4 ms·

Your reading comprehension is way off. The article says "Each year in Australia, up to 420 people are diagnosed with acral or mucosal melanomas. They affect pe

Your reading comprehension is way off. The article says "Each year in Australia, up to 420 people are diagnosed with acral or mucosal melanomas. They affect people of all ethnic backgrounds, and are the most common forms of melanoma in people with very dark skin." That is a discussion of specific subtypes of melanoma. You've turned that into a general statement about melanoma: > not all skin cancers are caused by sun exposure, and this is more true for Melenoma which occur both more frequently in darker skinned people and in place where there is little sun exposure. These are "Two rare ... forms of melanoma" not "melanoma as a whole." The article does not say melanoma as a whole is more frequent in darker-skinned people and in places with little sun exposure. Those two subtypes are. Let's also quote from https://wasatchdermatology.com/blogs/basal-cell-vs-squamous-vs-melanoma-guide/ https://wasatchdermatology.com/blogs/basal-cell-vs-squamous-... > BCC ... can cause significant local tissue damage if left untreated. Most cases are linked to chronic sun exposure, especially in fair-skinned individuals. > While it often remains localized at first, SCC can invade deeper tissues and, in some cases, metastasize to lymph nodes or other organs. Risk factors include cumulative sun exposure, a history of sunburns, and immunosuppression. > While not all skin cancers can be prevented, effective sun protection and healthy habits can greatly reduce your risk for basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma. That does not support "most skin cancers are not a big deal" > Melanomas can vanish on their own Your link does not support that statement https://www.nature.com/articles/s41379-021-00870-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41379-021-00870-2 "Whilst some studies reported an association with improved survival ... others did not find any significant association, and some even reported worse outcomes in patients whose tumors showed regression" You seem to have read this as "melanoma just goes away and the problem is gone" rather than "the primary tumor can recede, and in that case survival odds are somewhat better by a few percentage points (but actually worse for Stage III patients!)"

Noaidi 2mo ago
5-year relative survival rates for melanoma skin cancer is 95%. That is all that matters. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/melanoma-skin-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates-for-melanoma-skin-cancer-by-stage.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/melanoma-skin-cancer/det... The study data is not out yet, I thought it was, so I will wait untiul it is to comment further. But saying in the press that: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-20/melanoma-drug-cancer-intismeran-autogene/107056350 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-20/melanoma-drug-cancer-... "Melanoma is one of the deadliest forms of skin cancer, with more than 330,000 new cases diagnosed worldwide in 2022." Saying melanoma is the deadliest forms of skin cancer is not revealing anything and is a scare tactic. In 2022, there were approximately 60,000 deaths worldwide due to melanoma. A rare cancer with 18% death rate is not high compared to the others. The deadliest cancers include lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer. These cancers have the lowest survival rates and account for a significant number of cancer-related deaths. But I will wait for the upcoming complications and the worse 5 year all cause mortality rate in these patients.
- anonymars 2mo ago
  Question for you: what is the goal of these comments? What is it would you like people to do or think differently after reading what you've written? I'll go first: my hope is that someone who has read what I've written will be more likely to take seriously something suspicious they see on their skin rather than ignore it as unimportant, and be more inclined to take seriously protection from sun exposure when possible
  - Noaidi 2mo ago
    My goal is to 1) not reward these companies by over inflating phase 3 clinical trial outcomes and 2) to not fear a skin cancer diagnosis and 3) not live your life in a bubble while polluting the world with sunscreen. Sun exposure does not cause skin cancer. It only increases the risk of skin cancer in some people. Look at the ROI on people's behavior and it makes no sense. Are we actually causing more damage by using all this sunscreen and the plastic bottles it comes in and lowering everyone's vitamin D levels? Sunscreen was widely used in the 70's and skin cancer rates keep going up. It's useless.
    - anonymars 2mo ago
      There are truths in there, but you seem to be looking only for evidence that supports your beliefs (and misreading evidence against your beliefs) instead of tailoring your beliefs based on evidence. Additionally you make blanket, definitive assertions like "sun exposure does not cause skin cancer" which no one should be listening to Multiple things can be true at the same time: 1. Skin cancer can be successfully treated if found and removed early 2. Vitamin D is healthy and necessary, but at the same time too much sun exposure is harmful. That harm depends on different factors (like skin tone) 3. Some kinds of sunscreen might be problematic or bad for the environment, but there are different kinds of sunscreen (mineral-based, reef-safe) 4. There are multiple ways to mitigate sun exposure, not just sunscreen (avoid peak UV times, wear sun-protective clothing). Mitigation doesn't mean "complete avoidance" 5. Sun exposure is not the only cause of skin cancer, but it is a cause of skin cancer and a common one at that

Noaidi 2mo ago

5-year relative survival rates for melanoma skin cancer is 95%. That is all that matters. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/melanoma-skin-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates-for-melanoma-skin-cancer-by-stage.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/melanoma-skin-cancer/det... The study data is not out yet, I thought it was, so I will wait untiul it is to comment further. But saying in the press that: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-20/melanoma-drug-cancer-intismeran-autogene/107056350 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-20/melanoma-drug-cancer-... "Melanoma is one of the deadliest forms of skin cancer, with more than 330,000 new cases diagnosed worldwide in 2022." Saying melanoma is the deadliest forms of skin cancer is not revealing anything and is a scare tactic. In 2022, there were approximately 60,000 deaths worldwide due to melanoma. A rare cancer with 18% death rate is not high compared to the others. The deadliest cancers include lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer. These cancers have the lowest survival rates and account for a significant number of cancer-related deaths. But I will wait for the upcoming complications and the worse 5 year all cause mortality rate in these patients.

anonymars 2mo ago
Question for you: what is the goal of these comments? What is it would you like people to do or think differently after reading what you've written? I'll go first: my hope is that someone who has read what I've written will be more likely to take seriously something suspicious they see on their skin rather than ignore it as unimportant, and be more inclined to take seriously protection from sun exposure when possible
- Noaidi 2mo ago
  My goal is to 1) not reward these companies by over inflating phase 3 clinical trial outcomes and 2) to not fear a skin cancer diagnosis and 3) not live your life in a bubble while polluting the world with sunscreen. Sun exposure does not cause skin cancer. It only increases the risk of skin cancer in some people. Look at the ROI on people's behavior and it makes no sense. Are we actually causing more damage by using all this sunscreen and the plastic bottles it comes in and lowering everyone's vitamin D levels? Sunscreen was widely used in the 70's and skin cancer rates keep going up. It's useless.
  - anonymars 2mo ago
    There are truths in there, but you seem to be looking only for evidence that supports your beliefs (and misreading evidence against your beliefs) instead of tailoring your beliefs based on evidence. Additionally you make blanket, definitive assertions like "sun exposure does not cause skin cancer" which no one should be listening to Multiple things can be true at the same time: 1. Skin cancer can be successfully treated if found and removed early 2. Vitamin D is healthy and necessary, but at the same time too much sun exposure is harmful. That harm depends on different factors (like skin tone) 3. Some kinds of sunscreen might be problematic or bad for the environment, but there are different kinds of sunscreen (mineral-based, reef-safe) 4. There are multiple ways to mitigate sun exposure, not just sunscreen (avoid peak UV times, wear sun-protective clothing). Mitigation doesn't mean "complete avoidance" 5. Sun exposure is not the only cause of skin cancer, but it is a cause of skin cancer and a common one at that