55 replies to this topic

[Johann]

Don't believe the lies.  Here is the truth:

Edited by Johann, 27 September 2009 - 07:19 PM.

[Johann]

[niner]

Cigarettes are good for you.

[Matt]

hahaha. funny. Not.

[ensun]

It should rather be said that a little sunlight can deter skin cancer while a lot of sunlight can cause skin cancer.

[immortali457]

Sunlight will PREVENT wrinkles

[immortali457]

Careful what you read, hear, or see around here folks. It just might kill you.

[niner]

Careful what you read, hear, or see around here folks. It just might kill you.

Now this I agree with.

[mdma]

Cigarettes are good for you.

According to Youtube, well YES, they are.

[JLL]

Didn't watch the video, but I'm surprised at the responses. Isn't it pretty much known that vitamin D prevents skin cancer? Sunscreen use has gone up but melanoma rates have also gone up.

[nancyd]

Didn't watch the video, but I'm surprised at the responses. Isn't it pretty much known that vitamin D prevents skin cancer? Sunscreen use has gone up but melanoma rates have also gone up.

Vitamin D supplementation is safe but getting enough D from sun exposure isn't advisable. I've read magazine articles that say 15-20 minutes/day of sun will provide adequate D but it actually takes much more sun exposure than that.

Sunscreen use and melanoma rates going up doesn't really make a point since most Americans are buying sunscreen with inadequate/unstable UVA protection and not understanding how to properly use sunscreen.

Edited by nancyd, 27 September 2009 - 11:21 PM.

[VespeneGas]

http://www3.intersci...l...=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.skinandal...0061-X/abstract
http://www.find-heal...t-apoptosis.htm
http://www.medical-h...0599-9/abstract

He hasn't proven anything like "sunlight PREVENTS skin cancer". He readily admits that sun exposure increases the risk of squamous cell carcinoma. He then proceeds to explain that healthy vitamin D levels help curb cancer risk (in epidemiological and limited intervention trials) and reduce the risk of malignant melanoma. True though this may be, supplemental vitamin D is an effective way to raise systemic vitamin D status, without sun exposure. Sunlight is mutagenic, carcinogenic, immuno-suppressive (which, if you listen to him, increases cancer risk), and damages the structure of skin, leading to aging.

From http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11312434

Ultraviolet A and melanoma: a review.
Wang SQ, Setlow R, Berwick M, Polsky D, Marghoob AA, Kopf AW, Bart RS. Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA.

The incidence and mortality rates of melanoma have risen for many decades in the United States. Increased exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation is generally considered to be responsible. Sunburns, a measure of excess sun exposure, have been identified as a risk factor for the development of melanoma. Because sunburns are primarily due to UVB (280-320 nm) radiation, UVB has been implicated as a potential contributing factor to the pathogenesis of melanoma. The adverse role of UVA (320-400 nm) in this regard is less well studied, and currently there is a great deal of controversy regarding the relationship between UVA exposure and the development of melanoma. This article reviews evidence in the English-language literature that surrounds the controversy concerning a possible role for UVA in the origin of melanoma. Our search found that UVA causes DNA damage via photosensitized reactions that result in the production of oxygen radical species. UVA can induce mutations in various cultured cell lines. Furthermore, in two animal models, the hybrid Xiphophorus fish and the opossum (Mondelphis domestica), melanomas and melanoma precursors can be induced with UVA. UVA radiation has been reported to produce immunosuppression in laboratory animals and in humans. Some epidemiologic studies have reported an increase in melanomas in users of sunbeds and sunscreens and in patients exposed to psoralen and UVA (PUVA) therapy. There is basic scientific evidence of the harmful effects of UVA on DNA, cells and animals. Collectively, these data suggest a potential role for UVA in the pathogenesis of melanoma. To date evidence from epidemiologic studies and clinical observations are inconclusive but seem to be consistent with this hypothesis. Additional research on the possible role of UVA in the pathogenesis of melanoma is required.

PMID: 11312434 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

If you want to be healthy and live a long time, sun exposure is vital. Either demonstrate that vitamin D supplements are ineffective or concede the point.

[niner]

I'll grant that sunlight (if sufficiently intense) will make vitamin D, and vitamin D will protect against a variety of cancers. Sunlight will also upregulate melanin production in some people, leading to some degree of protection from the damaging effects of UVB. (Presumably making it harder to generate vitamin D, requiring more time in the sun, thus more damage to the skin.) However, if you are a light-skinned individual of Northern European descent, you may never make enough melanin to protect yourself sufficiently for significant sun exposure. The protective effect of vitamin D is not sufficient to compensate entirely for the mutagenicity of sunlight. If it were, there wouldn't be an epidemic of skin cancers in the Southern US, Australia, etc. The idea that sunlight PREVENTS skin cancer, or that it PREVENTS wrinkles is simply idiotic. I have a friend who died of melanoma. He had a pretty good tan as a result of a fair amount of sun exposure. He was also wrinkled, in a ruggedly handsome sort of way. He made a good looking corpse. Another friend used to like to hang out by the pool, you know, avoiding skin cancer. They caught his melanoma in time, and he survived. His dad, who also hung by the pool, didn't make it. His melanoma was too far advanced. So... I think there are some flaws in the "sunlight prevents skin cancer" concept.

This may come as a shock to some, but YouTube is not a reliable source for anything, much less medical information.

[okok]

I'll grant that sunlight (if sufficiently intense) will make vitamin D, and vitamin D will protect against a variety of cancers. Sunlight will also upregulate melanin production in some people, leading to some degree of protection from the damaging effects of UVB. (Presumably making it harder to generate vitamin D, requiring more time in the sun, thus more damage to the skin.) However, if you are a light-skinned individual of Northern European descent, you may never make enough melanin to protect yourself sufficiently for significant sun exposure. The protective effect of vitamin D is not sufficient to compensate entirely for the mutagenicity of sunlight. If it were, there wouldn't be an epidemic of skin cancers in the Southern US, Australia, etc. The idea that sunlight PREVENTS skin cancer, or that it PREVENTS wrinkles is simply idiotic. I have a friend who died of melanoma. He had a pretty good tan as a result of a fair amount of sun exposure. He was also wrinkled, in a ruggedly handsome sort of way. He made a good looking corpse. Another friend used to like to hang out by the pool, you know, avoiding skin cancer. They caught his melanoma in time, and he survived. His dad, who also hung by the pool, didn't make it. His melanoma was too far advanced. So... I think there are some flaws in the "sunlight prevents skin cancer" concept.

This may come as a shock to some, but YouTube is not a reliable source for anything, much less medical information.

Don't understand the flame here. What he says in the video sounds very reasonable. He mentioned adequate protection and didn't advocate overdoing it. Everyone here has heard of hormesis. Sure you can't deny the benefits of something nearly all life on earth evolved with.

[yoyo]

Cigarettes are good for you.

According to Youtube, well YES, they are.

there was a dude around here arguing this.

[Johann]

 I'm not conceding anything because I'm right.  

There are many factors involved and UVB light used moderately is beneficial.  There are several aspects, not just the vitamin d.  The opiates are good for ya. The light on the skin causes a youthful reverberance.  



As far as getting skin cancer, things like a lack of B vitamins, took much PUFA intake, lack of antioxidants etc play into that. I got so much catalase, SOD, glutathione running around inside me that I am immune to skin cancer.  I eat brazil nuts, drink the heck out of green and black tea, takes tons of b vitamins, take grape seed extract and resveratrol.  




I've been using a sunlamp or natural sunlight for years and years and have never come down with melanoma.

[Jay]

You might be right about moderate sun exposure being a net benefit (compared to no vitamin D at least), but your approach sounds more religious than scientific. By the way, are you also immune to the radium in Brazil nuts? And, mega-doses of selenium?

Edited by Jay, 28 September 2009 - 03:18 PM.

[kismet]

What he says in the video sounds very reasonable. He mentioned adequate protection and didn't advocate overdoing it. Everyone here has heard of hormesis. Sure you can't deny the benefits of something nearly all life on earth evolved with.

Radiation hormesis at this stage is still a pretty weak, if not worthless, hypothesis. If you have evidence clearly disproving the linear dose no threshold model, it'd be worth discussing.

I'm not conceding anything because I'm right.  

So modest today, aren't you?

As far as getting skin cancer, things like a lack of B vitamins, took much PUFA intake, lack of antioxidants etc play into that. I got so much catalase, SOD, glutathione running around inside me that I am immune to skin cancer.  I eat brazil nuts, drink the heck out of green and black tea, takes tons of b vitamins, take grape seed extract and resveratrol.  

Arrogance - brilliance, is there really a difference? 

The vitamin D cancer connection is a red herring of cosmic proportions. First, cancer protection from vitamin D is far from proven, even in the best case scenarios (eg. colorectal). Secondly, it woudn't change the fact that UV radiation is carcinogenic one bit, if vitamin D turned out to protect from skin cancer (and it surely does seem to protect from melanoma mortality)

Edited by kismet, 28 September 2009 - 04:56 PM.

[Jay]

The vitamin D cancer connection is a red herring of cosmic proportions. First, cancer protection from vitamin D is far from proven, even in the best case scenarios (eg. colorectal). Secondly, it woudn't change the fact that UV radiation is carcinogenic one bit, if vitamin D turned out to protect from skin cancer (and it surely does seem to protect from melanoma mortality)
[/quote]

I wouldn't say that it's FAR from proven that vit D protects from cancer. There is a LOT of epidemiological evidence. And, there is Lappe's placebo study that found a 77% reduction in cancer with 1100IU + calcium. Admittedly, the study has been criticized, as I believe you are aware. I thought the best criticism was that Lappe's control group had more cancers than one would expect if using Nebraska demographic stats. However, even if you used the NE stats, Lappe still found about a 50% reduction in cancer. So, either he faked it or it was a very aberrant finding or vit D protects from cancer. Am I missing anything that you are aware of?

Edited by Jay, 28 September 2009 - 06:10 PM.

[kismet]

Am I missing anything that you are aware of?

Well, even assuming that he did not pull a Hwang Woo-suk, the high cancer rate could affect generalisability (or reflect methodological shortcomings). Then there's the recent influx of epidemiological trials finding no connection between Vitamin D and various cancers. I haven't read most of 'em yet, but IIRC there was at least one prospective cohort of about 50k participiants(?) and one nested case-control study which found no connection with breast cancer (and this cancer was pretty well documented to be likely or possibly vitamin D dependent). OTOH there were two studies showing decreased mortality, therefore I consider the prevention hypothesis still in doubt.

[Jay]

I haven't done a thorough canvass of all the results but have seen quite a bit and any negative or null results that I have seen have involved intervention trials with low doses (say about 400 - 500 IU) or epidemiological studies where even the top quintile/quartile was insufficient/deficient. I know you're only saying it's not proven yet and I agree with the statement. Reading between the lines, however, I sense that you rather doubt that levels of, say, 50ng/ml would prevent lots of cancers whereas I suspect that such levels would yield results that surpass even those found by Lappe.

[niner]

Don't understand the flame here. What he says in the video sounds very reasonable. He mentioned adequate protection and didn't advocate overdoing it. Everyone here has heard of hormesis. Sure you can't deny the benefits of something nearly all life on earth evolved with.

I'm surprised you don't understand the flame, given the hubristic way in which the claim that sunlight PREVENTS skin cancer and wrinkles was presented. That is a blanket statement, in all caps no less. Life on earth evolved with sunlight, but we were geographically isolated so that our level of melanin matched our UV exposure. Then we started moving around. Now we have pale-skinned people living in tropical latitudes, and they are at risk from UV. We have dark-skinned people living in northern latitudes, and they are at risk of vitamin D deficiency.

[Jay]

I'm surprised you don't understand the flame, given the hubristic way in which the claim that sunlight PREVENTS skin cancer and wrinkles was presented. That is a blanket statement, in all caps no less. Life on earth evolved with sunlight, but we were geographically isolated so that our level of melanin matched our UV exposure. Then we started moving around. Now we have pale-skinned people living in tropical latitudes, and they are at risk from UV. We have dark-skinned people living in northern latitudes, and they are at risk of vitamin D deficiency.

Most light-skin people are also at risk of vitamin D deficiency. We evolved not just for our latitudes but also to spend substantial amounts of time working outside in smog-less environments. We might also have evolved to be hungry in the winter, with the result that we "ate" our stored fat, fat that was packed with plenty of vitamin D. I think it's hard to overestimate the vitamin D issue. That said, I don't see why oral supplementation doesn't offer the same promise without the risks of solar irradiation.

Edited by Jay, 28 September 2009 - 08:16 PM.

[kismet]

The vitamin D issue is great in its own right, but nonetheless a red herring. It is not in any way related to the carcinogenity of UV radiation. An example: Cyanide is an antioxidant AND a poison, the former and the latter have nothing to do with eachother. If you state cyanide is an antioxidant in a discussion about cyanide poisoning it is a red herring, the same way mentioning vitamin D is a red herring when talking about UV radiation.

Edited by kismet, 28 September 2009 - 09:12 PM.

[niner]

The vitamin D issue is great in its own right, but nonetheless a red herring. It is not in any way related to the carcinogenity of UV radiation.

In this particular context, where sunlight is claimed to "PREVENT" skin cancer, it's not so much of a red herring, since it's the only reason that sunlight is "good" for skin, other than inducing melanin production I suppose. Or are there more majikal mechanisms that I'm missing?

[Johann]

You might be right about moderate sun exposure being a net benefit (compared to no vitamin D at least), but your approach sounds more religious than scientific. By the way, are you also immune to the radium in Brazil nuts? And, mega-doses of selenium?

I don't take mega-doses of selenium. I eat one to two brazil nuts a day. But you indirectly prove a point. A little bit of brazil nut is good and healthy while a pound a day would be harmful not just because of the radium but because of the high selenium as well. But brazil nuts are better than supplement pill form. The pills would cause my blood sugar to crash.

Okay I'm off to class. Taking microbiology. That's Microbiology. Its something smart people study.

[VespeneGas]

I don't take mega-doses of selenium. I eat one to two brazil nuts a day. But you indirectly prove a point. A little bit of brazil nut is good and healthy while a pound a day would be harmful not just because of the radium but because of the high selenium as well. But brazil nuts are better than supplement pill form. The pills would cause my blood sugar to crash.

A quick search for selenium + blood sugar revealed this article:
http://www.scienceda...40611074649.htm

which indicates that high doses of selenium interfere with insulin metabolism by increasing the activity of glutathione peroxidase to the point where it mops of too many free radicals. This would lead to increased blood sugar, and increased risk of type 2 diabetes, NOT decreased blood sugar.

Oh, but you can sense what each supplement is doing in your body every time, eh?

Okay I'm off to class. Taking microbiology. That's Microbiology. Its something smart people study.

You are calling a lot of smart, educated people stupid, sir. Not to mention bragging about being enrolled in an undergraduate science class. This from the poster who hasn't included a single scientific study/abstract in what he considers an argument.

The evidence as it has been presented shows that sunlight damages and mutates DNA, damages melanocytes, and increases the risk for multiple types of skin cancer. It also produces vitamin D in the skin, which can be replaced by supplementation without exposing one's self to an established carcinogen.

I already established that UVB radiation suppresses the immune system:
http://www.ciesin.or...c/001-535c.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12017482
http://intimm.oxford...ract/12/11/1531
http://www.ingentaco...000001/art00043

which is the opposite of the benefit you attributed to endorphin release. I also established that UVB and UVA exposure increases cancer risk:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11312434
http://info.cancerre...8/july/18670669
http://cancerres.aac...ract/68/14/6021
http://www.webmd.com...der-skin-cancer
http://www3.intersci...l...=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.skinandal...0061-X/abstract
http://www.find-heal...t-apoptosis.htm
http://www.medical-h...0599-9/abstract

And that low vitamin D status from sun avoidance can be replaced through cheap oral supplementation.

Your reply is "I have tonz of antioxidants runnin around in my bloodstream, ergo nothing can give me cancer lol" and "opiates are good for you" and "I have magical powers of self-perception at the molecular level" and "you should trust me, I take enough supplements to fill a wagon".

Edited by VespeneGas, 28 September 2009 - 11:05 PM.

[VespeneGas]

In this particular context, where sunlight is claimed to "PREVENT" skin cancer, it's not so much of a red herring, since it's the only reason that sunlight is "good" for skin, other than inducing melanin production I suppose. Or are there more majikal mechanisms that I'm missing?

Sunlight is good for our skin because it's all natural and we've been exposed to it for millions of years.

You know, like it's good for our health to die of infectious disease before we're 40. Don't you realize, Johann has been exposed to UV radiation for years, and doesn't have malignant melanoma? Case closed.

[Johann]

In this particular context, where sunlight is claimed to "PREVENT" skin cancer, it's not so much of a red herring, since it's the only reason that sunlight is "good" for skin, other than inducing melanin production I suppose. Or are there more majikal mechanisms that I'm missing?

Sunlight is good for our skin because it's all natural and we've been exposed to it for millions of years.

You know, like it's good for our health to die of infectious disease before we're 40. Don't you realize, Johann has been exposed to UV radiation for years, and doesn't have malignant melanoma? Case closed.

This is too funny because Vespenegas does not know what he is posting in those links.  Alot of it is just articles and not actual research.  But the best part of the research that he has shared needs to be looked at because of the glaring nuances such as this:


A paradox exists between indoor and outdoor workers because indoor workers get three to nine times less solar UV (290–400nm) exposure than outdoor workers get, yet only indoor workers have an increasing incidence of CMM. Thus, another “factor(s)” is/are involved that increases the CMM risk for indoor workers. We hypothesize that one factor involves indoor exposures to UVA (321–400nm) passing through windows, which can cause mutations and can break down vitamin D3 formed after outdoor UVB (290–320nm) exposure, and the other factor involves low levels of cutaneous vitamin D3. From this link he posted.

We are told by the priests, er, medical experts, to avoid sunlight and especially during the hours of 10AM to 2PM when UVB rays are the strongest yet these are the rays that produce Vitamin D.  

These indoor workers mentioned above, just like taxi cab drivers that get cancer on the left arm only, are not getting sufficient UVB rays. 

I guess Vespenegas thinks all saturated fats are bad and we needa get our cholesterol down low. 

[kismet]

The vitamin D issue is great in its own right, but nonetheless a red herring. It is not in any way related to the carcinogenity of UV radiation.

In this particular context, where sunlight is claimed to "PREVENT" skin cancer, it's not so much of a red herring, since it's the only reason that sunlight is "good" for skin, other than inducing melanin production I suppose. Or are there more majikal mechanisms that I'm missing?

That is my point, the very reason why it is a red herring. Vitamin D prevents (actually may prevent) (skin) cancer. Not UV radiation or teh sun, but Vitamin D. Furthermore, the fact that  there may be a net benefit distracts (and is deliberately used to distract) from the fact that taking vitamin D and avoiding the sun the benefit would be bigger & the mechanism of carcinogenesis remains unchanged (!) whether the hypothesis is true or not - that's IMHO a picture book example of this rhetorical trick. The delta remains the same. If UVRs are carciniogenic (which the evidence strongly supports) & all variables being equal (=good experimental design), a person exposed to this carcinogen will develop more cancer.

Johann you have exploited this rhetorical trick for all that it's worth. Now, are you planning to contribute something else to this thread? IMHO, and once again, only a discussion of hormesis would be of relevance, but as always the evidence is paper thin.

Edited by kismet, 29 September 2009 - 11:34 AM.