Plutarch is Worth a Read; The more things change the more they remain the same

 Plutarch and his live details the Roman Republic in its final days. Political enemies beheaded and oligarchs trying to become rulers. As Grant notes in his preface: 

Two elements perhaps stand out above all others in Plutarch's late republican Lives. The first is the unbridled pursuit of personal power. Every Life in this selection displays the incessantly disruptive and ultimately ruinous effects of competition and ephemeral collaboration for purely selfish ends between a handful of prominent individuals, none of whom was quite powerful enough to achieve sole supremacy until Caesar put an end to the dominance of the oligarchy that had spawned him in the last stage of its decline. The second is the amount of coverage that Plutarch sees fit to give to wars both foreign and civil. 

To a certain extent this need occasion no surprise. In the eyes of the Roman ruling class military glory was the highest form of distinction to which its members might aspire. The biographer of leading Romans could hardly avoid writing about war, and a man's conduct in the field might well provide illuminating insights into those recesses of his character that Plutarch sought to penetrate. Yet much of his military narrative seems, as observed earlier, to be there for its own sake, regardless of any light it might shed on the protagonists’ moral or psychological make-up.

The reason for both these features of Plutarch's work lies in the standard perception of the republic and its fall that quickly developed under the empire. Everyone knew that the republican ruling class, by its dedication to the quest for wealth and personal power, had destroyed itself and the system of government it claimed to cherish. That Plutarch should share this perception is not remarkable. Explanation would be needed only if he did not.

Plutarch. Fall of the Roman Republic: Six Lives (Penguin Classics) . Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition. 
 

So  who is our ruling class today and given current events are they repeating themselves. It is truly worth understanding our history, it does repeat.

Cancer Resarch

 

The NY Times bemoans the reduction in support of cancer research, and they note:

Other countries are seeing opportunity in the chaos. Varmus is among a number of prominent U.S. scientists who have received solicitations from the governments of France and Spain to consider relocating there. America’s 80-year run as the world’s leader of biomedical research — and 50-year run as the global leader of cancer research — may very well be coming to a close, and for no apparent reason. Varmus seemed as puzzled as anyone by the development. “We are great in science,” he said. “Why would we want to destroy one of our greatest assets?”

 Yes the US has dominated research ut frankly I see China galloping along at a fair pace. So should we revamp the NCI? One may want to look at the web site of NCI. It tells a story in a rather politically correct manner. I will let you determine how. But frankly perhaps cancer research needs some restructuring.

Cancer is a complex disease with often no common thread even amongst the same cancers. One need look no further than lymphomas to see such variety.

That complexity is what has been studied over the past 50+ years. Gene after gene, pathway after pathway. From masses of cells to now cell by cell. 

We have two extremes in cancer research. At one end is the silo approach of gene after gene. PTEN, MYC, MTOR, and the list goes on. Then we have  clinical trials with some success. For example we see in cancer like melanoma that immune system control, PD-1 blockage, works in say 30-40% of the cases. Why not all? In hematological cancers with CD19 surface markers we have some success with CAR-T cells, but again not all. Why?

We are missing the middle state. Namely systems analysis of cancers. Looking at "all" the elements from genes to environment such as the tumor micro environment, to epigenetics, and the impact of the patient's other genetic factors. It is very complex and just being addressed.

Perhaps a good look as to how cancer research should evolve would be worthwhile. But one must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Fall In New Hampshire

 As the summer ends the New England Asters are in full bloom. A beautiful blue color astride every roadside.

A Loss, A True Genius and Leader

 David Baltimore passes at the age of 87. Baltimore and his colleagues came to understand reverse transcription, the writing of DNA segments into our own DNA. That became the key element in understanding AIDS.

He was attacked without basis by the Congressman Dingell, a ruthless attack without merit, which may have very well set back AIDS work a decade.

Baltimore was a fantastic leader and scientist. 

Don't Know How Many Died

 RFK Jr responded to a question by stating he did not know how many died of COVID. At first glance that would be absurd. However after some thought it makes eminent sense. Why? Simple. Many of the nursing home patients for example had massive co-comorbidities. Namely they had cardiovascular issues, pulmonary issues, cancers, Diabetes, etc. So cause of death would be complex even with an autopsy. 

If they tested positive for COVID, the actual cause of death may have been a heart attack, a stroke, etc. At best COVID was a co-morbidity. In the long run, no "cause of death" could be attributed. It is like so many aged, cause of death, pneumonia! It would be simple. Death certificates are notoriously in error unless the patient has been tracked with the full extent of the disease. Pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, massive stroke validate by imaging, may satisfy. But COVID and co-comorbidities, not so much.

The CDC should have understood that but they seem not to. Thus understanding COVID is still a mystery! 

 

Natural Rights

 In the Daily Signal there is a piece detailing what a US Senator thinks of Natural Rights. Namely:

During a nominations hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, the former Democrat vice presidential candidate said, “The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator … that’s what the Iranian government believes. … So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.” 

 Now I have written a short book on Natural Rights, a field of study going back centuries. This Senators if clueless.

As I stated:

Our argument is simple. The term Nature is an artifact of the past but it can now take on a reality in fact. Consider the statement; humans walk upright. The comparable statement is that; it is in the Nature of a human to walk upright. But as we know today, scientifically, the genetic structure of human genes results in processes, functions, and structures that make human walk upright. Namely the Nature of a human is to walk upright is the same as the genetic predispositions of humans to walk upright. Genetic structure and functioning are then the basis of the term Nature. We argue they are the sole basis.

It is in the Nature of a rose to have thorns. The genetic makeup of the rose is such that it has the persistent propensity to have thorns. Thus, Nature and Genetics are isomorphic and isometric. We often see various individuals opine on such things as justice and rights. The current milieu in these areas focuses on right and justice in the context of a society, not individuals. Moreover, we see the society broken down into identity group, identity politics if you will, where collectives of individuals who possess certain belief sets congregate to promote their specific interests in those belief sets, their assumed identities.

The two terms are our focus herein. Rights inure to an individual and place a demand on the society in which they exist. Justice on the other hand inures to the society and places a demand on the individuals in the society. In a sense they can be complementary and on the other hand they can be conflicting. We then take another step and examine the construct of Natural Rights and then its alternative Social Justice. Natural Rights we will argue is something emanating fromthe 14th century Franciscan Friars and in a way their women colleagues in the Franciscan orders,

the Poor Clares, and their battles with the rather arrogant Pope John XXII, in Avignon. From this battle emerged the rights of individuals. In contrast the construct of Social Justice emanates from the 19th century ideas of a state's responsibility to care for its citizens. Thus, we have two rather seriously conflicting principles; the rights of individuals, as stated in the US Bill of Rights, and the Social Justice movement which is the benchmark of 21st century Progressive politics.

 Thus Natural Rights is "natural" to the human, NOT granted by any Government. The literature on this is extensive. How do we have so uneducated a political class. This Virginian in my opinion disgraces the work of Jefferson, not to mention Paine.