Why light matters
Bone health is greatly dependent on quality light. We make Vitamin D through our skin when exposed to optimal levels of sunlight. Vitamin D is key to a proper quantity and balance of calcium and magnesium in the body, as well as a healthy balance of hormones. A growing body of research demonstrates that by increasing one's exposure to full spectrum light it is possible to optimize hormone levels in the body. Such balance is key to avoiding osteoporosis and fractures, as well as minimizing tooth decay.
Recent research has confirmed the essential role of Vitamin D in such necessary functions as insulin secretion, cancer prevention, bone health and hormone formation.
Historically, osteoporosis and age-related fractures have hit hardest at those populations who stay in the dark. Contemporary Americans and Europeans who stay indoors much of the time have much higher rates of osteoporosis than people whose lifestyle kept them outdoors or dependent on natural light. Between the 1950s and 1980s the incidence of hip and other fractures among the elderly in Sweden and England roughly doubled [1]. Only a century ago, we had no light bulbs at all, and we had no fluorescent lights until 50 years ago.
A nine-month long study of first grade children in windowless classrooms found that those under full-spectrum fluorescent lights had many fewer cavities in their newly formed permanent teeth than those under standard "cool white" fluorescent bulbs. It turned out that ten times as many children under cool white bulbs had new cavities [2]. Many fewer cavities were also found when incandescent bulbs, which are higher in red and infrared, were used instead of full-spectrum fluorescent bulbs. The authors also found that a broad spectrum of ultraviolet, red and infrared light was important for the formation of teeth as well as resistance to decay.
Animal studies have confirmed this. Hamsters placed under cool white bulbs 12 hours per day for fifteen weeks had five times more cavities and ten times greater tooth loss per cavity (a total of 50 times greater tooth loss) than those hamsters placed under fluorescent bulbs with ultraviolet added to approximate natural sunlight.
Furthermore, the development of the male sexual organs was only one fifth as great in those hamsters under cool white light as compared to those under full spectrum light. Of course, this result correlates with our knowledge that testosterone, a steroid hormone, is dependent on Vitamin D for its synthesis, a vitamin that we make from sunlight. [3]
It has also been found that the role of full-spectrum light benefits the eyes as well as when it strikes the skin. The natural light received by the eyes plays a vital role in body chemistry. The light received by the eyes influences the hypothalamus, which in turn influences the pituitary and pineal glands. The pineal gland especially is involved in our diurnal rhythms, and our lack of quality light through the retina may be the source of many sleep disorders that are increasingly common among people who are always indoors.
Much research on this subject has been summarized by the German ophthalmologist Fritz Hollwich, MD [4], as well as by John Ott, Hon. D. Sci., a researcher on the properties of light [5]. The array of bodily organs and systems that depend on full-spectrum light through the eyes is astounding. When the eyes are exposed to natural sunlight or full-spectrum light, the pituitary gland, thyroid gland, adrenal glands, ovaries, testes, pancreas, liver and kidneys all function better, according to the numerous studies presented in these two books. Full-spectrum light includes a balance of wavelengths from all colors of the visible spectrum plus ultraviolet and infrared. On the other hand, cool white fluorescent bulbs, which are now used for the great majority of interior commercial lighting, have strong yellow, but are very deficient in most of the other wavelengths, with no ultraviolet or infrared.
Unfortunately, however, UV light has received a bad name, primarily because of individuals who have a history of blistering sunburns followed by skin cancer. There has never been any research showing health benefits of blocking UV light to the eyes. However, it is now impossible to buy eyeglasses that allow full-spectrum light. All of the lenses made in the last ten years for eyeglasses are made to block UV light, even plastic lenses, which if untreated, would allow full-spectrum light. However, full-spectrum light to the eyes is necessary for proper functioning of ovaries, testes and thyroid, according to Hollwich and the research he summarizes.
Earl Staelin, writing in the current issue of the Well Being Journal, summarizes the recommendations of those who have studied light and its health effects, and recommends that individuals who must wear glasses try to get outdoors everyday for 20 to 60 minutes or more without wearing any glasses. If the weather makes this impractical, then it would be beneficial to try to function without glasses indoors under full-spectrum lighting, because the amount of UV light that strikes the retina from around the edges of glasses is insignificant compared to the large amount of light coming through the eye and through the lenses. The full spectrum of daylight need not come from direct sunlight, but is available also on a cloudy day or under the shade of a tree or porch. Glass windows however, do block out UV light, so try to get out in the fresh air if at all possible. On days when even this is difficult, there is yet another recourse, which is distilled cod liver oil. The distillation takes out mercury and other heavy metals, which are all too prevalent in both salt and freshwater fish. Cod liver oil is high in vitamins D and A. I take an average of 2 tablespoons a day, but for your optimal intake, depending on your sun exposure, other health conditions and weight, you should really check with your naturopathic physician.
- Earl Staelin, "The Central Roles of Hormones and Natural Light." Well Being Journal. May/June 2006. p27+.
- Mayron, Ott, Amontree and Nations, "Caries reduction in school children." Applied Radiology. July/Aguust 1975. pp 56-58.
- Sharon, Feller and Burney, "The effects of lights of different spectra on caries incidence in the golden hamster." Archives of Oral Biology. Vol 1, No. 12 1971. pp 1427-1432.
- Fritz Hollwich MD. "The Influence of Ocular Light Perception on Metabolism in Man and Animal." Springer Verlag. New York. 1979.
- John Ott D. Sci Hon. "Health and Light." Devin Adair Co. 1976.
The Best Healthcare Money Can Buy
Express the opinion that the United States offers one of the best healthcare systems in the world in terms of advanced treatments and you are not likely to get an argument. It is also true, as many are aware, that the U.S. healthcare system is one of the most expensive in world [1]. Simply spending a great deal of money on healthcare does not guarantee that you will end up with a healthier population [2].
Now in a new study published in the May 3, 2006 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association there is further proof that simply throwing money at the U.S. healthcare system does not result in a healthier U.S. population [3]. The study headed up by James Banks and Michael Marmot both of University College London along with James Smith of the RAND Corporation examined the middle age populations of both the United States and United Kingdom between the ages of 55 and 64. To remove any effects ethnicity might have only non-Hispanic whites were included.
In every sense the American population fared worse than the population of the United Kingdom. Americans have twice the rate of diabetes at 12.5% versus a rate of 6% in the English. Cancer was present in 9.5% of the American population as opposed to 5.5% of the English population. 42% of the U.S. population suffered from high blood pressure while only 34% of the English did so. Americans' cholesterol levels were 14% higher than those of their English counterparts.
The study went on to find some results that, in some sense, were unexpected. In both the U.S. and England those further up the socioeconomic scale fared better that those further down the scale; however, the health of richer Americans more closely resembled the health of low-income English. The overall poorer health of the Americans was in spite of roughly equal rates of smoking and a higher rate of heavy drinking among the English.
Jim Smith, one of the authors, commented that differences between exercise levels between the two countries might explain part of the health disparity but not all of it. Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health who was not connected with the study observed that differences in the social safety nets between the two countries might be partially at fault. "The opportunity to go both up and down the socioeconomic scale in America may create stress" according to Blendon, which partly reflects the government safety net the English enjoy but which is not present in the U.S.
- In terms of money spent the United States far outspends other countries. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2003 in dollar-adjusted terms the United States ranked 1st among 30 countries on total combined public and private enperditures on health, outspending its nearest competitor Norway by a full 25%. OECD Factbook.
- Again relying on the 2006 OECD Factbook, for all the money spent on healthcare in the United States using life expectancy at birth as a measure, the United States ranked rather poorly among the same 30 countries. Of the 30 countries in the OECD study the citizens of almost two dozen of the countries studied enjoy a higher life expectancy than citizens of the United States.
- James Banks, PhD; Michael Marmot, MD; Zoe Oldfield, MSc; James P. Smith, PhD. "Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and in England." JAMA. Vol. 295 No. 17, May 3, 2006
Did you know that we have in the U.S. ...
primary care physicians who not only have the training of conventional doctors (diagnostic testing, physical examination, prescription of pharmaceuticals, minor surgery etc.)
but have also been medically trained in botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, detoxification of heavy metals and other chemicals, homeopathy and other natural healing modalities???
Look no further: American Association of Naturopathic Physicians
Herb of the Month: Coconut
Coconut is usually thought of as a food rather than a medicinal herb. However, given the strong health-restoring capability of this plant, we are this month honoring it with our "Herb of the Month" designation.
Empirical evidence is now accumulating regarding the especially beneficial effect of coconut on AIDS. One man dropped his viral load for HIV in 4 weeks simply by drinking a glass of coconut milk per day. Both classes of his T-cells (CD-4 and CD-8) doubled in that time. He used no other medication.
Another man with AIDS had skin lesions all over his face, scalp and body. He could not afford the highly expensive anti-retroviral cocktails used as a standard treatment for HIV and AIDS patients. He was then referred to Conrado Dayrit MD, author of the first clinical study on the healing effects of coconut oil on HIV. The patient drank six tablespoonfuls per day of coconut oil and applied coconut oil onto his skin wounds. Within 3 days the first wound he experimented with healed completely. In a few months his CD-4 count was back up to where it was when he was first diagnosed. Then his skin completely healed. His pneumonia went away and his low-grade fever normalized. His appearance became so healthy as to defy his AIDS diagnosis, and he now speaks about his experiences to HIV+ support groups. [1]
No virus has ever been killed by any known pharmaceutical, but merely slowed in their virulence. Viruses such as HIV are encased in a fatty membrane. This makes them especially susceptible to the medium-chain fatty acids, such as those in coconut oil. In vitro, the virus is effectively killed when it comes into contact with coconut oil.
For the rest of us, without HIV or AIDS, coconut oil also has the effect of killing other lipid-coated viruses, including the measles virus, herpes simplex virus, hepatitis C and cytomegalovirus.
Coconut oil was also found to kill such bacteria, fungi and parasites as Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhea, Staphylococcus aureus, Helicobacter pylori, Candida albicans and giardia. [1]
As for Candida, this fungus alone is notoriously common and hard to eliminate. Our article on candida in October 2005 explains why it is important to eliminate this fungus as thoroughly as possible.
Coconut oil may now be found in most health food stores.
- Bruce Fife ND. "Coconut oil: a new treatment for AIDS." Well Being Journal. May/June 2006. pp.7-11.