Is This The Cure For Sickle Cell Disease?

Sickled Cells in a patient with Sickle Cell Disease

It’s all over the place. Everywhere you turn there is this buzz. Relief, one is happy to say, from the relentless reports of wars, conflicts and disgraceful tweets. The thing that is causing the buzz is the story about a new cure for sickle cell, a disease that affects hundreds of thousands, if not millions throughout the world.

There is nothing unusual about new cures. Breakthroughs for this or that are regularly announced, both in the regular media and in fringe outlets. And we humans seriously take them on board together with their hope and their hype, especially for diseases that stubbornly resist the best efforts of our medicine men and women, scientific or shamanistic. The cure for cancer, especially (as if cancer is just one disease, like appendicitis), is one that regularly grabs the imagination. But one must always be cognizant of the fact that however relevant these “cures” might be, their impacts are mostly incremental and, in any case, require time to mature into full-fledged remedies.

The cure that was announced last week must, as in other similar examples, be the subject of a reality check. Nevertheless, this is one announcement that should be taken very seriously because the procedure directly targets the engine that drives the terrible clinical consequences of the disease. In the report, French researchers describe how they harvested blood stem cells from a 13-year- old boy suffering from the disease and inserted normal haemoglobin genes into them. They then returned the modified stem cells back into the boy, who subsequently began to make normal red blood cells. Fifteen months later he is free of all the symptoms of the disease. Pretty good, when you consider that for most of his young life he had suffered severe symptoms. Everybody is now talking excitedly about how this treatment can be rolled out to all those hundreds of thousands of patients throughout the world suffering from sickle cell.

Conceptually, the procedure is simple enough. But in practical terms, it could be devilishly complicated as demonstrated by the huge number of researchers that pulled off the treatment. Indeed, when I looked at the report, I had to give up counting the named individuals and institutions that collaborated in the work. I can say, though, that their number, combined, might well exceed the entire scientific and medical capital in some countries where sickle cell is prevalent.

Another point: This is just one case. That of a13-year-old located in a well-resourced setting and is a long way from signalling that the treatment can be extended everywhere, even to other rich countries, never mind into the swamp-like conditions that prevail in poor ones. To show that the treatment can be applied elsewhere calls for a clinical trial that would involve many patients preferably from more than one big institution. Undertaking such would require time and money. We’re probably looking at, may be, five years, if not longer, not to mention the necessary amount of cash.

In the mean time we do have other measures which, though not curative provide much relief for patients. These are the things we should focus on at present. But even here, there is an urgent need for peoples and governments to step up and do their duty.

Tell Fren Tru

The Times, they are too interesting…

I was saying in my last post that it wasn’t necessarily the case that the Gambian dictator, Yahya Jammeh had really conceded victory when, on the day after the presidential election he congratulated Mr Adama Barrow, the winning candidate. I found it difficult to digest the notion that a man who had seized power by force in 1994 and had subsequently bullied his way into several election victories thereafter should suddenly undergo a Road to Damascus moment. I was worried too, that signals out of America were in danger of being misinterpreted to mean that a free pass had been granted to dictators everywhere, especially those in Africa. I was not surprised, therefore when, barely a week afterwards, Jammeh reverted to type and declared that the election he had just lost “flawed”. He now demanded a fresh vote hoping that his machine of state persuasion would produce the right result the second time round. He used all the wiles in the book of dirty tricks to intimidate the country into submission but, in the end, he had to cave in to the persuasive logic of the stick and carrot. 

We do not know how appetizing the carrot was, but one ingredient was, no doubt, the prospect of a retirement haven out of the reach of international justice. So, on the night after the inauguration of the new president elect, dressed in characteristic flowing white and brandishing his regulation copy of the Quran, he waved goodbye to a thin crowd of long faces standing lugubriously on the tarmac at Banjul International. The country could exhale again.

The rap sheet that Jammeh would have had to answer to and, with some luck, might still do, is a long one. But, for the moment, he is safe in Equatorial Guinea where, one imagines, he would be swapping dictator anecdotes with his host, president-for-life, General Teodoro Obiang. Meanwhile, Gambia’s long-suffering people must content themselves with merely mocking their recently departed tormentor.  

Talking about thin crowds, this is one of the issues that get the wind under the skirts of the new Trump administration, right from its chief exec down to its lowliest gofer. The size of an adoring crowd, by itself, is not a big deal. However, correct me if I’m wrong: the last time someone obsessed so much about the size of his crowd it didn’t end well. And even today, eight decades on, we remain awestruck by the intensity of crowds at Nazi rallies that shook the ground as they shouted “Sieg Heil!  Sieg Heil!” You might again say no big deal. A few “Sieg Heils” here and there do not register high on the Richter scale of political upheavals. The real problem lies in the horrible traits hidden below a thatch of orange or of any other colour. But we have to hand it to Mr Trump. He does not hide behind mealy-mouthed words. He “tells it like it is”. He wants his hearers to understand exactly what he is getting at. And it seems they do. For now, anyway. But for the rest of us, the majority, I hope, the parallels are troubling and the possible consequences of the new president’s size-obsession, his statements and his executive orders make for sleepless nights. Fortunately, America’s founding Fathers wrote up a constitution that provides fairly robust protection against dictatorial tendencies. 

The other defence against unbridled executive power is mockery, for which this particular executive is ripe. Lampoonists remain unbowed both in their spoken word and their graphic essays, whether on TV or through cartoons. This is powerful stuff although Mr Trump responds with a counter-narrative that includes violent language and “alternative truths”, none of which, so far, has been enough to deter anyone, even the little children, who just as in The Gambia, have also joined in the fray.  

It is early days yet, but America must ready itself for difficult times Yahya Jammeh started off fairly benign (as dictators usually do) but in the end he became a terrifying figure in the Gambian political landscape. Hitler was exactly the same. 

Watch out, world.

Tell Fren Tru

A Year To Remember

2016 has been a strange one. Midway through, the Brits conjoured up the phenomenon of Brexit, when they voted not to remain in the European Union. The smart money had been on a different outcome, although it should have been obvious from the very beginning how the vote was going to go: The thing was that older generation Brits were keen on getting out of a union in which they had never been wholly comfortable. It was a club into which they felt they had been dragged by a bunch of metropolitan liberal elites, and June 23 provided the opportunity for them to free themselves of its shackles. It was also the chance to let those elites know how they felt about all claptrap like multi-culturalism and open borders.

So they took their opportunity and brought those elites down a peg or two, thumbing their noses at them for being "out of touch" with the ordinary folk, whose rights had been trampled on when the country was sold off to similar elites in foreign countries.  The June vote was the chance to sort them out, stick one in their eye and take back control of the country. Job done.

            Brexit was the summer’s fancy. Then autumn came and brought with it its fall fayre, the American presidential election. The outcome of that also caught the pundits flat-footed. They had been absolutely certain, as near as 99% could be that Hillary Clinton was going to become 45^th president of the United States. Even Donald Trump himself, who eventually won, did not much fancy his own chances either. Indeed, he was so unsure about his prospects (even with help of Russian friends) that he declared that he would not accept the results if Clinton won. As it turned out, he did not have to go down such a destructive route. In the aftermath, many worry that, given his temperament, he might not be able to resist the impulse, as commander-in-chief, to launch real WMDs if someone were to get under his skin.

            The fall was indeed the season when America completed its descent from the grace that the Obama presidency had been mooting. To be sure, Donald Trump was chief among detractors who tried to undermine Obama’s legitimacy by claiming that he had been foreign-born. It was probably not coincidental therefore, that it was round about this period in America’s history that its race-consensus began to unravel, to the point where street-level executions of African-American became almost routine in law-enforcement. Donald Trump’s entry into such a charged atmosphere did nothing to quieten nerves but probably exacerbated tensions. It was shocking, therefore, that a mature democracy like America’s blithely handed such a person the keys to the White House.

            Time Magazine has just named Trump its “Person of the Year”, for good or ill, it says. Fair enough. The “ill” is code for saying “watch out, America, you could be on course for a very destructive era”. That too, is fair enough. But if this tendency for doing harm erupts into a contagion, repercussions around the world could be disastrous: Countries that do not yet have a settled relation with democracy could end up in a very bad place. I can just imagine "strong men" on the African continent, for example, thinking and saying, “You know what? That Trump fellow has something”, and then casually continue fixing elections, invoking him as their new guru. This was the hazard that Gambians faced as they voted in their presidential elections last week. Hitherto, incumbent, Yahya Jammeh had managed things so nicely that his electorate “voted” him in for several five-year mandates, while jailing any who opposed him along the way. With chants of "Lock Her Up" ,  "Lock Her Up" now echoing everywhere, it was impossible not to be pessimistic that Jammeh's tendency to send opponents to Mile 2 (prison) or worse, will be curbed. But the people surprised us and, what was more astonishing Jammeh, amazingly, announced that he had accepted the people’s verdict.

            Once again, the urban elite got it wrong. Or did they?

Tell Fren Tru

It’s not just the Deplorables, Stupid

-->

One of the questions that people keep asking in the wake of the Trump victory is, how to explain this outcome to your children. The awkwardness that is implied reminds one of the discomfort that surrounds giving “The Talk”. Yes, that one. You know, the one about where babies come from. Actually, some of Trump’s antics and utterances during the campaign and in his prior lives also included stuff that you would not wish to mention in front of the children. But that’s by the by.

The short answer to the question is that the Trump victory provides a lesson in civics. That you get what you vote for. Or, more to the point, what you didn’t vote for.

Let me explain.

As the post-election autopsy progresses, we hear that nearly half of eligible Americans didn’t vote. Of the half that did, 25.5% voted for Trump and 25.6% for Clinton, giving Mrs Clinton a paper-thin majority in the popular vote. Not enough for the winning magic in the electoral colleges because, for that, you need to win in the states with big Electoral College numbers. But in these, only 29.9% opted for Clinton, whilst for Trump 30.9% did.

It is significant also that, among those who voted in this election, 70% were white. Most of these (58%) voted Trump, whilst Clinton could only manage 37%. The 30% that were non-white included among them, 23% Black and Latino who, in the event, voted massively for Clinton (88% of blacks and 65% of Latinos). But, in their totality, their numbers did not amount to anything enough to make a significant impact.

You may well ask then, where was the demographic shift they keep telling us about when it was needed? The narrative, though, is that all kinds of obstacles were placed in the way of minority voters when they attempt to vote and even before they thought of voting. Not good enough, I say. We’re not talking about a Third World dictatorship here. If you didn’t want Trump to win, then you should have gone out to vote.No excuse is tenable.

So, it’s not just the Deplorables, stupid. It’s you as well.

And that’s what you should tell the children.

Tell Fren Tru

Vote For Clinton. Vote Democrats all The Way

I have had enough. There has been far too much nonsense coming out of America over the last two years as to who should be the next president of the United States.

I just don’t get it that there are actually people who want to see Donald Trump become potentially the most powerful man on earth. The idea is absolutely crazy. Apart from having no track record in government whatsoever, Trump is a morally bankrupt character who should not be let anywhere near the reins of government, even for the office of dog-catcher. Don’t misunderstand me. Dog-catching is an honourable profession and it is a good entry-level job in which rookies can cut their teeth in the arts of public administration. But between it and the office of President there is an immeasurable gap, which no rookie can hope to adequately bridge by merely going through the motions of primary electoral politics. At this point I can hear you say, "some motions, some primary", for this 2016 cycle.

But to put this man without a resume against Mrs Clinton who has a CV to die for is a preposterous bit of nonsense which, even American reality television must find breath-taking. There is absolutely no comparison. The best that can be said for the Trump experience and qualification is that he can leverage himself out of financial disasters that he created himself.

            Then there is the question of “trust” which, in the lexicon of this election can be re-stated as “criminal tendencies”. Against Clinton, several so-called crimes are listed: The Clinton Foundation shenanigans, so-called; official State Department emails sent from and received in a private email server: a Hillary@ hotmail.com instead of a hillary.clinton.gov one, for example. Negligent, perhaps. But criminal? Give us a break. And then, Benghazi. Will someone please tell me what is it about Benghazi that blows the wind up the skirts of Clinton’s detractors? Please, please tell. There is absolutely no moral equivalence with Donald Trump. The man has a charge sheet as long as your arm, starting with trampling over the civil rights of African-American’s equal access to his rental property in New York; then there is his dodgy manipulation of the tax laws that allowed him to evade decades of federal income tax; then there is his university, for which he is under indictment for miss-selling and racketeering. These should have been enough to disqualify anyone except in a party that has completely lost its way. And then, there is the man’s moral unfitness: He mocks the disabled, he abuses Mexicans, he imputes the impartiality of a judge because of his ethnic heritage, he makes fun of women for their natural physiological processes; he derides war heroes because of their religion. Good grief, is there anything that this man won’t do? And that is before we hear of his abominable predatory sexual activities, some self-confessed.

And yet, some of you want to vote for him?  But many of you know that he is not right for the country and the world because, polls indicate that many are reluctant to confess that they will vote for him because they are ashamed. If you are embarrassed, why put him in the White House, for crying out loud? The least you can do is to abstain.

For those of you who are American, and are sensible and patriotic, and have a feeling for the rest of the world, get out there and vote for Clinton and the other Democrats who are trying to make America a better place. The world is looking on.

Tell Fren Tru