> A more charitable view would be, "Currently I have better evidence in the literature that this medication would be more helpful than sun exposure, which in la

> A more charitable view would be, "Currently I have better evidence in the literature that this medication would be more helpful than sun exposure, which in large quantities has more evidence of harm than benefit." That's indeed a very charitable view. The more realistic view, in my experience is "I just go with the mainstream as nobody got fired or sued for going with the mainstream and I don't really have the time, nor the inclination to keep up with the latest studies". > Who says this isn't the latest whim to be disproven in 20 years? A million years of evolution, spent in extreme sun exposure, without sunblock? I've long suspected that the "Always put on sunblock" advice is bollocks and have never used the substance. Partly because of common sense (evolution of human species) and partly because of simple observation. All my grandparents and their relatives were raised in villages (and quite a few still live or lived there till they passed away), with serious sun exposure, working on the field, long before the age of sunblock. Yet, none of them had skin cancer. Other cancers, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, yes. Skin cancer - not a single one of them. Why is that, if the sun is so dangerous? And while you may dismiss my anecdata, note that the article says "outdoor workers have half the melanoma rate of indoor workers"!! So, for me this isn't the "latest whim", we're just going back to common sense.