Re: July 2007 monthly follow up: "Is melanoma simply a vitamin D deficiency cancer?"

On Jul 18, 11:02 am, James Semmel <feetb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?"

Babies get their supply of "Vitamin D" in the form of 1,25[OHD]
through the placenta so they don't even have to synthesize the active
hormone. They do not need to make any of their own until after the
blood supply to and from the mother is severed. Coincidentally that is
just around when their skin gets hit with light(ideally in nature).

.

Relevant Pages