“For a declusive, deconstructed and multiversal oncology”1
May the woke be with you!
It has become necessary, in this twenty-first century,e demanding century, to rethink oncology, around three major directions, as will be recommended shortly in the British Woke Medical Journal : declusivism, deconstruction and multiversality (which should not be confused with multiversatility). A declusive oncology is one that does not forget that, just as men can be pregnant (according to family planning), women can also suffer from prostate cancer. However, no manual, no treatise, no publication refers to this pathology, which is rare, which shows the total blackout that human beings endowed with a penis from birth still exercise with respect to those2 which are not. Conversely, it should be noted that breast cancers in men are the subject of in-depth studies.
That said, let's be fair: no publication mentions endometriosis in men. There is something shocking in this asymmetry, and I propose the creation of a new medical specialty, gynandrology, intended to treat these patients. Another marker of exclusivism that will have to be remedied by declusivity is that of the binarity of the collection of epidemiological data: while even toilets must now be separated into eleven specific stalls (see figure), which is not without posing problems for the mastroquets, epidemiologists only take into account two genders, men and women, and are thus excluded transgender people of both sexes, non-binary people3 and asexuals. And again, I am probably underestimating the reality, since some count five distinct genders4, other 485, and still others consider the sexes to be "countless6 "This will undoubtedly complicate the work of statisticians, but it is absolutely essential to take all sexes into account, even the improbable ones, without exclusivism.
Integrative medicine has become fashionable and I propose, on the contrary, to disintegrate it, or at least to deconstruct it, and first of all in the context of cancerology: we will achieve this without difficulty by promoting, as the first line of treatment for all cancers, homeopathy, acupuncture, vitamin D and zinc.7, whose results on patients with Covid-19 are indisputable. It is not acceptable that these therapeutic methods, which are much better tolerated than chemotherapy, are only used at the end of the treatment.
Patient comfort must come before any therapeutic consideration. Let us note in passing that clinical trials of old drugs focus on their effect on patient survival. Oncologists must finally ask themselves the question: is survival an end in itself? On the contrary, we must help to die all those who would do well to request it, whatever their age.8, their pathology and their life expectancy. Cancer or not, the right to die when one wants should be enshrined in the Constitution. In the same way that the prescription of chemotherapy has been brought forward from the palliative situation to the adjuvant situation, alternative medicines must move forward one step (and even several): from prescription at the end of life to early prescription, as soon as cancer is diagnosed.9 ; this is where they will be able to definitively prove their efficiency. There is an association of naturopathic oncologists10 in the United States: with a view to intersectionality, we will create a federation of associations of all new unproven anticancer therapies (but which are just waiting to be proven): oncologists can be iridologists, auriculotherapists, reflexologists, homeopaths, acupuncturists, nutritional supplement practitioners, etc.
Many other sub-specialties of oncology will be welcome in this Federation that we can call, not Unicancer, which is reductive, but Multicancer. Furthermore, all medicine must be purged of its racialist, sexist and colonialist considerations. The British Medical Journal11, the Lancet12 have now become excellent woke journals; what is French medical publishing doing? It should feel concerned, for heaven's sake!
We must demand that reviewers of submitted manuscripts judge them, not according to their scientific content, which they often do not understand at all, but simply answer the fundamental question: "Does this manuscript convey ideas that some readers might find offensive on grounds of gender, race or income?" If so, the article must be rejected ipso facto. Subsidiary question: "Does this manuscript promote universalism, secularism, the neutrality of science?" If so, same answer: to be rejected. This is the only way to deconstruct old medicine so that it integrates post-postmodern thought. And to achieve this, like the publishers of novels who have hired sensitivity readers13 In order to flush out sentences or situations in manuscripts that could hurt economic, ethnic or sexual minorities, we must engage such readers to avoid offending anyone. Finally, universalism is no longer acceptable, in medicine as in science14, and pluriversalism15 having already been mobilized for the training of researchers in sociology in Quebec, oncology must be multiversal.
In the same way that there are meetings that are forbidden to cisgender men16 or some gay-only choirs, it is essential that cancer treatment services be compartmentalized; who would believe that bisexuals, for example, can be treated in a standard way, that is to say like the dominant and necessarily supremacist straight white males? They are the ones who have put in place these atrociously toxic treatments that they are the only ones who can tolerate. Columbia University has set up graduation ceremonies open to all, but separately: it has shown the way for what must be applied everywhere. There must be as many graduation ceremonies for doctors of medicine, nurses and nursing assistants as there are communities in the city where they are organized. It is essential to classify the laureates by family, by genus, by species, as zoologists do, and even by income level. And like the priest of Cucugnan to confess his flock, we must plan a day for each subtype. Here again, intersectionality (which should not be confused with intersexionality) must guide us: the encounter of all oppressions in the same individual is the driving force behind this new oncology. Think of the cancers of worker ants: they are at once asexual in terms of gender, proletarian in terms of economics and non-human in terms of species, not to mention that they are only black or red, never white.17.
What oppression!
Their cancers should garner three or four times more attention than those of the white, cisgender Western male who carries none of the burdens I vehemently denounce.
*When this new oncology has been established, we will have to turn to the explanatory theories of oncogenesis. I note in passing that all the big names in cancer genomics are, precisely, dominant white-heterosexual males: without going back to Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus, let us cite Bob Weinberg, Bert Vogelstein, Michael Stratton, Charles Swanton, Jacques Robert18, René Bernards and a few others. Where are the women on this list? Where are the transgender, non-binary, multisexual, undecided, hesitant people? It is time for this exclusivism to be broken down, in favor of a theory of oncogenesis that is multiversal. We must remember that Rosalind Franklin was not associated with the Nobel Prize that James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins received, necessarily because she was a woman19 ! Elizabeth Blackburn, who was awarded the Nobel Prize, remains a unique case, because no man could have discovered telomerase, this enzyme of immortality hidden deep in our genome. The woman's genome is eternal and archaeologists know well that mitochondrial DNA allows us to trace the origins of women back to the depths of time, while the origins of men are recent, unstable, versatile and deconstructed, like their behavior.
Take for example the alleged role of tobacco in the genesis of lung cancer. This is a belief that has been imposed on us for half a century, and it is based on nothing! Do I need to remind you20 that in 1968, Richard J. Hickey, of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, a biochemist and biophysicist, discovered that smokers smoke because they suffer from a pathological "itch" that pushes them to do so and that, if there is indeed a link between tobacco and cancer, it is cancer that causes smoking! And in any case, people who smoke and are alive provide proof that, in their case, there is no link between cancer and tobacco, since they do not have cancer21… Besides, if epidemiologists say they fear the increase in the frequency of lung cancers in women, it is to better blame them and insist on the decrease in this incidence in men. This is unspeakable cowardice! We must manage to deny the reality of mammalian biology. See how mollusks are more evolved: in many species of snails, individuals are both male and female at the same time. Of course, and this was noted a long time ago, they cannot take advantage of this22 : it always takes two partners to copulate.
Nobody's perfect…
But finally, what progress compared to mammals, condemned to the sad binarity. We must rethink the tree of evolution, and place at the very top the flowering plants, which gather in the same fragrant corolla the female pistil and the male stamens. Moreover, we will have to change the gender of these words and speak from now on of a pistil and a stamen. As we will one day have to say a vagina and a clitoris, at least for these.23 to whom the female sex was assigned at birth, most often without their consent. A sociology student revealed to us in her thesis that binarity was an invention of the 20th century24 ; we can therefore conclude that normality is indeed intersexuality. Biologists must stop talking about males and females: it is heteronormative and inappropriate, terribly derogatory! We must now say, as English scientists have suggested25 : "sperm-producing" and "egg-producing". I don't know whether to translate "sperm-producing" and "egg-producing" because that reintroduces terms with atrociously gendered grammar.
The other words that are absolutely to be avoided are the following, which I was able to identify with the same source: man, woman, father, mother, and I will cite others a little further on. Biology is a false science, declared Thierry Hoquet, philosopher of biology26 : “Biology biases us27Patriarchal, it has wallowed in androcentrism and heterosexism, two illnesses from which it must be cured, failing which it condemns itself to being a bell-tower.28 when she talks about women"29. Objectivity, rationality, are only constructions of the MBHDS+30.
We must return to ancestral knowledge, in biology as in medicine: that salamanders cross flames with impunity, that it can rain frogs, that a bitch mated with a mongrel will only give birth to mongrels, that colored cats bring bad luck, that evening spiders bring hope and that self-worms are in fact for everyone. All these observations have been rejected by official science: this is proof that it is perverted! Let us say clearly that science only exists when it can be in tune with our sensibilities... Popular wisdom, especially conveyed by women, contains as many truths as biological science. And of course, the further back this wisdom is in time and space, the more likely it is to be effective. Kazakh shamans, Papuan sorcerers, Maori tohunga, Persian mages, Marseille druids and so many others have magical healing techniques that are just as good as those of Western medicine. Oh, by the way, we're going to have to go teach feminism to these shamans, sorcerers, tohunga, mages and druids: there are only men among these healers. The struggle of Kazakh, Papuan, Maori, Persian and Marseille women must go through their equal integration into this masculine world of healers. At least, in the West, there were witches! (Ooops! I think I just wrote something colonialist. At the next General Assembly, the student Red Guards are going to force me to do my self-criticism on television and force me to wear a dunce's cap. I hope to escape the labor camp for this unfortunate sentence31).
The theory of evolution must be banished from biology. First, Darwin was a man, bearded to boot (that says it all!); then because he was the inspiration for that horrible eugenicist Malthus who said that the poor should be left to die.32.
That Malthus was dead in 1834 while Darwin was crisscrossing the world on the Beagle, long before he stated the theory of evolution, should not be taken into account: we know well that time does not flow in a linear and unidirectional way, as historians believe.33 : we can go back in time, we all know that Tomorrow is written34. In general, the theory of evolution must be completely questioned: according to the source already cited, the term fitness must be banned, and the very concept of survival of the fittest, dear to Darwin, to evoke the survival of the best adapted, but so derogatory for the handicapped. Don't they have the right to survive, too?35 I would go even further than the scientists cited in this article: we must question the very principle of natural selection, an illusion conveyed by dominant males to make us believe that they and their ancestors were selected to humiliate all those who are not like them.
Of course, Newton's theory of universal gravitation must also be expelled from physics: it formally contradicts the matauranga physics of the Maoris. And besides, unless the earth is flat, which is not excluded, we have proof that Newton's physics can only be applied in the West, in the northern hemisphere.36, because it is well known that at the antipodes, everything is reversed: New Zealanders, like apple trees, have their heads down and their feet in the air: how could one see apples falling? The conclusion is that it is essential that young New Zealanders learn both physics: they are both equally true37, each in its hemisphere… In this fight that the new oncologists are waging, declusive, deconstructed and multiversal, we will also have to think about denigrating all the old-fashioned oncologists, who think that naturopathic therapies cannot replace medicine, by treating them as phobic of something: experience has shown in other fields that this works very well. Naturopathophobes, iridologophobes, reflexologoplantairauphobes, auriculotherapyphobes, sophrologophobes, homeopathophobes, food supplementophobes, zincophobes, hydroxychloroquinophobes and so on: we will have plenty of terms to coin in order to shame them and harass them in the media38.Of course, all those who do not align themselves with the triple banner of declusivism, deconstruction and multiversality in their practice of oncology will have to be punished. These punishments have already been developed in other sectors; the first step is to force them to publicly acknowledge their errors. It is not that confession allows them to be absolved, but it allows them to be confounded and humiliated.39.
Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR and Mao's China have shown us the way forward. The second step will be to cancel them: by banning them from speaking in conferences, seminars, webinars and non-binary. Medical students, as the students of... (what, by the way? I didn't quite get it) who managed to prevent Sylviane Agacinski from speaking do so well40, will have to take charge in turn of this cancellation which aims to deprive of existence all those who do not think like us. Beyond speech, it will be necessary to call for a boycott of their writings to prevent them from rounding off their ends of the month with royalties, and even to threaten them with death as was proposed to silence JK Rowling41, guilty of considering trans women as men, I mean as women, finally as something other than what they would like to be (but are not). It is absolutely necessary to fight against individualism. Humans only live and exist according to their community at the local level, and their race at the global level42. Using the vague pretexts of genomics, old-school biologists claim that races do not exist! What a mistake: skin color allows us to recognize them: there are Whites (guilty, necessarily guilty! And if we don't know what, they know it!) and Blacks (always victims, even those who don't know it). Poetry, according to this black poet who recently became famous, "is often the domain of white males, old or dead43 ". Yes! Rimbaud was young, but he died, Minou Drouet is alive, but she is white, Léopold Senghor was black, but he was a man... Ah! Oh dear! It's still hard to check all the boxes to be both woke and a poet! But that's the condition to appear in Wokipedia...
Warning : It will be understood that only the footnotes reflect the author's thoughts. I would like to point out that I am aware, in particular, of the suffering of trans people, as well as that of people from our colonization of Africa, supra- and sub-Saharan. What I stigmatize is the attitude of the good souls who do not want to know that inclusive writing penalizes those who, precisely, have difficulty reading and writing French; good souls who invent aberrant biological or physical concepts “so as not to hurt anyone”; who scare away from family planning the women who, precisely, need its support the most; who try to rehabilitate the concept of human races, which is totally unscientific; who compartmentalize individuals into boxes instead of highlighting what brings them together… The cause of the oppressed, of all the oppressed, deserves better than the bluster of the bobos44 ignorant. Intolerance is not fought with intolerance.
Thanks : I am indebted to the work of Jean-François Braunstein45 of several examples that I cite in this post. I do not agree on several points that he addresses, but I approve of his denunciation of the excesses of this deviation of the intellect that we call the woke movement in its worst form: intolerance and censorship. On the other hand, I totally disapprove of the content of Francis Dupuis-Déri's book46 who reverses the charge by believing to see that "the criticism of wokeness is spreading massively in the media, but also among a part of the intellectuals and the heads of state47 ". It is exactly the opposite of what we see in France. And I have never seen these "worst mass violence" that would be carried out (by people like me?) "to disqualify feminists and anti-racists". So they are the only ones to be feminists and anti-racists? I claim for myself and for the vast majority of scientists and doctors these two qualifiers that the wokes do not have a monopoly on. Who then threatens academic freedom?