Thursday, March 29th 2012 - 07:07 UTC

Lula da Silva announces his back in politics after defeating cancer

Former Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced Wednesday that he was returning to politics after being told that his larynx cancer was in “complete remission.”

The former president makes the announcement on a video

“I will return to political life because I believe Brazil needs to continue to grow, develop, generate jobs, improve the lives of millions and millions of Brazilians who managed to enter the middle class... as well as those who dream of joining the middle class,” he said in a video message.

Earlier Lula, 66, underwent exams at Sao Paulo's Sirio-Libanes hospital following weeks of radiation therapy sessions. And doctors reported that his cancer, diagnosed last October, was “in complete remission” according to Jose Chrispiniano, a spokesman for Lula's Citizenry Institute.

“Nuclear magnetic resonance and laryngoscopy exams show the absence of any visible tumour,” the hospital said in a statement, adding that the popular former president would continue to have phonoaudiology sessions and periodic checks.

In the video, a bald, moustachioed Lula wearing a black shirt appeared a little older and visibly thinner than usual.

“Today, I received the most important piece of news a human being can receive after a five-month treatment against cancer,” Lula said.
“I would like to seize this opportunity to thank God, because without him this would probably not have happened,” he added in the message posted on his foundation's website: (

Lula also thanked his wife Marisa, doctors and staff of Sirio-Lebanes hospital, “the whole of Brazil” and President Dilma Rousseff, “which with her experience was an inspiration each time we spoke and she told me: ”Strength, president. You will overcome.”

From New Delhi, where she was attending a summit of the BRICS (Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa) bloc of emerging powers, Rousseff earlier said her predecessor and mentor had telephoned her to announce the good news.

“I am very happy,” said Rousseff, who herself recovered from a lymphatic cancer diagnosed in 2009. ”I was expecting it. But having the certainty (that Lula is cured) is very good.”

Earlier this month, Lula, a former smoker, was released from the hospital following treatment for a lung infection. Doctors say that developing a lung infection is common for someone whose defences are weak after three cycles of chemotherapy and 33 radiation therapy sessions.

16 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.

1 ChrisR (#) Mar 29th, 2012 - 04:48 pm Report abuse
So WTF is he going back to politics for.

Why not become a nun and be the wife of God? He's certainly behaving like a woman.

Does he not think the doctors and engineers and scientists who looked after him had something to do with it?

Oh, I forgot, it was God who told them to do it no doubt. It's about time the delusionalists grew up and stopped worrying about the 'wrath of God'. He / she does not exist.
2 JuanStanic (#) Mar 29th, 2012 - 05:21 pm Report abuse
You seem very sure of what you say. Proove he does not exist.
3 zethe (#) Mar 29th, 2012 - 09:02 pm Report abuse
“Proove he does not exist.”

You can't prove he does.

The doctors however can prove that they saved his life.
4 Fido Dido (#) Mar 29th, 2012 - 09:11 pm Report abuse
believing in God is good. It's a shame most Europeans don't believe in God anymore.
5 JuanStanic (#) Mar 29th, 2012 - 09:21 pm Report abuse
That's right. But I just don't go through the life shouting he exists. I just believe he does.

Never said they didn't. No matter you believe God exists or not, they saved him by themselves or god saved him through their job, meaning they were crucial in any case.
6 brit abroad (#) Mar 30th, 2012 - 03:00 am Report abuse
@3 It is not up to non belivers to prove god doesnt exist, it is upto the believers to prove he does, and they have spent thousands of years not being able to.

God is an abstract concept devised by man to try and understand the world and control it!

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
Napoleon Bonaparte
7 JuanStanic (#) Mar 30th, 2012 - 04:11 am Report abuse
Not so. It's to both sides to proove their point. As long as neither does it remains a mystery and a matter of belief.
8 brit abroad (#) Mar 30th, 2012 - 04:38 am Report abuse
bullshit! @ 7 - Here is one (of many) of the most usual arguments against God existing (it assumes God is good of course, but I think most religions believe, or at least preach that God is good):

Defenders of a good, all powerful, and all knowing God have to explain why two kinds of evil exist, not just one. The two kinds are chosen evil (rape, torture, murder, etc.) and unchosen evil (diseases, natural disasters, etc.).

First they will say chosen evil must exist so that we can have free will. Okay, let's allow them that. Score a point for their God.

Next they will say that unchosen evil must exist so that we can appreciate the good - that good cannot exist except in contrast with evil. There are two things wrong with that answer. First, it admits that God is incapable of creating a world in which good is absolute (non-relative). Second, even if we allow them the claim that good must be relative to evil, the question remains why *so very much* evil is necessary to make us appreciate the good. To say that there needs to be as much unchosen evil in the world as there is so that we can recognize and appreciate the good is like saying that we could not tell the difference between black and white in a picture unless at least half the picture was black.

As a last resort, they will say evil does not exist - that what seems an evil is only an absence of good. This is like saying that there is no black paint on the canvas, there is only an absence of white paint - accepting it as an answer requires one to wilfully insult one's own intelligence.

This is called The Problem of Evil.
9 ChrisR (#) Mar 30th, 2012 - 11:53 am Report abuse
I just knew my comment would draw out the delusionalists who need a dummy to suck on (GOD / ALLAH) to get through their lives. There are NO gods, anywhere!

Napoleon was right.
10 yul (#) Mar 30th, 2012 - 05:18 pm Report abuse
# 9 C.R/
Napoleon was only keeping on Josephine &
11 JuanStanic (#) Mar 30th, 2012 - 06:06 pm Report abuse
You are assuming all people believe in god in the same way.
You are invited to proove so.
12 ChrisR (#) Mar 30th, 2012 - 10:06 pm Report abuse
11 JuanStanic
”You are invited to proove(sic) so.”

Prove what? That engineers, scientists and doctors made Lula better, I thought that was self-evident?

Prove there is a God, any God will do.
13 JuanStanic (#) Mar 30th, 2012 - 10:24 pm Report abuse
Never said they weren't part of the process. I said one way or another they were crucial.

Why exactly does a God have to proove his/her own existance? Where is it written? Again, why are you so sure they should proove they exist?

IMO you have a very fixed idea of what a God is, should be and should behave.
14 brit abroad (#) Mar 31st, 2012 - 02:50 am Report abuse

religious belief is abstract. being able to develope abstract ideas is one of those things that makes man different from the rest of the animal kingdon - it is a man made idea, and over hundreds of years developed into various forms/idealologies.

Now, simple question! how does (lets use the christain god as an example) the teachings of his prophets apply to the modern world? genetics? etc It is outdated and the rhetoric used then suited that time I.E it was used to explain the then unknown and to control people and habits. God is just a title for a set of rules set up by the then learned to (as napoleon, albeit simply, puts it) keep the poor from killing the rich.
15 ChrisR (#) Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:17 am Report abuse
13 JuanStanic

I am sorry that you think I have fixed ideas about 'God'.

Until the age of 13 ish I was the Head Altar Server at my parents CofE High Church. I was baptised by the Bishop of Lichfield.

However, as my scientific education progressed and I started to think about things for myself I realised that what I had been doing was nothing other than religious subversion of the masses. That did it for me.
16 JuanStanic (#) Apr 01st, 2012 - 10:12 pm Report abuse
Again, you show a very fixed image of what God is. I don't follow blindly the Church rhetoric. I don't have to and I don't want to. IMO, religion(at least the part I consider so and that I follow) is a guide to life. Nothing more. I can follow it if I want. I can follow it as I want. I am not obliged to follow it in a particular way.
Anyway above that depends on people. For example, I take Genesis as many metaphores, but not as fact as it's written.

But to answer you more simply, How “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt not steal” don't apply? I think they do. Genetics? “Honour your father and your mother”.


Well, I only can feel sorry you had such an old school religious education. I did have an education but based on religion as a guide for life. We were told since the First Communion that Bible is not a history book, it's a book of teaching for life. Then you had us in the same religious school been teached the Evolution Theory, Big Bang, Genetics and many other scientific stuff. Nobody will tell you that the flood really happened. Even half of my class was pro-gay!
The problem religion can have is not religion itself, it's how it's teached.

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!