At the end of May 2023, the New York Times published an article with the headline: “How to get absolutely no sun this summer“ [1]. Unfortunately, the post is behind a payment barrier.
What is the optimal protection against the evil sun?
It begins with the statement that there is no such thing as “safe sunbathing.” A doctor from an American children’s hospital writes something similar in her article (no date given) [2]. Here she writes what everyone needs to know about sun safety: that there is no safe level of sun exposure.
The New York Times warns that even minimal sun exposure leads to skin spots, premature skin aging and skin cancer. But you can protect yourself optimally against it.
The doctor from the children’s hospital recommends smearing all your noses with sun oil/sun cream that has a protection factor of 30 or more. And the first use of these oils/creams should be 20 minutes before leaving the house.
The New York Times recommends exactly the same thing. The “sun protection” should be reapplied every 2 hours, to every scrap of skin, including hands and the tips of the ears. Plus equipment consisting of a hat, top with long sleeves and an umbrella.
One would think that this “knight’s armor” against the sun sets up a similar panic scenario to the “protective measures” against Covid-19, which were also not protective enough. The parallels are hard to miss.
And the parallels become even more concrete, because the “New York Times” even recommends masks that “protect” the entire face up to the eyes, as well as appropriate headgear, gloves, sunglasses, etc.
With such a hassle, it’s better to just stay at home. Because this “advice” does not (yet) apply to interior spaces. But what is not, can still become.
And don’t forget to apply cream! Every 2 hours, very important!
Our doctor from the children’s hospital anticipates a popular criticism that accuses “sunscreen” products of preventing vitamin D production through their use. She is of the opinion that these are “new allegations”. Perhaps this is information that is new to the doctor. She says the idea of spending short periods of time in the sun without “sunscreen” to produce vitamin D is medically unfounded. This view may be medically unfounded, but it is scientifically proven. Here you can also see how little science has found its way into medicine, especially on this topic.
The solution she has for vitamin D is to get your vitamin D from food and supplements, but not from the sun. Great!
I wrote about how great the “sunscreens” are in this post:
Apparently, to the journalists of the New York Times and the doctors, there are no chemicals in the “sunscreens” that are more likely to cause skin intolerance and skin cancer than those caused by the sun. It is therefore important to take a closer look at sunscreens before using them.
By the way: If you are interested in this kind of information, then be sure to request my practice newsletter with the “5 miracle cures”:
Small note: The “5 miracle cures” thing is by far the most popular newsletter that my patients like to read…
The sun and skin cancer
In the following article I put forward the strong thesis that vitamin D is involved in the prevention of various forms of cancer, including skin cancer: Sun worshipers live longer – Or: can too much sun be a sin?
On a typical sunny day, the organism produces around 25,000 units of vitamin D, which has cancer-preventing effects [3]. In other words, people who don’t go out in the sun because they believe doctors from children’s hospitals and the New York Times increase their chances of getting cancer.
No wonder that the vitamin D concentration of most people (especially after winter) is far below the already understated minimum value of 30 nanograms/milliliter (often only 20 nanograms/milliliter), which is then caused by such disastrous recommendations will be carried over into the summer.
Dr. Mercola et al describes this global vitamin D deficiency, which ranges from 40% to 100% [4]. It may now be “medically unfounded,” but it has been scientifically proven that a vitamin D concentration of 20 nanograms/milliliter in the blood is too low to guarantee people’s health and ward off disease. To do this, concentrations of 40 nanograms/milliliter and higher (preferably 60 and higher) would have to be aimed for.
It is now also known that serum concentrations of 40 nanograms/milliliter reduce the risk of cancer by 67% compared to a serum level of 20 nanograms/milliliter [5].
There is another interesting phenomenon that supports this idea: there appears to be a very strong connection between the incidence of cancer and place of residence relative to distance from the equator. Dr. Saladino says that as the distance to the equator increases, the rates of colon, breast, pancreas, ovarian, brain and kidney cancer increase at comparable rates [6].
Could it have something to do with the fact that countries near the equator experience more sunny days and more sun exposure, in the absence of idiotic New York Times-style protective measures that most people in that region couldn’t afford anyway? The fact that people in these regions generally have dark skin and therefore natural protection against UV radiation naturally helps in preventing skin cancer.
Therefore, the sun is only good if you don’t overdo it. Because according to Paracelsus everything is poison; it just depends on the dose. Same here.
Therefore, protective measures always make sense if you go out in the sun with a “pale face” on hot summer days. The rule of thumb is: only stay “unprotected” in the sun long enough to avoid getting sunburned. This may only mean a few minutes. Afterwards we go into the shade or it is advisable to get dressed.
Sunscreens only in emergencies and then only the variants that do not transfer any chemicals or nanoparticles to the skin and thus later into the organism.
Conclusion: The sun is more than vitamin D
„The identified messenger substances produced by sunlight include not only vitamin D, but also nitric oxide, dopamine, beta-endorphin, urocanic acid and glutamate. Vitamin D supplementation is not an adequate replacement for sun exposure… Our conclusion is that non-burning UV radiation is a health benefit.“
Scientists from the USA and Netherlands came to this conclusion in 2018 [7].
More comments:
By the way: If you are interested in such information, then be sure to request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. Clear edge.” to:
Sources:
Post image: pixabay.com – Alex_Fotos
This post was created on October 10, 2023.