AUKUS AND MACRON TANTRUMS
Some five years ago Australia contracted with France to purchase diesel-powered submarines, to a value of some $50 billion to the great benefit of the French defence industry. It is reported that performance of the contract has not been plain-sailing, and that changing the order to nuclear-powered submarines has been mooted in the past.
In September, the USA, the UK and Australia announced a strategic defence pact for the Indo-Pacific region including the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines by Australia, the beneficiaries of which will be the U.S., and to a lesser extent the UK, defence industries. The French contract was torpedoed and so cancelled by Australia. French feathers have been more than ruffled.
The reaction of President Macron and his acolytes has been apoplectic outrage: insulted to have been omitted from the secret talks which led to the pact by France’s major allies, and wounded financially by the loss of this strategic contract. France sees treachery. Aukus is undoubtedly a beefing up of resistance to Chinese dominance of the region and nuclear-powered submarines have more defensive potential in that context than diesel-powered. How could the French possibly have been included when the cornerstone of the project is to replace the French contract at a cost to France of tens of billions? Might the parties to Aukus have concluded that France would have an interest or even a primary objective in scuppering the pact?
Mr Macron’s display of throwing toys out of pram is consistent with his extraordinary arrogance towards the USA and the UK. He remains under the illusion that France, without the USA, is a truly global power able to combat China and Russia, whereas the UK has long accepted the critical nature of dependence on U.S. cooperation. Mr Macron’s unpresidential, or even childish, reaction is echoed by his foreign Minister, describing the UK as a “vassal state” of the USA, a minor player and a “spare wheel” on the US – Australian car: yet France needs the UK for any European defence strategy, given the UK is the largest military force in Europe. Mr Macron calls for the EU to become a global military power, probably undermining NATO, while knowing that most European countries have little appetite for the sort of financial commitment that would involve. Mr Macron’s treatment of the UK and the insults he hurls say more about him than the UK. He has sought to use Brexit to weaken the UK, proclaims cooperation but encourages his border force to allow thousands of immigrants to depart France’s shores to the UK, seeks to undermine the UK financial services industry, threatens the trans-channel electricity supply, and shouts untruths about the Covid Astra Zeneca vaccine. Is it any surprise that the media portray him as a wannabe Napoleon, a sad De Gaulle without the gravitas?
President Joe Biden and Boris Johnson express astonishment at the strength of feeling generated by Mr Macron, although one has to wonder if that expression is more humiliating mockery than real amazement. Apparently the three now seek to make up, recognising they are in fact allies. But perhaps the Anglo speakers’ trust for Mr Macron is tainted with scepticism. Aukus is surely really about adding a new string to the Democratic countries’ bow in a public expression of a willingness to stand up to the Chinese Communist Party’s ambitions for Empire in the pacific region. France has a similar interest, and the Aukus countries and France should be able to and must cooperate to maximise their effectiveness, combined with Japan, India, South Korea and others in the region to be a realistic force which the CCP will take seriously. Mr Macron should perhaps get over his chagrin and grasp the grand picture.
MEDICAL MARVELS
Medical innovations and discoveries which can benefit sufferers of all sorts of conditions are happening at such a pace that there must be a question as to how the medical services providers can keep up, and indeed afford to offer all the latest developments to their patients. The end of September witnessed reports of several potential breakthroughs, particularly in the world of cancers.
Two relate to prostate cancer, the biggest killer among men in the UK: first is the reported success of attacking the cancer with perhaps two highly intense bursts of radiotherapy in a single week, potentially stopping the cancer in its tracks. This compares to the current practice of numerous less aggressive such treatments over many weeks, perhaps twenty. This new approach may dramatically improve the level and speed of success for prostate cancer sufferers, averting long-term angst, as well as saving valuable time and considerable amounts of money for the NHS, for example. And second, the fatality rate of aggressive prostate cancer could be halved by adding a particular hormone therapy, Abiraterone, to the normal treatment regime.
Then, in the field of breast cancer, Astra Zeneca have trialled with great results a drug, Enhertu, preventing both deterioration and death from breast cancer.
And last, the Times of 21 September reported a potentially “giant leap towards prompt diagnosis” of cancers. The high mortality rate from a number of cancers arises to a large extent because of late discovery of the illness. It is commonly accepted that generally the earlier a cancer is detected, the greater the chance of arresting its progress and perhaps reversing it, and of ensuring survival. The report is of a new NHS trial of epic proportions of the “Gallieri” test, whereby a simple blood test can help to identify 51 different cancers with varying degrees of success, but with the strongest evidence including lung, pancreatic, bladder and lymphoma cancers. If trials confirm the evidence to date, it seems that regular screening by simple blood test could be a “game-changer”, though not a panacea. The first results of the trial are said not to be expected until 2025 and so a roll-out for millions of people is not close to imminent. However, it is now available for private patients in the USA. Given the potential life-saving nature of the test for so many sufferers through early diagnosis, it is hard not to wonder if perhaps trials could be completed within a much shorter timeframe? The period of under a year it took from discovery to roll-out of the Covid vaccine has raised expectations perhaps that these trials can, with the right will and organisation, be completed more quickly than has been customary. That could be unfair, but the public should perhaps not just assume that the NHS or anyone else is always adopting the very best and efficient practices. Perhaps meanwhile signing up for the trial might be a sensible option? There is talk too now of the same science used for Covid vaccine being applied to cancer cures.
As medical advances continue apace, an inevitable question is whether the resulting remedies will be affordable for general consumption: NICE, which has to approve all treatments used by the NHS, takes account of price, quite properly. An article by Dr Mark Potter in the Daily Telegraph points out for example that a full course of Enhertu costs about £120,000, and Abiraterone sells at £2,735 per month. It is more encouraging that the Gallieri test would be highly affordable. There is a risk that life-saving treatments may be prohibitively expensive so that only those with costly insurance or very full bank accounts can afford them, so expanding the divisive medical inequality between richer and poorer. Once again, the more imaginative ways that can be found to finance the NHS beyond just pouring taxpayers’ money into its voracious hopper, perhaps the more likely such inequality can be reduced.
The GSK malaria vaccine see Sherbhert MORE MEDICAL MARVELS, PROTEINS AND MALARIA is reported in October to be another game changer. And coming soon a pill to combat Covid fatality is predicted. What a contrast between the moaning misery of Macron and the unsung heroics of the medical innovators, whose work needs more celebration than the media ever give it.
