Vitamin D 'slashes cancer risk'

Baron Max said:
Sorry, Sam ....I was just havin' a little fun at your expense.

Skin cancer is apparently caused by "over-exposure" to sunlight ...although no one has ever defined for me/us what "over-exposure" means. And it's odd that they never mention anything about people who live in such hot climates, wearing very little, yet they don't get nearly the skin cancer that we do. Or they don't seem to think that's odd and/or strange????

But, Sam, I do wish you'd quit reading shit on the Internet and assuming that it's all factual and true. In fact, quite the contrary, it's NOT factual and true. Be very, very, very, very careful about what you find posted on the Internet ....and that includes just such "research" topics as you posted. Just remember, anyone, anywhere can gain access to such sites, posting things that are never checked or verified by anyone.

Baron Max


I post the internet stuff cos you guys cannot access the pubmed stuff. I use ncbi myself.

And the reason why people in the tropics don't get skin cancer is because melanin in ther skin protects them. (skin cancer is melanoma).

And that was a link to a gov site I posted. Since it is for public education, the data is usually reliable.
 
samcdkey said:
Since it is for public education, the data is usually reliable.

Sorry, Sam, but that's just not true anymore! There's just so much bullshit being submitted that it would take a very large, well-organized army to verify all of it. They do what you and others do ...glance at, see if it's decently written, see if the author has some letters behind his name, then post it for the whole fuckin' world to read .....whether it's right or not.

No one, Sam, has the time or the money to verify all of that horrendous volume of "stuff". Be careful, Sam, it'll come back and haunt you someday if you're not ....and I do mean, careful, not just cursory careful.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Sorry, Sam, but that's just not true anymore! There's just so much bullshit being submitted that it would take a very large, well-organized army to verify all of it. They do what you and others do ...glance at, see if it's decently written, see if the author has some letters behind his name, then post it for the whole fuckin' world to read .....whether it's right or not.

No one, Sam, has the time or the money to verify all of that horrendous volume of "stuff". Be careful, Sam, it'll come back and haunt you someday if you're not ....and I do mean, careful, not just cursory careful.

Baron Max

Hey its your skin and your prostate.

If you don't want to take your ADR of vitamin D go right ahead.

You won't live long with that much fear, distrust and suspicion in your system anyway.
 
samcdkey said:
You won't live long with that much fear, distrust and suspicion in your system anyway.

I'm 62, Sam, and in great health and I'm happy and content. How many other people can say that? I expect to live about 10-15 more years until I have to blow my brains out because of cancer or heart disease or some other debilitating horror.

I'm doin' fine, Sam, distrusting has become a way of life, but it came after many attempts at trusting, which always failed! One learns a lot, Sam, when one lives for a long time.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
I'm 62, Sam, and in great health and I'm happy and content. How many other people can say that? I expect to live about 10-15 more years until I have to blow my brains out because of cancer or heart disease or some other debilitating horror.

I'm doin' fine, Sam, distrusting has become a way of life, but it came after many attempts at trusting, which always failed! One learns a lot, Sam, when one lives for a long time.

Baron Max

In that case, I wish you joy.
 
Baron Max said:
Sunscreen was only invented a few years ago, Sam. What the fuck did they do before sunscreen was around? And why didn't they die of skin cancer in horrendous numbers?
Many scientists are now questioning the usefulness of sunscreen. It decreases the production of vitamin D which helps prevent many cancers. While it's true that it decreases the risk of skin cancer, skin cancer is one of the easiest forms of cancer to detect and treat. Especially to detect, I mean, it's right there on your skin! On net, sunscreen probably does more harm than good.
 
Baron Max said:
There's just so much bullshit being submitted that it would take a very large, well-organized army to verify all of it.

Hahaha, that's pretty funny. I've never quite heard academia described that way.
 
I heard sunscreen actually causes cancer...

Doctors adivised us not to apply sunscreen on our baby because the chemicals would be highly absorbed in his skin... :bugeye:


Anyways... the place with highest incidence of skin cancer is Australia. Why? Because they are all white people living in an extremely hot climate designed for people with more pigment. So this should answer the question...

Also, tanning beds cause skin cancer. Why do you think they don't allow people to stay in there for more then 10 minutes? At the earlier days of tanning beds, some people were staying for a much longer time (at least half and hour) and, consequently, were getting skin cancer. So what did the industry do? They kept ot quiet and created regulations to reduce incidence to a level which would not create suspicion. So people still die from skin cancer caused by tanning beds, but the number of incidences is not high enough for people to create a firm correlation.

The same is true for cellphones. They used to cause brain tumors. The industry, fearing lawsuits, did a lot of research to decrease the risk. So now, it is better.

For a matter of fact, this is true to everything we consume. Hell, we breathe jet fuel in the air all the time! How can we avoid toxins? :rolleyes:
 
Vitamin D is extremely important for the body. The more you get - naturally - the better, for general health. And FYI, 400IU is really a lower limit.. It's better to get at least 2000 to 3000IU.

Sunshine, lots of exercise and natural diet is the key to perfect health. It simply doesn't get more common-sense than that. People without these habits will fall to cancer, diabetes, degenerative brain disease and a host of other nasty illnesses. Those who get skin cancer are probably afflicted by vit/mineral deficiencies that leave the body prone in the first place.
 
Baron Max said:
Sunscreen was only invented a few years ago, Sam. What the fuck did they do before sunscreen was around? And why didn't they die of skin cancer in horrendous numbers?

Baron Max


The ancient Greeks used olive oil as a type of sunscreen. However, this was not very effective. Throughout the early twentieth century, H.A. Milton Blake, a South Australian chemist, as well as several other inventors attempted to create an effective sunscreen but failed.

It was not until 1944 that the first effective sunscreen was invented. At that time, World War II was in full swing and many soldiers were getting serious sunburn. A pharmacist named Benjamin Greene decided to create something that would save the soldiers from the sun’s harmful rays. In his wife’s oven, he created a sticky, red substance which he called "red vet pet" (red veterinary petrolatum), which worked primarily by physically blocking the sun's rays with a thick petroleum-based product similar to Vaseline. Greene tested it on his own bald head. It did not work nearly as well as modern sunscreens, but it was a start.

Sunscreen has come a long way since its initial days. Modern products have much higher protection factors than Greene's sunscreen, and modern products can also be water- and sweat-resistant. But there are also negative effects. Some people rely too much on the product and do not understand the limitations of the sun protection factor (SPF); they assume that buying anything over SPF 30 will automatically prevent them getting burnt no matter how long they can stay in the sun. Too much sunbathing is one of the major causes of skin cancer across the world.

Addendum: An effective sunscreen had already been developed in 1938 by the Swiss chemistry student Franz Greiter, after he had severely burnt himself during an ascent of the Piz Buin on the border between Switzerland and Austria. He named his product, which he had developed in a small laboratory in his parents' home, Gletscher Creme or in English Glacier Cream. Still existing examples of the 'Glacier Cream' have shown to have a SPF of 2 and thus could be classed as an effective sunscreen.

1944...yeah...that was probably the year you were born. That's only a few years ago.

The beach culture itself isn't that old either. It used to be a activity that only the rich could afford. And in victorian times for instance people were basically dressed up completely on the beach.

With the industrial revolution more people started going to the beach. But what was really the life expectancy in this era? People didn't get as old as they do now, nor was the health care of the same standard.

TruthSeeker said:
I heard sunscreen actually causes cancer...

Doctors adivised us not to apply sunscreen on our baby because the chemicals would be highly absorbed in his skin... :bugeye:

Babies should never be in direct sunlight. That's the advice that parents get in Finland. Hence they also do not need sunscreen.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
1944...yeah...that was probably the year you were born. That's only a few years ago.

The beach culture itself isn't that old either. It used to be a activity that only the rich could afford. And in victorian times for instance people were basically dressed up completely on the beach.

With the industrial revolution more people started going to the beach. But what was really the life expectancy in this era? People didn't get as old as they do now, nor was the health care of the same standard.

So what ye're saying is that we didn't/don't know that skin cancer killed so many people in the past? That skin cancer is, perhaps, a new thing in this modern era? And if so, perhaps it's caused by something OTHER THAN exposure to the sun? ...like perhaps the sun reacting to the pollutants on or in our skin?

Or, hey, maybe it's just old people who get skin cancer ....and those old farts should have died years ago of old age?! ....LOL!

It seems that we've extended our lifespan, and in the process have found that we weren't made to live that fuckin' long? So nature is trying to solve the problem of over-population? ...LOL!

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
So what ye're saying is that we didn't/don't know that skin cancer killed so many people in the past? That skin cancer is, perhaps, a new thing in this modern era? And if so, perhaps it's caused by something OTHER THAN exposure to the sun? ...like perhaps the sun reacting to the pollutants on or in our skin?

Or, hey, maybe it's just old people who get skin cancer ....and those old farts should have died years ago of old age?! ....LOL!

It seems that we've extended our lifespan, and in the process have found that we weren't made to live that fuckin' long? So nature is trying to solve the problem of over-population? ...LOL!

Baron Max


You are not that quite far off.

Our increased life spans means we are now susceptible to the accumulated damage a cell collects in its lifetime. Previously we did not live long enough to see the effects and since life spans were shorter, adaptations did not occur that would combat the process.

Now that we are living longer, we will start adapting, selecting for those populations better able to withstand the accumulated DNA damage or with more efficient repair mechanisms.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Babies should never be in direct sunlight. That's the advice that parents get in Finland. Hence they also do not need sunscreen.
But babies really need Vitamin D for many reasons. So how do they get it there? Do they get it at all? :eek:
 
spuriousmonkey said:
I think the milk from the mother has it. If I am not totally mistaken.

Yes, but this depends on the vitamin D status of the mother.

The present recommendations are woefully inadequate (400 IU) and even the designated Tolerable Upper Limit (2000 IU) is suggested to be inadequate.

Current research indicates that for optimal health (and not merely to avoid deficiency) at least 4000 IU of vitamin D should be supplemented during lactation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15585800

To give an idea in real terms 20 minutes of sunlight= production of 20000 IU of vitamin D.

Sunlight exposure provides most people with their entire vitamin D requirement. Children and young adults who spend a short time outside two or three times a week will generally synthesize all the vitamin D they need. The elderly have diminished capacity to synthesize vitamin D from sunlight exposure and frequently use sunscreen or protective clothing in order to prevent skin cancer and sun damage. The application of sunscreen with an SPF factor of 8 reduces production of vitamin D by 95%. In latitudes around 40 degrees north or 40 degrees south (Boston is 42 degrees north), there is insufficient UVB radiation available for vitamin D synthesis from November to early March. Ten degrees farther north or south (Edmonton, Canada) this “vitamin D winter” extends from mid October to mid March. According to Dr. Michael Holick, as little as 5-10 minutes of sun exposure on arms and legs or face and arms three times weekly between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm during the spring, summer, and fall at 42 degrees latitude should provide a light-skinned individual with adequate vitamin D and allow for storage of any excess for use during the winter with minimal risk of skin damage.

Holick MF. Vitamin D deficiency: what a pain it is. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78(12):1457-1459.
 
Dunno. That was an american study. I have seen how they live. They go from house to car to work to mall to car. They are never really outside.

I suspect you could get enough vit D with a more normal lifestyle. That is walk everywhere.

However, there is the problem of winter here. Hardly any sun.
 
Baron Max said:
We pump millions, no, billions, of healthcare dollars into keep old farts alive and barely breathing, while tens of thousands of children go without any healthcare at all. That's sad, Sam ....even you can see that!

Then I think you'll appreciate the irony of old people such as yourself voting for candidates that promise millions, no billions, of dollars to healthcare.

Maybe we should take away old people's voting rights so they can stop sucking the blood of the young to cough and wheeze on a few more years?
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Dunno. That was an american study. I have seen how they live. They go from house to car to work to mall to car. They are never really outside.

I suspect you could get enough vit D with a more normal lifestyle. That is walk everywhere.

However, there is the problem of winter here. Hardly any sun.

Yes I personally believe that with a healthy lifestyle, supplementation is unnecessary.

And many foods are fortified with vitamin D, especially dairy foods.

If the mother takes care of her health, the baby's is automatically ensured.
 
samcdkey said:
Depends on how you define it.

It is not a vital amine no.

tbh i didnt know it is technically NOT a vitamin, so i googled it after Max's post and it turns out he is right. :)
 
John99 said:
tbh i didnt know it is technically NOT a vitamin, so i googled it after Max's post and it turns out he is right. :)

Yes, because it CAN be produced in the body.

However, due to changes in diet and lifestyle it is impossible to meet even the AI (Adequate Intake) of 400 IU and most people are at a level of MDR (Minimum Daily Requirement) of 200 IU.

Hence for practical purposes, it is considered as a vitamin (required through dietary intake).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top