Changing the vision, understanding, interpretation and analysis of certain data or scientific dilemmas is what is able to change the status quo and revitalize a mission, an impulse or important thoughts, thus creating the conditions for it to increase immensely the chances of bringing it to success. Or, following Albert Einstein's postulate: ˝We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them˝, we should think: ˝Where does the road to success start? How do we solve or neutralize a problem? ˝ And the answer is: ˝ By taking a consistent and systematic approach, analyzing each component! And we eliminate every possibility of negative influence.˝ These thoughts apply with full force to cancer rates in general, but also to melanoma rates in particular: the murderous tempo of globalization and modernization in medicine has not yet led to the desired decrease in these rates; on the contrary, they are rising headlong and remain largely unpredictable and difficult to regulate. The conclusion is that a solution should be sought by refracting light through another prism: that of Nitrosogenesis and Pharmaco-Oncogenesis. A step-by-step and systematic approach to solving a problem requires patience, determination, and perseverance. As this perseverance is needed mainly to overcome the general ignorance, neglect, disinterest, uneducation and uncertainty of others, rather than doubt in one's own thesis, analysis, and the need for an active approach. Careful analysis of concepts such as ˝Drug Mediated Nitrosogenesis˝ and ˝Onco-pharmacogenesis/Pharmaco-oncogenesis˝ of skin cancer would certainly contribute to the elucidation of skin carcinogenesis in the context of polymedication of the contamination and polymorbidity worldwide. The FDA has already in 2019 taken this much needed first step of universal awareness and its ˝arm˝ has been taken seriously and responsibly solely by dermatologists and dermatosurgeons. It was this guild and only this guild that launched its independent, never-ending observations, logically grounded (hypo)theses, remaining to date confirmatory, unshakable, and enigmatic regarding the unit: intake of potentially contaminated medication and subsequent development of melanomas. It is this and only this branch of the medical guild that has also become the guarantor of safety and objectivity in science, and thus of safety in the fight for survival of a huge number of skin cancer patients. Contaminated oral antidiabetic drugs in the face of Metformin and Sitagliptin do not make an exception in this respect. Similarly to cutaneous melanomas occurring (and published in the scientific literature) after combined intake (or monomedication) of/ between ranitidine, valsartan, olmesartan, candesartan, telmisartan, irbesartan, losartan, enalapril, lisinopril, perindopril, hydrochlorothiazide, nifedipine, amlodipine, propafenone, bisoprolol, nebivolol, melitracen and a number of others, we inform about another rare but not unexpected clinical observation: occurrence of cutaneous melanomas after taking another class of drugs- oral antidiabetic ones. Or after the intake of nitrosamine-contaminated antidiabetic drugs. And whether this contamination is "real or potential" is left to regulators and manufacturers to decide. We accept it as `real-potential' or `potentially-real' because of the fact that neither the regulators nor the manufacturers know what it is or whether it is there or how it arose. The data shared in patients one and two in the presented scientific work are confirmatory in relation to the potential pathogenetic action of nitrosamine contaminated drugs such as 1) bisoprolol/ nebivolol/ candesartan/ hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine, as well as 2) furosemide in the direction of cutaneous melanoma. Patient 3 in fact also represents the first formally described patient with subsequent melanoma development worldwide, having developed it following intake of potentially/actually nitrosamine-contaminated metformin and metformin/sitagliptin (both drugs are themed in the FDA's Potentially Contaminated Drug Bulletin: 1) metformin, multiple times between 2020-21, due to its contamination with NDMA and 2) sitagliptin, as of September 2022, due to its contamination with NTTP). It should not be seen as surprising to anyone that the intake of relatively similar carcinogens/nitrosamines or NDSRIs, but as an unofficial component of heterogeneous drugs, produces a relatively monomorphic clinical picture- that of cutaneous melanoma. Or to put it metaphorically: ˝The wolf changes its hair, but not its mood˝. A carcinogen remains a carcinogen, regardless of whether it is ingested in a lemonade, a tablet, a sandwich, or a bonbon. Similarly to the intake of nitrosamines in food. Future studies should address the important tasks/dilemmas to elucidate 1) the phototoxic/photocarcinogenic effect of unmetabolized nitrosamines identified in drug formulations; 2) the phototoxic/photocarcinogenic effect of DNA adducts generated after their metabolization, and 3) the availability of specific DNA adducts in lesional/tumor tissue and blood of patients after ingestion of nitroso-containing drug formulations. This level of evidence is likely to lead to a reconsideration of the arguments for the introduction of permanent elimination regimes for nitrosamines in medicines. Metabolic reprogramming (and its relationship to UVB radiation) due to the availability of nitrosamines in cigarette smoke is also currently a proven reality. Based on the available clinicopathological correlations, we believe that nitrosamines in drugs have a similar effect and are part of the key pathway activating skin carcinogenesis under the influence of solar radiation. Intake of contaminated medication is associated with skin cancer generation and progression. It is up to regulators and manufacturers to justify the merits and benefits of the self-imposed presence of carcinogens in drugs or the benefits of such drugs. Apart from the "cancer-generating benefit", of course, which is already widely known. And let us not forget that: "A lie stops being a lie and becomes a truth the moment it is officially refuted".