Skin cancer?

having moles removed can increase risk of skin cancer, hence why many leave them where they are

i was actually wrong about this, was a story someone told me a while back, obviously was complete bull**** should have checked first, apologies for any distress caused!

Good luck at the doctor, i'm sure everything will be fine
Even IF you need a mole removed - it's a minor procedure. My mum is having one removed soon.

I'm sure everything will be fine.

Thanks I remember having my mole removed being really painful, but I don't care now- I just want this to be over. There are a couple of suspicious moles that I would really like removed just for piece of mind. The mole I was originally worried about (that came just after a lump had disappeared) looks completely normal...whereas a couple on my leg are starting to go irregularly shaped. Hopefully I'll be able to see a doctor tomorrow and find out for sure what the problem is.

Well I suppose it depends on the severity. I'm not an expert in terms of personal experience but a family friend has it so badly he spends long periods on steroids, and his skin often crusts over into scabs.

True that does happen occasionally. Some people are given weak steroids in the form of cream to reduce the inflammation of their skin. I guess that could be a side effect.

No I mean he takes the steroids orally, it's that bad. The scabs aren't a side effect of the preds, the preds are to treat the scabby bits.

This is 110% wrong.

I've had two moles removed for cosmetic purposes.

My brother had a mole *go funny* (irregular shape/itchy) and they removed it after taking a sample and finding out it wasnt cancerous because they didnt want it to develop into skin cancer.

Tell me how you think a mole thats no longer there can develop into cancer?

The guy has gotten a warning for a post that is technically right.
On people that are very molely there is no benefit to removing moles, and in fact it can increase the risk of cancer.

In anyone with a mole, removing the mole may simply remove the marker and remove a landmark on which to keep an eye. This is why moles are no longer frozen off. Its why all moles must be fully removed, deeply, even if they are only small.

So Cyclotron was half right - in some cases removing moles CAN increase risk of cancer. In the vast vast majority removing moles does not descrease the risk of cancer.
But if a mole is dodgy, then removing it is of course best. And the best person to tell if a mole is dodgy is a dermatologist. (British GPs tend to suck - but they will refer you toa dermatologist within 2 weeks)

I've been researching it...and some guy had melanoma and a lump in his armpit and this is 'metastatic melanoma' which barely anyone survives.

Surely then it's not increasing your risk of cancer, it's just removing the easiest way to spot cancer developing? Unless I've misunderstood what you just said. He definitely didn't mean it in a medically-informed way.

You risk of developing skin cancer is pretty independent of moles. So yes, removing them will never INCREASE your risk of cancer, but it can increase the risk you don't see a cancer early, and see increase the mortality rates.

I just think considering soem of the terrible advice that gtshanded out on hear - some utterly ludicrous, its a bit tight for people to be handing out warnings and neg rep to someone who mis worded something but was still entiurely polite.

Save the sort of stuff for the a-holes. Theres enough fo them.

erm no i didnt... and i dont like to 'stir' either. why dont you keep your judgements to yourself and leave people to form their own opinions of me instead of trying to influence them all the time.

find yourself a real man