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

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

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:
* w w w .mpip.org/bb/shtml/389215.shtml
Last month's follow up to the 4th annual discussion: "Is melanoma
simply a vitamin D deficiency cancer?"

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

On Jul 18, 11:02 am, James Semmel <feetb...@shoebusters . com > 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: * w w w .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).

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

On Jul 18, 11:02 am, James Semmel <feetb...@shoebusters . com > wrote:
> TO: All melanoma researchers, doctors, and patients.
>

> 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?
>


Babies get their supply of "Vitamin D" straight from the mother's
blood in the form of 1,25[OHD] and as such do not need to synthesize
their own until after birth.