Is it though? Do we actually have the data that says so, or do we have data that has tons of other factors mixed in, where sunlight exposure happens to be correlated with better health?
> So yes do use sunscreen in moderation but don’t avoid the sun.
Using sunscreen (according to the article) is equivalent to avoiding the sun, as it blocks production of Vitamin D.
> Is it though? Do we actually have the data that says so, or do we have data that has tons of other factors mixed in, where sunlight exposure happens to be correlated with better health?
What other kind of data would you need, or expect to see?
Shouldn't the onus be on people claiming that, given the reality of human evolution and existence, blocking sun exposure is the way to go?
The article points out risks mitigated by sun exposure (and their corresponding mortality rates), and the main negative (Melanoma) and its lower incidence. On net I think the "minimize sun exposure" advocates have a weaker argument.
As article points out this is eerily similar to low-fat, cholesterol fear mongering from decades ago. Funny a similar recommendation (blood pressure pills) is given by doctors here.
What I'd hope to see is randomized studies or studies that exploit some random variation for identification. The studies mentioned in the article all appear to rely on regressions controlling for observables. But of course there could be plenty of unobservable factors that are driving the result: the type of people that spend a lot of time in the sun are healthier for other reasons. I haven't read Weller's work though so maybe he has some RCTs too or maybe someone else does.
Is it though? Do we actually have the data that says so, or do we have data that has tons of other factors mixed in, where sunlight exposure happens to be correlated with better health?
> So yes do use sunscreen in moderation but don’t avoid the sun.
Using sunscreen (according to the article) is equivalent to avoiding the sun, as it blocks production of Vitamin D.