influence of painful sunburns and lifetime sun exposure on the risk of actinic keratoses, seborrheic warts, melanocytic nevi, atypical nevi, and skin cancer. Invest Dermatol 2003;120:1087–93.

Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.

Kaskel P, Sander S, Kron M, Kind P, Peter RU, Krähn G. Outdoor activities in childhood: a protective factor for cutaneous melanoma? Results of a case-control study in 271 matched pairs. Br J Dermatol 2001;145:602-09.

Garsaud P, Boisseau-Garsaud AM, Ossondo M, Azaloux H, Escanmant P, Le Mab G. Epidemiology of cutaneous melanoma in the French West Indies (Martinique). Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:66-8.

Le Marchand l, Saltzman S, Hankin JH, Wilkens LR, Franke SJM, Kolonel N. Sun exposure, diet and melanoma in Hawaii Caucasians. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:232-45.

Armstong K, Kricker A. The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer. J Photochem Biol 2001;63:8-18

Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface. Br J Cancer 1981;43:842-9.

Crombie IK. Variation of melanoma incidence with latitude in North America and Europe. Br J Cancer 1979;40:774-81.

Weinstock MA, Colditz,BA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ. Bronstein, BR, Speizer FE. Nonfamilial cutaneous melanoma incidence in women associated with sun exposure before 20 years of age. Pediatrics 1989;84:199-204.

Tucker MA, Goldstein AM. Melanoma etiology: where are we? Oncogene 2003;22:3042-52.

Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Nat Cancer Inst 2005;97:95-199.

Veierød MB, Weiderpass E, Thörn M, Hansson J, Lund E, Armstrong B. A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1530-8.

Oliveria SA, Saraiya M, Geller AC, Heneghan MK, Jorgensen C. Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:131-8.

Elwood JM, Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Pearson JCG. Cutaneous melanoma in relation to intermittent and constant sun exposure—the western Canada melanoma study. Int J Cancer 2006;35:427-33

[9] Ian D. Wyatt and Daniel E. Hecker. Occupational changes in the 20th century. Monthly Labor Review, March 2006 pp 35-57: Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[10] 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.

[11] Kline & Company’s Cosmetics & Toiletries USA Annual Service (1972 and 2008 editions).

[12] Fredonia market research group report, 2009.

[13] Melanoma incidence in Connecticut, 1936-1999. Source: Connecticut Tumor Registry.

[14] Hollis, BW. Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels indicative of vitamin D sufficiency: implications for establishing a new effective dietary intake recommendation for vitamin D. J Nutr 2005 Feb;135(2):317-22.

[15] Holick, MF. High Prevalence of Vitamin D Inadequacy and Implications for Health. MAYO CLIN PROC. 2006;81:353-373

[16] Tangpricha, V. et al. Tanning is associated with optimal vitamin D status (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration) and higher vitamin D levels. Am J Clin Nutr 2004:80:1645-49.

[17] Epstein E, et al. A population-based cohort study on sun habits and endometrial cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009 Aug 4;101(3):537-40.

[18] Lindqvist PG et al., Does an active sun exposure habit lower the risk of venous thrombotic events? A D-lightful hypothesis. J Thromb Haemost 2009;7:605-10.

[19] Yang L, et al. Prospective study of UV exposure and cancer incidence among Swedish women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Published Online May 6, 2011.

[20]http://www.sunsmart.org.uk/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@sun/documents/generalcontent/cr_052628.pdf.

[21] Corporate Council page, Skin Cancer Foundation. Accessible at http://www.skincancer.org/about-us/corporate-supporters/corporate-council.

Uncategorized / 1.17.2013 / No Comment

Depression, Sunlight and Vitamin D in the Elderly

By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–

Research from Belgium has shown that there is a high rate vitamin D deficiency in elderly nursing-home residents. In fact, almost every resident was deficient.[1] Also, the research showed that as vitamin D deficiency was compared with the likelihood of depression among those residents, there was a consistent tendency toward increasing depressive symptoms with increasing D deficiency. In other words, those who were most D deficient were most likely to be depressed.

This research simply confirms the results of other investigations, most notably a study showing that Those whose vitamin D levels were deficient—defined as less than 20 ng/ml—had 11.7 times the incidence of depression when compared to those whose vitamin D levels were higher.[2] Usually an association is considered impressive when a measured factor correlates to a 50% increase or decrease. In this case, the correlation between vitamin D deficiency and risk of depression was a staggering 1,169 percent! Still other related research showed that elderly persons whose serum vitamin D levels were in the deficient category had three-and-one-half times the risk of being admitted to a nursing home as those whose levels were in the highest category.[3]

Interestingly, the first phrase of the title of the research from Belgium was “Walk on the sunny side of life.” Ninety percent of the vitamin D in the serum of Americans is produced by the skin in response to sunlight exposure, so research like that mentioned above is really a measure of sunlight exposure and depression. Obviously, what these depressed elderly persons really need is to get out of the care facility and into the sunlight!

[1] Verhoeven V, Vanpuyenbroeck K, Lopez-Hartmann M, Wens J, Remmen R. Walk on the sunny side of life–epidemiology of hypovitaminosis D and mental health in elderly nursing home residents. J Nutr Health Aging 2012 Apr;16(4):417-20

[2] Wilkins C. et al. Vitamin D Deficiency Is Associated With Low Mood and Worse Cognitive Performance in Older Adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;14:1032–1040).

[3] Visser, M. et al. Low serum vitamin concentrations of 25 hydroxyvitamin D in older persons and the risk of nursing home admission. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:616-22.

Uncategorized / 1.10.2013 / No Comment

The Reasons Behind Soaring Asthma Rates: The Answer is So Obvious That No One Can See It: Lack of Sunlight Causing Vitamin D Deficiency

By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–

According to the Centers for Disease Control in May 2011, “about one in 12 people in the United States now has asthma—a total of 24.6 million people and an increase of 4.3 million since 2001.”[1] This is another of those diseases like diabetes that is increasing out of control and shows no sign of abating.

The Scientific American, on April 14, 2011, published an article entitled Why are Asthma Rates soaring?[2] In that article, they lamented the fact that for the last three decades asthma rates have been surging, and that differing theories have arisen as to the reason for the increase, only to be disproven and discarded. Among those theories was the hypothesis that the world has become so “clean” or sterile, that youngsters are not subjected to infectious organisms and thereby do not develop strong immune systems capable of fighting off pollens, dust, etc. To me, that seemed like a rather lame hypothesis, and the article indicates that the idea is no longer in vogue. Another theory was that those who had allergic reactions to various environmental pollutants had weaknesses that predisposed them to asthma. Both of these ideas have failed the test of truth; neither allergy nor early-life “cleanliness” leads to an increase in asthma. The latest theory to surface is that the pandemic of obesity is to blame, because it causes inflammation throughout the body. However, there are many obese people who are not asthmatics.

Newer research has the answer. In Qatar, researchers measured serum vitamin D levels in asthmatic children and compared those levels to levels of healthy non-asthmatic controls.[3] Deficiency was defined as having levels below 20 ng/ml. Many other possible factors were also measured, such as nutritional practices, and various serum measurements such as calcium, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, magnesium, creatinine and Parathyroid hormone.

The results were these: asthmatic children had less exposure to sunlight (67%) and less physical activity (71.3%). Vitamin D deficiency was by far the strongest predictor of asthma; those who had the lowest vitamin D levels were nearly five-times more likely to have asthma.

The Scientific American’s editors must not to know that many scientists other than the aforementioned have suggested that vitamin D deficiency, caused by lack sunlight, leads to asthma. Much of the research was done before they published their article.

Researchers in Boston have hypothesized that the decrease in sunlight exposure and resultant vitamin D deficiency is responsible for the asthma epidemic.[4] Others show the same facts: the increase in asthma has paralleled the decline in sunlight exposure, and asthma risk is 40% lower in children of women who have the highest vitamin D consumption during pregnancy.[5]

A scientific experiment from Australia also demonstrated that when asthmatic mice were exposed to ultraviolet light, before being exposed to an asthma-causing allergen, asthma symptoms were reduced.[6] Finally, another study from Spain showed that children exposed to the most sunlight have much lower risks of asthma.[7] To me, it is amazing that the article in Scientific American never even mentioned the possibility of asthma being caused by deficiency of vitamin D brought on by lack of sunlight. Now that this latest research is in, It is my hope that they will correct the mistake and use their considerable prestige to promulgate the vitamin D/sunlight/asthma connection. It is time to return to the sun.

[1] Vital Signs: Asthma Prevalence, Disease characteristics, and self-Management education—United States, 2001-2009. MMWR 2011;60(17):547-552

[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-asthma-rates-so…

[3] Bener A, Ehlayel MS, Tulic MK, Hamid Q. Vitamin D deficiency as a strong predictor of asthma in children. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2012;157(2):168-75.

[4] Devereux, G. et al. Maternal vitamin D intake and early childhood wheezing. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:853-59

[5] Camargo, C. et al. Maternal intake of vitamin D during pregnancy and risk of recurrent wheeze in children at 3 y. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:788-95.

[6] Hart, P. et al. Sunlight may protect against asthma. Perth (Australia) Telethon institute for child health research. Quoted in Australian AP Oct 24, 2006.

[7] 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.

Uncategorized / 12.30.2012 / No Comment

Dr. Mercola Nails it with his Comments on Sunscreens, Melanoma and Dermatologists.

By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–

Dr. Mercola, whose natural-health website is probably the most popular in the world, just posted an article that corroborates my beliefs regarding sunscreens, sunlight exposure, and the misguided advice of the dermatological industry. In it he makes several important points:

(1) The Canadian Cancer Society (CCS) has been “bought” by cosmetics giant Neutrogena for $200,000, with the supposed goal of helping to educate the public about the importance of sunscreens. In reality, it is a marketing ploy for Neutrogena which will help them to increase their sunscreen sales by $millions.

(2) Regular sunlight exposure is inversely correlated to many diseases, including cancer (one is melanoma), heart disease, dental diseases, muscle weakness, high blood pressure, kidney disease, osteoporosis and weakened immunity.

(3) Some well-known dermatologists have said stated that sunlight exposure is not an efficient method of increasing vitamin D levels–an obvious falsehood.

(4) Tanning beds have taken a bad rap; they are capable of increasing health benefits, provided the correct type of bed is used–one with the correct ration of UVA to UVB.

(5) Typical chemical sunscreens can actually increase the risk of developing skin cancer and may have many other deleterious effects.

(6) Antioxidants from food can dramatically reduce the risk of skin damage from sunlight.

Dr. Mercola’s comments about the cozy relationship between Neutrogena and the CCS did not come as a surprise to me, since Neutrogena for years has paid $300,000 per year to the American Cancer Society (ACS) for the right to use the ACS logo in their advertising. What a great way to sell sunscreens! As Dr. Bernard Ackerman (a famous and enlightened dermatologist) stated in his scathing attack on his own profession, ” The American Academy of Dermatology, the Skin-Cancer Foundations and the American Cancer Society sold their seals of recommendation to sunscreen manufacturers, the price being substantial in terms of dollars, but incalculable in regards to tarnish of honor.” (A Bernard Ackerman, dermatologist. The Sun and the “Epidemic” of Melanoma: Myth on Myth 2008.)

So Kudos to Dr Mercola, who is helping to expose the truth about sunlight’s marvelous health benefits, and the fraud behind the anti-sun movement. Be sure to read his entire article.

Read Dr. Mercola’s article

Uncategorized / 12.20.2012 / No Comment

Manchester United uses Sun Lamps to optimize Vitamin D Levels

By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–

The article at the link discusses the fact that Manchester United, a very good soccer team from Britain, exposes its players to ultraviolet radiation from sun lamps in order to keep vitamin D levels high. The author of the article, surprisingly, does not mention increased athletic performance; nevertheless, sun-lamp expsoure has been known to enhance athletic performance since the 1940s. I co-authored a research paper on this subject with Dr. John Cannell. (Cannell JJ, Hollis BW, Sorenson MB, Taft TN, Anderson JJ. Atheltic performance and vitamin D Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 May;41(5):1102-10.) In that publication, we noted that the Germans, who dominated the Olympic Games for many years, used sun-lamp treatments to decrease reaction time and to increase strength, endurance and speed.

The Manchester Club probably used the sun lamps to protect health, but the same treatment may have led to much of their success on the playing field!

Read the article

Uncategorized / 12.2.2012 / No Comment

More research indicates that sunlight exposure correlates to a lower risk of myopia.

By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–

Another in a line of studies on sunlight and myopia (near-sightedness) demonstrates that people who spend more time is the sun are less likely to have this pandemic vision problem. Other research on the relationship of sunlight exposure and myopia, some of it reported in my book, primarily considered the risk of myopia in children. This new investigation, however, surveyed young adults, and found that those who had the lowest exposure to sunlight were twice as likely to contract myopia.

Myopia is not an insignificant problem; when severe, it may lead to blindness. Obviously, we need to make sure that our eyes receive some sunlight regularly to help prevent this widespread disorder.

Read the article.

Uncategorized / 11.26.2012 / No Comment

Another mechanism by which the sunshine vitamin works to prevent cancer

By: Marc Sorenson–

A new study from McGill University in Montreal, Canada, has shown that vitamin D has the ability to inhibit both the production and function of a cancer-enhancing protein called cMYC. This protein drives cell division, thereby accelerating cancer growth, a process known as proliferation. It has been known for many years that vitamin D could inhibit the proliferation of cancer, but this particular mechanism was not known. According to Dr. White, the lead researcher, vitamin D strongly stimulates the production of a cMYC antagonist, MXD1, which essentially shuts down the function of cMYC.

This is important information, because scientists who oppose the idea that vitamin D can prevent cancer are more likely to be persuaded when the mechanisms of that process are understood.

Remember that the most natural way to obtain vitamin D is by sunlight exposure. Also remember that sunlight exposure produces many other metabolites that have nothing to do with vitamin D: serotonin, which elevates the mood, endorphins, which also increase a sense of well-being, and nitric oxide, which lowers blood pressure and may play a part in reducing or reversing erectile dysfunction. My opinion is that non-burning sunlight exposure reduces the risk of many maladies including, but not not limited to, those maladies correlated to vitamin D deficiency.

Read the McGill University report.

Uncategorized / 11.26.2012 / No Comment

When it comes to multiple sclerosis (MS), the sunshine vitamin may be even better for moms than for their babies.

By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–

Dozens of observational studies have shown a correlation of sunlight and vitamin D deficiency to an increased risk of MS. It had been thought that babies and youngsters would be the hardest hit by these deficiencies, and many scientists encouraged pregnant mothers to keep their vitamin D levels high. This new research indicates that the real benefit may be a reduction in MS among the women who had the highest levels of D–in fact, a 61 percent reduction compared to those who had the lowest levels.

My opinion? The highest levels were probably not high enough; in other words, they were not optimized levels, which might have lowered risk much more. Although that is conjecture, the research on many diseases such as cancer and heart disease show that very high levels of vitamin D correlate to much lower rates of disease than the levels that are considered “normal” by the “experts.” How many diseases could be dramatically reduced by a return to the sunlight?

Read the article.

Uncategorized / 11.22.2012 / No Comment

Sunlight mitigates diabetes through vitamin D production

By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–

This well-written and well-documented article makes the point that sunlight exposure is the natural way to obtain vitamin D, and then it documents the many ways in which vitamin D mitigates diabetes and helps to reduce its risk. At our health institutes, we have helped hundreds of diabetics to remove the need for insulin injections and diabetic medications. Although diabetes is due to poor nutrition, obesity and sedentary living, vitamin D from sunlight serves as a medicine and an antidote to the true causes.

The article is a must read for those who want to know more about the influence of sunlight on one of the world’s fastest growing and most dangerous diseases.

Read the article.