Comment by Noaidi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Noaidi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

5-year relative survival rates for melanoma skin cancer is 95%. That is all that matters.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/melanoma-skin-cancer/det...

The study data is not out yet, I thought it was, so I will wait untiul it is to comment further.

But saying in the press that:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-20/melanoma-drug-cancer-...

"Melanoma is one of the deadliest forms of skin cancer, with more than 330,000 new cases diagnosed worldwide in 2022."

Saying melanoma is the deadliest forms of skin cancer is not revealing anything and is a scare tactic. In 2022, there were approximately 60,000 deaths worldwide due to melanoma. A rare cancer with 18% death rate is not high compared to the others. The deadliest cancers include lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer. These cancers have the lowest survival rates and account for a significant number of cancer-related deaths.

But I will wait for the upcoming complications and the worse 5 year all cause mortality rate in these patients.

Question for you: what is the goal of these comments? What is it would you like people to do or think differently after reading what you've written?

I'll go first: my hope is that someone who has read what I've written will be more likely to take seriously something suspicious they see on their skin rather than ignore it as unimportant, and be more inclined to take seriously protection from sun exposure when possible

My goal is to 1) not reward these companies by over inflating phase 3 clinical trial outcomes and 2) to not fear a skin cancer diagnosis and 3) not live your life in a bubble while polluting the world with sunscreen.

Sun exposure does not cause skin cancer. It only increases the risk of skin cancer in some people. Look at the ROI on people's behavior and it makes no sense. Are we actually causing more damage by using all this sunscreen and the plastic bottles it comes in and lowering everyone's vitamin D levels?

Sunscreen was widely used in the 70's and skin cancer rates keep going up. It's useless.

There are truths in there, but you seem to be looking only for evidence that supports your beliefs (and misreading evidence against your beliefs) instead of tailoring your beliefs based on evidence. Additionally you make blanket, definitive assertions like "sun exposure does not cause skin cancer" which no one should be listening to

Multiple things can be true at the same time:

1. Skin cancer can be successfully treated if found and removed early

2. Vitamin D is healthy and necessary, but at the same time too much sun exposure is harmful. That harm depends on different factors (like skin tone)

3. Some kinds of sunscreen might be problematic or bad for the environment, but there are different kinds of sunscreen (mineral-based, reef-safe)

4. There are multiple ways to mitigate sun exposure, not just sunscreen (avoid peak UV times, wear sun-protective clothing). Mitigation doesn't mean "complete avoidance"

5. Sun exposure is not the only cause of skin cancer, but it is a cause of skin cancer and a common one at that

I did not say that the sun does not increase the risk of skin cancer. I did say it does not cause skin cancer. Do you understand the distinction I’m making? “Cause” can only be determined when the event has already happened. And even in the case of the sun causing someone’s skin cancer, it is not the only variable.

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(20)30092-1/abs...

My argument is that higher vitamin D will help a person’s life more than any increase of risk of skin cancer one would get from exposure to the sun.

"Alcohol causes hangovers" is a true statement.

"Alcohol does not always cause hangovers" is also true.

"Some people don't get hangovers from alcohol" is also true.

"Some hangovers are not caused by alcohol" is also true.

"Alcohol does not cause hangovers" is a false statement.

So it is with UV radiation from the sun and skin cancer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com