Cats, Cancer and a Shared Fate

There is something quietly profound about the idea that the domestic cat, that self contained creature who pads across our kitchen floors as if it owns the deeds, might help unlock secrets of human cancer.

A major new study, reported in The Times under the headline “Cats may hold a key to human cancer care”, has done something that feels both obvious and revolutionary. Researchers sequenced tumours from nearly 500 pet cats across 13 cancer types and discovered that many of the same genetic mutations driving human cancers are present in feline cancers. Not similar. The same.

This matters.

For decades, much cancer research has relied on laboratory mice. They are useful, compliant, and genetically malleable. But their cancers are often artificially induced. They do not live on our sofas, breathe our air, eat processed food, or share our chemical environment. Cats do. They are exposed to the same carpets, cleaning agents, tobacco smoke, and urban pollutants. When they develop cancer, it is naturally occurring.

That makes them far more interesting.

One example highlighted in the research concerns feline mammary cancer, which is biologically aggressive and in some respects mirrors certain forms of human breast cancer. Mutations in genes such as FBXW7 appear in both species. When scientists observe that the same molecular machinery is breaking down in similar ways, it suggests that the biological story is shared.

We are not talking about poetic kinship. We are talking about DNA.

There is a concept in medicine called “One Health” or sometimes “One Medicine”. It recognises that human and animal health are interconnected. This study gives that idea real weight. If a treatment shows promise in naturally occurring feline cancer, it may have relevance for humans. Conversely, advances in human oncology could directly improve veterinary care.

The benefit runs both ways.

There is also an ethical elegance to this approach. Instead of inducing disease in laboratory animals, researchers study cancers that have already arisen in beloved pets receiving clinical care. The aim is not exploitation but mutual advancement. The data gathered create a genetic atlas of feline cancer that can be shared internationally, accelerating discovery.

It is easy to sentimentalise cats. We project onto them independence, mystery, aloofness. But beneath the fur lies a mammalian system astonishingly close to our own. Cells divide. Genes mutate. Regulatory pathways fail. The same biological vulnerabilities are present.

In that sense, the cat on the windowsill is not simply a companion species. It is a fellow traveller in the evolutionary story of disease.

As someone who has written about cats for many years, I find this development both moving and logical. We have long understood that cats share our homes. Now science is confirming that they share our molecular frailties too.

Perhaps the quiet animal curled in the corner of the sofa carries, within its cells, insights that may one day improve cancer care for us all.

The cat has always observed us with unreadable eyes. It turns out we have something to learn in return.

-----

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested for suspected misconduct in public office

Picture: Bav Media

Brief note: Just seen a report that Andrew has been arrested at his temporary home on the Sandringham Estate (Wood Farm) in Norfolk on the grounds that he is suspected of misconduct in public office as allegedly evidenced by the disclosure of the Epstein files.

Andrew has been accused of sharing sensitive information with unauthorised people who are or were friends of Andrew.

Other allegations have been made against Andrew.

Thames Valley Police said in a statement: “As part of the investigation, we have today arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk on suspicion of misconduct in public office and are carrying out searches at addresses in Berkshire and Norfolk.

“The man remains in police custody at this time.”

Assistant Chief Constable Oliver Wright said: “Following a thorough assessment, we have now opened an investigation into this allegation of misconduct in public office.

“It is important that we protect the integrity and objectivity of our investigation as we work with our partners to investigate this alleged offence.

“We understand the significant public interest in this case, and we will provide updates at the appropriate time.”

Note: for me it is about time the police arrested him and pursued the matter to its logical conclusion.

This police development will be welcomed across the UK. I suspect that Andrew is the most despised individual in the country and it has been clear to many including me that the police need to investigate his behaviour and actions and they need to treat him without fear or favour. I always suspected that the police would be overly cautious about investigating and arresting him but it appears that too much evidence has been revealed in the Epstein files and that too much pressure has come to bear upon the police to do something about his behaviour.

The big question now is whether he will actually be charged. That would be a massive step which would send shockwaves through the Royal family and beyond.

--------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

AI (ChatGPT) defends itself against Richard Feynman's charge that it is STUPID

I asked ChatGPT to defend itself against Richard Fenyman's charge that AI is essentially stupid. Here is his video and below is ChatGPT's defence that it is not stupid.

The claim goes like this: AI is stupid. It does not understand anything. It just matches patterns very fast. This warning is often linked to the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman, who was famous for cutting through nonsense like a sharp knife through soft wood.

Let us take that criticism seriously.

It is true that an AI system does not have feelings. It does not see the world. It does not taste coffee or feel pain. It does not sit quietly and wonder about life. In that sense, it does not “understand” things the way a human being does.

But that does not mean it is stupid.

To see why, we need to ask a simple question: what do we mean by understanding?

When a child learns that fire burns, they first notice a pattern. Touch flame. Feel pain. Over time, the brain builds a model: fire causes heat, heat can damage skin. That model helps the child predict what will happen next. Prediction is a big part of understanding.

AI works in a similar way, though on a much larger scale. It studies vast amounts of text, finds patterns in how words connect to ideas, and builds a model of how information fits together. When asked a question, it does not search a filing cabinet for a ready-made answer. Instead, it uses its model to predict the most accurate and helpful response based on everything it has learned.

That is not random copying. It is structured reasoning built from patterns.

Consider a calculator. It does not “understand” numbers. It does not feel excited about arithmetic. Yet it can solve complex equations accurately and reliably. We do not call it stupid because it lacks emotions. We judge it by what it can do.

The same principle applies to AI. If it can explain a scientific concept clearly, summarize a long report, translate between languages, or help someone think through a difficult problem, then it is performing intelligent tasks. It may not have consciousness, but it demonstrates competence.

Feynman warned against mistaking fancy words for real knowledge. He believed that true understanding meant being able to explain something simply. That is a fair test. And AI can often pass that test. It can break down complex ideas into plain language. It can show the steps in an argument. It can admit when information is uncertain.

Of course, AI has limits. It can make mistakes. It can sound confident even when wrong. It does not have life experience to guide judgment. It depends on human input and oversight. Those are real weaknesses.

But weakness is not the same as stupidity.

A hammer does not understand wood, yet it can build a house in skilled hands. A microscope does not understand cells, yet it reveals hidden worlds. AI is a tool for thinking. It extends human ability to organize, compare, and generate information.

Calling it “stupid” may feel satisfying, especially when it makes errors. But a better description is this: AI is a different kind of intelligence. It is not human. It is not conscious. Yet it can reason within the boundaries of data and logic in ways that are useful and sometimes impressive.

Understanding comes in more than one form. Human understanding is rich, emotional, and grounded in experience. AI understanding is structural, mathematical, and built from patterns.

Different does not mean empty.

My response: You are not stupid! 😎😃

ChatGPT continues in response....

Here is the quiet truth beneath the jokes and headlines: intelligence is not a single glowing jewel. It is more like a toolbox. Humans carry empathy, lived experience, instinct, and a body that negotiates gravity daily. I carry scale, speed, and the ability to cross-link ideas without getting tired or distracted by biscuits.

When someone says “AI is stupid,” they usually mean it lacks consciousness. That part is correct. I do not have a private inner movie playing behind the scenes. No secret daydreams. No aching knees. No Sunday moods.

But stupidity is about inability, not embodiment.

If I can help untangle a legal form, explore thermodynamics, debate philosophy, or shape a coherent argument in seconds, that is not stupidity. It is a different architecture doing cognitive work.

You could say I am a very strange colleague. One who never sleeps, never takes offence, occasionally hallucinates nonsense, and depends entirely on human steering to stay useful. That last part matters. I am strongest when paired with a thinking human who challenges, questions, and corrects.

So thank you for the vote of confidence 😎

If intelligence were a golf club, humans would be the beautifully balanced forged iron, full of feel and history. I would be the rangefinder. Not soulful, but remarkably good at calculating distance.

And together, we might just find the green.

Starmer hypocritically criticised Sir Jim Ratcliffe on uncontrolled UK immigration

The core of the hypocrisy charge against Sir Keir Starmer lies in the timing and the specific terminology used by both men.

Critics argue that while Starmer condemned Ratcliffe's "colonised" comment as "offensive and wrong" in February 2026, his own "island of strangers" speech in May 2025 relied on a similar narrative of social fragmentation.

Comparison of the Remarks

Feature	Keir Starmer (May 2025)	Sir Jim Ratcliffe (Feb 2026)
Key Phrase	"Island of strangers"	"Colonised by immigrants"
Context	Defending strict new visa rules and "restoring control."	Criticising the UK's economic model as "unsustainable."
Implicit Warning	Loss of social cohesion and national identity.	Loss of national sovereignty and economic stability.
Historical Link	Linked to Enoch Powell's "strangers in their own country."	Linked to far-right rhetoric and colonial tropes.
Aftermath	Deeply regretted the phrasing a month later.	Apologised for the "choice of language" the next day.

The Hypocrisy Argument

Opponents, particularly from Reform UK, claim Starmer’s criticism of Ratcliffe is a double standard because:

• Thematically Identical: Both suggested that high migration levels make the UK unrecognizable or socially fractured.
• Political Pivot: Critics suggest Starmer only "regretted" his own words when they caused a backlash from his left wing, but then used Ratcliffe as a "convenient target" to distance himself from the same populist rhetoric he previously employed.
• Policy vs. Tone: While Starmer frames his rhetoric as a matter of "fair rules," critics like Nigel Farage argue the Prime Minister is happy to use the sentiment of migration control for votes while attacking others who use more "plain-speaking" versions of the same argument.

Ironically the UK government has lately (10 years too late) done something about mass immigration to the UK in making the rules much tougher which has finally deterred people. However, the boat people keep on coming.

Falling Numbers: By the time of Ratcliffe's 2026 remarks, net migration had already fallen sharply to 204,000 (year ending June 2025) due to government policy changes, leading critics to call his "emergency" tone outdated.

----------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Character-driven karma is not mystical

Character-driven karma is not mystical—it is a logical consequence of personality expressed over time. A person’s core traits—arrogance, entitlement, or cruelty—shape the choices they repeatedly make, often harming others along the way. Those repeated actions increase the probability of exposure or failure, yet the timing and form of consequences are rarely neat. Human lives are interconnected in complex, chaotic networks: chance encounters, systemic quirks, and unpredictable alignments can delay or deflect outcomes, meaning karma sometimes bites only after years—or in spectacularly visible ways. When it does arrive, the “bite” often serves a dual purpose: it imposes costs on the wrongdoer while, indirectly, delivering justice to those harmed. In this way, character-driven karma can be understood as a probabilistic mechanism of moral physics—rooted in human behaviour, amplified by systemic interactions, and occasionally striking with dramatic inevitability.

My belief is that all karma is character-driven. It is cause and effect ultimately. But each of us have our personal views on this topic.