September 24, 2024 • 56 mins
I cover the evidence for greater sunlight & ultraviolet light exposure & lower all-cause death. I also make the case for a decentralized approach to chronic disease prevention & management, and the role pharmaceutical industry influence in medicine.
This presentation was delivered for the Australian Medical Network, https://www.australianmedicalnetwork.com/. Head to YouTube to watch with slides.
Watch my podcast with Alexis Cowan, PhD if you enjoyed this presentation: https://youtu.be/EThEGCFfqdI
SUPPORT my work by purchasing from the following links:
🚨 BON CHARGE. Blue blockers, EMF laptop pads, circadian friendly lighting, and more. Code DRMAX for 15% off. https://boncharge.com/?rfsn=7170569.687e6d
🚨 CHROMA. Advanced photobiomodulation devices including D-light (Vitamin D-generating) & Lux vital with OPN3-5 stimulation, cold pillow for the ultimate night's sleep. Use code DRMAX for 11% off.
https://getchroma.co/?ref=i6p39fn0
🚨 MIDWEST RED LIGHT THERAPY. Blue blockers, photobiomodulation devices, shipping to USA. Code DRMAX for 10% offhttps://midwestredlighttherapy.com/affiliate/DRMAX/
#sunlight #decentralizedhealth
BYRON HINTERLAND RETREAT - Circadian Living by Regenerative Health Retreats
Join us July 17-20, 2024 in Byron Bay Hinterland, Northern NSW.
Only 6 tickets remaining. Secure yours here.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The title of my talk is Sunlight All-Cause Mortality
and Decentralized Health, andI'm going to walk you through
some of the medical researchthat underlies the benefits of
getting more sunlight exposure.
And the reason why I'm going todo that is because the
(00:22):
narratives and the beliefsaround sun avoidance are so
entrenched in Australia,particularly compared to perhaps
even anywhere else in the world, that I think it's important to
look at the data and look atthe research that we have to
support this idea that more sunnot avoiding the sun, is
(00:44):
actually a very powerful tool inthe toolkit of longevity and
health optimization.
So let's get started.
The overview a little bit aboutsunlight and death what does
the data say?
A little bit about vitamin Ddeficiency and, again, what does
(01:04):
the data tell us about that?
A little bit about skin cancerand a little bit about
decentralized health, and to meit seems like this organization,
diana, is really angled arounddecentralizing health and really
providing health information topeople, and I'm very much
aligned with that missionbecause I believe that that that
(01:29):
is an important way of ofgiving people the tools to
improve their own health and notnecessarily, uh, waiting for
that, uh for that, that thepractice to incorporate it into
a mainstream treatment approach,because the lag time between
research and translating intoguidelines can be a very, very,
(01:53):
very long time, and people don'thave a long time.
So I want to start with thisstudy and this is basically a
landmark study that wasconducted over a period of more
than 25 years and it was acohort study done by a bunch of
Swedish researchers in Sweden.
And what they did is they gottogether a whole bunch of
(02:18):
Swedish women and they askedthem four questions.
When they sat out with thisresearch question and simply the
name of the research studytells you a lot which is the
Melanoma in Southern Swedencohort they were looking to
essentially confirm thehypothesis that the women who
got more sun exposure were goingto get more melanoma and die
(02:42):
more frequently.
So to really answer thisresearch question, they asked
women four questions when theyenrolled them and then again
when they did some follow-upinterim analyses.
So what they asked is do yousunbathe in summer, do you
sunbathe in winter?
Do you go to tanning salons totan and do you travel overseas
(03:08):
to tan?
And they were expecting thatthe women, as I mentioned, who
had these greater sun-seekingbehaviors and they essentially
graded them by their responsesto these questions is people who
had higher sun exposure habits,medium and lowest sun-seeking
behavior habits.
So what they found wasessentially stunning to them and
(03:31):
was the complete opposite oftheir hypothesis.
And what they found and thesegraphs show the same thing in
different ways is that those whoavoided sun exposure, they
basically died at twice the rateof those who had the most sun
exposure.
And similarly, there was thisdose response, meaning the more
(03:51):
sun you got, or the more activeself-reported sun exposure
habits, the less you'll allcause death.
And that is that differencehere.
And mean survival was what theyessentially measured.
And this is really importantbecause death by any cause is
(04:12):
the hardest endpoint in thisfield of epidemiology, meaning
there's no faking whereepidemiology can be manipulated
in some way, in some regard, toserve outcomes, specifically in
the realm of nutritionalepidemiology, with things like
(04:35):
recall questionnaires and abunch of other methodological
slats of hand.
But this study controlled for awhole bunch of what we call
confounding variables that might, uh, that might suggest another
explanation or anothercausative factor for why these
women live longer.
But and they this is a veryhigh quality study, and what
(04:59):
they they concluded was thatwomen who avoid the sun, who
avoid sun exposure are atincreased risk of all cause
death, with a twofold increasedmortality rate as compared to
those with the highest sunexposure.
So, as I mentioned, this wascompletely opposite to what the
researchers were expecting.
So what else did they conclude?
(05:19):
Well, they essentially foundthat the avoidance of sun
exposure was a risk factor forall cause death, and this was at
the same magnitude as smoking.
What that translates to inplain English is that the women
who smoked but had high sunexposure habits had the same
(05:40):
mortality as those women whodidn't smoke but avoided the sun
.
So when we think about risk inmedicine and in epidemiology,
we're talking about risks.
What are the different risks orcompeting risks?
And that was a really elegantway to show that those women who
(06:03):
avoided the sun, that behaviorit suggested that smoking was on
par sun avoidance was on parwith smoking in terms of its
risk of all-cause death.
So this is something that youwill not hear.
You won't hear anywhere, really, because this was such a it's
such an impactful finding, butit really goes against a whole
(06:26):
lot of narratives.
And look, there are someallowances and I'll talk about
them soon particularly butthere's a lot of reasons why I
believe this finding isgeneralizable outside of these
Swedish women.
So they didn't focus on thecause of death.
However, the effect waspresumably attributed to cancer,
(06:47):
heart disease, um, andcerebrovascular disease.
So a reduction in those causesof death, because they are the
biggest killers and although I'mnot going to mention it, I'm
going to slightly touch on skincancer and, uh, skin cancer
doesn't is not a cause ofreduction of life and longevity
(07:10):
in an all-cause mortality pointof view.
So when we look at things thatare killing people, it is
ischemic heart disease, it'scerebrovascular disease or
stroke and it is internalcancers like colorectal cancer,
like breast cancer, prostatecancers.
So the way to look at this isan actual number or metric
(07:33):
called years of potential lifelost.
And if you compare the years ofpotential life lost to melanoma
and non-melanoma skin cancers,it is an absolute fraction of
the years of life lost to heartdisease, stroke and these
internal cancers.
So what this melanoma in Swedencohort study was showing was
(07:57):
that suggesting is that thosewomen who went out and tanning,
they traveled down to Spainbecause they were in Europe.
Obviously they were dying lessof these key killers in society.
And we know that there's aseasonal variation in both heart
disease and stroke, withincreased risks during winter
(08:17):
and spring compared to summer.
So the next question is allright, we've got this one study.
Well, where else do we have asimilar finding?
Because in science and medicinewe are interested in
repeatability and what thatmeans is say we observe one
finding, we want to see thatmultiple times in different
(08:37):
forms to confirm to ourselvesthat this is not just an
associational relationship, butthis is a causal relationship.
And the gold standard ofdiscerning cause in the current
medical paradigm is thisrandomized control trial.
(08:58):
Yet we can't randomize peopleto sunlight and low sunlight
because it's over a long periodof time.
It's just not possible.
So we have to look at all thesedifferent streams of long-term
observational data to kind ofget to a place where we can
decide about causation.
So this study was actuallypublished this year and the long
(09:21):
and the short of it is thatthey confirmed the findings of
the melanoma in southern Swedencohort.
So it was a UK cohort, it wasalmost 400,000 people and they
determined how much UV lightthat the people were getting,
and they did that by asking themquestions about sun exposure
and sun-seeking behavior, butalso by the latitude that they
(09:43):
lived and remember, the higheryour latitude.
So the closer to the North Pole, the less UV light there is in
winter and just generally.
So they followed them for 12.7years and, as I said, they
repeated these findings.
So those with the greatestsun-seeking behavior had lower
risk of all-cause mortality,cardiovascular mortality and
(10:04):
cancer mortality, and this wastranslating to about 50 extra
days of time of life.
That was the association, sothe English.
They're very happy about thatbecause they've repeated these
very important findings.
So I want to make this point.
This is an excerpt from thepaper and I'm going to read it
(10:24):
out.
What they found is that peoplewith more active sun-seeking
behavior and those living atlower latitudes had lower crude
mortality from cancers of thedigestive system, so bowel,
potentially stomach too, andbreast cancer.
They also had lower crudemortality from skin cancer and
that is a really important pointwhich suggests that even if the
(10:49):
incidence of skin cancer incertain populations increases
with greater sun exposure, thedata we have suggests that
mortality is lower.
And that in itself is atwo-hour talk, but a very
nuanced and interesting pointthat people I think will find
interesting and again, isn'tmentioned anywhere.
(11:11):
So what did these authorssuggest in the highlights of
their paper?
They said that there's benefitsof ultraviolet light for
several health outcomes.
They found that the higher UVexposures were associated with
lower all-cause mortality, asI've mentioned.
And what they say here is thatpublic health messaging on
(11:35):
sunlight exposure may needreconsideration.
And I think that is in thecurrent context of where we are
at this point, and particularlyin Europe because they have
adopted Australian sun avoidanceregulation and advice is even
more important and relevant.
But it is also relevant for usand I'm going to explain even
more why.
So these are not new findingsand this is a paper from 1940,
(12:00):
and it was written by FrankAppley and was titled the
Relation of Solar Radiation toCancer Mortality in North
America, and this is what wecall an ecological type of study
, and he basically looked at themortality cancer mortality in
the different states of the USand Canada and he plotted them
against how much UV radiationhits that area and what he
(12:23):
concluded.
One of the conclusions was thatthe total cancer mortalities of
the various American states andCanadian provinces are shown to
fall with increasing solarradiation and with the number of
people exposed thereto, and areindependent of the production
of skin cancer.
And this is showing that weknew even as far back as 1940,
(12:45):
that we knew even as far back as1940, however, 88 AD, four
years ago that this is abeneficial thing and that what
we can do is those areas withmore solar exposure is having a
meaningful health impact.
That was the suggestion of thisand that was the basis of
(13:09):
asking those questions of themore recent studies that I
raised.
So let's look at this anotherway.
So what I've got here is adiagram, and this is a little
bit scientific, but I wantpeople to understand this,
because what this diagram showsis that we make a very, very,
very, very, very, very, veryimportant hormone called vitamin
(13:30):
D on exposure to naturalsunlight, and this is
unprotected sunlight, and what Imean by that is we need
ultraviolet B light in this band, this wavelength, between this
wavelength band between 290 and315 nanometers.
What that will do is itessentially changes the
(13:53):
structure of cholesterol in ourskin to um, to a vitamin, uh,
this, this fat soluble vitamin.
Why I'm bringing this up isbecause if you don't get uh
enough uvb, whether whether youlive in a really high latitude
country area where there'sseasonal absence of vitamin D,
or you're simulating a low UVenvironment and you can do that
(14:18):
yourself you can simulate a lowUV environment by wearing
sunscreens, by covering up yourskin from the sun and by not
going outside.
So you can either live in anarea with low environmental UV
light or you can simulate thatin a place like Brisbane,
queensland, by specificallyavoiding the sun.
(14:41):
So what we know is that thisvitamin d level that you can get
measured from your doctor, it'sit's actually it's a proxy of
the total sunlight exposure thatyou had.
It's like a biomarker of of howmuch sun you you've got, um of
all wavelengths.
So what do we know?
Well, they've done meta-analysesand these are the highest level
(15:04):
of evidence again in thisparadigm that we're in and they
looked at all-cause mortality,again, death by any cause,
according to vitamin D levels,and what they found was that
people with serum vitamin Dlevels less than 22 nanomoles
had nearly twice theage-adjusted death rate compared
(15:24):
to those with greater than 125.
And again, another study thishas been known for a decade that
these authors studied thevitamin D levels from almost
close to a million participantsand concluded that 12.8% of all
US deaths, or 340,000 per year,and 9.4% of deaths in Europe,
(15:47):
could be attributed to serumvitamin Ds of less than 75
nanomoles.
So the hard stop here and I'vethrown a lot of science at you
but the hard stop and the pointthat I really want you to all
take away is that the greaterthe UV light exposure, the
greater sun-seeking behavior andthe higher serum and vitamin D,
(16:08):
which are all windows into thesame room, demonstrate that
there's less all-cause mortality.
So I really like how Dr JackCruz has framed it and this is
an explanation, and I'm notgoing to go in depth into why
this is the case.
I've done previouspresentations.
(16:29):
The most recent one on thistopic was in April at Regenerate
, where I talked about thelikely mechanism by which
sunlight and UV light isreducing cardiovascular disease
mortality, and you can get intosome somewhat complex mechanisms
, but you don't really need toknow that exactly how.
You just need to know that itdoes.
(16:51):
Dr Jack Cruz, who is one of themost, I guess, iconoclastic and,
frankly, brilliant thinkers inthis space.
He's put it a very elegant wayand he says longevity in humans
(17:11):
is linked to optimal solarexposure, and the reason is
simple.
This protects the seven layersof energy generation inside the
cell.
The more sun a human gets, themore diseases they can avoid,
and the number one risk of mostdiseases is age.
Solar exposure effectivelymakes you younger because it
lengthens the TET mechanismsinside of cells to improve the
Hayflick limit in all cell lines.
This is having an effect onlongevity and mortality
(17:36):
fundamentally because it isimproving the bioenergetics of
your cells.
That is how it's operating.
It is tuning and optimizingmitochondrial function and your
longevity is fundamentallylinked to how well your colony
of mitochondria, those tinyorganelles in all your cells,
(17:58):
are operating.
So when you're plugging intosolar radiation as an energy
source, you are delaying theprocess of decay.
Life is just or optimal.
Health is just the slowest formof death.
That's one way of thinkingabout it, and the sun is how we
(18:18):
harness that energy to die asslowly as possible.
So what about skin cancer?
And this is again a veryimportant question because we do
live in Australia there is avery high UV yield and there's a
high UV yield.
Not only is that relevantbecause it's high UV yield in
Africa there's high UV yield inmany places in the world but the
(18:44):
importance as it relates to ourcountry, in Australia, is that
there is a mismatch between theskin colours of the native
people, the IndigenousAustralians, who walked and
adapted here over 60,000 yearsand adapted to this environment
and subsequently developed deepmelanin, essentially highly
(19:07):
melanated surfaces compared to,I guess, the European arrivals,
immigrants later on, who areadapted to this northern
latitudes and therefore don'thave the melanin, uh, in in the
skin in the same amount.
(19:28):
To deal with this, this uvlight yield, um, however, what
we are being told and is that toto avoid the sun whenever the
uv index climbs above a three,then we are to employ this
five-step protocol slip, slop,slap, seek, shade and slide and
(19:53):
I agree with three of those,which is the slip, the slap and
the seek, especially for thesepeople, four of us who are
mismatched to our environmentbecause we don't have the same
amount of melanin, as Imentioned, as the people who
evolved in this area.
But the issue I do have is withusing things like sunscreens,
(20:18):
because they are essentiallyblocking those UVB wavelengths
that we need to generate vitaminD.
So it's a fine balance andthat's actually a topic of a
whole entire course that I'vewritten to, I guess, make sense
of this and how to guide theappropriate amount of sun
exposure for your skin type, andit's an individual formulation.
(20:40):
But the reason why I broughtthis up is because there's some
discrepancies that we need totry and understand.
So if you're following thelogic, and the logic is that the
sun is the most importantmodifiable risk factor in
development of both non-melanomaand melanoma skin cancer, then
(21:01):
these skin cancer patientsshould have high vitamin D
levels Because, remember,vitamin D is synthesized when
UVB light hits our skin and theyshould therefore have high
vitamin D levels.
That is a simple proposition.
It's not too complicated.
Again, this is a conditional Ifsun exposure is the major
(21:24):
modifiable issue here in thedevelopment of skin cancer.
So what does some of theresearch show?
Well, and I'm sorry if this isa bit wordy, but this paper
showed that vitamin Dinsufficiency was associated
with the increased incidence,meaning the more frequent
development of melanoma of theskin, as well as less favorable
(21:49):
what we call Breslau tumor depth.
So what that translates to isthat those people who had
vitamin D deficiency are moreassociated with developing
melanoma more associated withdeveloping melanoma.
So these are thehead-scratching moments if we're
(22:13):
really being consistent withthis kind of suggestion of a
causal pathway that we're beingtold this one decreased vitamin
D serum levels at melanomadiagnosis are associated with a
tumor ulceration and highermitototic rate.
So a significant associationbetween vitamin D level at
diagnosis and tumor rate andulceration was found.
(22:36):
And what else?
It's not only melanoma, but thenon-melanoma skin cancers.
So these include basal cellcarcinoma and squamous cell
carcinoma, which are reallytraditionally pinned on sun
exposure, and not to say thatit's not the sun.
And I'll just redefine itquickly, which is that more than
half or half of these patientswere vitamin D deficient and 41%
(23:00):
were insufficient.
So no one was sufficient andthat means having a vitamin D
level over 75 nanomoles.
So even for these types of skincancers, which are again
traditionally pinned on sunexposure, we're finding that
vitamin D deficiency is playinga role.
(23:21):
And if you remember back towhat I mentioned about vitamin D
as being a marker of sunexposure, it's just a proxy of
how much that person gets in thesun.
Then being deficient orinsufficient tells me that
person is living underartificial light.
They're living an indoorlifestyle under artificial light
, indoor lifestyle underartificial light and
(23:49):
fundamentally that is breakingtheir body's ability to deal
with cancerous cells and thoseprocesses are related to
apoptosis and autophagy, whichare how the body naturally
breaks down cancerous cells.
So the problem here is againputting a spanner in the works
of the narrative that we need tobe really avoiding sun exposure
(24:14):
, because why are these skincancer patients so vitamin D
deficient?
So vitamin D deficient.
And the final one is that inthose who developed severe
metastatic melanoma not onlymetastatic but stage one, all
the way up to stage four 84% arevitamin D deficient.
(24:34):
So that again, and prognosis,the likelihood of you dying
after developing malignantmelanoma is higher if you're
vitamin D deficient.
So these things really need tobe thought about in terms of
this sun avoidance narrative.
So, just to recap, vitamin Ddeficiency is associated with
(24:59):
increased incidence of melanoma,non-melanoma skin cancer,
aggressiveness and depth inmalignant melanoma or a clinical
outcome in metastatic melanoma,and a larger tumor size and
risk of recurrence in basal cellcarcinoma.
So we actually need more sun,sensible, unprotected sun
exposure, not less.
(25:19):
And the way to quicklyunderstand about what is going
on with the sun and I'm going togo into it quite briefly is
that we're getting all thisamount of radiation that's being
emitted naturally from our sunand we have this protection,
this atmospheric protection thatis filtering that solar
(25:42):
radiation, such that what we geton planet Earth is only a tiny
fraction of what is actuallycoming off the sun.
And this is why, in my opinionthat long-term existence in
space or in, say, somewhere likeMars, is fundamentally a doom
(26:05):
proposal, because those planets'atmospheres are not able to
filter in the same way andcreate the same electromagnetic
environment on that planet thatour atmosphere provides us.
And what we know is that theastronauts that sit in the space
(26:28):
station, they developmitochondrial diseases, and part
of it is because they're underLED lighting, but another part
of it is because they'reessentially exposed to the full
force of an unshieldedelectromagnetic spectrum from
the sun.
That's an interesting aside.
It's a nerdy point, but aninteresting one.
(26:49):
So what are we actually gettingon planet Earth?
And this becomes again reallyimportant when we think about
you as an individual.
How do I get sunlight safely?
How do I get sunlightappropriately?
And how do I explore?
How do I understand a morenuanced approach than simply UV
(27:11):
index above three?
Turn yourself into theequivalent of Michelin man with
all kinds of sunscreens andother things on.
So what is happening and this isI'm going to explain this
really simply is that, uh, on,on this axis here we have um,
the, the spectral irradiance.
(27:33):
Just it means the, the energythat's essentially hitting earth
, and on this axis it's we'retalking about the wavelength of
of that of these photons, ofthis energy, and what?
What this shows is that a tinypart of of the light that we get
is ultraviolet and, andactually we only get that um
(27:54):
ultra b we get.
We can get ultraviolet abecause of its of its properties
is much more abundant, it's 95%of ultraviolet light.
But ultraviolet B is onlyavailable at certain sun angles
and that's because the angle ofthe sun in the atmosphere and
the amount of atmosphere andozone particularly, will dictate
(28:16):
how much it gets through.
But there's abundance of visiblelight and that is most of the
actual solar energy.
Abundance of of visible light,um, and that is the most of the
actual solar energy is in thevisible light and that that's
what what what plants are usingto photosynthesize interestingly
is is is the blue and the redlight and they reflect all the
green light and that's whyleaves are green.
(28:36):
So, uh, but interestingly thatlook at all this massive amount
of light here, this is allinfrared and this is all
non-visible.
And notice that or I'm going tomake the point soon is that
whenever you are outside innatural sunlight, you're always
(28:56):
getting ultraviolet and it'salways paired with red and
infrared.
It's always a balanced plate oflight nutrients and we're never
getting ultraviolet inisolation.
And the reason why that'srelevant is because the data or
the experimental evidence thatis really implicated ultraviolet
light and demonized UV exposureis being done in nocturnal
(29:20):
mammals, in mice, in animalmodels, and it's fundamentally
used mimicking, trying to mimicsunlight, but essentially only
using ultraviolet light and nothaving the protection of this
infrared spectrum, which wedon't have time to go into, but
is really fundamentally undoingand fixing a lot of the ionizing
(29:48):
or mutagenic effects.
So DNA-damaging effects ofultraviolet light and
ultraviolet light really can bethought of as this.
It's a double-edged sword.
It's both critical for life, aswe've explained through the
vitamin d data, but it also doeshave the power to to break dna
bonds, and but the key point isthat we essentially need to
(30:10):
support our body's innate dnarepair mechanisms and our innate
essentially healing mechanismsthat have evolved to deal with
this, this ultraviolet lightexposure that exists in our
environment.
The other point that I reallywant to make is that UV light is
(30:35):
not always present in ourenvironment and I think this
type of education about well,it's essentially the
astronomical properties of thesun and the earth.
This isn't taught in school.
Maybe it probably should.
But what this illustrates isthat in the morning, in the
(30:56):
sunrise, you get visible lightand you get a lot of red light,
and you get a lot of red lightand you get a lot of infrared
light, particularly in that nearinfrared.
And then as the day progressesand as the angle of the sun
climbs on the from the horizonup to, uh, its peak at sol on
noon, you progressively get thismore of this shorter wavelength
(31:19):
, essentially essentially blueand UV light.
And in some places,particularly in Europe in winter
, then the sun angle only everclimbs to where my cursor is
here the mid-morning.
That's how low the sun keeps inthe sky, such that you never
get UVB, but this process kindof reverses itself over the
(31:41):
period of the day.
Why you need to know this isbecause when you know exactly
how much UV light and whatproportion is present in your
environment, then you can startmaking intentional choices and
exposing yourself to the sun inways that is appropriate to your
(32:01):
skin type, without burning.
And that is a key part ofbuilding this solar callus, or
essential getting safe,deliberate sun exposure and not
turning into a prawn that yousee a UK tourist who's just
hopped off the plane in Sydney'sBondi Beach, which is not the
(32:24):
goal by any way, shape or form.
So the question, I guess.
So I've presented a heap ofinformation about why the sun is
beneficial and how it is, whatthe properties of the sun are,
but the question is why issunlight not emphasized in the
modern medical paradigm, despitethe overwhelming evidence of
(32:47):
benefit?
So I really, briefly, to finishoff, want to discuss why I
think this is the case.
And fundamentally, we have thisprocess of developing research
and it involves the creation ofscientific research by clinician
researchers, often affiliatedwith universities, and we go
(33:12):
through a process of funding orpublication and formulation of
best practice guidelines, andthen the arrival of treatment
guidelines that are inevitablyemphasized pharmaceutical-based
treatment, and at every step ofthe way there's influence of the
(33:35):
pharmaceutical industry inthese processes, in these
processes.
So what that means is that thecream of the crop of MD-PhD
researchers, who are the mostsmart and intelligent people.
They do clinical research butthey get honoraria from
(33:56):
pharmaceutical industry.
They ask questions not aboutthe effect of sunlight on health
, but essentially thesuperiority of a novel
pharmaceutical agent over thestandard of care.
And the whole structure, thewhole paradigm, is based around
(34:19):
finding a more appropriate orperhaps more effective and newer
pharmaceutical treatment to aproblem, whether that's type 2
diabetes, whether that isobesity, whether that is
autoimmune disease or cancer.
And these are well-meaningclinicians.
But the fundamental problem isthe paradigm of thought and the
(34:47):
fact that we're not even lookingfor the crux of the issue.
Because if there's no financialincentive for a patient to,
(35:07):
hypothetically speaking, fasteat unprocessed food, build up a
solar callus and get theirserum vitamin D level to 150
nanomoles plus their serumvitamin D level to 150 nanomoles
(35:28):
plus, that is a patient whowould essentially become
non-diabetic, they would becomeno longer hypertensive, they
would essentially resolve theoriginal reasons why they fell
sick, address the originalreasons why they fell sick.
They fell sick, address theoriginal reasons why they fell
sick and therefore they wouldnot be a customer anymore.
And I don't say something likethat lightly, but that's been my
(35:50):
experience and my understandingof how this system operates.
And don't get me wrong, there'sa place for centralized
treatments and centralizedadvancements in treatments,
especially through emergencycare and critical care.
(36:11):
There's amazing improvementsand that's very valuable.
But what is not so valuable andwhat is essentially bankrupting
these modern Western economiesthat we live in is the way that
chronic disease is being managedand not cured and whether
(36:31):
that's manifesting is ballooningpharmaceutical budgets, rollout
of medications like a Zempiknow in the US to younger and
younger people expending ondialysis machines for diabetic
nephropathy these are alldifferent manifestations of an
(36:55):
unaddressed chronic diseaseepidemic and the fundamental
reasons is because we as doctorsare not addressing the key
reasons why our patients arefalling sick and they relate to
fundamentally, I believe thatthey relate to a dysregulated
(37:17):
relationship with light and,secondarily, but almost just as
importantly, dysregulatedrelationship with light and,
secondarily, but almost just asimportantly, a dysregulated
relationship with food and thecorruption of food and food
guidelines.
But that is kind of an overviewof this process.
And there's publication bias,there's citation rings, there's
(37:39):
a broken nature of thescientific inquiry as it relates
to the creation of scientificevidence and again it comes back
to funding and financialinterest.
So to recap that there's anabsence of intent to cure
chronic diseases in thiscentralized health model.
There's an overemphasis onmedications and surgical
intervention, there's anunderemphasis of effective gold
(38:00):
standard lifestyle advice andthese are essentially what are
ancestral health behaviors,meaning these are simply, if you
transplant someone into theevolutionary niche of our
species, when you mimic thelight exposures, the circadian
(38:22):
environment, the food contentand frequency.
Then you don't get chronicdisease, you resolve chronic
disease.
So this gold standard lifestyleadvice, it doesn't have the
randomized control evidence thatthere is currently now evidence
(38:45):
that there is currently now.
But I would argue that thebarrier that we need in terms of
justifying advising this typeof lifestyle is so much lower
because it simply reflects theevolutionary norm for Homo
sapiens, for our species.
That was what we were doing.
We were under full spectrumsunlight all day, every day, at
our skin type, congruent withour environmental UV yield, with
(39:09):
an absence of artificial lightat night, had a completely
regulated circadian rhythm andthat was normal.
So we don't need in my opinionI'm going to argue, we don't
need more studies showing thebenefit of sunlight on health.
We don't need more studies toshow that circadian disruption
leads to obesity and diabetes.
(39:30):
We actually just need thisexisting evidence to percolate
through into lifestyle change.
And that is why we're doingthis presentation is because
neither of us are necessarilyoptimistic that that's going to
happen anytime soon, obviouslynot losing hope, and this is a
slow process, but the process ofgetting through to people who
(39:55):
are interested and receptive canbe the more expeditious way.
And finally, there are pervasive, deep-rooted financial
conflicts of interest.
I think I've made that clear onthe previous slide.
I don't really want to go intothis in depth because it's
really just laboring the point,but this is an article that was
(40:16):
published in 2023 thatessentially showed that there
was a revolving door betweenregulators in the US Food and
Drug Association, whoessentially give a green or a
red card to medications that getapproved in that country, and
pharmaceutical industry.
(40:36):
So, after holding oversightroles for COVID vaccines, two
regulators from the US FDA wentto work for Moderna and really
this is just a track record.
So 11 of 16 FDA medicalexaminers who worked on 28 drug
approvals then left the agencyfor new jobs and are now
employed or by or consult forthe companies that they recently
(40:57):
regulated.
This can create at least theappearance of conflicts of
interest.
Well, I mean, that's anunderstatement if there ever
were one.
So this is a reflection of thisconcept of regulatory capture
as it applies to thepharmaceutical industry.
This is not a unique phenomenon.
(41:17):
If you go into the agriculturalindustry, you have people who
work for the companies thatproduce agricultural herbicides,
essentially influencing in theUS the Environmental Protection
Agency to determine what is asafe exposure level for that
chemical and inevitably theregulation reflects the
(41:40):
interests of the industry andnot the interests of the public.
It's simple and medicine is notunique in this phenomenon.
It is pervasive and itout werethe beneficiaries of that.
So this is a problem.
(42:12):
It's fundamentally a problem.
If we continue ignoring thefact that these deep-seated
conflicts of interest exist,then we're not going to get any
closer to curing or reversingthis tidal wave of chronic
disease because, as I mentionedearlier, the financial interests
(42:33):
are always pushing for moredrugs, more late treatments,
symptomatic or otherwise, tolater presenting disease, and
they're not aligned for reversal.
This is a quote by Marcia AngleMD.
She was one of the mostdistinguished and long-term
(42:53):
medical editors of the NewEngland Journal of Medicine, the
most prestigious and I use thatword in inverted commas because
it is also being one of themost, I guess, influenced by
those interests that I mentionedand what she said.
So this is a quote from her.
(43:15):
It is simply no longer possibleto believe much of the clinical
research that is published orto rely on the judgment of
trusted physicians orauthoritative medical guidelines
.
I take no pleasure in thisconclusion, which I reached
slowly and reluctantly over mytwo decades as an editor of the
New England Journal of Medicine.
So she's an insider, she hasseen the inner workings, she's
(43:37):
seen behind the curtain.
So when an insider like thistells you that there's issues,
there's conflicts of interestthat render the validity of
something like medical treatmentguidelines, when she tells you
that, then if you're payingattention, then if you're smart,
(44:00):
I would suggest that you shouldpay attention to that.
So it's worrying and it'sconcerning, but it fundamentally
, I think, reflects that much ofwhat the centralized paradigm
is built upon is in some way,shape or form influenced.
And I think, if anyone's really, really interested in delving
(44:24):
deeper into this, the Stanfordepidemiologist called John
Ioannidis, who is basically oneof the world's leading experts
in medical rigor and rigorousscience, he published a paper I
think it was 2005, so it'scoming up to 20 years now, which
(44:45):
is quite a long time, and it'stitled why Most Published
Research is False, and he veryelegantly explains a lot of what
Marsha Engel has suggested inthis quote.
So I mean I don't want to end ona pessimistic note.
So what is the solution and howdo we walk back and how do you?
(45:08):
And I want to speak to you asan individual, because I think,
fundamentally this is anindividual process and health is
an individual process becausewhen we externalize our health
and we rely on others, again, ifyou're in a more difficult
accident, absolutely you'regoing to rely on you, on the
emergency physician who'sresuscitating you.
(45:29):
But from a chronic diseasepoint of view, if you
externalize the treatment, thenyou're potentially putting
yourself in a disempoweredposition where you are a victim
of those currents, and they'rebigger than one person, they're
system-wide currents that I'vementioned.
So a decentralized healthapproach is what I think can be
(45:54):
a benefit to people, and that isbecause, like I said, it is
going to emphasize what was theniche for our species from an
evolutionary biology point ofview.
So the level of evidence that weneed to reach in order to
implement this is so much lower,because this was just what our
(46:15):
ancestors were doing, and thatis ancestral nutrition which is
built upon whole foods,unprocessed foods, foods free
from industrial agriculturalinputs like broadacre herbicides
and glyphosate and others.
It's nutrition that ispredominantly of animal origin,
(46:38):
that's rich in ruminant meat,that's rich in wild harvested
seafood.
That was what we know frompaleoanthropological data, was
fundamental in building ourbrains, building everything that
we know to be what makes usuniquely human.
So it's also reliant onregenerative farming, and it is
(47:00):
so because that is the processby which this food is produced.
And it's produced in a way thatimproves the quality of the
soil, it improves the quality ofthe food, improves the quality
of the food and it reflects theanimal in its native habitat.
And, rather than being ascourge, an environmental
problem, ruminant grazing, whendone in this fully grass-fed,
(47:25):
rotational manner, is a boon forthe environment.
It's regenerating landscapes,it's improving soil fertility.
So that's another whole topicin and of itself, but that's a
fundamental pillar, because thisis how we move away from an
industrialised food system thatproduces foods that contribute
(47:46):
to the chronic disease epidemicand we move back towards
ancestrally appropriatenutrition that is of benefit to
the animals, to ourselves and tothe planet.
And I think the most importantpiece of this puzzle is
circadian and quantum biology,and that means the practices of
(48:10):
getting deliberate sun exposureunexposed on your skin,
uncovered, and respecting this24-hour rhythm which is known as
the circadian rhythm.
And look, I haven't gone intoit in depth because I wanted to
kind of emphasize other points.
But the proliferation ofartificial light, artificial
(48:30):
light at night, is underlying,in my opinion, the explosion in
chronic disease and I thinkprocessed food is adding massive
amounts of fuel onto a firethat starts with broken
circadian rhythms, with exposureto non-native electromagnetic
(48:50):
radiation from a range ofsources and again, that's not
the topic of this talk, but it'sfundamentally the foundation of
improving health is to fix ourrelationship with light, and the
best thing about thisdecentralized health in pillars
(49:12):
is that they're free.
They're all very, very cheapand a pharmaceutical option
again warranted.
For some it's completelyoptional, it's up to you, but
they are somewhat more expensiveways of dealing with the
consequences of ignoring theseancestral needs that we had and
(49:36):
still have.
If you want to learn more aboutthe role of light in health and
it's really been a focus ofmine for the past six months at
least on my podcast, no, over ayear now then I would really
suggest checking out my podcast.
It's called Regenerative Healthand I've talked to a whole
range of experts on variousfacets of this problem and I'll
(50:01):
quickly give you an overview.
Robert Fosbury, astrophysicist,talking about infrared light and
life interactions with yourmitochondria and why this modern
light environment is such acontributor to diabetes from a
very, very fundamental point ofview.
This is Professor Glenn Jeffery.
He's a neuroscientist who hasstudied the amazing power of red
(50:23):
light in the deep red toessentially reduce blood glucose
by improving mitochondrialfunction.
This is Professor RichardWeller, who led that UK Biobank
cohort study analysis and isadvocating for more UV light
exposure because of its profoundeffects on preventing
(50:44):
cardiovascular disease andimproving cardiovascular health
and general health.
This is Professor MichaelHolick cardiovascular health and
general health.
This is Professor MichaelHollick.
He is the world expert onvitamin D and his research has
consistently shown how importantunprotected sun exposure is for
general health.
This is Alexis Cowan.
She is a Princeton-trained PhDresearcher, again exploring
(51:08):
quantum biology and circadianbiology and talking about these
decentralized health topics that, again, are not being reflected
in mainstream guidelines.
And this is Dr Martin Moorheed,who is a world expert circadian
researcher and he's talking andadvocating for the change of
our line environment to stopthis circadian disruption which
(51:32):
is underlying so much of ourpoor health.
If you want to learn more andyou specifically want to ask me
your questions, you can do thatand I'm very happy to help you
with a more in-depth and morepersonalized help in my private
(51:52):
community.
So all these changes are andhonestly it can be like drinking
from a fire hose and it can beoverwhelming, completely
overwhelming, because there area lot to change and the modern
environment from a circadianpoint of view, from a dietary
point of view environment from acircadian point of view, from a
(52:14):
dietary point of view, isfundamentally hostile to what
I've discussed as beingbeneficial for your health.
So I have a private communitygroup, I do a weekly Q&A not too
dissimilar to this, but I'msimply just answering questions
and a whole bunch of very smartand motivated and very patient
and welcoming supportivecommunity, some of whom are
(52:35):
listening now, who can help them, and it's a great community.
So I'd encourage you, if youare really interested, then to
join us and we can definitelyoffer you some help.
And I've got some courses andthese courses will walk you
through the real basics of howto harness light and circadian
(52:57):
reset.
I kind of run it every month.
Although you can access thecontent, you can purchase it
whenever you like but I try anddo it, emphasize it at the
beginning of every month andreally walk people through a
couple of key behaviors that youcan do, like this red light is
one of them to mitigate theeffects of this artificial light
(53:17):
environment on our health andsolar callus.
That refers to this humanphotoprotective response which
we generate on prolongedexposure daily, in small amounts
at first, to developessentially a response to
ultraviolet light that allows usto harness more and more
(53:39):
ultraviolet light withoutburning and, essentially, as I
hope I've showed you earlier inthe presentation, the more UV
light you can harness, thelonger your longevity, the more
disease you can postpone oravoid.
Solar calluses is some realdeep cuts.
It's very, very detailed.
(54:01):
If you're interested inlearning exactly why, then it's
about nine hours of lessons, andit's about nine hours of
lessons similar to this, buteven, in some cases, very
similar to this, to reallyprovide a rebuttal to these
narratives of sign avoidancethat are so pervasive.
(54:23):
I've talked about that and theseare my contacts.
So this is my YouTube channel.
You can find the podcast onApple Podcasts, spotify.
I'm on Instagram.
I'm on ex formerly Twitter, andthat's my email address if you
want to get a hold of me, and mywebsite too.
So thank you everyone forlistening and, yeah, I'm happy
(54:44):
to answer any questions that youmight have about the talk.
So thanks a lot.
The title of my talk is Sunlight All-Cause Mortality
and Decentralized Health, andI'm going to walk you through
some of the medical researchthat underlies the benefits of
getting more sunlight exposure.
And the reason why I'm going todo that is because the
(00:22):
narratives and the beliefsaround sun avoidance are so
entrenched in Australia,particularly compared to perhaps
even anywhere else in the world, that I think it's important to
look at the data and look atthe research that we have to
support this idea that more sunnot avoiding the sun, is
(00:44):
actually a very powerful tool inthe toolkit of longevity and
health optimization.
So let's get started.
The overview a little bit aboutsunlight and death what does
the data say?
A little bit about vitamin Ddeficiency and, again, what does
(01:04):
the data tell us about that?
A little bit about skin cancerand a little bit about
decentralized health, and to meit seems like this organization,
diana, is really angled arounddecentralizing health and really
providing health information topeople, and I'm very much
aligned with that missionbecause I believe that that that
(01:29):
is an important way of ofgiving people the tools to
improve their own health and notnecessarily, uh, waiting for
that, uh for that, that thepractice to incorporate it into
a mainstream treatment approach,because the lag time between
research and translating intoguidelines can be a very, very,
(01:53):
very long time, and people don'thave a long time.
So I want to start with thisstudy and this is basically a
landmark study that wasconducted over a period of more
than 25 years and it was acohort study done by a bunch of
Swedish researchers in Sweden.
And what they did is they gottogether a whole bunch of
(02:18):
Swedish women and they askedthem four questions.
When they sat out with thisresearch question and simply the
name of the research studytells you a lot which is the
Melanoma in Southern Swedencohort they were looking to
essentially confirm thehypothesis that the women who
got more sun exposure were goingto get more melanoma and die
(02:42):
more frequently.
So to really answer thisresearch question, they asked
women four questions when theyenrolled them and then again
when they did some follow-upinterim analyses.
So what they asked is do yousunbathe in summer, do you
sunbathe in winter?
Do you go to tanning salons totan and do you travel overseas
(03:08):
to tan?
And they were expecting thatthe women, as I mentioned, who
had these greater sun-seekingbehaviors and they essentially
graded them by their responsesto these questions is people who
had higher sun exposure habits,medium and lowest sun-seeking
behavior habits.
So what they found wasessentially stunning to them and
(03:31):
was the complete opposite oftheir hypothesis.
And what they found and thesegraphs show the same thing in
different ways is that those whoavoided sun exposure, they
basically died at twice the rateof those who had the most sun
exposure.
And similarly, there was thisdose response, meaning the more
(03:51):
sun you got, or the more activeself-reported sun exposure
habits, the less you'll allcause death.
And that is that differencehere.
And mean survival was what theyessentially measured.
And this is really importantbecause death by any cause is
(04:12):
the hardest endpoint in thisfield of epidemiology, meaning
there's no faking whereepidemiology can be manipulated
in some way, in some regard, toserve outcomes, specifically in
the realm of nutritionalepidemiology, with things like
(04:35):
recall questionnaires and abunch of other methodological
slats of hand.
But this study controlled for awhole bunch of what we call
confounding variables that might, uh, that might suggest another
explanation or anothercausative factor for why these
women live longer.
But and they this is a veryhigh quality study, and what
(04:59):
they they concluded was thatwomen who avoid the sun, who
avoid sun exposure are atincreased risk of all cause
death, with a twofold increasedmortality rate as compared to
those with the highest sunexposure.
So, as I mentioned, this wascompletely opposite to what the
researchers were expecting.
So what else did they conclude?
(05:19):
Well, they essentially foundthat the avoidance of sun
exposure was a risk factor forall cause death, and this was at
the same magnitude as smoking.
What that translates to inplain English is that the women
who smoked but had high sunexposure habits had the same
(05:40):
mortality as those women whodidn't smoke but avoided the sun
.
So when we think about risk inmedicine and in epidemiology,
we're talking about risks.
What are the different risks orcompeting risks?
And that was a really elegantway to show that those women who
(06:03):
avoided the sun, that behaviorit suggested that smoking was on
par sun avoidance was on parwith smoking in terms of its
risk of all-cause death.
So this is something that youwill not hear.
You won't hear anywhere, really, because this was such a it's
such an impactful finding, butit really goes against a whole
(06:26):
lot of narratives.
And look, there are someallowances and I'll talk about
them soon particularly butthere's a lot of reasons why I
believe this finding isgeneralizable outside of these
Swedish women.
So they didn't focus on thecause of death.
However, the effect waspresumably attributed to cancer,
(06:47):
heart disease, um, andcerebrovascular disease.
So a reduction in those causesof death, because they are the
biggest killers and although I'mnot going to mention it, I'm
going to slightly touch on skincancer and, uh, skin cancer
doesn't is not a cause ofreduction of life and longevity
(07:10):
in an all-cause mortality pointof view.
So when we look at things thatare killing people, it is
ischemic heart disease, it'scerebrovascular disease or
stroke and it is internalcancers like colorectal cancer,
like breast cancer, prostatecancers.
So the way to look at this isan actual number or metric
(07:33):
called years of potential lifelost.
And if you compare the years ofpotential life lost to melanoma
and non-melanoma skin cancers,it is an absolute fraction of
the years of life lost to heartdisease, stroke and these
internal cancers.
So what this melanoma in Swedencohort study was showing was
(07:57):
that suggesting is that thosewomen who went out and tanning,
they traveled down to Spainbecause they were in Europe.
Obviously they were dying lessof these key killers in society.
And we know that there's aseasonal variation in both heart
disease and stroke, withincreased risks during winter
(08:17):
and spring compared to summer.
So the next question is allright, we've got this one study.
Well, where else do we have asimilar finding?
Because in science and medicinewe are interested in
repeatability and what thatmeans is say we observe one
finding, we want to see thatmultiple times in different
(08:37):
forms to confirm to ourselvesthat this is not just an
associational relationship, butthis is a causal relationship.
And the gold standard ofdiscerning cause in the current
medical paradigm is thisrandomized control trial.
(08:58):
Yet we can't randomize peopleto sunlight and low sunlight
because it's over a long periodof time.
It's just not possible.
So we have to look at all thesedifferent streams of long-term
observational data to kind ofget to a place where we can
decide about causation.
So this study was actuallypublished this year and the long
(09:21):
and the short of it is thatthey confirmed the findings of
the melanoma in southern Swedencohort.
So it was a UK cohort, it wasalmost 400,000 people and they
determined how much UV lightthat the people were getting,
and they did that by asking themquestions about sun exposure
and sun-seeking behavior, butalso by the latitude that they
(09:43):
lived and remember, the higheryour latitude.
So the closer to the North Pole, the less UV light there is in
winter and just generally.
So they followed them for 12.7years and, as I said, they
repeated these findings.
So those with the greatestsun-seeking behavior had lower
risk of all-cause mortality,cardiovascular mortality and
(10:04):
cancer mortality, and this wastranslating to about 50 extra
days of time of life.
That was the association, sothe English.
They're very happy about thatbecause they've repeated these
very important findings.
So I want to make this point.
This is an excerpt from thepaper and I'm going to read it
(10:24):
out.
What they found is that peoplewith more active sun-seeking
behavior and those living atlower latitudes had lower crude
mortality from cancers of thedigestive system, so bowel,
potentially stomach too, andbreast cancer.
They also had lower crudemortality from skin cancer and
that is a really important pointwhich suggests that even if the
(10:49):
incidence of skin cancer incertain populations increases
with greater sun exposure, thedata we have suggests that
mortality is lower.
And that in itself is atwo-hour talk, but a very
nuanced and interesting pointthat people I think will find
interesting and again, isn'tmentioned anywhere.
(11:11):
So what did these authorssuggest in the highlights of
their paper?
They said that there's benefitsof ultraviolet light for
several health outcomes.
They found that the higher UVexposures were associated with
lower all-cause mortality, asI've mentioned.
And what they say here is thatpublic health messaging on
(11:35):
sunlight exposure may needreconsideration.
And I think that is in thecurrent context of where we are
at this point, and particularlyin Europe because they have
adopted Australian sun avoidanceregulation and advice is even
more important and relevant.
But it is also relevant for usand I'm going to explain even
more why.
So these are not new findingsand this is a paper from 1940,
(12:00):
and it was written by FrankAppley and was titled the
Relation of Solar Radiation toCancer Mortality in North
America, and this is what wecall an ecological type of study
, and he basically looked at themortality cancer mortality in
the different states of the USand Canada and he plotted them
against how much UV radiationhits that area and what he
(12:23):
concluded.
One of the conclusions was thatthe total cancer mortalities of
the various American states andCanadian provinces are shown to
fall with increasing solarradiation and with the number of
people exposed thereto, and areindependent of the production
of skin cancer.
And this is showing that weknew even as far back as 1940,
(12:45):
that we knew even as far back as1940, however, 88 AD, four
years ago that this is abeneficial thing and that what
we can do is those areas withmore solar exposure is having a
meaningful health impact.
That was the suggestion of thisand that was the basis of
(13:09):
asking those questions of themore recent studies that I
raised.
So let's look at this anotherway.
So what I've got here is adiagram, and this is a little
bit scientific, but I wantpeople to understand this,
because what this diagram showsis that we make a very, very,
very, very, very, very, veryimportant hormone called vitamin
(13:30):
D on exposure to naturalsunlight, and this is
unprotected sunlight, and what Imean by that is we need
ultraviolet B light in this band, this wavelength, between this
wavelength band between 290 and315 nanometers.
What that will do is itessentially changes the
(13:53):
structure of cholesterol in ourskin to um, to a vitamin, uh,
this, this fat soluble vitamin.
Why I'm bringing this up isbecause if you don't get uh
enough uvb, whether whether youlive in a really high latitude
country area where there'sseasonal absence of vitamin D,
or you're simulating a low UVenvironment and you can do that
(14:18):
yourself you can simulate a lowUV environment by wearing
sunscreens, by covering up yourskin from the sun and by not
going outside.
So you can either live in anarea with low environmental UV
light or you can simulate thatin a place like Brisbane,
queensland, by specificallyavoiding the sun.
(14:41):
So what we know is that thisvitamin d level that you can get
measured from your doctor, it'sit's actually it's a proxy of
the total sunlight exposure thatyou had.
It's like a biomarker of of howmuch sun you you've got, um of
all wavelengths.
So what do we know?
Well, they've done meta-analysesand these are the highest level
(15:04):
of evidence again in thisparadigm that we're in and they
looked at all-cause mortality,again, death by any cause,
according to vitamin D levels,and what they found was that
people with serum vitamin Dlevels less than 22 nanomoles
had nearly twice theage-adjusted death rate compared
(15:24):
to those with greater than 125.
And again, another study thishas been known for a decade that
these authors studied thevitamin D levels from almost
close to a million participantsand concluded that 12.8% of all
US deaths, or 340,000 per year,and 9.4% of deaths in Europe,
(15:47):
could be attributed to serumvitamin Ds of less than 75
nanomoles.
So the hard stop here and I'vethrown a lot of science at you
but the hard stop and the pointthat I really want you to all
take away is that the greaterthe UV light exposure, the
greater sun-seeking behavior andthe higher serum and vitamin D,
(16:08):
which are all windows into thesame room, demonstrate that
there's less all-cause mortality.
So I really like how Dr JackCruz has framed it and this is
an explanation, and I'm notgoing to go in depth into why
this is the case.
I've done previouspresentations.
(16:29):
The most recent one on thistopic was in April at Regenerate
, where I talked about thelikely mechanism by which
sunlight and UV light isreducing cardiovascular disease
mortality, and you can get intosome somewhat complex mechanisms
, but you don't really need toknow that exactly how.
You just need to know that itdoes.
(16:51):
Dr Jack Cruz, who is one of themost, I guess, iconoclastic and,
frankly, brilliant thinkers inthis space.
He's put it a very elegant wayand he says longevity in humans
(17:11):
is linked to optimal solarexposure, and the reason is
simple.
This protects the seven layersof energy generation inside the
cell.
The more sun a human gets, themore diseases they can avoid,
and the number one risk of mostdiseases is age.
Solar exposure effectivelymakes you younger because it
lengthens the TET mechanismsinside of cells to improve the
Hayflick limit in all cell lines.
This is having an effect onlongevity and mortality
(17:36):
fundamentally because it isimproving the bioenergetics of
your cells.
That is how it's operating.
It is tuning and optimizingmitochondrial function and your
longevity is fundamentallylinked to how well your colony
of mitochondria, those tinyorganelles in all your cells,
(17:58):
are operating.
So when you're plugging intosolar radiation as an energy
source, you are delaying theprocess of decay.
Life is just or optimal.
Health is just the slowest formof death.
That's one way of thinkingabout it, and the sun is how we
(18:18):
harness that energy to die asslowly as possible.
So what about skin cancer?
And this is again a veryimportant question because we do
live in Australia there is avery high UV yield and there's a
high UV yield.
Not only is that relevantbecause it's high UV yield in
Africa there's high UV yield inmany places in the world but the
(18:44):
importance as it relates to ourcountry, in Australia, is that
there is a mismatch between theskin colours of the native
people, the IndigenousAustralians, who walked and
adapted here over 60,000 yearsand adapted to this environment
and subsequently developed deepmelanin, essentially highly
(19:07):
melanated surfaces compared to,I guess, the European arrivals,
immigrants later on, who areadapted to this northern
latitudes and therefore don'thave the melanin, uh, in in the
skin in the same amount.
(19:28):
To deal with this, this uvlight yield, um, however, what
we are being told and is that toto avoid the sun whenever the
uv index climbs above a three,then we are to employ this
five-step protocol slip, slop,slap, seek, shade and slide and
(19:53):
I agree with three of those,which is the slip, the slap and
the seek, especially for thesepeople, four of us who are
mismatched to our environmentbecause we don't have the same
amount of melanin, as Imentioned, as the people who
evolved in this area.
But the issue I do have is withusing things like sunscreens,
(20:18):
because they are essentiallyblocking those UVB wavelengths
that we need to generate vitaminD.
So it's a fine balance andthat's actually a topic of a
whole entire course that I'vewritten to, I guess, make sense
of this and how to guide theappropriate amount of sun
exposure for your skin type, andit's an individual formulation.
(20:40):
But the reason why I broughtthis up is because there's some
discrepancies that we need totry and understand.
So if you're following thelogic, and the logic is that the
sun is the most importantmodifiable risk factor in
development of both non-melanomaand melanoma skin cancer, then
(21:01):
these skin cancer patientsshould have high vitamin D
levels Because, remember,vitamin D is synthesized when
UVB light hits our skin and theyshould therefore have high
vitamin D levels.
That is a simple proposition.
It's not too complicated.
Again, this is a conditional Ifsun exposure is the major
(21:24):
modifiable issue here in thedevelopment of skin cancer.
So what does some of theresearch show?
Well, and I'm sorry if this isa bit wordy, but this paper
showed that vitamin Dinsufficiency was associated
with the increased incidence,meaning the more frequent
development of melanoma of theskin, as well as less favorable
(21:49):
what we call Breslau tumor depth.
So what that translates to isthat those people who had
vitamin D deficiency are moreassociated with developing
melanoma more associated withdeveloping melanoma.
So these are thehead-scratching moments if we're
(22:13):
really being consistent withthis kind of suggestion of a
causal pathway that we're beingtold this one decreased vitamin
D serum levels at melanomadiagnosis are associated with a
tumor ulceration and highermitototic rate.
So a significant associationbetween vitamin D level at
diagnosis and tumor rate andulceration was found.
(22:36):
And what else?
It's not only melanoma, but thenon-melanoma skin cancers.
So these include basal cellcarcinoma and squamous cell
carcinoma, which are reallytraditionally pinned on sun
exposure, and not to say thatit's not the sun.
And I'll just redefine itquickly, which is that more than
half or half of these patientswere vitamin D deficient and 41%
(23:00):
were insufficient.
So no one was sufficient andthat means having a vitamin D
level over 75 nanomoles.
So even for these types of skincancers, which are again
traditionally pinned on sunexposure, we're finding that
vitamin D deficiency is playinga role.
(23:21):
And if you remember back towhat I mentioned about vitamin D
as being a marker of sunexposure, it's just a proxy of
how much that person gets in thesun.
Then being deficient orinsufficient tells me that
person is living underartificial light.
They're living an indoorlifestyle under artificial light
, indoor lifestyle underartificial light and
(23:49):
fundamentally that is breakingtheir body's ability to deal
with cancerous cells and thoseprocesses are related to
apoptosis and autophagy, whichare how the body naturally
breaks down cancerous cells.
So the problem here is againputting a spanner in the works
of the narrative that we need tobe really avoiding sun exposure
(24:14):
, because why are these skincancer patients so vitamin D
deficient?
So vitamin D deficient.
And the final one is that inthose who developed severe
metastatic melanoma not onlymetastatic but stage one, all
the way up to stage four 84% arevitamin D deficient.
(24:34):
So that again, and prognosis,the likelihood of you dying
after developing malignantmelanoma is higher if you're
vitamin D deficient.
So these things really need tobe thought about in terms of
this sun avoidance narrative.
So, just to recap, vitamin Ddeficiency is associated with
(24:59):
increased incidence of melanoma,non-melanoma skin cancer,
aggressiveness and depth inmalignant melanoma or a clinical
outcome in metastatic melanoma,and a larger tumor size and
risk of recurrence in basal cellcarcinoma.
So we actually need more sun,sensible, unprotected sun
exposure, not less.
(25:19):
And the way to quicklyunderstand about what is going
on with the sun and I'm going togo into it quite briefly is
that we're getting all thisamount of radiation that's being
emitted naturally from our sunand we have this protection,
this atmospheric protection thatis filtering that solar
(25:42):
radiation, such that what we geton planet Earth is only a tiny
fraction of what is actuallycoming off the sun.
And this is why, in my opinionthat long-term existence in
space or in, say, somewhere likeMars, is fundamentally a doom
(26:05):
proposal, because those planets'atmospheres are not able to
filter in the same way andcreate the same electromagnetic
environment on that planet thatour atmosphere provides us.
And what we know is that theastronauts that sit in the space
(26:28):
station, they developmitochondrial diseases, and part
of it is because they're underLED lighting, but another part
of it is because they'reessentially exposed to the full
force of an unshieldedelectromagnetic spectrum from
the sun.
That's an interesting aside.
It's a nerdy point, but aninteresting one.
(26:49):
So what are we actually gettingon planet Earth?
And this becomes again reallyimportant when we think about
you as an individual.
How do I get sunlight safely?
How do I get sunlightappropriately?
And how do I explore?
How do I understand a morenuanced approach than simply UV
(27:11):
index above three?
Turn yourself into theequivalent of Michelin man with
all kinds of sunscreens andother things on.
So what is happening and this isI'm going to explain this
really simply is that, uh, on,on this axis here we have um,
the, the spectral irradiance.
(27:33):
Just it means the, the energythat's essentially hitting earth
, and on this axis it's we'retalking about the wavelength of
of that of these photons, ofthis energy, and what?
What this shows is that a tinypart of of the light that we get
is ultraviolet and, andactually we only get that um
(27:54):
ultra b we get.
We can get ultraviolet abecause of its of its properties
is much more abundant, it's 95%of ultraviolet light.
But ultraviolet B is onlyavailable at certain sun angles
and that's because the angle ofthe sun in the atmosphere and
the amount of atmosphere andozone particularly, will dictate
(28:16):
how much it gets through.
But there's abundance of visiblelight and that is most of the
actual solar energy.
Abundance of of visible light,um, and that is the most of the
actual solar energy is in thevisible light and that that's
what what what plants are usingto photosynthesize interestingly
is is is the blue and the redlight and they reflect all the
green light and that's whyleaves are green.
(28:36):
So, uh, but interestingly thatlook at all this massive amount
of light here, this is allinfrared and this is all
non-visible.
And notice that or I'm going tomake the point soon is that
whenever you are outside innatural sunlight, you're always
(28:56):
getting ultraviolet and it'salways paired with red and
infrared.
It's always a balanced plate oflight nutrients and we're never
getting ultraviolet inisolation.
And the reason why that'srelevant is because the data or
the experimental evidence thatis really implicated ultraviolet
light and demonized UV exposureis being done in nocturnal
(29:20):
mammals, in mice, in animalmodels, and it's fundamentally
used mimicking, trying to mimicsunlight, but essentially only
using ultraviolet light and nothaving the protection of this
infrared spectrum, which wedon't have time to go into, but
is really fundamentally undoingand fixing a lot of the ionizing
(29:48):
or mutagenic effects.
So DNA-damaging effects ofultraviolet light and
ultraviolet light really can bethought of as this.
It's a double-edged sword.
It's both critical for life, aswe've explained through the
vitamin d data, but it also doeshave the power to to break dna
bonds, and but the key point isthat we essentially need to
(30:10):
support our body's innate dnarepair mechanisms and our innate
essentially healing mechanismsthat have evolved to deal with
this, this ultraviolet lightexposure that exists in our
environment.
The other point that I reallywant to make is that UV light is
(30:35):
not always present in ourenvironment and I think this
type of education about well,it's essentially the
astronomical properties of thesun and the earth.
This isn't taught in school.
Maybe it probably should.
But what this illustrates isthat in the morning, in the
(30:56):
sunrise, you get visible lightand you get a lot of red light,
and you get a lot of red lightand you get a lot of infrared
light, particularly in that nearinfrared.
And then as the day progressesand as the angle of the sun
climbs on the from the horizonup to, uh, its peak at sol on
noon, you progressively get thismore of this shorter wavelength
(31:19):
, essentially essentially blueand UV light.
And in some places,particularly in Europe in winter
, then the sun angle only everclimbs to where my cursor is
here the mid-morning.
That's how low the sun keeps inthe sky, such that you never
get UVB, but this process kindof reverses itself over the
(31:41):
period of the day.
Why you need to know this isbecause when you know exactly
how much UV light and whatproportion is present in your
environment, then you can startmaking intentional choices and
exposing yourself to the sun inways that is appropriate to your
(32:01):
skin type, without burning.
And that is a key part ofbuilding this solar callus, or
essential getting safe,deliberate sun exposure and not
turning into a prawn that yousee a UK tourist who's just
hopped off the plane in Sydney'sBondi Beach, which is not the
(32:24):
goal by any way, shape or form.
So the question, I guess.
So I've presented a heap ofinformation about why the sun is
beneficial and how it is, whatthe properties of the sun are,
but the question is why issunlight not emphasized in the
modern medical paradigm, despitethe overwhelming evidence of
(32:47):
benefit?
So I really, briefly, to finishoff, want to discuss why I
think this is the case.
And fundamentally, we have thisprocess of developing research
and it involves the creation ofscientific research by clinician
researchers, often affiliatedwith universities, and we go
(33:12):
through a process of funding orpublication and formulation of
best practice guidelines, andthen the arrival of treatment
guidelines that are inevitablyemphasized pharmaceutical-based
treatment, and at every step ofthe way there's influence of the
(33:35):
pharmaceutical industry inthese processes, in these
processes.
So what that means is that thecream of the crop of MD-PhD
researchers, who are the mostsmart and intelligent people.
They do clinical research butthey get honoraria from
(33:56):
pharmaceutical industry.
They ask questions not aboutthe effect of sunlight on health
, but essentially thesuperiority of a novel
pharmaceutical agent over thestandard of care.
And the whole structure, thewhole paradigm, is based around
(34:19):
finding a more appropriate orperhaps more effective and newer
pharmaceutical treatment to aproblem, whether that's type 2
diabetes, whether that isobesity, whether that is
autoimmune disease or cancer.
And these are well-meaningclinicians.
But the fundamental problem isthe paradigm of thought and the
(34:47):
fact that we're not even lookingfor the crux of the issue.
Because if there's no financialincentive for a patient to,
(35:07):
hypothetically speaking, fasteat unprocessed food, build up a
solar callus and get theirserum vitamin D level to 150
nanomoles plus their serumvitamin D level to 150 nanomoles
(35:28):
plus, that is a patient whowould essentially become
non-diabetic, they would becomeno longer hypertensive, they
would essentially resolve theoriginal reasons why they fell
sick, address the originalreasons why they fell sick.
They fell sick, address theoriginal reasons why they fell
sick and therefore they wouldnot be a customer anymore.
And I don't say something likethat lightly, but that's been my
(35:50):
experience and my understandingof how this system operates.
And don't get me wrong, there'sa place for centralized
treatments and centralizedadvancements in treatments,
especially through emergencycare and critical care.
(36:11):
There's amazing improvementsand that's very valuable.
But what is not so valuable andwhat is essentially bankrupting
these modern Western economiesthat we live in is the way that
chronic disease is being managedand not cured and whether
(36:31):
that's manifesting is ballooningpharmaceutical budgets, rollout
of medications like a Zempiknow in the US to younger and
younger people expending ondialysis machines for diabetic
nephropathy these are alldifferent manifestations of an
(36:55):
unaddressed chronic diseaseepidemic and the fundamental
reasons is because we as doctorsare not addressing the key
reasons why our patients arefalling sick and they relate to
fundamentally, I believe thatthey relate to a dysregulated
(37:17):
relationship with light and,secondarily, but almost just as
importantly, dysregulatedrelationship with light and,
secondarily, but almost just asimportantly, a dysregulated
relationship with food and thecorruption of food and food
guidelines.
But that is kind of an overviewof this process.
And there's publication bias,there's citation rings, there's
(37:39):
a broken nature of thescientific inquiry as it relates
to the creation of scientificevidence and again it comes back
to funding and financialinterest.
So to recap that there's anabsence of intent to cure
chronic diseases in thiscentralized health model.
There's an overemphasis onmedications and surgical
intervention, there's anunderemphasis of effective gold
(38:00):
standard lifestyle advice andthese are essentially what are
ancestral health behaviors,meaning these are simply, if you
transplant someone into theevolutionary niche of our
species, when you mimic thelight exposures, the circadian
(38:22):
environment, the food contentand frequency.
Then you don't get chronicdisease, you resolve chronic
disease.
So this gold standard lifestyleadvice, it doesn't have the
randomized control evidence thatthere is currently now evidence
(38:45):
that there is currently now.
But I would argue that thebarrier that we need in terms of
justifying advising this typeof lifestyle is so much lower
because it simply reflects theevolutionary norm for Homo
sapiens, for our species.
That was what we were doing.
We were under full spectrumsunlight all day, every day, at
our skin type, congruent withour environmental UV yield, with
(39:09):
an absence of artificial lightat night, had a completely
regulated circadian rhythm andthat was normal.
So we don't need in my opinionI'm going to argue, we don't
need more studies showing thebenefit of sunlight on health.
We don't need more studies toshow that circadian disruption
leads to obesity and diabetes.
(39:30):
We actually just need thisexisting evidence to percolate
through into lifestyle change.
And that is why we're doingthis presentation is because
neither of us are necessarilyoptimistic that that's going to
happen anytime soon, obviouslynot losing hope, and this is a
slow process, but the process ofgetting through to people who
(39:55):
are interested and receptive canbe the more expeditious way.
And finally, there are pervasive, deep-rooted financial
conflicts of interest.
I think I've made that clear onthe previous slide.
I don't really want to go intothis in depth because it's
really just laboring the point,but this is an article that was
(40:16):
published in 2023 thatessentially showed that there
was a revolving door betweenregulators in the US Food and
Drug Association, whoessentially give a green or a
red card to medications that getapproved in that country, and
pharmaceutical industry.
(40:36):
So, after holding oversightroles for COVID vaccines, two
regulators from the US FDA wentto work for Moderna and really
this is just a track record.
So 11 of 16 FDA medicalexaminers who worked on 28 drug
approvals then left the agencyfor new jobs and are now
employed or by or consult forthe companies that they recently
(40:57):
regulated.
This can create at least theappearance of conflicts of
interest.
Well, I mean, that's anunderstatement if there ever
were one.
So this is a reflection of thisconcept of regulatory capture
as it applies to thepharmaceutical industry.
This is not a unique phenomenon.
(41:17):
If you go into the agriculturalindustry, you have people who
work for the companies thatproduce agricultural herbicides,
essentially influencing in theUS the Environmental Protection
Agency to determine what is asafe exposure level for that
chemical and inevitably theregulation reflects the
(41:40):
interests of the industry andnot the interests of the public.
It's simple and medicine is notunique in this phenomenon.
It is pervasive and itout werethe beneficiaries of that.
So this is a problem.
(42:12):
It's fundamentally a problem.
If we continue ignoring thefact that these deep-seated
conflicts of interest exist,then we're not going to get any
closer to curing or reversingthis tidal wave of chronic
disease because, as I mentionedearlier, the financial interests
(42:33):
are always pushing for moredrugs, more late treatments,
symptomatic or otherwise, tolater presenting disease, and
they're not aligned for reversal.
This is a quote by Marcia AngleMD.
She was one of the mostdistinguished and long-term
(42:53):
medical editors of the NewEngland Journal of Medicine, the
most prestigious and I use thatword in inverted commas because
it is also being one of themost, I guess, influenced by
those interests that I mentionedand what she said.
So this is a quote from her.
(43:15):
It is simply no longer possibleto believe much of the clinical
research that is published orto rely on the judgment of
trusted physicians orauthoritative medical guidelines
.
I take no pleasure in thisconclusion, which I reached
slowly and reluctantly over mytwo decades as an editor of the
New England Journal of Medicine.
So she's an insider, she hasseen the inner workings, she's
(43:37):
seen behind the curtain.
So when an insider like thistells you that there's issues,
there's conflicts of interestthat render the validity of
something like medical treatmentguidelines, when she tells you
that, then if you're payingattention, then if you're smart,
(44:00):
I would suggest that you shouldpay attention to that.
So it's worrying and it'sconcerning, but it fundamentally
, I think, reflects that much ofwhat the centralized paradigm
is built upon is in some way,shape or form influenced.
And I think, if anyone's really, really interested in delving
(44:24):
deeper into this, the Stanfordepidemiologist called John
Ioannidis, who is basically oneof the world's leading experts
in medical rigor and rigorousscience, he published a paper I
think it was 2005, so it'scoming up to 20 years now, which
(44:45):
is quite a long time, and it'stitled why Most Published
Research is False, and he veryelegantly explains a lot of what
Marsha Engel has suggested inthis quote.
So I mean I don't want to end ona pessimistic note.
So what is the solution and howdo we walk back and how do you?
(45:08):
And I want to speak to you asan individual, because I think,
fundamentally this is anindividual process and health is
an individual process becausewhen we externalize our health
and we rely on others, again, ifyou're in a more difficult
accident, absolutely you'regoing to rely on you, on the
emergency physician who'sresuscitating you.
(45:29):
But from a chronic diseasepoint of view, if you
externalize the treatment, thenyou're potentially putting
yourself in a disempoweredposition where you are a victim
of those currents, and they'rebigger than one person, they're
system-wide currents that I'vementioned.
So a decentralized healthapproach is what I think can be
(45:54):
a benefit to people, and that isbecause, like I said, it is
going to emphasize what was theniche for our species from an
evolutionary biology point ofview.
So the level of evidence that weneed to reach in order to
implement this is so much lower,because this was just what our
(46:15):
ancestors were doing, and thatis ancestral nutrition which is
built upon whole foods,unprocessed foods, foods free
from industrial agriculturalinputs like broadacre herbicides
and glyphosate and others.
It's nutrition that ispredominantly of animal origin,
(46:38):
that's rich in ruminant meat,that's rich in wild harvested
seafood.
That was what we know frompaleoanthropological data, was
fundamental in building ourbrains, building everything that
we know to be what makes usuniquely human.
So it's also reliant onregenerative farming, and it is
(47:00):
so because that is the processby which this food is produced.
And it's produced in a way thatimproves the quality of the
soil, it improves the quality ofthe food, improves the quality
of the food and it reflects theanimal in its native habitat.
And, rather than being ascourge, an environmental
problem, ruminant grazing, whendone in this fully grass-fed,
(47:25):
rotational manner, is a boon forthe environment.
It's regenerating landscapes,it's improving soil fertility.
So that's another whole topicin and of itself, but that's a
fundamental pillar, because thisis how we move away from an
industrialised food system thatproduces foods that contribute
(47:46):
to the chronic disease epidemicand we move back towards
ancestrally appropriatenutrition that is of benefit to
the animals, to ourselves and tothe planet.
And I think the most importantpiece of this puzzle is
circadian and quantum biology,and that means the practices of
(48:10):
getting deliberate sun exposureunexposed on your skin,
uncovered, and respecting this24-hour rhythm which is known as
the circadian rhythm.
And look, I haven't gone intoit in depth because I wanted to
kind of emphasize other points.
But the proliferation ofartificial light, artificial
(48:30):
light at night, is underlying,in my opinion, the explosion in
chronic disease and I thinkprocessed food is adding massive
amounts of fuel onto a firethat starts with broken
circadian rhythms, with exposureto non-native electromagnetic
(48:50):
radiation from a range ofsources and again, that's not
the topic of this talk, but it'sfundamentally the foundation of
improving health is to fix ourrelationship with light, and the
best thing about thisdecentralized health in pillars
(49:12):
is that they're free.
They're all very, very cheapand a pharmaceutical option
again warranted.
For some it's completelyoptional, it's up to you, but
they are somewhat more expensiveways of dealing with the
consequences of ignoring theseancestral needs that we had and
(49:36):
still have.
If you want to learn more aboutthe role of light in health and
it's really been a focus ofmine for the past six months at
least on my podcast, no, over ayear now then I would really
suggest checking out my podcast.
It's called Regenerative Healthand I've talked to a whole
range of experts on variousfacets of this problem and I'll
(50:01):
quickly give you an overview.
Robert Fosbury, astrophysicist,talking about infrared light and
life interactions with yourmitochondria and why this modern
light environment is such acontributor to diabetes from a
very, very fundamental point ofview.
This is Professor Glenn Jeffery.
He's a neuroscientist who hasstudied the amazing power of red
(50:23):
light in the deep red toessentially reduce blood glucose
by improving mitochondrialfunction.
This is Professor RichardWeller, who led that UK Biobank
cohort study analysis and isadvocating for more UV light
exposure because of its profoundeffects on preventing
(50:44):
cardiovascular disease andimproving cardiovascular health
and general health.
This is Professor MichaelHolick cardiovascular health and
general health.
This is Professor MichaelHollick.
He is the world expert onvitamin D and his research has
consistently shown how importantunprotected sun exposure is for
general health.
This is Alexis Cowan.
She is a Princeton-trained PhDresearcher, again exploring
(51:08):
quantum biology and circadianbiology and talking about these
decentralized health topics that, again, are not being reflected
in mainstream guidelines.
And this is Dr Martin Moorheed,who is a world expert circadian
researcher and he's talking andadvocating for the change of
our line environment to stopthis circadian disruption which
(51:32):
is underlying so much of ourpoor health.
If you want to learn more andyou specifically want to ask me
your questions, you can do thatand I'm very happy to help you
with a more in-depth and morepersonalized help in my private
(51:52):
community.
So all these changes are andhonestly it can be like drinking
from a fire hose and it can beoverwhelming, completely
overwhelming, because there area lot to change and the modern
environment from a circadianpoint of view, from a dietary
point of view environment from acircadian point of view, from a
(52:14):
dietary point of view, isfundamentally hostile to what
I've discussed as beingbeneficial for your health.
So I have a private communitygroup, I do a weekly Q&A not too
dissimilar to this, but I'msimply just answering questions
and a whole bunch of very smartand motivated and very patient
and welcoming supportivecommunity, some of whom are
(52:35):
listening now, who can help them, and it's a great community.
So I'd encourage you, if youare really interested, then to
join us and we can definitelyoffer you some help.
And I've got some courses andthese courses will walk you
through the real basics of howto harness light and circadian
(52:57):
reset.
I kind of run it every month.
Although you can access thecontent, you can purchase it
whenever you like but I try anddo it, emphasize it at the
beginning of every month andreally walk people through a
couple of key behaviors that youcan do, like this red light is
one of them to mitigate theeffects of this artificial light
(53:17):
environment on our health andsolar callus.
That refers to this humanphotoprotective response which
we generate on prolongedexposure daily, in small amounts
at first, to developessentially a response to
ultraviolet light that allows usto harness more and more
(53:39):
ultraviolet light withoutburning and, essentially, as I
hope I've showed you earlier inthe presentation, the more UV
light you can harness, thelonger your longevity, the more
disease you can postpone oravoid.
Solar calluses is some realdeep cuts.
It's very, very detailed.
(54:01):
If you're interested inlearning exactly why, then it's
about nine hours of lessons, andit's about nine hours of
lessons similar to this, buteven, in some cases, very
similar to this, to reallyprovide a rebuttal to these
narratives of sign avoidancethat are so pervasive.
(54:23):
I've talked about that and theseare my contacts.
So this is my YouTube channel.
You can find the podcast onApple Podcasts, spotify.
I'm on Instagram.
I'm on ex formerly Twitter, andthat's my email address if you
want to get a hold of me, and mywebsite too.
So thank you everyone forlistening and, yeah, I'm happy
(54:44):
to answer any questions that youmight have about the talk.
So thanks a lot.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.