--
An interesting study on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and latitude appeared recently in the online journal, Environmental Health Perspectives.[1] The researchers found that the disease was considerably more prevalent among those living at higher latitudes than at lower latitudes. They had expected to find a relationship between air pollution and RA, but such a relationship did not exist. They concluded that the correlation of high latitudes to RA was probably due to less vitamin-D producing sunlight exposure and consequent vitamin D deficiency. My response is, “This is news?”
There should have been so expression of surprise about the results. RA is one of many autoimmune diseases, and it has long been known that vitamin D has a profound, positive influence on those diseases.[2] These are diseases in which the immune system attacks the body’s own healthy tissue, mistaking that tissue for a foreign invader. When this happens, a specialized immune-system cell (called a T cell) assaults and kills some of the tissue of a targeted organ. Autoimmune diseases, then, are caused by T cells gone awry. In the case of rheumatoid arthritis the immune system attacks the collagen-producing cells of the joints. T cells in a person with an autoimmune disease lack the “intelligence” to recognize that they are attacking the wrong tissue. That intelligence, in part, comes from vitamin D, the receptors of which are found in large quantities in mature T cells and even larger concentrations in immature T cells produced in the thymus gland. Without vitamin D stimulation of the receptor sites, these cells will not function properly. When vitamin D is present however, they have the ability to discern between foreign invaders and the body’s own tissue. Animal experiments show that vitamin D acts as a “selective immunosuppressant” (see footnote 2), meaning that it gives T cells the ability to distinguish between “good and evil.” It is this ability to reduce the autoimmune response, as well as its anti-inflammatory properties that are likely responsible for the lessened risk of RA in sun-deprived areas, and this is further corroborated by the fact that RA is also more severe in winter,[3] a time of less sunshine, and a time when sunlight exposure in northern latitudes does not produce vitamin D.
In another report from researchers in Ireland (a northern country with little sunlight exposure), it was shown that 70% of patients had low vitamin D levels and that 26% were severely deficient.[4] However, in that report, 21 ng/ml was considered as the deficiency level and 10 ng/ml as the severe deficiency level. In reality, a level of 21 is dangerously deficient. It is likely that all of these patients had levels under 32 ng/ml, now considered the lowest level for good health. My opinion is that levels of 50 to 60 are optimal.
Considering this information, it should have come as no surprise that RA was more common at higher latitudes. It is time to return to the sun in the summer and to find ways of maintaining optimal vitamin D levels in the winter through the use of sun lamps.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
vitamine D
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Air pollution, sunlight, vitamin D and type-two diabetes
New research from Germany showed that women who lived in heavily air-polluted areas were at greater risk for type-two diabetes than those who lived in less-polluted areas. Those who lived within 100 meters of busy roadways doubled the diabetes risk. http://www.newswise.com/articles/study-suggests-link-between-air-pollution-and-type-2-diabetes-in-women
The authors assumed that the inhalation of pollutants was responsible for the increased risk of diabetes among those living in heavily-polluted areas, but I suggest another possibility: It is well-known that air pollution filters out sunlight and correlates to profoundly lower vitamin D levels. [1] [2] [3]
But do vitamin D levels have an influence on type-two diabetes? Research shows that Vitamin D levels correlate closely to insulin sensitivity; the higher the vitamin D levels, the more receptive the body is to the action of insulin, which makes carbohydrates easier to metabolize.[4] This same study shows that the higher the vitamin D levels are, the lower are the blood sugar levels. Other research shows that men with the highest vitamin D levels had a 30% reduced risk of type-2 diabetes compared to those with low levels,[5] probably because the beta cells of the pancreas (the insulin producing cells) have vitamin D receptors[6] and function more efficiently when vitamin D levels are higher.[7]
It is highly likely that the reason for the increased risk for diabetes was not the inhalation of air pollutants, but rather the lack of sunlight and subsequent vitamin D deficiency. It is time to leave the pollution and return to the sun.
vitamine D
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Vitamin D deficiency and death from diarrhea—another reason to return to the sunlight
WebMD just posted an article regarding research on vitamin D levels and a particular “superbug,” clostridium difficile or C. diff, which causes severe diarrhea and death. http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20100505/c-diff-may-be-worse-with-low-vitamin-d
C. Diff occurs primarily in people who have been taking broad-spectrum antibiotics that kill the friendly bacteria that would keep this superbug under control.
The author noted that 53% of the patients with “normal” levels of vitamin D were able to resolve the infection and then remain free of diarrhea after 30 days. In those with “low” vitamin D levels, only 26% resolved the infection and remained free of diarrhea after 30 days.
The researchers defined low vitamin D levels as 21 ng/ml, which is very low indeed, since a level of 32 is considered the lowest level for good health, and most scientists now recommend levels of about 60 ng/ml as optimal. I’m assuming that “normal” levels were considered to be anything over 21 ng/ml.
Vitamin D has been known for some time to be a potent antibiotic which breaks down the cell walls of both bacteria and viruses. However, it is not a “broad-spectrum” antibiotic—an antibiotic that kills not only the disease-causing pathogens—but also the friendly bacteria in the intestine that work to keep such pathogens at bay. Vitamin D recognizes only the foreign invader (pathogen) that can damage the body. Unfortunately, many pathogens develop resistance to antibiotic drugs, and the drugs cannot then kill the pathogen, which has a heyday because it is unopposed by the friendly bacteria that would normally thwart its action; hence, we have the term “superbug.”
Vitamin D works by stimulating the immune system’s army of cells such as T cells[1] and macrophages[2] to attack and destroy pathogens. There is no research I am aware of indicating that any pathogen develops a resistance to vitamin D. As antibiotics become less and less effective in fighting pathogens, optimal levels of vitamin D may become our last line of defense.
The WebMD article also points out that “Overall, 40% of the patients died during the month." A total of 67% of patients with low vitamin D levels died compared with 44% of those with normal vitamin D levels…” This indicates that the levels considered normal were not normal at all, and probably came nowhere near the optimal levels of 60 ng/ml.
And who is responsible for this loss of life? It is obviously the Powers of Darkness, those organizations that profit from teaching us that we should “protect” ourselves from any contact with sunlight or other sources of natural vitamin D production such as sun lamps. It behooves us to return to the habit of regular, non-burning sunlight exposure, such as sunbathing, preferably around midday. That certainly seems like a terrific alternative to death by diarrhea. Would you agree?
vitamine D
Monday, May 3, 2010
vitamine D
Friday, January 1, 2010
Will vitamin D stop the new killer strain of drug-resistant tuberculosis, or is sunlight the cure?
***
It appears that the first case of drug-resistant TB has arrived in the US from Peru.[1] It is nearly 100% resistant to antibiotics, and does not bode well for the country, since it could cause an immense killer epidemic. There seems to be no answer to the “superbug” that causes it. Or is there an answer? Could sunlight and its skin-produced hormone, vitamin D, provide answers to this latest health threat?
Sunlight has a long history of treatment for tuberculosis. Much of the following discussion of TB comes from Dr. Fielder’s history of heliotherapy.[2]
As early as 1857 Madame Duhamel of France exposed children with TB to sunshine because it hastened their recovery. Many doctors of that same era used heliotherapy (sunlight treatments) with great success, and as Dr. Fielder states, “As a general rule, the experience of all the Hygienists in their use of sunbathing was so successful that all question of doubt as to its place in the Hygienic System was ensured.”
Madame Duhamel was correct about sunbathing healing tuberculosis (TB). Later on, a disillusioned physician, Dr. Rollier, gave up a promising surgical practice and moved to the mountains of the Swiss countryside to practice medicine there. However, he discovered that the people needed little help, as they were seldom sick. People were always telling him, “Where the sun is, the doctor ain’t [sic].” In fact, Dr. Rollier’s fiancée had TB and would have died without intervention. He brought her to the Alpine area, exposed her regularly to sunshine, and she completely recovered.
Dr. Rollier opened a sanatorium in 1903 that was really just an extremely large solarium (sunbathing facility) with patient living quarters. There were 2,167 patients under Dr. Rollier’s care for TB following World War One. Of these, 1,746 completely recovered their health. Only those in the most advanced stages of the disease failed to recover.
In 1895, Dr. Niels Finsen made use of the first artificial UV light in treating patients with a particularly virulent form of TB known as lupus vulgaris (a skin disease). Though the disease was considered incurable, 41 of every 100 patients under his care recovered. Finsen’s work earned the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1903.
These researchers and physicians were not alone in their observations of the therapeutic power of sunlight. In 1877 two scientists, Arthur Downes and Thomas Blunt, discovered that sunlight was bactericidal. In 1890, the German microbiologist Robert Koch (who had isolated and described the tuberculosis bacterium in 1882), showed that sunlight killed TB bacteria.[3]
Recently, the interest in Vitamin D to thwart TB is being revisited.[4] [5] [6] and it has been shown that Black immigrants to Australia have much lower vitamin D levels than the general population and a much higher risk of TB.[7] Moreover, the effectiveness of vitamin D was demonstrated against the TB bacteria in an experiment in which a single dose of vitamin D (100,000 IU) significantly increased immunity to the TB bacterium.[8] The effectiveness of vitamin D against TB is determined by the production of cathelicidin,[9] an antibacterial peptide, which we could call the “body’s natural antibiotic.”
Further corroborating vitamin D’s essential role is that people who lack vitamin D receptors (VDR) are three times more likely to contract TB as those with normal VDR.[10] Vitamin D also inhibits the body’s inflammatory response to TB infection in the lungs.[11] [12] Considering the efficacy of sunlight therapy and vitamin D in inhibiting or even curing tuberculosis, doesn’t it seem that it’s time to return to the sun? Remember that you should never burn yourself in the sunlight.
It appears that the first case of drug-resistant TB has arrived in the US from Peru.[1] It is nearly 100% resistant to antibiotics, and does not bode well for the country, since it could cause an immense killer epidemic. There seems to be no answer to the “superbug” that causes it. Or is there an answer? Could sunlight and its skin-produced hormone, vitamin D, provide answers to this latest health threat?
Sunlight has a long history of treatment for tuberculosis. Much of the following discussion of TB comes from Dr. Fielder’s history of heliotherapy.[2]
As early as 1857 Madame Duhamel of France exposed children with TB to sunshine because it hastened their recovery. Many doctors of that same era used heliotherapy (sunlight treatments) with great success, and as Dr. Fielder states, “As a general rule, the experience of all the Hygienists in their use of sunbathing was so successful that all question of doubt as to its place in the Hygienic System was ensured.”
Madame Duhamel was correct about sunbathing healing tuberculosis (TB). Later on, a disillusioned physician, Dr. Rollier, gave up a promising surgical practice and moved to the mountains of the Swiss countryside to practice medicine there. However, he discovered that the people needed little help, as they were seldom sick. People were always telling him, “Where the sun is, the doctor ain’t [sic].” In fact, Dr. Rollier’s fiancée had TB and would have died without intervention. He brought her to the Alpine area, exposed her regularly to sunshine, and she completely recovered.
Dr. Rollier opened a sanatorium in 1903 that was really just an extremely large solarium (sunbathing facility) with patient living quarters. There were 2,167 patients under Dr. Rollier’s care for TB following World War One. Of these, 1,746 completely recovered their health. Only those in the most advanced stages of the disease failed to recover.
In 1895, Dr. Niels Finsen made use of the first artificial UV light in treating patients with a particularly virulent form of TB known as lupus vulgaris (a skin disease). Though the disease was considered incurable, 41 of every 100 patients under his care recovered. Finsen’s work earned the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1903.
These researchers and physicians were not alone in their observations of the therapeutic power of sunlight. In 1877 two scientists, Arthur Downes and Thomas Blunt, discovered that sunlight was bactericidal. In 1890, the German microbiologist Robert Koch (who had isolated and described the tuberculosis bacterium in 1882), showed that sunlight killed TB bacteria.[3]
Recently, the interest in Vitamin D to thwart TB is being revisited.[4] [5] [6] and it has been shown that Black immigrants to Australia have much lower vitamin D levels than the general population and a much higher risk of TB.[7] Moreover, the effectiveness of vitamin D was demonstrated against the TB bacteria in an experiment in which a single dose of vitamin D (100,000 IU) significantly increased immunity to the TB bacterium.[8] The effectiveness of vitamin D against TB is determined by the production of cathelicidin,[9] an antibacterial peptide, which we could call the “body’s natural antibiotic.”
Further corroborating vitamin D’s essential role is that people who lack vitamin D receptors (VDR) are three times more likely to contract TB as those with normal VDR.[10] Vitamin D also inhibits the body’s inflammatory response to TB infection in the lungs.[11] [12] Considering the efficacy of sunlight therapy and vitamin D in inhibiting or even curing tuberculosis, doesn’t it seem that it’s time to return to the sun? Remember that you should never burn yourself in the sunlight.
vitamine D
Circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Cohort Consortium Vitamin D Pooling Project of Rarer Cancers
* Correspondence to Dr. Mark P. Purdue, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, EPS 8114, Rockville, MD 20852 (e-mail: purduem@mail.nih.gov ).
Received for publication October 23, 2009. Accepted for publication April 12, 2010.
Case-control studies generally suggesting an inverse association between sun exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have led to speculation that vitamin D may protect against lymphomagenesis. To examine this hypothesis, the authors conducted a pooled investigation of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) and subsequent NHL risk within 10 cohorts participating in the Cohort Consortium Vitamin D Pooling Project of Rarer Cancers. The authors analyzed measurements from 1,353 cases and 1,778 controls using conditional logistic regression and other methods to estimate the association of 25(OH)D with NHL. No clear evidence of association between categories of 25(OH)D concentration and NHL was observed overall (Ptrend = 0.68) or by sex (men, Ptrend = 0.50; women, Ptrend = 0.16). Findings for other measures (continuous log(25(OH)D), categories of 25(OH)D using sex-/cohort-/season-specific quartiles as cutpoints, categories of season-adjusted residuals of predicted 25(OH)D using quartiles as cutpoints) were generally null, although some measures of increasing 25(OH)D were suggestive of an increased risk for women. Results from stratified analyses and investigations of histologic subtypes of NHL were also null. These findings do not support the hypothesis that elevated circulating 25(OH)D concentration is associated with a reduced risk of NHL. Future research investigating the biologic basis for the sunlight–NHL association should consider alternative mechanisms, such as immunologic effects.
calcifediol; calcitrol; case-control studies; cohort studies; 25-hydroxyvitamin D 2; lymphoma, non-Hodgkin; prospective studies; vitamin D
vitamine D
Monday, June 21, 2010
Do serum levels of vitamin D correlate to reduced cancer risk or not?
--
The American Journal of Epidemiology just released several studies on vitamin D and cancer that concluded vitamin D levels were not correlated to several cancers; that is, higher levels of vitamin D did not correlate to lowered cancer rates.[1] The key to understanding this finding is that in each case, the levels were measured prior to the diagnoses of cancer. Prediagnostic measurements occur at one point in time and do not measure changes that occur between the measurement and the onset of the disease. If, after the moment of vitamin D measurement, habits of sunlight exposure or diet change, vitamin D levels can fluctuate considerably. I believe that Vitamin D levels at the time of diagnosis are much more indicative of the affects of vitamin D on the risk of disease, and my opinion is that optimal higher vitamin D levels that are maintained for long periods are much more likely to reduce disease risk. Dr. William Grant, in an email today, told me he believed …”serum 25(OH)D levels measured several years ago aren't a good indication of either lifetime 25(OH)D or recent 25(OH)D." 25(OH)D is the measurement labs use to assess serum levels of vitamin D.
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) that maintains similar supplementation amounts for a period of years could give a good indication of whether consistently higher vitamin D levels have a protective affect on cancers. Let’s suppose, for instance, that one group of randomly chosen women received a vitamin D supplement for four years and another group received a placebo during that same time. All of the women would be free of cancer when the study began. Then, at the end of four years, the women would be assessed for the number of cancers in each group, and it could be determined if the supplemented group fared better than the placebo group. This is known as a randomized, placebo-controlled interventional study, and is considered the “gold standard” of research. Obviously, if the vitamin D group fared far better than the placebo group, we could confidently state that consistently higher vitamin D levels over four years correlated strongly with reduced risk of cancer. But wait—we already have such a study. Lappe and colleagues already conducted the study described above and found that the vitamin D group had 60-77% lesser risk of all cancers, compared to the placebo group, after four years.[2] None of the studies published by the American Journal of Epidemiology were RCT’s. This is strong indication that the use of prediagnostic levels of vitamin D may not be of much value.
Also interesting is the fact that the authors of these papers mention that research shows sunlight exposure correlates to a rather impressive risk reduction in most of the cancers studied. There are two outstanding papers, one very recent, which demonstrate that relationship.[3] [4]
Based on what we have just discussed, it is possible that (1) regular sunlight exposure maintains consistently higher levels of vitamin D and results in reductions of cancer similar to those demonstrated in the research conducted by Lappe and colleagues, or (2) sunlight has positive influences of cancer beyond the production of vitamin D. My opinion is that the answer lies in a combination of both. We are beginning to see more research showing that in both cancer and multiple sclerosis, sunlight exposure may have its own anti-cancer benefits. Sunshine is, of course, the most natural way to produce vitamin D. Just be very careful not to sunburn.
The American Journal of Epidemiology just released several studies on vitamin D and cancer that concluded vitamin D levels were not correlated to several cancers; that is, higher levels of vitamin D did not correlate to lowered cancer rates.[1] The key to understanding this finding is that in each case, the levels were measured prior to the diagnoses of cancer. Prediagnostic measurements occur at one point in time and do not measure changes that occur between the measurement and the onset of the disease. If, after the moment of vitamin D measurement, habits of sunlight exposure or diet change, vitamin D levels can fluctuate considerably. I believe that Vitamin D levels at the time of diagnosis are much more indicative of the affects of vitamin D on the risk of disease, and my opinion is that optimal higher vitamin D levels that are maintained for long periods are much more likely to reduce disease risk. Dr. William Grant, in an email today, told me he believed …”serum 25(OH)D levels measured several years ago aren't a good indication of either lifetime 25(OH)D or recent 25(OH)D." 25(OH)D is the measurement labs use to assess serum levels of vitamin D.
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) that maintains similar supplementation amounts for a period of years could give a good indication of whether consistently higher vitamin D levels have a protective affect on cancers. Let’s suppose, for instance, that one group of randomly chosen women received a vitamin D supplement for four years and another group received a placebo during that same time. All of the women would be free of cancer when the study began. Then, at the end of four years, the women would be assessed for the number of cancers in each group, and it could be determined if the supplemented group fared better than the placebo group. This is known as a randomized, placebo-controlled interventional study, and is considered the “gold standard” of research. Obviously, if the vitamin D group fared far better than the placebo group, we could confidently state that consistently higher vitamin D levels over four years correlated strongly with reduced risk of cancer. But wait—we already have such a study. Lappe and colleagues already conducted the study described above and found that the vitamin D group had 60-77% lesser risk of all cancers, compared to the placebo group, after four years.[2] None of the studies published by the American Journal of Epidemiology were RCT’s. This is strong indication that the use of prediagnostic levels of vitamin D may not be of much value.
Also interesting is the fact that the authors of these papers mention that research shows sunlight exposure correlates to a rather impressive risk reduction in most of the cancers studied. There are two outstanding papers, one very recent, which demonstrate that relationship.[3] [4]
Based on what we have just discussed, it is possible that (1) regular sunlight exposure maintains consistently higher levels of vitamin D and results in reductions of cancer similar to those demonstrated in the research conducted by Lappe and colleagues, or (2) sunlight has positive influences of cancer beyond the production of vitamin D. My opinion is that the answer lies in a combination of both. We are beginning to see more research showing that in both cancer and multiple sclerosis, sunlight exposure may have its own anti-cancer benefits. Sunshine is, of course, the most natural way to produce vitamin D. Just be very careful not to sunburn.
vitamine D
Gwyneth Paltrow has “seen the light.”
--
I’m a fan of Gwyneth Paltrow—a talented actress who performs well in any movie genre. She recently performed a great service by posting a “sunlight” article on her newsletter: http://goop.com/?page=newsletter_vn&id=most_recent. In it, she related the fact that her tibia had been fractured, and that on having her vitamin D assessed, she was told that her levels were the lowest her doctors had ever seen. She obviously had a disease called osteomalacia, or adult rickets. They suggested strong vitamin D supplementation and that she spend time in the sunlight. Her statement about sunlight was followed by an exclamation point, suggesting her surprise at such a heretical idea. Gwyneth also included an excellent article by her physician, Frank Lipman, which beautifully puts to rest the notion that after thousands or millions of years under the sunlight, we should avoid any contact with it.
Kudos is due Ms. Paltrow and her physicians, especially Dr. Lipman. When celebrities speak, their fans listen. The Powers of Darkness (POD)—those who would have us avoid the sunlight and have even suggested that we live underground to avoid it[1]—are responsible for the weakened bones of Gwyneth and millions more in the US alone. As stated by Susan Brown, PhD, in a research review in Alternative Medicine Review, “Each year in the United States, more than 1.5 million low-trauma osteoporotic fractures occur, including more than 300,000 hip fractures.”[2]
In spite of the fact that calcium cannot be absorbed without sufficient vitamin D, and that “normal” levels of at least 32 ng/ml are needed to optimize absorption,[3] [4] the POD continue to spew their anti-sun venom.
I recently had the opportunity to work with a woman—who had been away from of the sunlight for years—as she worked as a massage therapist in a large resort hotel. She had experienced a great deal of bone and muscle pain and told me that she had to quit her job; her hands hurt too severely to continue. She also informed me that her bones had begun to shift across her chest as she did massages, and she sometimes had to use crutches to walk. I suggested that she have her vitamin D assessed and she complied. Her D measurement was 6 ng/ml, a level indicative of severe deficiency (we now consider optimal levels to be about 60). After bringing her levels to 45, all of her bone disorders disappeared, and she is now able to resume her career in massage therapy.
Those who read the medical literature are not surprised about Ms. Paltrow’s experience. For instance, one of the most compelling studies on fracture risk and sunlight was done by Dr. Sato and his colleagues in Japan.[5] They studied the effects of sunlight exposure—or the lack thereof—on the bone mass of elderly women who were either exposed to sunlight or were kept inside a care facility. Over twelve months, 129 women were exposed to sunlight every day, and another 129 received no sunlight exposure. The results were startling: in these sedentary women, the sunlight group increased bone mass by an average 3.1%; in the non-sunlight-exposed group, it decreased by 3.3%, a difference of 6.4%. This is important, because high bone mass prevents fractures. The risk of fracture increases two to three times for every 10 percent drop in bone density.[6] In Sato’s study, however, the women who stayed indoors had six-times as many fractures as those who sunbathed outdoors. Also interesting to note is that vitamin D levels in the sunlight-exposed group increased by 400%.
In addition, an investigation in Spain concluded that women who actively participated in sun exposure had one-eleventh the chance of a hip fracture as those who did not![7] Another in Switzerland found that only 4% of hip fracture patients had vitamin D blood levels of 30 ng/ml.[8] In other words, 96% were vitamin D-deficient.
Gwyneth, we appreciate your willingness to help spread the truth about sunlight, one of God’s greatest gifts to the world and the only natural way to obtain vitamin D. We hope that more celebs will speak out against the Powers of Darkness and help us “stop the insanity.”
I’m a fan of Gwyneth Paltrow—a talented actress who performs well in any movie genre. She recently performed a great service by posting a “sunlight” article on her newsletter: http://goop.com/?page=newsletter_vn&id=most_recent. In it, she related the fact that her tibia had been fractured, and that on having her vitamin D assessed, she was told that her levels were the lowest her doctors had ever seen. She obviously had a disease called osteomalacia, or adult rickets. They suggested strong vitamin D supplementation and that she spend time in the sunlight. Her statement about sunlight was followed by an exclamation point, suggesting her surprise at such a heretical idea. Gwyneth also included an excellent article by her physician, Frank Lipman, which beautifully puts to rest the notion that after thousands or millions of years under the sunlight, we should avoid any contact with it.
Kudos is due Ms. Paltrow and her physicians, especially Dr. Lipman. When celebrities speak, their fans listen. The Powers of Darkness (POD)—those who would have us avoid the sunlight and have even suggested that we live underground to avoid it[1]—are responsible for the weakened bones of Gwyneth and millions more in the US alone. As stated by Susan Brown, PhD, in a research review in Alternative Medicine Review, “Each year in the United States, more than 1.5 million low-trauma osteoporotic fractures occur, including more than 300,000 hip fractures.”[2]
In spite of the fact that calcium cannot be absorbed without sufficient vitamin D, and that “normal” levels of at least 32 ng/ml are needed to optimize absorption,[3] [4] the POD continue to spew their anti-sun venom.
I recently had the opportunity to work with a woman—who had been away from of the sunlight for years—as she worked as a massage therapist in a large resort hotel. She had experienced a great deal of bone and muscle pain and told me that she had to quit her job; her hands hurt too severely to continue. She also informed me that her bones had begun to shift across her chest as she did massages, and she sometimes had to use crutches to walk. I suggested that she have her vitamin D assessed and she complied. Her D measurement was 6 ng/ml, a level indicative of severe deficiency (we now consider optimal levels to be about 60). After bringing her levels to 45, all of her bone disorders disappeared, and she is now able to resume her career in massage therapy.
Those who read the medical literature are not surprised about Ms. Paltrow’s experience. For instance, one of the most compelling studies on fracture risk and sunlight was done by Dr. Sato and his colleagues in Japan.[5] They studied the effects of sunlight exposure—or the lack thereof—on the bone mass of elderly women who were either exposed to sunlight or were kept inside a care facility. Over twelve months, 129 women were exposed to sunlight every day, and another 129 received no sunlight exposure. The results were startling: in these sedentary women, the sunlight group increased bone mass by an average 3.1%; in the non-sunlight-exposed group, it decreased by 3.3%, a difference of 6.4%. This is important, because high bone mass prevents fractures. The risk of fracture increases two to three times for every 10 percent drop in bone density.[6] In Sato’s study, however, the women who stayed indoors had six-times as many fractures as those who sunbathed outdoors. Also interesting to note is that vitamin D levels in the sunlight-exposed group increased by 400%.
In addition, an investigation in Spain concluded that women who actively participated in sun exposure had one-eleventh the chance of a hip fracture as those who did not![7] Another in Switzerland found that only 4% of hip fracture patients had vitamin D blood levels of 30 ng/ml.[8] In other words, 96% were vitamin D-deficient.
Gwyneth, we appreciate your willingness to help spread the truth about sunlight, one of God’s greatest gifts to the world and the only natural way to obtain vitamin D. We hope that more celebs will speak out against the Powers of Darkness and help us “stop the insanity.”
Thursday, June 17, 2010
AF ablation
Posted: 06/07/2010; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(21):2308-2316. © 2010 Elsevier Science, Inc.
|
processing....
- Abstract and Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Discussion
- Conclusions
Information from Industry
For patients with ACS managed with PCI
Learn about a treatment option for patients with ACS managed with PCI.
Explore this treatment option
Learn about a treatment option for patients with ACS managed with PCI.
Explore this treatment option
Abstract and Introduction
Abstract
Objectives We sought to determine the relationship between atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation efficacy, quality of life (QoL), and AF-specific symptoms at 2 years.
Background Although the primary goal of AF ablation is QoL improvement, this effect has yet to be demonstrated in the long term.
Methods A total of 502 symptomatic AF ablation recipients were prospectively followed for recurrence, QoL, and AF symptoms.
Results In 323 patients with 2 years of follow-up, 72% achieved AF elimination off antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), 15% achieved AF control with AADs, and 13% had recurrent AF. The physical component summary scores of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 increased from 58.8 ± 20.1 to 76.2 ± 19.2 (p < 0.001) and the mental component summary scores of the Short Form 36 increased from 65.3 ± 18.6 to 79.8 ± 15.8 (p < 0.001). Post-ablation QoL improvements were noted across ablation outcomes, including recurrent AF (change in physical component summary: 12.1 ± 19.7 and change in mental component summary: 9.7 ± 17.9), with no significant differences in QoL improvement across 3 ablative efficacy outcomes. However, in 103 patients who completed additional assessment with Mayo AF Symptom Inventories (on a scale of 0 to 48), those with AF elimination off AADs had a change in AF symptom frequency score of −9.5 ± 6.3, which was significantly higher than those with AF controlled with AADs (−5.6 ± 3.8, p = 0.03) or those with recurrent AF (−3.4 ± 8.4, p = 0.02). Independent predictors of limited QoL improvement included higher baseline QoL, obesity, and warfarin use at follow-up.
Conclusions AF ablation produces sustained QoL improvement at 2 years in patients with and without recurrence. AF-specific symptom assessment more accurately reflects ablative efficacy.
Introduction
Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects >6.7 million people in the U.S. and Europe.[1,2] People with AF have impaired quality of life (QoL) compared with the general population.[3,4] Thus, the impetus to eliminate AF has been great. Maintenance of sinus rhythm with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), however, has not been shown to have consistent superior benefits in QoL, major physical end points, stroke, or survival over rate-control strategies.[4−6]
Primary curative AF ablation, with the potential for greater efficacy and freedom from the adverse side effects of AADs, is a viable option for select symptomatic patients.[7,8] Post-ablation QoL improvement and/or a superior QoL benefit from ablation over pharmacologic rhythm control have been demonstrated in studies with limited sample sizes and follow-up durations ≤1 year.[9−14] Nevertheless, establishing that QoL benefit lasts beyond 1 year and is attributable to ablation-specific effects would justify the broader application of this expensive procedure with uncommon, but significant risks.
The purpose of this prospective observational study was to establish the impact of AF ablation on QoL in symptomatic patients and to identify the relative contributions of patient-related factors, rhythm status, AAD use, and relief of AF-specific symptom burden.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
statins
Unintended Effects of Statin Drugs
June 15, 2010 | Paul S. Mueller, MD, MPH, FACP
Kidney failure and cataracts were associated significantly with statin use.
Reviewing: Hippisley-Cox J and Coupland C. BMJ 2010 May 20; 340:c2197
Free Full-Text Article | |
|
Friday, June 04, 2010
ADHD pesticides
Pesticides and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Results from a cross-sectional study support an association between organophosphate exposure in children and ADHD but cannot confirm causality.
Children are exposed to organophosphate pesticides primarily in food and drinking water. These pesticides might be particularly toxic to developing brains. Using data derived from a national health survey, investigators assessed the relation between exposure to organophosphates and development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Exposure was determined from one urinary sample, and ADHD was diagnosed by structured parent interview.
Among the 1139 children (age range, 8–15 years), 119 were diagnosed with ADHD. Most children (94%) had detectable levels of at least one of six urinary metabolites of organophosphates. The association between total exposure to organophosphates (total urinary metabolite concentrations) and ADHD approached statistical significance (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.97–1.51). Exposure to a group of three related metabolites was significantly associated with ADHD (AOR, 1.55). In an analysis restricted to the most commonly detected metabolite, children with levels above the median detectable concentration were significantly more likely to have ADHD than children with levels below the detection limit (AOR, 1.93).
Comment: The authors note a number of study limitations, including assessment of exposure from a single urine sample and the possibility that children with ADHD engage in behaviors that expose them to higher levels of organophosphates. In addition, although a structured parental interview was used to make the diagnosis of ADHD, information from other sources was not available. These results are likely to fuel concern that exposure to pesticides adversely affects development in children. However, causality cannot be confirmed with this type of study design.
Published in Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine June 2, 2010
Citation(s):
Bouchard MF et al. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides. Pediatrics 2010 Jun; 125:e1270. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-3058)
- Original article (Subscription may be required)
- Medline abstract (Free)
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Apolipoprotein. LDL cholesterol
uit wikipedia
Apolipoprotein B (APOB) is the primary apolipoprotein of low-density lipoproteins (LDL or "bad cholesterol"), which is responsible for carrying cholesterol to tissues. While it is unclear exactly what functional role APOB plays in LDL, it is the primary apolipoprotein component and is absolutely required for its formation. What is clear is that the APOB on the LDL particle acts as a ligand for LDL receptors in various cells throughout the body (i.e. less formally, APOB "unlocks" the doors to cells and thereby delivers cholesterol to them). Through a mechanism that is not fully understood, high levels of APOB can lead to plaques that cause vascular disease (atherosclerosis), leading to heart disease. There is considerable evidence that levels of APOB are a better indicator of heart disease risk than total cholesterol or LDL. However, primarily for practical reasons, cholesterol, and more specifically, LDL-cholesterol, remains the primary lipid target and risk factor for atherosclerosis.
Apolipoprotein B (APOB) is the primary apolipoprotein of low-density lipoproteins (LDL or "bad cholesterol"), which is responsible for carrying cholesterol to tissues. While it is unclear exactly what functional role APOB plays in LDL, it is the primary apolipoprotein component and is absolutely required for its formation. What is clear is that the APOB on the LDL particle acts as a ligand for LDL receptors in various cells throughout the body (i.e. less formally, APOB "unlocks" the doors to cells and thereby delivers cholesterol to them). Through a mechanism that is not fully understood, high levels of APOB can lead to plaques that cause vascular disease (atherosclerosis), leading to heart disease. There is considerable evidence that levels of APOB are a better indicator of heart disease risk than total cholesterol or LDL. However, primarily for practical reasons, cholesterol, and more specifically, LDL-cholesterol, remains the primary lipid target and risk factor for atherosclerosis.
maagzuur, heartburn reflux GERD
Managing Heartburn in the Community Setting: Communicating the Role of OTC PPIs to Healthcare Providers
CME/CE Released: 05/24/2010; Valid for credit through 05/24/2011
