Fwd: [FlaxSeedOil2] sunlight and cancer, Moss Report

[Guest guest]

Ronald Wilson <ronlwilson wrote:

"Ronald Wilson" Sun, 23 May 2004 22:55:35 -0700[FlaxSeedOil2] sun light and cancer, Moss ReportSupport for Dr. Budwig----------------------Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Weekly CancerDecisions.comNewsletter #134 05/22/04----------------------THE MOSS REPORTSScience should by definition be open-minded. As the celebrated eighteenthcentury German poet and philosopher Goethe said, "As soon as anyone belongsto a narrow creed in science, every unprejudiced and true perception isgone." This week I begin a two-part series on an important event that hasrecently been in the news: the firing of a Boston University professor whohas written a book that

puts forward ideas that run counter to currentmedical doctrine.The very fact that doctrine and dogma exist in the world of medicine iscause for concern. Science-based medicine should be founded on rationalityand open-mindedness, not on ideology.Unfortunately, the tendency for ideology to supplant open-mindedness hasbecome pervasive in medicine. For the past thirty years I have studied theworld of cancer and its treatment and have written extensively on the manypotentially useful treatments that have been dismissed out of hand simplybecause they challenged the prevailing medical dogma.The Moss Reports is a series of more than two hundred detailed reports ondifferent types of cancer. If you or someone you love has cancer, a MossReport can offer not just an in-depth analysis of the conventional treatmentof that type of cancer, but also a thorough examination of the availablealternative and

complementary treatments. You can order a Moss Reportthrough our website: www.cancerdecisions.com or by calling Diane at1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).VITAMIN D AND CANCER: A DERMATOLOGIST'S DILEMMANote: When you finish reading this article you may be moved to take action.At the end of the article I therefore suggest something you can do.A Boston professor of dermatology has been asked to resign because headvocates moderate exposure to sunlight. Michael F. Holick, MD, PhD, aprofessor at Boston University, was asked to resign in April from BU'sDepartment of Dermatology because of a book he wrote, in which he describesthe importance of sunlight in boosting vitamin D levels. He was alsoseverely criticized for his ties to the indoor tanning industry.Department chair Barbara Gilchrest, MD, told the Boston Globe that the book"is an embarrassment for this institution and

an embarrassment for him." Asdemanded, Holick resigned his post, but continues to teach and to direct themedical center's Vitamin D, Skin, and Bone Research Laboratory, without acut in pay.Holick is a talented, experienced and highly respected researcher. He is aprofessor of medicine and physiology, and formerly of dermatology, at BostonUniversity School of Medicine, and (until 2000) chief of endocrinology,metabolism and nutrition. Since 1987 he has also been the program directorof the University's General Clinical Research Center.Department chair Gilchrest's disapproval of Holick stems from the fact thathis statements, superficially at least, seem to be at odds with the medicalprofession's consensus on the damaging effects of sunlight. Dermatologistshave been warning the public for years that sunlight, and specificallyultraviolet A (UVA) and ultraviolet B (UVB), is implicated in the causationof melanoma, as well

as other less deadly forms of skin cancer.But the causes of melanoma are still far from established, and there remainmany unanswered questions about the exact relationship of sunlight exposureto the development of skin cancers. Exactly how much ultraviolet lightconstitutes a safe level of exposure is a legitimate topic for scientificdebate. For example, according to the American Cancer Society, "We do notyet know exactly what causes melanoma .but we do know that certain riskfactors are linked to the disease..Some risk factors, such as smoking, canbe controlled. Others, like a person's age or family history, can't bechanged. But having a risk factor, or even several, doesn't mean that aperson will get the disease" (ACS 2004).As to sunlight, the ACS says this: "The best way to lower the risk ofmelanoma is to avoid too much exposure to the sun and other sources of UVlight.. Avoid being outdoors in sunlight too long,

especially in the middleof the day when UV light is most intense.."But this view is not universally held. William B. Grant, Ph.D., who headsthe Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC) in San Franciscostrongly disputes it. "This is not particularly good advice," he told thisnewsletter. "There are several papers indicating that occupational exposureto sunlight reduces the risk of melanoma (Kennedy 2003). "It is having fairskin, a high-fat, low fruit and vegetable diet, sunburning, etc., that aremore linked to melanoma than total UV exposure."Reasonable people can certainly differ over this complex question. Suchvague terms as "too long" or "too much exposure" leave much room fordisagreement. In science, intellectual rigidity is never warranted,especially when it rests on fundamental confusion about the actual causes ofa potentially fatal human disease.Despite scientific uncertainty, the attack on Dr.

Holick has taken on aquasi-moralistic tone. Some dermatologists, possibly frustrated at thefailure of most of their treatments to reverse advanced melanoma, now regardsun exposure without sunblock as analogous to promiscuous sex withoutcondoms. But ultraviolet sunlight (particularly UVB) is not always andabsolutely bad for our health. It has essential functions, too. Inparticular, it enables our skin to manufacture vitamin D: without sufficientexposure to sunlight we run the risk of developing the deficiency diseaserickets.Vitamin D and Internal CancersThe benefits of sunlight and vitamin D for the development of healthy boneshave long been known: a Nobel Prize was awarded for discoveries relating tothe importance of vitamin D as early as 1928.But what has only fairly recently been discovered is that, in addition toits role in bone metabolism, vitamin D may also help prevent a variety ofcancers. I

wrote about this in my book Cancer Therapy in 1992. I quoted thework of San Diego scientists Drs. Cedric and Frank Garland, who argued thatcolon cancer could be prevented by sunlight. The Garlands went further,however, showing that "brief, regular exposure to sunlight was probablybeneficial in preventing melanoma, while either too little or too muchexposure was potentially harmful" (Moss 1992, citing Garland 1990).The research on the subject of vitamin D and cancer is now voluminous, withover 3,500 PubMed articles on the topic. The US National Institutes ofHealth has stated that "laboratory, animal, and epidemiologic evidencesuggest that vitamin D may be protective against some cancers. Some dietarysurveys have associated increased intake of dairy foods with decreasedincidence of colon cancer. Another dietary survey associated a highercalcium and vitamin D intake with a lower incidence of colon cancer" (NIH2004). One randomized

trial, published last December, showed that people whohad high vitamin D levels benefitted from calcium supplementation: theincidence of premalignant adenomas of the colon was reduced by 29 percent inthose who had optimal amounts of both nutrients (Grau 2003).Vitamin D (and indirectly, therefore, sunlight) might also convey protectionagainst prostate cancer. It is certainly true that more full-scale clinicaltrials need to be done to test this hypothesis. (PubMed lists 29 such trialarticles.) But people are exposed to sunlight every time they step outdoors;the public needs and deserves preliminary recommendations from those withthe greatest knowledge.Dr. Holick's "crime" is that he has provided an answer that is at variancewith the positions of the professional dermatology associations. Yet he iswell positioned to offer an opinion, as he himself is in the forefront ofthis research. He is the author of over 200 PubMed

articles on the topic ofvitamin D, the first of which appeared in 1970. The latest, published thisMarch, suggests the scope and importance of his research: "Vitamin D:importance in the prevention of cancers, type 1 diabetes, heart disease, andosteoporosis" (Holick 2004). By contrast, Dr. Gilchrest, although herselfwell published in dermatology, has only authored two PubMed papers onvitamin D, one of which she co-authored with Dr. Holick.It is hard to believe that a policy dispute of this sort would warrant sucha gross violation of academic freedom and intellectual rights. We do indeedlive in parlous times when doctors are removed from high positions foroffering carefully reasoned and well intended advice to the general publicon preventing cancer!Mysteries of SunlightThere is much about sunlight's biological effects that is not known and noone would argue that the case for increasing ultraviolet exposure has

yetbeen conclusively proved. But neither is it firmly established thatblocking sunlight is entirely beneficial. In fact, the value of physical orchemical sunscreens is itself in dispute.In February 1998, an epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering CancerCenter in New York, Dr. Marianne Berwick, presented a careful analysis ofsunscreen use and skin cancer at the annual meeting of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). She concluded thatsunscreens may not actually protect against skin cancers such as melanoma.In her own words: "We don't really know whether sunscreens prevent skincancer." Berwick first looked at four studies of squamous cell cancer, askin cancer that is destructive but not frequently lethal. Two of thestudies concluded that sunscreen protected against a precancerous skincondition while two others reported that sunscreen did not shield peoplefrom this condition.She

then analyzed two studies of basal cell carcinoma, another generallynon-lethal skin cancer. Those two studies found that people who usedsunscreen were actually more likely to develop basal cell cancer than peoplewho did not.Berwick then analyzed ten studies of melanoma, the most deadly form of skincancer. Melanoma often starts in or near moles on the skin. In five of theten melanoma studies, people who used sunscreen were also more likely thannonusers to develop melanoma. In three of the studies, there was noassociation between sunscreen use and melanoma. In the final two studies,people who used sunscreen seemed to be protected (Berwick 1998).More recently, L.K. Dennis of the University of Iowa reviewed the topic inthe Annals of Internal Medicine. Again, he found that sunblocks offered noprotection "No association was seen between melanoma and sunscreen use," heand his colleagues wrote (Dennis 2003).Dr.

Berwick's was a factual presentation. But the dermatology profession'sresponse to her analysis was as unmeasured as its response to Dr. Holick.The American Academy of Dermatology promptly denounced the MemorialSloan-Kettering researcher's conclusions. In March 1998 the Academy issued apress release calling her message "misleading and confusing."Roger Ceilley, MD, a Des Moines dermatologist and a past president of theAcademy, called Berwick "a numbers cruncher," not a doctor, according to anarticle in Science News. Incidentally, Dr. Ceilley, has only one PubMedarticle on the topic of melanoma, dating from 1980 (Elmerts 1980). Dr.Berwick-the Sloan-Kettering "numbers cruncher"-has 81 such publications."We're going to have millions more cases of skin cancer in the next decade"if people forgo sunscreen, Dr. Ceilley proclaimed (Fackelmann 1998).TO BE COMPLETED, WITH REFERENCES, NEXT WEEKACTION ALERTThe

Dermatology Department at Boston University invites the public to sendcomments, suggestions and concerns. Those wishing to comment on the case ofDr. Holick should click or go to:http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Departments/FeedbackMain.asp?DepartmentID=57 & Script=%2FDepartments%2FPageMain%2Easp & Arguments=Page%3D5951%26DepartmentID%3D57I would appreciate receiving a copy of any of your comments and letters andwith your permission may print some of them in a future issue.--Ralph W. Moss, PhD---------------IMPORTANT DISCLAIMERThe news and other items in this newsletter are intended for informationalpurposes only. Nothing in this newsletter is intended to be a substitute forprofessional medical

advice.--------------IMPORTANT NOTICE:Please do not REPLY to this letter. All replies to this email address areautomatically deleted by the server and your question or concern will not beseen. If you have questions or concerns, use our form athttp://www.cancerdecisions.com/contact.htmlThank you.MEMBERS may also write to: mossreportsThank you.To UN-SUBSCRIBE FROM THIS LIST: Please visit:http://cancerdecisions.com/list/edit.php?random=cfa62wrn11TO CHANGE YOUR ACCOUNT INFORMATION ON THIS LIST: Please visit:http://cancerdecisions.com/list/edit.php?random=cfa62wrn11To SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER: Please go tohttp://cancerdecisions.com/list/optin.php?form_id=8and follow the instructions to be automatically added to this list.Thank you.=====Note:The contents of the posts on FlaxSeedOil2 are purely educational and are not intended to diagnose or treat any illness. Always consult your doctor about the diagnosis and treatment of health problems.

Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year