[experimenting]

The most plausible reason is that the scientific peer-reviewed result is correct, not the tiring "correlation does not imply causatian" commenter on HN who at most skimmed the paper.

2009: > Epidemiological data show an inverse relationship between vitamin D levels and breast cancer incidence. In addition, there is a well-documented association between vitamin D intake and the risk of breast cancer. Low vitamin D intake has also been indicated in colorectal carcinogenesis. A vitamin D deficiency has also been documented in patients with prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, as well as multiple myeloma. Larger randomized clinical trials should be undertaken in humans to establish the role of vitamin D supplementation in the prevention of these cancers.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> The most plausible reason is that the scientific peer-reviewed result is correct, not the tiring "correlation does not imply causatian" commenter on HN who at most skimmed the paper.

Quite the odd take given the last sentence in the abstract of this paper is essentially "correlation is not causation":

> In conclusion, regular use of vitamin D associates with fewer melanoma cases, when compared to non-use, but the causality between them is obscure.

[hombre_fatal]

They could be just saying they don’t know why.

[wouldbecouldbe]

it’s a small difference in a small group. And relying on self reporting for sun exposure.