Slashdot Mirror

https://www.vitamindcouncil.or...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

He has been demonstrating a need for vitamin D since around 2000 (before Holick).

Bottom line:
* Humans are adapted overall for an outdoor lifestyle partially clothed in the sunshine without regular bathing.
* Humans in industrialized countries now spend most of their time indoors -- or travelling in enclosed vehicles where glass is designed to prevent UV transmission to prevent faded carpets but not faded people.
* When humans in industrialized countries go outdoors they tend to wear a lot of clothes.
* Bathing (especially with soap) disrupts the formation of vitamin D by removing natural oils from the skin which are needed to make vitamin D.

Three other factors have made vitamin D deficiency worse:
* Dermatologists claiming time in the sun gives you cancer -- which is a half-truth because while sunlight can increase melanoma risk (a relatively easily treatable cancer), vitamin D reduces cancer risk for many cancers including melanoma -- which is why more office workers get melanomas than outdoor workers and why many office workers get melanomas in places they wear clothes.
* The USA RDA for vitamin D was set to prevent the worst cases of rickets not to ensure optimal health and so for decades has been ten times or more too low. Only recently has it been raised to perhaps adequate for infants but the RDA is still too low for adults
* Historically, a patent was granted for Vitamin D2, a synthetic and less effective form of vitamin D, and that was what doctors pushed instead of the better vitamin D3.
* In order to use vitamin D optimally, you also need a health diet like with vitamin K2 and other cofactors like magnesium, zinc, and boron -- and the standard American diet tends to be lacking in these.

Another complication: if a pregnant or nursing mother has low vitamin D her child will also have low vitamin D -- which may be a contributor to autism and other health problems for young children.

And yet another (politically charged) complication: people with darker skin moving far north or south from the equator are going to be even more impacted by vitamin D deficiency (e.g. especially Somalis moving to Minnesota who also wear burkas and have a high autism rate). Just like people with lighter skin who move to the equator are at elevated risk from melanoma. Skin color is adaptive for latitude (some exceptions being people who get vitamin D in their diet from fish or other animal products). However, this is made more complicated by uncertainty about whether vitamin D needs may differ in connection with other metabolic genes varying along with skin color genes.

Also, while vitamin D is the biggest immediate problem form lack of adequate sunlight, it is not the only substance our skin makes when exposed to sunlight -- so taking the right amount of vitamin D3 is beneficial but maybe not the entire answer.

Yes, there are now conflicts of interest by multiple advocates of adequate Vitamin D3 like with Holick or even now Cannell. But there still is a health crisis going on!

http://www.rebellesociety.com/...
http://www.wildcrafted.com.au/...
http://www.optimumhealthnatura...
"Putting chemicals on your skin is actually far worse than ingesting them. During the process of eating, the enzymes in your saliva and stomach help break these chemicals down and flush them out of your body. But when you slather these chemical concoctions onto your skin, they are deposited directly in your internal organs and body fat. And unlike things ingested orally, there is no "gate keeping" liver there to protect you from these chemicals entering into your body through your skin."

That's a rule of thumb, obviously -- everything has its limits...

Makes me wonder though if there could be any link between disposable diaper chemicals absorbed through the skin and autism or other early childhood issues?

Although, on autism specifically, see also:
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/0...
https://www.vitamindcouncil.or...

Sure, anyone can get cancer no matter how healthily they live. But modern medicine is so absurdly and willfully blind to the role of nutrition that these conclusions can be largely dismissed by anyone who thinks for themselves.

Oh, hey, trace arsenic cuts breast cancer by FIFTY PERCENT.

What's that? Lithium in drinking water is also associated with a host of benefits? Say it ain't so..

Gee, getting some sunshine / vitamin D can lower risk of pancreatic cancer??

I could go on and on but what would be the point.. supplementation and the like is at best psuedo-science in the eyes of western medicine.. it's much more profitable to engage in "sick care" than to actually equip our bodies with the things it needs at some single percent of the cost.

"Our Babies, Ourselves: How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Parent"
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Babi...
"New parents are faced with innumerable decisions to make regarding the best way to care for their baby, and, naturally, they often turn for guidance to friends and family members who have already raised children. But as scientists are discovering, much of the trusted advice that has been passed down through generations needs to be carefully reexamined.
A thought-provoking combination of practical parenting information and scientific analysis, Our Babies, Ourselves is the first book to explore why we raise our children the way we do--and to suggest that we reconsider our culture's traditional views on parenting.
In this ground-breaking book, anthropologist Meredith Small reveals her remarkable findings in the new science of ethnopediatrics. Professor Small joins pediatricians, child-development researchers, and anthropologists across the country who are studying to what extent the way we parent our infants is based on biological needs and to what extent it is based on culture--and how sometimes what is culturally dictated may not be what's best for babies.
Should an infant be encouraged to sleep alone? Is breast-feeding better than bottle-feeding, or is that just a myth of the nineties? How much time should pass before a mother picks up her crying infant? And how important is it really to a baby's development to talk and sing to him or her?
These are but a few of the important questions Small addresses, and the answers not only are surprising but may even change the way we raise our children."

John Holt and Pat Farenga are worth reading too, about "unschooling" as essentially "give your kids all the freedom you can stand, especially in following their own educational interests".
http://www.johnholtgws.com/pat...

Although, I personally feel the more extreme form of "radical unschooling" as some (not all) practice it is like the libertarianism of parenting, emphasizing freedom over all other virtues... Kids are indeed "learning all the time" but the quality of what they are learning can matter too. Also, "supernormal stimuli" of certain media and certain foods may need to be avoided or limited for health reasons because to help kids avoid or recover from "the pleasure trap".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...

Also related on Myers-Briggs for both parent and child to look at various matchups:
http://www.motherstyles.com/

And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

That page talks a lot about Authoritative, Authoritarian, Permissive and Neglectful styles. But the page goes into more types than that (including "attachment" parenting which may be close to the human historical norm within hunter/gatherer tribes where it sounds like a crying baby was rare).

By the way, kids can be much more a discipline problem when fed junk, not fed enough fruits and vegetables, lacking in sunlight, lacking in good gut bacteria, lacking in exercise, overstressed by an early focus on academics instead of play, saturated by violent and sexualized media, and so on. See also:
https://www.drfuhrman.com/chil...
https://www.vitamindcouncil.or...
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/0...
http://www.chrismercogliano.co...

Assange may well not be around for much longer without access to sunlight or at least supplementing with vitamin D. The article says: "Asked about his health, Assange said anyone would be affected by spending two years in a building with no outside areas or direct sunlight, a complaint he has made several times before."

According to these, he probably needs on the order of 2000-5000 IU Vitamin D3 daily as supplements:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...

He might need more for a while to catch up if he is already severely vitamin D deficient. The US RDA for vitamin D for most adults is about 5X-10X too low, so generally you don't get enough from food. Many indoor workers are vitamin D deficient these days, given we usually work, play, and commute inside something with windows that block UV-B radiation. Our carpets maybe won't fade from filtered sunlight, but our health will.

However, we don't know all the compounds that the human skin makes in response to sunlight. He might want to look into using special purpose UV-B lamps as well. Mercola talks about that:
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

There are some rare health conditions like sarcoidosis that make vitamin D supplements problematical, so if he has any special health issues like that, he should talk to a knowledgeable doctor before supplementing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
"This was a 4-y, population-based, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was fracture incidence, and the principal secondary outcome was cancer incidence."

Eating a lots of vegetables and fruits and mushrooms can also reduce cancer risk (see Dr. Joel Fuhrman's summary works like "Eat To Live" with many references). I've found by eating more fruits and vegetables that my skin tone has changed from pale to having more color (even in winter). Adequate iodine can also help prevent cancer.

Reducing risk of incidence is not the same as cure though. Sorry to hear about you father getting cancer. Once you get cancer, everything is iffy, so cancer is best avoided preventatively. Fasting may also help in some cancer situations, and it also helps with chemotherapy by protecting cells from the toxic chemicals (since fasting seems to causes many normal cells to go into a safe survival mode but cancer cells generally do not). And eating better may hope prevent recurrence. In general, the human body is always developing cancerous cells, but generally they are dealt with by the immune system. So boosting the immune system could help with some cancers and there are many ways to do that -- but again, it is all iffy once cancer is established.

See also for other ideas:
http://science-beta.slashdot.o...

I agree supplements and natural sunlight are probably better choices than tanning beds --although there may still be unknowns about how the skin reacts to sun or tanning beds and produces many compounds vs. supplements. I also agree conventional tanning beds are not tuned to give lots of vitamin D.That is unfortunate, even if they produce some. See also about other tanning choices (and supplement suggestions):
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
"If you choose to use a tanning bed, the Vitamin D Council recommends using the same common sense you use in getting sunlight. This includes:
Getting half the amount of exposure that it takes for your skin to turn pink.
Using low-pressure beds that has good amount of UVB light, rather than high-intensity UVA light."

BTW, if you look into chemotherapy for cancer, for many cancers you'll find it is of questionable value relative to the costs both in money and suffering, where is on average may add at most a couple months of life on average if that. Chemotherapy can apparently even sometimes make cancer worse:
http://www.nydailynews.com/lif...
"The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival."

It's hard to know who to trust regarding medical research results or interpretations:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-j...
"The problems I've discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. (Marcia Angell)"

Good luck sorting it all out. I've suggested creating better tools for medical sensemaking, but still not time to work on them...

http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/1...
"The mitochondrial dysfunction identified in the JAMA study I've been talking about is ultimately only one downstream symptom of many upstream causes. Other researchers have found systemic inflammation,(ix) brain inflammation,(x) gut inflammation,(xi) elevated levels of toxins and metals, gluten and casein antibodies,(xii) nutrient deficiencies including omega-3 fats,(xiii) vitamin D,(xiv) zinc, and magnesium, and collections of metabolic dysfunction related to quirky genes that make it difficult to perform chemical reactions essential for health in the body such as methylation and sulfation.(xv)
    The take home message here is that the answer to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders will not be found in one of these factors, but in all of them taken together in varying degrees in each individual. There is no such thing as "autism." Rather there are "autisms"--different patterns of biological dysfunction unique to each child that result in multiple insults to the brain that all manifest with symptoms we call autism."

Also:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/0...
"To further validate their theories, the researchers cited a study involving Somali mothers, who naturally absorb less sunlight due to their dark skin pigmentation. When they moved north to Stockholm, a less-sunny region, they were found to be 4.5 times more likely to have autistic children, compared to the the country's lighter-skinned natives."

Also may help:
https://www.drfuhrman.com/chil...

Good luck!

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/1...
https://www.drfuhrman.com/chil...

That said, there are other factors besides sunlight and poor diet (esp. junk food additives etc.) as well as other odd factors like too much vitamin A relative to vitamin D in supplements. Society was more formally structured (with "manners") decades ago, which made it easier to navigate for people on the autistic spectrum. Kids were allowed to be kids a lot more. Mothers spent more time with young kids (including working from home together on farms) rather than farming young kids out to day care and preschool all day. And so on.
http://www.thewaronkids.com/
http://www.chrismercogliano.co...

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/1...
https://www.drfuhrman.com/chil...

That said, there are other factors besides sunlight and poor diet (esp. junk food additives etc.) as well as other odd factors like too much vitamin A relative to vitamin D in supplements. Society was more formally structured (with "manners") decades ago, which made it easier to navigate for people on the autistic spectrum. Kids were allowed to be kids a lot more. Mothers spent more time with young kids (including working from home together on farms) rather than farming young kids out to day care and preschool all day. And so on.
http://www.thewaronkids.com/
http://www.chrismercogliano.co...

http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...

Of course, that goes for most indoor workers in general, from lack of direct sunlight. But it might be a bit more extreme for those working underground, who might be less likely to take lunch breaks up in the sunlight.

which have helped with her own ASD kid (whether vaccines played a role or not): http://www.generationrescue.or...
"5. Explore an Allergen Free Diet
Improvement has been seen with the removal of certain allergens such as gluten, casein, or soy from the diet. Explore a variety of special diets, including the gluten-free, casein-free diet and other allergen free diets through the following resources:
Explore the the gluten-free, casein-free diet
Body ecology diet
Elimination diet
Rotation diet
Other allergen free diet
6. Consider Supplementation with multi-vitamins and other beneficial nutritional support
Multi-vitamins and multi-minerals
Probiotics
Digestive enzymes
Fish oils
MB12
Natural detoxifiers
Anti-virals
Anti-fungals
Anti-yeasts"

See also:
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/1...
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...

I agree with your point about conflict of interest, which I mention in other replies. Does look like US military personnel get little choice about orders to be vaccinated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
http://thinktwice.com/military...

That all may well have some truth. Also, many decades ago, social roles and courtship procedures were more clearly defined (as "manners", and also religious systems). So, it may have been easier back then for Aspies to marry at a younger age with less unstructured social situations to navigate?

Still, another factor could be that vitamin D deficiency may also cause autism, and I wonder if older parents may spend less time outdoors in the sun and so have their young child outdoors less? Older skin also has more trouble making vitamin D. And certainly many Aspies may have intense indoor hobbies and jobs.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

This recent study somewhat questions the link through for mothers and kids though (except they cite the population mean which itself seems to be low, which may confound the study IMHO):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Contrast with supplements needed to adjust for our indoor lifestyle:
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...

Maybe also of interest on the implications of living in a world with so many artificial toxins in the air and food (like lead and artificial colors) -- where a lack of things like vitamin D and iodine make it harder for kids to deal with the toxins:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Anyway, a complex topic, with pros and cons about everything relative to different situations.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/04/22/head-of-cdc-admits-on-cnn-that-vaccines-can-trigger-autism.aspx
"Recently Julie Gerberding, the head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), appeared on Dr. Sanjay Gupta's show House Call and explained that vaccines can trigger autism in a vulnerable subset of children. This is the claim that many parents have been making since at least the 1980s, and they have been dismissed and even mocked for making it."

At three minutes in, specifically, she suggests a stress could trigger autism, and such a stress could be a fever resulting from a vaccination injection, the result of which in children who are predisposed by a mitochondrial disorder could thus set off the symptoms of autism...

See also though, along the lines you suggest, for other more likely and more frequent causes of autism though, such as vitamin D deficiency and food additives and so on:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/autism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

Dr. Julie Gerberding has since left her position as head of the CDC and is now the president of Merck's Vaccine division. As you point out, people against vaccines also may have financial interests at stake (book sales, medical practices, product sales, etc.). Whatever one can say about vaccines, certainly understanding the conflicts of interest and weasel words pervading the whole field seems like a huge job...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Gerberding

To build on some other suggestions in comments to this article, since getting enough vitamin D, eating more vegetables, avoiding dairy, getting exercise, nursing children past age two, and so on have been proven to often improve health and increase disease resistance in humans, it seems like any family which is not doing all of those things is putting the community at risk. So, the question is, should we legally enforce "BlueZones" and "Nutritarianism" on the world in order to protect those with compromised immune systems because they avoid sunlight, eat poorly, don't exercise, were bottle-fed, and so on?
http://www.bluezones.com/
http://www.drfuhrman.com/children/default.aspx

Maybe we should start by cracking down on luncheonmeat consumers? :-)
http://www.ehow.com/info_8360513_luncheon-meat-dangers.html
http://institutefornaturalhealing.com/2012/04/processed-meats-declared-too-dangerous-for-human-consumption/

At the very least, as a deterrent to creating health hazards for themselves and others, perhaps people who admit to having eaten processed meats (or who otherwise can be identified by credit card purchase records) probably should not have any possibly related medical conditions covered by insurance?

The medical literature is very messy, for lots of reasons, such as expressed in quotes I've collected here:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science

It would help to have better tools to use to wade through all the muck (including for detecting statistical fallacies as the grandparent post by "Todd Knarr" points out). Some suggestion

VItamin D deficiency, lack of phytonutrients, lack of iodine, lack of omega-3s, excessive preformed vitamin A, lack of early breastfeeding, lack of exercise to move lymph around, artificial ingredients in food, food allergies or lactose intolerance, environmental toxins including heavy metals, and so on could all contribute to weakened immune systems and a build up of toxins in the body leading to mental dysfunction (relative to a historic normal). Examples:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/autism/
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/12/09/breakthrough-discovery-on-the-causes-of-autism/
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/adhd-dr-fuhrmans-antiadhd-plan.html

In that mess of possibilities, some small quantity of mercury, aluminum, and other toxins from vaccines is possibly just one more drop in the bucket. Ideally, the bucket is constantly getting emptied by the body (including through the immune system and other cleaning systems) so it does not overflow and lead to things like mitochondrial dysfunction.

But some stuff, like vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy and the first few years, is structural about how the brain is wired.

Many people have reported success making thing somewhat better with the above approaches to addressing autism (beyond behavioral approaches as well, like training to read facial expressions better). The oft-vilified on Slashdot Jenny McCarthy's "Generation Rescue" website has some success stories of improvements via better diet and other interventions:
http://www.generationrescue.org/recovery/stories-of-recovery/

Whatever one thinks of the vaccine connection, eating better generally is unlikely to hurt. Although I'd look to someone like Dr. Fuhrman or Dr. Hyman for better general dietary advice than just "gluten/casein free', even as food allergies may be a piece of the puzzle for some kids labelled autistic.

I agree though that parents and guardians of autism spectrum children may often feel desperate, and that is, as you say, a risk for getting preyed on in some way (whether by alternatives or the mainstream).

Good luck with your grandson! Hopefully he can learn to make the most of his unique strengths and connections as "Positive psychology".

Today's schools have become so different from those of a generation ago, making all this even harder. Watch out for "the war on kids", especially the push in many schools to drug boys for wanting to be outside in the sunshine running around playing:
http://www.thewaronkids.com/

unless they have a contraindication like sarcoidosis: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/

Humans are adapted to live in the sunshine. The US RDA for vitamin D is way too low for most adults, especially ones who spend most of their time indoors these days (which is most everyone in the USA): http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

It's not surprise Assange has lung issues if he has become vitamin D deficient: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/pneumonia/

If you have allergies, look into adding more phytonutrients to your diet along with the vitamin D.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Other.aspx
"If allergies are the problem, have you ever thought why your immune system is so sensitive and reactive to normal environmental substances?
    Patients often state, “I struggled for years with pain and fatigue, until I finally found out fibromyalgia was my problem.” Does giving it a name establish a cause? Of course not. If you give the problem a name, patients may feel a little relieved that they now know what is wrong, but it usually does not help or solve their condition. The accuracy of the diagnosis is not as important when compared to the accuracy and effectiveness of the therapeutic recommendations for the problem.
    On a practical level, the name of a disease doesn’t even matter that much. It is uncovering the cause of the disease that matters. When most of the causes are uncovered and removed, the body can manifest a recovery, all by itself. Most people are not taught, and they fail to realize that the vast majority of diseases occur because they are earned. They are earned by the causes of disease that stress their body to the point where their genetic weaknesses have a chance to be expressed."

unless they have a contraindication like sarcoidosis: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/

Humans are adapted to live in the sunshine. The US RDA for vitamin D is way too low for most adults, especially ones who spend most of their time indoors these days (which is most everyone in the USA): http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

It's not surprise Assange has lung issues if he has become vitamin D deficient: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/pneumonia/

If you have allergies, look into adding more phytonutrients to your diet along with the vitamin D.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Other.aspx
"If allergies are the problem, have you ever thought why your immune system is so sensitive and reactive to normal environmental substances?
    Patients often state, “I struggled for years with pain and fatigue, until I finally found out fibromyalgia was my problem.” Does giving it a name establish a cause? Of course not. If you give the problem a name, patients may feel a little relieved that they now know what is wrong, but it usually does not help or solve their condition. The accuracy of the diagnosis is not as important when compared to the accuracy and effectiveness of the therapeutic recommendations for the problem.
    On a practical level, the name of a disease doesn’t even matter that much. It is uncovering the cause of the disease that matters. When most of the causes are uncovered and removed, the body can manifest a recovery, all by itself. Most people are not taught, and they fail to realize that the vast majority of diseases occur because they are earned. They are earned by the causes of disease that stress their body to the point where their genetic weaknesses have a chance to be expressed."

I used to believe stuff like that about vitamin D and minimal sun exposure of hands in the winter, which I was taught in grade school. It turns out to be wrong. You may want to do some more research on this topic before making such confident (and incorrect) pronouncements on this topic in the future. See for example: http://gizmodo.com/5823058/tanning-can-cause-cancer-but-not-tanning-could-cause-a-lot-worse

Or from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2839537
"Sunlight has long been recognized as a major provider of vitamin D for humans; radiation in the UVB (290-315 nm) portion of the solar spectrum photolyzes 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin to previtamin D3, which, in turn, is converted by a thermal process to vitamin D3. Latitude and season affect both the quantity and quality of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, especially in the UVB region of the spectrum, but little is known about how these influence the ability of sunlight to synthesize vitamin D3 in skin. A model has been developed to evaluate the effect of seasonal and latitudinal changes on the potential of sunlight to initiate cutaneous production of vitamin D3. Human skin or [3 alpha-3H]7-dehydrocholesterol exposed to sunlight on cloudless days in Boston (42.2 degrees N) from November through February produced no previtamin D3. In Edmonton (52 degrees N) this ineffective winter period extended from October through March. Further south (34 degrees N and 18 degrees N), sunlight effectively photoconverted 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D3 in the middle of winter. These results quantify the dramatic influence of changes in solar UVB radiation on cutaneous vitamin D3 synthesis and indicate the latitudinal increase in the length of the "vitamin D winter" during which dietary supplementation of the vitamin may be advisable."

A fair-skinned person in a skimpy bathing suit under noon-day near-equatorial summer sun can produce on the order of 20,000 IU vitamin D (which self-limits in the skin when from UV) in about twenty minutes. A dark-skinned person will take a couple of hours to reach that level under those conditions. As the above paper suggests, in winter father from the equator, your skin will produce essentially no vitamin D. Reference:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-us/our-staff0/john-j-cannell-md/

Given the above, the US RDA of about 600 IU D3 per day for an adult of any size is just bad medicine, as is setting a tolerable upper limit of 4000 IU D3 daily (when that "limit" is closer to what the avergae adult needs). That is why you won't get enough vitamin D from food, because the RDA is about 10X too low for most people. A better recommendation:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

With our increasing indoors lifestyle, people became more and more vitamin D deficient -- even living in sunny places like Arizona or Texas. That was made worse by the fear mongering by the dermatology profession (with dermatologists as whole causing on the order of 10X the cancer they prevented plus a host of other health issues like autism with their well-meant but terrible advice).

Studies have shown a link between nutrition and depression. See, as one example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738337/
"Few people are aware of the connection between nutrition and depression while they easily understand the connection between nutritional deficiencies and physical illness. Depression is more typically thought of as strictly biochemical-based or emotionally-rooted. On the contrary, nutrition can play a key role in the onset as well as severity and duration of depression. Many of the easily noticeable food patterns that p

Adequate Vitamin D helps prevent some flu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_and_influenza
http://blog.vitamindcouncil.org/2011/12/07/the-difference-between-a-prophet-and-a-madman/

Adequate iodine may help prevent infections, too:
http://www.jmbblog.com/2009/11/iodine-the-forgotten-weapon-against-influenza-viruses/

So may eating a lot more vegetables:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cold-flu-flu-and-nutrition-dr-fuhrman-responds-to-comments.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_and_influenza
http://blog.vitamindcouncil.org/2011/12/07/the-difference-between-a-prophet-and-a-madman/

Adequate iodine may help prevent infections, too:
http://www.jmbblog.com/2009/11/iodine-the-forgotten-weapon-against-influenza-viruses/

So may eating a lot more vegetables:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cold-flu-flu-and-nutrition-dr-fuhrman-responds-to-comments.html

Any chance you made ofther changes in your diet and/or lifestyle about the same time?

If about fifty percent of medical staff avoid flu shots, what does that mean?

Example: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/research-reveals-link-between-low-vitamin-d-and-military-suicide/
"Research published this past week is the first to report that low vitamin D levels are associated with an increased risk for suicide in US military personnel."

Seasonal Affective Disorder is well known to be correlated with low sunlight levels:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/mental-health-and-learning-disorders/depression/

So, I can believe blue morning and red evening would help as mentioned in the article, but I would expect that the participants are getting vitamin d deficient too, because the RDAs are generally several times too low (at least in the USA, not sure about Russia). See also: http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

Example: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/research-reveals-link-between-low-vitamin-d-and-military-suicide/
"Research published this past week is the first to report that low vitamin D levels are associated with an increased risk for suicide in US military personnel."

Seasonal Affective Disorder is well known to be correlated with low sunlight levels:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/mental-health-and-learning-disorders/depression/

So, I can believe blue morning and red evening would help as mentioned in the article, but I would expect that the participants are getting vitamin d deficient too, because the RDAs are generally several times too low (at least in the USA, not sure about Russia). See also: http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

Could boys perhaps be more susceptible to vitamin D deficiency and mitochondrial dysfunction? http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

One of the reasons we homeschool/unschool is that school especially these days push intense academics on all kids way too early, and boys especially suffer for that. Echoing your point, at least one study I've heard of shows that the focus on early academics is depriving children of the early experiences they need in nature and with water and sandboxes that kids need to later have an intuition about scientific and engineering things (so that they know what the symbols for mass, force, volume, rates of change, and so on actually physically represent).
http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/services/recreation/gb/gb-playessentials.html
http://www.chrismercogliano.com/childhood.htm
http://richardlouv.com/books/last-child/
http://susanlemons.wordpress.com/category/early-academics/

And then the schools push parents to drug the non-compliant children...
http://www.thewaronkids.com/

Almost any school is filled with large numbers of well-meaning good-hearted hard-working adults who really care about children. The problem is they and the children are trapped in "an abstraction that has escaped its handlers":
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html

Here is a psychologist saying the only reason affluent kids do better on math is that their parents teach it to them since most schools are terrible at teaching it:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-schools

The iPad has a lot of math-learning games for it that your son might like. We just got several for our kid. Here is one:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/motion-math-wings/id508228412?mt=8

See also:
http://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-apps
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/tech/gaming-gadgets/ipad-autism/index.html
http://www.squidoo.com/ipad-for-autism

The directness of the interface is probably a big win for that situation.

There are lots of interactive online resources for learning math of course, and PC simulation environments like "Scratch", and lots of other such tools you can use together with your kid (like geometry related ones).

Just watch out from becoming even more vitamin D deficient by being even more inside using fascinating computing gadgets. A focus on early academics instead of outdoor play also harms kids in that sense. My speculation about that:
http://p2pfoundation.net/backups/p2p_research-archives/2009-October/005083.html

See also the writings of John Holt and Seymour Papert on math education, including Papert's idea that to learn any foreign language, whether French or Math, it is best to be im

Behavior therapy makes a lot of sense. It is amazing what the brain is capable of as it growns new connections. Other approahces like addressing vitamin D deficiency, vegetable deficiency, and other things like iodine deificency and omega 3 deficiency may help too, as can removing food dyes and artifical flavors etc... Good luck. Below are some links on those other topics.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/children/default.aspx

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/

Especially during pregnancy, due to our indoors lifestyles. There may be other causes too, including vegetable deficiency disease, but vitamin D deficiency is a apparently a big one. Other possible causes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

With that said, most people posting here are probably total hypocrites about health. They will go on about "herd immunity" and how immoral parents are who don't vaccinate their children for whatever reasons, but these same posters will then most likely eat junk food, pull all nighters, go to work and school when sick with the flu or whatever else, and not get a vitamin D test, and sit most of the day. Thus, such posters (or their children) will likely spread far more diseases than an unvaccinated kid who eats a lot of fruits & vegetables & beans, avoids junk food, gets enough vitamin D and iodine, stays home when sick, washes their hands, sleeps well, moves around a lot during the day, was breast-fed to age two years or beyond (see WHO guidelines), works or learns mostly from home, and so on. See also:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/shop/ChildBookReviews.aspx

The lack of critical reasoning on this subject on slashdot is also saddening, whatever the conclusion. The typical argument here on vaccine safety seems equivalent to someone saying, because the Intel 386 CPU did not have a floating point bug in 1990 and still runs OK now (some version of some vaccine did not cause a specific problem over the years), that means any CPU produced by anyone in 2012 can never possibly have any bugs and will run forever (all vaccine lots are always safe). That's just a nonsensical argument from a quality control standpoint, given many vaccine formulations and production techniques are continually changing. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

For all we know, the next lot of flu vaccine rush out could give millions of people AIDS because it was intentionally contaminated at the factory by someone. Specific vaccine lots may or may not be "safe" or "effective" either individually or in combination (ever installed one piece of software that broke something else?), but any discussion about the vaccine issue needs to be a lot deeper than what is apparent here, including issues of systemic risks from a single point of failure and the practical impossibility of providing several human generations of testing in advance when any lot of vaccine is released (especially when it is rushed out). A vaccine is not like a software patch than can be backed out, or in the worst case, be reformatted away. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40
"SV40 became a highly controversial subject after it was revealed that millions were exposed to the virus after receiving a contaminated polio vaccine."

Diseases are also continually evolving.

So much of modern medicine and modern science (as well as the holistic industries) is full of social problems that people on all sides of this question may want to do their own research and think more deeply on this topic. Some related quotes:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science

What's sad is that there are low hanging fruits (and vegetables) that could reduce so much disease in the USA and globally such as vitamin D and eating more veggies. Things like that protect against all disease, including emerging ones. Those basics are being ignored by a

reducing stress, being thankful, and more simple things that help prevent, and sometimes cure, cancer: http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823

Example: http://www.livestrong.com/article/251358-vitamin-d-and-brain-cancer/
"Another study found that three out of 11 patients with tumors went into complete remission after being treated with vitamin D."

See especially:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/brain-cancer/
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx

See Dr. Joel Fuhrman: http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cold-flu-flu-and-nutrition-dr-fuhrman-responds-to-comments.html
"The idea that a person eating a nutrient-rich diet is just as likely to develop and suffer the dangerous consequences from an influenza virus as a cheese burgers and soda eating American is simply wrong. More importantly such opinions are dangerous as they may lead to tragic outcomes for those mistaking authority for knowledge. Let's review just a few articles from the scientific literature that further support this concept that nutritional.excellence can offer protection from viral attacks. I will show the reference and post some explanatory comments below each reference. ..."

Numerous citations there.

Also, on vitamin D:
And: http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_influenza.html

Counter-evidence on vitamin D though:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/health/vitamin-d-colds/index.html

But elsewhere it's been said by Dr. John Cannell that vitamin D has only helped with some influenza strains and also by compairson that the amount in the previous study may still have been too low:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/news-archive/2009/h1n1-flu-and-vitamin-d/

Can you provide any substantial evidence to back up your claims to the contrary? Can you even cite any good evidence the flu vaccine to date has accomplished anything significant except put more aluminum in people's bodies? By contrast:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/307723/
"But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying -- particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized? The U.S. government -- with the support of leaders in the public-health and medical communities -- has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Other plans to contain the pandemic seem anemic by comparison. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And that unless we are willing to ask fundamental questions about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, we could find ourselves, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. ...
Jackson's findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the "frail elderly" didn't or couldn't. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all. Jackson's papers "are beautiful," says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. "They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done."
The results were

"If this was marketed at a consumer level one day, it could mean that diabetic patients wouldn't have to poke themselves on a daily basis anymore"

Or most Type-2 diabetics could just eat more vegetables and get enough vitamin D: :-)
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Diabetes.aspx
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/diabetes-and-endocrine-diseases/diabetes-type-2/

And pregnant women and infants could get enought vitamin D and may prevent Type-1 cases:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/diabetes-and-endocrine-diseases/diabetes-type-1/

I agree with you about the risks of needles though (including to medical staff who work around sharps and could accidentally get stuck by one and get a disease like AIDS). However, ultrasound may have its own risks, too. Have you ever run a stream of water into a sink and had one drop bounce out of the sink from some weird interaction of waves giving some small amount of water a much higher velocity than the total stream? Waves can interact "constructively" in odd ways in relation to resonance and other concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)

Whenever you inject macroscale energy into a system, whatever the form (heat, light, sound, etc.), you run the risk of resonance effects or other effects causing microscale damage. As another example, heat up the planet Earth, and you may get more hurricanes that rip the roofs off homes.

It's a question of risk vs. reward and for whom. Something does not have to be perfect to be better. The important thing is to fully understand the various tradeoffs and make informed decisions. It may well be that any risks from ultrasonic transdermal delivery of drugs may outweigh any risks relative to other options. Although, I'd still suggest eating better and having a healthier lifestyle and so on is, in general, better than taking drugs to paper cover up the symptoms of vegetable deficiency disease and sunlight deficiency disease. Like Dr. Joel Fuhrman says, a typical prescription is taken by most people as a "permission slip" to keep eating poorly or doing other problematical lifestyle things.

"If this was marketed at a consumer level one day, it could mean that diabetic patients wouldn't have to poke themselves on a daily basis anymore"

Or most Type-2 diabetics could just eat more vegetables and get enough vitamin D: :-)
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Diabetes.aspx
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/diabetes-and-endocrine-diseases/diabetes-type-2/

And pregnant women and infants could get enought vitamin D and may prevent Type-1 cases:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/diabetes-and-endocrine-diseases/diabetes-type-1/

I agree with you about the risks of needles though (including to medical staff who work around sharps and could accidentally get stuck by one and get a disease like AIDS). However, ultrasound may have its own risks, too. Have you ever run a stream of water into a sink and had one drop bounce out of the sink from some weird interaction of waves giving some small amount of water a much higher velocity than the total stream? Waves can interact "constructively" in odd ways in relation to resonance and other concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)

Whenever you inject macroscale energy into a system, whatever the form (heat, light, sound, etc.), you run the risk of resonance effects or other effects causing microscale damage. As another example, heat up the planet Earth, and you may get more hurricanes that rip the roofs off homes.

It's a question of risk vs. reward and for whom. Something does not have to be perfect to be better. The important thing is to fully understand the various tradeoffs and make informed decisions. It may well be that any risks from ultrasonic transdermal delivery of drugs may outweigh any risks relative to other options. Although, I'd still suggest eating better and having a healthier lifestyle and so on is, in general, better than taking drugs to paper cover up the symptoms of vegetable deficiency disease and sunlight deficiency disease. Like Dr. Joel Fuhrman says, a typical prescription is taken by most people as a "permission slip" to keep eating poorly or doing other problematical lifestyle things.

that may be the worst offenders: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/

This health disaster was made in part by a US RDA for vitamin D that was more than ten times too low for pregnant women, coupled with dermatologists and pediatricians frightening all parents about sun exposure for their children as creating a later in life risk for (generally easily treatable) skin cancer. Those two things together, along with an increasingly indoor lifestyle from all the fancy gadgets we have, have cause a expensive health disaster of unprecedented proportions in all industrialized countries. And it is not just autism, it is also cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, depression, and others. Diet is part of that too though, but lack of sunlight (or proper supplements) is the single worst part that is easiest to fix.

The La Leche league (pro-breastfeeding) also contributed to the disaster with saying "breast is best" while ignoring that if the mother was vitamin D deficient, she could not pass enough on to her children via breast milk. The have recently been improving on that score, but only after a vast number of children were harmed. Vitamin D was probably one of the few things infant formula got right (as bad as formula is in many other ways).

So, in that sense it was the most conscientious up-to-date parents, listening to their doctors and the government, that have been hardest hit by this disaster. The parents who did not pay attention to the dermatologists, who got sun tans themselves, who let their kids play in the sun a lot anyway like the parents did when they were young, their kids were probably better off in this sense. That is not exactly the irony you mentioned (various synthetic chemicals can indeed be bad for the health, especially as endocrine disruptors), but it is related.

See also:
"A Decade Of Vitamin D Supplementation Would Save $4.4 Trillion Over A Decade; Would Save $1346 Per Person Per Annum"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html

By the way, 100 years ago pretty much most of what most people ate was organic and vegetarian, so it is hard to call that kind of diet "modern" or a "fad". It is precisely because it is what humans are adapted for which is why it is healthiest to eat that way. What is modern and a fad is eating lots of fatty factory-farmed meat raised on pesticide-laden grains and eating lots of refined starches and sugars and eating stuff with artificial colors and such. In the past, only the very richest could afford that fancy stuff, and eating that way produced the diseases of kings, like heart disease, diabetes, gout, cancer, etc.. Now almost everyone in the industrialized world suffers from the diseases of kings, with most of us stuck in "the pleasure trap":
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

...both of the library variety and the hands-on variety in his practice. He cites thousands of reference sin his book "Eat to Live" and has had thousands of patients over his career.

Researchers at Harvard University have seconded the vitamin D deficiency hypotheses as a potential cause of autism.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/news-archive/2009/new-harvard-paper-on-autism/

Yet your post got modded +5 insightful. Still so much mis-info on slashdot about health... But I still feel it is slowly improving. And you are reasonable to be skeptical.

You might like this article critical of Dr. Hyman:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/09/08/dr-mark-hyman-mangles-autism-science-on/

None-the-less, if you truly are a hard-working skeptic and not just a lazy skeptic-of-just-new-ideas, the entire scientific enterprise has failed in several big ways in relation to medicine, as I quote here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
"Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors -- to a striking extent -- still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science."

So, it is hard to move beyond that. Look at what happened to the guy who suggested doctors wash their hands after dissecting corpses before they then deliver babies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
".. As a result, his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Other more subtle factors may also have played a role. Some doctors, for instance, were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands, feeling that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean.[7]:9[Note 6]
Specifically, Semmelweis's claims were thought to lack scientific basis, since he could offer no acceptable explanation for his findings. Such a scientific explanation was made possible only some decades later, when the germ theory of disease was developed by Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister, and others.
During 1848, Semmelweis widened the scope of his washing protocol, to include all instruments coming in contact with patients in labour, and used mortality rates time series to document his success in virtually eliminating puerperal fever from the hospital ward. ...
In 1865 JÃnos Balassa wrote a document referring Semmelweis to a mental institution. ... He died after two weeks, on August 13, 1865, aged 47, from a gangrenous wound, possibly caused by the beating. ..."

Cold fusion has gotten the cold shoulder too for twenty years...
http://pesn.com/2012/09/06/9602177_LENR-to-Market_Weekly_September6/

Who are the real charlatans of medicine?
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx
"In the most recent study investigators reviewed 61 trials, involving 25,388 patients, in a meta-analysis comparing angioplasty and stent placement with no treatment or medications alone. A meta-analysis pools numerous studies on the same subject. The findings indicated that there was no evidence that angioplasty and stent placement for coronary artery disease resulted in fewer heart attacks or deaths when compared to patients with the same level of disease who

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/

It sounds from those two sources like many cases of autism could be prevented by higher vitamin D levels of pregnant women and better diet, but in the first few years of life after birth, some aspects of autism can be reversed with vitamin D supplements and good diet. How far and for how many kids is still an open question.

Also of general interest on eating healthier:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/food-industry_b_1559920.html
https://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

"And you only need five minutes of sun light to completely restore vitamin D levels in the body. kids stand outside waiting on the bus longer than that."

I know that is what we have all been taught in school in past years. The problem is it is not true. Following that advice will lead to severe health problems. Here are better recommendations:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

The following is closer to the truth, based roughly on what Dr. John Cannell writes on his website:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-us/our-staff0/john-j-cannell-md/john-cannell/

For a light skinned adult human in a (skimpy) bathing suit under peak noon-day sun, that person will produce about 20,000 IU vitamin D (about 30X the US RDA) in about twenty minutes. For someone with dark skin, that will take two to four hours in a bathing suit. Any excess vitamin D beyond that will be broken down into other compounds that we don't yet fully understand the significance of (but may have health value). Meanwhile, the body slowly charges its fat soluble stores of vitamin D. But you may need to do that for months to saturate the body to the point where it will have a six to nine months supply (maybe longer or shorter) where you could go the winter without supplements.

For about half the year in more Northern latitudes, your body will not make any vitamin D at any time of day because the angle of the sun through the atmosphere means too much UV-B is absorbed for it to have much affect on your skin. Similarly, outside of peak sun hours, there is much less vitamin D produced.

So, while I was taught the same thing you said growing up, that even in winter your face or hands would produce enough vitamin D to get by, it just is not true. And that has serious implications. For example:
"Blacks more likely to die from cancer because of vitamin D deficiency, study finally admits"
http://www.naturalnews.com/036181_blacks_vitamin_D_deficiency_cancer.html

And also:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/introduction/

And on top of that, dermatologists and those who would sell cosmetics and sun screens scare people about sun exposure without telling them to supplement with vitamin D if they avoid the sun. And even if they told them to supplement, the US RDA is about ten times too low for adults (and in any case, you need a blood test to be sure of levels as different people respond differently to supplements). For children the RDA is also fairly low. For infants the RDA is OK. Basically, the RDA is almost the same for all these ages, but since vitamin D needs correspond somewhat to weight, that is why the child and adult levels are too low.

Conflict-of-interest is one reason the US government RDAs and other nutritional recommendations are often (but not always) so wrong, as discussed here with the USDA's recent absurd recommendations to eat meat every day:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/news-usda-dont-go-meatless-not-even-one-day-a-week.html

So that is why keeping kids indoor more will destroy their health (unless they take supplemental vitamin D, and even then, we don't fully understand all the supplementation issues). Many schools have already removed recess outdoors in order to have more time for in-chair paper-pushing academic work, and yet ironically the lack of exercise and sunlight may have decreased test scores as it decreases a child's general physical and mental health.

"Schools are not going anywhere. The need for social interaction while learning is common to all peop

"And you only need five minutes of sun light to completely restore vitamin D levels in the body. kids stand outside waiting on the bus longer than that."

I know that is what we have all been taught in school in past years. The problem is it is not true. Following that advice will lead to severe health problems. Here are better recommendations:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

The following is closer to the truth, based roughly on what Dr. John Cannell writes on his website:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-us/our-staff0/john-j-cannell-md/john-cannell/

For a light skinned adult human in a (skimpy) bathing suit under peak noon-day sun, that person will produce about 20,000 IU vitamin D (about 30X the US RDA) in about twenty minutes. For someone with dark skin, that will take two to four hours in a bathing suit. Any excess vitamin D beyond that will be broken down into other compounds that we don't yet fully understand the significance of (but may have health value). Meanwhile, the body slowly charges its fat soluble stores of vitamin D. But you may need to do that for months to saturate the body to the point where it will have a six to nine months supply (maybe longer or shorter) where you could go the winter without supplements.

For about half the year in more Northern latitudes, your body will not make any vitamin D at any time of day because the angle of the sun through the atmosphere means too much UV-B is absorbed for it to have much affect on your skin. Similarly, outside of peak sun hours, there is much less vitamin D produced.

So, while I was taught the same thing you said growing up, that even in winter your face or hands would produce enough vitamin D to get by, it just is not true. And that has serious implications. For example:
"Blacks more likely to die from cancer because of vitamin D deficiency, study finally admits"
http://www.naturalnews.com/036181_blacks_vitamin_D_deficiency_cancer.html

And also:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/introduction/

And on top of that, dermatologists and those who would sell cosmetics and sun screens scare people about sun exposure without telling them to supplement with vitamin D if they avoid the sun. And even if they told them to supplement, the US RDA is about ten times too low for adults (and in any case, you need a blood test to be sure of levels as different people respond differently to supplements). For children the RDA is also fairly low. For infants the RDA is OK. Basically, the RDA is almost the same for all these ages, but since vitamin D needs correspond somewhat to weight, that is why the child and adult levels are too low.

Conflict-of-interest is one reason the US government RDAs and other nutritional recommendations are often (but not always) so wrong, as discussed here with the USDA's recent absurd recommendations to eat meat every day:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/news-usda-dont-go-meatless-not-even-one-day-a-week.html

So that is why keeping kids indoor more will destroy their health (unless they take supplemental vitamin D, and even then, we don't fully understand all the supplementation issues). Many schools have already removed recess outdoors in order to have more time for in-chair paper-pushing academic work, and yet ironically the lack of exercise and sunlight may have decreased test scores as it decreases a child's general physical and mental health.

"Schools are not going anywhere. The need for social interaction while learning is common to all peop

"Toxic dose for D is less than 5 times the daily mRDA."

That comment on vitamin D toxicity is misleading, and that misinformation has caused untold huge amounts of suffering in the industrialized world. (Even ignoring that you have not specified a time period -- in one day, in one year, in ten years?) See: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/what-is-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-toxicity/

In general, Wikipedia medical information tends to be extremely mainstream, so you should be cautious when relying on it if you have a serious health issue. There is so much conflict-of-interest and group-think in the mainstream medical system that it is hard to sort through it all. Here are links to relations between vitamin D deficiency and mental issues (see the sidebar):
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/mental-health-and-learning-disorders/
And related to autism specifically, see:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/news-archive/2009/new-harvard-paper-on-autism/

To explore why your statement is misleading, first, here is what the US government says on vitamin D RDAs for reference:
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/
Also summarized here:
http://www.vitamind3-cholecalciferol.com/vitamin-d-rda.htm

The US RDA for Vitamin D for a child or adult (currently 600 IU per day, recently raised) effectively is the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult; how can that make any sense, given that vitamin D is used by every cell in the body? (The level of 400 IU D3 daily for a newborn infant is probably OK though.)

I am not sure what you mean by "mRDA" whether minimum RDA or maximum Upper Limit (UL). The maximum upper limit there is currently 2,500-4000 IU D3 daily depending on age (after being recently raised from much lower amounts) or about four to seven times the minimum RDA. Again, it is about the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult. (And that is after the maximum upper limit was recently increased a lot.) Those maximums for children and adults are more likely what the daily US RDA should be, and the real maximums are probably a few times higher than that for most people.

If you meant mRDA as minimum RDA, then your statement is just clearly wrong, because five times is pretty much below the upper limit now accepted as safe by even mainstream-conservative medical boards.

But, let me assume, charitably, that you meant maximum "Upper Limit" by "mRDA". So, you are then suggesting that the toxic level for vitamin D supplementation is less that five times the UL published by the Food and Nutrition Board, which would mean toxicity at 12,500 to 20,000 IU D3? But you did not specify even a time amount (per day, for how long?). It's been said: "The dose makes the poison." So it is hard to know what you mean by that. Charitably, let me assume you meant taking that amount daily over a period of several years?

But consider this. Most people with sufficient sun exposure in a day, like wearing bathing suit at the beach in summer in the USA around noon, will make about 10,000-50,000 IU D3 (in about 15-30 minutes if you are light skinned, and about two to four hours if you are dark skinned). That is between about 15 and 100 times above the US RDA of vitamin D. It is about two-and-a-half to twelve times the "upper limit". How can what you suggest (that a toxic amount is less that five times the maximum RDA which would be less that 20,000 IU, assuming the most defensible interpretation of what you wrote) be true then if the body makes so much when exposed to sunlight? It pretty much can't, at least not wit

"Toxic dose for D is less than 5 times the daily mRDA."

That comment on vitamin D toxicity is misleading, and that misinformation has caused untold huge amounts of suffering in the industrialized world. (Even ignoring that you have not specified a time period -- in one day, in one year, in ten years?) See: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/what-is-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-toxicity/

In general, Wikipedia medical information tends to be extremely mainstream, so you should be cautious when relying on it if you have a serious health issue. There is so much conflict-of-interest and group-think in the mainstream medical system that it is hard to sort through it all. Here are links to relations between vitamin D deficiency and mental issues (see the sidebar):
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/mental-health-and-learning-disorders/
And related to autism specifically, see:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/news-archive/2009/new-harvard-paper-on-autism/

To explore why your statement is misleading, first, here is what the US government says on vitamin D RDAs for reference:
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/
Also summarized here:
http://www.vitamind3-cholecalciferol.com/vitamin-d-rda.htm

The US RDA for Vitamin D for a child or adult (currently 600 IU per day, recently raised) effectively is the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult; how can that make any sense, given that vitamin D is used by every cell in the body? (The level of 400 IU D3 daily for a newborn infant is probably OK though.)

I am not sure what you mean by "mRDA" whether minimum RDA or maximum Upper Limit (UL). The maximum upper limit there is currently 2,500-4000 IU D3 daily depending on age (after being recently raised from much lower amounts) or about four to seven times the minimum RDA. Again, it is about the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult. (And that is after the maximum upper limit was recently increased a lot.) Those maximums for children and adults are more likely what the daily US RDA should be, and the real maximums are probably a few times higher than that for most people.

If you meant mRDA as minimum RDA, then your statement is just clearly wrong, because five times is pretty much below the upper limit now accepted as safe by even mainstream-conservative medical boards.

But, let me assume, charitably, that you meant maximum "Upper Limit" by "mRDA". So, you are then suggesting that the toxic level for vitamin D supplementation is less that five times the UL published by the Food and Nutrition Board, which would mean toxicity at 12,500 to 20,000 IU D3? But you did not specify even a time amount (per day, for how long?). It's been said: "The dose makes the poison." So it is hard to know what you mean by that. Charitably, let me assume you meant taking that amount daily over a period of several years?

But consider this. Most people with sufficient sun exposure in a day, like wearing bathing suit at the beach in summer in the USA around noon, will make about 10,000-50,000 IU D3 (in about 15-30 minutes if you are light skinned, and about two to four hours if you are dark skinned). That is between about 15 and 100 times above the US RDA of vitamin D. It is about two-and-a-half to twelve times the "upper limit". How can what you suggest (that a toxic amount is less that five times the maximum RDA which would be less that 20,000 IU, assuming the most defensible interpretation of what you wrote) be true then if the body makes so much when exposed to sunlight? It pretty much can't, at least not wit

"Toxic dose for D is less than 5 times the daily mRDA."

That comment on vitamin D toxicity is misleading, and that misinformation has caused untold huge amounts of suffering in the industrialized world. (Even ignoring that you have not specified a time period -- in one day, in one year, in ten years?) See: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/what-is-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-toxicity/

In general, Wikipedia medical information tends to be extremely mainstream, so you should be cautious when relying on it if you have a serious health issue. There is so much conflict-of-interest and group-think in the mainstream medical system that it is hard to sort through it all. Here are links to relations between vitamin D deficiency and mental issues (see the sidebar):
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/mental-health-and-learning-disorders/
And related to autism specifically, see:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/news-archive/2009/new-harvard-paper-on-autism/

To explore why your statement is misleading, first, here is what the US government says on vitamin D RDAs for reference:
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/
Also summarized here:
http://www.vitamind3-cholecalciferol.com/vitamin-d-rda.htm

The US RDA for Vitamin D for a child or adult (currently 600 IU per day, recently raised) effectively is the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult; how can that make any sense, given that vitamin D is used by every cell in the body? (The level of 400 IU D3 daily for a newborn infant is probably OK though.)

I am not sure what you mean by "mRDA" whether minimum RDA or maximum Upper Limit (UL). The maximum upper limit there is currently 2,500-4000 IU D3 daily depending on age (after being recently raised from much lower amounts) or about four to seven times the minimum RDA. Again, it is about the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult. (And that is after the maximum upper limit was recently increased a lot.) Those maximums for children and adults are more likely what the daily US RDA should be, and the real maximums are probably a few times higher than that for most people.

If you meant mRDA as minimum RDA, then your statement is just clearly wrong, because five times is pretty much below the upper limit now accepted as safe by even mainstream-conservative medical boards.

But, let me assume, charitably, that you meant maximum "Upper Limit" by "mRDA". So, you are then suggesting that the toxic level for vitamin D supplementation is less that five times the UL published by the Food and Nutrition Board, which would mean toxicity at 12,500 to 20,000 IU D3? But you did not specify even a time amount (per day, for how long?). It's been said: "The dose makes the poison." So it is hard to know what you mean by that. Charitably, let me assume you meant taking that amount daily over a period of several years?

But consider this. Most people with sufficient sun exposure in a day, like wearing bathing suit at the beach in summer in the USA around noon, will make about 10,000-50,000 IU D3 (in about 15-30 minutes if you are light skinned, and about two to four hours if you are dark skinned). That is between about 15 and 100 times above the US RDA of vitamin D. It is about two-and-a-half to twelve times the "upper limit". How can what you suggest (that a toxic amount is less that five times the maximum RDA which would be less that 20,000 IU, assuming the most defensible interpretation of what you wrote) be true then if the body makes so much when exposed to sunlight? It pretty much can't, at least not wit

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

Another indirect datapoint about the link between autism an vitamin D deficiency: http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/higher-autism-risk-for-march-conception/

It may also turn out that some children are better at dealing with excreting heavy metals and other toxins than others for whatever reasons. See also Dr. David Brownstein on Iodine and Dr. Joel Fuhrman on vegetables and children's nutrition.

A book on dealing with tough times when all else fails:
"Dark Nights Of The Soul: A Guide To Finding Your Way Through Life's Ordeals"
http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC

Good luck!

Please see my own reply to the AC, disagreeing in part and agreeing in part:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058445&cid=41052955

If you look into the science, you'll see there is plenty of evidence that things like cruciferous vegetables, vitamin D3, iodine, fasting, and some other things (including avoiding refined carbs and various toxins) can help prevent cancer, and in some cases even reverse it. But, it is indeed hit-and-miss once you have cancer -- prevention of cancer by such methods is much more reliable than cure, and it depends on the exact nature of the cancer. You can look at the evidence Dr. Joel Fuhrman has amassed in the book "Eat to Live" for a start. A starting point:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx
"As reported by the U.S. government and Center for Disease Control (CDC), cancers of the colon, breast, prostate and lung are the top four deadliest cancers in the modern world. After billions of dollars devoted to researching drug treatments for cancer and minimal increases in life expectancy for those undergoing chemotherapy for most common cancers, many authorities such as the National Institute of Health and the American Cancer Society, have been issuing a stronger voice advocating more preventive measures to reduce cancer incidence. Diet has become a key element in the fight against cancer.
The most recent scientific advancement in the anti-cancer research is the identification of specific foods and food elements that offer powerful protection against cancer. These foods are essential for both prevention of cancer and also increased odds of survival after diagnosis. Harmful foods and supplements have also been identified, and avoiding or minimizing these is equally as important.
Though most people would prefer to take a pill and continue their eating habits, this will not provide the desired protection. Unrefined plant foods, with their plentiful anti-cancer compounds, must be eaten in abundance to flood the body's tissues with protective substances. Vegetables and fruits protect against all types of cancers if consumed in large enough quantities. Hundreds of scientific studies document this. The most prevalent cancers in our societies are plant-food-deficiency diseases. The benefits of lifestyle changes are proportional to the changes made. As we add more vegetable servings, we increase our phytochemical intake and leave less room in our diets for harmful foods, enhancing cancer protection even further. Let's review some of these research findings and then review what a powerful, anti-cancer diet will look like."

Or lots of studies here for vitamin D helping with both preventing cancer and improving outcomes:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/

But, as I said in that other comment, we really need both better diets and better interventions for the times when that is not enough. One place working towards "integrative therapy" for cancer:
http://www.healingcancer.info/ebook/andrew-weil

But there is so much conflict-of-interest in the medical profession, it can be hard to wade through it all as a stressed patient or family member or friend; here is a related book by a former oncologist:
"Money Driven Medicine -- Tests and Treatments That Don't Work."
http://cancercaremalaysia.com/2011/09/02/book-review-money-driven-medicine-%E2%80%93-chemotherapy-for-non-responsive-cancers-%E2%80%93-denying-reality/
"Medical oncologists are paid almost nothing for talking with patients and their families. Their income depends entirely on the number o

"People do not want to admit that death==nonexistence so they make-up imaginary 'trips' to some other place (heaven, hell, Elysian Fields, space, whatever). In reality Sally Ride's personality dissolved into nothingness at the moment her brain's neurons broke connection with one another when they were deprived of oxygen."

For another perspective, see: http://noetic.org/search/?q=survival
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/tart/
http://physicalismisdead.blogspot.com/2012/05/charles-tart-on-postmortem-survival.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=charles+tart
http://www.amazon.com/States-Consciousness-Charles-Tart/dp/0595151965
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Materialism-Evidence-Paranormal/dp/1572246456
"Charles Tart reconciles the scientific and spiritual worlds by looking at empirical evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena that point toward our spiritual nature, including telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and psychic healing.
    Science seems to tell us that we are all meaningless products of blind biological and chemical forces, leading meaningless lives that will eventually end in death. The truth is that unseen forces such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and other phenomena inextricably link us to the spiritual world, and while many skeptics and scientists deny the existence of these spiritual phenomena, the experiences of millions of people indicate that they do take place.
    In this book, copublished with the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), transpersonal psychologist Charles Tart presents over fifty years of scientific research conducted at the nation's leading universities that proves humans do have natural spiritual impulses and abilities. The End of Materialism presents an elegant argument for the union of science and spirituality in light of this new evidence, and explains why a truly rational viewpoint must address the reality of a spiritual world. Tart's work marks the beginning of an evidence-based spiritual awakening that will profoundly influence your understanding of the deeper forces at work in our lives."

Sadly, it looks like Sally Ride might have died of sunlight deficiency and vegetable deficiency:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/pancreatic-cancer/

It may be too late, but you could tell your friend about vitamin D, iodine, and vegetables, fruits, and beans, as well as fasting, in preventing and sometimes curing cancer. I've posted many links on that stuff here in the past. Just google on those term and cancer, and look up Dr. Joel Fuhrman's work and Dr. John Cannell's work. Unfortunately, the best way to deal with cancer is to prevent it by helping the human immune system deal with individual cancer cells before they proliferate. Once you have cancer, things are pretty iffy. Fasting can also help in reducing nausea from chemotherapy. Good luck to your friend. Assuming the surgery is a success, exploring these things may help prevent a recurrence. Some links to start:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx
http://iodine4health.com/disease/cancer/cancer.htm
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080331/fasting_may_improve_cancer_chemotherapy
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting-cancer/

Unfortunately, instead of scientists studying what is proven to work (nutrition, fasting, and lifestyle) and then people lobbying to make good support for healthy choices readily available to all, scientists seem to be creating what could become the basis of a weaponized plague that evades the human immune system. :-(

"[I wrote: The placebo effect is real, it is actually getting stronger, and MDs regularly use it. So how can you say homeopathy, even if it were to be nothing more than the placebo effect, does not work?]
Hence the importance of the double blind experiment in medicine, which can control for the placebo effect. ..."

You totally miss my point. It is like I say, here is a design for an airplane made out of cheap easily available materials that can many people can use to fly across country (the placebo effect does heal some people, as you admit). And you say in reply, no, you can't use that airplane design because it is not made out of the right materials sold by official people in white coats who can patent it and make money off it and where it works a little more often (ignoring how many people have no access to that other form of medicine, or how that form of medicine may also introduce its own iatrogenic problems).

Consider the history of US medicine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report
"One of the consequences of Flexner's advocacy of university-based medical education was that medical education became much more expensive, putting such education out of reach of all but upper-class white males. The small "proprietary" schools Flexner condemned, which were contended to be have been based in generations-old folk traditions rather than relatively recent western science, did admit African-Americans, women, and students of limited financial means. These students usually could not afford six to eight years of university education, and were often simply denied admission to medical schools affiliated with universities. While many such doctors continued to practice, they did so under proscribed circumstances and for less pay. It also made it more difficult for people of color, residents of rural areas, and for those of limited means generally to obtain medical care in any form."

And these college educated rich white men used to recommend cigarettes and infant formula and all kinds of other stuff... And then persecute those who suggested otherwise, like Herbert Shelton.

Right now, US dermatologists have caused one of the greatest health disasters in US history by decades of telling people to avoid the sun without telling them how to get the right amount of supplemental vitamin D, causing untold cancers, heart attacks, autism, and probably much worse. They could cite studies, but they missed the big picture.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/news-archive/2006/professor-barbara-gilchrest/

"If you understood the nature of the double blind experiment, the statistically suspect nature of marginal or anecdotal results, and the need for plausible hypotheses to fit somehow into the framework of what we already know or be supported not by even ordinary evidence, but rather extraordinary, incontrovertible, reproducible evidence that has passed the most rigorous of public scientific skeptical scrutiny, you wouldn't be so quick to grasp at the straws of implausible, almost certainly incorrect ideas."

If you research the topic, you'd see that very few medicines are much better that placebos (a few like antibiotics or phage therapy are big exceptions). Even treatments that show a statistical difference often in absolute terms may help very little more than a placebo (think of anti-cancer drugs that extend life a couple months on average). This is especially true in the entire field of psychiatry. A 1% difference in outcomes for a treatment over a placebo can be statistically significant with a large population size and so enough to get a drug approved as better than a placebo (especially if you throw out the disconfirming studies), but it may still be not worth the trouble (or side effects).

"That you are so eager to do so says more about you and your penchant for wishful thinking and confirmation bias than it does abo

Free Google Books preview of that book by Nordenstrom: http://books.google.com/books/about/Biologically_closed_electric_circuits.html?id=zb-3YzIn4ZcC

There might well be something to it, but please also look into vitamin D and vegetables as a way to prevent or minimize cancer:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx

Please look into vitamin D deficiency, which is related to respiratory infections.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/infections-and-autoimmunity/common-cold/
"The risk of the common cold and influenza was studied in postmenopausal African-American women living in New York. Women taking 2000 international units (IU) (50 mcg)/day of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) had a 90% reduction in either disorder. Those taking 800 IU (20 mcg)/day had a 60% reduction. Vitamin D3 is a form of vitamin D produced in the skin. It is likely that vitamin D had similar effects on both viral infections."

Also, please be aware that surgeons want to cut, and often think that is the solution to everything. Even getting a second opinion from another surgeon may not help (because they want to cut, too). That said, surgeons can work miracles too -- when they are truly needed. Hope you get the right care for real problems.

Also, "starch-based" vegetarians can become pretty unhealthy, as opposed to most "vegetable-based" vegetarians. Mlik products many vegetarians ingest can also be problematical for many. Compare what you eat to this:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

Please have your wife talk to her doctor about a blood test for vitamin D deficiency (which is related to the immune system). Related:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/news-archive/2010/vitamin-d-regulatory-hormone-of-immunity-and-inflammation/

Please also look into the work of Dr. Joel Fuhrman, who is his first "Healthy Times" newsletter has an article about people coming into his office related to Lyme disease and feeling much better after they improve what they eat (much more vegetables and fruits and omega-3s and so on).
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/newsletter.aspx
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

Even if the issue is Lyme disease, vitamin D and phytonutrients help build up the immune system so it can fight of pathogens.

Also look into the book "The Lyme Disease Solution" by Kenneth B. Singleton M.D., which has sections about how sunlight and a better diet help with Lyme disease.
http://www.amazon.com/Lyme-Disease-Solution-Kenneth-Singleton/dp/1934812005

I agree about the computer-aided diagnosis. I hope some day we will have cheap tests people can do at home for nutritional status and vitamin D levels from a drop of blood, perhaps involving cell phones, as described here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/george_whitesides_a_lab_the_size_of_a_postage_stamp.html

Until then, please look into these issues for yourself and your wife (since you may be at risk as well if you eat in similar ways or have a similar lifestyle without immense amounts of sunlight).

http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823

Look into vitamin D, eating more vegetables, getting enough iodine, periodic fasting, omega 3s, and so on.

Regular exercise to keep lymph circulating and mind-body coordination (Yoga, Tai Chi) can help, too.

And social and psychological aspects make a difference too (especially in supporting good nutrition, adequate exercise, time for learning, and limiting bad stress).

The seeds of cancer are usually set decades before the problem emerges. The body is always getting cancerous cells; the issue is does the immune system fight it off. And the more reserve capacity a brain has, the longer mental decay takes to become significant and life-altering.

Sorry to hear about your father, but maybe these can help you avoid the same fate.

See also, not that it applies directly, but might be suggestive:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/new-study-finds-that-vitamin-d-may-help-in-treatment-of-pediatric-bone-cancer/
"Vitamin D can cause cancerous bone cells to turn into normal bone cells, according to research by scientists at the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC). The discovery may lead to new treatments for pediatric bone cancer, the scientists say. Recent studies have shown that vitamin D may be helpful in treating cancer of the breast, prostate and colon by inhibiting the growth of malignant cells. KUMC scientists built on that foundation, using tests to show that vitamin D produces a similar response in osteosarcoma -- a type of malignant bone tumor that mainly affects children and adolescents."

"Dr. Fuhrman Cures Type 2 Diabetes - But Drug Companies Object"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU

Still, true, some few people might have another immune disorder affecting the pancreas. Also, for anyone who does understand the diabetes field, it is clear that there are indeed two types (though they can be misdiagnosed) as far as whether the pancreas still is working much, so yes, some adults could get type-1 diabetes related to a failure of the pancreas (and I'm sure he would acknowledge that). He is very clear that his approach does not cure type-1, but can still give type-1 diabetics a vastly improved quality of life, including a longer one with much less complications.

Do you get the right amount of vitamin D?
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/diabetes-and-endocrine-diseases/

Do you eat enough vegetables?
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

Do you still eat sugar, refined grains, and refined oils, or essentially, nutrient-free calories of any type?

Anyway, maybe you could do more of your own research, given how much money is on the line with conflicts of interest, in terms of making a profit out of selling you medication and related services?

Pretty much nobody would substantially profit by curing you.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
"The problems I've discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. (Marcia Angell)"

Anyway, best of luck managing a difficult condition. My father took care of my mother's diabetes for more than a decade (with no significant complications) when she had diabetes and would even forget/deny she had it. But I still wish I knew then what I know now, about how it was most likely curable rather than having four finger sticks a day and three insulin shots a day (and I did that for a while for her after he died).

"I sometimes wonder why skin cancers are almost unheard of there."

Because the immune system needs vitamin D (from UVB from sunlight) to fight cancer cells. Some people (like Dr. John Cannell) suggest dermatologists have caused ten or more cancers for every melanoma they have prevented. Why is the melanoma rate higher for indoor office workers than outdoor workers? Dr. John Cannell suggests essentially that most dermatologists are guilty of malpractice because they have caused so much cancer and other health issues by scaring people about the sun without at the same time telling them how to be sure to get enough vitamin D. The problem is made worse by the US RDA for vitamin D being much lower than what most adults need (by a factor of 5 to 10).
http://blog.vitamindcouncil.org/tag/uv-light/

What you could also wonder about is how many cases of autism dermatologists have created as well, with links being shown between autism and keeping pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children out of the sun...

I've found waves of grief gradually get farther and father apart when a loved on dies (though this process may take a long time)...

Here are some general health tips I put together, on vitamin D deficiency and other nutritional deficiences given that health can effect mood: http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823

Here is some information about moving past addictions: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

Suicide could be seen as like a tree falling over in a storm. The trees that stay up in a storm tend to be the ones that are a bit flexible and have deep strong roots. What are the roots in your life (friends, family, hobbies, community, habits, pets, spiritual beliefs, good work, nature, music, and so on) and how can you strengthen them?

Please get yourself and your Dad tested for vitamin D deficiency... Look up Dr. John Cannell's site on that.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/

And check out Dr. Fuhrman's on eating more vegetables and fruits and gettign enough omega 3s:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/default.aspx

Exercise can help, too. You could talk to your doctor about juice fasting, too.

People might be better off if Facebook helped spread good health advice than just tried to pick up the pieces from unhealth living that is so promoted in our society (because addicting others is profitable to someone, often, and the basics of good health can be pretty cheap and profit less).

Good luck to you and you Dad. At least you can make the most of the time you still have together. That would mean a lot to him, I'm sure. And, in some sense, people remain alive when we hold a memory of them in our hearts.

That "vitamin" should have been "vitamin D".
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/

Vitamin D may help prevent autism too, if pregnant and nursing women (and young children) take the right amount.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/

That "vitamin" should have been "vitamin D".
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/

Vitamin D may help prevent autism too, if pregnant and nursing women (and young children) take the right amount.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/