If you want to know the truth about cancer, ask Liz O’Riordan

Because she’s seen it from both sides, is why. First she was a doctor, who like, worked in the field? And then because, she got it herself, right? Became a patient, and experienced all the heart stopping, roller coasting, will-I -won’t-I? chain of emotions that all her own patients did. If those aren’t qualifications enough, gentle readers, we don’t know what are. And-she has one other which seals the deal as far as we’re concerned. Read on, and you will learn what that is.

We came across Dr O’Riordan in the course of listening to a series called Marianna in Conspiracyland on BBC Radio 4 [1] Not having an especially large legal department we must be careful what we say. But the programme details the activities of the types of people who disparage reason-based science and evidence-based medicine. And instead offer a dubious range of alternative theories, explanations and prescriptions to people who are scared out of their wits by a cancer diagnosis. In the nicest possible way, the programme tried to explain the consequences of choosing these paths of treatment, And Dr O’Riordan was one of the speakers they called in their support. A little bit like the prosecution in a criminal case calling an expert witness in DNA or drugs, as t’were.

Because since her own diagnosis and treatment, Dr O’Riordan has spent her days ceaselessly writing, speaking, making media appearances, all to one end. Refuting fallacies, identifying illogicalities, reasoning with the unreasonable. In books like The Cancer Roadmap [2] she tries to explain the science behind why cancers develop and grow, what the best treatments are, and why so-called “alternative systems” don’t seem to be up to much. In this undertaking she joins a great tradition of rationalists and sceptics starting with Lucian of Samosata,[3] and stretching all the way through to people like Peter Medawar, Carl Sagan and Dr Ben Goldacre.

But she goes one step further. Because she never condemns or sneers at anyone. Instead she tries to ask why people turn from rational medicine to alternatives and faith. In other words she deploys human qualities of empathy and compassion. And we could all learn from that. For years on this blog we have bemoaned the growth of fake information, conspiracies and general rubbish which grows on the interweb like the digital equivalent of a cancer. Not just in cancer theory; in matters like global warming, politics and economics. Hasn’t done much good. Somehow, the easy, comforting answer outpaces the complicated rational one each time, and by ratios of thousands. We are in danger of becoming the last generation of enlightened, rational thinkers, perhaps for thousands of years. Time to listen to Liz and her methods. Soon.

[1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mssm

[2]https://liz.oriordan.co.uk/author/

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian

[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goldacre

#cancer #medicine #alternative medicine #rational #empirical #science #health

The best time to be alive: Candidate #1 Tang Dynasty China

Imagine you lived in the greatest city in the world. Its streets are bustling with merchants who buy and sell goods from every known country, and many more that lie beyond the limits of knowledge. Such was Chang’an, (now Xi’an) capital and chief entrepot of China’s Tang dynasty (618-903 CE)[1][ With nearly a million residents and over 100 ethnic communities, it was more Babel than Beijing. Zoroastrian fire temples stood beside Buddhist pagodas and Nestorian churches; street food fused Middle Eastern spices with Chinese noodles. Foreign diplomats rubbed shoulders with camel-driving traders from Samarkand. The city was so tolerant and worldly that speaking Turkic or Persian on the street raised no eyebrows. Poets such as Li Bai and Du Fu flourished , as did artists such as Han Gan and Zhang Yuan. There were far reaching technological advances such as wood block printing and all presided over by relatively benign Emperors backed by a professional and highly educated Civil Service.

We’ve picked the Tang because it illustrates the essential doctrines of the great Professor RH Davis who knew that it was trade that made cities, and cities which make humans civilised. He was writing about Europe. Yet Chang’an under the Tang was one example of what humans can achieve when they try. No wonder the modern Chinese feel they need take no lessons from westerners in how to run a civilisation. The Silk Road was essentially a Chinese invention. It was, and maybe still is, the greatest trading system in the world.

It all ended in tears of course, as did many of the other examples we shall consider in this series. The Lushan rebellion of 755-763 inflicted economic and human wounds so deep that the dynasty never fully recovered. And obviously there have been many advances in technical knowledge and in things like medicine, since the Tang fell. But if you wanted to give an example of when the ordinary Joe, people like you and me, could step from their house and feel a glad confident good morning, Tang China is a very good place to start.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_dynasty

[2] RHC Davis: A History of Medieval Europe from Constantine to St Louis 2nd edition Longman 1988

#china #Tang dynasty #trade #silk road #civil service #history

Opening the Fleming Initiative- a good day for antibiotics

Yeah, alright, we know what we said last week about closures to the Fleming Fund (LSS 18 7 25), and how it depressed you all a tad. But be of good cheer, gentle readers- for London’s prestigious Imperial College has stepped up to the plate with its brand new Fleming Initiative, which is designed specifically to meet the crisis which we have been banging on about so assiduously for years. Apart from the fact that we’re up to our ears in Flemings, we liked this for several reasons [1]

For one thing there’s a proper Prof in charge of it, one Alison Holmes. Which means she will have the intellectual heft and departmental depth to sustain the thing down the long frustrating years that lie ahead. [2] Secondly, she clearly recognises the problem is multivalent. It’s not just going to be about laboratory research. They’re going to address behaviour changes, public engagement and policy to. Internationally. And when you think about it , gentle readers, a world institution like Imperial has a head start when it comes to making the connections and glad handing the movers and the shakers that will be needed to get things done.

So- in a rare moment of optimism to set against our usual gloomy tirades, we wish good Professor Holmes and her team every success in their new endeavour. We shall be following them with interest.

[1]https://www.imperial.ac.uk/be-inspired/magazine/issue-58/policy-agenda–acting-on-antimicrobial-resistance/

[2]https://www.fleminginitiative.org/

#imperial college #antibiotic resistance #medicine #public health #microbiology #disease

When was the best time to have been alive? Start of a new series

When was the best time in History that you could have lived in? With all the problems facing us now, like climate change, rising xenophobia, faltering economies-it’s natural for the mind to wander to other times and other places , where they had it good, in ways that we just can’t seem to manage.

It’s easy to idealise bits of the past when you didn’t have to live there and use the toilets. It’s also easy to make mistakes. “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive!” declared Wordsworth, while on a tour of Revolutionary France. He just got out with his life, as did many other deluded middle class intellectuals. And even the Nazis tried to drum up a cultural vibe, what with Leni Reifenstahl and all that modernist architecture. That duly said, it is possible to pick out certain periods when the humans really did seem to be doing better for a while. Like a football team putting together a run of successful results. We will try to identify those times using the following criteria, if you will forgive us, gentle readers.

There has to be peace, or general political stability, over a wide area. We”ll illustrate this with a counter example: Beethoven and Schubert wrote some pretty good music during the Napoleonic wars, but you wouldn’t have wanted to have lived through those wars would you?

Learning is advancing, preferably big time : despite all the wars and coruuption, Big Stuff was happening in Renaissance Italy- arts, sciences, architecture, you name it. By that criterion. all those Cardinals and Condottieri have to be in with a shout

Trade must boom According to the great Professor Davis, this is the great sine qua non of civilisation

The staging must be right The backdrop of islands and temples etc gives the Classical Greeks an enormous leg-up before they even take the pitch. Whereas Lancashire in the Industrial revolution? You mainly died at thirty, after a lifetime of bracing hard work. Although it probably felt like much longer.

There must be a long running cultural movement No one sat down one day and declared “OK chaps, it’s the Bronze Age and humanity stands on the edge of a bright new frontier. Put away all those stone tools and mammoth skins, and let’s start living in cities!” The periods we refer to must be embedded in a long movement of progress and general moving forward.

And all too often they come at the end of it. The swinging sixties ended in strikes and inflation. The Renaissance city states were leaned upon, terminally, by much bigger places like France and Spain. The long peace of Rome degenerated into the Crisis of the Third Century. But we are nothing if not triers here. And so our first try in the next blog of the series will be China in the Tang dynasty 618-907 AD, using the western calendar. Let’s see if they were really, really, like, cool?

#renaisance #history #china #greeks #learning #science #society

The economic costs of antibiotic resistance

Down the years we’ve tended to cover the health risks of antibiotic resistance , and the various scientific and medical developments in the field. We haven’t written so much on the economic risks. And frankly, that’s been a blind spot.

Now a very clear sighted article by Anna Bawden of the Guardian[1] makes those potential costs very clear indeed. Drawing on report from the prestigious Centre for Global Development [2] Anna serves up some chilling facts Get this:

A UK government-funded study shows that without concerted action, increased rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) could lead to global annual GDP losses of $1.7tn over the next quarter of a century.

Breaking it down by countries:

The research calculated the economic and health burden of antibiotic resistance for 122 countries and forecast that in that in this most pessimistic scenario, by 2050, GDP losses in China could reach just under $722bn a year, the US $295.7bn, the EU $187bn, Japan $65.7bn and the UK $58.6bn.

That alone should give the thoughtful 5% of us pause for thought. But it’s Anna’s background which makes this a great article. For it comes at a time when countries like the USA and the UK are busily cutting their overseas aid budgets. Which is shows a worrying lack of self interest on their parts. For one thing, antibiotic resistance will not be confined to poorer countries: but it is much more likely to develop in them. Secondly, being at the forefront of pioneering science can spin off the most amazing business and technological opportunities for the more astute kind of entrepreneur. And thirdly, and most acutely for their voter base: if the health system in those poor contries collapses, guess where their populations will pitch up? “Stands ter reason,dunnit, mate?” as our old friend Dave Watford is fond of stating. Thanks, Dave- you’ve got it right this time.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jul/20/superbugs-could-kill-millions-more-and-cost-2tn-a-year-by-2050-models-show

[2]https://www.cgdev.org/media/forecasting-fallout-amr-economic-impacts-antimicrobial-resistance-humans

#antibiotic resistance #health #medicine #economics

Could this new mRNA vaccine end cancer?

In the UK alone cancer accounts for 24% of all deaths.[1] Which means you, gentle reader have a close to one in four chance of going that way. You might hope that someone might do something about it. Today we bring you news that somebody has, via the industrious Luke Andrews of the Daily Mail [2] But before then, a tiny apology.

Because in reporting this we have no desire to disparage the heroic efforts of scientists, doctors, fund raisers and honest-to-God patients who have already done so much to ameliorate and already effect cures for this terrible disease. Luke’s story could be a game changer-but only because it comes at the ned of an enormous process of scholarship and research. That said, it is truly exciting. Firstly, because it tries to use the new mRNA vaccines which came of age during the COVID 19 pandemic. Secondl, because it offers a hope, however tentative at this stage, of a universal vaccine. Luke explains matters really well,. with all the links you need to the source journals, so we’ll leave you to him. Upbeat to say the least.

Vaccines are a contentious subject. We have talked about cancer vaccines here before(LSS 24 5 21 et al) and are aware of the mixed reactions we get. We suspect that not all anti-vaxxers are bad people: among them you will will find the stubborn types who refuse to accept any information coming down from above on whatever subject. Grit in the wheels of the machine; but one day you just might need them. But we in what might be called the empirically based community have our uses too.(we invented the computer you’re reading this on) it’s time for a dialogue, instead of hissing and growling at each other like so many cats and dogs. The patients deserve that.

[1]https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/mortality

[2]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14919401/immune-hack-vaccine-mrna.html

#mRNA #cancer #vaccine #medicine #health

Closing the Fleming Fund-a bad day for antibiotics

One of the few certain things in life, apart from death and taxes, is to go to the bar of the Dog and Duck and there eavesdrop on opinions on the question of the UK Foreign Aid budget. “We got omeless on ahr streets, an dere sendin billions abrawd!” “We’re taxed to the ilt, an’ they’re givin it away!” are some of the politer opinions we dare repeat here. How ironic for them to see a hated Labour Government make the very cuts they so long for. But our pleasure is short lived..

For the Government seems ready to abolish The Fleming Fund. [1] A body set up in 2015 and named after the the illustrious pioneer of penicillin, the fund states its purpose as a

UK aid programme supporting up to 25 countries across Africa and Asia to tackle antimicrobial resistance. The Fund is managed by the Department of Health and Social Care and invests in strengthening surveillance systems through a portfolio of country and regional grants, global projects and fellowship schemes.

But-what goes around comes around, as the old saying has it. Antibiotic resistant superorganisms know no national boundaries. If they evolve in the third world, they will be here soon. This decision appears to be very short sighted.

We sympathise with a government caught in a hard place between the obdurate creed that says taxes must never rise, and the urgent need for spending to achieve at least a minimal defence capacity. Perhaps the real problem is not economic, or biological, but philosophical. For if the world is divided into competing nation states, what choice does each government have but to look after its own immediate interests? And if nations arm, each in mutual fear of its neighbours, what hope for spending on international co-operative efforts like the Fleming Fund? Perhaps the trick for LSS and its readers is not to develop more antibiotics, but to persuade millions of the sorts of people who go to the Dog and Duck to realise this simple truth.

_{thanks to J Read}

[1]https://bsac.org.uk/closure-of-the-fleming-fund-risks-undermining-uk-leadership-on-amr/

[2]https://www.flemingfund.org/about-us/

#fleming fund #overseas aid #antibiotic resistance #health #medicine #microorganisims

Heroes of Learning: Steven Rose (and why things are never simple)

No book ever tore through the calm assurances of progress through co-operation like Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. [1] It wasn’t so much the book itself. That was an attempt to popularise, albeit sometimes in colourful language, the discoveries of an important group of evolutionary theorists such as William Hamilton and EO Wilson. It was the use made of it by political activists, zealous propagandists of the Free Market, to prove that every attempt at co operation, collective action and sharing resources was against the basic laws of nature. “Out upon your Trades Unions, your Keynesian economics” they thundered in a thousand articles in places like the Daily Mail “we are nothing but animals. Your only purpose is to pass on your DNA to make copies of yourself. Look at them lions. mate! When one of them takes over a pride he kills all the cubs and mates wiv the females to make sure his genes get frough! Go and do like wise!” It was not an experiment we felt disposed to try. Compete, for the other fellow is your genetic enemy was their credo. All barriers to that competition were both evil and deluded.

It was simple, it was seductive, it was based on some facts. It played well in the broken restless zeitgeist of the 1970s when the pillars of the old prosperity- high taxes, demand management for the common good, collective institutions like the IMF and UN seemed ineffective. It sold by the million; and swept ever more voters into the booths for one Margaret Thatcher in 1979, whose own simplistic and reductionist nostrums seemed to chime so well with those of the book.

One man did not buy. His name was Steven Rose, a remarkably accomplished scientist who spent most of his work in neurobiology and biochemistry [2] This obituary summarises his work better than us. But it was his insistence on complexity and the irreducible flexibility of the human mind, that still allowed hope for a way out from the genetic prison in to which we had been so neatly incarcerated

He wrote: “It is in the nature of living systems to be radically indeterminate, to continually construct their – our – own futures, albeit in circumstances not of our own choosing.”

Look at that carefully, then leap with us to another part of the scientific forest. Where the BBC showcases a new technique to rid the world of the scourge of inherited mitochondrial disorders [3] Basically you take a fertilised ovum from a normal male-female coupling, but put it as the nucleus in the egg of a different female. Which then develops as a normal embryo until nine months later a healthy baby emerges[3] A three parent child? Sort of. Two parents get to pass on their DNA, no doubt to the blissful delight of Dawkins’ more extreme followers. And a different mother sends her mitochondrial DNA cascading down the ages, which rather complicates matters for some. Now look at the Rose quote again what was that about continually constructing?

At the time of the great Dawkins controversy the old BBC Horizon programme ran a show in which the quoted one of the wiser and more humane scholars in the Selfish Gene camp. His name was John Maynard Smith. And he ended with this thought “humans are not just animals- we are not prisoners of simple genetics” At the time it seemed a forlorn hope. It has just been proved triumphantly real.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jul/10/steven-rose-obituary

[3]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8179z199vo

#richard dawkins #sociobiology #biochemistry #medicine #DNA #mitochondria

Conversation Article gets to the heart of why people get things wrong

You know a piece of writing is good when it explains many things, not just the ostensible subject the writer has before them. Such is the case with Edward White of the prestigious Kingston University in the UK whose article in the Conversation forms the basis for today’s blog [1] Ostensibly, the subject is Evolution. Now, we’ve always liked a bit of Evolution here. But only as abit of light relief, following it the way people follow the fortunes of Leicester City FC or the doings of celebrities.

Not so in the United states of America where the subject is of neuralgic importance as Edward points out. Huge numbers of the citizens of that country still hold that God created Man exactly according to the schemata laid out the in the early chapters of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. And he has a barrage of statistics to explain how and why. But the point for us, gentle readers is why these people think as they do. For it explains a much wider truth, which is: no species as so supremely adapted to self delusion and to believing the lies, deceits and threats of charlatans as is Homo sapiens. And this is true in all fields-politics, religion, economics, even science and medicine(remember the MMR controversy?) The fault according to Edward is motivated Reasoning, where you start with a conclusion and work back to justify it. This ensures a high chance of error, whatever cognitive powers you may possess, as astute readers will have spotted. Why do people do this? Get this killer quote from Ed:

Brain imaging studies show that people with fundamentalist beliefs seem to have reduced activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex — the brain region responsible for cognitive flexibility and analytical thinking. When this area is damaged or less active, people become more prone to accepting claims without sufficient evidence and show increased resistance to changing their beliefs when presented with contradictory information. Studies of brain-injured patients show damage to prefrontal networks that normally help us question information may lead to increased fundamentalist beliefs and reduced scepticism.

As Edward concludes: for most people learning is about who gets to define truth, and own the power that flows from it thereby

And our conclusion? We seem to be drilling down to the bedrock at last and knowing why people make and hold errors, From here at last the Progressive Community may find a way forward

[1]https://theconversation.com/why-many-americans-still-think-darwin-was-wrong-yet-the-british-dont-260709?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversa

Andrew O’Neil on how to fix a broken education system

Veteran students of Britain’s national decline keep returning to a single motif: it’s our education system. For too many years the United Kingdom has tolerated appallingly low standards of literacy, numeracy and vocational skills which have left it trailing far behind the field of comparable developed counties. The reasons adduced include: a two-tier system of private versus public education, with all the opportunities rigged in favour of the former: under investment , with education ever in the firing line of the latest round of Treasury penny pinching: an atrophied system of vocational training with an overemphasis on bookish academia. Well do we remember the personal experience of a teacher who told us “in a one hour lesson I spend the first twenty minutes trying to calm them down and pay attention: in the next twenty I might get some teaching done; the last twenty is spent trying to maintain order as they await the end of the lesson” That was thirty years ago; but the experience is relevant today. Incidentally, we make that two thirds of the budget spent on every lesson wasted: but then, we were never very good in maths class.

Don’t take our word for it. Believe the words of Andrew O’Neil a heroic figure who pens a regular column for the Times Educational Supplement. Contrary to all experience, still believes something can be done. [1] He is honest about the problems: poor retention of teachers: endemic violence and above all an unwillingness to confront these issues until they break into total catastrophe, with the murder of a teacher by a disgruntled pupil, although quite often they do it to each other as well. His learning is vast, his interest multifaceted. Oddly he actually sees signs of hope for our poor land:

There are promising signs of change. In Bridget Phillipson, we now have a secretary of state committed to long-term solutions rather than short-term firefighting. Her emphasis on system design, fairness and early intervention marks a departure from crisis-led reform

Travelling on holiday, on business or whatever, we became used to a sort of condescending pity from foreigners whenever the subject of education came up. is there just a chance that, for once our appalling national system might be mitigated, or even turned around altogether? Could we actually start to catch you up?

_{thanks to d foley}

[1]https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/why-education-keeps-collapsing-into-crisis

#united kingdom #education #great britain #economics #schools #gangs #youth #violence #graffitti #drugs