10 ms·
This is an interesting finding. But, a reminder that this is epidemiological data. It is nearly impossible to "adjust" for all confounding variables in epidemio
by prbl2 2y ago
This is an interesting finding. But, a reminder that this is epidemiological data. It is nearly impossible to "adjust" for all confounding variables in epidemiological studies. For example, you may expect a health user-bias among people who use solariums, sunlamps, or have high vitamin-D levels, and health at baseline might be effected by random fluctuations not accounting for all variance. I would look for evidence of randomized trials before taking this as the truth.
- marcosdumay 2y agoHow well fundamented is the opposite belief, that seems to be held as true by nearly everybody? I know the link to skin cancer is well established, but I don't know of any broad study about all causes of mortality. Yes, do not take this study as true. But also, look at your priors.
- arcticbull 2y agoUV causes skin cancer - but the majority of them (10:1) are basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas. These have a 99-100% 5-year survival. While UV exposure can increase the risk of melanomas, it makes you less likely to die from them [1]. The UVA-mediated release of nitric oxide from the skin improves your cardiovascular health and you are far more likely to die of CVD than skin cancers, especially if you screen for them. Early stage melanomas have a 99.6% 5-year survival. [1] https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/97/3/195/2544082 https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/97/3/195/2544082 Also note there is very limited evidence for the health benefits of vitamin D supplementation, especially if you're anywhere close to a normal level. [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00593-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00593-z
- stefantalpalaru 2y ago[dead]