The Chicago Tribune authored an editorial on Friday slamming indoor tanning but misstated facts in an attempt to dissuade readers from using indoor tanning equipment. “The use of tanning beds by people under age 30 is associated with melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer,” the paper wrote. “Researchers cannot explain the rising incidence of the disease for any reason except the increased popularity of indoor tanning over the past two decades.”

In fact, independent researchers HAVE offered several reasons – in peer-reviewed journals – in the past 12 months, bolstering peer-reviewed explanations about melanoma’s complex relationship with UV that have been promoted for more than a decade.

• British dermatology leaders conduced a study of melanoma incidence titled, “Melanoma Epidemic: A Midsummer Night’s Dream” in the British Journal of Dermatology last year, showing that the alleged increase in melanoma incidence is, in fact, merely an increase in the diagnosis of thin melanoma lesions without a corresponding increase in diagnosis of thicker lesions or an increase in the mortality rate. Because thick lesions and mortality aren’t increasing, it’s nearly impossible to state that actual melanoma incidence is increasing. This study bolstered a similar paper written at Emory University more than a decade ago about U.S. Melanoma incidence.

• “Overdiagnosis in Cancer” published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute supported the same point — that melanoma overdiagnosis “is simply the detection of pseudo-disease” because doctors are removing more thin lesions today and calling them melanomas, which is falsely inflating incidence numbers. The main point: There is a difference between incidence and reported incidence.

• The government’s own data support these two papers, showing actual increases in melanoma in men over age 50, but not in women under age 50. Dermatology lobbyists have skewed data to make their statements.

• A commentary in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings written by a melanoma researcher right in the Tribune’s back yard — “Melanoma’s Public Message” by Dr. Arthur Rhodes of Chicago — points the fingers at the fact that the vilification of UV as the cause of melanoma is killing older men who don’t tan, who get melanoma but who never get lesions checked out because dermatology’s message about UV is archaic.

On top of that, the Tribune’s main point — that those under 18 should be kept out of sunbed centers — will drive teenagers to unregulated home-garage sunbeds and back to the beaches and blacktops to get overexposed instead of non-burning exposure in regulated sunbed studios. We can supply PLENTY of evidence supporting this contention.

In 20 minutes we could have explained all of this and how dermatology industry lobbying groups have not told the whole story to editorial boards nationwide to the Tribune. But the Tribune elected simply to pen an editorial based on the talking points of anti-UV lobbying groups who are lobbying to provide UV to millions of teens themselves with their own sunbeds for cosmetic skin conditions at $85-$100 a session while making $6 indoor sunbed sessions illegal.

So here’s an open invitation to the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board: We’re willing to sit down with you and show you why your “researchers cannot explain” editorial was wrong and why you will WANT to change your position. We hope you return our call.