eileen

Dr. McDouglal September 2007 Newsletter

SOURCE LINK: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/sep/vd.htm

Low Vitamin D: One Sign of Sunlight Deficiency
A low vitamin D level found in the blood is one sign of sunlight deficiency, just like high blood cholesterol is one sign of eating too much meat and cheese. A far-reaching campaign has been launched by doctors, health organizations, supple- ment companies, and pharmaceutical industries to fix the problem of sunlight deficiency with pills. Take vitamin D pills and the internal levels of this vitamin will increase, but 5 of 9 studies have shown no reduction in the risk of suffering from a fracture and 9 of 10 studies have shown no decrease in the most serious bone break—hip fractures.1
|MORE|

__________________
under-exposure to uv rays is as dangerous as over-exposure...This is "D" life! (eileen)

Don Smith

The problem is that the test to determine 25(OH)D levels is very expensive ($150.00 - $200.00 each) and, therefore, insurance companies (and Medicare/Medicaid) are reluctant to pay for them. Your doctor has to "battle" on your behalf to get them covered.

It's just another example of how our medical system is based upon the treatment of disease rather than the prevention of disease. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make lots of money treating the adverse effects of vitamin D insufficiency and so the "vitamin D revolution" (like the vitamin revolution 25 years ago) will have to come from an informed public, not the medical/pharmaceutical/regulatory complex.

One thing to keep in mind. The public is correctly concerned about taking too much vitamin D via supplementation but (as Dr. McDougal says) there is no need to worry when "Mother Nature's way" - UVR-induced vitamin D - is utilized to attain/maintain an optimal 25(OH)D level (>120 nmol/L) year-round because there has never been a report of toxicity from the vitamin D produced in the skin.

Which leads me to a question that has been bothering me for several years.

Since it it clear that all American's have low vitamin D levels; it is equally clear that UVR-induced vitamin D is the "safest and most biologically effective" way to attain/maintain optimal levels; and it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that indoor tanning salons are the ideal and cost-effective "resource" to be used in order to attain/maintain optimal vitamin D levels year-round; WHY is the indoor tanning industry so persecuted?