Scientists in Omsk Invent Cyro-Applicator Useful in Fighting Cancer

Scientists in Omsk invented a unique cancer-fighting technology that may be a real breakthrough in cancer treatment. It curbs cancer cell proliferation in the human body with the help of cryo-applicators, a Russian technique that created a sensation in the medical world. The method is patented in Russia, has already been demonstrated in Berlin, and will soon travel to Paris. For decades, scientists across the globe have waged a relentless fight against cancer, experimenting with drugs, vaccines, and laser beams.

A team of oncologists in the Omsk Oncology Clinic has suggested freezing cancer cells with the use of cryo-applicators produced at a local research-industrial centre for cryo-medical technologies. At first sight, there seems to be nothing special about it, it’s just a little cryo cap. But, specialists argue that this is a revolution in medicine. Cancer is a very insidious disease. One malignant cell is enough to give rise to a new tumour. Today, most oncologists rely on extensive surgery, when not only a contaminated organ or part of it is removed, but, as much tissue and as many lymph nodes around it to try to prevent future metastases.

Mikhail Vozlyublenny, Deputy Head of the Omsk Oncology Clinic, the inventor of the cyro-applicator, said, “This is a very complicated and risky type of surgery. The usual surgical removal of a lymph node traumatises its capsule, which is very thin, causing cancer cells contained in the lymph node to disseminate. My method, which became the subject of my Kandidatura (a Russian degree equivalent to a PhD: editor’s note) thesis, is as follows, a cancer-contaminated lymph node is frozen by nitrogen monoxide using a cryo-applicator. What happens next is called adhesion, the node turns into an icy ball and glues to the applicator’s cap and then it’s easily removed, literally torn out of the adjacent tissue. The entire operation lasts five minutes. No heavy blood loss, no post-surgical wounds. More than a hundred such surgeries have already been conducted. All of them were successful”.

Cryo-technologies are widely used in gynaecology and proctology as well as in dermatology in the treatment of warts, papillary tumours, and other skin diseases. They also help neurologists treat the inflammation of the trifacial nerve, which is very painful and usually impervious to treatment. But, it’s the first time that cryo-applicators were used against cancer. Is it possible to freeze not just one lymph node, but, a whole contaminated organ? Russian medical researchers are looking for an answer to that question. Possibly, in the near future, they shall be able to give an affirmative answer to that hypothesis.

8 October 2008

Maria Domnitskaya

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=rus&q=85679&cid=23&p=07.10.2008

Évian Forum’s Anti-Munich Ideas

Fountain in Évian-les-Bains

The first World Policy Conference in Évian-les-Bains, France, is over. Some of the heads of state and government expected did not show, and some of those who did come left after making their speeches. Is this good or bad? In principle, the success of a major forum depends on how soon the global political community accepts its ideas and moulds them into action plans. This means officials of different levels should participate in such brainstorming events. The success, or failure, of the first Évian forum will become clear in a few months. If it proves a success, it will take several years to implement its ideas, which may be very difficult.

So far, one of the key events in Évian was the duet of President Dmitri Medvedev and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. I am referring to their speeches and less formal interaction with the forum participants. Mr Medvedev’s speech was crystal-clear; the world must join forces to overcome the current financial crisis. This is exactly what the world waited for someone to say. To begin with, we should calm down and stop using confrontational rhetoric, he said. Secondary considerations should be forced to the background in some cases. In the event of an economic crisis, Mr Medvedev said, we should above all think about ways to preserve the results of human endeavour and maintain a befitting quality of life, including Russia and all other countries and regions, because the economy has long since become a global affair.

When the recent tragedy occurred in Tskhinvali, which the Georgian troops shelled and later invaded, killing innocent civilians, we had to think above all about saving human lives. All other considerations were secondary to that task, he said. The current economic crisis is more important than ideological differences between Russia and its partners in Europe and America. In this respect, we are thinking as partners, not as rivals or adversaries, Mr Medvedev said. Moscow’s position of principle as put forth by Medvedev may be more important than even some of its actions. A relevant example is Russia’s readiness to provide a 4 billion euro (142.316 billion roubles. 5.445 billion USD. 3.189 billion UK pounds) loan to Iceland to save it from financial catastrophe, as expressed at the time of the Évian forum.

Next, Mr Medvedev spoke about his plan to rehabilitate the global financial sector, which is not unlike the ideas of President Sarkozy. The essence of Mr Medvedev’s five points is that financial transactions must be transparent, responsible and accountable, with the uncontrollable issue of unsecured obligations curtailed. He also clarified his earlier idea of a collective security treaty for Europe. The five principles of European security include the underlying principle of equal security for all, without domination by any one country or organisation.

I wonder if journalists will describe the Évian forum as anti-Munich. I am referring to the Munich security conference in February 2007, where Vladimir Putin spoke about elements of Western policy Russia did not, and still does not, accept. Some unwise media outlets presented his speech as Russia’s challenge to the 20 or 30 countries that are collectively referred to as “the West” or “the Atlantic community”. Mr Medvedev repeated many provisions of Mr Putin’s Munich speech, but, nobody was shocked this time. Long before Munich, Russia offered its assistance to the United States after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Mr Putin said in Munich what Mr Medvedev repeated in Évian, that there are crucial problems on which Russia and the rest of the world, including the West, must take a common stand.

Mr Medvedev reminded the audience in Évian that the world had missed an historical chance to cleanse international relations of ideology and to start building a truly democratic world order. In 2001, Russia extended a helping hand to the US, hoping to finally bridge the gap that divided the world since the Cold War. However, the US decided to “privatise” global solidarity against a common threat, expecting its partners to pursue a policy approved in Washington, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at the UN General Assembly. This led not only to a senseless war in Iraq, which Russia and all the key European countries did their best to prevent, but also attempts to split Europe into “old” and “new” parts and to nurture anti-Russian regimes, including in Georgia. This era has come to its logical conclusion, Mr Lavrov said.

At the dawn of a new era in international relations, President Medvedev said in Évian that Russia was at one with its Western partners in the fight against global threats. Will they take Russia’s hand this time? Time will tell. However, this is not enough for Russia, because international problems do not wholly depend on differences between it and the West. They have deeper roots going back to the fear of global change eating away Western civilisation. In fact, this is why the Évian forum was created.

9 October 2008

Dmitri Kosyrev

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20081009/117638395.html

Screeching Eagle, Shrugging Bear

Logo of the Hard Rock Café in Moscow, on Novy Arbat

______________________________

A US report, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, comes at an awkward time. America continues to lecture nations on democratic etiquette and human rights, whilst the dark legacy of the Iraq War and dwindling civil liberties haunts the globe’s superpower. Nevertheless, given the nature of the Bush administration’s messianic globetrotting, the report deserves a peek. The State Department said, in particular, “With US support, NGOs continued to monitor the work of deputies in regional legislatures, encouraging interaction between constituents and their elected officials and promoting good governance. Sixteen US-supported coalitions of business associations united more than 170 associations nationwide; these groups won at least 30 legislative changes in various regions of the country. The ambassador met with the head of the Central Election Commission and with political party leaders, including opposition leaders, throughout the year to emphasise the need for transparent and fair elections”. Konstantin Kosachyov, the head of International Affairs Committee in the RF Gosduma, said the report indicates that the US would attempt to interfere in Russia’s political life. “The report contains a direct indication that the United States intends to finance projects within the framework of the forthcoming RF Gosduma and presidential election campaigns”, Mr Kosachyov said, as quoted by RIA-Novosti. “That’s obvious interference in the internal political life and sovereign affairs of another country, which we can’t accept under any circumstances”.

Hollow Words?

The report went down like a lead duck in Russia for two reasons. It was obvious geopolitical opportunism on the part of Washington mixed with a large dash of hypocrisy. The curious coincidence of the State Department releasing a report on international human rights at the same time the US is struggling with its own adherence to democratic principles was alluded to during a small press briefing that accompanied the report’s release. A correspondent from Al Jazeera, the Arabic-language news channel, asked Barry F Lowenkron, the head of the organisation that drafted the report, if “efforts to promote human rights will be better off if you closed Guantánamo [the detention center in Cuba where suspects in the war on terror are presently being held without legal representation]?” Mr Lowenkron danced around the question by referring to a summit he attended in the Dead Sea with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice where “I met with quite a few NGO representatives from a diverse number of countries, none of them raised it [the question of Guantánamo]… the President has said that publicly he’d like to see it closed”. However, then, why would any NGO bring up an uncomfortable question with Mr Lowenkron, a man who reportedly enjoys heavy influence in the cliquish world of NGOs.

This brings up another point, Mr Lowenkron’s job credentials. The man’s curriculum vitae suggests he would be better suited to direct a James Bond film than lead an organisation dedicated to “democracy, human rights, and labour”. According to the State Department website, Mr Lowenkron “held a variety of positions in the Intelligence Community, including National Intelligence Officer for Europe, Director of the National Intelligence Council’s Analytic Staff, and Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence…Also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations”. Although many individuals have made the career jump from the murky world of intelligence to the green fields of human rights organisations, let’s imagine if the tables were turned and a former KGB agent drafted a human rights report on America’s dwindling democracy. Please, we’re all adults; so, let’s not pretend that any one intelligence agency is any less friendly than the next. This isn’t an indictment of Mr Lowenkron, of course; I may be wrong, but, perhaps, these “impartial” organisations should fill their ranks with former Peace Corps workers, for example, as opposed to former CIA analysts. This leads us to the question of foreign NGOs working in Russia. Moscow attracted heated criticism for its recent drafting of legislation to oversee the activities of these myriad organisations, but, it seems that its concerns weren’t without justification. Last year, as The Guardian reported, “British spies had been caught ‘red handed’ using high-tech gadgetry to collect intelligence”. The technology turned out to be a “spy rock” positioned in central Moscow. What really sounded the alarm bells in the Kremlin halls was the discovery that the individuals caught fumbling with the rock worked in the British embassy’s political section, and were allegedly responsible for passing funds to the Moscow Helsinki Group, a leading Russian human rights group. Whilst the US report makes some valid points, more attention must be given to the judges than the judged, it seems.

13 April 2007

Robert Bridge

An American in Moscow

Moscow News

http://www.mnweekly.ru/politics/20070413/55149694.html

The Other “Other Russia”

 

The Coffee Bean on Ulitsa Tverskaya, one of Moscow’s favourite cafés.

______________________________

On Saturday afternoon, the day of the so-called Dissenters’ March, I was drinking a double espresso at the elegant Coffee Bean on Ulitsa Tverskaya and enjoying a conversation with a 19-year-old student from Moscow State University. Yes, life is tough in the trenches. Armenian by birth, Karina and her family fled Baku in 1998, one day before war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Today, Karina would never be confused as a former refugee. Indeed, she’s a Russian success story. In addition to her mother tongue, she speaks fluent English and German, and she’s now studying Japanese as well; after graduation, she plans to attend university abroad. She’s well-read and well-travelled, thinks the television programme Sex and the City is “total rubbish”, and considers Moscow “the most exciting city in the world”. Not bad for such a “repressed” place. Our conversation was punctuated by a steady stream of police officers who went in and out of the coffee shop with large thermoses, taking advantage of the French Roast and biscuits. It was almost comical how the well-dressed lunchtime crowd barely noticed the camouflaged officers. It was very understandable why the OMON was looking for some caffeine stimulation. Nothing was happening on the streets. Well, nothing that deserves front-page hysterics, that’s for sure. Yes, a former chess champ found himself trapped in checkmate in the long shadow of King Pushkin, and duly awarded a 1,000 rouble (38 USD 28 Euros 22 UK Pounds) slap on the wrist for his ill-conceived play. There are jaywalkers in Moscow who receive higher fines for their foolhardiness. Nobody denied Mr Kasparov the right to a protest. Actually, he was granted a very respectable soap box right on Turgenevskaya Square, one of the most upscale and populated areas of the city. Any leader of a legitimate political organisation (which this motley crew of communists, anarchists, and liberals of various shades isn’t, by the way) would’ve jumped at the chance for such a visible venue. However, there was a slight problem with this group accepting a “handout” from the Russian government. Playing by the “régime’s” rules would fail to trigger a slobbering Pavlov-reaction in the Western press. Since this group of malcontents fails to generate any real political support, much less sympathy, on the basis of their agenda, their popularity ranks somewhere between pookh and bad vodka, they must rely on the free advertising of the Western media. Thus, Americans have every right to comment on this oligarch-paid political stunt, because it interferes with what could be considered truly newsworthy material at home. Russia’s alien “others” are simply grasping for the huge fig leaf of the western media to hide their unpopularity at home.

Okay, back to the Coffee Bean; we hear the “news” (as if the ending of this slick PR campaign was not predictable from the start) about a disturbance near Pushkin Square, just up the street. Karina’s mother delivered us the news after hearing about it over the car radio. “Yes, Mom, I’m fine”, Karina answered with a hint of annoyance. “There’s always somebody protesting about something”. Now, I ask… Where is the “authoritarianism” that so many western-leaning media are babbling about? Yes, cappuccino a democracy doesn’t make, I agree, but, what we’re talking about here is a matter of double standards and pure media bias. After all, the real story on Russia isn’t to be found in The Wall Street Journal editorial section, for example, a beehive of neocon sabre-rattling, but, on the sidewalks of Moscow where liberalism really reigns. Here, in one coffee shop out of about 1,000 in the capital, a young student is sitting across from me who speaks four languages, will soon study abroad, has the latest fashions, extensive travels, and a mobile phone, which her mother promptly called after hearing a disturbing news report over the car radio. This is very far from the days of Chernobyl, when the Soviet authorities withheld vital news reports about a truly significant event. Today, across Russia, people can choose from over 38,000 newspaper publications (some free-of-charge, foreign, and blatantly government-unfriendly) where every view under the sun is given free reign. In addition to radio (yes, the radio exists in Russia!), there’s privately-owned television too. However, given the monopolistic quality of the western media, and its very real power to control events (Read: Iraq), this media should not be overstated until it is democratic everywhere.

If Russia is really “authoritarian” for citing individuals who attempted to assemble, illegally, on Pushkinskaya, then, every nation east and west of Moscow is guilty of the same charges. It’s only necessary to consider summit meetings between members of the World Trade Organisation, for example. During these meetings, which determine in no small degree the rules of the global economy, attendees hunker down in one part of town, protesters in another. Meanwhile, the United States, the nation that every liberal turns to for moral (financial?) support, has its own odd rules of assembly that many argue breach the Constitution. “Orwellian ‘free speech zones’”, argued Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine, “are typically far away from the venue where the visiting president is appearing, so that he can enjoy a Potyomkin Village experience in which he sees only an adoring populace through his limousine window. Protesters can peaceably assemble, just out of the President’s sight and earshot…(for a nice photo of “free speech” at the 2004 Democratic Convention, check “free-speech-zone” on Wikipedia; it’s good for a chuckle). Lastly, there’s the ugly issue of outside forces, many of whom still feel the sting of losing their influence on the Kremlin, pumping hard cash into Russia, thereby artificially inflating a very farcical opposition.

20 April 2007

Robert Bridge

An American in Moscow

Moscow News

http://www.mnweekly.ru/local/20070420/55236295.html

Editor’s Note:

A friend of mine asked me if there were good unbiased reports from contemporary Russia by English or American journalists. I said, sure, there’s Peter Lavelle at Russia Today and Robert Bridge at the Moscow News. Both are excellent American journalists who don’t spew the CNN line. They both deserve to better known.