“Rates of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, have been rising for at least the last three decades, and this increase has been largely blamed on exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun.  However, research published in the British Journal of Dermatology shows that the sun is likely nothing more than a scapegoat in the development of melanoma, and the sharp increase may actually be “an artifact caused by diagnostic drift.”

“The world‘s leading medical journal The Lancet has now published an article explicitly condemning the letter organized by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust, and others.”

“A preprint paper by the prestigious Oxford University Clinical Research Group, published Aug. 10 in The Lancet, found vaccinated individuals carry 251 times the load of COVID-19 viruses in their nostrils compared to the unvaccinated.”

We all wonder and worry a bit about the future.  In the first comment, there are two links that should be read. These links are highly recommended.

This provides a note of caution as to how well a vaccine may work. The question is how many of these, second susceptible to infection, folks are out there?

“Earlier on Tuesday, we reported that new research has identified an 89-year-old Dutch woman who was actually the first known patient to be killed after being reinfected with COVID-19. But an equally important discovery was revealed Monday night in an exclusive report by WSJ, which cited new research about to be published by the British medical journal the Lancet, the same journal that published some of the first research on the virus by Chinese scientists (data later used to help justify the lockdowns that swept across the West).”

"There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19. The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer-reviewed “evaluation”  published on May 22nd by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.”

Especially for those viewers outside of the US who may not have access to much of the US news and chatter. You may also note the statements and actions of the World Health Organization (WHO) that the author did not include.  The short version of all of this is that this is all about money and politics. Hydroxychloroquine is supposed to crawl off into a corner and die as a current treatment for COVID-19.

“ A study published on 22 May in The Lancet used hospital records procured by a little-known data analytics company called Surgisphere to conclude that coronavirus patients taking chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine were more likely to show an irregular heart rhythm—a known side effect thought to be rare—and were more likely to die in the hospital.”

“An Australian study that has been 'touted' around the world as "proving" HCQ is unsafe against COVID-19 is now being questioned openly...

Questions have been raised by Australian infectious disease researchers about a study published in the Lancet which prompted the World Health Organization to halt global trials of the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19.

Specifically, the study, led by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Advanced Heart Disease in Boston, examined patients in hospitals around the world, including in Australia. It said researchers gained access to data from five hospitals recording 600 Australian Covid-19 patients and 73 Australian deaths as of 21 April.

But data from Johns Hopkins University shows only 67 deaths from Covid-19 had been recorded in Australia by 21 April. The number did not rise to 73 until 23 April. The data relied upon by researchers to draw their conclusions in the Lancet is not readily available in Australian clinical databases, leading many to ask where it came from.”

“If they got this wrong, what else could be wrong?” Dr Allen Cheng, an epidemiologist and infectious disease doctor with Alfred Health in Melbourne, said. It was also a “red flag” to him that the paper listed only 4 authors.”