For the past six months, I’ve been interviewing dozens of companies that practice open innovation. Specifically, in this case, meaning that they’re willing to work with independent inventors to develop new products. Among other topics, I wanted to understand their perspective on intellectual property. Were new product idea submissions required to be patented? How much did patents matter to them? About 30 experts across 17 industries weighed in. The short answer is, no two answers were the same. For some, patents were of great significance. For others, they weren’t. One big takeaway? Product developers who want to take advantage of open innovation to bring their product ideas to market must learn what’s important to the companies they want to invent for and about their policies in general. That’s really step one. With that spirit in mind, I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Lawrence Cruz, Chief Patent Counsel at Conair Corporation. Conair is a $2 billion dollar 60-year-old privately-held company that dominates the market for hair grooming appliances. It is a leader in the other fields it sells products in, which includes massage apparatuses and travel accessories. Notably, it also owns Cuisinart, the consumer cooking appliances brand, as well as Waring, which markets its cooking appliances to commercial kitchens. For such a large and powerful company, Cruz was remarkably easy to get ahold of, even downright friendly. He started his career as a patent examiner at the United States Patent & Trademark Office in 1987 while attending law school in the evening. Before landing at Conair nearly 18 years ago, he was in-house counsel at FMC Corporation, a large multinational, publicly-traded company, as well as at U.S. Surgical Corporation (which later became Covidien), worked at two intellectual property boutique patent firms, and consulted for a medical startup. In a phone interview, he was effusive about his role, which he described as broad. He primarily oversees matters related to intellectual property and anti-counterfeiting efforts; his work overlaps with other legal, business, and product development functions. Cruz described Conair’s policy towards working with independent inventors as informal and explained that it had been largely shaped by him. (It is worth noting that Cruz is an inventor himself.) The company sometimes receives more than 100 unsolicited cold calls from inventors in a year, occasionally resulting in a business arrangement such as a license. 
 “I receive all their calls and try to be as patient as I can, in a way that makes the inventor feel welcome and comfortable and at the same time keeps it professional,” Cruz said. “As a company, we're thankful that people give us a chance to consider their ideas. We treat everyone with a lot of respect, so that we have a good reputation and we're trustworthy as a business partner.” There are no strict requirements to submit a product idea. Instead, Cruz encourages inventors to send him “something that will initially convey the product quickly to a team of people that includes marketing, sales, and management. I tell them, ‘Focus on the gist of the idea, the part that you think might be appealing.’” As a policy, he does not sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) right off the bat. Instead, he prefers that inventors submit only what they are comfortable submitting. If he has specific questions or needs more details, he will discuss signing an NDA. On the question of patents, Cruz told me, “In the event that you have not yet filed an application, it's okay to show the idea to us, but if we do decide we really like the product and we want to do business with you, you're encouraged to file an application at some point soon, because the whole idea is that we're paying you for your current or future patent rights.” He continued: “Sometimes people bare their souls to me on the phone and say, ‘I don't have the money to be filing patents unless I know I have a customer.’ I can't give them advice. I tell them very clearly, ‘I'm not your attorney and I'm not giving you legal advice. You should consult your own attorney. After you talk to your attorney, I’m telling you that we don't require you to file patents before you show it to us. That's your decision.’” A core philosophy of Conair is to treat people right. Cruz fully embraces this ethos in his role as Chief Patent Counsel. “That means, to me, when someone calls with an idea, I treat them as important as the next person. Everyone’s important and everyone’s idea is a good one. I think that’s the way you need to do business in general,” he said. To be honest, this interview surprised me. The perspective Cruz revealed is not what most inventors would assume, including myself. Most of us feel that reaching out to such a large company will be extremely difficult. We envision having to get through gatekeeper after gatekeeper to get to the right person. And then there are our doubts. Why would such a large and powerful company give us the time of day? The fact that Cruz is so open and honest about Conair’s open innovation policy speaks volumes. In fact, it’s extremely refreshing that a company of this size takes cold calls, patiently explains their policy, and genuinely wants to see product ideas from the outside. Sometimes, you just have to pick up the phone. That’s how I reached Cruz. Out of the blue, I called Conair’s corporate number and asked for him by name. And sure enough, he picked up. Large and powerful companies like Conair embrace open innovation because it benefits them. A call from an inventor could result in their next big hit. That’s why they keep their door to new, innovative ideas open.

Rarely, during the entire industrial era, technology will have taken as disturbing contours as in the past decade. If, in 2011, the spirit of freedom still seemed to float on the Internet while social networks largely triggered the Arab Spring, the beginning of the decade also saw many personalities calling for the reduction of collaboration between the big platforms and the US military system. These voices will remain marginal until June 5, 2013, when the Guardian publishes the first article in what will become the Snowden affair: the defection of a National Security Agency (NSA) analyst, and his revelation of a planetary scandal. The world will be amazed to see how the NSA spied not only on millions of foreign nationals, but also those from allied countries, as well as American actors. .Some years later, it will be the scandals linked to Cambridge Analytica (the extent of which we continue to discover) which demonstrated the fragility of democracies in the face of digital bias. And in 2019, the decade ends with the revelation of details on the dictatorial nature of the Chinese Internet: Social Rating , National Firewall , widespread espionage, one of the consequences of which will be the internment of millions of Uyghurs with "deviant opinions" , according to the very expression used by the central government. And these are only a few symptomatic events of the most visible drifts of the decade. Technology, therefore, more than ever, would guide the nature of the world. And it must be admitted that the 2010s expressed this orientation in a way radically opposed to that of the peaceful and slightly libertarian world that the founding fathers of the Internet had imagined. They promoted the Internet to counter the military powers they considered too centralized and homogeneous. . . Government strategies: mass surveillance and control The hypothesis of a reversal of the dystopian curve remains unlikely in the immediate future : Chinese technologies, more ambiguous than any other by their lack of transparency and their possibility of citizen control, are spreading widely speed. This, just as well through the huge Silk Road project (the One Belt , One Road , or OBOR strategy), more flexible technological standards than those in force in the Western world, or even through the place of Alibaba market, whose distribution power is confirmed every day. Across the Atlantic, California's ecosystem of innovation and technology now seems to trust the Pentagon more than the Trump administration - which in itself is a good way to sum up the state collapse of the debate on the subject of technological freedoms. . "The End of technological history", in the Fukuyamian sense, can it be definitively concluded in a totalitarian posture? If we are not there, the fact remains that the affairs of the NSA, more than the Chinese social rating , bring us back to this assertion of Thucydides: " every man [or organization] is destined to go as far 'at the end of his power ". As this power is potentially very high, particular care should be taken. In this regard, the reading of the book Mémoires vives by Edward Snowden is chilling as the book shows how little the American institutional counter-powers have little effect vis-à-vis the Orwelian will of the NSA (note that the The NSA's annual budget is $ 47 billion - that of French national defense being € 35.9 billion in the 2019 PLF - mainly invested in technological themes).To complete this, it will be recalled that one of the largest contracts in the history of information technology was awarded by the Pentagon to Microsoft (to which it awards a contract of 10 billion dollars ). Given the size of this order, many analysts point out that it probably aims at the development of new mass intelligence technologies. . . Social benefits still too invisible On the field of the social impact of innovation, we still do not see well the other side of the Schumpeterian valley which, after a phase of descent and destructive innovation, would generate mass social externalities. If the technological revolution has allowed a small number to enrich themselves immensely, it ultimately does not create mass qualitative jobs, nor has it demonstrated its ability to solve the major challenges of our planet - environment , health and education - although in these respects the games are far from over. Today, it is by making this observation that many coders, data scientists and artificial intelligence experts have gone from techno philes to techno phobes (i.e. they no longer see in startups, or in the interconnection of humanity, some progress). Some even go so far as to work only on the creation of devices that would allow us to isolate and defend us from technology, rather than bringing us closer to it. It would be a mistake to believe that this principle of anti-technological pre-insurgency would be limited to a small elite: from Hong Kong demonstrators to employees of Google, via those of Facebook and without omitting the platform workers, all are considering or have even initiated a form of open fight against technology, a fight which would soon become inevitable if this new decade were to confirm the dystopian sense of information technology. . . Plan B . The hypothesis of another future remains on the table, however; it is even so obvious that it is discouraging not to see Europe making it a central political theme. If its representatives are quick to assert their attachment to European humanism, they are too often unable to formulate what this can mean for 21st century Europe. Thus, the disenchantment that Europe inspires was also born from its inability to propose a political project that was inspiring and likely to unite European citizens. . The digital revolution represents an unparalleled opportunity to create a different Europe, where technologies would be used for and by citizens and would help address the major challenges of the century - social and in particular environmental. A Europe also where institutions and companies would not abuse the potential of technologies but would develop them in the spirit of respect for a common good. This could only happen through a daring articulation between regulation and public institutions (largely to rethink) on the one hand, and innovators on the other. . . Europe facing its limits For Europe, this pas de deux has been particularly difficult to execute: the absence of a real "federal" budget integrating military and research issues has considerably limited the possibilities for long-term investment. At the same time, the RGPD appears, over time, to be limited in terms of its capacities to allow citizens to reclaim their data (on this subject, see the study by François Godement for the Montaigne Institute, Personal data: how to battle ). Above all, it turns out to be an obstacle course for small and medium-sized businesses with weak legal capacity.Yet it is in unlocking the potential of innovators that an important key to our future lies; a release that is all the more complex to manage because it should take place in a framework that avoids the shortcomings observed in other regions of the world. Europe has also become a prisoner of the financial compliance rules which it imposes on the Member States and on the financial system. However, in periods of accelerating history, investment is a necessity not to get out of it - what Americans and Chinese have understood. As Emmanuel Macron recently expressed , we can wonder if our financial orthodoxy does not ultimately have the ultimate consequence of participating in the financing of American deficits. The operating cost of French public institutions is also a barrier that must necessarily be overcome. So will the 2020 decade be dystopian or utopian when it comes to technology? For the moment, it is difficult to bet on a utopian reversal, but as the late Michel Serres observed, " the characteristic of history is to be more made of rupture than of continuity ". . .

February 14 is Valentine's Day (it is also the Vulva-day), the feast of lovers, but today the boys / girls know nothing about love, they are left alone (with pornography) and in ignorance, for this they do not know how to deal sentimental and sexual problems, the consequence is that in adolescents depression, loneliness, insecurities, violence / racism / sexism / bullying increase. Nobody talks about love to children, so I propose that Valentine's Day become an opportunity to make a lesson about love (invite parents) in all schools (universities, libraries, associations, etc.). In my opinion, children need to know what it means to love, in order to be able to freely make autonomous and responsible decisions on how to live their love and sexual life. Unfortunately, today we make kids understand that their pleasure must be in the first place and the achievement of this affects their life, but how can you love if you think of yourself first? Instead it is very important to explain to teenagers that, when we talk about a couple's relationship, partner's happiness is the essential element for one's own, that love is happiness not suffering, it gives security and increases our enthusiasm in any activity that we do, that being in love does not mean losing freedom, because love always implies the autonomy of the partners. Love must be mutual, selfless, sincere. Trust is crucial in love, once conquered and verified it will lead to open up more, sincerely and spontaneously, up to the intimacy that everyone wants. Today the word "communication" is often used, but its meaning is rarely explained, which instead must be done in the simplest possible way: to communicate in love = to share. This can be achieved with words, with tenderness and also with the body, sex is also communication. When, in a couple, they both give to each other and put their body in common, available to the partner, for his / her pleasure, it is possible to say: "We are communicating". This can also happen without words, because love is transmitted through your body and you want to make your partner happy even sexually. It would be very easy to communicate and be truly intimate, but this can only be achieved by teaching boys to love. For some, however, it is difficult to fall in love because they are looking for the "ideal" partner, the soul mate, the "right" person, which can hide their insecurities: but perfection cannot exist and then no one is suitable, the fault lies with others , it will never be admitted that the error can come from one's own complexes, ignorances, selfishness, obsessions. Today love brings so many disappointments because you are looking for a partner not to love him / her, but to satisfy your needs and not only sexual ones: for fear of loneliness, for economic convenience, for experiencing, for gratitude, for having a child, out of envy of someone already paired, etc., but others cannot be used and need cannot be love. Thinking about money and material rewards without love can only lead to loneliness, even when you are not physically alone (loneliness is mainly a state of mind), because money does not make you accept for what you are and certain things cannot buy: if you want to be loved you have to love, not pay. The most important phrase to say to those you love is "I want to make you happy": it must be explained that loving is not altruism, because you are really better, it means being able to always be yourself, which allows you to understand who accepts us or not and if accepted we will also be reciprocated, respected, considered, loved. It is also important to explain to the boys that if love "ends", it is important to accept the end of the relationship without thinking about "taking revenge": love must not turn into hatred and violence against the ex. We must continue to believe in love and remain available to fall in love again, only then can another love relationship begin. At any age you can love, be loved and make love. Love (not power, money, malice, dishonesty, hate) gives joy of life, gives meaning to our life. If there are interested teachers / educators / parents, you can take a lesson on love (it is also primary prevention of violence) immediately at no cost, find the complete video (which you can edit / improve) on my site.

Much confusion and confusion reign, all over Europe, over the ideological divisions between the different political currents. This leads to the fragmentation of parties, government instability, and the frustration of people who are increasingly enraged by the powerlessness of those governments confronted with issues that go beyond them. It is time to understand that, today, five main concerns share the interests of voters: economic enrichment, the need for security, the demand for social justice, the defense of liberties, and ecological issues. In fact, all over Europe, among these more or less contradictory issues, two stand out and attract more and more people: ecology and security. This outlines the contours of a new dominant ideology which, like all of its predecessors, can produce the best and the worst. An ideology that has not yet been embodied anywhere by a dominant party, but which, in my opinion, will soon gain more and more support: the green order. The more or less justified fears faced with the various forms of crime, the risks of terrorism, questioning of identity, and epidemics, will lead, if the rulers are reasonable, to the establishment of many more means to defense, justice, police, prisons, health prevention; and efforts in education and urban planning. Likewise, fears in the face of increasingly obvious climate risks will lead to a radical change in the conception of public and private action, a significant increase in the price of carbon, much more rigorous regulations in terms of waste management, eco-design, energy savings, development of positive energies, that is to say that do not emit greenhouse gases. But if we wait too long for a democratic response to be possible, we will see a completely different attitude on these two subjects. Much more expeditious. And much less democratic. We will then not only want to bring order against crime, but also in the face of fantasies of great replacement, and a conquering communitarianism. We will close the borders, we will expel, we will even withdraw nationality from some, and we will use the means of order to make accept the environmental protection measures which, taken too late, will have become both ecologically vital and socially intolerable. Such a program, even if it is carried out democratically, would ignore the three other dimensions of a harmonious society: economic growth, social justice and the protection of public and private freedoms. However, these other demands are also more and more glaring, in particular in France, where unemployment is persistent and where the police, like the taxation, are more and more under the fire of the critics. Will we then see, faced with a coalition defending the urgency of a green order, forming another claiming the urgency of a just freedom? Without a doubt. Even if the speeches will never be so decided; and if everyone claims to want a society that is both economically efficient, ecologically sustainable, socially just and protective of public and private freedoms. In reality, the next priority will be that of a green order. More precisely, (and even if ecology is, for the moment, mainly classified on the left), the demand for a green order will become the dominant discourse of European rights and extremes. Especially since such a speech will allow them to bury the issues of social justice and public liberties skillfully. There is still time to demystify such caricatures. European nations will need, especially in the face of threats to their businesses from the United States and Asia, not to be reduced to a compartmentalized set of authoritarian and ecological states. We need to build more balanced and therefore more complex political projects. Their theory and practice remain to be built. Quickly.

Most people nowadays find it difficult to understand the destructive impact of psychiatry on communities around the world. For too many people, the lesson is learned only after a psychiatrist has destroyed a part of their life. The tragedy could be the death of their child, due to too widespread use of a stimulating drug, prescribed for an invented psychiatric disorder called Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Or it may be the loss of a loved one, at the hands of an armed teenager who has been prescribed a psychiatric drug that induces violence or by someone who has been part of classes subjected to education on death or anger control (com 'was in the case of the Columbine school, in the 1999 massacre). Perhaps it is the death of an elderly mother or father from an electroshock treatment or an antipsychotic drug prescribed by a nursing home. This may be a child labeled as mentally ill at the beginning of school, who has been prescribed a psychotropic drug more potent than cocaine and who is addictive, who later becomes an inveterate addict because he did not know what the difference was between a drug from road and those that had been prescribed to him. At CCHR we continually work to inform you about the truth about psychiatry, providing you with information that psychiatrists would prefer that you didn't have. For example, in 2008, Dr. Nada Stotland, president of the American Psychiatric Association, recognized that the CCHR "influences our legislatures, our Food and Drug Administrations, our schools and our media as the driving force behind the unjustified 'black label' warnings about the potentially fatal effects of psychiatric drugs. Note that in Dr. Stotland's opinion, warning children, teenagers and young people who may become suicidal while taking antidepressants, a fact that drug regulatory agencies around the world have determined to be vital information, is "unjustified". Only by providing all the facts about the risks of psychiatric treatment can we have chances of reducing the number of victims who unfortunately discover the truth following a personal tragedy. A Complete Lack of Science One of the most important things to know about psychiatry is the complete lack of science supporting its diagnosis system or treatments. For example, take the psychiatric "billing bible", the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-IV. Not one of the 374 disorders described in the text has ever been proven by observable pathologies or objective tests. In fact, a committee of psychiatrists arbitrarily defined the symptoms of each mental disorder and therefore literally voted for its suitability for inclusion in the DSM. With this system, if a new definition of mental disorder is not voted by the majority, it is not included in the DSM. The system is subjective and ambiguous; its terminology is poorly defined or completely undefined. Despite these important and fundamental flaws, this system is widely accepted as a parameter of validity, both for judging human behavior and for determining treatments in courts, prisons and schools. In many countries, the DSM is the reference for billing mental health services to insurance companies and is used for a fake "mental health screening". By "medicalising" everyday problems, psychiatrists fraudulently labeled millions of people as mentally ill, and persuaded or forced them to adopt psychotropic drugs prescribed as routine in their lives. As a result, the consumption of psychotropic drugs has increased to 100 million people now taking these drugs worldwide, 20 million of whom are children. The CCHR is dedicated to denouncing the myths and scientific deceptions with which psychiatry has surrounded its diagnostic system and treatments. We work with doctors and other professionals who recognize their duty to ensure that government directives and regulations provide the most energetic warnings about psychiatric treatment. Our work is in alignment with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in part declares: • "No individual may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," • "Everyone is equal before the law and has the right, without discrimination, to fair protection by the law," is • "Parents have the right of priority in choosing the kind of education to be given to their children." Psychiatrists violate these articles daily. With the false diagnoses of psychiatrists, degrading labels, mandatory health treatments for easy kidnapping, brutal and depersonalizing treatments carried out all over the world, thousands of people, without needing it, fall into their coercive system every day. It is a system that exemplifies the abuse of human rights and denies individuals their innate rights. Each year, thousands of psychiatric victims or their families contact the CCHR to report incidents of psychiatric damage. And it's a procession of mistreatment: sexual abuse, brutal treatment and institutional conditions, hospital fraud, undue imprisonment, patient deaths and even murders. Many parents are denied the right to choose the type of education that should be given to their children, are forced to dispense psychiatric drugs that alter the mind or forced to subject their children to mandatory "screening" for mental disorders, the existence of which there is no scientific evidence. However, thanks to the work of the CCHR: • A law has been enacted in the United States that prohibits the use of electroshock and psychosurgery on children. • In Piedmont, a law has been passed which prohibits the use of electric shocks on children, the elderly and pregnant women. • Laws have been passed on the need for conscious consent to treatment, thus reducing the number of people subjected to electric shock. Deep sleep treatment, a lethal combination of drugs and electric shock, was banned in Australia where he had been responsible for at least 48 deaths. • A law has been enacted in the United States that prohibits children from being forced to take psychiatric drugs as a requirement for them to be educated. • In many countries, federal regulations and laws have been enacted against the use of physical constraint methods. • Laws have been enforced that require psychiatric sexual abuse and rape of patients to be treated as crimes. • Legal precedents have been established that ensure that patients abused by psychiatrists have the right to go to a civil court and be compensated for the harmful psychiatric treatment to which they have been subjected. • Thousands of citizens have been rescued from illegal detention or unlawful detention and patients have regained their civil and legal rights. Mental health can be restored, but only through: • Effective mental healing delivered in a calm atmosphere, characterized by tolerance, safety, protection and respect for people's rights. • Restoring personal strength, skill, competence, trust, stability, responsibility and spiritual well-being in individuals. • Using trained and ethical doctors, primarily dedicated to the well-being of their patients and family members, not to personal gain. This description bears no resemblance to the mental treatment performed by psychiatry nowadays. Psychiatry does not produce mental health, but rather damage to mental health and millions of ruined lives. In CCHR we work to help create an environment suitable for mental healing, based on human dignity and dignity. As a result of our efforts, millions of people have escaped the devastation of psychiatric treatment. You are welcome to our website and we hope that you take advantage of this opportunity to better secure the future of your loved ones, friends and yourself. Sincerely, Jan Eastgate President Citizens Commission on Human Rights International Jan Eastgate has been investigating psychiatric abuse for over thirty years. Politicians, lawyers, psychologists and civil rights officers have described her as a "tireless fighter" and a person of "enormous determination and courage who has done an exceptional job". A native of Australia, Ms. Eastgate helped get a Royal Commission (the highest level of government inquiry) to take care of "deep sleep", a lethal psychiatric practice that includes a heavy drug and electroshock cocktail . The government has banned this practice and indemnified hundreds of patients. Based in Los Angeles, in the CCHR headquarters for more than fifteen years, Ms. Eastgate has personally conducted investigations and inspections of psychiatric structures and conditions in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia and in the United States.

I do not believe that it is possible to find, in the history of mankind, a time when humanity as a whole has had the spectacle of the simultaneous fragility of the two most powerful and antagonistic systems of government of their time. And yet, it is what the United States and China are showing us today. In the first instance, the United States is showing a spectacle of a democracy that is being ridiculed by pathetic leaders: a president who has never left his real career, reality TV, and continues to show the world the most vulgar image that a president of this great country has ever given. An opposition party that is bogged down and unable to use simple vote-counting technology properly, and whose only memorable action is the senseless act of the Speaker of the House tearing apart, in the President’s presence and in front of the cameras of the world, the State of the Union speech that the President had just delivered to Congress. The United States is also a country where inequalities have never been so wide, debt so high, and the environment and international commitment so lacking in credibility and so little taken seriously. Can that type of democracy be a model for the rest of the world? In the second instance, China is showing us a dictatorship entangled in its lies, allowing the emergence of an epidemic, which is partly caused by the lack of minimal hygiene practices in public places; and that China is incapable of controlling the spread of this epidemic (a pandemic — an ongoing epidemic on two or more continents) because of the secrecy it imposed on the first doctors confronted with the disease. A dictatorship that compensates for its shortcomings by building hospitals at loaded march and frenetically utilizing surveillance technology. A country unable to feed its population without massive imports, a virtually unique obsession with diplomacy, and where the slightest deviation from the norm is punished by being arbitrarily consigned to oblivion. Can this type of dictatorship serve as a model for the rest of the world? A world where the two main powers are so fragile and weak becomes extremely dangerous. Even more so when the social policies of these main powers are discredited in this manner. Geopolitics and ideology, like nature, abhor a vacuum. And vertigo, combined with the emptiness, can tip the planet toward catastrophe. For if these superpowers do not restore their harmony and trust as soon as possible, if they are not once again respectable and respected, new powers and ideologies will emerge in their place. In a world in disarray, these new powers can become global entities, which could fascinate and dominate the planet with their efficiencies; these entities would provide both the ideology and the tools of control, no longer on behalf of governments, but for their own account. And each would be nothing more than a disloyal mercenary of nomadic and sprawling entities. In a world where conditions are worse, the dominant ideology will be a religious totalitarianism, also nomadic (and the world is not short of it today), which will try to provide people with what other systems seem incapable of providing: empathy, ethics, and hope. In a better world, however, other powers could put forward other models that are alternatives to the two shaky giants: in particular, Europe, with its long experience with the difficulties of democracy, sense of compromise, social institutions, and conception of human rights could seduce the rest of the world. Especially if Europe puts in place a project that takes into consideration the interests of future generations, based on a major programme that includes infrastructure investment in the respective fields of the environment, education, health, social justice and gender equity; and with governance that is even more democratic than it is today. Perhaps Europe’s time has come. It is necessary for Europe, if it wants to keep its rank. It is necessary for the world, if it wants to avoid the vertigo of emptiness.

The emergence of nanotechnology applied to medicine has revolutionized the treatment of human cancer. As in the case of classic drugs for the treatment of cancer, epigenetic drugs have evolved in terms of their specificity and efficiency, especially because of the possibility of using more effective transport and delivery systems. The use of nanoparticles (NPs) in oncology management offers promising advantages in terms of the efficacy of cancer treatments, but it is still unclear how these NPs may be affecting the epigenome such that safe routine use is ensured. In this work, we summarize the importance of the epigenetic alterations identified in human cancer, which have led to the appearance of biomarkers or epigenetic drugs in precision medicine, and we describe the transport and release systems of the epigenetic drugs that have been developed to date.

Three days after the U.K.’s formal withdrawal from the European Union, the two sides are squaring off in the “chest beating” phase of negotiations. Just three days after their formal parting, Britain and the European Union were already at loggerheads Monday over a future trade deal, setting the stage for months of bluster and bickering over how to refashion their economic and political ties. With Britain’s formal exit from the bloc on Friday night, many Britons had hoped to finally put the Brexit nightmare behind them. But judging by the statements from both sides of the English Channel on Monday, that hope seems likely to be unfulfilled. In remarks in Brussels, Europe’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, adopted a steely tone, insisting that Britain must commit to preventing unfair competition if it wants access to the market of 450 million Europeans without tariffs and quotas. Prime Minister Boris Johnson responded from London by threatening to walk away from talks if the European Union tries to tie Britain too closely to its rules as a price for a free-trade agreement. Mr. Johnson also called for an end to “hysterical” fears about American food entering Britain — a reminder to Europeans that he hopes to strike a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States, too. Analysts had expected both sides to adopt tough opening positions on trade, but after decades of membership, Britain is becoming an economic competitor to the European Union. If the combative exchanges on Monday are any indication, those discussions will be hard fought and acrimonious. “This is the early phase, and the chest-beating phase of the negotiation,” said Sam Lowe, senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform, a research institute in London. “In the next couple of months we will see both sides standing firm and appealing to domestic audiences.” On Monday there were few surprises for trade experts, Mr. Lowe said, adding that serious progress in talks is unlikely before the fall. For an agreement to be struck this year, he added, “the U.K. will have to move a lot and the E.U. will have to move a little.” The idea is to reach not only a free-trade agreement but also deals on other issues involving security and foreign policy. But time is short because Britain wants to wrap things up by the end of the year, a deadline seen as breathtakingly optimistic by many trade experts. Mr. Johnson’s speech to diplomats, business leaders and others in the baroque surroundings of the Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich, south London, was predictably more colorful and political than Mr. Barnier’s technocratic news conference in Brussels. Britain, Mr. Johnson said, was “ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles” and emerge as the Superman of global free trade. He pointedly avoided mention of “Brexit,” aware of widespread public exhaustion with the subject — even going so far as to describe it as a term from history. But his uncompromising tone over trade underscored the scale of the challenge ahead. In Brussels, senior officials warned that a failure to agree to a new relationship again threatened a “cliff-edge” departure, a sudden change in trading rules that could damage businesses on both sides of the Channel, but particularly in Britain. A central demand on the European side is an accord that would give Europe’s fishing fleet access to extensive British territorial waters. Though of limited economic significance, fishing is symbolically and emotionally important both in Britain and in continental Europe. But a critical element of any new trade agreement will be the degree to which Britain continues to abide by many of the bloc’s rules in such areas as labor rights, environmental standards and antitrust rules. If the British request is “for access to 450 million consumers, zero tariffs, zero quotas, that won’t happen for nothing and without conditions,” Mr. Barnier told reporters in Brussels. “We’re in favor of free trade but we’re not going to be naïve.” He added that Britain had agreed in a political declaration last year to create a “level playing field.” The European Union argues that this is vital to prevent Britain, a relatively large competitor economy on its doorstep, from dropping labor and environmental standards to bring down the price of goods and services. The British protest that such conditions were not imposed on Canada in exchange for its free trade agreement with the Europeans. “There is no need for a free-trade agreement to involve accepting E.U. rules on competition policy, subsidies, social protection, the environment or anything similar any more than the E.U. should be obliged to accept U.K. rules,” Mr. Johnson said. Though Mr. Johnson correctly noted that Britain observes higher standards in many of these areas than European Union nations, officials in Brussels want those matters agreed to in writing along with arbitration procedures in case of disputes. That could amount to London agreeing to observe some European rules — even if they change — a step the British will certainly resist. For now, Mr. Johnson is hanging tough, arguing on Monday that rather than accept alignment with European rules, he would prefer a trading relationship similar to that of Australia, which has no free trade agreement with the European Union. British business wants a deal badly, however, and the pound sterling fell by about 1 percent on the currency markets after Mr. Johnson spoke. Laying out the enormous scale of the task ahead, senior officials at the European Commission, the bloc’s executive, said there would be parallel negotiations with the British on 12 separate topics, culminating in an overarching deal. Each of the remaining 27 member states will have veto rights over the new agreement with the British. While the bloc kept a largely united front during the Brexit talks to date, that could begin to fragment, as different countries will be affected by different elements of the trade deal. Even if some sort of agreement is ultimately agreed to, as many expect, Mr. Lowe cautioned that importers and exporters used to being members of the same economic market will have to make new customs declarations and comply with other additional rules. A free trade deal was only of limited value, he said. “At best it removes tariffs and quotas,” he said. “It would do very little to remove other frictions in trade,” Mr. Lowe added.

IHAN International Human Account Number . Direct proposal to your intelligence: the seed of an idea, a speck of star dust to be left along the path of human history. . .Our generation has destroyed, defaced, polluted, plundered, enslaved, exploited. . This is what our age inherits from other creatures, from Creation, from history. . During the French revolution, despite wars and technical limitations, they took on the task of providing humanity with a tool for a better life for every human being, in every part of the world, which was identical and which had the same value for all : the meter. (Before then the richest or the most powerful bought with a long meter and sold with the short one) ... And they gave humanity an instrument of justice, equality, dignity, defense. . Today in full digital revolution we are ready to develop the IHAN project, International Human Account Number. . A project that takes into account diversity, vastness, immensity, wealth on every level, human experience, in its concreteness in flesh-and-bones and thought-and-emotions, to equip humanity with an instrument that be a yardstick to measure justice, equality, law, duty, and new concepts of citizenship related to personal consumption of natural resources, (the burden of each on Planet Earth), who lives in Europe, Oceania, Asia , in Africa, in America. . An IT-encyclopedic project of the existential experience of the human being, of every human being, in relation to himself, to others, to the environment that surrounds him, to the physical and psychological functions that compose him, determine and allow him to Act. . .A tool that expresses itself through the scriptures, structures and phonemes of all languages, which tells the story of everyone, giving everyone equal dignity; to improve coexistence, growth and development. . .IHAN is a conceptual container, the premise for further mental processes and the overcoming of models that after being effective for thousands of years have defined themselves as definitive and immutable but that a simple logical projection is enough to make one falter. also for the idea of God? It will be the same also for the idea of God!) . On the basis of this possible encyclopedic research, among scientists, scholars and artists, a criterion is established for attributing to each their own IHAN. . So that we can align in an intelligible language the fragments of the experience of the prophets, saints and genes that are part of each one's experience, to help us express and arouse the immensity that resides in the human being always and everywhere with the variation of the play of light and shadow that characterized the different cultures and experiences of existence. . .Ihan can also be described as a thickening resin, . which gives depth to human experience, which provides it with current and future tools and mental models, for this magnificent representation of existence, over time, in the sense, in the values, in the conceptions of life. . The ihan can be expressed and represented with a frequency, its specific vibration, which relates to the fundamental frequencies and vibrations of creation and creation, which is told at the formal level of mythical narratives and the sacred in human experience, where celebrates the marriage between the human and the ideas for its representation in reality and metaphysics. . .Ihan is an instrument that allows humanity to flourish, as has already happened in certain phases and moments, where experience, religion, politics, science and the arts had endowed their contemporaneity with a model of self-esteem and development, which allowed man to know himself, producing harmonious complexes of coexistence, inner and social, with himself, others and creation. . .IHAN is a psychological virus. . .Ihan is a mind map: a psychological compass; an engine of meaning for the progression of meanings, a further prism for the detailed definition of categories, logics, taken for granted. . .How does it work? what can it do? .It would be a barrier to manipulation that the greater power acts against the weaker, in the ever-induced process of self-election and self-legitimization, and would be an instrument of opposition to the imposed official truth. . It is an instrument of intelligence for intelligence, the self-powered vortex that from the beginning of the mental experience generates ideas and is generated from them. . What weight could han have within the dynamics of racial, religious, social, economic discrimination? Could racial laws have been written? Would it have contributed to preventing the fall of states and nations along certain inclined planes that horrified the world in the 20th century? . .It is time for us to return to planting seeds for the future earthly paradise, so that the generations to come will find a livable and friendly world, so that the generations to come do not have as our only legacy a desert of material and moral ruins.

"Although Jews represent less than one percent of the population, half of the racist acts committed in France are committed against Jews." — French Member of Parliament Meyer Habib. Anti-Semitism is advancing throughout the continent and often has a Middle Eastern cast. Yet, the authorities also talk only about right-wing anti-Semitism. Leftist anti-Semitism is present all over Europe. Its followers, as in France, do their best to hide and protect Middle Eastern anti-Semitism. The demographic transformation taking place in France is also happening throughout Western Europe, and the growing submission to Islam is being silently accepted by the ruling authorities almost everywhere.

Why should it be anti-Muslim or "Islamophobic" to write about the effects of jihad or the conservative Muslim treatment of unbelievers? The facts are well established within international bodies, NGOs, national commissions, and verifiable journalistic reports. Reformist Muslims themselves are highly critical of the discriminatory laws and behaviours in countries from which they or their forebearers originated. Indeed, it is precisely Muslims of a reformist and liberal bent who are most vocal about radical restrictions on the values that other Muslims claim are universal. Let us be clear. No doubt, there will probably always be people, call them the real "Islamophobes", who will use problems within Muslim states or communities to try to tar Islam or Muslims as a whole. But these and other issues still need to be faced as authentic human rights concerns. A particularly widespread problem for Christians in Muslim countries is the ban on Christian proselytization.... While Christian and secular countries rightly permit Muslims to preach, convert, and instruct non-Muslims, 25 Muslim states forbid proselytization and have laws saying that Muslims who convert to another faith may be put to death as apostates. Liberalized versions of Islam have in the past few decades been suppressed by fundamentalist takeovers of entire societies. It is therefore hard to believe that countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey will return quickly to the moderation they had developed in the previous century. If there is hope for good relations between non-Muslims and Muslims, it must rest, as has already begun, with the Muslims in liberal democracies.... The British organization Muslims Against Antisemitism, is a shining example; in America, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy is another. They should be treasured and helped.

As of January 21, 2020, Chinese health authorities have confirmed the presence of 139 infections, 136 of which occurred in the city of Wuhan and three, also in China, outside of this, even if the affected subjects had previously visited the city. Abroad, four cases were found: two in Thailand, one in Japan and one in South Korea, all in individuals who had been to Wuhan. A few days ago, British researchers from Imperial College London, based on cases found outside China, hypothesized, using a mathematical model, that the number of subjects affected by this new disease in the city of Wuhan should be higher to that officially described and would add up to 1723. Even without wanting to go into the merits of this numerical difference of cases, it is evident that at the moment the epidemiological situation is rather fluid and definitive conclusions cannot yet be drawn. There are, however, some certain elements on which it is possible to reason: first of all the cause of this disease is an isolated and well characterized coronavirus, similar to that of SARS, but in some respects different from this, which has been called 2019-nCoV . This is not the only difference with SARS, in fact the number of deaths (two) so far recorded for this new disease certainly indicates a lower severity than SARS, which had a lethality of 10%. It is also reasonable to assume, given that the first cases were all reported in subjects who had attended the Wuhan fish market, where there were also live animals, that there may be an animal tank (although not yet highlighted) in analogy to what happens for SARS and for another disease, always caused by a coronavirus, observed in the Middle East, the MERS. In fact, in both of these diseases, the reservoir is represented by bats that can infect other intermediate animals such as in the case of MERS, the camels that in turn infect humans. Initially, the Chinese health authorities had speculated that this new coronavirus, contrary to that of SARS, was transmitted only from the animal to man and not from man to man. More recently, on the basis of the progressively increasing number of cases of illness, some of which arose in subjects who had not had contact with the Wuhan fish market, it has been hypothesized that an interhuman transmission may also exist. The news that this interhuman transmission has been confirmed thus opening up more complex epidemiological scenarios, even if up to now this transmission mode has probably played a marginal role in supporting the epidemic spread of the disease compared to exposure to carriers of the virus. From a clinical point of view, this new disease, similarly to what occurs for SARS and MERS, affects the respiratory system causing fever, cough, rhinitis, pneumonia which can lead, in rare cases, to death from respiratory failure. There is currently no specific therapy for this viral disease, as for SARS and MERS. In relation to the possible existence of an animal reservoir, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends, in the affected areas, to avoid unprotected contact with live animals in live markets and close contacts with those who present respiratory symptoms. The Chinese health authorities, also strong in the experience with the previous SARS epidemic, promptly put in place preventive measures for the spread of the disease which also include the quarantine of people with respiratory symptoms. Internationally, even though the European infectious disease control agency ECDC considers the risk of spreading this disease low in Europe, the United States has started monitoring passengers from Wuhan at San Francisco, Los Angeles and JFK airports. from New York. As always happens in these cases, we will have to wait for the next few weeks and above all the publication of virological and clinical research in the international literature before having a complete scenario on this new disease.