[perspective1]

It's a plausible mechanism but a bogus study. With most of their confidence intervals including hazard ratios of 1.0 (or very close to it), they need to rule out even slight correlations like smoking and (low) income. Recall bias of the survey participants is another major factor in cancer cases. Overall this reads like they collected data of a bunch of chemical exposures setting their p to < 0.05 and found this one that they could publish on.

[carlmr]

>need to rule out even slight correlations like smoking and (low) income.

Especially with hair dying, since looking at my environment at least early usage (before graying) is very much correlated with low income/education.

[romdev]

I'd like to see antiperspirant usage as a variable, but it seems like it would be hard to find a control. Having tried several times to buy deodorant without antiperspirant for my wife, I can say how hard it is to find an armpit product without aluminum oxide. It's not so hard to find masculine scented deodorants.

[carlmr]

Yeah, I'm wondering why we're not erring on the side of caution there and banning them until proven safe.