Friday 29 July 2016
صور من حصار الارهابيين لحلب عام 2013
الصور بين المشارقة و بستان القصر لتجمع الناس على معبر كراج الحجز للعبور للاحياء الشرقية لحلب لشراء الطعام بعد حصار فرضه الارهابيون على حلب الغربية و منع دخول الطعام اليها.
Thursday 28 July 2016
كلنا جوازت سفر
محمد أبو عرب
الخليج
28/7/2016
يدفع واقع البلدان العربية وما تشهده من حروب إلى التأمل في أعداد المهاجرين والهاربين من القتل إلى بلدان تأويهم، فما ترويه الهجرات العربية نحو القارة الأوروبية، يروي سيرة طويلة لآلاف الغرقى، وآلاف المفقودين، فمن هجرات العمالة المغاربية وصولاً إلى فاجعة التهجير السوري التي تحوّلت إلى مأساة إنسانية لخراب الأرض في القرن الواحد والعشرين.
يخطر ببال المتأمل لهذا الراهن، التساؤل، كيف ضاقت بنا الأرض بما رحبت، ومتى صار جواز السفر وثيقة تعادل وجود الإنسان نفسه، فهو نكرة ولا شيء أمام الحدود الدولية إن لم يحمل تلك الأوراق التي تحدد هويته.
تعيد تلك الأسئلة الحكاية إلى جذرها التاريخي، فمن أول من ابتكر هذا الجواز؟ ومن أول من عمل به؟ لنجد مرويات كثيرة حول تاريخه، منها أن أحد أقدم المراجع التي ذكرت جوازات السفر، هي «إنجيل نحميا» نحو 450 ق.م، ونحميا هو خادم لأحد ملوك الفرس، إذ أراد الخادم أن يأخذ الأذن للسفر إلى مكان آخر، فوافق الملك وأعطى نحميا رسالة «إلى الحاكم خلف الأنهار» ، يطلب منه الأمان لنحميا عند مروره بأراضيهم.
تطورت تلك الرسالة تاريخياً، إلى أن ظهرت وثيقة تتيح لحاملها من عبور بوابة «بورت» على أسوار إحدى المدن الأوروبية، ومنها اشتق الاسم «باس بورت»، وليس كما يشاع، أنه مشتق من «سي بورت»، أي موانئ البحر.
تكشف تلك الحكاية كيف أن السلطة البشرية بطبيعتها تراكمية في تمتين سلطتها، فالورقة ظلت تأخذ سياقها إلى أن صارت هي سر وجودنا وحقيقته أمام الأرض.
تكاد تكون أزمة القضية الفلسطينية وسيرة الشتات، مكثفة بجل تفاصيلها في قصيدة الشاعر الراحل الكبير محمود درويش «جواز السفر» التي غنّاها مارسيل خليفة، وتحوّلت لدى الكثير من الأجيال العربية إلى نشيد ثوري وجداني يلخص الشتات ، فقال: «لم يعرفوني في الظلال التي/ تمتص لوني في جواز السفر/ وكان جرحي عندهم معرضاً/ لسائح يعشق جمع الصور...».
لم يكن يكفي أن تكون مجروحاً بالوطن لتكتب قصيدة، فأن تكون معارضاً لسلطته فتلك حكاية أخرى، يرويها المفكر العراقي هادي العلوي، إذ حدث ذات يوم أن كان في الصين، وانتهى جواز سفره، وصار لزاماً أن يجدده، فأخبره أصدقاؤه أن يذهب إلى السفارة العراقية، إلا أنه كان صلداً تجاه النظام للحد الذي قال مفارقته العجيبة: «لن أخضع لسلطة النظام حتى في السفارة، فأمامي خياران لاستخراج جواز، فإما أن أرشو أحد الموظفين، أو أدخل إلى السفارة ليلاً وأسرقه».
Abu.arab89@yahoo.com
Monday 25 July 2016
صورة نادرة لباب الفرج
صورة نادرة لمنطقة باب الفرج في حلب. يظهر الشارع المؤدي لجادة الخندق و في المنتصف مدخل بوابة القصب |
Wednesday 20 July 2016
التجارب الأولى لوكالة المخابرات المركزية الأميريكية في سورية
الرئيس شكري القوتلي يدلي بصوته في استفتاء الوحدة مع مصر |
مظاهرة في سورية ضد اولايات المتحدة الأميريكية على خلفية تأخر اعترافها بالجمهورية العربية المتحدة |
سامي الحناوي |
سورية والقضية الفلسطينية
اتفاقية الوحدة السورية المصرية |
Monday 18 July 2016
عندما يذبل الزيتون و تصبح الأرض نقمة على اصحابها
ليست هواية لي نقد الدولة او الحكومة او من يمثلها. النقد بحد ذاته لن يطعم خبزة و لن يعيد ما ذهب. لكن في قصة الاكراد علينا ان نضع مليون اشارة استفهام على ما فعلته و تفعله. من سيقول لي بانها ورقة ساقول له انت لا تفهم مع الاعتذار له. الدولة باجهزتها رعت حزب العمال الكردستاني. كانت تصعد اعضاءه الى مجلس الشعب عبر الرشوة. كانت تسمح لصاحبات الجدايل بالتجول في حلب جهارا نهارا دون ان تكلف نفسها بالسؤال ماذا بعد؟ حلب كمحافظة لا يشكل الاكراد فيها نسبة تزيد عن العشرين بالمئة في احسن الاحوال. لكنهم كنفوذ مدعوم من الدولة وصلوا لتكوين مقاطعتين غير متصلتين يعملون اليوم على وصلهم عبر تهجير العرب و نجنيدهم و احتلال اراضيهم.
ماذا بعد؟ بصراحة لا اعرف. فما يحصل سيشكل ندبة لن تزول اثارها ابدا. سيصبح الشك يلازم العرب و اللاستقرار يطبع حياتهم. سيصبح في لا وعيهم قاعدة انه متى ما ضعفت للدولة احتلهم الاكراد.
Saturday 16 July 2016
معبر كراج الحجز عام ٢٠١٣
Thursday 14 July 2016
ماذا تغير؟
ماذا تغير؟
أفرحة زارتك أم قلب تفجر
أضحكة زارتك يوما
أم تبسمت أكثر؟
ماضيك يلاحقك
و حاضر قد تصبغ بالسواد
ماذا تغير؟
سؤال أجبه
شجاع كن و لو للحظة
أتراك هنئت يوما و أكثر؟
أيوما سعدت
و عشت براحة؟
ماذا تغير؟
مرت سنون
دون هناء
دون رجاء
و دون خوف
يقلق قلبك كأسد غضنفر
ألم في ليالي الوحدة
لم أستطع يوما أن أهزم قلبي
و لا أن أناور حتى أريحه
القصة أنه عنيد رقيق
يعاندني كلما أغرقته الهموم
يسترجع دوما كل ذكرى
يجعل عيني تدمع على ما فات
يؤرقني في ليالي وحدتي
يحاكمني على سوء صنعي
أجلس بين يديه و أدمع
كطفل عاقبه القريب
أحار و حيرتي كطير جريح
يتلوى من ألم ينوح
أجلس في الفراش أشتهي غمضة
تريح القلب
تنسيه السنون
فيذلني قلبي و يعيد دوما
ألما لا يعالجه الدواء
Saturday 9 July 2016
Antidepressants on trial: Are they a wonder or a danger?
Prozac was touted as a wonder drug, making us “better than well” |
By Robert Whitaker
THE ongoing controversy about the merits of antidepressants might be best described as a battle of narratives. The psychiatric profession tells of drugs that have a history of proven efficacy. The critics tell of drugs that have marginal short-term efficacy, may do more harm than good in the long term, and, on occasion, may cause a person to seriously deteriorate. Both claim science’s mantle, which leaves the public uncertain what to think.
Two new books, one by American psychiatrist Peter Kramer and the other by British film-maker Katinka Blackford Newman, illustrate aspects of these competing narratives.
Kramer helped fuel the boom in a class of antidepressants – SSRIs – with his 1993 book Listening to Prozac, which told of a drug that could make even people without depression “better than well”. Prozac and other SSRIs were touted in the media as “wonder drugs”, and while the “wonder” has long since dimmed, use of antidepressants in most developed countries has climbed steadily.
“Many people in the drug trials, Kramer argues, were not really depressed but enrolled to get paid“
It was mounting criticism of the drugs that piqued Kramer’s interest. In particular, there was the work of psychologist Irving Kirsch, who had concluded from his own meta-analysis of data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration that antidepressants provide no clinically meaningful benefit over placebo for people with mild to moderate depression. This prompted Kramer to write Ordinarily Well: The Case for Antidepressants. “I was ready to engage,” he explains.
Kramer, it’s fair to say, still sees antidepressants through a rose-coloured lens. If his description of them reflects a clinical reality, they deserve to be called wonder drugs. In primary care, he writes, 90 per cent of patients respond well to an antidepressant. Even those with chronic symptoms, “if they hang in, will achieve remission”, he says. The drugs work in a diverse group of people, including those who are only mildly depressed, and can give dour people new personalities, making them more cheerful and less ruminative.
According to Kramer, their side effects are fewer than we might think, they dramatically reduce the risk of recurrent depressive episodes, and even if they aren’t a cure, the person still functions fairly well. He says that antidepressants “restore resilience” to mind and brain, and “confer overall well-being”.
As for Kirsch’s research, Kramer believes the conclusion antidepressants provide little benefit over placebo is “implausible”. For him, the fact the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments for mild to moderate depression is an example of how “evidence-based medicine” can lead the medical profession astray.
Many of the people in the SSRI trials, Kramer argues, were not really depressed but enrolled to get paid. The attention lavished on them in studies produced an inflated response for the placebo group. At the same time, he says, the Hamilton scale that measures outcomes doesn’t capture the many aspects of well-being antidepressants promote. This suppressed response rates for the medicated group, says Kramer. Psychiatrists, he writes, “are aware that the Pharma trials are shameful, ethically and scientifically”.
It might have been nice for American psychiatry to confess this 25 years ago, when Prozac and the other SSRIs were hailed as breakthrough medications. But Kramer’s dismissal of the trials provides a good segue into the counter-narrative perspective, which, I must confess, I share.
No panacea
The usual thought is that big pharma design trials to favour their drugs and suppress the placebo response. One way they do so is to exclude those with co-morbidities and suicidal tendencies, which leads to a selection of participants most likely to respond well to the medication.
But this raises an obvious question: how effective are antidepressants in regular clinical practice? More than a decade ago, the US’s National Institute of Mental Health set out to answer that, and the results were dismal: only 26 per cent of patients even responded to an antidepressant, and at the end of a year, only 6 per cent were well. These findings “reveal remarkably low response and remission rates,” the investigators concluded.
Such is one of many counter-arguments that could be made to Kramer. Even more troubling, there are many studies telling of a significant percentage of those treated with antidepressants who become chronically ill. It is also notable that in countries with widespread antidepressant use, the number of adults living on disability benefits due to mood disorders has soared. At least from a societal perspective, these drugs have not proven to be a panacea.
As for the voices of those being treated, although Kramer relates numerous anecdotes of people getting well under his care, we never hear directly from them. In fact, many of the stories are “composites”, which is to say, they are not real. Kramer is describing how he sees his patients and not how people see themselves, which may be very different.
In her memoir The Pill That Steals Lives, Katinka Blackford Newman tells a story that rarely makes it into the conventional narrative. Struggling while going through a divorce, Newman, a documentary film-maker who had worked for the BBC, went to see a psychiatrist, who prescribed escitalopram (Lexapro). Once on the drug, she became severely anxious and restless, which are symptoms of akathisia, a side effect associated with violence and suicide.
Thoughts of committing such acts crept into her head and soon grew into a full-blown delusion that she had killed her two children. She was hospitalised, and thus began her downward spiral into a life on antipsychotics and other psychiatric drugs, including Prozac. Before long, she had lost the capacity to care for herself and her children. A horrible year passed, and it was only after she withdrew from most of her medications that her long path to recovery began. “It really was like waking up out of a coma,” she writes.
Newman tells of a number of people who committed inexplicable acts of violence after going on an antidepressant, and details how such extreme adverse reactions show up in research.
While such stories may come from the far end of the spectrum of experiences, they provide an important counter to the conventional narrative. As such, they prompt society to think of the many disparate effects that antidepressants can have, including the possibility that they may do harm.
New Scientist
The eight types of nipple revealed - so which do you have?
The various categories were explained to Seventeen by Dr Tsippora Shainhouse, a board-certified dermatologist and pediatrician.
She explained that all off these characteristics are perfectly normal and you may have more than one of them.
However if your nipple changes from inverted to protruding, it may be wise to consult a doctor. Read on to find out which group you fall into:
1. PROTRUDING
Protruding nipples stand out a few millimetres from the surface of the areola (the darker rind of skin around the nipple).
They point outwards and can become hard and pronounced when cold or stimulated.
2. FLAT
A flat nipple does not stand out from the areola, however it can become pronounced when cold or stimulated
3. PUFFY
For a puffy nipple the entire areola is raised, like another mound on top of the breast
The nipple can harden and become more pronounced with cold or stimulation.
4. INVERTED:
Inverted nipples are tucked away inside the skin and not visible
It is sometime possible to bring the nipple out but sometimes the muscles surrounding it are too tight.
5. UNILATERAL INVERTED
A unilateral inverted in when one nipple is raised but another one is inverted and tucked away
This can be a warning sign of breast cancer if your nipples haven't always been like this but have recently changed.
You should see your doctor immediately if this is the case.
6. BUMPY
Sometimes small bumps surround the nipple. They can look like white heads but don't play with them
Sometimes small bumps surround the nipple.
These are actually Montgomery glands. Every woman has the glands, but not everyone can see them and some are bumpier than others.
They can look like white heads and sometimes it is possible to squeeze dead skin cells out of them, but don't mess around with them.
7. HAIRY
Dark hairs growing out of the areola are perfectly normal. They can be fine or coarse but all women have them
Dark hairs growing out of the areola are perfectly normal.
They can be fine or coarse and every woman has them, but some are hairier than others.
It is safe to tweeze out the hairs.
8. SUPERNUMERARY
Supernumery nipples are extra smaller nipples. They can either look like flat moles or raised bumps
Daily Mail