Anonymous wrote:OP. Just an update...got the results today over the phone. Nothing showed up for any of them. Nothing, AND the doctor had said for me to return to get two more removed. I will now be switching dermatologists and going for routine checks and monitoring rather than to someone who just wanted to cut everything off for no reason it seems. A little irritating.

But thankful and relieved if course that everything is ok.

OP. Just an update...got the results today over the phone. Nothing showed up for any of them. Nothing, AND the doctor had said for me to return to get two more removed. I will now be switching dermatologists and going for routine checks and monitoring rather than to someone who just wanted to cut everything off for no reason it seems. A little irritating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Melanoma is rare and often genetic, especially before age 40. Later in life, you can have what's diagnosed as a superficial spreading melanoma, that doesn't get invasive (think McCain).

All these cancer checks are very stressful and cause health anxiety in lots of people Personally, I think it sucks and think that it's a way of generating income. Pay attention to your body and look for changes. If it makes you go 'hmmm', check it out.

That's my opinion; ymmv.

I get where you're coming from but this is bad advice. Skin checks are not just for docs to try to make money. I had a teeny, tiny flat mole appear at 38 and only noticed it because it was on my pale stomach. If it had been on my freckled limbs I would never have noticed it. The skin cancer screening app said it was normal. Good thing I insisted the doc cut it off. It was moderately dysplastic meaning already on the road to melanoma. People mistakenly think skin cancer isn't deadly when in reality melanoma kills lots of people.

It's either cancer or it's not. Dysplastic moles do not always move to melanoma - that's a myth. Some do, some don't. There have been cases of people being scarred all over having moles removed due to this kind of thinking.

Melanoma does not kill lots of people. In addition, they are finding that melanoma rates skyrocketing is linked to overzealous sunscreen use, which makes people deficient in vitamin D. It's the lack of vitamin D that is starting to be linked with melanoma rates increasing.

This is an exceedingly poor interpretation of the research findings. I think it is irresponsible of you to post this. Look up any reputable medical source - none of them advise not using sunscreen.

Did I say NOT to use sunscreen or did I say the overzealous sunscreen use?

Either way, your interpretation of the research is not accepted by the experts. In fact, the experts will tell you that people aren't't using enough sunscreen during the necessary hours.

I had invasive melanoma & I am very concerned about my kids - I would hate them to hear the kind of nonsense you have posted here.

With a 1st degree relative with melanoma, the rules change, given melanoma has a genetic cause.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your derm is willing to remove 6 moles and 3 or less actually come back as something you need a new derm. It's unethical to remove non cancerous moles just to charge insurance.

But you don't know if it's cancerous for sure unless/until the removed mole is biopsired, right?

OP. The dermatologist I saw was highly recommended. I don't think he just removed them because they were abnormal. I have other risk factors too -- family history of skin cancer and a lot of sun exposure throughout my youth (we were a very outdoorsy family -- boating, camping, beach, swimming) and this was at a time where using sunscreen was not really stressed a lot for anyone.

It sounds like your derm might be a bit overzealous. Unless perhaps you have a lot of moles. I'm the PP who had invasive melanoma. It's now more than 3 years since that was discovered, and I've only had one other mole removed. The others are just being watched (with a dermascope and photos). I see a derm at a melanoma specialty clinic.

OP here. Thank you. This is a helpful perspective given that this is new territory for me. I am inclinded now to investigate a second opinion should he want to remove additional moles -- depending, of course, on the results of the biopsies. I am all for prevention -- but I certainly am not up for continuing to get moles lopped off here and there if there is nothing indicating that they need removal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your derm is willing to remove 6 moles and 3 or less actually come back as something you need a new derm. It's unethical to remove non cancerous moles just to charge insurance.

But you don't know if it's cancerous for sure unless/until the removed mole is biopsired, right?

OP. The dermatologist I saw was highly recommended. I don't think he just removed them because they were abnormal. I have other risk factors too -- family history of skin cancer and a lot of sun exposure throughout my youth (we were a very outdoorsy family -- boating, camping, beach, swimming) and this was at a time where using sunscreen was not really stressed a lot for anyone.

It sounds like your derm might be a bit overzealous. Unless perhaps you have a lot of moles. I'm the PP who had invasive melanoma. It's now more than 3 years since that was discovered, and I've only had one other mole removed. The others are just being watched (with a dermascope and photos). I see a derm at a melanoma specialty clinic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your derm is willing to remove 6 moles and 3 or less actually come back as something you need a new derm. It's unethical to remove non cancerous moles just to charge insurance.

But you don't know if it's cancerous for sure unless/until the removed mole is biopsired, right?

OP. The dermatologist I saw was highly recommended. I don't think he just removed them because they were abnormal. I have other risk factors too -- family history of skin cancer and a lot of sun exposure throughout my youth (we were a very outdoorsy family -- boating, camping, beach, swimming) and this was at a time where using sunscreen was not really stressed a lot for anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Melanoma is rare and often genetic, especially before age 40. Later in life, you can have what's diagnosed as a superficial spreading melanoma, that doesn't get invasive (think McCain).

All these cancer checks are very stressful and cause health anxiety in lots of people Personally, I think it sucks and think that it's a way of generating income. Pay attention to your body and look for changes. If it makes you go 'hmmm', check it out.

That's my opinion; ymmv.

I get where you're coming from but this is bad advice. Skin checks are not just for docs to try to make money. I had a teeny, tiny flat mole appear at 38 and only noticed it because it was on my pale stomach. If it had been on my freckled limbs I would never have noticed it. The skin cancer screening app said it was normal. Good thing I insisted the doc cut it off. It was moderately dysplastic meaning already on the road to melanoma. People mistakenly think skin cancer isn't deadly when in reality melanoma kills lots of people.

It's either cancer or it's not. Dysplastic moles do not always move to melanoma - that's a myth. Some do, some don't. There have been cases of people being scarred all over having moles removed due to this kind of thinking.

Melanoma does not kill lots of people. In addition, they are finding that melanoma rates skyrocketing is linked to overzealous sunscreen use, which makes people deficient in vitamin D. It's the lack of vitamin D that is starting to be linked with melanoma rates increasing.

This is an exceedingly poor interpretation of the research findings. I think it is irresponsible of you to post this. Look up any reputable medical source - none of them advise not using sunscreen.

Did I say NOT to use sunscreen or did I say the overzealous sunscreen use?

Either way, your interpretation of the research is not accepted by the experts. In fact, the experts will tell you that people aren't't using enough sunscreen during the necessary hours.

I had invasive melanoma & I am very concerned about my kids - I would hate them to hear the kind of nonsense you have posted here.

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Melanoma is the number one cancer killer between ages 17-44.

And, you can call a mole dysplastic just by how it looks to our eyes but it's what shows up under the microscope that tells you to what degree the dysplastic cells have already started to actually change toward cancer. Severly dysplastic moles are sometimes just referred to as early melanoma.

I think your statements are perhaps unintentionally misleading. The large majority of dysplastic moles will never become cancerous. Dysplastic moles with the absence of cancer cells are 100% benign. A dysplastic mole is NOT necessarily pre cancerous. However, dysplastic moles are more likely to become cancerous than ones that are not. I have read zero literature that calls severely dysplastic moles cancer. I do know derms will remove them because it is very difficult to tell if/when they do turn to melanoma. I have had several biopsies, one was moderately dysplastic, and it was fully removed with small margins as a precautionary measure but at no point was it called pre cancerous.

It is important for people to get checked yearly.

Anonymous wrote:Butchered? The initial cut is tiny with usually just a speck of a scar. They don't cut down into your flesh at all until after a biopsy of the tiny first slice.

Re-read the 6 moles poster. The moles were "taken off".

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the latest science I've heard is that people with light skin cannot make up for our decreased vitamin D levels just by trying to absorb more through our skin by keeping off sunscreen.

As we age, there is often an increased need for vitamin D through supplementation, yes. Getting some sun without sunscreen in reasonable doses does not mean you are destined for melanoma. That's what the media wants you to believe though.

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Melanoma is the number one cancer killer between ages 17-44.

And, you can call a mole dysplastic just by how it looks to our eyes but it's what shows up under the microscope that tells you to what degree the dysplastic cells have already started to actually change toward cancer. Severly dysplastic moles are sometimes just referred to as early melanoma.

1) Parse this statement. Use numbers. How many people between those ages develop melanoma and die? One out of 10? One out of 100?
2) There is no guaranteed steady march towards melanoma. The vast majority of dysplastic moles are just that and always WILL be that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Melanoma is rare and often genetic, especially before age 40. Later in life, you can have what's diagnosed as a superficial spreading melanoma, that doesn't get invasive (think McCain).

All these cancer checks are very stressful and cause health anxiety in lots of people Personally, I think it sucks and think that it's a way of generating income. Pay attention to your body and look for changes. If it makes you go 'hmmm', check it out.

That's my opinion; ymmv.

I get where you're coming from but this is bad advice. Skin checks are not just for docs to try to make money. I had a teeny, tiny flat mole appear at 38 and only noticed it because it was on my pale stomach. If it had been on my freckled limbs I would never have noticed it. The skin cancer screening app said it was normal. Good thing I insisted the doc cut it off. It was moderately dysplastic meaning already on the road to melanoma. People mistakenly think skin cancer isn't deadly when in reality melanoma kills lots of people.

It's either cancer or it's not. Dysplastic moles do not always move to melanoma - that's a myth. Some do, some don't. There have been cases of people being scarred all over having moles removed due to this kind of thinking.

Melanoma does not kill lots of people. In addition, they are finding that melanoma rates skyrocketing is linked to overzealous sunscreen use, which makes people deficient in vitamin D. It's the lack of vitamin D that is starting to be linked with melanoma rates increasing.

This is an exceedingly poor interpretation of the research findings. I think it is irresponsible of you to post this. Look up any reputable medical source - none of them advise not using sunscreen.

Did I say NOT to use sunscreen or did I say the overzealous sunscreen use?