Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘cancer

More on Cancer from Johns Hopkins Hospital

LATEST CANCER INFORMATION from Johns Hopkins

AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY … (Just one alternative?)

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.

3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation, while also destroying cancer cells, burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to STARVE the cancer cells by not feeding it with foods it needs to multiple.

What cancer cells feed on?

a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells.

Note: Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts.

Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells will starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans.

Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells.

To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water–best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines will become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body’s own killer cells to destroy cancer cells.

Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor.

Anger, unforgiving and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

Note 1: All of these information were known a century ago, especially to starve the cancer cell, reduce the acidic environment and that oxygen therapy kills cancer cells.

Note 2: this article was published in 2013

Seen through game theory, cancer and police corruption are pretty much the same thing.

And for one of them, there’s a cure

To defeat corruption, we need to understand why it arises in the first place.

Naturalists have long regarded ants and bees as a sort of living parable on the benefits of universal virtue.

Karl Marx was right, socialism works,’ said Edward O Wilson; ‘it’s just that he had the wrong species.’

Certainly, the eu-social insects (from the Greek eu meaning ‘good’ or ‘real’) are better citizens than you or I will ever be.

Reproduction is restricted to queens and drones.

The workers, unable to pass on their private genome, devote themselves instead to the service of the nest.

From the perspective of our own contentious societies, it’s tempting to view the anthill as a place of angelic (or robotic) order.

By Suzanne Sadedin

But that’s not quite right. Even in these superhumanly lawful communities, crime lurks.

In virtually all the eusocial insects, a few workers surreptitiously lay eggs of their own, eggs that can grow into reproductive males.

By diverting shared resources away from the nest, these workers selfishly reduce the fitness of their nestmates. They play the system for their own advantage.

In many species, including the Eurasian tree wasp, such unscrupulousness is held in check by a kind of policing behaviour. Wasps caught engaging in illicit reproduction are attacked.

In tree wasps, rather intriguingly, the attack behaviour is performed exclusively by wasps who are themselves cheats. They are bigger and tougher than average, which comes in handy both in their police work and their criminal activities.

In other species, however, the enforcers do not seem guilty of the same hypocrisy.

Ordinary honeybee workers detect and devour more than 99 per cent of the eggs laid by their sisters.

Among several species of ants, common workers will attack individuals whose ovaries indicate they might be reproducing, biting their limbs to the point where half of them die.

Such is the price of conformity.

And these aren’t even the most thoroughly integrated societies in biology. Nature boasts collectives so harmonious that we rarely even think of them as such: collectives such as you, you great lumbering swarm of self-replicating cells.

Your cells are astonishingly well-behaved.

They fall on their molecular swords at the faintest whiff of selfishness. They rat on any neighbours they suspect might be harbouring revolutionary impulses, wafting out chemicals that alert the immune system. And yet, even here, rogue elements are known.

With enough mutations, cells can abandon the collective cause and set out on that doomed quest for self-actualisation we call cancer.

To stop them, we have cellular cops – macrophages that monitor tissues and attack areas of unconstrained growth.

And just like the ant police, these cellular enforcers can be suborned. Tumors sweet-talk young macrophages, recruiting them to join the rebellion.

Instead of attacking the cancer cells, the macrophages grow excited, differentiating and multiplying. They start to secrete growth factors and defend the rogue growth from the rest of the immune system.

We are, in short, looking at a typical pattern in nature.

A population organises itself around rules. It grants police powers to some of its members – and then those law‑enforcers use their privileges to cheat the system.

Cliché has it that corruption is a cancer.

The truth, though, is probably the other way around: corruption is the more general phenomenon, manifesting in one context as melanoma and in another as illicit reproduction – or police extortion.

But what if I were to tell you that it is not inevitable?

That it can, to all intents and purposes, be eradicated from society? Would you believe me? And would you pay the price?

According to the non-governmental organisation Transparency International, each year around 16% of the world’s (human) population bribes a police officer.

That figure varies a good deal between regions, from just 0.5 per cent in Oceania in the Pacific Ocean to nearly 40 per cent in central Africa.

Studies in Ohio and Illinois suggest that 70-80 per cent of police officers witness minor corruption each year.

A 2002 police report claimed that corruption was so pervasive at Scotland Yard in the UK that crime syndicates could enter at will by bribing officers. In the US, investigations of police crime are said to be hampered by a ‘blue wall of silence’.

There’s a certain defeatism implicit in most approaches to these problems.

While we see sporadic efforts to ‘clean up’ a particular department, organisation or neighbourhood, they tend not to be very systematic, and usually fall off after a year or two as public interest wanes.

Perhaps our cynicism is justified. All too often, the very people who win power with promises to fight the rot are later found to be riddled with it. No wonder we collectively assign the problem to the global too-hard basket. But we shouldn’t be too hasty.

To defeat corruption, we need to understand why it arises in the first place.

For that, we need game theory. A ‘game’ is a stylised scenario in which each player receives a pay‑off determined by the strategies chosen by all players.

There’s also a variant of game theory that deals with so-called evolutionary games. In that kind of scenario, we imagine a population of self-reproducing strategies that get to multiply depending on the pay‑offs they achieve.

A strategy is said to be ‘evolutionarily stable’ if, once it is widely adopted, no rival can spread by natural selection.

The archetypal co‑operation game is the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

Imagine that two prisoners, each held in isolation, are given a chance to rat on the other.

If only one takes the bait, he gets a reduced prison sentence while the other gets a longer one. But if both take it, neither gets a reduction. In other words, mutual co‑operation (saying nothing) provides a higher reward than mutual defection (ratting on your partner), but the best reward comes from defecting while your partner tries to co‑operate with you, while the lowest pay‑off comes from trying to co‑operate with your partner while he stabs you in the back.

The most obvious evolutionarily stable strategy in this game is simple: always defect.

If your partner co‑operates, you exploit his naïveté, and if he defects, you will still do better than if you had co‑operated. So there is no possible strategy that can defeat the principle ‘always act like an untrusting jerk’.

At this point, you could be forgiven for thinking that game theory is both appalling and ridiculous. Co‑operation clearly pays off.

Indeed, if you make normal people (people who are not economics students) play the Prisoner’s Dilemma, they almost never defect. And not just people. Rats will go out of their way to free a trapped cage-mate; rhesus monkeys will starve for days rather than shock a companion. Even bacteria are capable of supreme acts of altruism.

This trend toward biological niceness has been something of an embarrassment for biology. 

In fact, the task of finding ways around the more dismal conclusions of game theory has become a sub-disciplinary cottage industry.

In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, for example, it turns out that when players are allowed to form relationships, co‑operators can beat defectors simply by avoiding them. That’s fine in small societies, but it leaves us with the problem of co‑operation in large groups, where interactions among strangers are inevitable.

Game theory (as well as common sense) tells us that policing can help. Just grant some individuals the power and inclination to punish defectors and the attractions of cheating immediately look less compelling.

This is a good first pass at a solution: not for nothing do we find police-like entities among ants, bees, wasps, and within our own bodies.

But that just leads us back to the problem of corruption.

What happens if the police themselves become criminals, using their unusual powers for private profit? Who watches the watchers?

In 2010, two researchers at the University of Tennessee built a game-theoretical model to examine just this problem.

The results, published by Francisco Úbeda and Edgar Duéñez-Guzmán in a paper called ‘Power and Corruption’, were, frankly, depressing.

Nothing, they concluded, would stop corruption from dominating an evolving police system. Once it arose, it would remain stable under almost any circumstances.

The only silver lining was that the bad police could still suppress defection in the rest of society.

The result was a mixed population of gullible sheep and hypocritical overlords. Net wellbeing does end up somewhat higher than it would be if everyone acted entirely selfishly, but all in all you end up with a society rather like that of the tree wasps.

Is that where we live now? It can certainly seem that way. I grew up in Australia, which Transparency International lists as one of the least corrupt nations in the world. Even so, the local pizza shop delivered a pizza each week to the constabulary in gratitude for a certain forbearance.

The US, according to published metrics, suffers minimal corruption, but who needs illegal corruption when the police can legally pull you over, ransack your car and sell anything they find?

In Mexico, where one in five citizens has recently bribed a cop, an acquaintance recently paid several thousand dollars to persuade a pair of policemen to move out of her house.

In the original corruption model, the results left one tiny sliver of hope, a parameter region where corruption, though dominant, remained unstable. That observation suggested that, given a jolt, a society might transition away from the corrupt equilibrium. Intrigued by this, Duéñez-Guzmán and I decided to explore the model more deeply.

The results were startling. By making a few alterations to the composition of the justice system, corrupt societies could be made to transition to a state called ‘righteousness’.

In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. They were everybody. When virtually all of society stood ready to defend the common good, corruption didn’t pay.

Among honeybees and several ant species, this seems to be the status quo: all the workers police one another, making corruption an unappealing choice. (Communist policing system outside the politbureau?)

In fact, the study showed that even if power inequalities later re-appeared, corruption would not return. The righteous community was extraordinarily stable.

Not all societies could make the transition. But those that did would reap the benefits of true, lasting harmony. An early tribe that made the transition to righteousness might out-compete more corrupt rivals, allowing righteousness to spread throughout the species.

Such tribal selection is uncommon among animals other than eusocial insects, but many researchers think it could have played a role in human evolution. Hunter-gatherer societies commonly tend toward egalitarianism, with social norms enforced by the whole group rather than any specially empowered individuals.

Perhaps we can see something like human righteousness at work among the egalitarian Turkana of East Africa.

The anthropologists Sarah Mathew and Robert Boyd of Arizona State University report that these 500,000-odd warlike nomads lack any kind of centralised political or military structure, yet they have maintained regional dominance for decades, raiding other ethnic groups at will.

It’s a dangerous life: nearly a quarter of the men die in raids. What drives them to take such risks for the collective good?

Not kinship, nor even friendship. They do not live in lasting tribes. Their settlements are loose and temporary. Most of the men participating in any given raid are strangers to one another.

Rather than personal ties, Turkana co‑operation seems to be maintained by a strong moral code, underpinned by the fear of egalitarian punishment. Turkana men were outraged by a hypothetical scenario in which one Turkana raided another; as Mathew and Boyd describe: ‘most subjects would not stand next to this warrior in a raid, entrust their herds with him, lend him a goat… or let their daughter marry him’.

And this righteous attitude extends to performance in war. Battles are discussed at length after the event. Minor acts of cowardice result in mockery and scolding.

In more serious cases, the culprit is tied to a tree and whipped by a group of his peers. Just desserts, in the community of the righteous. Is this what freedom from corruption looks like?

Game theory, of course, ignores the complexity of the human mind. We are all capable of behaving co‑operatively, righteously, corruptly and selfishly, all at the same time. Hardly anyone deliberately kills another person, for example, and in the absence of extenuating circumstances, most of us would turn in our friends for doing so. It would appear that we’re already righteous about murder.

Attitudes to infidelity present an intriguing contrast. Most people agree that it is wrong, yet we generally turn a blind eye to our adulterous friends.

Meanwhile almost everyone drives too fast and downloads popular TV shows without paying for them. Such quiet cheating is likewise evident among egalitarian hunter-gatherers. ‘It would be a rare Mbuti woman who did not conceal a portion of the catch in case she was forced to share with others,’ noted the anthropologist Colin Turnbull in Wayward Servants: The Two Worlds of the African Pygmies (1965).

Those differences in attitudes might seem appropriate to the severity of the crimes. And yet murder is far from being the only topic we get righteous about. We can be blithely judgmental of other people’s fashion choices, personal hygiene and manners. We seem to revel in generating and enforcing arbitrary social rules, from Catholic confession to the ritual nose-bleeding of Sambia men in Papua New Guinea.

Granted, our punishments for minor infringements are usually subtle: a joke, a snub, a verbal rebuke. But don’t underestimate their impact.

Repeat offenders are likely to find themselves gradually ostracised, mateless and unsupported in times of need. Evolutionarily speaking, social rejection might as well be a death sentence for humans.

And this is not the full extent of our moral flexibility. Even as we ruthlessly enforce our codes, we try to cheat them. Lord Acton claimed in 1887 that ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, and the evidence supports him.

In a 2010 study, the researchers Joris Lammers at the University of Cologne and Adam Galinsky at Columbia Business School primed their subjects to feel either powerful or powerless. Those who felt powerful condemned others’ hypothetical immoral behaviour more harshly than those who felt powerless. But at the same time, the powerful cheated more on a game of dice, and then readily forgave themselves.

Such hypocrisy makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. As the Rutgers biologist Robert Trivers put it in Deceit and Self-Deception (2011), we evolved to fool ourselves so we could better fool others.

Righteousness is a sound strategy for the young revolutionary surrounded by righteous peers. On the road to power, you need allies who must be convinced of your sincerity. But once you have cemented your position, you can most improve your fitness with covert acts of selfishness, justified by a new-found sense of entitlement.

We would appear to have found our mechanism. Our tendency towards righteousness might be triggered when we feel equal to our potentially righteous compatriots; and the more secure we feel in our power over them, the more we switch to corruption.

Can we use social engineering to manipulate this switch? The model suggests that we can. If we decrease power inequalities, increase punishments and reward punishers, in theory that should trigger a societal transition to righteousness.

Here’s how it might look in practice. Imagine a city where police commit blatant traffic violations and never ticket one another. The authorities could decrease power inequalities by developing an online system in which all citizens are able to anonymously report dangerous drivers.

Anyone who received too many independent reports would be investigated – police included. This sounds almost laughably simple, and yet the model indicates that it ought to do the trick. It is, after all, essentially the same system used by many online communities.

Indeed, if anything, such systems might work a little too well. A punitive review on Yelp can devastate a young business. While uncensored communities are quickly overrun with trolls, communities that upvote good behaviour and sternly punish mischief can become stiflingly polite, awash with unique cultural norms, private in‑jokes and abstruse discussions of the code of conduct.

Behaviour that garners upvotes on Reddit will see you banned on Quora. As a species, we appear to have an insatiable appetite for enforcing arbitrary norms.

Imagine, if you will, a society where the laser eye of social condemnation is trained on every possible transgression. Safely rolling past a Stop sign earns the same disgust from your friends as if you were to pick your nose at the dinner table.

Listening to a pirated MP3 of your favourite song would shame your whole family, and your spouse would divorce you for sharing a sip of wine with your 17-year-old son. There can’t be many people for whom this sounds like an appealing vision.

Then again, if we can be righteous when it comes to fashion yet corrupt when it comes to adultery, is it implausible that we might be disgusted by bribery yet tolerate other small acts of rebellion?

Already, most of us participate in numerous different social contexts, switching adeptly between roles and social norms.

Armed with game theory and a wealth of social data, it seems we have – for the first time in history – the tools to start experimenting with democratic, egalitarian social structures that bring out the best in us.

We would, of course, have to proceed with caution. As early as the 18th century, the economist Bernard Mandeville envisaged a transition to perfect, peer-enforced co‑operation – and argued that it could only end in disaster. In his book The Fable of the Bees (1714), he depicted a society where prosperity and progress derive from endless conflict over ubiquitous corruption:
Thus Vice nursed Ingenuity,
Which join’d with Time, and Industry
Had carry’d Life’s Conveniencies,
It’s real Pleasures, Comforts, Ease,
To such a Height, the very Poor
Lived better than the Rich before

Jove, in a fit of irony, curses the bees with honesty. Their wealth promptly dissolves, society stagnates, and the population dwindles as the virtuous bees are unable so much as to contemplate any sort of creative rebellion. Sometimes it’s good to bend the rules. But which ones?

11 May 2015

Cancer can be detected with a blood sample

Years before metastases spread to the body

Cancer : une prise de sang pour détecter la maladie

Patrizia Paterlini-Bréchot. April 12, 2016

La découverte est révolutionnaire. La cancérologue française Patrizia Paterlini-Bréchot de la faculté de médecine Necker-Enfants malades a mis au point un test qui, par une prise de sang, permet de détecter de manière précoce tout type de cancer.

Grâce à des études sur l’animal, on savait que ces cellules circulent dans le sang des années avant que les métastases apparaissent. Or les patients meurent à cause des métastases, pas de la tumeur primitive. Comme pour le virus du sida, ces cellules mutent, et à force de muter, sont de plus en plus résistantes parce qu’on leur en laisse le temps”, explique la chercheuse.

Les premiers tests commencent à être commercialisés.

La ministre de la Santé Marisol Touraine voit dans ce nouveau test une “promesse de bouleversements considérables dans la prise en charge du cancer parce qu’il est particulièrement simple d’utilisation, et donc facile à généraliser”.

Cette prouesse technique, mise au point par Patrizia Paterlini-Bréchot, professeure de biologie cellulaire et d’oncologie à la faculté de médecine Necker-Enfants malades (université Paris-Descartes), consiste à détecter l’invasion tumorale au tout début du stade de la maladie.

“Grâce à des études sur l’animal, on savait que ces cellules circulent dans le sang des années avant que les métastases apparaissent. Or les patients meurent à cause des métastases, pas de la tumeur primitive. Comme pour le virus du sida, ces cellules mutent, et à force de muter, sont de plus en plus résistantes parce qu’on leur en laisse le temps”, explique la chercheuse.

Après 7 ans de recherches, une grande boîte permet de réaliser les tests appelés Iset (“Isolation by size of tumor cells“: isolement par taille des cellules tumorales) capables de révéler la présence de ces fameuses cellules tumorales plus grosses que les cellules sanguines dans dix millilitres de sang parmi cinq milliards de globules rouges et cent millions de globules blancs.

Preuve de l’efficacité du test, les résultats obtenus au CHU de Nice où une cohorte de patients à risques – des gros fumeurs atteints de bronchopathie pulmonaire – a été suivie pendant 6 ans.

Grâce au test, les chercheurs ont détecté des cellules tumorales dans le sang de cinq d’entre eux bien avant que le cancer du poumon soit visible par radiologie. Ces patients ont été opérés et guéris de ce cancer, le plus meurtrier.

Lorsque des cellules tumorales circulantes sont identifiées, des examens d’imagerie médicale ciblés pour dépister la tumeur sont nécessaires, explique la scientifique.

“Selon vos prédispositions et vos antécédents, on commencera par exemple par le sein pour une femme et la prostate pour un homme, jusqu’au scanner du corps entier si l’on ne trouve pas. Mais, demain, on devrait pouvoir dire de quel organe elles proviennent et gagner ainsi du temps.” Des protéines retrouvées dans les cellules cancéreuses signeront l’origine de l’organe touché.

Ce test pourra également être utilisé sur des patients en rémission pour s’assurer que le cancer ne redémarre pas et permettre aux cancérologues de changer et adapter les traitements pour les malades diagnostiqués.

Le test est commercialisé depuis peu.

Facturé 486€, il n’est pas remboursé par la Sécurité sociale. S’il ne répond pas à la demande de tous, et partout, on imagine que cette découverte majeure, développée à grande échelle, augmente l’espérance de vie de l’humanité.

15 millions de cas de cancer sont déclarés dans le monde chaque année.

Pour regarder la conférence TED de Patrizia Paterlini-Bréchot : “Sommes-nous en train de rattraper de vitesse le cancer ?” : https://youtu.be/LNQ5UeWqK9I

 

 

Learning He Has Terminal Cancer: Oliver Sacks

A Month ago, I felt that I was in good health, even robust health.

At 81, I still swim a mile a day. But my luck has run out — a few weeks ago I learned that I have multiple metastases in the liver.

Nine years ago it was discovered that I had a rare tumor of the eye, an ocular melanoma. Although the radiation and lasering to remove the tumor ultimately left me blind in that eye, only in very rare cases do such tumors metastasize. I am among the unlucky 2 percent.

My Own Life

I feel grateful that I have been granted 9 years of good health and productivity since the original diagnosis, but now I am face to face with dying.

The cancer occupies a third of my liver, and though its advance may be slowed, this particular sort of cancer cannot be halted.

It is up to me now to choose how to live out the months that remain to me.

I have to live in the richest, deepest, most productive way I can.

In this I am encouraged by the words of one of my favorite philosophers, David Hume, who, upon learning that he was mortally ill at age 65, wrote a short autobiography in a single day in April of 1776.

He titled it “My Own Life.”

I now reckon upon a speedy dissolution,” he wrote. “I have suffered very little pain from my disorder; and what is more strange, have, notwithstanding the great decline of my person, never suffered a moment’s abatement of my spirits. I possess the same ardour as ever in study, and the same gaiety in company.”

I have been lucky enough to live past 80, and the 15 years allotted to me beyond Hume’s three score and five have been equally rich in work and love.

In that time, I have published 5 books and completed an autobiography (rather longer than Hume’s few pages) to be published this spring; I have several other books nearly finished.

Hume continued,

“I am … a man of mild dispositions, of command of temper, of an open, social, and cheerful humour, capable of attachment, but little susceptible of enmity, and of great moderation in all my passions.”

Here I depart from Hume.

While I have enjoyed loving relationships and friendships and have no real enmities, I cannot say (nor would anyone who knows me say) that I am a man of mild dispositions. On the contrary, I am a man of vehement disposition, with violent enthusiasms, and extreme immoderation in all my passions.

And yet, one line from Hume’s essay strikes me as especially true: “It is difficult,” he wrote, “to be more detached from life than I am at present.”

Over the last few days, I have been able to see my life as from a great altitude, as a sort of landscape, and with a deepening sense of the connection of all its parts. This does not mean I am finished with life.

On the contrary, I feel intensely alive, and I want and hope in the time that remains to deepen my friendships, to say farewell to those I love, to write more, to travel if I have the strength, to achieve new levels of understanding and insight.

This will involve audacity, clarity and plain speaking; trying to straighten my accounts with the world. But there will be time, too, for some fun (and even some silliness, as well).

I feel a sudden clear focus and perspective.

There is no time for anything inessential. I must focus on myself, my work and my friends. I shall no longer look at “NewsHour” every night.

I shall no longer pay any attention to politics or arguments about global warming.

This is not indifference but detachment

I still care deeply about the Middle East, about global warming, about growing inequality, but these are no longer my business; they belong to the future. I rejoice when I meet gifted young people — even the one who biopsied and diagnosed my metastases. I feel the future is in good hands.

I have been increasingly conscious, for the last 10 years or so, of deaths among my contemporaries.

My generation is on the way out, and each death I have felt as an abruption, a tearing away of part of myself.

There will be no one like us when we are gone, but then there is no one like anyone else, ever. When people die, they cannot be replaced. They leave holes that cannot be filled, for it is the fate — the genetic and neural fate — of every human being to be a unique individual, to find his own path, to live his own life, to die his own death.

I cannot pretend I am without fear.

But my predominant feeling is one of gratitude. I have loved and been loved; I have been given much and I have given something in return; I have read and traveled and thought and written. I have had an intercourse with the world, the special intercourse of writers and readers.

Above all, I have been a sentient being, a thinking animal, on this beautiful planet, and that in itself has been an enormous privilege and adventure.

October in Paris: One out of 10 women will suffer from breast cancer

En France, pays qui compte plus de 20 centres anti cancéreux , le mois d’octobre est celui de toutes les humilités devant la cancer du sein véritable fléau qui fait basculer , et trébucher des destins et des vies .

La vie de la Femme , et de l’ensemble de son entourage familial.

Ce crabe, frappe une Femme sur dix, et pour personnaliser ce chiffre, prenez dix Femmes dans la rue : l’une d’elles a eu, a, ou aura des démêlées avec ce mal.

Les causes et les étiologies sont très variées .

1. Le déterminisme génétique y est présent pour 15% environ.

2. Le reste est partagé entre l’environnement hormonal de la Femme, ( ses désordres, et ses déséquilibres ) le stress , la pollution, l’alimentation, le tabagisme poussé, ( càd dès 12 cigarettes/ jr ) la consommation d’alcool débutée tôt dans la vie de la jeune adolescente ( 13/14 ans ) .

3. Les radiations ionisantes qui ont envahi le monde .

4. Les antécédents familiaux de cancers même autres que le sein .

Enfin et comme toute chose en médecine un infime pourcentage de cas survenant ” de novo ” chez des personnes théoriquement ” non candidates ” à ce cancer .

Lors de mon séjour professionnel (4 ans ) au Liban, j’ai pu voir à quel point ce fléau y taillait tout autant la part belle à ce cancer , d’où mon idée ( il y a 4 ans ) d’en alerter les autorités afin de fonder un centre anticancéreux pour adultes ( tous cancers confondus ) et de réglementer la chirurgie du cancer au Liban

Introduire par exemple la notion de “seuils “ qui fera qu’un chirurgien doive pratiquer minimum 30 fois par année la même opération sur 30 patient(e)s pour être performant et…non dangereux.

– Faire en sorte que la durée du diagnostic ne traine pas en longueur pour que le traitement puisse être apporté en un temps ” acceptable ”

– Tout dossier patient(e), de cancer doit être débattu avant traitement, par un comité au sein du centre ou de l’hôpital, comité dit de concertation pluridisciplinaire, où siègent médecins internistes, radiologues , radiothérapeutes, anatomo- pathologistes, oncologues et chirurgiens , pour que la décision n’appartienne pas à une seule personne fût-elle le chirurgien .

– introduire enfin par manquement à ces règles la notion de ” perte de chance ” pour le patient , passible de poursuites et de sanctions judiciaires .

J’avais sollicité et obtenu pour ce un RV auprès du ministre Libanais de la santé un certain Mr. Khalifeh , qui me reçut avec son conseiller unique et permanent ( un cousin à lui ) les deux brillant par leurs Rolex attestant selon la formule célèbre que ces deux hommes ont réussi leur vie .

De ” la mienne ” ( de vie.. pas de Rolex ) je n’ai jamais eu un entretien aussi creux, aussi fade …
Et si on lançait , cette idée de centre anti cancéreux pour adultes au Liban et la relayons sur nos réseaux sociaux en en faisant à notre façon notre ” À la poursuite d’octobre rouge”!

( Jamil BERRY )

Cancer: IF ONLY for A SECOND, Video

 posted this Dec. 10, 2013

20 cancer patients participated in a unique makeover experience.

They were invited to a studio. Their hair and makeup were completely redone.

During the transformation, they were asked to keep their eyes shut.

A photographer then immortalized the moment they opened their eyes. This discovery allowed them to forget their illness, IF ONLY FOR A SECOND.

Read more http://www.trueactivist.com/gab_gallery/if-only-for-a-second/

Targeted Therapies:  for cancers (January 28, 2009)

            It is projected that in the developed nations of Europe, Japan and the USA one out of 3 people will be over 65 years by 2050; currently, the ratio is one out of five.  By the year 2020, one out of 3 people will be treated of at least one kind of cancer and the total number of sick people treated will double. It is also known that people over 65 are the heaviest consumers of all kinds of medicines and that health cost in the last year of an individual over 65 of age amounts to over all the combined health cost during his life.

            Furthermore, the various sorts of targeted chemo treatments of cancers are exploding exponentially; currently, there are over 600 new generation chemo treatments under development.  Anti-cancer pharmaceutical products are the most lucrative in the business; one injection cost over $1000 or about 100,000 per year per cancer patient.

            In the long run, it is not as costly to cure cancer patients as statically exposed.  Treatment costs will decline sharply with the combined efforts of politics and economical mass production.  Most of the patients will be completely cured and will return to the market place to generate wealth and consume as normal people do.  There have been many similar cases where estimated costs didn’t match reality. For example, replacing hips with prosthetics when the upper femoral bone is broken; it turned out that the patients returned to normal life as productive and consuming individuals.  What is needed is that States recognize that the growing number of older people are very much functional and are ready to work and thus, a change in the culture of accepting older people in the work force with special skills needs to be nurtured and encouraged with incentives.

            The United Nations should have started a mechanism for health care on a global scale.  A quota of cancer treatments for each of the 190 recognized States should be negotiated and the fund should include pharmaceutical products as taxes in kinds generated by the pharmaceutical industries, simply because the are mainly funded by States people’s taxes to support research and development.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,427,866 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 775 other followers

%d bloggers like this: