Scientists reverse stance on sun and cancer: Now they admit sunlight can prevent skin

[juggernaut]

Scientists reverse stance on sun and cancer: Now they admit sunlight can prevent skin cancer

Friday, May 27, 2011
by: Tara Green

(NaturalNews) Since the 1980s, physicians and cancer groups have regularly warned the public against the potential health dangers of direct sunlight on skin. As a result, many people have stayed out of the sunlight completely, covered their limbs even in warm weather or slathered themselves with UV protection products, all in the interest of lowering their risk of melanomas.

However, more recent findings indicate that this kind of nearly vampiric avoidance of the sun may not benefit your cancer odds after all.

A 2009 study by a group of Leeds University researchers found that higher levels of Vitamin D were linked to improved skin cancer survival odds. Other studies have found that Vitamin D has a connection to a strong immune response in the body. In fact, Vitamin D may hasten the death of tumor cells.

Unfortunately, most people have low levels of Vitamin D, leaving them at higher risk for a host of diseases including breast cancer, prostate cancer, bowel cancer, cervical cancer, rickets and osteoporosis. (For more in-depth information on this, see this report: http://www.naturalnews.com/rr-sunli...)

"It's common for the general public to have low levels of vitamin D in many countries," said Professor Julia Newton Bishop of the Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine and author of the Leeds study. "Melanoma patients tend to avoid the sun as sunburn is known to increase the risk of melanoma. We use sunshine to make vitamin D in the skin, so melanoma patients' levels of vitamin D may be especially low."

Bishop also noted that people can get more Vitamin D through dietary sources such as fatty fish. She points out that balance is key, as extremely high levels of Vitamin D can have a negative effect on health.

The mainstream media continues to run stories every summer warning people against the sun even two years after the Leeds study. While hours of sunbathing may be risky behavior for your long-term health, receiving a moderate amount of sunlight while out gardening or walking is actually as good for you as eating a low-fat diet and engaging in regular exercise. In fact, laying off the sunscreen may help you not only absorb sunshine into your skin to help fight tumors, but also helps you avoid the chemicals in most commercial sun blocking products. Some studies have indicated that these chemicals can actually generate harmful free radicals in the body.

So this summer, relax, and enjoy the sunshine


Learn more: Scientists reverse stance on sun and cancer: Now they admit sunlight can prevent skin cancer

 

[KelJu]

Jesus mother fucking god damn Christ! I hate Journalist! I fucking hate'em!

 

[juggernaut]

lay off the fucking caffeine dude.

 

[KelJu]

lay off the fucking caffeine dude.

Sure, I know I over react to things, but for fuck's sake. "Scientists" isn't a singular noun. I am sick and tired of Journalist using ambiguous language to mislead or outright lie about what it is they are writing about. There is no organizations called "Scientist" or "Doctors" These shithead journalist read over one damn near irrelevant publication, and then use titles like "Scientist now say...bla bla bla" Which fucking scientist? Which doctors and researchers are putting their reputation on the line to say that limited exposure to UV light causes a host of diseases? How much UV exposure is limited? How much UV exposure is considered moderate? a couple thousand retards will read this article, believe it, then go repeated it to other people in the public causing more confusion.

Oh yeah, at least one of their sources for the article is actually just a company selling shit.

 

[bandaidwoman]

ok first of all the science behind ultraviolet radiation causing DNA damage and skin cancer is still solid.

That's why skin cancer is rampant in australia and not so much in the eskimos.( who probably should be the most vitamin d deficient)

They are linking low vitamin d to cancers, and there is a link, but like anything else in medicine an association may not be a cause. It's true that the best way to get vitamin d is through sunlight, it takes 22 glasses of milk to equal 1 hour of sunlight. However, like anything else , too much of a good thing is too much, and that applies to sunlight.

I wish I could voice how we doctors hate how the media interprets medical science for us but KEJU did a pretty good job.

as for this article it is true that low vitamin d levels confers worse prognosis for melanoma patients but what they don't tell you is that the study group had prior skin cancers and was told to avoid the sun already, so they may have had low levels just due to avoiding sun but the low vitamin d may not have been the cause.

 

[juggernaut]

Bandaidwoman, what kind of doctor are you?

 

[bandaidwoman]

I'm an internal medicine specialist, I'm an Intensivist ( take care of ICU patients for other specialties) and also do some outpatient, and am researching LADA or Type 1.5 diabetes and I am also a associate professor teaching clinical medicine and do some didactic lectures in chemistry etc.

 

[juggernaut]

I'm an internal medicine specialist, I'm an Intensivist ( take care of ICU patients for other specialties) and also do some outpatient, and am researching LADA or Type 1.5 diabetes and I am also a associate professor teaching clinical medicine and do some didactic lectures in chemistry etc.

I'd say you have better credentials than the journalist now...don't you think???

 

[bandaidwoman]

It's not to say all doctors know how to interpret scientific information. But most of us do have the requisite skills to critically evaluate the medical literature and the attendant clinical significance. In fact, this type of thinking is reinforced duiring clinical rounds and grand rounds on a daily basis,otherwise, almost everything we learned information wise in medical school is on the internet. Most ground-breakihg studies are usually peer-reviewed, with accompanying editorials from renowed experts who can give us further insights into a particular subject. Many of us where scientists but in fields that did not have as many variables ( analytical chemistry) and so we have to change how we approach literature dealing with complex biological systems with so many variables ( both physically, socially, funding bias etc.)

For those burdened by the demands of practice, with little time to read may depend more on clincial summaries and editorial comments than on in-depth reading of the entire articles. This is compounded by the fact that there are so many medical journals out there, all bidding for our attention.

Nevertheless, we don’t have to be “scientists" to practice medicine well. There are so many ways to acquire important clinical information apart from reading medical journals.

Those of us who teach , we have to keep abreast and clinically critique the "newest" findings that are sometimes seemingly contradictory.

 

[GFR]

Everything in moderation.

Whats funny is people put on all kinds of chemical blends ( sun block) when they go out in the sun.....fuck that, so many chemicals just can not be good.

I limit my sun time here in Arizona, if I go to the pool it is before 10am or after 3pm, and I am only in the sun for about 20 min. The idea that the sun is bad but chemical blends are good is beyond laughable.

 

[Arnold]

Everything in moderation.

^This.

 

[heavyiron]

Everything in moderation except gay sex with large African mens.

Whats funny is people put on all kinds of chemical blends ( sun block) when they go out in the sun.....fuck that, so many chemicals just can not be good.

I limit my sun time here in Arizona, if I go to the pool it is before 10am or after 3pm, and I am only in the sun for about 20 min. The idea that the sun is bad but chemical blends are good is beyond laughable.

Very interesting post...

 

[GFR]

Very interesting post...

I see what you did and I approve 100%.

 

[juggernaut]