From: feetback@shoebusters.com (James Semmel)

TO: All melanoma researchers, doctors, and patients.
Last month's post suggested why melanoma arises so much in moles. Well,
are moles themselves vitamin D deficiency tumors arising at points of
weakest circulation?
After all, wouldn't a growing baby inside the womb be susceptible to
periods of vitamin D deficiency? And won't the baby's skin show the sign
of that vitamin D depletion as the organ tries to synthesize more?
Indeed, what skin tumors of unknown etiology are present at birth?
Actually, increased intake of vitamin D3 turns newly forming moles
lighter, so it is therefore reasonable to expect nothing different from
melanoma.
James Semmel
Albuquerque, New Mexico
reference:
http://www.mpip.org/bb/shtml/389215.shtml Last month's follow up to the
4th annual discussion: "Is melanoma simply a vitamin D deficiency
cancer?"

====> james - first, this is a prostate cancer support newsgroup,  not a
blog.  

people are here because they paid the price for admission and we are
here for support of their pca.

haven't we beaten this horse to death enough already?  now, it's moles.
yes, i know about the 100 mole rule.  if you have less than 100 moles on
your body, you are more prone to developing cancer.

go tell that to the freckle faced folks that i know that have skin
cancer.....

as to your comments on babies growing inside is about as close as
hitting the mark as the moon is to being the next  garden of eden.

if you have studied fetal development very much, you would know that the
baby takes from the mother body in order to survive.  this is why it is
so important that an expecting mother to eat the proper diet.   because
if she doesn't,  she will be the one who the baby is going to take from.
in this case that you pointed out.  vitamin D.....

hey, the baby isn't exactly in the position to pick from a menu.   and
the baby must take from it's environment that it needs to develop.  so,
the mother's body becomes nothing more than a big menu.  

now, we have had quite a bit of discussion on the vitamin D issue in the
past.  but how do you think that anyone is going to come to a conclusion
about if the lack of vitamin D causes cancer,  when they can't even
agree on whether or not a simple psa test is an indicator of prostate
cancer?

a psa test is something that is testing of the present.  your theory is
speculation and based on the probability that it may or may not happened
in the months of development or even years after birth.

perhaps,  you might be able to apply for a federal grant to research
this possibility.

while your subject might be interesting at first,  i, for one, question
continue posting it over and over again.   that is how gets people troll
status.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc