|
The Benefits of UV Light Read and discuss all the great news about UV light and Vitamin D. |
| LinkBack | Thread Tools |
07-25-2008, 12:19 PM | #11 (permalink) |
Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,643
Rep Power: 26 | Re: Don Here is the Thread We Needed Help With :) Perhaps I should clarify what an "inverse relationship" means. As the vitamin D level increases, the TNF-alpha decreases. Conversely, as the level of vitamin D decreases, the TNF-alpha level increases. Therefore, in order to make sure that the level of TNF-alpha remains at a level that isn't harmful, an optimal level of vitamin D is necessary. High vitamin D levels = good health. Low vitamin D levels are not compatible with good health. And, notwithstanding what the dermoterrorists say, UVR exposure is absolutely necessary in order to maintain an optimal level of vitamin D, so the issue is, do you utilize an uncontrolled (i.e., sunlight) or a controlled (i.e., sunbeds) source? |
07-25-2008, 12:52 PM | #12 (permalink) |
Join Date: Feb 10 2005
Posts: 8,304
Rep Power: 35 | Re: Don Here is the Thread We Needed Help With :) Well I just made a Dr's appointment so I can ask him to get get my Vitamin D levels checked. The last time I saw him around 3 years ago all he wanted to talk about was having me open a medspa for group of Dr.'s lol
__________________ "under exposure to UV rays is as dangerous as overexposure....this is D life" eileen |
07-26-2008, 10:00 AM | #14 (permalink) |
Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,643
Rep Power: 26 | Re: Don Here is the Thread We Needed Help With :) Here is the "bottom line" question that health conscious American's should be asking themselves. If I have a choice between taking a drug to prevent/treat disease or utilizing Mother Nature's "normal and natural" way of preventing/treating the condition, which method do I choose? If you use your God-given "common sense" the answer is easy! Why would anyone want to use an "artificial" drug (that probably has side effects) when Mother Nature's way is best? For instance, why use a "temporary" sunscreen loaded with harmful chemicals to protect your skin when a semi-permanent tan is safer and better? The only reason is that you want to make the sunscreen company executives rich. For instance, why take an expensive drug to prevent/treat osteoporosis when a routine program of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure (CURE) is safer and better? Once again, you should only take the drug because you want the drug company to make money at your expense. For instance, why suffer the agony of breast cancer when maintaining an optimal level of vitamin D has been shown to be highly protective? Does any woman want to be diagnosed with breast cancer? For instance, why increase your risk of cancer, coronary heart disease, diabetes, MS, osteoporosis/osteomalacia, autoimmune diseases, etc., when maintaining an optimal level of vitamin D has been shown to be highly preventative? Do you really think that the risk premature death from skin cancer is more likely than the risk of premature death from the dread diseases "mediated" by vitamin D that are listed above? In summary, the campaign by the sunscreen industry and the dermoterrorists to sell products containing sunscreen has significantly damaged the health and welfare of the American public. It is time (past time, actually) to accept the realty this following this advice "isn't working" (i.e., after 30 years, there is no proof that using a sunscreen prevents any form of skin cancer!!!!) and to stop following this self-serving advice. Or do you want to make the sunscreen companies and the dermatology community money at your own peril? It is time for America to "wake up" and realize that controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure (CURE) is good for them. |
07-30-2008, 04:29 PM | #15 (permalink) |
Join Date: Aug 21 2007 Location: canada
Posts: 106
Rep Power: 17 | Re: Don Here is the Thread We Needed Help With :) Don,how about the one a couple of weeks ago that said that melonoma was "soaring" in young women.Remember ,20 25 years ago when they use to say that skin cancer from sunbeds had an incubation period of 20-30 years? Well now with the increase that they claim is going on ,of course tanning beds are the blame.Well ,how convienient that the incubation period is now a mere 5-10 years.So I guess all those tanning sessions 20-25 years didn't provide the anticipated dermatological effect of skin cancer.So we will just forget about that. Now ,I guess that they failed to note that these young women are the blossoming sunscreen generation.Mom started slapping sun goop on them as babies.Well they are now grown up,with almost double the rate of melanoma.I do know{being a fan of yours for years} that there are many many photobiologist,dermatologist and doctors beleive that there is no link between melonoma and sunlight,but when a potential carcinogen{as sunscreen has been linked to cancer} is applied to the skin for xxx number of years what is the result that a person would expect? But where does the blame go?Sunbeds.How convienient. |
08-02-2008, 02:50 PM | #16 (permalink) |
Join Date: Feb 10 2005
Posts: 8,304
Rep Power: 35 | Re: Don Here is the Thread We Needed Help With :) Well he seemed impressed I wanted the 25(OH)D test done and also said he would send me for a bone density test. I don't go back until September 2nd for the results. :)
__________________ "under exposure to UV rays is as dangerous as overexposure....this is D life" eileen |
Bookmarks |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
my thread | sunbug | For Sale - FOR SALON OWNERS ONLY | 3 | 06-19-2007 12:14 PM |
new thread | bronze it | Say What ????? | 116 | 04-08-2007 09:57 AM |