Natural phenomena and biological mechanisms can be great sources of inspiration for scientists developing mathematical approaches, computer systems and robots. Over the past few decades, research has repeatedly proved the value of replicating behaviors observed in nature through the introduction of many fascinating bio-inspired computational techniques and systems.
Read More
Views: 0
Vaccination, screening, treatment and palliative care are the key interventions of WHO’s Draft Global Strategy towards the Elimination of Cervical Cancer as a Public Health Problem,
the fourth most common cancer in women.
On World Cancer Day, new estimates show that this strategy could save more than 62 million girls and women from a cervical cancer death and prevent 74 million cases within the next 100 years – but only if these interventions are used effectively
together.
These estimates, published by the WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC) in The Lancet, are based on the draft strategy’s targets to achieve a global coverage of 90% vaccination, 70% screening and 90% treatment by 2030.
Developed by Member States, UN agencies and other partners, the draft global strategy seeks to redress the unequal burden of cervical cancer around the world. Nine in 10 cervical cancer deaths occur in low and lower-middle-income countries, where
women lack access to health services.
As Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s Director-General has said, “It doesn’t have to be this way. Cervical cancer
is one of the most preventable and treatable forms of cancer, as long as it is detected early and managed effectively.”
This new analysis compares the impact of vaccination, screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions as single or combined interventions. Focusing on 78 countries where cervical cancer mortality is highest, the results clearly show that no
single intervention will be sufficient to reduce levels of cervical cancer in the next 100 years to below the elimination target of 4 cases per 100,000 women per year.
Acting immediately on all three fronts is crucial.
Vaccinating girls against cancer-causing types of human papillomavirus (HPV) before the age of 15 is the foundation for bringing every country’s incidence rate of cervical cancer down to the agreed elimination level.
Right now, however, vaccination is not enough. As a single strategy, vaccination targets would only deliver a 0.1% reduction in cervical cancer mortality by 2030. Scaling up screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions at the same time would
reduce mortality by more than one third, or 300,000 deaths, in the same period.
The evidence shows that when all adult women are screened for cervical cancer at least twice, at ages 35 and 45, abnormalities are more likely to be detected before they become cancerous. When cancer has developed, screening increases a women’s
likelihood of early and successful treatment, as well as palliative care if recovery is no longer an option.
Meeting these triple-intervention targets would be a major contribution to target 3.4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a one-third reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by 2030.
WHO’s global strategy towards eliminating cervical cancer aims to set the world on the right track by 2030, but it is just the beginning.
At this pace, global elimination of cervical cancer is not predicted until 2120.
While high HPV vaccination coverage is the primary prevention intervention, ensuring every woman has two cervical screenings in her life would accelerate elimination by 11 – 31 years, depending on the country.
If no action is taken, cervical cancer deaths will rise almost 50% by 2030. Approval of the draft global strategy at the WHO World Health Assembly in 2020, and investment in mechanisms to deliver it, is vital.
As the new World Cancer Report shows, only 18% of countries that currently provide screening for cervical cancer reached the recommended target of more than 70% coverage. An estimated 55% of low-income countries that reported offering
cervical cancer screening generally lack accessible radiotherapy or surgery services.
Elimination of cervical cancer is possible within the lifetime of today’s youngest girls, but the clock starts now and every intervention counts.
Read More
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-02-2020-to-eliminate-cervical-cancer-in-the-next-100-years
Views: 0
No single country is adequately protecting children’s health, their environment and their futures, finds a landmark report released today by a Commission of over 40 child and adolescent health experts from around the world. The Commission was convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF and The Lancet.
The report, A Future for the World’s Children?, finds that the health and future of every child and adolescent worldwide is under immediate threat from ecological degradation, climate change and exploitative marketing practices that push heavily processed fast food, sugary drinks, alcohol and tobacco at children.
“Despite improvements in child and adolescent health over the past 20 years, progress has stalled, and is set to reverse,” said former Prime Minister of New Zealand and Co-Chair of the Commission, Helen Clark. “It has been estimated that around 250 million children under five years old in low- and middle-income countries are at risk of not reaching their developmental potential, based on proxy measures of stunting and poverty. But of even greater concern, every child worldwide now faces existential threats from climate change and commercial pressures.
“Countries need to overhaul their approach to child and adolescent health, to ensure that we not only look after our children today but protect the world they will inherit in the future,” she added.
The report includes a new global index of 180 countries, comparing performance on child flourishing, including measures of child survival and well-being, such as health, education, and nutrition; sustainability, with a proxy for greenhouse gas emissions, and equity, or income gaps. [Top & Bottom 10 countries; Full Global Index on pp. 35-38] [1]
According to the report, while the poorest countries need to do more to support their children’s ability to live healthy lives, excessive carbon emissions – disproportionately from wealthier countries – threaten the future of all children. If global warming exceeds 4°C by the year 2100 in line with current projections, this would lead to devastating health consequences for children, due to rising ocean levels, heatwaves, proliferation of diseases like malaria and dengue, and malnutrition.
The index shows that children in Norway, the Republic of Korea, and the Netherlands have the best chance at survival and well-being, while children in Central African Republic, Chad, Somalia, Niger and Mali face the worst odds. However, when authors took per capita CO2 emissions into account, the top countries trail behind: Norway ranked 156, the Republic of Korea 166, and the Netherlands 160. Each of the three emits 210% more CO2 per capita than their 2030 target. The United States of America (USA), Australia, and Saudi Arabia are among the ten worst emitters.
“More than 2 billion people live in countries where development is hampered by humanitarian crises, conflicts, and natural disasters, problems increasingly linked with climate change,” said Minister Awa Coll-Seck from Senegal, Co-Chair of the Commission. “While some of the poorest countries have among the lowest CO2 emissions, many are exposed to the harshest impacts of a rapidly changing climate. Promoting better conditions today for children to survive and thrive nationally does not have to come at the cost of eroding children’s futures globally.”
The only countries on track to beat CO2 emission per capita targets by 2030, while also performing fairly (within the top 70) on child flourishing measures are: Albania, Armenia, Grenada, Jordan, Moldova, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay and Viet Nam.
The report also highlights the distinct threat posed to children from harmful marketing. Evidence suggests that children in some countries see as many as 30,000 advertisements on television alone in a single year, while youth exposure to vaping (e-cigarettes) advertisements increased by more than 250% in the USA over two years, reaching more than 24 million young people.
Professor Anthony Costello, one of the Commission’s authors, said: “Industry self-regulation has failed. Studies in Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and the USA – among many others – have shown that self-regulation has not hampered commercial ability to advertise to children. For example, despite industry signing up to self-regulation in Australia, children and adolescent viewers were still exposed to 51 million alcohol ads during just one year of televised football, cricket and rugby. And the reality could be much worse still: we have few facts and figures about the huge expansion of social media advertising and algorithms aimed at our children.”
Children’s exposure to commercial marketing of junk food and sugary beverages is associated with purchase of unhealthy foods and overweight and obesity, linking predatory marketing to the alarming rise in childhood obesity. The number of obese children and adolescents increased from 11 million in 1975 to 124 million in 2016 – an 11-fold increase, with dire individual and societal costs.
To protect children, the independent Commission authors call for a new global movement driven by and for children. Specific recommendations include:
Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet family of journals, said: “The opportunity is great. The evidence is available. The tools are at hand. From heads-of-state to local government, from UN leaders to children themselves, this Commission
calls for the birth of a new era for child and adolescent health. It will take courage and commitment to deliver. It is the supreme test of our generation.”
“From the climate crisis to obesity and harmful commercial marketing, children around the world are having to contend with threats that were unimaginable just a few generations ago,” said Henrietta Fore, UNICEF Executive Director. “It
is time for a rethink on child health, one which places children at the top of every government’s development agenda and puts their well-being above all considerations.”
“This report shows that the world’s decision makers are, too often, failing today’s children and youth: failing to protect their health, failing to protect their rights, and failing to protect their planet,” Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus,
Director-General of the World Health Organization said. “This must be a wakeup call for countries to invest in child health and development, ensure their voices are heard, protect their rights, and build a future that is fit for children.”
Notes to editors
[1] About the index; please see pp. 35-38 of the report, with technical details in the Annex, pp. 19-72
[2] This Commission was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
For more information or to set up interviews with report authors, please contact any of the listed media contacts.
Read More
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/19-02-2020-world-failing-to-provide-children-with-a-healthy-life-and-a-climate-fit-for-their-future-who-unicef-lancet
Views: 0
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Burundi, Ghana and Zambia have licensed an Ebola vaccine, just 90 days after World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification. Registration of the vaccine is expected in additional countries in the coming weeks.
The licensing of the vaccine means that the manufacturer can stockpile and widely distribute this vaccine to African countries at risk of Ebola virus disease outbreaks. Once licensed doses are available, use of the vaccine will not require clinical trial or other research protocols.
“The approval of the Ebola vaccine by these countries is another milestone in the fight against this unforgiving disease,” said WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “Africa has rallied to cement hard-fought progress to keep its people safe from Ebola.”
WHO accelerated the licensing and roll-out of the Ebola vaccine by certifying that it met the organization’s standards for quality, safety and efficacy in its fastest vaccine prequalification process ever, announced in November 2019.
The speed with which this has been achieved has been made possible by a different approach, where national licensing procedures were done in parallel based on one single scientific review process. Usually, these process are done one by one, which can take years. The process was led by WHO with the participation of the African Vaccine Regulatory Forum (an African network of national regulatory authorities and ethics committees), the European Medicines Agency, and Merck.
“The rapid approval of the Ebola vaccine by countries in the Africa Region helps ensure this critical prevention tool will be available when and where it is needed most,” said Dr Matshidiso Moeti, WHO Regional Director for Africa. “This kind of collaboration and innovation is a model for other health priorities.”
The injectable Ebola vaccine, Ervebo, is manufactured by Merck (known as MSD outside the US and Canada). Preliminary study results have shown a 97.5% vaccine efficacy. Data also suggests that vaccinating people who are already infected reduces their chances of dying.
In response to the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the DRC, over 290 000 people have been vaccinated under compassionate use protocols. Once licensed doses are available, use of the vaccine in DRC will no longer require these protocols
Read More
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/14-02-2020-four-countries-in-the-african-region-license-vaccine-in-milestone-for-ebola-prevention
Views: 0
Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding in an Ebola outbreak face similar challenges as other population groups, but they have specific health needs which must be met.
As the second largest Ebola outbreak in history continues in the Democratic Republic of Congo, WHO has released new clinical guidelines for healthcare providers supporting pregnant or breastfeeding women in the context of Ebola virus disease.
Clear and coherent guidance is needed to meet the combined needs of women requiring Ebola treatment, pregnancy care and management of complications.
Information on how to protect breastfeeding children and other members in the community from transmission of the disease is also critical.
Limited scientific evidence on how to best manage these needs has previously been a challenge for affected countries. In addition, misconceptions that pregnant women have a higher mortality rate than other populations with Ebola may in some contexts have put pregnant women at risk of not receiving standard care.
WHO’s Guideline on the management of pregnant and breastfeeding women in the context of Ebola virus reviews existing evidence and provides a single set of recommendations on the care continuum for women exposed to, diagnosed with, or recovered from Ebola.
This will enable healthcare providers, emergency response teams and health policy-makers to improve prevention and treatment measures in an Ebola outbreak.
Optimal supportive care should be offered to all pregnant women with Ebola. Likewise, they should be offered experimental treatment and vaccination under the same conditions as non-pregnant populations.
Ebola virus disease does increase the risk of miscarriage and early labour, requiring close clinical management at Ebola treatment centres. It is important to engage both obstetric providers and those trained in Ebola response.
This dual expertise is also important because early Ebola and pregnancy-related symptoms can overlap. Pregnant women should be prioritised for testing to confirm an Ebola infection.
Ebola virus can persist in pregnancy related fluids as well as breastmilk. If healthcare providers are not clear on how to manage Ebola infection risk, they may be less willing to provide care. This stigma can be life-threatening for women who experience complications during delivery.
The new WHO guidelines advise healthcare workers on how to protect themselves while caring for pregnant women with Ebola virus disease. This includes induced labour or surgical procedures, which carry greater risk of transmission in cases of acute infection. Any invasive treatments should be carried out in full personal protective equipment.
WHO recommends that women with suspected or confirmed Ebola immediately stop breastfeeding and are prioritised for diagnostic testing. Any child exposed to Ebola through breast milk should be placed into safe care, closely monitored for symptoms over a 21-day period and fed with an appropriate breast milk substitute.
The guidelines strongly recommend that breastfeeding is only restarted following two consecutive negative tests of breast milk, separated by 24 hours.
A breast milk substitute should be used even if infection is confirmed for both the mother and her child. Exceptions can be made for infants under 6 months of age who are already infected, if breast milk substitutes are not feasible, affordable, sustainable or safe and separation cannot be implemented safely.
A disease outbreak does not change women’s and adolescent girls’ fundamental human right to sexual and reproductive healthcare, including evidence-based care during pregnancy and childbirth.
Women need support to make informed reproductive health care choices for themselves and their children. Women living in an Ebola outbreak should have access to all relevant reproductive options, regardless of economic, cultural, racial or religious status, including contraception and safe abortion to the full extent of the law.
Pregnant and breastfeeding women across affected communities need equitable and respectful care that considers the risks they face and supports the choices they make.
These guidelines are now available online and may be freely downloaded. The executive summary will be available in French.
WHO will closely monitor new data as it emerges, as there is still a pressing need to prioritise ongoing research related to Ebola virus transmission.
Read More
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/10-02-2020-pregnancy-and-breastfeeding-during-an-ebola-virus-outbreak
Views: 0
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s GRASP Laboratory have recently designed Modboat, a robotic boat that could be used to monitor oceans or carry out marine operations. This low-cost aquatic robot, presented in a paper pre-published on arXiv, can swim in the water using a single motor.
Views: 0
[ad_1]
Foreign exchange currency trading is also known as Forex trading, or FX, and has no single physical marketplace like the New York Stock Exchange does on Wall Street in New York or the Tokyo Stock Exchange does in Japan. The New York Stock Exchange and the Tokyo Stock Exchange online traders are limited to making purchases during the actual trading hours governed by New York Stock Exchange hours or the Japanese Stock Exchange’s Tokyo hours. In contrast online Forex trading gives traders access to the online Forex trading community through an electronic series of different online trading platforms. Online Forex trading and online accessibility are nicely compatible because the world’s foreign currency exchange market is a 24-hour market, and the internet makes online forex trading a 24 hour possibility open to anyone with a computer, a telephone line and money. Anyone, any corporation or any bank can log onto an online account at any time, and trade foreign currency through online forex trading.
Online forex trading is primarily the purchase of one currency from a particular country, using the currency of a different country. This exchange involves currency from two different countries at once. It can mean purchasing Japanese currency with Australian currency or purchasing German currency with Spanish currency. While that sounds simple, in fact, approximately $1.9 trillion is traded on Forex daily, making Forex online trading the biggest exchange worldwide. Although anyone can participate in Forex online trading, the key players are usually banks – commercial and investment – and exchange traded futures and registered futures commission merchants.
[ad_2]
Source by Kevin Anderson
Views: 0
[ad_1]
Who invented money? Ask any number of people and they couldn’t tell you who it was that actually invented money or where the idea came from. History has given us some bad ideas, but money has to be the worst and here are my top three reasons why.
If I think really hard and try to imagine a time without money, before it was invented and used on a daily basis, I tend to imagine that the world was a completely different place. People most likely had a barter type society where goods and services were exchanged and that is how one survived. If I had a particular skill, say hunting, and you were hungry you could come to me for food. The idea would be that if you could make fire, and I could provide the food, then we could exchange our skills or abilities and everyone got what was good for them. I assume, for the sake of argument, that if someone possessed absolutely no skills whatsoever, that person was still allowed to eat. I can’t imagine that I would loan the helpless soul some meat, only if it could be paid back somehow. Before helpless soul could blink, he might owe me for five dinners and then I have to send out the collection agents to call in his debts. Money provides control, in both a positive and negative control. Although it is man made, and essentially just a piece of paper or a mixture of cheap metals, money has power, and is power. I can just imagine Mr. Helpless Soul explaining to his wife that he can’t repay the hunter and doesn’t know what to do. So Mr. Hunter decides to enslave the Helpless Soul family until the debt is repaid. It is unfathomable to me that so many people in my country, and the world go hungry every day. Those who possess the money have the power to deny the needs of those that don’t have means. Where have the humanitarians gone? I’ve seen a business owner kick out a person who was homeless and starving, and then half an hour later deal with a complaining customer as he shouted that his food was not hot enough. Money only has the power that we give it. If we choose to see it as just a means to an end, or just some silly paper we have been told to obey our whole lives, then one can focus on what really matters. I am not advocating not paying debts, or shucking responsibilities. This is the world we live in, and norms must be followed…until the laws change again to suit what the politicians want on any particular whim of a day.
Why should I do anything to help anyone else, unless they can pay for it? If my entire focus in life is to obtain material things, then I should only be motivated by money, or obtaining it, to do anything. What is anything really worth? Marketing companies have defined worth for me since I was a child, and it was beaten into me during commercial breaks of GI Joe. What is the value of all of the things you want in comparison to something that really matters? Imagine what the worth is of spending one more hour with a loved one before they pass away and are gone forever. The worth of teaching your children that there is more to life than money and obtaining things. The worth of feeding a homeless man, and helping him have at least one night’s sleep where his stomach doesn’t keep him awake. The value of reaching out a hand and helping someone else in this world is worth more than the largest diamond, the heaviest gold, and the purest oil. Now, I am the biggest hypocrite on this topic, because I love things! It has been programmed in me for so long, it is hard to shake the desire to obtain things. Imagine a life in which people helped each other because it is the right thing to do, and not just for what they could get in return. The argument is, well, that things can’t just be free. You have to pay something to get something. How would the world work if everyone was just giving away everything for free and everyone just had everything they needed and didn’t have to be slave to credit card companies anymore or to a job that they dislike? How would we survive? My answer to those questions is, famously! I would be free to learn a trade that benefits others and could use that ability to provide for my family and to help others. I have wanted to help by donating or giving my entire life, but never had the means. I’ve donated a little time here and there, and not near as much as I should or would have liked to, but at least it was something. But because I like things, and those things have cost me money, I have to continue in my job, and repeat the same cycle my father did.
I try to envision the end of my life surrounded by those that have made my journey with me, who love and care for me because of the enrichment I gave to them through my friendship and dedication. In my latter years, enjoying my days with my wife, and talking to my grown children and my grand children. I want to soak up every single minute of my life between here and there. I want to feel and love and enjoy all that there is to offer. I have seen families destroyed, fighting over the money left behind after a loved one passes. Some of those grudges are held for the rest of their lives. They lose a relationship and also a loved one, and the only thing they can think about, is how much money they will be getting. More than likely, Mr. Entitlement as we will call him, won’t even miss the loved one that was lost. How many brilliant individuals never get the chance to succeed because of lack of means, and how many elite are given free passes because their pile of paper is bigger than yours. Do the people closest to you care about you or your money? Does the girlfriend only love you because of what you can buy her? Do your children only listen to you in order to get something they want? Take the money away, and would they abandon you? Such a great idea, this money.
My answer to all of this is that I don’t have an answer. My two year old daughter asked me about money and loves putting money in her piggy bank. It made me start to consider all the reasons I worry about money, and fight about money, and read books about money. Nothing like the honesty of a child, to make you sit and think.
[ad_2]
Source by Mitchell Pierce
Views: 0