I bet the supplement industry is going to be splashing this study all over the internet for the next few months.
It feels like a failure of communication, but who knows. I only see one Dr at a time.
There are no safe UV rays[1].
Exposure-incidence models agree[2].
1. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/sun-and-uv/sun...
I suspect when we know more, the best answer is going to be moderation. But it's really anybody's guess right now.
I want to be clear that there being pros and cons whose relative proportions change is very different than what some other commenters seem to be implying which is closer to a threshold model of UV safety which clearly doesn't exist and is non-scientific.
Get some sunlight but don't get a sunburn. It's not rocket science.
No mention of the Swedish cohort study (Lindqvist 2016) showing sun-avoiders had 2x mortality risk over 20 years. No mention of the dozens of ecological studies showing inverse relationships between UV and many cancers.
I could go on all day. You can't just paste one link and call it settled science.
You'll notice that Lindqvist 2014, 2016, and 2020 are references 77, 78, and 79 respectively. Definitely interested in what evidence would change your mind. Any chance you could describe your evidentiary bar?