Live data from Hacker News

Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#71
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have access to the full paper, but I would expect that they at least tried to control for sun exposure. In general, if you can think of an obvious confounding factor in about five seconds, then it’s a safe assumption that professional researchers thought of it too.

The study is based on a couple hundred people in a city in Finland, they could at least have tried to collect data on people closer to the tropics to hedge a bit. I doubt this has any validity ignoring such a basic confounding factor like living in a place that does have a lot of sun exposure.

Keep in mind that people from Finland are more likely to have skin that makes them particularly vulnerable to Melanoma.

A loved one is fighting this right now - if something simple like supplements, dietary practices or drug development could reduce the risk, it could potentially prevent alot of suffering. Even if it doesn’t work, perhaps it’s a line of inquiry with some value.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#72
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, at least, a safer assumption: it's worth checking to see what they said about it before publicly speculating. And indeed, it seems they did survey for sun exposure and include it in their analysis, and they caveat a lot of their references to other work in their introduction noting where other studies didn't . https://www.naturalhealthresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/202...

or publicly speculate and let a commenter who is more worried about checking check for you

I'm pretty sure XKCD created a name for this, if no-one is replying, give a horribly wrong solution to nerd snipe someone to put the time in to giving a correct solution.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we don't understand the effect of Vitamin C, or D. Your analogy is deeply flawed. We understand engines well enough, but we don't truly understand the machinery of even a single cell of our body. We have broad strokes - take C for a cold. Take D in winter. But there are trained scientists who disagree with even these statements! We have people making a mockery of Nobel Prize winners over it! Where have you ever s…

> we don't understand the effect of Vitamin C, or D Sure. But we know they are important. Despite being “single molecules.” > We have broad strokes - take C for a cold. Take D in winter. But there are trained scientists who disagree with even these statements! Because they appear unsubstantiated. You’re describing treatments. That’s a different ball game. > We have people making a mockery of Nobel Prize winners over…

> Sure. But we know they are important. Despite being “single molecules.”

The point is that there's huge debate on how they work, why they work, whether they work for this and that, etc, despite them being about as tiny and simple in form as you could ask for.

And as far as I know no one has ever claimed that Vitamin C and D are not single molecules, so I've no idea why you put that in quotes. It's relevant that they're not, for example, the mixture of hundreds or even thousands of synergistic and antagonistic compounds, in various quantities, found in every single plant.

> Because they appear unsubstantiated. You’re describing treatments. That’s a different ball game.

Taking C for a cold, or D in winter, is NOT unsubstantiated - there are studies that show effect, and studies that show no effect. It's debated. That's exactly my point, that even these simple and tiny molecules inspire massive confusion and debate. It's in no way like an engine. The body and how it processes things like vitamins is so, so much more complex.

You can say this same thing about thousands of molecules and simple substances, which the scientismic community stands behind despite huge debate - SSRIs, anti-psychotics, glyphosate, etc. We don't understand them, and vested interests in white coats want us to believe otherwise. Remember tobacco being promoted by doctors? It wasn't that long ago.

The point, again, is this: that if we can have so much uncertainty about such tiny and simple things, why would we believe it's safe to muck about with our food supply (GMO monocultures), or to declare glyphosate safe and cover the planet with it, or claim that mRNA vaccines are utterly harmless (despite immediate evidence to the contrary, as now proven beyond doubt). Remember CFCs, PFAS, thalidomide?

These things are fundamentally different from your example of a simple combustion engine. They're complex on a level far beyond our current ability to comprehend. Even if we think we know what's going on, we really, really don't. We have hints, we have hunches, we have incomplete models with giant and dangerous holes in.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#74
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s over double the dose considered “safe”. Obviously, I’m not suggesting you do otherwise; it’s just way outside the bounds of what most adults would do unless directed to by their physician.

For context, this study found that 30 minutes of midday summer sun exposure in Oslo, Norway was equivalent to consuming 10,000–20,000 IU of vitamin D. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667143 Must be much higher in sunnier regions.

The neat thing about vitamin D synthesis in the skin is that it stops once there's enough of it - it is literally impossible to overdose on vitamin D through sun exposure. So, there's a ceiling that makes "must be higher in sunny regions" far from obviously true!

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#75

I was told recently that US Doctors have lost their license over this topic; no idea if that is true.

My wife’s OBGYN endorses homeopathy. You have to kill someone or question covid vaccines to lose your license in this country.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#76
These studies have no value.

There is basically no legitimate insight on things in medicine that kind of work (you need very stringent measures for lack of bias, huge varied cohorts, lots of studies, major controls, etc.) so, to this day, most studies on supplements/vitamins are low quality and highly inconclusive.

Things that have a huge effect are much easier to study, but that type of fruit is mostly picked by pharmaceutical companies and patented.

After years, many, many, many studies, billions of dollars, huge cohorts, lots of analysis, the medical industry can say that vitamin d supplements maybe possibly are helpful for some things but could also be harmful, but probably aren't, but also probably don't help unless you're very deficient.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-vitamin-d/art-2...

When you start talking about other supplements, you go into crazy-world.

It's not even clear that most pharmaceuticals do anything unless the effect size is very significant.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or publicly speculate and let a commenter who is more worried about checking check for you

I'm pretty sure XKCD created a name for this, if no-one is replying, give a horribly wrong solution to nerd snipe someone to put the time in to giving a correct solution.

The irony here is not lost on me, but it's Cunningham's Law (apocryphally named after Ward Cunningham, the creator of the first wiki software).

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study is based on a couple hundred people in a city in Finland, they could at least have tried to collect data on people closer to the tropics to hedge a bit. I doubt this has any validity ignoring such a basic confounding factor like living in a place that does have a lot of sun exposure.

Keep in mind that people from Finland are more likely to have skin that makes them particularly vulnerable to Melanoma. A loved one is fighting this right now - if something simple like supplements, dietary practices or drug development could reduce the risk, it could potentially prevent alot of suffering. Even if it doesn’t work, perhaps it’s a line of inquiry with some value.

They could at least try to include white people in places where there is more sunlight, both my mom and my wife are white (my mom would likely be at home at a Nordic country, her family is full of redheads) and they both developed melanoma in northeastern Brazil, albeit they were found out quickly and did not cause much trouble.

Not even trying to consider the confounding variables is really sad.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study is based on a couple hundred people in a city in Finland, they could at least have tried to collect data on people closer to the tropics to hedge a bit. I doubt this has any validity ignoring such a basic confounding factor like living in a place that does have a lot of sun exposure.

Keep in mind that people from Finland are more likely to have skin that makes them particularly vulnerable to Melanoma. A loved one is fighting this right now - if something simple like supplements, dietary practices or drug development could reduce the risk, it could potentially prevent alot of suffering. Even if it doesn’t work, perhaps it’s a line of inquiry with some value.

I haven't seen an image of an Alot of Suffering but it doesn't sound pleasant.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#80
post #54
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have access to the full paper, but I would expect that they at least tried to control for sun exposure. In general, if you can think of an obvious confounding factor in about five seconds, then it’s a safe assumption that professional researchers thought of it too.

Or, at least, a safer assumption: it's worth checking to see what they said about it before publicly speculating. And indeed, it seems they did survey for sun exposure and include it in their analysis, and they caveat a lot of their references to other work in their introduction noting where other studies didn't . https://www.naturalhealthresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/202...

Ok but they tried to control for sun exposure just by asking how much sun exposure have you gotten in your life? A little or a lot (paraphrasing)?

The issue with this is that the amount of vitamin D someone might take is correlated with how much sun exposure is available. And the amount of available sun exposure can impact what is considered a little / a lot to each person.

Post reply on HN