Michael F. Cannon
Here he is discussing the case on Cavuto last month:
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
Michael Douglas: oral sex caused my cancer
The actor Michael Douglas has revealed to the Guardian that the HPV virus, transmitted through oral sex, was responsible for his throat cancer
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 2 June 2013 16.05 BST
Basic Instinct star Michael Douglas has revealed that his throat cancer was apparently caused by performing oral sex.
In a surprisingly frank interview with the Guardian, the Hollywood actor, now winning plaudits in the Liberace biopic Behind the Candelabra, explained the background to a condition that was thought to be nearly fatal when diagnosed three years ago.
Asked whether he now regretted his years of smoking and drinking, thought to be the cause of the disease, Douglas replied: "No. Because without wanting to get too specific, this particular cancer is caused by HPV [human papillomavirus], which actually comes about from cunnilingus."
Douglas, the husband of Catherine Zeta Jones, continued: "I did worry if the stress caused by my son’s incarceration didn’t help trigger it. But yeah, it’s a sexually transmitted disease that causes cancer. And if you have it, cunnilingus is also the best cure for it."
The actor, now 68, was diagnosed with cancer in August 2010, following many months of oral discomfort. But a series of specialists missed the tumour and instead prescribed antibiotics. Douglas then went to see a friend’s doctor in Montreal who looked inside his mouth using a tongue depressor.
"I will always remember the look on his face," Douglas has previously said. "He said: ‘We need a biopsy.’ There was a walnut-size tumour at the base of my tongue that no other doctor had seen."
Shortly afterwards he was diagnosed with stage four cancer (stage five is death) and embarked on an intensive eight-week course of chemotherapy and radiation. He refused to use a feeding tube, despite his palate being burnt on account of the treatment, and so lost 20kg (45lb) on a liquids-only diet. "That’s a rough ride. That can really take it out of you," he told the Guardian. "Plus the amount of chemo I was getting, it zaps all the good stuff too. It made me very weak."
The treatment worked and Douglas is now more than two years clear of cancer. He has check-ups every six months, he said, "and with this kind of cancer, 95% of the time it doesn’t come back".
The cause of Douglas’s cancer had long been assumed to be related to his tobacco habit, coupled with enthusiastic boozing. In 1992, he was hospitalised for an addiction which some at the time claimed to be sex. Douglas himself denied this and said he was in rehab for alcohol abuse. He has also spoken of recreational drug use.
HPV, the sexually transmitted virus best known as a cause of cervical and anal cancer and genital warts, is thought to be responsible for an increasing proportion of oral cancers. Some propose that changes in sexual behaviour – a rise in oral sex in particular – are responsible. Such changes might be cultural, but could also be linked to fears about the safety of penetrative sex in the wake of the discovery of Aids.
Mahesh Kumar, a consultant head and neck surgeon in London, confirms that the last decade has seen a dramatic rise in this form of cancer, particularly among younger sufferers. Recent studies of 1,316 patients with oral cancer found that 57% of them were HPV-16 positive.
"It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the HPV type 16 is the causative agent in oropharyngeal cancer," said Kumar, who also testified to increased recovery rates among this kind of cancer sufferer. This would help explain why Douglas was given an 80% chance of survival, despite the advanced stage of his illness.
However, Kumar expressed scepticism that Douglas’s cancer was caused solely by HPV, and surprise at Douglas’s assertion that cunnilingus could also help cure the condition. "Maybe he thinks that more exposure to the virus will boost his immune system. But medically, that just doesn’t make sense."
The GP Ann Robinson expressed interest in how confirmation of this association would affect the rollout of the HPV vaccine, which is currently only available in the UK to girls aged 12 and 13. "My main priority with diagnosing a patient with oral cancer is to get them referred as early intervention can be so crucial. Asking for a detailed sexual history would be inappropriate at that stage."
Douglas has two children, aged 10 and 12, with his second wife, Catherine Zeta Jones, as well as an older son, Cameron, from a previous marriage. In 2010, Cameron was sentenced to five years in prison for drugs possession and dealing, and a year later had his sentence extended until 2018 after he pleaded guilty to possessing drugs in prison.
Douglas won his first Oscar aged 31 for producing One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, then took a second in 1987 for his performance as the ruthless capitalist Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. He won rave reviews in Cannes recently, for his portrayal of the pianist Liberace.
Later this year he will be seen alongside Morgan Freeman, Robert De Niro and Kevin Kline in the Hangover-style comedy Last Vegas. He currently has four projects in pre-production, including a dramatisation of the 1986 Reykjavik summit, in which he plays the former US president Ronald Reagan.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:28 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
This week, Michael Moore took to his blog to ask someone to publish the assuredly horrific pictures of the Sandy Hook Elementary School crime scene. Like the horrific pictures of 1955 lynching victim Emmett Till, who’s mom wanted the photographs published, or the heart-wrenching images of the Vietnam War, Moore believes that the pictures will finally galvanize people to meaningful gun control. He writes:
I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut—a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country—somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child’s body, that’s the day the jig will be up for the NRA. It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.
This is a horrible suggestion, obviously. I do, however, have some pictures for Michael Moore:
The first picture is of Sgt. Lisa Castellano. Two days after the Newtown tragedy, Sgt. Castellano was off-duty and working security at a movie theater. A gunman walked in and began firing. She stopped the gunman after he had shot one man.
The second picture is of Jeanne Assam. In 2007, Assam stopped what could easily have been the largest mass shooting in U.S. history at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. A severely deranged man, who had already killed two people at a youth mission in northern Denver the night before, entered the church with the same armament as Newtown killer Adam Lanza and began shooting. At the time, approximately 7,000 people were in the church. Assam stopped him after he had killed two and wounded three.
These are the people we should be remembering, not the Adam Lanzas of the world, whose name we should all try hard to forget. But, as the saying goes, reporters don’t cover buildings that don’t burn down. After these incidents there were no Piers Morgan specials, “national conversations,” or Michael Moore blogposts. And these incidents are just two of the many times mass shooters have been stopped by responsible gun carriers, in addition to the many times responsible gun users stop more typical criminal activity. (Check out Cato’s study on defensive gun use, Tough Targets, as well as our ongoing interactive map of defensive gun use.)
In his post, Michael Moore reminds us that “2,600 Americans have been killed by guns since Newtown.” I’d like to remind him that, using the lowest estimates of the number of defensive gun uses per year, guns have averted between 27,000 and 207,500 crimes in the three months since Newtown.
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
Michael Pento Podcast
Statistics: Posted by DIGGER DAN — Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:41 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
By David Boaz
Michael Gerson, the former Bush speechwriter who gave us big-government conservatism and is now the #2 neocon columnist at the Washington Post, writes more about libertarianism than any other writer of such prominence. That would be great if he understood it, or could represent libertarianism fairly in his criticisms. Over the past few years he has denounced libertarianism as “morally empty,” “anti-government,” “a scandal,” “an idealism that strangles mercy,” guilty of “selfishness,” “rigid ideology,” and “rigorous ideological coldness.”
And here’s today’s entry:
A few libertarians have wanted this fight [Mitt Romney's reference to 47 percent of Americans being "dependent on government"] ever since they read “Atlas Shrugged” as pimply adolescents. …
Republican politicians could turn to Burkean conservatism, with its emphasis on the “little platoons” of civil society. They could reflect on the Catholic tradition of subsidiarity, and solidarity with the poor. They could draw inspiration from Tory evangelical social reformers such as William Wilberforce or Lord Shaftesbury. Or they could just read Abraham Lincoln, who stood for “an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.”
Instead they mouth libertarian nonsense, unable to even describe some of the largest challenges of our time.
Well, let’s see here. Burke’s little platoons get a whole chapter in Charles Murray’s libertarian book In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government and a good bit of attention in this Cato essay based on it. They’re people, not governments. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity, as explained by Pope Pius IX in Quadragesimo Anno, holds that “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.” Which sounds pretty libertarian to me. And it doesn’t seem to recommend turning local schools and individual marriages over to the federal government, as Messrs. Bush and Gerson endeavored to do.
Libertarianism is a philosophy of individual rights, civil society, and limited government. Those may be unfamiliar concepts to Mr. Gerson, but he really should, you know, read a book before presuming to criticize them.
I wonder what Gerson read when he was a pimply adolescent. Maybe the Bible, Burke, and Lincoln? Does he think that those ideas can be dismissed by referring to their readers as “pimply adolescents”? Is that what passes for conservative argument these days?
And why oh why can’t the Washington Post add a libertarian columnist to its array of lefties, welfare liberals, conservatives and neocons?
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
Michael Douglas’ son could get life in prison
Actor Michael Douglas (L) and his son Cameron pose as they arrive for the premiere of their new film ”It Runs In The Family” in this file photo taken in Los Angeles, California, April 7, 2003.
NEW YORK | Fri Aug 7, 2009 5:48pm EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The son of actor Oscar-winning actor Michael Douglas could face life in prison for selling large amounts of an illegal drug over a three-year period before his arrest late last month, court records show.
Cameron Douglas, 30, a sometimes actor who appeared with his father and grandfather Kirk Douglas in "It Runs in the Family," is accused of selling tens of thousands of dollars worth of methamphetamine, according to a complaint unsealed this week.
Douglas was arrested at a Manhattan hotel on July 28, and had charges against him read in Manhattan federal court the next day, but news of his arrest surfaced only Wednesday.
Rebecca Carmichael, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, would not comment on whether Douglas had applied for, or been granted, bail.
Douglas faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison and a maximum period of life for two counts of possessing and distributing forms of methamphetamine known by the street names of "crystal meth" and "Ice," which is smoked in a pipe.
Douglas received large quantities of crystal meth in California then sent them to New York via FedEx between 2006 and 2009. He worked with accomplices who are cooperating with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the complaint said.
In several different recorded phone calls Douglas referred to the drugs as "pastry" and "salts," the complaint said.
One of his attorney’s, Allison Menkes, declined comment.
A spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration also declined comment. A next court date has not been set.
Douglas was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine in 2007 in Santa Barbara, California.
(Reporting by Christine Kearney, editing by Bob Tourtellotte)
Statistics: Posted by DIGGER DAN — Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:13 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
KING WORLD NEWS INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL PENTO
Statistics: Posted by DIGGER DAN — Thu May 17, 2012 12:06 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Michael J. Sandel has an article in The Atlantic on the moral limits of markets. In it he expresses remarkably common views about the dangers of market forces but does so through remarkably sloppy analysis for such a major thinker.
The piece begins with a litany of horrors. Can you believe it’s possible to buy your way into a carpool lane, even if there’s only one person in your car? Can you believe rich folks would hire Indian surrogate mothers when there are (more expensive) Americans available? And on and on goes the list of awful things both bought and sold.
After assuming that his readers are as shocked—shocked—by this as he is, Sandel writes, “Over the past three decades, markets—and market values—have come to govern our lives as never before. We did not arrive at this condition through any deliberate choice. It is almost as if it came upon us.”
And here’s his first—of many—missteps. Because of course we did arrive at this condition through deliberate choice. Every item bought and every item sold in his preamble was bought and sold through deliberate choice on the part of those doing the buying and the selling. Sandel’s argument thus is not that there wasn’t any deliberate choice involved but that the deliberative chooser wasn’t who Sandel thinks it should’ve been—and the choices made weren’t what Sandel himself would’ve chosen.
In other words, it’s not that we haven’t chosen. Rather, we haven’t chosen the way Michael J. Sandel would have. (Sandel seems to believe that “deliberate choice” would lead to preferences matching his own. He never appears to consider that people like having the freedom to decide for themselves what they can buy and sell with consenting participants.) Michael J. Sandel decidedly would not choose markets in many instances where willing buyers and sellers obviously have. For one, Sandel thinks markets breed inequality. Those with money can buy more than those without. Second, “putting a price on the good things in life can corrupt them.”
The most silly—and monstrous—claim Sandel makes regarding corruption is about how markets set value. “But not all goods are properly valued [by markets],” Sandel writes. “The most obvious example is human beings. Slavery was appalling because it treated human beings as a commodity, to be bought and sold at auction.”
No. Slavery was not appalling because it allowed human beings to be sold as commodities in the market. It was appalling because it allowed human beings to be enslaved. A system where slaves weren’t bought and sold but were instead granted by a king or claimed by victorious warriors would be just as awful as one where they’re allocated by the market.
Relatedly, throughout the article, Sandel displays a lack of awareness of alternatives. He laments the use of markets “to allocate health, education, public safety, national security, criminal justice, environmental protection, recreation, procreation, and other social goods.” And he might be right. Who knows? Maybe there are better ways to allocate those things. But allocated they must be, and Sandel never really bothers to acknowledge how they’d be allocated if not via markets—nor how they were allocated before markets.
After all, it’s not the case that, prior to markets in health, education, and recreation, everyone just had as much as they needed as often as they needed. Instead, allocation occurred along other lines, most of them worse than markets. Education was a matter of class privilege. It was denied to members of certain races. Social goods came at the whims of kings and priests. Markets may not be perfect, but they’re better than determining distribution through arbitrary features like the color of one’s skin or the social class of one’s parents. At least markets give everyone the possibility to participate. Caste systems do not. When Sandel argues that, “in a society where everything is for sale, life is harder for those of modest means,” he ignores that, in a society where everything is distributed by and for whites, for example, meaningful life is practically impossible for non-whites. The same goes for women, for religious minorities, and for disfavored political groups. Something must do the distributing and markets are, in most cases and if nothing else, the least worst option.
Sandel’s solution to “the corrosive tendency of markets,” is, of course, more government. “[W]e need to do more than inveigh against greed,” he writes. We also “need to have a public debate about where markets belong—and where they don’t.” He goes on, “A debate about the moral limits of markets would enable us to decide, as a society, where markets serve the public good and where they do not belong.”
While there are legal constraints on what can be bought and sold, the rest of Sandel’s statement—the “public good,” “we” deciding, “public debate”—raise more questions than they answer. Members of society decide all the time whether given items belong the in market. They do this through the rather mundane act of choosing whether to buy (or sell) them or not. If I don’t think it’s okay to pay children to read, I won’t pay my daughter to read. If you do think it is okay, you will pay your son to read. And so on.
What Sandel wants instead is for government to force us to comply with the wishes of others, particularly if we’re in the minority when “society” decides. He’d banish individual choice on the part of parents and make it simply illegal for me to pay my daughter to read. If the public debate is to extend to such questions, then the public debate will necessarily encompass everything in our lives. Because, as Sandel makes clear, everything in our lives is conceivably distributable through market processes.
Sandel assures his readers that having this debate—letting “society” decide—“would make for a healthier public life.” But it wouldn’t. It would make everything worse because it would extend the scope of politics and politics makes us worse.
Can you think of any sphere of life outside of politics (and, perhaps, religion) where differences of opinions make us hate each other? Political debate by most Americans is uninformed (because most Americans don’t have the time to learn the details of all the issues presented to them) and rancorous. We despise each other over tiny differences in tax bills. This does nothing to make us better people and it does nothing to improve society.
Now imagine extending the sphere of politics to everything. How can this in any way “make for a healthier public life?” It can’t. The only way to make public life healthier is to scale back the scope of what political debate covers. Then we will all have less reason to worry about what the guy down the street—or in that red or blue state—thinks about such-and-such. He can have his opinion and we can have ours. On the other hand, letting “society” decide makes those opinions matter because if society decides his way, you’ll be forced to comply.
Sandel’s article accomplishes nothing except expose just how dangerous it would be if people like Michael J. Sandel got their way.
View full post on Libertarianism.org