*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, August 6th, 2010 7:37am PDT - promote requested by original submitter JiggaJonson.

It makes me sad to see him bald.

Hang in there.

I don't mind Cooper asking the question, I get where it's coming from. But those that think agnostisism/anti-theism - such as Hitchens professes - is just some passing fancy... simply do not understand.

Jesus Christ Chris, shave your damn head. Is he doing that for effect? Because the only effect it has on me is to be very, very creepy.

"Obviously, you are an intellectual, and you seem to be dealing with it in an intellectual way."

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Jesus Christ Chris, shave your damn head. Is he doing that for effect? Because the only effect it has on me is to be very, very creepy.


A chemotherapy patient's hair falls out.

Are you intentionally being heartless? Or are you really that obtuse?

Good thinking for Hitch to preemptively quash deathbed conversion rumors...because you know there will be one: another example of the faithful acting in bad faith.

His recent article in Vanity Fair is a beautifully written, pit-wrenching piece about coming to terms with cancer.

Well worth the read.

In a medical first Hitchens's cancer had spread all the way to Fallujah before he was even diagnosed.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/fall-j23.shtml

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Jesus Christ Chris, shave your damn head. Is he doing that for effect? Because the only effect it has on me is to be very, very creepy.

A chemotherapy patient's hair falls out.
Are you intentionally being heartless? Or are you really that obtuse?


Come on Jigga. I know that chemotherapy makes the patient's hair fall out.

And I really didn't think I was being heartless when I said that. His hair looks like shit, he should shave it.

I doubt looking good is anywhere on his list of priorities right now.

Or maybe he has some other reason for keeping it. He spent his life looking bravely and starkly at the reality of the world. Cutting his hair could be seen as protecting others from the truth of the situation because it's troubling and difficult. That's not really his style.

Fight the good fight, Hitch, we're not praying for you!

Hitchens, as intellectual as he is, basically killed himself. Smoking, drinking, overweight, no exercise, probably terrible diet.

If there were a "next time," he should clean up his act within a rational time frame, and advocate increased science funding above the miniscule current amounts. We'd feel really dumb if we died of a curable disease.

However, there isn't a next time...

@chilaxe well, I think he's accepting the responsibility for it too, so I have no beef with that.

>> ^chilaxe:

Hitchens, as intellectual as he is, basically killed himself. Smoking, drinking, overweight, no exercise, probably terrible diet.
If there were a "next time," he should clean up his act within a rational time frame, and advocate increased science funding above the miniscule current amounts. We'd feel really dumb if we died of a curable disease.
However, there isn't a next time...


Right, because skinny people who exercise, and don't smoke or drink never get cancer.

Give me a fucking break.

@Ryjkyj

Right, it's an important point that even children get cancer when they haven't been exposed to many chemicals or much cellular aging.

However, we also need to think about things statistically. Cancer is typically a disease arising from advanced age and bad lifestyle. That's part of why it's been estimated that 70% of health care costs are due to lifestyle choices.

That's great news... it means we have a choice. Hitchens chose poorly.

Cancer is completely misunderstood by most people these days. The general view seems to be that no one has cancer until something "gives" it to them, like a virus giving you a cold. Then, once you have it, there are a few medical interventions that may or may not help.

In reality, everyone has cancer (or at the very least micro-tumors). Whether those tumors are held in check by the immune system or allowed to grow and invade other tissue is largely an effect of the condition of the person's body, which in most cases is very much controlled by that person.

Inflammation drives many of the processes that feed cancer, including the creation of the additional blood vessels around it. Things that significantly increase inflammation include tobacco, alcohol, excess fat (especially abdominal fat), lack of exercise, foods high in omega-6, and any foods that increase insulin levels abruptly (ie- sugar and refined carbs).

So yes, Hitchens' lifestyle is a large part of the problem. Thin people who exercise and eat plenty of vegetables do get cancer, but at much lower rates than those who eat a typical western diet and don't exercise regularly.

If you want to reduce your personal risk of cancer then don't smoke, don't drink, get lots of omega-3, eat lots of veggies (variety is the most important thing), and get plenty of exercise (length of exercise is more important than the intensity).

Eventually we'll have the medical knowledge to prevent and cure virtually all cancer, but currently you are the only one who can control whether you live long enough to see those advances. You can't currently drop your chances of cancer to 0%, but you can get very close.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^chilaxe:
Hitchens, as intellectual as he is, basically killed himself. Smoking, drinking, overweight, no exercise, probably terrible diet.
If there were a "next time," he should clean up his act within a rational time frame, and advocate increased science funding above the miniscule current amounts. We'd feel really dumb if we died of a curable disease.
However, there isn't a next time...

Right, because skinny people who exercise, and don't smoke or drink never get cancer.
Give me a fucking break.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^chilaxe:
Hitchens, as intellectual as he is, basically killed himself. Smoking, drinking, overweight, no exercise, probably terrible diet.
If there were a "next time," he should clean up his act within a rational time frame, and advocate increased science funding above the miniscule current amounts. We'd feel really dumb if we died of a curable disease.
However, there isn't a next time...

Right, because skinny people who exercise, and don't smoke or drink never get cancer.
Give me a fucking break.


Not sure what you're trying to say, but the type of cancer he has is caused by smoking and drinking, and this is something he has come to terms with.

The type of cancer Hitchen's has may be linked to smoking and drinking. No other reputable source would say otherwise.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

The type of cancer Hitchen's has may be linked to smoking and drinking. No other reputable source would say otherwise.


Kinda like how diabetes may be linked to sugar?

No, not at all. The two are completely different.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

The type of cancer Hitchen's has may be linked to smoking and drinking. No other reputable source would say otherwise.


No. Smoking and drinking as well as diet is accountable for 90% of cases of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, which is most certainly what Hitchens has.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13130116

Different cancers have different causes. Many are unknown, but in this case it is well established.

"These results suggest that the incidence of these cancers may be decreased by reducing the prevalence of smoking, gastroesophageal reflux, and being overweight and by increasing the consumption of fruits and vegetables."

"...no study has comprehensively examined their contributions to the cancer burden in the general population."

And I'm sure the fact that it's what his father died of is just pure coincidence?

Lucky for me though. Even though I smoke, I also eat pizza:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949808

...so the two should cancel each other out right?

>> ^Ryjkyj:
And I'm sure the fact that it's what his father died of is just pure coincidence?


I was reading about a cancer study recently... wish I could find the link currently.

They were focusing on adopted kids and their cancer rates relative to their biological parents. They found that cancer rates in adopted children were much more strongly linked to the adopting parents rather than the biological parents.

Adopting parents don't pass genes to their children, but they do pass habits.


Of course you will not find anything that says any particular cancer is only caused by certain things, but it is well established that nutrition and other factors contribute not only to the formation of cancer, but to the aggressiveness of it as well.

Hitchens may have a hereditary predisposition to this cancer, but saying that his habits most definitely made the cancer worse than it would have otherwise been is easily supported by scientific evidence.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

"These results suggest that the incidence of these cancers may be decreased by reducing the prevalence of smoking, gastroesophageal reflux, and being overweight and by increasing the consumption of fruits and vegetables."
"...no study has comprehensively examined their contributions to the cancer burden in the general population."
And I'm sure the fact that it's what his father died of is just pure coincidence?
Lucky for me though. Even though I smoke, I also eat pizza:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949808
...so the two should cancel each other out right?


No. Reflux is a major risk factor for adenocarcinoma, a different disease than what Hitchens has. Smoking and drinking account for the vast majority of squamous cell carcinoma.

Genetics is important in certain kinds of cancer, like breast or colon, but it plays a much smaller role in this particular disease than smoking or drinking. Considering that Hitchens does not have any of the other risk factors, such as notable esophageal disoders, smoking and drinking are almost certainly what caused his cancer.

And yes it is impossible to ethically conduct clinical trials to definitively prove the causation between smoking and drinking and cancer. However, the science and world wide epidemiological data supporting this causation is overwhelming. Hitchens, a man of reason, has taken responsibility for his disease, but you still seem to be in denial. In any case, there's no need to bring the straw man into this discussion, as we are talking about a completely different level of evidence.

I love the man. I beg to differ with him on one thing, however...were I in his situation, I would embrace other people's prayers for recovery...not out of a faith in their gods, but in faith of collective intention and a very real sense that we are all creating reality as we know it, however miniscule or behemoth the manifestations.

^So Laura, you support Bush's invasion of Iraq and the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe of the war in that pitable (former) nation? Because Hitchens played an important role in getting that evil venture of Bush and the neo-cons off the ground, and to this day he remains unapologetic about that. I've been reading Hitchens since 1988, but today the man and his idiot hubris disgusts me. It's like I just want to shake him by the neck and scream "the people of Iraq! the people of Iraq! the people of Iraq!"

^ you're funny

I respect people for who they are, not necessarily for individual things they do.
I've noticed you like making big leaps like you just did there...from seeing that I love the guy to assigning that automatically to a political support issue.
I'm not interested in debating Hitchens' role in taking us to war with Iraq, but if you re-read what I wrote above, you can probably infer that I don't believe (in cases especially such as war) that any particular individual can be assigned a large percentage of blame. That's right, I don't even blame Hitler for the holocaust...for chrissake look at all the people who FOLLOWED him, without which none of it would have happened. There are a lot of people in this world, and a lot of people can influence anything.

Humans haven't evolved enough yet as a whole to know how powerful we are working together, and to thus want to educate eachother with all available knowledge so that we can make intelligent collective decisions which benefit all parties involved. Blaming individuals is a cop-out.

Of course that first sentence I meant rhetorically, but when you are a high-profile influential figure like Christopher Hitchens your words are your actions, so it shouldn't be surprising to anyone when you're held morally accountable for them. All the more sad for Hitchens. The man was a lion, that is - until his heart turned septic.

*length=8:09

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 8:09 - length declared by radx.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.