China finally sending aid to the Philippines, what a shame

As you all know by now by the countless fundraising initiatives that have taken place all throughout the media and social networks, the Philippines was hit by a massive typhoon. This typhoon was so big in fact that it made hurricanes such as Katrina look like child's play compared to it. The Philippines are in a state of emergency. From the countless articles and pictures I have read and seen, the destruction is unparalleled. The entire city of Tacolban (whose before and after pictures I will include below) has been leveled. But for a disaster so detrimental, the aid that went into relieving the entire Philippine nation was quite massive. The major players in the International community have rallied together to donate money, supplies, and even transport (US using navy helicopters to transport supplies) towards those affected by this monstrous storm. Yet surprisingly, for the hundred of millions of dollars the International community has sent for relief towards the Phillippines, China has contributed barely a fraction of the costs. In a recent report done by the BBC, it was found that "China initially offered $100,000 (£60,000) in aid, a fraction of that committed by other major nations."

The initial amount in my mind, and the rest of the international community's minds, is simply outrageous. Its not that China does not have the money to give, but its the intentions the Chinese had in withholding aid that has angered many people. Earlier in the year (if you are familiar-I'm sure you are not) relations between the two nations soured over territorial disputes over islands off the border of the Philippines. Tensions rose so high in fact that both Navy's deployed in the area waiting for an immanent attack. While I understand why the Chinese are reluctant to hand over aid to a nation they could have very well went to war with, they need to think practically! In any sort of conflict, the clear winner would obviously be China. China has the resources and capabilities to do things that we as Americans can barely fathom a once third world nation of accomplishing. So for a nation that contributes to almost 1/3 of the funds of the IMF, pledging $100,000 is outrageous.

After much uproar, China later pledged another $1.6m (£1m) in relief goods, although it was still a lower contribution than that of several other countries including Australia, South Korea, and the UK.On Wednesday, China confirmed that rescue workers would also be sent to the Philippines as well as a hospital ship named The Peace Ark

"Western Education is Forbidden"

I am about 99.999% sure that if I went into the pit tomorrow, or any area with a concentrated human population, and yelled out two words "Boko Haram" at the top of my lungs I would most likely be met with confusing and concerned responses. Hell, you yourself probably don't even know what "Boko Haram" really is. So what is Boko Haram and what is its significance to you?

Boko Haram, literally meaning "Western Education is Forbidden", was a relatively small islamic opposition group created in Northern Nigeria. The group itself primarily focused on opposing the influx of Westernization in developing Nigeria; however, with the onset of 2009, Boko Haram began to take a more radical approach and initiated military campaigns across Nigeria in order to establish an "islamic state."Since 2009, the group has been responsible for heinous, harsh, and indescribable acts of war and terrorism against the Nigerian people, especially those of non islamic origin (Nigeria is a diverse country with over 250 ethic groups). 

So why am I suddenly discussing Boko Haram today? Interestingly enough, the United States State Department finally branded Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. You must be thinking...oh so what, they're now on a list, who cares? However you would be surprised of the significance of such a move, and how it affects both sides. In the Islamic terror community (for practical purposes that how I will label the conglomeration of terror groups) reputation is everything. Insurgents, fighters, civilians, etc are more malleable and accepting of organizations that have better reputations then say shoddy start ups. After Al-Queda was given the "terrorist tag" by the State Department, its populairty skyrocketed and soon affiliate groups, such as those in Indonesia, began working harder so that they could be part of "Al-Queda."After gaining such a reputation, members become ever more charged and motivated to carry out attacks that help boost notoriety in order to promote themselves. This is a chief concern the US has had about Boko Haram, especially considering its increased relationship with the African based Al Qaeda, Islamic Maghreb, and Al-Shabaab. 

In years prior, "Boko Haram was earlier seen as an organisation which only posed a domestic threat - one reason why the US has not previously designated it as a terrorist organisation." However, with its shift towards international attacks, Boko Haram has gained power and potential. It executed several attacks on UN embassies over the past year as well as worked closely with Al Qaeda during the Tuareg takeover of Mali earlier this year. 

The move itself has been long awaited for by Nigerians who have to deal with the destruction and terror of Boko Haram on a day to day occasion. Nigeria's government said in June that Boko Haram and Ansaru were terrorist organisations, warning that anyone who helped them would face a minimum prison sentence of 20 years. With the decision by the State Department, we can only wait and see if Boko Haram gains further momentum...or if it is annihilated and fizzles out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24931684

India's Mission to Mars...is it worth it?

Some of you are probably thinking that this is a planned mission, and that India has just announced its intention for sending something up to Mars. Yet, as of  09:08 GMT, India's Mars Orbiter Mission, known as Mangalyaan (Mars craft in Hindi), took off at from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre on the country's east coast on Tuesday. 

Yea thats right, India has launched its own satellite into Mar's atmosphere. Pretty crazy to think that right? But that is the exact sentiment the Indian media and government wanted to bring out: that India HAS the ingenuity and power to pull something off to this high of a caliber.

The project itself has been given nothing but praise. There have been many benefits linked to the launch.  "The most important of such benefits could well be to fire the imagination of young minds in this country, getting them to dream about possibilities for tomorrow." Other praise comes from the fact that the entire budget used to go through with this launch was comparatively lower than that of other space-active nations "$72m (£45m)."

While the project itself has strict literal purposes for India and the scientific community ("The spacecraft will examine the rate of loss of atmospheric gases to outer space. This could provide insights into the planet's history; billions of years ago, the envelope of gases around Mars is thought to have been more substantial.") it also adds intrigue and suspense to the "current Cold War" as it has been dubbed, that is going on between the two future superpowers India and China. In an era in which China has continued to flex it's muscles and capabilities, India has finally responded proving its worthiness and potential in a possible competition. This has sparked pride throughout the country, much like the US landing of the moon did for American morale during the actual Cold War.

Yet for doing something so impactful for the scientific community and for moral within India, the launch of Mangalyaan has also taken much backlash and criticism. Critics believe that such a launch was not appropriate for a country that still has an enormous poverty issue and infant mortality/hunger rates that are comparable if not worse than the most afflicted Sub-Saharan African countries. Those who oppose the mission believe that the "$72M" could have been put to better good.

Yes...I do understand the ideas each critic states in opposition to this mission. India HAS to focus on its internal problems before it can even be considered in the same neighborhood as the US and even China at this point in time. But at the same time, we have to look into the workings of Indian Budget. Had this money not been allocated for space design, it would have most likely gone to the defense sector, in which India is the "highest" defense spender in the world. India spends so much on its military, both refining its old soviet era equipment and acquiring new high tech machinery (such as the Dassault Rafale fourth gen fighter jet). Yet massive corruption has usually stipend such spending and caused modernization rates within the army to be extremely slow. Another area of interest where the money could have been used would have been infrastructure, an area India surprisingly still has not invested as much as competitor China. But high levels of corruption would have most likely slown down and produced shoddy results as well. 

This is why I believe this mission is a success. It first produces tangible results that cannot be affected by corruption. The plan was initiated and carried out so quickly, because the rest of the world was watching, that there was no room for error. The mission also encouraged innovation and ingenuity among Indians which has brought out national pride and hopefully intellectual curiosity.

Lets just wait a few years to see really how impactful this launch was...in the meantime tell me how good//bad of an idea this was by the Indian government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24729073

Hope for D.R.C.

So you guys should know by now that I try to talk about events in the news that aren't quite "mainstream." The conflict I want to talk about in this post deals with the ongoing violence that has taken place on the eastern border of the DRC for the past year now. What I am talking about is the M23 rebellion that began in early April 2012 in which army deserters (reportedly funded and backed by Rwanda and Uganda) marched against the DRC. The movement seemed unstoppable for the majority of the year, as it swiftly and decisively took control of Goma (the largest city in Eastern Congo) as UN peacekeepers idly stood by.  The conflict was devastating to the region as it displaced over 800,000 people and killed many more thousands. The rebellion also highlighted the ineffective nature of the UN peacekeeping core as its 18,000 strong force in the DRC only could defend against themselves "once fired upon"-a tactic highly criticized by the international community especially during the Tutsi Genocide of Rwanda.

So, to even think about possibly taking over the M23 "capital" and dispersing over 10,000 rebel soldiers in less than a year would have probably given you crazy looks and odd faces all across the DRC and UN offices around the world. But yet, that is exactly what took places late monday afternoon as UN and government troops ended the shelling of the town and began moving into the the city of Bunagana on the Ugandan border. Wait, UN troops shelling rebels...? Isn't that not allowed? Well what was influential about this conflict was the clamor and raucous that ensued about the current makeup of the UN peacekeeping forces and whether or not they actually were effective. All of this finally culminated in a new UN division within the peacekeepers: the intervention force. The force, backed and funded by the UN, contains the same makeup of peacekeeping soldiers, except they are allowed to actively engage and fight in conflicts. With full international support, the campaign against the rebels was revamped and with International forces, the Congolese army was able to take back much of the territory that was seized earlier in the year.

While I do not see this particular conflict ending in the region (the leader of the movement fled to Uganda, and Uganda and Rwanda have been actively supporting the M23 rebellion) I do see improvements in how the UN and international community operates. Its high time a division like this in the UN was created to fully wage war on those who mistreat and cause chaos. The force has been so effective that it currently is working with AU troops in Somalia in hunting down Al-Shabaab fighters. I do see hope in a once pathetic and useless organization that drew many parallels towards the shambled "League of Nations." Hopefully the UN and the international community can continue making such useful developments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24744548

The UN intervention brigade

Congolese and UN Troops moving on Bunagana

M23 rebels taking Goma

Race affects your chances of developing cancer...whaaaat?!

"Young black women in the UK are more likely than their white counterparts to develop "worse" breast cancer with a poorer prognosis, research suggests." No need to go read this sentence out loud or wash your eyeballs, you read correctly... Young black women are said to have a larger, more aggressive tumors with "a higher risk of occurrence." One possible reason for this could be the fact that black women might not be getting the same treatment as white counterparts in the country; however, the study in the British Journal of Cancer noted that both groups had "the same access to care." Because of the nature of their tumors, black women respond less to Tumor removal medications. Biological factors had to be at play for such a trend. "Even when individual differences such as body weight and treatment variations such as availability of chemotherapy were taken into account, black ethnicity remained an independent indicator of poor prognosis."

What is alarming about this trend is that it has been noticed in research in places like the US as well as other countries around the world. While this is quite intriguing, one possible anomaly that could explain such trends could be due to the fact that most black women "are less aware of the symptoms or less 'breast aware'" and thus "their cancer is diagnosed at a later stage which would reduce the chance of successful treatment and recovery." A particular concern officials within the UK healthcare system are having is that if such a trend is proven to not be biological, then foul play within the system, specifically non accessibility, would most likely be responsible. IF this is the reason, striking reform, which has been debated heavily recently in the UK, within the health care system will have to be taken. 

In the meantime, if you're black, or really any ethinicity and live in the UK (or anywhere)...save yourself the trouble and go get checked. The best way to beat cancer is through early detection!

Check out the full story here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24624517

Could the world see a return of Measles?

In a recent study performed by analysts working for the BBC, vaccination rates and trends were measured for three deadly diseases-Measles, Hib3, and DTP3.  In the article, each disease was mapped in accordance to the availability of vaccines in each country. In addition, trend graphs were created to depict the level at which denizens were given vaccination for each disease. While some of the results seemed normal, others were definitely frightening. The first of which is Measles. Measles used to be one of the deadliest diseases to possess a few decades ago. The disease "is a highly infectious viral disease whose symptoms include a high fever and rash. Complications of measles can include blindness, brain swelling and pneumonia."  A vaccine for the disease was created in the 1960's and as a result "the number of deaths from the disease plummeted from 2.6 million in 1980 to 156,000 last year."  While immunization continues for Measles, particularly in the Western and newly developed worlds, there is concern that global immunization rates have leveled off in recent years. It has been found that children are the ones who are recently not being vaccinated. According to the W.H.O., it is "estimated that 1.5 million deaths children under five die each year  are from diseases that could have been prevented by routine immunization, such as Measles." Most of this is happening in places like Southeast Asia and regions in Africa. While major health initiatives led by global organizations have led to higher rates of vaccination in places like Africa (especially with Hib3), places like Southeast Asia still lag far behind. If you take a look at the graphs on the webpage, you can see that Africa and Southeast asia consistently fall below the global average in terms of vaccination rates, whereas Europe remains far above the average bar. While there already is much being done, global vaccination could still be much more efficient and wide-spread. As noted, there ARE vaccines for each of these diseases that have been proven to eradicate them from populations. In most cases, these vaccines can be fairly cheap and can be implemented efficiently when working in conjunction with aid organizations. Personally I believe that there needs to be better health initiatives implemented within regions that falter with vaccinations. As seen with Hib3 in Africa, adopting such initiatives greatly increased the level of vaccination of Hib3 and in turn led to fewer deaths ever recorded in such regions afflicted with the disease. 

I highly encourage you to check out this study and look through the data/graphs. Maybe you could formulate an innovative solution!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24519949

Finally...a plausible Malaria Vaccine!

Malaria has been one of the most deadliest parasitic linked diseases in the history of man. According to recent statistics, a child will die of Malaria every thirty seconds and over 800,000 are killed each year from the disease. In recent decades, much has been done to prevent the spread of Malaria. UN, NGO, and other organizations have made strong impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa (where over 90% of Malaria cases exist today) through the mass implementation of bed-nets and education of how to prevent mosquito breeding. However, for the billions of dollars spent each year aimed at preventing the spread of Malaria, vaccines and other preventative medication have still not been produced, until today that is!

According to a recent BBC article, the British drug maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently waiting regulatory approval for the worlds potential first Malaria vaccine. The drug, tested extensively among children in Africa, showed in its clinical trial great prospect for declining the rates of Malaria. The vaccine known as RTS,S "was found to have almost halved the number of malaria cases in young children in the trial and to have reduced by about 25% the number of malaria cases in infants." The trial itself was very credible and notable as it was as "Africa's largest-ever clinical trial involving almost 15,500 children in seven countries." If the vaccine passes through regulatory boards, it will potentially be adopted by the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) and could possibly be implemented "as early as 2015."

News of a Malaria vaccine is essentially a watershed moment for epidemiologists world wide. I actually sat in on a Malaria focused epidemiologist's lecture (Dr. Steve Meshnick) in which he described how such a vaccine would be groundbreaking for the entire field of public health. The burden Malaria puts on its victims and health systems across the world is truly devastating; therefore, finding ways to eradicate such a disease would prove to be beneficial to all parties all over the world. This is definitely something I will continue to follow throughout the news.

The Benefits of a Good Workout

By now I am 99.999% sure that you realize how important it is to be physically active (and if you're part of the .001% I don't even know..). Exercising regularly clearly has its benefits. Whether that’s reducing the risk of developing certain types of diseases that arise from higher body weights (i.e. diabetes) or improving oxygen flow to the rest of your body, you really cant go wrong with a quick workout. But with all its benefits, could exercising actually be as helpful to the body as actual medication? According to the British Medical Journal, "exercise can be as good a medicine as pills for those with conditions such as heart disease." The study consisted of scientists based at the London School of Economics, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute at Harvard Medical School and Stanford University School of Medicine in which the researchers searched "to find any research that compared exercise with pills as a therapy." Once these trials had been identified, the researchers "studied the data as a whole" in which "they found exercise and drugs were comparable in terms of death rates." 

So does that mean if you are someone who suffers from conditions such as heart disease you should go running through the streets throwing you're medication at confused onlookers? Well...no, not really. Although that would probably be one of the single greatest things to witness, I think legally I am supposed to tell you the downsides to the study...

Amy Thompson, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said "although an active lifestyle brings many health benefits, there is not enough evidence to draw any firm conclusions about the merit of exercise above and beyond drugs." In short, a tandem of the two should be the best-prescribed regiment for anyone suffering from such conditions.

So c’mon, get on your tightest yoga pants (or shortest retro shorts) and your stereotypical Nike trainers and hit the gym! A little exercise killed no one, right?

More Bloodshed in the News: The Kenyan Crisis

Over the weekend, Kenya suffered one of its most devastating Terrorist attacks in the nations history. On a normal Saturday afternoon, an estimated twenty Al-Shabab insurgents entered the "WestGate Mall." Everything after that went to hell. The terrorists started shooting everywhere, "spraying random bullets and aimlessly hurling grenades at shoppers." Shoppers from all ages were gunned down in the merciless attack. Men, women, and children from a select group of ethnicities seemed to be "targeted." After a long siege effort by armed forces, the standoff finally ended early Tuesday morning.

Interestingly, any Muslim who was caught between the gunfire was allowed to leave so that they promised to uphold "Jihad." A remarkable story also was released where a young british boy directly went up to a female shooter and told her she was "a bad person." Surprisingly, this shooter gave the boy and his bewildered sister candy bars and said that "We are here only to kill Kenyans and Americans, not Britons...we are not bad people."

This barbarous attack by Al-Shabab obviously had a clear intention-retaliation against the Kenyans for fighting Al-Shabab in Somalia. Recently, the African Union, with Kenya as a prominent leader, has taken the initiative to rid Somalia of terrorist groups such as Al-Shabab in an attempt to finally stabilize the region. The AU has been successive in driving Al-Shabab out of key fighting zones such as Mogadishu and Kismayo (feats the US could not accomplish during the failed Clinton Operation). But Al-Shabab still thrives outside these major urban zones, and the AU does not have the resources or capability to go after insurgents out in rural areas.

So with this attack, a new question has to be raised...what will Kenya do? Will they retaliate like the US did in its war on terror. Or will they grieve and reform, like the Indians did after the 11/26 attack of Bombay? Time will only tell, but my hunch is that Kenya will increase its operation capabilities within Somalia, and could possibly deploy its armed forces into the region.

But is this the right thing to do? Kenya definitely has the resources to engage in such a conflict as it is one of the booming economies in Africa. But the issue I have with Kenya going into a revenge-like war is the aftermath. Obviously Al-Shabab cannot stand up to a full forced army, but it can definitely use insurgent tactics to harass Kenyan soldiers (much like that of Iraqi insurgents against NATO forces). The real goal of any sort of military operation should be to restabilize Somalia so that when forces eventually withdraw, there will be no room for further breeding grounds for such organizations to spring back up. If Kenya can come up with some post-war restabilization plan then maybe retaliation can be justified; however, the country will need the support of the AU and international community.

What are your thoughts on this complex issue?

A Practical Outlook on the Syrian Crisis

So lets get this straight, Syria is a mess. This isn't some easily fixable mess that you usually have your mom (or maid if you're that pretentious) clean up. This is more like calling in the HazMat team to decontaminate a biohazard explosion. And frankly...that may not be enough. Most of America, and for that matter the Western World, has a pretty provincial outlook on the situation. People are polarized between two camps: those for intervention, and vice versa. Those for intervention continuously bring up the "crimes against humanity" and the need for justice (where was this before the West had an inkling about the sarin gas attacks?). On the other side, there are those who vehemently oppose any sort of intervention whatsoever, asking the U.S. and her allies to stay out of other countries internal issues. These people cite the chaos that ensued in Libya after the Gadhafi regime was toppled as one of their main arguments against any sort of intervention. Others cite the lack of capital to fund such an endeavor.

But let me address those two points before I move on. First, with the issue in Libya, there was not an effective post-operation plan set in place. We trusted the local militias too much that in doing so we gave them power, which in turn has caused struggles and violence throughout the country. If we, however, look at Egypt, a country whose issues we decided to stay far away from, the same amount of chaos and violence ensued after. Riots occur on a day-to-day basis, and now, there is even more bloodshed then there was during the revolution (and this was without any sort of intervention at all). When discussing monetary issues regarding a potential intervention, I will refer to an article NY Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote a few days ago. Kristof states that “A missile strike on Syrian military targets would result in no supplemental budget, so money would come from the existing military pot. In any case, the cost of 100 missiles would be about $70 million — far less than the $1 billion annual rate that we’re now spending on humanitarian aid for Syrians displaced by worsening war and by gas attacks. If a $70 million strike deters further gas attacks and reduces the ability of President Bashar al-Assad to bomb civilians, that might actually save us money in humanitarian spending. All this is uncertain, but the bottom line is that the financial cost of a strike isn’t a reason to acquiesce in mass murder in Syria.” Practically, intervening already makes sense.

But lets look at the bigger picture. What is really going on in Syria? Most of the world thinks of the conflict as one in which brutal and barbaric government troops are fighting and torturing a revolutionary rebel movement. But in reality, the situation is so much more complex. In fact, the rebel’s who we allegorize as “revolutionaries” and fighters against “tyranny” are in fact a split and very dangerous force. There are three main factions within the rebellion: Pro-Western rebels (Free-Syrian army), Kurdish independency fighters, and Al-Queda backed Jihadis (Al-Nusra Front). Surprisingly, it is an essential free for all between each of these groups. On any given day we could see fighting between the Free-Syrian Army and the Al-Nusra Front in towns such as Aleppo, or we could see Kurds battling it out against government forces in northwest Syria in an effort to create their own autonomous state. The real issue in this uprising has been the development and essential rise of the Al-Nusra front. The organization, now blacklisted by the West as a terrorist movement, is one that is well funded and well led. Arabs from across the peninsula who have always looked down upon the Assad Regime have been whole heartily supplying the Jihadi’s with weapons, ammunition, and vehicles. The organization has gained so much grown in the civil war that it currently looks like the favorites to come out victorious. Other organizations, such as the Free-Syrian Army (who have just now been given funding by the west) have struggled to muster the same amount of might as Al-Nusra or the Kurds, and have been manhandled by government and rebel forces. To add to all the chaos, it is now believed that Iranian forces are inside the country working with the Syrian army to target and track down rebel forces. With each passing day, the Pro-Western force has dwindled in size and more importantly, confidence.

With such a complicated scenario in place, I personally think that it’s too late decided on not intervening. With or without UN endorsement, the West needs to get more involved. If the Jihadi movement picks up in Syria, we could be forced to deal with another terrorist breeding ground situation such as those in Mali, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Egypt. Rather than appeasing all sides at conflict, the US and her allies should focus on supporting Pro-Western forces to not only defeat the capable Syrian army, but to also eliminate the pro-fundamentalist groups that are plowing towards Damascus. The Syrian conflict has now been a multi-year civil war, and with each passing month, the situation continues to deteriorate. Although the international community (primarily Russia, China, and Iran) has been applying pressure to the U.S. to stay out of the conflict, getting involved would provide a much more practical outcome in the long run.

While I do have much more to say about this very complicated topic, I do want to hear some of your opinions. Do you think that there are any other ways of going about the crisis? Should we intervene diplomatically, or will full force? Comment and I would love to continue this discussion.  

Kurdish Independence Fighters

Syrian Forces

Members of the Al-Nusra Front

Free Syrian Army Soldiers

The truth behind cancer care: A First Hand Experience

Cancer is the disease of our generation. From the ever ubiquitous fundraisers, to the thousands of non-profits, the amount of support Cancer patients receive is tremendous. Our health oriented society has placed much emphasis on debunking the mysteries that surround cancer. So practically,with the amount of capital we as a nation spend each year on this disease, shouldn't the level of care, prognosis, and treatment be at all time levels? Unfortunately, in a new study by the Institute of Medicine, the level of care as well as coordination done by doctors for cancer patients is "at an all time low." The study found that the palliative care in the cancer community is shockingly below average. Much of these concerns are highlighted by the fact that there is a "growing demand for cancer care," but  there is a "shrinking oncology workforce." Aside from this logistical problem, one of the more outraging points made by the study is that doctors are usually the culprits behind such poor palliative care. Doctors lack coordination and since treatments have gotten so complex, doctor's are struggling to provide basic information or prognoses on the type of treatment available. In many instances, cancer patients, many of whom have a limited background in the hard sciences, have to do their own research, and contact specific treatment agencies/and more specialized doctors to get the needed treatment for their specific form of cancer. This issue is actually much more widespread than you would think, and I have a second hand experience to such a disaster within our health community. My cousin, a twentry three year old recent grad from the University of William and Mary, was diagnosed with stage two Intraocular Lymphoma two years ago. The form of cancer was so rare that it took more than six months to officially diagnose the disease with a basic from of treatment. Aside from that diagnosis, my cousin, and our distraught family, were left alone. We had to personally look into the disease, and find any sort of treatment that could save his life. By the time a clinical study was found, my cousin had already advanced to the terminal stage of that form of cancer, thus making him ineligible for proto-drugs that were being researched. This ordeal was a very angering experience as it clearly exposed the lack of efficiency that currently plagues the field of oncology. This in essence seems like a very fixable issue. Ideally, it would be ideal to better educate doctors and other members of the health community about the different forms of cancer and how they could diagnose/treat it. Practically, it should be even clearer that the physician himself/herself should be the solution. Rather than making half-assed prognoses and moving onto the next patient, a true physician should do their jobs and work towards actually helping/alleviating their patients. They took the Hippocratic Oath for a reason...