An interesting view on Dr. Holick and the medical
community
"VITAMIN D AND CANCER: A DERMATOLOGIST'S DILEMMA
Link http://www.cancerdecisions.com/052204_page.html

A Boston professor of dermatology has been asked to resign because he
advocates moderate exposure to sunlight. Michael F. Holick, MD, PhD, a
professor at Boston University, was asked to resign in April from BU's
Department of Dermatology because of a book he wrote, in which he
describes the importance of sunlight in boosting vitamin D levels. He
was also severely criticized for his ties to the indoor tanning
industry.

Department chair Barbara Gilchrest, MD, told the Boston Globe that the
book "is an embarrassment for this institution and an embarrassment
for him." As demanded, Holick resigned his post, but continues to
teach and to direct the medical center's Vitamin D, Skin, and Bone
Research Laboratory, without a cut in pay.

Holick is a talented, experienced and highly respected researcher. He
is a professor of medicine and physiology, and formerly of
dermatology, at Boston University School of Medicine, and (until 2000)
chief of endocrinology, metabolism and nutrition. Since 1987 he has
also been the program director of the University's General Clinical
Research Center.

Department chair Gilchrest's disapproval of Holick stems from the fact
that his statements, superficially at least, seem to be at odds with
the medical profession's consensus on the damaging effects of
sunlight. Dermatologists have been warning the public for years that
sunlight, and specifically ultraviolet A (UVA) and ultraviolet B
(UVB), is implicated in the causation of melanoma, as well as other
less deadly forms of skin cancer.

But the causes of melanoma are still far from established, and there
remain many unanswered questions about the exact relationship of
sunlight exposure to the development of skin cancers. Exactly how much
ultraviolet light constitutes a safe level of exposure is a legitimate
topic for scientific debate. For example, according to the American
Cancer Society, "We do not yet know exactly what causes melanoma ...but
we do know that certain risk factors are linked to the disease....Some
risk factors, such as smoking, can be controlled. Others, like a
person's age or family history, can't be changed. But having a risk
factor, or even several, doesn't mean that a person will get the
disease" ( ACS 2004).

As to sunlight, the ACS says this: "The best way to lower the risk of
melanoma is to avoid too much exposure to the sun and other sources of
UV light.... Avoid being outdoors in sunlight too long, especially in
the middle of the day when UV light is most intense...."

But this view is not universally held. William B. Grant, Ph.D., who
heads the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC) in
San Francisco strongly disputes it. "This is not particularly good
advice," he told this newsletter. "There are several papers indicating
that occupational exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of melanoma
(Kennedy 2003). "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."

   It seems that many in the medical profession  have an almost
religious zeal in suppressing ideas that differ from the orthodox .
The treatment of Dr. Holick a leader in the field of Vitamin d
research is indicative of that. Will those in leadership resort to
misrepresenting facts to improve compliance. A recent story in the
Times seems to indicate that ; From ;    " Doctors Bulk at Cancer
Ad ,Citing Lack of Evidence"  New Your Times July 10
2007
" The young woman in the American Cancer Society advertisement holds
up a photograph of a smiling blonde. "My sister accidentally killed
herself. She died of skin cancer," reads the headline.

The public service announcement, financed by the sunscreen maker
Neutrogena, is running in 15 women's magazines this summer. It warns
readers that "left unchecked, skin cancer can be fatal," and urges
them to "use sunscreen, cover up and watch for skin changes."

The woman in the picture is a model, not a skin cancer victim. And the
advertisement's implicit message - that those who die of skin cancer
have themselves to blame - has provoked a sharp response from some
public-health doctors, who say the evidence simply does not support
it."
  It appears that evidence is not the only reason the ACS provides
information The article notes     " Almost all of those deaths are
from melanoma, which makes up only 6 percent of all skin-cancer
cases." The article  also notes that some studies suggest that sun
exposure improves survival in melanoma  and that " Until that is made
clear, many doctors say, it is premature to suggest that people are
endangering their lives by failing to use sunscreen. "
      As for the effect of sunscreens  the story notes..."We do have
some pretty good evidence that sunscreen will reduce your risk of the
less lethal forms of skin cancer," Dr. Kramer added. "There's very
little evidence that sunscreens protect you against melanoma, yet you
often hear that as the dominant message."   Dr. Kramer works at the
NIH .  What was the response of the ACS?

   Dr. J. Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer at the
American Cancer Society, acknowledges that the advertisement is
aggressive. "We have taken some license in taking that message and
using it the way we've used it," he said, "because that's the way to
get the message to our target audience."

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/health/10skin.html?_r=1&th
&emc=th&oref=slogin   and ask yourself are these guys looking out for
me? Thanks Vince

When the medical community believes it has the right to take "license'
with the evidence to improve compliance has a line been
crossed .
While this refers to cancer issues . I wonder if the same dynamic is
work at the NCEP or the ATP 3 guideline committees in regard to
improving compliance to their advice Thanks Vince

That article is too new to allow free viewing. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/3/362
seems to duplicate much of what he has to say.

--
  Ron