Must Read! The "Shift" Begins

[Don]

On another website I predicted that the dermoterrorists™ would soon begin to "shift their position" regarding UVR exposure in order to "control" the prescribing of vitamin D analogs. I pointed out that they (the dermoterrorists™) find themselves in the uncomfortable position (poor babies!) of being forced to "acknowledge" (1) the importance of maintaining optimal vitamin D levels; and, (2) that vitamin D is primarily produced by the action of UVR on the skin. Why? In order for them to "stake" their claim on the soon-to-be lucrative business (remember, it's all about"turf" and $$$$) of prescribing vitamin D analogs.

How they would try to "walk both sides of the street" - i.e., continue to "denigrate" tanning while accomplishing the above two objectives - was the unknown.

Now we know.

In her presentation last week at the NIH Vitamin D Conference, Dr. Rebecca Mason of the University of Sydney (Australia) set out the "roadmap" that the dermoterrorists™ will most certainly "follow" in their attempt to walk both sides of the street. In addition, they (the dermoterrorists™) will try to "convince" the "bone and mineral" physicians to "go along" with their approach (so the question is, will Dr. Holick "agree to go along" with her proposal?).

Here is what she proposed.

To recommend that physicians (and regulatory agencies) adopt a MAD (Maximum Allowable Dose) of "0.3 MED over 15% of the body surface” (and no more!) as being acceptable.

- Now we know what we are up against.

- And we know that the regulatory adoption of a MAD of "0.3 MED over 15% of the body surface" would sound the "death knell" for the indoor tanning industry.

[Note: I have already sent FDA a "response" to Dr. Mason's proposal pointing out why it will be counterproductive.]

Luckily for us:

1. The "0.3 MED over 15% of the body surface” is not "scientifically" sound. In order to determine the time required for a dose of UVR that will help maintain an optimal level of vitamin D you need to know the "weighted energy" in the 250 nm - 320 nm wavelength area. Relying upon a simplistic measurement like "0.3 MED" just doesn't get the job done.

[Note to Stan: NOW you know why I have been working so hard the past three years to develop the "calculation matrix" that makes it possible (for the first time) to determine the time it takes for any irradiance source (sunlight or sunbed) to "deliver" a dose of "vitamin D weighted irradiance" sufficient to help maintain an optimal level of vitamin D. As you saw in Orlando, this measurement parameter makes it possible to "compare" any two irradiance sources (sunlight vs a sunbed; sunlight at different times of the day; and/or sunbed vs sunbed) in an "objective" way so we (the indoor tanning industry) are "way ahead" of our enemies.]

2. Sunbeds are a SUPERB source of the wavelengths of UVR that stimulate the production of pre-vitamin D! (More about this later.)

[Note: The “advantage” that sunbeds have over sunlight is that (1) they provide a constant and consistent source of vitamin D stimulating energy every day of the year, no matter the season, weather or time of day and (2) there is much less potential for sun burning because the “variables” are controlled. In fact, if you would set out to “invent” the ideal system to be used to help the American public attain and maintain the benefits of optimal vitamin D levels with the least amount of risk, you would end up with something very much like a modern sunbed!]

3. Although the medical community and the pharmaceutical companies working feverishly to develop "vitamin D analogs" don't want to admit it, NONE of the analogs (to date) have solved the "safety" issue; indeed, all forms of vitamin D other than the cutaneously produced form, ARE TOXIC at high doses!

The "good news" is that we can "sit back and chuckle" as we watch the dermoterrorists™ try to have their cake and eat it too in their "scramble" for control of the lucrative vitamin D "analog" business. They will now say that a "little bit" of UVR is OK ("0.3 MED over 15% of the body surface" but continue to say that patronizing an indoor tanning salon or "sun bathing" will give EVERYONE who does so skin cancer. Thus, their "real message" will become "closer" to ours (i.e., that the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible controlled exposure to UVR outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved) than to their previous position (i.e., that "any and all" UVR exposure was the bad, badder and baddest thing anyone could do).

Funny how "what goes around comes around" isn't it!

Don