They FEED the machine - Bad News sells... So does Scare Tactics (just ask Big Pharma who funds the 'studies' that sell more sunscreen, wrinkle cream and doctor's visits) Grant Chasers of the Major Universities

I am a patient with an autoimmune condition. Most all diseases that appear to have a low vitamin D nutrient also have an elevated vitamin d hormone, which is what we use. So, a person cannot claim to be deficient, unless the hormone is checked too. These diseases suffer from disregulated vitamin d metabolisms, which are caused from cwd bacteria, which use the vitamin d hormone to create proteins. Please check out www.marshallprotocol.com.
LeAnne (Martinez, Ga.)

This, like everything else, is so typical of the medical community. If they cannot make up their own minds about what is or isn't good for us, then to whom do we turn for such advice??? It's like a crime scene, ask 10 people what they saw, and you will get 10 versions of the events. I long ago stopped paying attention to these people who come out with every scatter brained idea coming down the pike, a different one from one week to the next. I do what feels right for myself, in moderation....It doesn't take a trained medical professional to tell me that lying in the sun for hours on end and burning my skin to a crisp isn't good for me, common sense alone tells me that, and that advice is free.

There was a time in my youth when I was treated with granz ray for psoriasis. Years later the growth on my thyroid was thought to be due to that radiation. Yet at the time this was the current best treatment.
Why is it so....expensive to spend 3 min in uvb treatment? Who can afford to continue it and it only gives one a month or two of relief for all that money.

Please make sure you get the full picture on Vit D. Vit D can be low because it is being converted rapidly into 1,25D (the hormone). I fyou have high 1,25-D levels you maybe having troubles with auto immune type illnesses but it is never discovered because docs. only measure the 25-D form. In these instances sun and supplementation are the worst things you can do; exacerbates your illness. By the time they test the 1,25D levels they are looking for signs of kidney failure etc. I can't explain the 'whole picture' here so go to www.marshallprotocol.com and read for yourself why people with autoimmune diseases have dysregulated levels of Vit D.

Dermotologists, like all groups, are not 100% in agreement on anything because the research is far from perfect or conclusive! Some say avoid sun and tanning beds -- and then offer "treatments" in their UV "machine" (e.g. - a tanning bed!) to treat psorisis -- at a much higher billing to insurance than a couple of visits to a tanning salon! Others prescribe expensive creams and follow-up visits -- again, instead of sun exposure from which they will not profit!

Still, as with all professions, there are those who are more openminded and even handed, and believe that "moderation" is the watchword to most things in life!

Don't sunburn, don't lie in the sun for HOURS AND HOURS (with babyoil and iodine like those of us of "a certain age!" used to), don't hit the tanning salon EVERY day.

But DO get full body exposure to Vit D producing Ultraviolet light at least 3 times per week -- in a tanning bed, or by the pool when the weather permits. And visit your doctor yearly for a check of your Vit D levels, any change in mole activity as well as appropriate screeenings for cancers and other health issues.

Since grade school, we have always known -- the sun is the life-giving force critical in the chain to keep us all nourished, breathing, and healthy! That hasn't changed.....

I am very disappointed with this article and story as a life long dermatologist this really puts my credibility on the line. I mean I have been advocating that my patients use my UV therapy in my office because I know it helps with acne and psorasis. I have no problem with this after all I am making money from it. But to advocate that people go out and do something like get free sunlight out side is insane. We Dermatologists have been misleading the public for years and scaring them into buying worthless products, coming in for office visits and allowin us to cut of freze these nasty things off of them. If this news were to get out it would mean the end of my very lucrative practice. Please do not air a story like this again

What about the people who drown in water? Is all water bad for you?

What about people who die from air pollution? Should we stop breathing?

Bottom line, if the sun was as bad as the dermatologists say, the human race would have never made it this far. Plain and simple.

And for a doctor to say that supplements can work just as well, it's just crazy. It's always better to get the natural version than a synthetic one ESPECIALLY in a case where the body produces it naturally.

Well, let's see. You can go outside for $0 or you can spend thousands of $$$ in doctor visits.

I wonder which would be better....FROM THE DOCTOR'S POINT OF VIEW?

Also, SKIN CANCER is a lot more scary sounding than it is. You can either get some sun and help fend off all sorts of internal problems (colon cancer being a very important issue) or avoid the sun and hope for the best.

Well, you can't see colon cancer so I think I'll pick sun exposure just like my friends the cave men did.

(what are the side effects of all the anti depressants, pain meds and acne pills again that are given out like candy? Kidney failure, manic depression, suicide...but those aren't skin CANCER so it ok...I guess...)

If Dr. Zimmerman would spend some time treating patients suffering from vitamin D-mediated diseases like osteoporosis, diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, multiple sclerosis, etc., perhaps he would understand that the adverse affects of underexposure to UVR constitutes an extremely serious health problem for Americans.

UVR-induced vitamin D is the "elephant sitting in the living room" that dermatologists refuse to recognize.

Perhaps the legal action against six sunscreen companies should be broadened to include the dermatology community to wake them up.

And perhaps an enterprising journalist will someday take a look at why dermatologists continue to advocate sun avoidance and slathering on a sunscreen every day no matter the time of day or season notwithstanding the fact that numberous studies have shown that this advice is not just "wrong" but deadly wrong.

There is still confusion with the UVB from tanning beds and the UVB from the Sun for healthy Vitamin D production. In the simplest of terms, when there isn't enough UVB available outside for producing necessary Vitamin D, the next best place for a healthy dose is a few minutes in a tanning bed a couple times a week. Moderation is healthy. One final note: The Vitamin D2 from vitamin supplements is not as healthy as the Vitamin D3 from UVB. Read: http://www.electricbeachtan.net/Vit_D2_vs_D3.pdf (The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 89(11):5387–5391)

What most citizens of the World are not aware of is the politically managed 'dictate' of what is 'good' now or what 'will kill you' later.

Skin Cancer on the Rise?? I think not. More so the number of skin screenings at Doctor's offices being coded as 'pre-cancers' - and added to the tally of the 'National Skin Cancer Epidemic' (anything from a skin tab to genital warts and HPV) is included in the 'Skin Cancer Numbers'.

Bad News, Scare Tactics, Behavior Modifications / Environmental Barriers do more than mislead the public on gaining the best for their bodies; They FEED the machine - Bad News sells... So does Scare Tactics (just ask Big Pharma who funds the 'studies' that sell more sunscreen, wrinkle cream and doctor's visits) Grant Chasers of the Major Universities ~ where would THEIR money come from if they could not insist their intellects were needed to STOP THE WORLD from following common sense healthy habits?

Sadly, the evidence recently published by Dr. Li-E Wang and colleagues from the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, showing that Melanoma (the true killer cancer) .... "Our findings suggest that nonmelanoma skin cancer and cutaneous malignant melanoma have different etiologies in addition to UV exposure," [Dr. Wang and colleagues note.]goes unheralded. Certainly, overexposure (burns) to UV light are directly linked to Basal and Squamous Cell Skin Cancers - easily treatable. But MELANOMA? Genetics are the 'cause' for that ~ but you can't sell product to SAVE THE WORLD if you can't scare them with death.

Instead of educating the public of the how's and why's of COMMON SENSE use of Natural and Artificial UV.... the message has been SHUN THE SUN (or else...)

Every year I see people going onto beaches with their tubes of Sunscreen (SPF 50???) getting fried!! Weekend Warriors set free from the 9-5 work week letting their pasty white bodies be ASSAULTED by too MUCH of a good thing.

I am what's called a 'Tanner'. I use indoor tanning salons due to what is called S.A.D (Seasonal Affected Disorder) and here in the Mid-West using a superior quality tanning facility is the ONLY thing that keeps me from going 'postal'. You'd stand more of a chance of dying from taking MY parking space than skin cancer ~ if I could not regulate my body clock, increase my endorphins and seratonin levels and relax in UV LIGHT -

The reality is, is that physicians took an oath to never cause intentional harm to a patient. HMOs didn't. Big Pharma didn't. PhD's didn't --- but, that does NOT absolve them from the HARM being done to the world's population with the SunScare Propaganda shoved at us for the past 30 years. Politics and FUNDING should never take the place of the Hippocratic Oath!

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see some lawsuits stemming from the Hundred's of Thousands of sufferers of M.S., Prostate Cancers, Breast Cancers, Osteoporosis etc.... for malpractice.

Sunlight is a very natural thing. It has been around for a long as we have been on this planet. It's part of a natural and healthy lifestyle just like wholesome foods and exercise. And while the artificial tanning industry may try to exploit this research it's certainly not some giant marketing conspiracy (as another poster suggested).

The solution is moderation and good old common sense. Don't let yourself sunburn (they call it a burn for a reason). Don't bake yourself everyday trying to "tan". However you should go outside and walk for a little while in the fresh air and sunshine every day. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why do people have to make this into a big controversy?

I'm confused. We've spent more than 2 decades battling weight by cutting back on natural foods and now are the heaviest nation. Now we have fought skin cancer with sun block and have more cancer. Why

Dermatologists care about excess sun exposure becuase they see people dying of skin cancer every day. One american dies every hour from skin cancer and there will be more than 1 million new cases this year in the US alone!

Many studies show that people get plenty of sun exposure in their day-to-day activities to have enough Vitamin D and, if you dont belive that, you can take Oral Vit D and not put yourself at risk for skin cancer. The myth that is being propogated re going to a tanning salon to get more UV for Vit D is just a scam to make money for the tanning industry.

I am concerned about inmates that are prevented from any exposure to the sun & fresh air for months, even years at a time. They don't get vitamins and are at increased risk for infection and disease due to incarceration. My son Brandon voluntarily went into a drug treatment program which will air on Dr. Phil in May. The program will keep him in jail for 6-7 months with no access to sunlight. Should I be concerned? What can I do? There are 7,000 inmates in the Harris Co. Jail. Houston, TX.

There are pros and cons to everything, and right now there are segments of the population suffering from dysregulated D metabolism. My mother for one. There was not any mention of 1,25D levels in conjunction with 25D levels and Th1 inflammation.
Why isn't the whole picture of dysregulated D metabolism being considered by clinicians before advocating more D supplementation?

Talk about people jumping to conclusions. I didn't, at any time while reading this article, read a statement saying that we should stay out in the sun, unprotected, for long periods of time. What this is trying to say is that you need moderation. Go sit outside on your lunch break, Park away from a store and walk in the sun instead of finding the nearest parking spot. The sun is good for you. And can I please point out... yes, skin cancer is on the rise, however, what about skin cancer before sun block was invented? Are we trying to say that because we know too much sun can cause skin cancer, there have been more incidents? Moderation in everything. Go outside, enjoy the sun...just be aware and don't let yourself get burnt.

This study is just one more example of people jumping to conclusions of the appropriate action based on correlation studies. Correlations do not imply causality. Many individuals, when presented with correlation data immediately assume the one of the variables causes the other. This is a dangerous assumption, which it appears the medical professionals involved in this study have made. Low levels of 25-D may appear in some disease states, but, until you know why that relationship exists, merely doing things to increase the 25-D may not helpful. What if some third variable which was not included in the correlation study causes both low 25-D and the disease. Wouldn't we all be healthier to find the cause of the disease and fix that? Then D levels would return to normal as health returned to normal.

I just want to say that you can't assume that you are deficient in vitamin d unless both metabolites are tested. Please look at this website www.marshall protocol.com. Many people with autoimmune disease have a diregulated vitamin d metabolism. (Low nutrient High hormone)My test showed this disregulation.

These flawed studies really should not be release.They are flawed because the hormone D1,25 is not measured, only the 'vitamin'D is.The 'Vitamin' D isn't a true vitamin, but precursor hormone to the hormone D1,25-dihydroxyvitamin .If one has a disregulation of this process than taking extra 'vitamin'D can cause/make worst.... hypervitaminosis-D syndrome
http://www.marshallprotocol.com/forum2/2588.html.
causing these diseases
http://www.marshallprotocol.com/forum32/1263.html

Whoa there... how polarized we are on this important subject. Too much or too little UVB for adequate percent conversion of 7-DHC to vitamin D3 is easily defined, and metrology already exists to enable conservative non-erythemal (non-sunburn) doses of vitamin D effective solar or lamp irradiance.

Studies at Boston University and elsewhere show that it requires almost one MED (minimal erythemal dose) of UVB (adjusted for skin type) on at least 10% of your body to synthesize a "daily recommended dose" of 1000 IU vitamin D3. For a light skin type 2 this could range from 14 minutes at a strong noon summer UV Index of 10.0 to 28 minutes at a spring or fall UV Index of 5.0 (mid latitude USA). In winter almost all the 290-315nm vitamin D "rays" are gone.. and short exposures to UV lamps could be substituted for sun.

Darker skin types require proportionately more exposure for a similar D3 dose. ALL of this is for zero (no) SPF sunscreen lotion because even a 15 blocks >98% of vitamin D effective UV. Any continued exposure beyond a MED should be accompanied by appropriate sunscreen. And as stated in an above post... people with XP or people taking sun sensitive medications must avoid all UV exposure and rely on diet or supplements for vitamin D.

If in any doubt about your Fitzpatrick skin type relative to your tolerance to UV by all means consult a dermatologist. If you are a skin type 1 and/or have moles or are taking any UV sensitive medications then UV exposure is always a bad idea. Otherwise the MANY benefits of moderate UV exposure are generally considered to outweigh the various risks. Mother nature allowed us to evolve under her big UV lamp in the sky rather than to become extinct from it's irradiance.

The whole point of this (too long) post is to try and rationalize our thinking away from the all or none extreems conveyed above and reach a science based middle ground.

It is 5:51 pm in Gallatin, Tennessee. Robert Brazell just said on the news that women are not taking charge of their own health and should know warning signals for heart attacks. That is bull. It is the DUMB DOCTORS who should know the warning signals. In 1995 I had all the classic symptons, and saw my doctor who said I was suffering stress. At 3 am, before I had a chance to see someone else, I had a major heart attack and ended up with 6 bypasses. I was one of the lucky ones who has now survived for 10 years. Women trust their doctors and the doctors let them down because doctors still don't get it -- that women have heart attacks too. I am very much on my bandwagon to tell all the women I meet what to look for. For God's sake don't lay this off on women too. Get a grip man, we haven't studied medicine for 6 years like doctors do. Ask why a doctor can't recognize a heart attack.

And more than 10 minutes? Skin cancer is ON THE RISE, not decline. The deadliest form, Melanoma, is the number one cancer death for young WOMEN. Please be responsible and report the INCREASE in skin cancer. It's DEADLY!

I was under the impression from many sources for years that sunlight, plus food and supplements with vitamin D, were the solutions to my health dilemma. Over two years ago when I was so toxic and near death from hypervitaminosis-D, I fortunately found the bona fide answer to the cause of my chronic and acute maladies.

Dr. Trevor Marshall, PhD, director of the Autoimmunity Research Foundation, Thousand Oaks, California, has many published papers that have enlightened patients and the medical community to a discovery that is literally saving lives around the world. With inflammation being a precursor to disease, a dysregulated-D metabolism does not need more D.

For scientific information regarding this debatable issue, please contact Dr. Trevor Marshall at Foundation@AutoimmunityResearch.org. In addition, a chapter within a soon-to-be-released book will further reveal the science and details concerning vitamin D:

Waterhouse JC, Marshall TG, Fenter B, Mangin M, Blaney G: High levels of active 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D despite low levels of the 25-hydroxyvitamin D precursor - Implications of dysregulated vitamin D for diagnosis and treatment of Chronic Disease. In Vitamin D: New Research. Volume 1. Edited by: Stoltz VD. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2006. ISBN: 1-60021-000-7
http://novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=4130

I would be interesting to know if there is a sutudy along these lines involving nudist and the occurance of cancer.

Because of this new study, in ten years there will be more people with skin cancer. People will forget the 10 minutes a day part. They hear "spend more time in the sun without lotion." I'm going to go bet on this at longbets.org

You're right about the today is good tomorrow is bad... The one statement that will ring true not only today but for always... is "Everything in moderation", from sunshine to french fries... we would be happier and healthier.... but between Drs and the media wanting to sell books and papers... it's all or nothing... black or white.... what ever has happened to GRAY?

Great article. I enjoy your reports.

It all comes back to my personal motto - Everything in moderation.(well not everything but you know what I mean)

The study that said five to ten minutes of exposure to the hands and face is enough are out dated. New study suggest that it would take 10-15 minutes of full body exposure for a fair skinned person and more for a dark skinned person. For more information on this go to www.tanningtrends.com page 17 of the April issue.

Hello,
Thank you for this information - I know I need extra vitamin D for a variety of things, and it's great to know how much sun exposure I would need to get it. But I think you have a typo here, with "C" instead of "D":

No one is saying people should get sunburned or even tan. But you can get 1,000 units of vitamin C by spending 10 minutes in the sun in the middle of the day with your arms and face exposed.

Hello,
My Doctor also told me I didn't have enough vitamin D or soy in my diet because I was getting enough sleep. Since I started taking a suppliment of vitamin D I think it has helped. One can only hope.

I'm glad scientist's are agreeing with my approval of being in the sun!

Maybe the truth is that the sun is no real threat to skin at all, but rather it's the interaction of the sun with the chemicals we so commonly use on our skin(skin creams, suntan lotions, make ups, etc)!It's something to consider since many of the lower equatorial lands do not have the same high incidence of skin cancers...

I am so sick of dermatologists getting the sunscreen issue wrong. I own a clinical skincare center and have researched enough about this to get very irritated when they contradict basic facts about sunscreen. First of all there is no such thing as a total sunblock. UVA/UVB rays get through even with spf 45. Data shows that you can get the recommended amount of Vitamin D through the top of your head and palms of your hands. To say that you dont get incedental exposure from your car or walking to and from work is incorrect. You accumulate more then the recommended 10 minutes from your daily routine and unless you goto a specialist and have your windows have been UV treated.
So just like contradicting how much water we should drink and confusing everyone (wasnt 8 glasses a day simple?)why not keep it simple and say , wear your sunscreen everday since UVA rays are year round'. Very simple.

Most all of these studies showing correlations between low Vitamin D (25D) levels and any numbers of illnesses are flawed. They are flawed because they do not measure the ACTIVE form (1,25D). Indeed it is often the case with many chronic illnesses that the disease uses UP 25D at an accelerated rate in the production of excess amounts of 1,25D (which can result in all sorts of hormonal changes). Supplementation with 25D will only exacerbate the problems for these people in the long run (although high levels have a palliative effect in the short run). Normal healthy people get plenty of Vit D in food and sunshine and the only possible reason why it might appear that they are getting insufficient amounts is due to the stated minimum levels being set too high (and as mentioned the mins are being boosted even more!).

Not to mention that Vitamin D also plays a part in positive mental health. I used to live in Seattle and suffered severe seasonal depression, and then moved to Southern California and it practically disappeared.

Thank you for addressing this issue. I learned a lot about cholecalciferol while researching for article I published on the AAP's 2003 recommendations to supplement babies with Vit D based on increased incidence of rickets in certain populations in the U.S. I would love to see the media acknowledge the correlation of breastfeeding to improved fetal stores of Vit D, which has been shown to supplant the need to supplement, as well as the maternal benefits of breastfeeding in reducing the incidence of breast cancer. (Wow, just think of what a difference *both* breastfeeding and adequate sun exposure could make in the health of babies and their mothers! Yet, both are at significant lows in this country--no wonder so many types of cancer are on the rise.) I do hope that the AAP takes notice of these studies and modifies the supplementation rule in favor of a sun exposure rule, based on new research on safe levels of UVA/UVB absorbtion (about 30 min/week for babies). I would be happy to provide references to my source material if you are interested. In the meantime, keep spreading the news about Vit D!

I am shocked at the irresponsible journalism I saw on NBC Nightly News this evening. The issue with Vitamin D is only starting to be worked out scientifically and does not necessitate a news report telling patients to get more sun. While Vitamin D levels can be linked to certain types of cancer, there is no reason to assume that the SUN has to be the source of Vitamin D, given the KNOWN risks of skin cancer with sun exposure. By the math you used in the report, taking 2 x 400 iu of Vit D supplements with your 200 from normal food intake would yield enough Vitamin D (1000 iu) without sun exposure.

A more responsible journalistic approach would have been to report a LINK (not a causal relationship) between Vitamin D and cancers and urge people to continue to do what the Dermatologists have been TRYING to get them to do for years - avoid excessive sun. Please, try not to confuse patients until more of the science is known!

Also - Your assessment of needing "10 minutes in the sun during midday hours" fails to take into account, of all things, the skin color of the individual and the latitude. These are highly dependent variables, among others. Essentially, this makes the recommendation worthless and even possible malpractice on your part - you have no idea what photosensitizing medication these patients might be taking, co-morbidities, etc. Try telling the patient with xeroderma pigmentosum that he needs 10 minutes of sun per day!

I did NOT hear you say "please ask your dermatologist how much sun you should be getting." That would have been a nice disclaimer at the VERY LEAST!

Thank you, NBC NEWS, for setting back the work of Dermatologists in a single 5 minute report.

Sincerely,
Jay Zimmerman, MD
Chief Resident
UCLA Dermatology

I greatly appreciate your between-the-lines message that moderation is the key regarding exposure to direct sunlight. I worry when I see individuals cookinmg themselves on beaches and elsewhere. In at least a few cases, I believe that some of them do so because they are adversely affected emotionally by lack of exposure to sunlight.

This is a perfect example of going "too far". The answer, in most if not all situations is MODERATION is the key. You can apply this to almost every aspect of life and find it helpful. This hardly surprises me.

Scary - I have just been diagnosed as having "no measurable levels" of Vitamin D in my system, am only 39 and have been breaking bones like crazy, had a cancer episode too! Seems that these studies are on the right course. Have just started taking 50,000 units of Vitamin D per week just to get levels up to normal. Doctor told me to not wear makeup or lotions with sunscreen and to go out every day in the sun!

I was very disappointed when I saw this segment air. This is not good information.

Please take a look at Dr Trevor Marshall's research on his site about "Vitamin D" and the reason so many people are being misdiagnosed with a deficiency when in fact they suffer from a dysregulation.

You can go to www.marshallprotocol.com for updated and current research and info on Vitamin D.

who is not getting ten minutes of sun a day? if you arnt you need to get out more.

The sun is not the only place you can receive UVA and UVB from. Tanning beds do the same thing, but in a more regulated atmosphere. Tanning salons provide guidance so that undividuals do not burn. Certified salon operators instruct their customers in tanning moderation and in the proper use of eye protection, lotions and moisturizers.

It is a widely held opinion that the Dermotologists have held a negative opinion of sun exposure because they have not figured out how to make money from it and they are heavily invested in the "sunless product" industry.