[hn_throwaway_99]

> The most plausible reason is that the scientific peer-reviewed result is correct, not the tiring "correlation does not imply causatian" commenter on HN who at most skimmed the paper.

Quite the odd take given the last sentence in the abstract of this paper is essentially "correlation is not causation":

> In conclusion, regular use of vitamin D associates with fewer melanoma cases, when compared to non-use, but the causality between them is obscure.

[hombre_fatal]

They could be just saying they don’t know why.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Which is literally the exact same thing as "correlation is not causation".