The numbers explain the urgency. An estimated 3,000 women in Canada will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2026, and an estimated 1,950 will die from it. That means for every three Canadian women diagnosed this year, roughly two will not survive — a mortality ratio far worse than most other cancers affecting women. Ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynecological cancer in the country, and outcomes for patients have barely moved in fifty years.

Why Ovarian Cancer Is So Hard to Catch Early.

Part of the problem is biological. There is no reliable screening test for ovarian cancer — no equivalent of a mammogram or a Pap test. Blood tests and ultrasounds have been studied extensively as potential screening tools, but none have been shown to improve overall survival when used on the general population. That leaves symptom recognition as the primary line of defense, and ovarian cancer’s early symptoms are notoriously easy to dismiss.

Bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, and changes in bowel or bladder habits are among the most common signs. On their own, each of these could be explained by something as ordinary as diet, stress, or aging. The disease tends to be diagnosed late, often only after fluid begins building up in the abdomen associated with more advanced stage disease. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada notes that this fluid buildup, known as ascites, can bring on bloating, distension, and shortness of breath, but by the time it appears, the cancer has frequently progressed significantly.

That is precisely the message Ovarian Cancer Canada tries to drive home every September: persistent, frequent, or worsening symptoms — ones that are unusual for you — deserve a conversation with a doctor, not a wait-and-see approach. The organization’s Patient Partner in Research program has featured survivors like Donna Peppin, who has said that until a reliable test exists, women’s own knowledge of their bodies remains their best defence.

A Canadian Story, With Canadian Gaps.

Ovarian cancer’s toll on Canadian women isn’t evenly distributed or fully understood. Five-year net survival in Canada sits at roughly 44 percent, meaning fewer than half of women diagnosed will live five years past their diagnosis. Survival is significantly better for women diagnosed before age 45 than for those diagnosed later in life, and outcomes have improved only modestly over the past several decades compared to gains made against other cancers.

There are also real gaps in Canadian data. Statistics Canada acknowledges that detailed survival information broken down by cancer stage and type isn’t consistently available at the national level, meaning researchers often have to rely on data from other countries, such as the United States, to understand how outcomes vary by how advanced the cancer is at diagnosis. That data gap is itself part of the advocacy conversation this September: better tracking could mean better-targeted care.

The pressure for change reached the political stage this summer. At the Canadian premiers’ summit in Charlottetown in July 2026, ovarian cancer patients and oncologists called on provincial leaders to improve access to treatment and diagnostic tools. Physicians pointed to drugs already available to patients in the United States that remain inaccessible in Canada and argued that a coordinated national push — more research funding, broader access to clinical trials, and stronger interdisciplinary care — is overdue.

What Awareness Month Actually Asks of Canadians.

Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month isn’t only about wearing teal, though the colour has become a recognizable symbol of the cause across the country. It’s an annual prompt for Canadians to learn the risk factors — family history of ovarian or breast cancer, BRCA gene mutations, increasing age, and never having been pregnant are among the most significant — and to understand that most cases still occur in women without an obvious inherited risk.

It’s also a call to action for the health system itself. Advocacy groups and clinicians are using September to press for more research dollars aimed at earlier detection, since finding effective screening remains one of the most significant unmet needs in Canadian oncology. Events like the Ovarian Cancer Walk of Hope, held annually in cities across the country, channel public participation directly into funding for that research.

For individual Canadians, the takeaway is simple even if the science isn’t: know your body, take persistent symptoms seriously, and don’t assume vague abdominal complaints are nothing. For a disease with no screening test and a five-year survival rate under 50 percent, awareness isn’t just a slogan — for many women, it may be the earliest warning system available.

The post September Is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month: Why Canadians Need to Pay Attention appeared first on Canada's Health Magazine.

2026 Theme: “One Drop of Humanity. Give Blood. Save Lives.”

A Date With History: The Man Who Made Transfusion Safe.

Why June 14 then? No surprise there either. This is because the date coincides with the birth anniversary of the great scientist who discovered the secret of safe blood transfusion. Born on June 14, 1868, in Vienna, Karl Landsteiner had, through his discovery made in 1901, solved a medical mystery for which several patients lost their lives. Human beings have different kinds of blood, mixing which causes an immune reaction known as agglutination.

The discovery, which led him to receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1930, paved the way for safe blood transfusions and formed the basis of transfusion medicine. The first type-specific successful blood transfusion took place in 1907; blood banks were established in the 1930s. It can be said that all blood banks, crossmatches, and compatibles are directly descended from that 1901 research paper.

Celebrated for the very first time in 2004, the day became international thanks to its joint organization by the WHO (World Health Organization), IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies), and other prominent health organizations. A theme and host country are chosen each year to celebrate this day on an international scale. The country hosting the 2026 celebrations is Italy, with its National Blood Centre, and its slogan is: “One Drop of Humanity. Give Blood. Save Lives.”

The Global Picture – and Canada’s Place in It.

According to the WHO, the number of blood donations worldwide is estimated to be 118.5 million units annually. However, there is a disparity evident in the figures, as 40 percent of those donations are provided by rich nations, which comprise only 16 percent of the world’s population. In poor countries, blood is most critical for managing health problems such as childbirth difficulties, childhood anemia, sickle cell anemia, and injuries.

Canadians cannot escape the reality of such a problem. As early as May 2025, Canadian Blood Services launched its most ambitious campaign to recruit new donors, targeting at least one million within the five-year period. There is a lot of truth in the call for action since there will be a 10 percent increase in demand for blood in the country in the coming five years. Meanwhile, there may even be as much as a 50 percent increase in immunoglobulin demand, which is produced from plasma donations. Nevertheless, only 4 percent of Canadians eligible for blood donation have been donating voluntarily to date.

Think of it like a community well. Everyone benefits from it, but very few are currently refilling it. And unlike a reserve of medication, blood cannot simply be manufactured or stockpiled indefinitely — which brings us to the often-overlooked reality of shelf life.

What Happens to a Single Donation?

It takes only one unit of blood to derive these three products: red blood cells, platelets, and plasma, which are all used to treat certain health conditions. Transfusion of red blood cells is mostly done when a patient undergoes a surgical operation or is anemic. The platelet product is critical in cancer cases where patients are undergoing chemotherapy because the process usually leads to the suppression of platelet formation. Lastly, the plasma component, the fluid portion of the blood, provides crucial life-saving medications, which include clotting factor for those with bleeding disorders and immunoglobulin for those with weakened immunity.

This is where the shocker comes in: blood products do not last forever. Red blood cells can be stored for about 42 days, while platelets expire after seven days. This means that a steady flow of donors – not just one-time donors in emergency cases – is crucial in sustaining the health system. Donations are allowed to donate whole blood every 56 days, but platelet donors may donate every seven days, up to 24 times per year.

Unlike sanitizers, blood donation is not like building a stockpile. It requires a living, breathing, routinely replenished supply.

Blood Diversity: Why the Full Spectrum of Donors Matters.

This is one thing that does not get covered by the media often – the diversity of blood types among the donors is medically important. While everyone knows about the well-known A, B, AB, and O blood types, there are actually over 300 different blood group antigens. The benefit of having transfusions with donor blood that is as close to the patient’s blood type as possible is especially noticeable in cases where regular transfusions are required, for example, in sickle cell anemia or thalassemia. The closer the match, the better.

Since some blood types are relatively common among certain ethnicities, Canadian Blood Services puts effort into encouraging people of various nationalities to become donors. Canadian blood type O-negative is highly desirable in emergency cases since it is compatible with all other types and can be transfused to a person regardless of his or her blood type, if there is no time to do otherwise. However, all types of blood are required equally.

Donating Blood in Canada: What to Know.

The other company that plays an important role in blood donation in Canada, apart from Héma-Québec, is the Canadian Blood Services, which handles blood donations in all other provinces except Quebec. The two companies work together to ensure that hospitals get their supply of blood throughout the year. The company runs 35 permanent blood donor centers as well as 4,000 mobile blood collections every year.

According to the organization, people who want to give their whole blood must be above 17 years and have a weight of 110 pounds (approx. 50 kilograms). Unlike many organizations that require donors to be younger than a certain age, there is no restriction on how old people should be in order to be able to donate whole blood.

Donations of whole blood in the organization typically last one hour, starting from the point a person gets registered until completion. Individuals with health conditions are advised to ask a health professional at any of the blood centers for more information on their condition.

In Quebec, the organization responsible for blood donations is Héma-Québec.

One Drop, Enormous Reach.

World Blood Donor Day is not just a day marked on the health calendar. It represents a constant reminder of the presence of anonymous voluntary donors without whom none of what goes on in hospitals is possible. The discovery made by Karl Landsteiner in 1901 laid the scientific foundation for blood donation. However, what keeps the system alive and operational day in and day out is humanity itself – the continued readiness of ordinary individuals to donate.

This will be celebrated across the world with the 2026 World Blood Donor Day event being hosted by Italy’s National Blood Centre in Rome. As the theme for this day – ‘One Drop of Humanity’ – reminds us, a million donors in Canada means that everything that goes into a healthcare system is literally embodied in a drop of blood.

Key Takeaways.

The post Health Awareness of the Month: June 14 – World Blood Donor Day appeared first on Canada's Health Magazine.

Magazica: Welcome, and welcome again to Magazica.

Today, we have Dr. Tim Stockwell, who has spent his life asking one deceptively simple question: How does alcohol shape our health, our relationships, and our society?

From Oxford University to Australia’s National Drug Research Institute, and finally to the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, his work has influenced global policy, challenged long-held beliefs and myths, and helped millions rethink their relationship with alcohol. Today, we sit down with Dr. Stockwell to explore the human stories behind the science – his journey, his insights, and the hope he sees for all of us, for healthier communities. Dr. Stockwell, welcome.

Dr. Tim Stockwell: Thank you very much. I wish half of what you said was true, but it’s a very gracious and kind introduction. Thank you.

Magazica: Thank you very much. So, let’s start with your journey. You have dedicated your career to understanding alcohol and substance use across three continents. When you look back, was there a moment – maybe early in your training period or your personal life – that made you think, this is the work I’m meant to do?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: I can’t say that I ever had a moment when I knew I was going to do this kind of work. It would be bizarre to have such a moment, because I think my work is unusual. But I know the moment when I became aware that I was very interested in the subject of – let’s just call it addiction. There are many terms for it.

I struggled with my own mental health as a young person. I still do from time to time, and I used nicotine when I was a teenager. I was addicted to tobacco. I became interested in psychology probably because I reflected on my well-being at an early age. You wonder: What is this? Why is it hard to be happy? Why do I get anxious? Why am I sad sometimes? And why is it that I can’t stop smoking?

I remember studying at Oxford, going around the psychology department – maybe it was the social sciences library – and coming across this tome on a shelf that said British Journal of Addiction. I thought, What? Are there journals on this subject? People are studying this! I pulled it off the shelf, sat down, and pored over the contents.

A little later, I was accepted to do a PhD at Edinburgh University. I had a choice of a supervisor, and I selected someone interested in the topic of alcoholism, having read a book that inspired me. I also have relatives who have struggled with alcohol. So, my own struggles, and the idea that maybe if we were good at what we do – if we were good psychologists – we could help people, that this was a big problem we could do something about, inspired me as a young person.

Magazica: And that’s quite interesting. Out of nowhere, some of the things that make you so engaged lead you to dive deeper and deeper, and you find the subject to be very fascinating.

Dr. Tim Stockwell: Yes.

Magazica: One keyword – one theme – I can make out from that is curiosity. Your curiosity was sparked so much that you drove deep into it. Your path has taken you from Oxford to London, then Australia, and then, as far as I remember from your profile, to Canada. Along the way, who or what shaped the way you think about human behaviour, health, and the role alcohol plays in our lives?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: I’ve been very lucky. I had so many wonderful mentors and people who humoured me, took me under their wing, and encouraged this strange, young, nerdy person who believed that study – academia – could help people with their real-life, nitty-gritty, difficult problems. I really had a passionate belief in that.

I could single out many, but I’ll mention a gentleman called Griffith Edwards, a very distinguished psychiatrist who was head of the Addiction Research Unit where I did my PhD. He had a multidisciplinary approach, and he hired people in his research unit who were sociologists, psychologists, social workers, medics, and liver specialists. He believed we all had something to offer.

Magazica: The task was to get you all together to be creative and come up with –

Dr. Tim Stockwell:  – really big, challenging questions, and think of ways we could contribute insight and guidance not just in treatment, but in prevention and policy as well.

Magazica: True. And from what you’re saying, you have a very vast area to cover whenever you’re going into research. So whenever we hear the term research, you yourself were a PhD student, and you completed it, then worked as a researcher – white lab coats, numbers, statistics, experiments… all these are common phenomena. What is the human side of the research that you have experienced so far? What is that side?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: I think another inspiring person who influenced me early on – and someone I didn’t mention earlier – was my PhD supervisor, Ray Hodgson. He was a clinical psychologist at the Maudsley Hospital in London, and he told me about a tradition from one of his mentors, a gentleman called Aubrey Lewis, who specialized in individual case studies. He listened to people, but he also did this behavioural, psychological work of getting measures of people’s well-being.

My supervisor got me thinking about multiple ways we could measure and get valid empirical evidence to help us solve problems. But it started at the individual level. This is all based on describing individual experience – our emotions, our feelings, our relationships, the physical and mental health consequences, short and long term, of using different substances. So, really understanding phenomena – the phenomenology of substance uses in our lives.

Magazica: After a long time, I’ve heard the word phenomenology. My bachelor’s was in sociology, so the word is familiar to me. Phenomenology, epistemology, ontology – those are the terms that make you pause and think. Okay, let’s now go to the myth-busting phase of our discussion.

There is a myth of “healthy drinking.” For example, debunking the famous J-curve, which suggested moderate drinking is good for health. What was it like to challenge such a popular belief – that one or two pegs will not do anything, or that a small amount is not harmful but rather beneficial for health? And what helped you stay grounded as the conversation shifted from research to this myth-busting phase?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: I have to say that I’ve followed other people’s lead in this area. There’s been a long tradition over the last four or five decades. I remember observing people challenging this many years ago. Initially, it was all over the news: yes, there’s evidence that a little bit of alcohol reduces heart disease and has all these benefits.

Then I remember it being covered – I’m talking about the 1970s and 80s. I remember, in the UK as a young person, reading about contradictory views on this. Then the idea emerged that this is an illusion because they compared drinkers with abstainers who were unhealthy. If you gather a group of older people and find that those who aren’t drinking have often given up alcohol because they’re unwell, of course, they’re not going to live as long as their robust, healthy friends who are well enough to keep drinking.

But then people revisited the data and said, no, we’ve controlled for that, and we still get benefits. That debate still goes on. It goes back and forth, but I think it has shifted toward more people being skeptical. My position is that I’m skeptical. I don’t have certainty.

And I think that’s really important. Evidence is mounting that if there are benefits, they’re fairly minor. There may be something special in red wine. If there is, you can get it from red grapes – particularly the grape skins. You can also get similar benefits from exercising and eating well.

But we do know that even a little bit of ethanol is a carcinogen. It’s carcinogenic. There’s no safe level in relation to cancer risk. There are low-risk levels, but no complete risk-free level of drinking alcohol because it’s carcinogenic.

There has been pushback. I try not to read my hate mail. I’ve been absolutely torn to shreds in some of the right-wing tabloid media that are industry-friendly. They have been rude and unpleasant, and I try not to look there. Increasingly, though, people like yourself are coming to talk to me about this – I’ve been getting a lot more positive feedback. I think times are changing.

There’s been a real shift. A massive cultural shift worldwide. It’s seen here in North America. Maybe less so in my old country, the UK. When I go back there, it’s like they think you’re seriously odd if you don’t drink every day and at every possible moment.

Magazica: I know. I was in Liverpool for a few years, so I understand. Two very small questions – not a tangent, but just two quick clarifications. You mentioned the word carcinogen, and carcinogenic means it causes cancer?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: Yes.

Magazica: Okay. And second: for a person who never drank – for example, I don’t drink – some people tell me that at my age, if I start drinking now, I’m close to 50, so by the time it’s my probable time to die, alcohol won’t do anything. So, at what point, for example, if a person starts drinking at a certain age – say 20 or 25 – at what point will it start to show the negative impact, or whatever impact it has on the body? Is there a certain timeline, physical condition, or anything?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: We’re all very varied, and we have different susceptibilities.

Magazica: Yes.

Dr. Tim Stockwell: And so, that’s the first thing to say. There’s no absolute cut-off point. As younger people, there’s a different profile of risks. There’s the tendency – particularly for young men – to do risky or reckless things. Young men take more risks, and alcohol-related violence, alcohol-related crime, crashes, and workplace injuries are predominantly associated with men. That’s both because they drink more and because they take more risks. So, people can die or get injured at younger ages.

As we grow older, we tend to calm down in some of those behaviours – not always, there are notable exceptions, but these are generalities. The sad thing is that a link has been drawn between the drinking habits of young adults and their risk of heart disease or cancer in later life.

It’s clear that people who get married and settle down after having some wild drinking days carry that risk with them into old age. But the longer they go without drinking, or drinking very little, the better their chances will be. It’s about risk. If you don’t drink at all, then you have zero risk of an alcohol-related cancer. And of course, you have zero risk of the acute problems – poisoning, violence, injuries, accidents.

So, no absolutes. We all have different degrees of risk, different profiles. One thing we do know is that more vulnerable people – generally in terms of mental health or socioeconomic status – people on lower incomes have a much greater risk of all of the above: the physical harms, the mental health harms, the social consequences. We have protections if we are in a more privileged, higher-income bracket.

Magazica: Over the years, if a person – specifically a male – settles down and the drinking habit attenuates, then yes, they will still carry over the risk, even if it’s reduced. So again, back to square one a bit. Why do people drink? What are the factors beyond biology? Why do people drink?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: That’s a really good question, and obviously, I’ve thought about it. One place to start is that we’ve been doing this for a long time. Our ancestors drinking probably goes back millions of years. Our earliest ancestors found fruit that was fermenting. Animals do this, primates do this – they get drunk on fermented fruit.

So, it’s a natural progression. Going back thousands of years, people have done this. We mammals – creatures – but Homo sapiens in particular seem to have a fondness for alcohol. We have a long history of finding different ways to consume it. Initially, it was accidental: you eat the fruit, it happens to be fermented, and it gives you a nice effect.

Over time, we cultivated ways and developed systems. Our society is now the most efficient it has ever been at producing alcohol. You can make alcohol from almost anything that grows – fruit, nuts, crops, whatever is around. We’ve developed ways of making alcohol from it and storing it so it doesn’t go off. It used to be that you could only get drunk at harvest time for a few days. You’d stop everything, all rules could be broken, and then you’d forget about it. But now it’s in refrigerators, trucked, transported, flown, shipped all over the world.

We’ve distilled alcohol so it can be very concentrated. But basically, it hits the reward centers of our brain. In the short term, it makes us feel good. It can facilitate certain important things, like dealing with anxiety, feeling less anxious, feeling more comfortable with other people. In the short term, it stimulates social interaction.

The trouble is that later – after an hour or two – it has a sedative effect. It’s a depressant substance. It suppresses the activity of our nervous system. It calms or sedates us, and we get tired, bored, or even hostile and bad-tempered. Our sleep can be disrupted, and then we have a terrible day the next day.

So, it’s very important that we’re aware of the short-term versus the middle- and long-term consequences of using any psychoactive substance. Alcohol is just one that’s easy and available. We have this relationship with it, and it seems to be anathema to regulate it or restrict access to it, unlike other substances we’ve discovered more recently.

Magazica: And it’s worldwide, socially accepted, and everything.

Dr. Tim Stockwell: As a result, yes.

Magazica: Resulted in various uses.

Dr. Tim Stockwell: Various uses, and it’s something we do as a group.

Magazica: As a group, yes. It’s a way of gathering. It’s a conversation.

Dr. Tim Stockwell: We gather over meals, and we gather with alcohol. It makes us feel good, and we can all feel good together. Often, we attribute that feeling good to the alcohol, as if it were essential for the feeling. It’s quite extraordinary to try connecting with people and situations – if you’re someone who always drinks in those situations – and discover that you can feel connected and good without alcohol. It isn’t essential.

Magazica: I read somewhere that alcohol disrupts our deep sleep, like delta-level sleep. Does alcohol disrupt that? Is it true?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: Yes, there’s very good evidence that alcohol might help you get to sleep, but you’re going to wake up early, and the more you’ve drunk, the harder it will be to get back to sleep. The simple reason is what some psychologists call the opponent process theory, which means you get the opposite effect of the short-term effect over time. So, you get the sedative effect – you have a tot of rum, whiskey, whatever it is, before bed, and a glass of wine calms you.

Two or three hours later, you get a reaction. Your nervous system gives you the opposite. It makes you anxious, more alert, more vigilant. And the more you’ve drunk, the stronger that reaction will be. The more frequently you drink, the more reliable and stronger that reaction becomes. That’s where you get tolerance. So, we drink more and more, and then there is a vicious circle that leads people to becoming, if you like, addicted, dependent – developing a substance use disorder, whatever people’s preferred term is.

Magazica: So, what is the recent trend we are seeing on social media and in social gatherings? There are zero-alcohol drinks, or people are practicing dry months – like, “January is my dry month because I enjoyed a lot during the year-end holidays,” or “February is my dry month.” Is this beneficial in any way?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: Yes. There have been some nice studies indicating fairly simple, predictable benefits. People say they have better well-being, they sleep better, they feel their memory and concentration improve. These are people who might be regular, moderate, or heavy drinkers – those most likely to notice these things. They save money. And there are even physiological measures of improved well-being and physical functioning.

People say, “What’s the point of being off it for a month?” Well, the studies show that people usually drink less afterward. Many start drinking again, but less. They’ve developed skills for choosing whether or not they drink, or drinking less, or finding things like zero-alcohol beverages actually quite great.

You can kid yourself. The placebo effect is fantastic. I was fascinated by this as a young psychologist. I used to do tricks on my friends and give them alcohol that was actually 0%. This was way back – the early ones tasted terrible. But now, really good ones are available because there’s a market.

And one thing the industry likes is that they can sell this product. It’s great branding and advertising. You can go to your supermarket or grocery store and see things that look exactly like alcohol. But they’re zero proof. They get great advertising, people like them, and they charge almost as much as the real thing. Profits are massive because they don’t pay tax on them.

And they convince us that this is as good a product. I pay a small fortune for zero-proof beverages, and I know retailers make the most profit on those drinks. Well, hats off to them. If that makes us drink a little bit less and we achieve our health and well-being targets, that’s fine. I don’t really have a problem with it.

Magazica: Last two questions, very quick ones. You do research and heavy, grounded work – heavy work. How do you keep yourself grounded during all the heavy lifting, research work, deep work? How do you keep yourself grounded?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: Look, I’m an academic now. I used to be a clinical psychologist, and I cared a lot. You’d worry about the people you’d seen, and some of them had really terrible lives, and awful things happened to them. It was devastating to them, but you carry that burden and strain yourself. I don’t think it’s possible to do that for very long. I think I did it for maybe ten years.

Because I love academia – as I said, I’m curious-minded – I love the research process. It’s not hard for me to do research in this area. I find it fascinating. I love designing the study, finding out what the data have to say, writing it up, and hearing what other people have to say about what you’ve found.

And this whole thing about dreaming up a research question that will help answer a practical policy or practice question – sometimes the data can be a circuit breaker. People are stuck. They have doubts: “We can’t do this because this might happen.” And you do the research, and it says, “Yes, we did it, and that didn’t happen.” Or “Oh no, a lot of that happened – we shouldn’t go there.”

Research can help with that. I’ve seen that happen, where research has made a difference. It’s not the only thing – people say, “How can research affect policy or practice?” Well, it isn’t the only thing. You need a champion, you need a political context, and you often need a crisis. But every now and then, everything freezes, and people want to ask the question: “What’s the evidence?” And if you’ve been doing your job, you’ve got the answer.

Often you have to do that opportunistically – “They won’t be interested in this for very long; we’d better quickly do some research to answer it.” That’s when I’ve had the most fun. It’s dynamic, it’s related to what’s going on, it’s trying to answer current, important questions.

Magazica: By hearing you, it’s clear you’ve found that spark in your work – something so rare, something very few people ever find. Your work becomes fun; it becomes a challenging fun ride. You solve challenges, you match patterns, and you find joy in it. It’s a blissful life. Thank you for sharing that with us.

Dr. Tim Stockwell: Yes. In summary, I’ve been very fortunate.

Magazica: Yes. And last question, very quickly – we have to be conscious of the time. You have lots of lessons from the way you’ve lived your professional life and carried out your tasks. You’ve learned a lot. So, for our readers, for the general public, for people from non-medical backgrounds – what are a few lessons you’ve learned that would be valuable for us?

Dr. Tim Stockwell: Look, I don’t want to presume too much here. But one thing that has helped me – and I don’t know whether I get too wrapped up in it, or whether it will be useful – is going back to what I was saying about individual case studies and psychologists trying to really understand what people are going through, but also getting measures and trying to quantify what is happening with a problem you’re concerned about.

So, if it’s about substance use, maybe keep a diary. Be aware of the times when you really want to have a drink, or a cigarette, or whatever it is you feel you need. Be aware of those times. Reflect a little on whether you can do other things – have coping strategies. But also become aware of the later effects: the short-, mid-, and long-term effects, this whole opponent process.

We focus so much on the short-term, immediate effects – cocaine will make us high, opioids will take our pain away and make us less anxious, and alcohol will do whatever it does. But be aware. Keep a diary about how you’re feeling. If you balance it up – maybe you get 10 or 15 minutes of feeling pretty good if you have a drink – and then look at how it affects your sleep, how you feel the next day.

Just stand back and think about how we balance these short-term, immediate pleasures or relief from pain with longer-term patterns in our lives and feelings of well-being. Focus on what we can do that has longer-term benefits. There are things we can do that are the opposite, like exercise. It’s painful, you have to discipline yourself, but you feel great afterward.

I actually hate swimming, but I do it quite often. I loathe it, but once I’ve finished, I feel fantastic, and that feeling lasts, and I sleep well. And connecting with people – I find that helps. Having a nice social occasion, I often sleep well and feel good. I think we need to be aware of those things: when we put the effort in, when we experience the pain, we get more enduring benefits. Substance use is always the opposite – you get the quick, short-term benefit, and often a pretty nasty whiplash afterward.

Magazica: Dr. Stockwell, thank you so much for sharing your journey and your wisdom. Your work reminds us that science isn’t only about numbers – it’s about people, how they master themselves, and their choices. We appreciate your time and your voice in this conversation. Thank you very much.

Dr. Tim Stockwell: My pleasure. Lovely talking with you.

Magazica: Thank you.