Anyone else seeing skin cancer claims about tanning peptides

Traveling a ton for work, so I live in airports and hotel gyms. My derm has never brought up those peptides—at my last skin check she was way more focused on my window-seat tan and made me promise to keep a stick sunscreen in my carry-on. The only “tanning” thing she mentioned was self-tanner, and even that came with a shrug. I do track mole photos in my phone with a ruler for scale, mostly so I don’t gaslight myself between appointments. Has your derm ever done mole mapping, or just the quick naked-scan-and-go? I’m pale too, so I’m curious if that changes their spiel.

I’m pale with a family history of melanoma, so I went down this rabbit hole too. Mechanism people cite is melanin absorbing UV, but in the trials I’ve seen, the endpoint is usually tanning/pigment, not skin cancer incidence. My derm’s actual comment was basically, “A tan is still a stress response.” I track UV index and take monthly phone pics of my back moles in the same lighting—boring, but it’s caught changes for me. Sharp question: has anyone’s derm ever mentioned a human study where these peptides lowered skin cancer rates, or is it all just “more melanin = safer” extrapolation?

I got curious after those clips too and asked my derm at a skin check. She didn’t even let me finish—said tanning peptides aren’t sun protection and she wants me in UPF sleeves and shade instead. What’s helped me is monthly photos of my back/legs in the same bathroom light, plus a body map for anything new. That’s how I noticed a changing spot, not the peptide hype. OP, with your atypical mole history, does your derm do full-body checks yearly, or did they suggest a different interval? Just curious what’s typical.