Latest news with #BruceLevine
Yahoo
22-06-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Cubs Expected to Activate Shota Imanaga Off Injured List During Cardinals Series
Cubs Expected to Activate Shota Imanaga Off Injured List During Cardinals Series originally appeared on Athlon Sports. A report was released at the end of the week for the Chicago Cubs, presenting a very optimistic view of Shota Imanaga's recovery progress. But the update was still uncertain, and he had a final rehab start to get through. Fortunately, the rehab stint went well, and now, even better news came out for the Cubs ace. Advertisement According to Bruce Levine of 670 The Score, the Cubs are expected to activate Imanaga off the injured list during the series against the St. Louis Cardinals. While there is no specific date set, this is still great news for the Cubs, as the return of Imanaga is all but confirmed. Previously, there was speculation over Imanaga being ready for the Cardinals series, but this new report confirms that speculation in clear terms. Having a confirmed timeline for Imanaga to be back is huge, as the Cubs need more starting pitching, and Imanaga is their best one. When the Cubs lost Justin Steele for the year and saw Javier Assad suffer a setback during his rehab, there was not a lot of optimism in the starting rotation. Once Imanaga went out, things were even worse. Chicago Cubs pitcher Shota Imanaga (18) delivers a pitch against the Milwaukee Brewers in the first inning at American Family McLoone-Imagn Images But Matthew Boyd, Jameson Taillon, and others stepped up for the Cubs and put together solid outings to keep the Cubs in first place in the NL Central. They kept the ship afloat, and in front, and now the Cubs are getting their ace back with a little over a month to go until the MLB trade deadline. Advertisement Before being sidelined with a hamstring injury, Imanaga posted a 3-2 record with a 2.82 ERA and 34 strikeouts over eight starts. He was pitching like one of the best pitchers in baseball once again before the injury. Now, for the first time since May 4th, the Cubs are getting their best pitcher back on the mound. His return is much-needed, as Ben Brown has struggled lately, and the Cubs are feeling the heat from the Milwaukee Brewers and Cardinals in a tightly contested NL Central division. Related: Pete Crow-Armstrong Breaks Silence on Possible Cubs Extension Related: Cubs Get Great Shota Imanaga News Amid Return From Injury This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 21, 2025, where it first appeared.
Gizmodo
22-06-2025
- Health
- Gizmodo
When Will Genetically Modifying Our Children Go Mainstream?
In late May, several scientific organizations, including the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), banded together to call for a 10-year moratorium on using CRISPR and related technologies to pursue human heritable germline editing. The declaration also outlined practical steps that countries and research institutions could take to discourage this sort of experimentation, such as strengthening regulations tied to gene editing. 'Germline editing has very serious safety concerns that could have irreversible consequences,' said Bruce Levine, a cancer gene therapy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and former president of the ISCT, in a statement. 'We simply lack the tools to make it safe now and for at least the next 10 years.' Newer technologies such as CRISPR have made gene editing easier, cheaper, and more practical to carry out in a variety of species, humans included. That reality has made heritable germline editing—altering egg, sperm, and embryos such that they can be passed down to offspring—more feasible than ever. In November 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui thrust this issue into the limelight when he announced that his team modified the genes of several human embryos using CRISPR, then implanted them successfully in women volunteers. Eventually three children were born with the modifications, intended to confer natural immunity to HIV infection. He deliberately flouted ethical guidelines and the law in his research, such as doctoring lab results so that HIV-positive men could father the children (according to He, the children were born without HIV and appeared to have avoided any related health issues). He's experiments were roundly condemned by the scientific community and he ultimately served a three-year prison term for his actions, which ended in 2022. Upon release, He went back to working in the gene-editing field, though he promised to abide by domestic and international rules. The episode showed that human heritable germline editing is already clearly possible today, but not necessarily ethical to carry out. Indeed, many scientists and bioethicists believe we're not ready to go down that path just yet. For this Giz Asks, we reached out to several bioethicists to get their take on the moratorium, and more broadly, on the question of when we should be able to genetically modify children, if ever. Founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine's Department of Population Health. I've been thinking about that question for well over 40 years. We didn't always have the technology to go in and modify genes in an egg, sperm, embryo, or fetus for that matter. But it's certainly the case that people have been thinking hard about trying to genetically alter and improve children, probably back to the Greeks. We know that in modern times, Nazi Germany was home to race hygiene theory and a form of eugenics; they would have been very interested in creating better babies. They did have the Lebensborn Program where they tried to force women and men that they deemed especially genetically fit to breed and have kids. It's not really clear whatever happened to those kids. But it's a form, if you will, of trying to get the right genes into your offspring and get them passed along into the future. They practiced that. And we had versions of that in the U.S., believe it or not. We actually had awards given at state fairs to families that were seen as eugenically the best and trying to encourage those families to have bigger families. That's an idea that's still rattling around today, by the way, in the mouths of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, etc. Many in the current Trump administration are very concerned about minorities becoming the majority in the U.S. In any event, these are old fashioned ideas, often fueled by dreams of eugenics, shifting the population in the future toward healthier, more competent, more physically able people, trying to get people of the right race or ethnicity so that the society's makeup is proper. They don't rely on engineering a gene. There's no CRISPR. There's nobody going in there and trying to penetrate the cell wall to insert genetic information. But those are just new ways to think about ideas that have been around for a long time. So if you ask me, will we see genetic engineering of children aimed at their improvement? I say yes, undoubtedly. Now when? I'm not sure what the answer to that is. Right now, we have some crude tools. We are seeing some efforts to use gene therapy in kids to repair diseases of their bodies, not things that would be inherited. They work a bit, but I wouldn't say we're really at the sort of utopia of being able to reliably get rid of in a person or a child, sickle cell or other major diseases. The tools, despite a lot of hype and a lot of maybe press release journalism, are not quite there yet to really say we can even do a good job repairing disease in an existing kid. So when it comes to trying to use tools to modify an embryo, I'm going to say flat out we're at least 10 years away from that in any serious way that could be considered safe, targeted, and likely to produce the outcome you want. So the big restriction now is safety. I think we'll get past safety, but it is a reason right now not to do anything. Now, what else might become an objection if we did have accurate, sophisticated tools? I think the first is access. If you make better kids, but only some people can afford it, that wouldn't be fair. And that in itself would be unjust. And you might wind up creating two classes or more of humans on Earth, the genetically engineered superior people and others. And this obviously is a theme all over science fiction. Old-timers will remember the Wrath of Khan from Star Trek for their take on what happens when you get a super genetically engineered race. There's Gattaca, another movie that explored this. But I'm going to say this somewhat controversially. Fairness in access never stopped a technology from going forward. When the rich and the middle class want it, they're not stopped by the fact that the poor can't get it. I would like to see provisions made to say we shouldn't move forward unless those technologies are available to those who want them regardless of cost. But I don't think that's going to happen. It's just never happened. So access is an issue, but I don't think it's a game-breaker for improving your kids. People also say, well, how will we improve? I mean, what's the best state? We can't agree on that. So will we really improve kids? There may be things we disagree about as to whether they're really improvements. Would it be an improvement to diminish pigment in black people? Try and make them less dark. We can certainly see that argued. There are plenty in the deaf community who say, well, deafness is not really something you have to get rid of or try to improve by genetically engineering hearing to make it better. They can get around the world deaf using a different language and different institutions. But there are clearly things that it would be nice to genetically improve in kids. Immunity would be great. We do it now with vaccines. It would be great to find the right genes, tweak them, and build stronger immune systems. It would be great to make sure that we try our best to diminish the extreme pain, that some of us suffer not just as disease, but with respect to certain stimuli. I'm not saying we should genetically eliminate all pain. That would probably put us in danger, but we don't quite have to suffer the way we do. My point being, the fact that we don't agree on everything as to what would be an improvement doesn't mean that we can't agree on anything. The last thing I'll say is this. When you try to make better kids, I think one last concern is: Are you going to make the children have less options rather than more? So if I considered it an improvement in a child to make them a giant, or to make them a tennis player, or to try and figure out perhaps some weird appearance that would make them a celebrity, I'm condemning the child to my choice. They don't have the freedom to run their own life. They don't have the ability to choose what they want to do. I tighten down their future by narrowing the kinds of traits they have. That, I think, is a legitimate objection. We have to think hard about that. Many of the things we do environmentally, learn to read better, learn to do exercise, learn to play games, these are skills that expand capacities in our children, and may in fact be values that are then passed on to future generations. But they don't wind up creating kids who are less capable because of those interventions. That's where genetic change has to be watched very closely. So the bottom line of this gigantic speech is yes, we will see genetic modification of our children. It will come. There are traits that people will eagerly try to put into their kids in the future. They will try to design out genetic diseases, get rid of them. They will try to build in capacities and abilities that they agree are really wonderful. Will we hang up these interventions on ethical grounds? For the most part, no, would be my prediction, But not within the next 10 years. The tools are still too crude. Associate professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University's School of Medicine There are children with genetic modifications walking around today, children like KJ, who was treated with personalized CRISPR gene editing at just six months old. There are now kids who are free of sickle cell disease symptoms through CRISPR therapy, the first one ever approved by the FDA. All of these children are 'genetically modified,' and they and their parents couldn't be happier about it. What other conditions could and should be treated through genetic modifications? That's a question that scientists are actively working on, and that social scientists like me are talking about with patients, parents, and communities—because we and they think it's really important for them to be part of those decisions. These 'somatic' gene editing treatments that are already being used aren't the kind that is passed down through our reproductive cells, the germline. Heritable gene modification would involve embryos, eggs, or sperm, or even possibly other cells that could be turned into these kinds of cells. A technology currently being researched, called in vitro gametogenesis, could use gene editing to turn skin cells into reproductive cells, allowing families with infertility to have their own genetically related children. And of course, there are scientists looking at the possibility of editing reproductive cells to allow couples who carry the genes for severe diseases to conceive children without those conditions. Many ethicists and scientists have drawn a hard line between heritable and non-heritable gene editing, but in practice it's not nearly so clear-cut. Off-target effects of gene editing are difficult to predict or control, so there is a chance that reproductive cells could be changed by treatments aimed at other organ systems. Fetal gene editing, which could help babies with some conditions be born with few or no symptoms, will also involve the pregnant bodies of their mothers; those adults could host edited cells even after the pregnancy ends, possibly affecting their future children too. Families dealing with genetic conditions that cause great suffering for their children don't necessarily see a problem with eliminating those conditions forever with heritable gene editing. On the other hand, some people living with genetic conditions, such as deafness or autism, see no reason for treating their condition with gene editing, heritable or not, because their biggest problems come not from the condition itself but from the way society treats them. So there are many questions to be asked about all forms of genetic modification, and how they will be developed and implemented. All the gene editing treatments that exist now or are being imagined over the next decade, heritable or not, involve exorbitant cost and will be inaccessible to most people worldwide. It will be crucial to balance the excitement of these novel technologies with attention to questions of justice, developing new treatments with an eye toward both accessibility and the priorities of those most affected. The only way to do this is to bring more voices into conversation with one another: people living with genetic conditions, scientists and doctors, policymakers of all kinds, and members of the public. Although gene editing is an amazing tool to add to our kit, the work of building more robust healthcare and support for families carrying or living with genetic conditions doesn't begin or end with genetic modification. Bioethicist, sociologist, and executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Yes we should, when it's safe, effective, and voluntary. Calls to permanently ban the creation of genetically modified children often rest on fear, not facts. They mirror past moral panics over interracial marriage, in vitro fertilization, and birth control—all technologies or choices once deemed unnatural or dangerous, and now widely accepted. We should be wary of arguments dressed up as ethics but rooted in anxiety about change. That doesn't mean anything goes. Like any powerful technology, gene editing must be tightly regulated for safety and efficacy. But the agencies we already trust to regulate medicine—the FDA, NIH, and institutional review boards—are largely capable of doing that. We don't need a bioethics priesthood or a new bureaucracy to police reproductive decisions. We need science-based oversight, individual consent, and protection from coercion. One of the loudest objections to genetic editing is the specter of 'eugenics.' But if eugenics means state control over reproduction, then the lesson of the 20th century is to defend reproductive freedom, not curtail it. Governments should not tell parents what kinds of kids to have. Preventing parents from using safe, approved gene therapies to reduce suffering or enhance their children's lives is a strange way to honor that lesson. They should give parents access to all the information and technology for the choices they make. True reproductive liberty includes the right to use the best science available to ensure a child's health. Another objection is that genetic modification could harm people who would rather not participate. But this 'perfection anxiety' ignores how all medical advances shift social norms. We didn't stop improving dental care because it made bad teeth less acceptable. And a healthier society has not led to less compassion for those who remain sick or disabled—if anything, it's strengthened the case for inclusion and support. The goal should be equitable access, not frozen norms. We do need to ensure that parents can access all the gene therapies that actually provide potential benefits for children. Governments with universal healthcare will need to make tough choices about what to cover and what not to cover. For instance, the National Health Service should make gene therapy to remove lethal, painful conditions available for all Britons, but parents may need to pay for medical tourism to some offshore clinic if they want to tweak their embryo's eye color. What about risks we can't foresee? Of course there will be some. All new medical therapies come with uncertainties. That's why we have trials, regulation, and post-market surveillance. There's no reason genetic therapies should be held to an impossibly higher standard. We should start with animal models, and proceed to the most morally defensible gene tweaks, lethal and painful conditions. Over time, as the safety of the techniques are better understood, we can expand the scope of therapeutic choices. Some worry that genetically modified children could disrupt our ideas of family or humanity. But those concepts have already been revolutionized—by urbanization, feminism, economic precarity, and social movements. The family of today would be unrecognizable to most people in 1800. If genetic technologies change our values again, it won't be the first time. Liberal democracies don't freeze culture in place—they ensure people have the freedom to shape it. Ultimately, the question isn't whether we should allow genetically modified children. It's whether we trust parents to make mostly good choices under the oversight of regulators and doctors. We should, because most parents have their children's best interests in mind, as they perceive them. That's why we allow parents to raise their own children in the first place. And we should ensure those choices are equitably available to all, not outlawed out of fear. If we ever find genetic tweaks to reduce suffering, enhance capability, or prevent devastating disease—and we can do so safely and ethically—the real moral failure would be to prohibit it. A Canadian bioethicist and environmentalist currently teaching at the University of Toronto. Well, there's a big difference between genetic enhancement and treatment. And with enhancement, I think we're nowhere near a point where we should be even considering that. But with treatment, the large ethical issue right now is something like single gene mutation. So something like Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy, or similar diseases, could it be justified to edit the gene for that? The challenge is we don't fully understand all the things. We don't know what we don't know, to put it bluntly. And with germline editing, the changes we would be making are permanent and they run through many generations ahead. So, yes, being able to prevent deadly or debilitating illnesses is absolutely something wonderful. But having said that, you obviously don't have consent of the person who will be born, but you also don't have consent of the generations that come after that. And if there is complications or unexpected problems, you can have an inheritance that just keeps running through generations. But here's the thing with this moratorium; to what end? You can call for a moratorium, but if no one's focusing on anything, if there's no research, no planning, no social discourse, there's just a lot of people with different opinions, and everything gets shelved for 10 years. I'm not sure that's going to be particularly useful. It sounds great if it's going to be 10 concentrated years on building consensus and public engagement and those types of things, but I don't think that's what would actually happen. And also, I'm sure you've noticed, the world's not in good shape, and Western culture is not of one mind these days. And with the ruptures, particularly in the United States, there's a lot of division in Western culture of how people see things. And I'm just not convinced that a moratorium, that people would make use of it in a constructive way. It really needs a coordinated plan, and I'm not sure there is one. So I do see that as quite a problem. The other thing is, we're dealing with high-income countries. So when we look at potential for CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing, we're dealing with a very small percentage of the world's population. I'm going to guess that it's maybe 15% to 20% of the world's population, because most of the population of the world has no access to things like this and never will. Not never will, but in the foreseeable future, they won't. And I think that's something we miss a lot of the time. And the biggest ethical problem in the world today is not gene editing. It's just access to healthcare. And this doesn't do anything in those domains whatsoever. So from a justice point of view, that is a concern. And I'm going to sound cynical here. Emerging medical technologies are not motivated largely by the social sector. They're motivated by marketing and market forces. So if people can make money on this, somehow, someway, people will proceed. And if gene editing is illegal in Canada and the U.S. and Western Europe and Australia, there's a lot of countries that don't fall into that. And you can set up shop anywhere. Equatorial Guinea or other places are not going to be worried about things like this. They've got enough problems on their hands. And there's a lot of countries out there where this would not be easily called. So I support the essence of it. And I can see why people want to do it. I'm just not convinced it's all that feasible. I think what makes more sense is just not having any germline editing until we have a larger consensus about this technology.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Wrigley Field to reportedly earn 2027 MLB-All Star Game, Chicago Cubs say no decision made yet
It's been 35 years since Wrigley Field was home to the Midsummer Classic, and signs are pointing to it returning to Chicago in the near future. What they're saying Marquee Sports MLB insider Bruce Levine reported the Cubs will be awarded the MLB All-Star Game in 2027. Advertisement FOX 32 Chicago reached out to the Cubs, and the team said no decision has been made. Dig deeper While it's not official, security concerns have been alleviated as Wrigley Field is reportedly overhauling its security. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that a plan with a $30 million cost – to be shared by the state, the city and the Cubs – was shared Wednesday, which will resolve any ongoing issues about ballpark security. This would give Major League Baseball the green light to return to the Friendly Confines. The streets around the park would likely need to be closed down in order to host the game. Atlanta is hosting the midsummer classic this year, followed by Philadelphia in 20-26.
Chicago Tribune
23-05-2025
- Sport
- Chicago Tribune
Chicago Cubs deny report that All-Star Game is headed to Wrigley Field in 2027: ‘No decision has been made'
The Chicago Cubs denied a report from their flagship radio station that the 2027 All-Star Game was coming to Wrigley Field, telling the Tribune 'no decision has been made.' WSCR-AM 670 reported Thursday that MLB has awarded the game to the Cubs, who have long sought the big event since a massive ballpark renovation in the 2010s. MLB tends to make its All-Star Game announcements at a mutually acceptable date to the club to get maximum publicity for its TV networks and corporate sponsors, so speculation that the decision has been made but was prematurely leaked seems plausible. Bruce Levine, a reporter for The Score and Marquee Sports Network, which is co-owned by the Cubs, later clarified his report, writing on X that the All-Star Game would be 'awarded to the Cubs sometime this summer.' The Cubs have hosted only three All-Star Games at Wrigley and none since 1990. The only other MLB teams who have not hosted since '90 are the Tampa Bay Rays, who currently play in a minor-league facility after extensive hurricane damage to Tropicana Field, and the Athletics, who moved from Oakland, Calif., and are temporarily playing in West Sacramento before relocating to Las Vegas starting in 2028. The Cubs' first All-Star Game was played in 1947, and they hosted again in 1962. The Cubs were awarded the 1990 game after Tribune Co., the then-owners, agreed to install lights in 1988, ending the day-baseball-only tradition. The '90 All-Star Game at Wrigley included a rain delay in the seventh inning of a 2-0 American League win. In the 1990 Home Run Derby, which took part in the daytime the previous day, Cubs All-Star Ryne Sandberg hit three home runs to pace the NL Derby 'team' to a 4-1 win over the AL team, which included Mark McGwire, Ken Griffey Jr. and Jose Canseco. Different rules were in place at the time, leading to the miniscule home run totals, and the event was not nearly as big a deal as it is now. Under the Ricketts family ownership, the Cubs have tried to host an All-Star Game at Wrigley under three mayoral administrations, starting with Rahm Emanuel, continuing with Lori Lightfoot and currently with Brandon Johnson. Increased security demands around Wrigley requested by the Cubs to the city to meet MLB's standards for big events have gone unheeded by the last two administrations, sources told the Chicago Tribune in 2023 after they were bypassed for the 2025 game, which will be played in July in Atlanta. The Project 1060 renovation of Wrigley Field, which began in 2014 and was completed in 2019, was important in the Cubs even being considered for the All-Star Game. The visiting clubhouse had been too small, and security around the ballpark was lacking due to its proximity to bars, restaurants and buildings. The Home Run Derby, which is arguably more popular than the game itself, also might require some extra security demands on rooftops and in the streets. Fans without tickets are typically allowed on Waveland and Sheffield avenues outside the ballpark during games, and large crowds would be expected to congregate for valuable home run balls onto the street from the game's biggest sluggers. The Wrigley press box also needed changes. It's still among the smallest in the majors, but the Cubs at least added air conditioning at the tail end of the renovation. The influx of the Japanese media at All-Star Games for players such as Shohei Ohtani, the game's biggest star, would probably test the capacity of the Wrigley press box. The Cubs-Dodgers games last month at Wrigley Field drew so much Japanese media the Cubs had to use the media dining room to accommodate requests. An All-Star Game at Wrigley would be significantly more taxing. Many other issues would need to be remedied, but if the report turns out to be accurate it would mean the Cubs and MLB have resolved most of them, bringing the All-Star Game to Wrigley Field after a 37-year absence.
Agriland
03-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Agriland
Mags McCarthy rings the bell in hope for cancer patients
Co. Cork country music artist and farmer's daughter, Mags McCarthy, has released what she believes is her most heartfelt and powerful single yet, 'Ring That Bell'. The vocalist and multi-instrumentalist partnered with renowned scientist Dr. Bruce Levine to co-write the song that aims to give a voice to cancer patients and celebrates breakthroughs in treatment that are helping to save lives. Dr Levine is the Barbara and Edward Netter professor in cancer gene therapy, and the founding director of the clinical cell and vaccine production facility in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and the Abramson Cancer Centre, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. McCarthy's single follows her breakout success with 'Our Song'. 'Ring That Bell' tells the story of a cancer patient facing relapse and the fierce advocacy, support, and ground-breaking science that offer new hope. Speaking about her new single, McCarthy, who teaches music at Terence McSwiney Community School, Knocknaheeny, Co. Cork, said: 'At its heart is the powerful symbolism of ringing the bell, a tradition in many cancer centres marking key milestones like the end of treatment, good news, or moments of gratitude and encouragement.' Dr. Bruce Levine on the McCarthy family farm. 'This song is very special and I hope it will give people hope when they are going through their journey. We should never give up the fight no matter how hard and dismal things may look. We should always try and find a way to give people hope, 'CAR T-cell therapy has given people that chance to survive with certain types of cancers. I want to say a special thanks to all the scientists, doctors and nurses who treat patients every day and who fight every day to keep us alive. 'I hope this song will bring awareness and hope for all the cancer warriors out there,' she added. McCarthy said the song is a tribute to the power of perseverance, community, and innovation. ''Ring That Bell' draws on stories from families whose lives have been changed by CAR T-cell therapy, a treatment that engineers a patient's own immune cells to target and kill cancer,`' she explained. The Co. Cork woman said she was moved by stories of patients young and older, who received CAR T-cell therapy after traditional treatments failed. 'From around the world, these brave children, adults, and their families share a common message: CAR-T saves lives. 'The photos and videos accompanying the release show children ringing the bell, not just as a milestone, but as a declaration of survival, resilience, and the promise of tomorrow,' McCarthy said. Dr. Bruce Levine with friend and consultant haematologist, Dr. Mykytiv in Cork. Dr. Levine, who played a pivotal role in developing and advancing CAR T-cell therapy, revolutionising the treatment of cancer and other life-threatening diseases, has visited the McCarthy family farm. 'My dad has been farming at Dripsey all his life and my brother, James, is now on the 185ac dairy farm and we also have beef cattle,' McCarthy said. The country music artist told Agriland that someone very close to her had been diagnosed with blood cancer. 'Since then I have taken a huge interest in how the immune system works. I got to know Bruce and we have become good friends ever since. 'That person dear to me was treated not by CAR-T cell therapy but by other treatments at the Cork University Hospital and St. James's Hospital in Dublin. They are doing good, thanks to all the doctors and nurses here,' said McCarthy. 'Bruce wanted to learn how I compose new music and write songs. So we sat down and wrote a song about CAR-T cell therapy. 'After writing it I decided to get my friends in Nashville to record the music for me and I recorded the vocals at Windmill Lane studios in Dublin. I found it a very challenging song to write but it's definitely a song close to my heart,`' she said. Mags McCarthy with Emily Whitehead, who was the first child in the world to have her immune cells activated to fight cancer through CAT T-cell therapy. McCarthy said they wrote the chorus of the song while driving from Dublin to Cork. 'After many edits and back and forth with different lyrics, we finally were happy with the product. 'Special thanks to the doctors here in Ireland who took care of that someone close to me. That person is alive today because of them and the person who donated their stem cells for the transplant,' she added.
