Associations. Diagnostic looseness, claims that the sun causes malignant melanoma, mixed reports with other skin cancers counted.
Don’t get published unless you scare people.
What if I proposed to publish a paper that said that people get melanoma but it is mostly about genetics?
What if I got into the weeds on the higher rate of skin cancer awareness and the many skin cancers that are not malignant in the oncological sense–they are local.
What if I pointed out that associational studies do not prove causation.
Well, I wouldn’t get published. So Pasty faced dermatologists preach about sun block with high ratings.
I am a dark skinned Irishman–I bet my genetics against the scaremongers, at an advanced age, after a lot of sun, even a few summers as a lifeguard, i have yet to let some derm start whittling away–but i have fair skinned relatives who are prone to basal and squamous.
I will leave the melanoma debate to another category–since melanoams seem to be inclined to occur in non sun exposed areas–that in itself makes me wonder–howboutu?
An archive from JS. Milloy is troubled by the melanoma scare machine. Always be skeptical when someone in the business of scaring people uses the words epidemic, or crisis. Some people just have to fuss about things and scare themselves and others.
Skin type and exposure are critical factors in skin cancer, no doubt, if you include basal and squamous. Melanoma is a very nasty beast indeed, but I am still troubled by the rate of melanoma in the high latitudes, where sun exposures are less.