The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
I synthesize all of the available evidence to say there's confounders in the behaviors that relate to sun exposure. Vitamin D is still, I think, there's enough strength to say vitamin D. There's obviously strong associations, which is where you were starting with. I mean, the epidemiology regarding vitamin D levels and risk, colorectal cancer was one of the first to come, but then other cancers undeniably related to low vitamin D levels.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.