"For a declusive, deconstructed and multiversal oncology" [1]
May the woke be with you!
In this demanding 21st century, it has become necessary to rethink oncology along three main lines, as will soon be recommended 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 become pregnant (according to family planning), women can also suffer from prostate cancer. Yet, no textbook, no treatise, no publication alludes to this pathology, rare as it is, which demonstrates the total blackout that human beings endowed with a penis from birth still maintain with regard to those [2] who are not. Conversely, it should be noted that breast cancer in men is the subject of extensive research.
That said, let's be fair: no publication mentions endometriosis in men. There is something shocking about this asymmetry, and I propose the creation of a new medical specialty, gynandrology, dedicated to caring for these patients. Another marker of exclusivism that must be addressed through declusivity is the binary nature of epidemiological data collection: while even restrooms must now be separated into eleven specific stalls (see figure), which inevitably poses problems for bar owners, epidemiologists only consider two genders, male and female, thus excluding transgender people of both sexes, non-binary people [3] and asexual people. And yet, I'm probably underestimating the reality, since some count five distinct genders [4] , others 48 [5] , and still others consider the sexes "innumerable [6] ". This will undoubtedly complicate the work of statisticians, but it is absolutely essential to take all sexes into account, even the unlikely ones, without exclusivism.
Integrative medicine has become fashionable, and I propose, on the contrary, to dismantle it, or at the very least deconstruct it, starting with oncology: we will easily achieve this by promoting, as first-line treatments for all cancers, homeopathy, acupuncture, vitamin D, and zinc [7] , whose results on patients with Covid-19 are indisputable. It is unacceptable that these therapeutic methods, which are far better tolerated than chemotherapy, should only be used at the end of the treatment process.
Patient comfort must take precedence over any therapeutic consideration. It is worth noting that clinical trials of older drugs prioritize their effect on patient survival. Oncologists must finally ask themselves: is survival an end in itself? On the contrary, we must help all those who would be well advised to request it to die, regardless of their age [8] , their illness, and their life expectancy. Cancer or not, the right to die when one wishes should be enshrined in the Constitution. Just as the prescription of chemotherapy has shifted from palliative to adjuvant settings, complementary and alternative medicines must move forward a step (or even several): from end-of-life prescriptions to early prescriptions, as soon as cancer is diagnosed [9] It is there that they will be able to definitively prove their effectiveness. There is an association of naturopathic oncologists [10] In the United States: from an intersectional perspective, we will create a federation of associations of all new unproven (but eager to be proven) cancer therapies: oncologists can be iridologists, auriculotherapists, reflexologists, homeopaths, acupuncturists, nutritional supplement specialists, etc.
Many other subspecialties of oncology will be welcome in this Federation, which could be called, not Unicancer, which is reductive, but Multicancer. Furthermore, all of medicine must be purged of its racialist, sexist, and colonialist considerations. The British Medical Journal [11] , The Lancet [12] have now become excellent woke journals; what is the French medical publishing industry doing? It should feel concerned, for goodness' sake!
We must require that reviewers of submitted manuscripts judge them not on the basis of their scientific content, which they often don't understand at all, but simply by answering the fundamental question: "Does this manuscript convey ideas that some readers might find offensive for reasons of gender, race, or income?" If so, the article must be rejected ipso facto. A subsidiary question: "Does this manuscript promote universalism, secularism, or the neutrality of science?" If so, the same answer applies: reject it. This is the only way to deconstruct old medicine so that it incorporates post-postmodern thought. And to achieve this, just as book publishers have hired sensitivity readers [13] to uncover phrases or situations in manuscripts that might offend economic, ethnic, or sexual minorities, we must hire such readers to avoid offending anyone. Finally, since universalism is no longer acceptable in medicine as in science [14] , and pluriversalism [15] has already been used for the training of sociology researchers in Quebec, oncology must be multiversal.
Just as there are meetings forbidden to cisgender men [16] or certain choirs reserved for gay men, it is essential that cancer treatment services be segregated; who could believe that bisexuals, for example, could be treated in a standard way, that is, like dominant and necessarily supremacist heterosexual white males? It is they who have implemented these atrociously toxic treatments, which, moreover, only they can tolerate. Columbia University has implemented graduation ceremonies open to all, but separate: it has shown the way for what must be applied everywhere. There should be as many graduation ceremonies for medical doctors, nurses, and nursing assistants as there are communities in the city where they are held. It is essential to classify the graduates by family, by gender, by species, as zoologists do, and even by income level. And like the priest of Cucugnan hearing confessions from his flock, we must dedicate a day to each subtype. Here again, intersectionality (which should not be confused with intersex) must guide us: the convergence of all oppressions within a single individual is the driving force behind this new oncology. Consider the cancers of worker ants: they are simultaneously asexual in terms of gender, proletarian in economic terms, 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.
*Once this new oncology is established, we will need to turn to explanatory theories of oncogenesis. I note in passing that all the big names in cancer genomics are, precisely, white, heterosexual, dominant males: without going back to Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus, let's mention Bob Weinberg, Bert Vogelstein, Michael Stratton, Charles Swanton, Jacques Robert [18] , René Bernards, and a few others. Where are the women on this list? Where are the transgender people, the non-binary people, the multisexual people, the undecided, the hesitant? It is time that this exclusivism be challenged, in favor of a multiversal theory of oncogenesis. It's important to remember that Rosalind Franklin wasn't associated with the Nobel Prize awarded to James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins, simply because she was a woman. [19] 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 within our genome. The female genome is eternal and archaeologists know that mitochondrial DNA allows us to trace the origin of women back to the dawn of time, whereas the origin of men is recent, unstable, versatile and deconstructed, like their behavior.
Take, for example, the supposed role of tobacco in the development of lung cancer. This is a belief that has been imposed on us for half a century, and it has no basis in fact! Need I remind you [20] 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 "itching" that drives them to do so, and that, if there is indeed a link between tobacco and cancer, it is cancer that is the cause of smoking! And anyway, people who smoke and are still alive prove that, in their case, there is no link between cancer and tobacco, since they don't have cancer [21] … Moreover, if epidemiologists say they fear the increase in the frequency of lung cancer in women, it's to better blame them and insist on the decrease in this incidence in men. It's unspeakably cowardly! They have to manage to deny the reality of mammalian biology. Look how much more evolved mollusks are: in many species of snails, the individuals are both male and female at the same time. Certainly, and this was noted a long time ago, they cannot take advantage of it [22] : it always takes two partners to copulate.
Nobody's perfect…
But what progress compared to mammals, condemned to a sad binary! We must rethink the evolutionary tree and place flowering plants at the very top, plants that combine the female pistil and male stamens in a single fragrant corolla. Moreover, we will have to change the gender of these words and henceforth speak of a pistil and a stamen. Just as one day we will have to say a vagina and a clitoris, at least for those [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 the binary was a 20th-century invention [24] ; we can therefore conclude that intersexuality is indeed the norm. Biologists must stop talking about males and females: it's heteronormative and inappropriate, terribly offensive! We must now say, as suggested by English scientists [25] : "sperm-producing" and "egg-producing." I don't know if we should translate "sperm producer" and "egg producer" because that reintroduces terms with atrociously gendered grammar.
The other words that are absolutely forbidden are the following, which I was able to identify using the same source: man, woman, father, mother, and I will cite others a little later. Biology is a pseudoscience, declared Thierry Hoquet, a philosopher of biology [26] : “Biology misleads us [27] . Patriarchal, it has wallowed in androcentrism and heterosexism, two diseases from which it must be cured, otherwise it condemns itself to stumble [28] when she talks about women” [29] . Objectivity and rationality are merely constructs of 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 female dog bred by a mongrel will only give birth to mongrels, that colored cats bring bad luck, that evening spiders bring hope, and that worms belonging to oneself actually belong to everyone. All these observations have been rejected by official science: this is clear proof that it is corrupt! Let's be clear: science only exists when it can align with our sensibilities… Folk wisdom, especially that passed down by women, contains as much truth as biological science. And of course, the further removed this wisdom is in time and space, the more likely it is to be effective. Kazakh shamans, Papuan sorcerers, Maori tohunga, Persian magicians, Marseilles druids, and so many others possess magical healing techniques that are just as valuable as those of Western medicine. Speaking of which, we'll have to go and teach these shamans, sorcerers, tohunga, magicians, and druids about feminism: there are only men among these healers. The struggle of Kazakh, Papuan, Maori, Persian, and Marseilles women must begin with their equal integration into this male-dominated world of healers. At least in the West, there were witches! (Oops! I think I just wrote something colonialist. At the next General Assembly, the student Red Guards will force me to do my self-criticism on television and make me wear a dunce cap. I hope to escape the labor camp for this unfortunate sentence [31] )
The theory of evolution must be banished from biology. First, Darwin was a man, bearded to boot (that says it all!); second, because he was the inspiration for that horrible eugenicist Malthus who said that the poor should be left to die [32] .
The fact that Malthus died in 1834, while Darwin was sailing the world on the Beagle , long before he formulated the theory of evolution, should not be taken into account: we know very well that time does not flow linearly and unidirectionally, as historians believe [33] : we can go back in time, we all know that Tomorrow is written [34] . In general, the theory of evolution must be completely called into question: according to the source already cited, the term "fitness" must be banished, as well as the very concept of "survival of the fittest," dear to Darwin, which refers to the survival of the fittest but is so offensive to the disabled. Don't they have the right to survive, too? [35] I would even go further than the scientists cited in this article: we must question the very principle of natural selection, an illusion propagated 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, we must also banish from physics Newton's theory of universal gravitation: it formally contradicts the Maori matauranga physics. And besides, unless the earth is flat, which is not impossible, 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 in the antipodes, everything is reversed: New Zealanders, like apple trees, have their heads down and their feet in the air: how could one possibly see apples fall? The conclusion is that it is essential that young New Zealanders learn both physics: they are equally true [37] , each in its hemisphere…In this struggle being waged by the new oncologists, declusive, deconstructed and multiversal, it will also be necessary to denigrate all the oncologists of the old fashion, who think that naturopathic therapies cannot replace medicine, by calling them phobics of something: experience has shown in other areas that this works very well. Naturopathophobes, iridologistophobes, reflexologistoplantarauphobes, auriculotherapyphobes, sophrologistophobes, homeopathophobes, supplement-allergy-phobes, zincophobes, hydroxychloroquine-phobes, and so on: we'll have plenty of terms to coin in order to shame and harass them in the media [38] . Of course, all those who don't fall in line under the triple banner of declusivism, deconstruction, and multiversality in their oncology practice must 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 confused and humiliated [39] .
Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, and Mao's China showed us the way forward. The second step will be to nullify them: by banning them from speaking at conferences, seminars, webinars, and non-binary events. Medical students, like the students in… (in what, exactly? I didn't quite understand) who managed to prevent Sylviane Agacinski from speaking [40] , will in turn have to take charge of this cancellation, which aims to deprive of existence all those who do not think like us. Beyond words, we must call for a boycott of their writings to prevent them from supplementing their income with royalties, and even threaten them with death, as was proposed to silence J.K. Rowling [41] , guilty of considering trans women as men, I mean as women, or rather 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 in relation to their community at the local level, and their race at the global level [42] . Using flimsy pretexts of genomics, old-school biologists claim that races don't exist! What a mistake: skin color is enough to distinguish them: there are Whites (guilty, inevitably guilty! And if we don't know of what, they do!) and Blacks (always victims, even those who don't realize it). Poetry, according to this Black poet who recently became famous, "is often the domain of white males, old or dead [43] ." Yes, indeed! Rimbaud was young, but he's dead; Minou Drouet is alive, but she's white; Léopold Senghor was Black, but he was a man… Oh dear! It's still difficult to tick all the boxes to be both woke and a poet! But that's the requirement for being listed in Wokipedia…
Warning: It will be understood that only the footnotes reflect the author's thoughts. I wish to clarify that I am particularly aware of the suffering of trans people, as well as that of people descended from our colonization of Africa, both sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan. What I condemn is the attitude of well-meaning people who refuse to acknowledge that inclusive writing penalizes those who, precisely, have difficulty reading and writing French; well-meaning people who invent aberrant biological or physical concepts "so as not to offend anyone"; who drive away from family planning services the very women who most need their support; who attempt to rehabilitate the concept of human races, which is entirely unscientific; who pigeonhole individuals instead of highlighting what unites them… The cause of the oppressed, of all the oppressed, deserves better than the bluster of the bourgeois bohemians [44] ignorant. Intolerance cannot be fought with intolerance.
Acknowledgments : I am indebted to Jean-François Braunstein's book [45] for several examples I cite in this post. I disagree with several points he raises, but I endorse his denunciation of the excesses of this intellectual deviation known as the woke movement, in its worst aspects: intolerance and censorship. On the other hand, I completely disapprove of the content of Francis Dupuis-Déri's book [46] , which reverses the argument by claiming to see that "criticism of wake-ism is spreading massively in the media, but also among some intellectuals and heads of state [47] ." The exact opposite is true in France. And I've never seen these "worst mass violence" supposedly perpetrated (by people like me?) "to discredit feminists and anti-racists." So, they're the only ones who can be feminists and anti-racists? I claim these two labels for myself and for the vast majority of scientists and doctors; wokeness doesn't have a monopoly on them. Who, then, is threatening academic freedom?
