Sunlight Is Actually Good For You

(This is a greatly abbreviated article.  Go to the link to read more)

Dermatology’s Disastrous War Against The Sun

The forgotten side of skin health and the necessity of sunlight

Story at a Glance:

•Skin cancers are by far the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, so to prevent them, the public is constantly told to avoid the sun. However, while the relatively benign skin cancers are caused by sun exposure, the ones responsible for most skin cancer deaths are due to a lack of sunlight.

•This is unfortunate because sunlight is arguably the most important nutrient for the human body, as avoiding it doubles one’s rate of dying and significantly increases their risk of cancer.

•A strong case can be made that this dynamic was a result of the dermatology profession (with the help of a top PR firm) rebranding themselves to skin cancer fighters, something which allowed them to become one of the highest paying medical specialities in existence. Unfortunately, despite the billions that is put into fighting it each year, there has been no substantial change in the number of skin cancer deaths.

•In this article, we will also discuss the dangers of the conventional skin cancer treatments, the most effective ways for treating and preventing skin cancer, and some of the best strategies for having a healthy and nourishing relationship with the sun.

Note: in February’s open thread, I presented some potential articles, and since this topic was one of the most requested, I have spent the last month working on it.

Ever since I was a little child something seemed off about the fact everyone would get hysterical about how I needed to avoid sunlight and always wear sunscreen whenever we had an outdoor activity—so to the best of my ability I just didn’t comply. As I got older, I started to notice that beyond the sun feeling really good, anytime I was in the sun, the veins under my skin that were exposed to the sun would dilate, which I took as a sign the body craved sunlight and wanted it to draw into the circulation. Later still, I learned a pioneering researcher found significant alternations would occur in the health of people who wore glasses that blocked specific light spectrums (e.g., most glass blocks UV light) from entering the most transparent part of the body that could be treated by giving them specialized glasses which did not block that spectrum from entering.
Note: all the above touches upon one of my favorite therapeutic modalities—ultraviolet blood irradiation, which will be the focus of an upcoming article.

Later, when I became a medical student (at which point I was familiar with the myriad of benefits of sunlight), I was struck by how neurotic dermatologists were about avoiding sunlight—for instance, in addition to hearing every patient I saw there be lectured about the importance of avoiding sunlight, through my classmates, I learned of dermatologists in the northern latitudes (which had low enough sunlight people suffered from seasonal affective disorder) effectively require their students to wear sunscreen and clothing which covered most of their body while indoors. At this point my perspective on the issue changed to “this crusade against the sun is definitely coming from the dermatologists” and “what on earth is wrong with these people?” A few years ago I learned the final piece of the puzzle through Robert Yoho MD and his book Butchered by Healthcare.

(The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Monopolization of Medicine

Throughout my life, I’ve noticed three curious patterns in the medical industry:

•They will promote healthy activities people are unlikely to do (e.g., exercising or smoking cessation).

•They will promote clearly unhealthy activities industries make money from (e.g., eating processed foods or taking a myriad of unsafe and ineffective pharmaceuticals).

•They will attack clearly beneficial activities that are easy to do (e.g., sunlight exposure, eating eggs, consuming raw dairy, or eating butter).

As best as I can gather, much of this is rooted in the scandalous history of the American Medical Association, when in 1899, George H. Simmons, MD took possession of the floundering organization (MDs were going out of business because their treatments were barbaric and didn’t work). He, in turn, started a program to give the AMA seal of approval in return for the manufacturers disclosing their ingredients and agreeing to advertise in a lot of AMA publications (they were not however required to prove their product was safe or effective). This maneuver was successful, and in just ten years, increased their advertising revenues 5-fold, and their physician membership 9-fold.

At the same time this happened, the AMA moved to monopolize the medical industry by doing things such as establishing a general medical education council (which essentially said their method of practicing medicine was the only credible way to practice medicine) which allowed them to then become the national accrediting body for medical schools. This in turn allowed them to end the teaching of many of the competing models of medicine such as homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, and to a lesser extent, osteopathy—as states would often not give licenses to graduates of schools with a poor AMA rating.

Likewise, Simmons (along with his successor, Fishbein, who reigned from 1924 to 1950) established a “Propaganda Department” in 1913 to attack all unconventional medical treatments and anyone (MD or not) who practiced them. Fishbein was very good at what he did and could often organize massive media campaigns against anything he elected to deem “quackery” that were heard by millions of Americans (at a time when the country was much smaller).

After Simmons and Fishbein created this monopoly, they were quick to leverage it. This included blackmailing pharmaceutical companies to advertise with them, demanding the rights for a variety of healing treatments to be sold to the AMA, and sending the FDA or FTC after anyone who refused to sell out (which in at least in one case was proved in court since one of Fishbein’s “compatriots” thought what he was doing was wrong and testified against him). Because of this, many remarkable medical innovations were successfully erased from history (part of my life’s work and much of what I use in practice are essentially the therapies Simmons and Fishbein largely succeeded in wiping off the Earth).

Note: to illustrate that this is not just ancient history, consider how viciously and ludicrously the AMA attacked the use of ivermectin to treat COVID (as it was the biggest competitor to the COVID cartel). Likewise, one of the paradigm changing moments for Pierre Kory (which he discusses with Russel Brand here) was that after he testified to the Senate about ivermectin, he was put into a state of shock by the onslaught of media and medical journal campaigns from every direction trying to tank ivermectin and destroy he and his colleagues’ reputations (e.g., they got fired and had their papers which had already passed peer-review retracted). Two weeks into it, he got an email from Professor William B Grant (a vitamin D expert) that said “Dear Dr. Korey, what they’re doing to ivermectin they’ve been doing to vitamin D for decades” and included a 2017 paper detailing the exact playbook industry uses again and again to bury inconvenient science.

Before long, Big Tobacco became the AMA’s biggest client, which led to countless ads like this one being published by the AMA which persisted until Fishbein was forced out (at which point he became a highly paid lobbyist for the tobacco industry)

Check out the link for the rest of the article and more revelatory articles by THe Midwestern Doctor:

Importance of Vitamin D & The Sun

How Dermatologists Fuel Chronic Disease Rates With Their Flawed Sun Exposure Guidelines

Story at-a-glance

  • The U.S. Surgeon General, the American Academy of Dermatology, and The Skin Cancer Foundation all view sunlight irrationally as a dangerous skin cancer risk
  • Sun avoidance fuels health problems associated with vitamin D deficiency, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, depression, and poses special health risks to pregnant mothers and their children
  • The evidence supporting sensible sun exposure is strong and clear, while there’s little evidence that sunscreen use protects against skin cancer, or that vitamin D supplements are bioequivalent to sunshine

By Dr. Mercola

In July 2014, the interim U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Boris Lushniak, who is also a dermatologist, issued a “Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer,”1,2 in which he declared UV radiation harmful and said sun exposure should be avoided altogether.

The American Academy of Dermatology and The Skin Cancer Foundation also advocate avoiding all sun exposure — regardless of the color of your skin — saying vitamin D supplementation can address any deficiencies.

This is an irrational and shortsighted position that lacks any credibility. The scientific evidence, now running in excess of 34,000 studies, detail that UV exposure is essential, both for vitamin D production and other benefits unrelated to vitamin D.

The color of your skin is a significant factor to determine appropriate exposure times and any advice that does not take this into consideration is illogical.  We are not nocturnal beings, avoiding the sun entirely is horrible advice that should not be followed.

Dermatologists’ Position on Sun Exposure Riddled With Fatal Flaws

Let’s remember that, because of their irrational concern, they were able to convince public health officials and media to convince people to use sunscreens.

What happened as a result of the public adopting this proactive “preventive” approach? Skin cancers actually increased.

Why? Because the dermatologists did not do their homework. Most sunscreens blocked UVB, which causes vitamin D levels to increase and lower cancer rates, but they let UVA, which can cause skin cancer when excessively exposed, to shine right through like a hot knife through butter.

What’s worse, they never admitted to their egregious mistake. Ironically,  the only location dermatologists approve of UV light treatment is in their office under costly supervision.

Avoiding Sun Exposure Radically Worsens Disease Rates

Advocating abstinence from UV light is undoubtedly fueling many health problems associated with vitamin D deficiency, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases and depression.

UVB exposure is essential for optimal health, and any risks of exposure are related to over exposure and burning. Research shows vitamin D is involved in the biochemical regulation of nearly every cell in your body, including your immune system.

Vitamin D deficiency can deteriorate your health in a number of different ways, as your cells need the active form of vitamin D to optimally regulate genetic expression.

As noted by William Grant, Ph.D., head of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC), staying indoors to avoid sun exposure is “not particularly good advice,” adding that:3

“There are several papers indicating that occupational exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of melanoma. It is having fair skin, a high-fat, low fruit and vegetable diet, sunburning, etc., that are more linked to melanoma than total UV exposure.”

Vitamin D Is Crucial for Pregnant Women

Vitamin D is particularly important for pregnant women, as deficiency affects both the mother and her child in the short and long term, including raising the child’s long-term risk for diabetes, allergic rhinitis,4 arthritis, stroke, and cardiovascular disease.Recent research shows that raising maternal vitamin D levels helps children born in winter months develop stronger, healthier bones.5 Lead researcher Professor Nicholas Harvey, Ph.D., of the University of Southampton, also notes that sun exposure is the most important source of vitamin D.

Health initiatives such as GrassrootsHealth D*Action study,6 and the Protect Our Children NOW! campaign are both based on these fundamental and scientifically proven facts.

Dermatologists Ignore Skin Color

The fact that the American Academy of Dermatology issues the same recommendations for everyone, without regard for skin type, is telling. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they view sun exposure as nothing but a dangerous cancer risk to be avoided at all costs.

This is a really nonsensical, and most definitively nonscientific, stance. According to their advice, even if you have the darkest skin, you should always seek shade and wear protective clothing and/or sunscreen when outdoors.

The notion that supplements are bioequivalent to sunshine is lacking.  While I recommend supplements if UVB exposure is not available, to suggest that vitamin D can replace all the benefits of sun exposure is ridiculous.

In fact, each of us responds quite differently to vitamin D supplementation – there is a 6 to 10 times difference in dosage response between individuals.   If you are supplementing with vitamin D, you should have your levels checked twice per year to ensure you stay above 40ng/ml.

Because of this, vitamin D experts such as Grant and Dr. Michael F. Holick note that sensible sun exposure is far preferable to vitamin D supplementation.

Oversimplifying the Issue Is Not a Good Public Health Policy

The Skin Cancer Foundation echoes the American Academy of Dermatology’s recommendations.

When questioned about this philosophy and asked why the recommendations fail to take into account skin type and color, Dr. Henry Lim, who sits on The Skin Cancer Foundation’s photobiology committee, replied that such information is irrelevant because vitamin D supplements can address deficiency.

According to Lim:7

“We want to make it simple as a public health message — as to what the public should reasonably be able to absorb and understand. To fine tune it is just too complicated we feel.”

But by oversimplifying the matter, dermatologists place a great number of people at grave risk for vitamin D deficiency, which may not be identified until health problems have already set in. Moreover, the advice to use sunscreen is also on shaky scientific ground.

According to an analysis by epidemiologist Marianne Berwick, Ph.D., there’s very little evidence to suggest that sunscreen use will prevent skin cancer.

After analyzing a dozen studies on basal cell carcinoma, which is typically non-lethal, and the more deadly melanoma, Berwick found that people who use sunscreen tend to be more likely to develop both of these conditions.

Only 2 of 10 melanoma studies found that sunscreen was protective against this condition; three found no association either way. None found sunscreen use protected against basal cell carcinoma.8

Your Body Is Designed to Optimize Health Effects of Sun Exposure

While you certainly need to avoid the skin damage associated with sunburn, sun exposure is required for optimal health, and your skin type plays a major role in how much UVB exposure you need and can safely tolerate.

Darker-skinned people not only need more sun exposure to produce sufficient amounts of vitamin D, they’re also more protected from skin cancer due to their skin pigmentation. Yet this important reality is simply ignored by dermatologists, resulting in most African Americans being at a radically increased risk of cancers and heart disease from vitamin D deficiency.

As noted in a previous article by Nautilus:9

“How the sun affects you depends on your complexion, the shade of which is determined by melanin … The anti-oxidizing molecule is so versatile at protecting and repairing DNA from UV solar radiation that creatures from humans to fungi deploy it … [T]he melanin sits atop cellular DNA like tiny umbrellas pointed … out to shield from incoming rays …

[T]he same ultraviolet wavelengths in the 290 to 400 nanometers range that trigger melanin production also spark vitamin D creation. You cannot make one without the other.

Humans evolved to produce two kinds of melanin … The MC1R gene determines the type of melanin the body produces. In the mid-zone such as the Mediterranean region, people … produce eumelanin, the pigment responsible for brown or black hair and for dark skin that tans easily …

[I]n far northern Europe, humans paled, adapting to lower light … with a different type of melanin, called pheomelanin, associated with fair skin and blonde and red hair with minimal protective value, but allowing more UV to penetrate to make vitamin D. ”

Sun Avoidance Raises Risk of Internal Cancers

Dermatology is focused on one primary outcome — avoiding skin damage and skin cancer. But by focusing on just one side of the UV exposure issue, they’re actually promoting a lifestyle that may raise your risk of other lethal cancers and chronic diseases. Not only have higher vitamin D levels been shown to offer significant protection against a number of internal cancers, there’s also evidence showing higher levels offer protection against melanoma.

In fact, higher rates of melanoma are found among those who have low vitamin D levels; among indoor occupations; and in areas of the body that rarely or never see the light of day. In short, the vitamin D your body produces in response to UVB radiation is protective against skin cancer. As noted in The Lancet:10

“Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect.”

Even more importantly, vitamin D has been shown to significantly reduce internal cancers, along with chronic diseases such as heart disease, which kill far more people than melanoma does. Breast11 and prostate12,13 cancers are just two examples where low vitamin D renders you more vulnerable to more aggressive forms of the disease. Recent research14 has also found that low vitamin D levels are associated with more severe peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients.

Reporting on recent research linking low vitamin D levels to an increased risk for aggressive breast cancer, Medical Daily writes:15

“The researchers linked vitamin D levels to the ID1 gene, which at high levels of expression is associated with breast cancer tumor growth. Past studies have shown that vitamin D is linked to inhibiting the expression of this gene, and that low vitamin D levels have been associated with more aggressive tumors. ”

Public Health Messages Should Be Based on All-Cause Mortality Reduction