Dermatology’s latest study attempting to mischaracterize humanity’s natural chemical attraction to sunlight as “addiction” only involved seven subjects and didn’t actually use real indoor tanning sessions, a closer analysis of the study’s protocol revealed.

“The new study involved seven frequent tanners who said they had used tanning beds an average of about 27 of the previous 90 days,” HealthDay.com reported in its story on the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center study, conceived and administered by the school’s Department of Dermatology. “The researchers had each participant use a tanning bed for 10-minute sessions under two conditions: in one session, the tanner was exposed to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, while in the other session special filters blocked such exposure. Volunteers did not know if the tanning session involved UV radiation or not.”

In question:

(1) Researchers are assuming that 27 sessions in 90 days — less than one session every three days — is unnatural. That’s significantly less UV exposure than an outdoor worker receives and can hardly be called “excessive” in the context of maintaining a tan for many. “The chemical reactions they say are happening in the brains of these tanners are likely also happening in the brains of anyone who goes outside into the sun on a sunny day,” Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. “This is not addiction. It is attraction. Anyone studying ‘addiction’ should understand this caveat. It’s not even a caveat, actually. It’s the default explanation for what they observed and it’s like they are completely ignoring it.”

(2) The session length — 10-minute sessions — seems odd in a standard tanning unit, for which a regular tanner would probably be acclimated to 15- to 20-minute sessions. “If these chemical reactions in the brain which they say may be signs of addiction can be triggered in a 10-minute session, then they most likely occur anytime anyone walks outdoors,” Levy said. “One can only assume dermatology developed this study model, conspicuously ignored and downplayed the confounders and is promoting what they want to match their predetermined agenda.”