Jan 1st 2014

Desperately Seeking Solzhenitsyn

by Michael Johnson

Michael Johnson is a music critic with particular interest in piano. 

Johnson worked as a reporter and editor in New York, Moscow, Paris and London over his journalism career. He covered European technology for Business Week for five years, and served nine years as chief editor of International Management magazine and was chief editor of the French technology weekly 01 Informatique. He also spent four years as Moscow correspondent of The Associated Press. He is the author of five books.

Michael Johnson is based in Bordeaux. Besides English and French he is also fluent in Russian.

You can order Michael Johnson's most recent book, a bilingual book, French and English, with drawings by Johnson:

“Portraitures and caricatures:  Conductors, Pianist, Composers”

 here.

When Nobel Prizewinning author Alexander Solzhenitsyn died five years ago, I experienced several days of flashbacks to the surrealistic times of Soviet power. I had been a correspondent in Moscow in the 1960s and 1970s and my most vivid memory was encountering the great writer face to face. He wasn’t particularly happy to see me.

Solzhenitsyn was tailed and harassed by the KGB for most of his life, and had made a dangerous game of dodging the authorities. Two of his early novels, The First Circle and The Cancer Ward, had been smuggled out of the country by trusted foreign contacts and published abroad to great acclaim. He would later go on to expose the Soviet labor camp system in his classic Gulag Archipelago, a work that reverberates to this day.

But he considered any interaction with the free-wheeling Western media to be risky, and he was right.

Of course every correspondent in Moscow wanted to be the first to find him after he won the Nobel in 1970. I was a young reporter and I intended to be the one to smoke him out. I was unconcerned about the consequences this publicity might have for him.

My search began with Lev Kopelev, a writer who was at a friendly stage in their up-and-down relationship. They had been fellow zeks (colloquial form of “ZK”, short for zaklyuchonny, or “locked up”), labor camp inmates, in the 1940s and 1950s. In the evenings, they argued ideology with such spirit that Solzhenitsyn based the character Rubin, in The Cancer Ward, on Kopelev. (Later in life, both living abroad, they sadly had a falling out and they died without making peace.)

I got to Lev through his wife Raisa Orlova, who had asked me to obtain a copy of an American book she wanted to translate into Russian, a biography of Martin Luther King Jr., who had recently been assassinated.

Lev was a burly, bearded, bear of a man and former Bolshevik activist who could never quite make the break with his Marxist past. At this stage in life he was no KGB informer but his sympathies were ambiguous. Solzhenitsyn, I later learned, did not totally trust him. As Solzhenitsyn put it in a memoir, quoting an old Russian proverb, “Even fire cannot clean a barrel that once held tar.”

But Lev and his wife Raisa were warm and welcoming, inviting my wife and me to their small, gloomy home for tea and a get-acquainted meeting. Raisa wanted something from me and I wanted something from Lev. Raisa spoke good English and worked as a translator. Lev was also a competent linguist but German was his main foreign language. His English came out in short, prepared bursts in a loud basso. We spoke Russian together.

My presence made him nervous but he tolerated our visit with good humor. As tea was served, I mentally rehearsed the main item on my agenda: to obtain Solzhenitsyn’s telephone number, or at least his address, neither of which any foreign journalist had yet been able to find. We all knew that Solzhenitsyn was a leading candidate for the Nobel and that the award would be sensational news if it came to pass. While the award would help certify him as a major writer, it was also certain to lead to more trouble for him. Boris Pasternak had been down this path in 1958. Pasternak’s big novel,Doctor Zhivago, had also been a foreign sensation but was banned in the Soviet Union. The Nobel honor infuriated then-premier Nikita Khrushchev, who threatened Pasternak with expulsion from the country and withdrawal of his Soviet citizenship. In the end, Pasternak chose to remain in the Russia he loved so much, but without the prize.

At the Kopelev apartment, between sips of tea and informal chitchat, I made my request as politely as I could, explaining that the world would be waiting to hear from the great man, and promising to communicate his sentiments worldwide on the AP wires. Kopelev refused to budge. “Solzhenitsyn needs and deserves his privacy,” he said, with some justification. But he did agree to be the intermediary for carrying the news to Solzhenitsyn if he won. This seemed a fair deal, given the risks.

Access to the AP teleprinter in my office meant that I would have the news the moment it was announced. If the news was good, I agreed that I would ring Lev, and he would ring Solzhenitsyn. I would get nothing from the arrangement other than the satisfaction of being the messenger.

A week later, I was on duty at the AP when the teleprinter came alive, bells ringing, with a one-paragraph bulletin from our Stockholm office quoting the Swedish Academy as awarding the prize to Solzhenitsyn. I let out an involuntary whoop. Before the paragraph had finished printing I was on the phone to Lev, who received the news with an even greater whoop. He immediately relayed the news to Solzhenitsyn by phone but I was still none the wiser as to his whereabouts.

The award of the prize would change many lives in Russia and abroad, and would further show up the regime of Leonid Brezhnev as fearful of dissent, free thinking and the power of the written word.

With no further help from Lev, I set about contacting Russian acquaintances who might have an inkling of Solzhenitsyn’s whereabouts. He was known to have spent many years in Ryazan, a few miles south of Moscow, but recently had lived with various friends in and around the capital. He could have been almost anywhere. Moscow was then a city of 6 million.

I tried to be smart about this search. I invited Chicago Tribune correspondent Frank Starr to join me the next morning and we set off for Peredelkino, the town with a name that always reminds me of the sound of Russian church bells. Peredelkino was an obvious place to look — it is the writers’ community 30 miles outside of Moscow. We knew that he had been sheltered from time to time by Lydia Chukovskaya, a writer friend who lived there. But most of the larger properties in the village were controlled by the Writers’ Union, the organization that protected well-behaved writers, those who practiced some form of state-mandated Socialist Realism.

There was no response at the Chukovskaya front door and so at random we tramped through the mud and knocked on other doors around the village, including the Writers’ Union office. Nobody was willing to admit knowing anything. Eventually we found ourselves walking through Pasternak’s gate and up the steps of his big, wooden house. I rapped on the door. Pasternak had long since died, but the house will always be known as his residence. It is now a Pasternak museum.

Stanislav Neuhaus came to the door and was most pleasant, a rare treat for uninvited foreigners. He ushered us in and we chatted for half an hour. Stanislav was the son of Heinrich Neuhaus, the late Russian pianist and teacher. Neuhaus junior, who was Pasternak’s stepson, had been practicing for a recital he was scheduled to give that evening in Moscow.

He didn’t know where Solzhenitsyn was camping, he said, but he talked a bit about Pasternak, and we were happy to listen. Living there was like inhabiting a holy place, Neuhaus said. This was the house where Pasternak had written his best works but he also cowered in fear of the night-time stomp of police boots and a knock at the door to take him away to be shot, as had happened to so many of his writer and artist friends.

Nobody knows quite why Stalin left Pasternak alone, Neuhaus said. He was allowed to write his poetry and even Doctor Zhivago in relative freedom but with few exceptions was not authorized to publish.

After an interesting but unsuccessful day, Starr and I returned to our wives in Moscow.

The next day, still burning with desire to find Solzhenitsyn, I followed up some new speculation confided to me by a cellist acquaintance, Natalya Gutman, a protégée of the cellist Mstislav Rostropovich. She told me she had heard that Solzhenitsyn was spending a lot of time at Rostropovich’s dacha in Zhukovka, a cluster of comfortable homes where some of the scientific and artistic elite lived, about 30 minutes from Moscow. “He and might be there now,” she said.

This was what hungry journalists would call a hot tip. On Day 2 of the search an Italian colleague, Pietro Sormani of Corriere della Sera, and a Swiss journalist, Roger Bernheim of Neue Zurcher Zeitung, joined me in the hunt. We drove straight through the icy fog to Zhukovka early in the morning, ignoring the 30-mile restriction of foreigners’ travel that was in force at the time. The police did not bother us.

We quickly found our way to Dmitri Shostakovich’s house, the first landmark Ms. Gutman had indicated, and there we were flagged down by a short, stout policewoman. Bluffing our way through her questions, we asked outright where Rostropovich’s dacha was. Surprisingly, she gave us directions in the most clear and courteous manner. We had been prepared for a worst-case outcome – a reprimand or possible arrest for running around loose in a state-run complex without authorization.

We followed the rambling pathways and eventually came upon the cellist’s dacha. It reminded me of the big wooden farm houses in Indiana where I grew up. We cautiously climbed the steps, snow squeaking underfoot, our teeth chattering and knees knocking from the chill and the excitement. It was mid-winter under the usual leaden skies.

I could see off to the side of the property a handsome concert hall under construction. Work had been suspended till spring. Clean, sharp-edged bricks were scattered around the site. Such high-quality materials were rare in Russia and we recognized these as probable German imports. Only elite properties could expect clearance for such materials.
A lone birch tree, covered in frost, was struggling to survive on the front lawn. Nothing stirred.

I knocked at the door, expecting Rostropovich or his wife Galina Vishnevskaya, the operatic diva, to appear. A housemaid answered the door promptly. She was a heavy woman in her 50s, missing most of her teeth, a scarf over her hair and an apron over her sweater and woolen skirt. She looked like she needed a bath and she spoke in a heavy provincial accent. I asked to see Rostropovich, and she replied matter-of-factly, “Khozyain za rubezhom.” (“The master is abroad.”)

I then inquired whether Alexander Solzhenitsyn was living there. “I have never heard the name,” she said, “but there’s a man with a beard living in the garage over there,” pointing to the outbuilding across the property. Hmmm, we thought. A beard. Could it be him?

We thanked the maid and set out across the snow-covered lawn to the garage. More imported building materials and a cement mixer littered the driveway. I approached the door and knocked a few times. When no one responded, I called out “Alexander Isayevich?”. A pause of a few seconds ensued, then came a piercing voice, none too inviting, “Kto eto?” (“Who’s there?”) I replied that we were foreign journalists from Moscow who had come to congratulate him on his Nobel Prize.

The door burst open and we were transfixed by this little man with a magnificent head of reddish hair that spread down his face into a bushy beard. He gave us the once over with his beady blue eyes. We recognized him immediately from photographs as the author of a series of literary masterpieces, all banned in Russia. When he was satisfied in his own mind that we were not KGB operatives in disguise, he confirmed his identity.

Solzhenitsyn spoke rapidly, like a man with a lot on his mind, in a strange, high-pitched voice. I started by asking him for his reaction to being selected for the Nobel (probably some inane question such as “How does it feel?”). He avoided the question, perhaps dreading headlines around the world that might make his situation even more difficult.

He replied that he regretted he could not invite us into his humble quarters because he was a guest himself in the apartment owned by Rostropovich. It seemed like a poor excuse to turn us away but we understood the real reason.

We could see inside that he was housed in a partially completed apartment being constructed inside the garage. The danger that this represented for Rostropovich — harboring an outspoken critic of the regime — was not lost upon us. Both of these men were heroic figures willing to risk their liberty, perhaps their lives, to speak out for human rights in Russia. Since 1966, when a show trial sentenced two writers to hard labor in the gulag, most Soviet intellectuals had kept their liberal views to themselves.

The conversation that followed was brief and to the point. Solzhenitsyn confirmed that he knew about the prize but felt he could not comment on it because his host was away.

Although he had by then considerable experience with the West, he seemed doubtful about our motives and probably wondered about our common sense. He was obviously not prepared for our questions. He said he had made no decision about whether to accept the prize or to do as Pasternak had done: reject it. And he repeated how much he regretted that we could not be invited in for tea. He was talking in circles.

I told him we fully understood, and did not intend to bother him further, and with that we wished him the best of luck and departed.

As we made our way back to my car, I stopped to take a photo of the garage with the trembling birch tree, a fitting symbol for the events we were witnessing, in the foreground. It was published internationally along with the story confirming that Solzhenitsyn had not yet been bothered by the authorities and was sheltered by his friend Rostropovich. I threw in a couple of quotes, hoping the reader would grasp how restrained Solzhenitsyn was acting, and why.

Indeed, the consequences for harboring Solzhenitsyn were terrible for the cellist and his wife. Both were eventually forbidden to travel abroad, and Rostropovich was even blocked from performing in public at home. He recalled later, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, stopping in a doorway in central Moscow and bursting into tears as he realized what the regime was doing to him. His wife writes movingly in her autobiographyGalina of their friendship with Solzhenitsyn and their commitment to supporting him.

Solzhenitsyn accepted the Nobel award via the Norwegians but was refused access to the Swedish embassy in Moscow. Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, known for his extreme timidity, declined to offer his support despite his own Academy granting the award. Solzhenitsyn would eventually learn to live with the West’s contradictions. Later he would be refused an audience with U.S. President Gerald Ford, who also feared poking a stick at the Russian bear.

In three years that followed, under scrutiny from the police, Solzhenitsyn continued his prolific literary output, and, lacking permission to publish at home, spirited his work to foreign countries. In his 1977 book Invisible Allies he praised Jim Peipert, Steve Broening and Roger Leddington, my colleagues and successors in the AP office, for helping him move his archives abroad, using small bundles or, in one case instance, hiding pages of typescript in their shoes.

He later decided to go public by meeting foreign correspondents. He granted a joint interview to Robert Kaiser of The Washington Post and Hedrick Smith of The New York Times. He later recalled that their questions, such as “Do you know (the sometimes-liberal poet) Yevtushenko?” were of “surpassing triviality.”

Many other avenues were explored successfully, including diplomatic channels. The U.S. embassy had also kept its distance from Solzhenitsyn while trying to negotiate what we used to call “détente”. But when a friendly Soviet intermediary handed the American military attaché a full manuscript of a new Solzhenitsyn book, the attaché asked for a top-level meeting in the embassy’s tank, the one secure room that was regularly swept for KGB listening devices. The attaché recalled for me recently how he argued for an official okay to stuff the manuscript in with his furniture he was then packing for his imminent return to Washington. “The ambassador stopped me right there,” the attaché said. “‘Just don’t tell me about it.’” The manuscript was secreted in the container and a few weeks later crossed the border safely.

The shipment was delayed for two months in transit, however, leading to great personal anxiety on the attaché’s part. “Was I going down in history as the man who lost Solzhenitsyn’s next book?” he remembers worrying. Finally it did arrive, though, and the manuscript was quickly extricated and forwarded to Solzhenitsyn’s New York publishing contact. Exactly what was in the package remains a mystery but several months later the three volumes of Solzhenitsyn’s historic study of the gulag network of Soviet labor began to appear.

Some time later I attended a Rostropovich concert in Moscow and happened to sit a few rows behind Lev Kopelev. At the end of the concert I approached him and extended my hand. He abruptly turned away, probably concerned that KGB eyes were upon him. Familiarity with a Western correspondent in public could only complicate his life.

Within a couple of years, both Solzhenitsyn and Rostropovich were expelled from the country and deprived of their Soviet citizenship. The Kremlin’s hope was that they would be lost in a sea of chaotic free expression in London, Paris or New York, never to surface again.

Instead, both went to the United States where they were welcomed as the great men they were. Rostropovich became conductor of the National Symphony Orchestra in Washington and Solzhenitsyn built himself a splendid house in the state of Vermont – the closest climate he could find to Russia’s, and continued writing his great Red Wheel cycle on the origins of the Soviet Union.

They both returned to Moscow after the breakup of the USSR in the 1990s, Solzhenitsyn continuing his prolific output and Rostropovich making music again, almost as if nothing had happened.

Posted first on the Open Letters Monthly, posted here with the authors and the Open Letters' kind permission.

An earlier version of this memoir-in-progress appeared on Facts & Arts - click here.



Sketch of Solzhenitsyn by the author Michael Johnson:

1

 


This article is brought to you by the author who owns the copyright to the text.

Should you want to support the author’s creative work you can use the PayPal “Donate” button below.

Your donation is a transaction between you and the author. The proceeds go directly to the author’s PayPal account in full less PayPal’s commission.

Facts & Arts neither receives information about you, nor of your donation, nor does Facts & Arts receive a commission.

Facts & Arts does not pay the author, nor takes paid by the author, for the posting of the author's material on Facts & Arts. Facts & Arts finances its operations by selling advertising space.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Essays

Jun 17th 2019
Extract: "ust as an earlier generation resisted the limiting post-War era "white middle class" definition of being American by giving birth to an awakening of cultural pluralism and ethnic pride, it falls to our generation to fight for an expanded view of the idea of being American that rejects the narrow view projected by Trump and white nationalists. The idea of America isn't theirs. It's bigger than they are and unless our national cohesion is to unravel, this challenge must be met by projecting an inclusive vision of America that celebrates our inclusive national identity in an increasingly globalized world."
May 28th 2019
Whatever other attributes Homo sapiens may have – and much is made of our opposable thumbs, upright walking and big brains – our capacity to impact the environment far and wide is perhaps unprecedented in all of life’s history. If nothing else, we humans can make an almighty mess.
Apr 29th 2019
A century ago, unspeakable horrors took place on every continent that were known only to the victims and the perpetrators. Not so today. As a result of advances in communications – from the telegraph and radio to satellite television and the internet – the pain and loss of global tragedies are brought home to us in real time.   Because of this expanding consciousness, the post-World War II era has witnessed the rise of visionary leaders and the birth of countless organizations dedicated to alleviating suffering and elevating the causes of peace, human rights, and tolerance among peoples. Individually and collectively, they have championed the rights of peoples in far-flung corners of the world, some of which had been previously unknown to those who became their advocates. These same leaders and groups have also fought for civil rights and for economic, social, political, and environmental justice in their own countries. 
Apr 23rd 2019

 

“Cursed be that mortal inter-indebtedness which will not do away with ledgers. I would be free as air; and I’m down in the whole world’s books. I am so rich… and yet I owe for the flesh in the tongue I brag with” (Moby Dick, chapter cviii). 

Apr 20th 2019
Economists speak in numbers only, clinging to statistical data and quantitative models. We do so in the hope of looking objective. But this is counter-productive – “data” cannot tell us everything. Other social sciences such as sociology and anthropology use a broader range of methods, and consequently have a broader perspective on society. If we take our societal role of adviser on economic matters seriously, we will need to open up and adopt the insights that these other disciplines bring us about how the economy works.Politics and economics are inextricably intertwined, as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx knew all too well. Somehow this has been forgotten. This does not mean economists need to get political or choose sides. But it does mean that we ignore politics at our own peril – by blindsiding ourselves or dismissing it as “external stuff”, we hamper our understanding of the very system we study.
Apr 16th 2019
Although it is not likely that many visitors who pass by the Giacometti sculptures on their way to Las Meninas will ponder it, the contrast between these works underscores the single greatest transformation in the history of western art, from a regime in which artists tailored their works to the aims of individual patrons, to one in which artists choose their techniques and motifs according to their own concerns, and only then present the products to an anonymous competitive market
Apr 4th 2019
On March eleventh, the world lost someone who was very special, who made a mark and touched people with his voice, as a singer, a humorist and writer..........I had the great good fortune to know him and spend time with him, playing music, talking with him – he was a man of immense culture, fluent in Hebrew, German, English, and Romanian. He loved New York City and Vienna and we would often swap apartments so that he could stay in New York while I lived at his place in Vienna.
Apr 1st 2019
The ongoing controversy over admissions to American universities has overlooked the one of the most telling aspects of the scandal—that it took place with the connivance and active participation of administrative bureaucracies able to act with impunity in the pursuit of their interests. Neither the professoriate, often the target of opprobrium from the left and the right, nor the student body, also the target of criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, bore any of the responsibility.  Current debates over “what ails” U.S. colleges and universities consistently ignore the single most important dynamic of all institutions—their structure of power. I suggest that the way in which power is allocated within American universities is strikingly similar to that of Soviet-type regimes. Presidents, chancellors, provosts, deans, and their bureaucratic apparatuses preside over vast real-estate and financial holdings, engage in the economic equivalent of central planning, have inordinate influence over personnel, and are structured hierarchically, thereby forming an enormously powerful “new class” like that described by the renowned Yugoslav dissident, Milovan Djilas, in the mid-1950s. 
Mar 22nd 2019
When you think of religion, you probably think of a god who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. But the idea of morally concerned gods is by no means universal. Social scientists have long known that small-scale traditional societies – the kind missionaries used to dismiss as “pagan” – envisaged a spirit world that cared little about the morality of human behaviour. Their concern was less about whether humans behaved nicely towards one another and more about whether they carried out their obligations to the spirits and displayed suitable deference to them. Nevertheless, the world religions we know today, and their myriad variants, either demand belief in all-seeing punitive deities or at least postulate some kind of broader mechanism – such as karma – for rewarding the virtuous and punishing the wicked. In recent years, researchers have debated how and why these moralising religions came into being.
Mar 19th 2019
European food and ingredients have become staple food choices for the British. The use of ingredients such as garlic, peppers, avocados, Parmesan cheese and all those other European ingredients that are now taken for granted are relatively new and were still rare in the 1990s. When I was growing up in rural Devon in the 1970s, olive oil was only really readily available in chemists as a cure for earache – now it is found in most food cupboards. And wine drinking has permeated through all social classes.
Mar 12th 2019
The Guggenheim’s strange and wonderful exhibition of Hilma af Klint’s groundbreaking, yet largely unknown body of abstract art is an important event – one that challenges us to not only rethink the early history of twentieth century abstract art, but to recognize her vision of art and reality as unique, authentic, and deliciously puzzling. 
Feb 25th 2019
Looking at the world today, it's clear that the consequences of this imperial legacy are still with us. If anything has changed it is that we are now beyond just viewing the former "natives" as far-away oddities. They are now living within our borders, having come to find the opportunities they were denied at home. So when I hear the reactions in the West to the influx of South Asians going to the UK, or North Africans going to France, or Central Americans migrating to the US, I can only say "Guys, these are the fruits of your conquest – your chickens coming home to roost."
Feb 25th 2019
Extracts: "The new novel Sérotonine by Michel Houellebecq, the bad boy of French literature, is a saga of depression and death told with such irony and wit that readers seem to love it despite the unsettling themes. Maybe it’s just me but I found myself laughing out loud.......True to form, the French don’t agree on Houellebecq – or anything else, for that matter. The impact of his new novel has divided the readers into opposite love-hate camps with hardly any middle ground. Houellebecq cannot leave you indifferent, notes a literary friend of mine"........Picture: Michel Houellebecq, by the reviewer Michael Johnson. 
Feb 19th 2019
The term “smiling depression” – appearing happy to others while internally suffering depressive symptoms – has become increasingly popular. Articles on the topic have crept up in the popular literature, and the number of Google searches for the condition has increased dramatically this year. Some may question, however, whether this is actually a real, pathological condition. While smiling depression is not a technical term that psychologists use, it is certainly possible to be depressed and manage to successfully mask the symptoms. The closest technical term for this condition is “atypical depression”. In fact, a significant proportion of people who experience a low mood and a loss of pleasure in activities manage to hide their condition in this way. And these people might be particularly vulnerable to suicide.
Feb 19th 2019
Outstanding, experienced journalist Michael Johnson, whose articles, often accompanied by his striking portraits, has now brought his love of music and of pen, ink, gouache and watercolor to create a study of remarkable insight, strong opinions and beauty in this gorgeous book. Written in both French and English the brief descriptions of musicians he has met, studied, interviewed are accompanied by distinctive portraits that, as his title suggests, some may be caricatures. I argue that the author/artist has created insightful studies of the human face engaged in the pursuit of music. The only caricature is his own self-deprecating, slyly wry self-portrait that opens the book—and it is worth the book’s purchase on its own. 
Feb 15th 2019
Only 9% of the overall population in the UK are privately educated, but they occupy an especially high proportion when it comes to positions of public influence: a third of MPs and top business executives, half of cabinet members and newspaper editors, three-quarters of judges....
Feb 12th 2019
There is a fascinating chapter toward the end of Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America titled “What Kind of Despotism Do Democratic Nations Have to Fear?” in which the author attempted something truly extraordinary – to describe a social condition which humankind had never before encountered. We find him trying to put his finger on something which does not yet exist, but which – in his extraordinary political imagination – he was able to foresee with startling clarity.............. we must recognize that Facebook, Google, and Amazon are the new leviathans. In serving users only those posts with which they will agree,  
Feb 8th 2019
Few modern cities can boast that a herd of Longhorn cattle has been driven along its main streets. But San Antonio can: each February, in a tribute to the past, the city plays host to a cattle drive.
Feb 5th 2019
Extract: "Most drugs are made to target “bulk” cancer cells, but not the root cause: the cancer stem cell. Cancer stem cells, also known as “tumour-initiating cells”, are the only cells in the tumour that can make a new tumour. New therapies that specifically target and eradicate these cancer stem cells are needed to prevent tumours growing and spreading, but for that there needs to be more clarity around the target. Our new research may have discovered such a target. We have identified and isolated cells within different cancerous growths which we call the “cell of origin”. Our experiments on cancer cells derived from a human breast tumour found that stem cells – representing 0.2% of the cancer cell population – have special characteristics."
Jan 31st 2019
For most people, teeth cleaning may just be a normal part of your daily routine. But what if the way you clean your teeth today, might affect your chances of getting Alzheimer’s disease in years to come? There is an increasing body of evidence to indicate that gum (periodontal) disease could be a plausible risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. Some studies even suggest your risk doubles when gum disease persists for ten or more years. Indeed, a new US study published in Science Advances details how a type of bacteria called Porphyromonas gingivalis – or P. gingivalis – which is associated with gum disease, has been found in the brains of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Tests on mice also showed how the bug spread from their mouth to brain where it destroyed nerve cells.