A recent Atlantic piece introduces us to Griffin, a teenage addict from California. Poor Griffin. He was woken up in the middle of the night, thrown on a plane and driven out to the Utah desert to start a rehab program.

His addiction? The internet.

Yes, addiction is a word we throw around a lot today. Supposedly we're "addicted" to Game of Thrones, lattes and Crossfit as well. Lest we forget cigarettes, heroin and vodka.

So what about the internet? Is it the digital crack of our networked age?

Yes, says the media – perhaps because they themselves are addicted to the page views generated by sensationalist articles about the internet addiction of teenagers like Griffin.

The psychiatric community however, says no. Internet addiction is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States.

"Internet Gaming Addiction" was included in an appendix, "as a condition warranting more clinical research and experience before it might be considered for inclusion in the main book as a formal disorder." But that edition came out in 2013 – eons ago in digital history.

Okay, so here's one way to test your internet addiction:

• Can you get through the week without using the internet?
• Do you ever feel bad or guilty about your internet use?
• Have you neglected your family because of your use of the internet?
• Have you been in trouble at work because of internet use?

Replace "the internet" with "drugs" and you've got questions straight from the website of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc.

Did you say yes to any – or all – of them?

So maybe we can be addicted to the internet. But if it's a drug, what kind is it? For some people, it's crack cocaine or methamphetamine — something that destroys careers and families and lives.

A recent poll by a British law firm revealed that one in seven people have contemplated divorce because of their spouse's social media activity. A teenager ran away from home in China 10 years ago; authorities recently found her, alive and well, living in an internet café playing video games all day.

But for most of us, if the internet is an addiction, it may be more akin to fast food or sugary sodas. It's something that perhaps we don't need to ban, something that is available virtually everywhere, but something we should only enjoy in moderation, lest we suffer from its overuse.

It's true that the internet-as-cheeseburger metaphor isn't perfect. Most of us need to use the internet as part of our jobs, while no one needs sugar-laden sodas to survive. We can replace junk food with salad, but there's no low-fat version of tech.

Our options are either: use the Web more or less. If people are addicted to digital technology the way they're addicted to Diet Coke, Oreos or Big Macs, what business is it of anyone else's? We know that obsessively checking Facebook isn't good for us in the same way that a steady diet of sugar, salt and fat isn't good for us.

But what we eat, like what we click on, is a personal choice. True, some people will eat or drink themselves into an early grave, but the consequences for most people stop at heartburn or an expanded waistline.

We've been through this before with unhealthy drinks. A 2012 attempt by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to limit the sales of oversized sodas gave rise to a wide ranging debate about a nanny state and was ultimately defeated in court.

Within the bounds of the law, adults can do what they choose, including gorging themselves on French fries and ignoring their children in order to play games online. And while some people's internet "addiction" will reach a dangerous, destructive level, most of us will "merely" see a decline in our attention spans, our health and our personal relationships.

That's all? Internet addiction will merely destroy our minds, our bodies and our sex lives. So how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?

But what would a future in which internet addiction is a recognized medical condition look like? Yes, the multibillion-dollar recovery industry would, no doubt, welcome the development. Yet what would it do to our already burdensome healthcare costs?

Would our insurance premiums drop if we could prove we look at our families more than our smartphones? Would we see anti-internet television ads, 12-step groups and tech-free zones in public spaces?

This is no abstract debate amongst addiction experts. A world driven by the internet is the only reality hundreds of millions of young people have ever known. How would you protect the next two billion internet users from its overuse?

We don't yet know the answers to these questions, but we need to start thinking about them. The way we're headed, the next global addicts may be millions of teenagers like Griffin. Tomorrow's great health crisis may not be herbal or chemical, but digital.

source: http://thenextweb.com/

Imagine if you had to pay for treatment of illness out-of-pocket, and that doing so posed a significant strain on your family's finances. Unfortunately, this is the reality hundreds of millions of people around the world face when they go to the clinic. This is not a new challenge by any means, and 100 countries are now working to tackle this issue through universal health coverage (UHC).

This idea of protecting people against catastrophic financial ruin as a result of seeking health services has been aspirational for many years. UHC has been championed as an enabler of improving access and quality of health services around the world while protecting people from the burden of high out-of-pocket expenses. This is not an easy feat, particularly for low- and middle-income countries that are struggling with strained resources and a range of health challenges, including infectious diseases, chronic illnesses, child survival and maternal mortality. But the successes of Mexico, Chile, Thailand and other nations have demonstrated that it can be done. Furthermore, the inclusion of UHC in the recently-adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) gives countries the impetus to redouble efforts to make universal health coverage a reality and has triggered renewed interest in this issue from bilateral donors, implementing agencies and the private sector.

Why? Because the interconnectedness between health and economic development is well-established. One need not look further than the Ebola epidemic as a poignant reminder of how infectious disease outbreaks can quickly dismantle years of development progress. Similarly, noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as cancers, heart disease, chronic respiratory conditions and diabetes pose long-term financial stress on families because of high out-of-pocket expenses. Because they hit people during their prime working years, NCDs result in lost wages, causing further economic distress. In effect, the greater global prosperity promised by the SDGs cannot be achieved without UHC.

The addition of UHC in the SDGs will foster greater political commitment and help unlock more resources for this issue. We saw this as the global community worked to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The Rockefeller Foundation and its partners deserve our thanks for building the evidence base and raising the profile of universal health coverage as an enabler of better health and greater prosperity for millions of people around the world.

But achieving UHC is difficult at best. It requires a marriage between the art of allocating resources appropriately with the reality of the burden of disease and what can be done to mitigate it. It calls for balancing the provision of services for the poor with reaching low and middle-income families who neither qualify for subsidized programs, nor can afford high out-of-pocket costs.

Each country has to determine its unique path to UHC, develop a strategy to reach that goal and engage other sectors to support their efforts. Multilateral institutions, private providers, patient groups, NGOs, foundations and companies have the expertise, knowledge and human capacity that can assist countries in achieving UHC.

The World Health Organization and governments need to do more to significantly engage the private sector in finding solutions to support countries in realizing UHC. Many companies already do work to advance progress toward global health goals -- from investing in infrastructures to strengthening supply chains, developing life-saving therapies to training health workers. Indeed, Dr. Stefan J. Oschmann, Vice Chairman and Deputy CEO at Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and President of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, is championing the issue of UHC during his tenure as the leader of IFPMA. This is the type of visionary leadership needed to mobilize efforts to tackle complex challenges.

It is only through greater collaboration across sectors that real progress will be made toward achieving UHC. There is too much to do and too much at stake for the global health community to continue to spin its wheels about why it needs to engage the private sector and other non-State actors. Let's focus on how the private sector can help realize universal health coverage for the millions of people around the globe who need it the most. It's about time.

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Prevention measures including bednets and sprays help to bring deaths below half a million in previously vulnerable areas of sub-Saharan Africa, shows study

The number of people killed by malaria dropped below half a million in the past year, reflecting significant progress against the mosquito-borne disease in areas of sub-Saharan Africa that were previously among the hardest-hit.

The World Health Organisation's (WHO) annual malaria report showed deaths falling to 438,000 in 2015 – down dramatically from 839,000 in 2000 – and found a significant increase in the number of countries moving towards the elimination of malaria.

The use of bednets, indoor and outdoor spraying and other malaria prevention measures have averted millions of deaths and saved millions of dollars in healthcare costs over the past 14 years in many African countries, the report said. Africa continues to bear the highest malaria burden of any global region, but death rates from the disease have fallen by 66% across all age groups since 2000, and by 71% among children under five.

Margaret Chan, the WHO's director general, said the progress had been made possible "through the massive rollout" of effective prevention and treatment tools.

"In sub-Saharan Africa, more than half of the population is now sleeping under insecticide-treated mosquito nets, compared to just 2% in 2000," she wrote in the report published on Tuesday.

"A rapid expansion in diagnostic testing, and in the availability of antimalarial medicines, has allowed many more people to access timely and appropriate treatment."

Two countries, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, accounted for more than 35% of global malaria deaths in 2015. Yet, the WHO said, an estimated 663m cases of malaria have been averted in sub-Saharan Africa since 2001 as a direct result of the scale-up of three key malaria control interventions: bednets, indoor spraying, and the use of malaria drugs known as artemisinin-based combination therapy. Mosquito nets have had the greatest impact, the organisation said.

However, Pedro Alonso, director of the WHO's global malaria programme, cautioned that new challenges are emerging.

"In many countries, progress is threatened by the rapid development and spread of mosquito resistance to insecticides. Drug resistance could also jeopardise recent gains in malaria control," he said.

In the past five years, 60 of the 78 countries that monitor insecticide resistance have reported mosquito resistance to at least one insecticide used in nets and indoor spraying, the report found. Of these, 49 reported resistance to two or more classes of insecticide.

source: http://www.theguardian.com/

The World Health Organization has considered the HIV virus as one of the biggest scares of sexually active individuals over the past few years. There are at least 38.1 million have been infected with HIV, while there are also over 25 million people that have died because of AIDS-related cases.

HIV or human immunodeficiency virus is classified as a virus that gradually attacks the immune system, which is our body's natural defense against illness. This particular disease also spreads all throughout the body since it destroys a certain type of white blood cells by making copies of itself while inside of them.

The World Health Organization (WHO) lists down HIV as a major global health issue. Because in 2014 alone, there are over 1.2 million deaths reported that had something to do with HIV-related disease.

Back in 2013, the World FactBook releases a list of countries with the highest adult percentage victims of HIV. With all of them being in Africa, it has sent a clear message to the entire world that a cure is needed.

There are more than 2 million people that are newly infected with the disease in 2014 alone. And if we're going to consider the ability of people to control themselves and avoid promiscuity, there's a huge chance that this number will go even higher as each year passes by.

Now with the growing rate of HIV victims all around the world, the need to find a solution becomes more imperative than ever. Mr. Timothy Ray Brown, who is also known as Berlin Patient, has been recorded with no HIV in his body after the stem cell of a naturally HIV immune person has been transplanted to him. Another breakthrough in finding a solution for the disease is the production of engineered molecules. These molecules were able to kill the infected cells and remove all the hidden sources of the virus. However, these molecules gave a promising result, further tests are still required before it can be declared as a cure.

source: http://www.sciencetimes.com/

Official records say there are 27,604 patients in the State and only 19,663 have registered under the AIDS Control Society for ART. She spoke on various treatments, including antiretroviral therapy (ART), available for HIV patients. Maximizing these tools requires working together to confront and overcome the challenges that remain.

For global health advocates, December 1 is an opportunity to focus the world's attention on the fight against AIDS.

HIV has killed an estimated 39 million people to date and is at epidemic levels globally, CNN has reported. The path forward is clearer than ever, and the time to act is now.

An estimated 781,000 people in Brazil are now living with HIV, the country's ministry of health said Tuesday to coincide with World AIDS Day.

CNN has reached out to a number of Republican presidential candidates for comment on World AIDS Day.

"I counseled a gay man, a 32-year-old gay man last month who was diagnosed", Milano told MetroFocus Host Jack Ford.

Mrs Kenyatta said new HIV infections among the youth may reverse the gains made in the fight against the virus.

AIDS Free Pittsburgh joins similar efforts underway in San Francisco, where HIV infection rates have been reduced by 30 percent since 2012, as well as NY state and Washington state. However, those affected are living longer and Kloeckl said HIV and AIDS has become a forgotten disease.

Minister Haufiku commended the new World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations on providing treatment to anyone who tests HIV positive regardless of their CD4 count and using treatment as prevention to vulnerable populations as a positive development in ending HIV infections.

He then stressed the importance of a multi-sectoral approach to HIV/AIDS through active participation of all stakeholders including Civil Society Organisations, Private sector, Faith-based organisations, communities and people living with HIV and AIDS.

"When you take a look at national averages, there are a minority of people living with HIV/AIDS that are on treatment and doing well", he says.

source; http://recorderpress.com/

Tuberculosis (TB) killed 1.5 million people last year according to the World Health Organisation. Yet research money for TB is stagnating or even declining, according to a new report by the US based Treatment Action Group (TAG). By GROUNDUP staff.

TAG's annual Report on Tuberculosis Research Funding Trends shows that worldwide TB research funding dropped from $686 million in 2013 to $674 million in 2014. Although the report is meticulously compiled from numerous sources, the difference of $12 million dollars is small, and it is possible there are sources of funding that are not accounted for in the report. Nevertheless, the report's author, Mike Frick, is confident that there is a flat, probably falling, trend in TB research. He says the fact that the amounts in the report do not account for inflation supports the view that we're seeing a decline.

TB research is used to find new diagnostics, drugs and vaccines. It is also used to improve our understanding of the disease's biology, and to find improved ways of managing the disease.

The world's largest funder of TB research is the US public research institution, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). It spent $168 million in 2014. Next is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation at $128 million. Even though South Africa has one of the worst TB epidemics on the planet, the government, via the Medical Research Centre, Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation, spent only $4.7 million. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research spent more, even though Canada has a tiny epidemic.

Interestingly, the US National Institutes of Health, the parent body of NIAID, in 2014 spent nearly three times more on biodefense research ($1.7 billion), a largely theoretical threat, than the entire world spent on the practical and present threat of TB.

From the late 1940s through the 1960s, the British Medical Research Council invested heavily in TB research resulting in the medicines that are still used to treat the disease today. Research into new drugs then slowed down after wealthier countries brought their TB epidemics under control. But more and more people, especially in poor and middle-income countries, are becoming infected with strains of TB against which these drugs are no longer effective: they have drug-resistant TB.

The standard medicine regimen for drug-resistant TB is poorly tested, has terrible side-effects and mediocre to poor results. New drugs are desperately needed. Although two new drugs for treating TB have recently come onto the market, bedaquiline and linezolid, both have their problems and this is not nearly enough.

Frick points out that for years there have been no drugs in the earliest phase of TB clinical trials. This year there is only one, and it is similar to some existing TB drugs, so even if it does come onto the market eventually, it is unlikely to make a significant difference to treatment. The pipeline for new drugs is effectively stalled. "Most people would look at the TB drug pipeline and say this isn't a pipeline. There's no forward movement," says Frick.

Also, diagnosing TB is slow and not simple enough. The most practical test for TB infection — a device called the Gene Xpert — takes a few hours to give results, has to be carried out on an expensive, electricity-driven device that most health facilities do not have. It correctly diagnoses people who have TB 88% of the time. By comparison, HIV tests, that are much cheaper than the Gene Xpert, can be done, even in your home, in a few minutes without electricity, and give the correct result over 99% of the time.

Table: Annual global funding for TB research. Source: Treatment Action Group.

TAG's reports show that research funding picked up from 2005 to 2011 and then began to drop. Over the past five years, only $2.7 billion has been spent on TB research, while a United Nations and World Health Organisation initiative called the Stop TB Partnership called for $9.8 billion.

The Treatment Action Campaign is organising a march to the world's main TB conference which is taking place in Cape Town on Thursday. A key demand is that high TB burden countries put more money into TB research. There is a realisation among activists that the US government cannot be depended upon to put much more money into TB research. Countries like South Africa, China, India and Indonesia have to cough up.

The TAC hopes that Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi will receive the march's memorandum. The organisation's policy director, Marcus Low, says research is desperately needed for new drugs. "We can't simply fix the health system problems [to sort out TB]. We need that, but in the medium and long-term we need new good drugs to break the back of the disease." DM

Photo: Patients with HIV and tuberculosis (TB) wear masks while awaiting consultation at a clinic in Cape Town's Khayelitsha township, February 23, 2010. REUTERS/Finbarr O'Reilly

source: http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/

November marked a setback in the fight against drug-resistant infections. Scientists announced that they had found bacteria that were resistant to colistin, known as an antibiotic of last resort.

Even more alarming, they discovered that the gene providing the resistance could migrate from one strain of bacteria to another, meaning other types of infections could also become untreatable.

The announcement prompted public health experts to renew their warnings that the world risks slipping into a deadly, post-antibiotic era.
But November also brought some good news – even if it received less notice. When the G-20 met in Antalya, the leaders of the world's largest economies agreed that antimicrobial resistance was a threat to global growth. Buried in the last paragraph of the communique issued at the conclusion of the summit was an agreement to put the issue on the agenda of the organisation's next meeting.

"We agree that attention should be given to global health risks, such as antimicrobial resistance, infectious disease threats, and weak health systems," read the communique. "These can significantly impact growth and stability."

This is an important development. The G-20 would be an ideal forum in which to take international action against antimicrobial resistance. The countries most at risk from the problem include Brazil, Russia, India and China (the BRICs), none of which is a G-7 member. These countries are also among those most likely to find solutions to the challenge.

Furthermore, the attendees at the G-20's summits include heads of state and economic ministers, without whom no solution can be implemented.
The commitment by the G-20 is just one example of the momentum gathering around the issue. In October, G-7 health ministers committed their countries to help combat antimicrobial resistance. The problem was also discussed by British Prime Minister David Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne, and their counterparts from India, China and Brazil.

A number of leaders, including Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, US President Barack Obama, and, most recently, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have made personal commitments to address the issue.

Growing recognition of the gravity of the threat is an opportunity that must not be lost. Part of the war has already been won. We know what must be done to address the challenge, and much is already being accomplished. More people are being encouraged to wash their hands to minimise the spread of infections.

Major campaigns are underway to alert people to the risk that antimicrobial resistance poses to their health and wealth. And we are improving the surveillance of superbugs, as we learn more about the dangers they pose to humans and animals. The United Kingdom, for example, has committed $300mn to support microbiology surveillance capacity in developing countries.

Specific steps have also been proposed to speed up the adoption of state-of-the-art diagnostics in hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, and homes, so that the unnecessary use of antibiotics can be reduced. And we have also begun to combat the misuse of antibiotics in agriculture.
Indeed, there are encouraging signs that leading US-based food manufacturers are changing their operations in response to consumer pressure. This could be the start of a big shift.

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies and government agencies are gaining a better understanding of the role that vaccines and alternative therapies could play in reducing anti-microbial resistance.

And we are starting to prioritise the development of new drugs – as well as redoubling efforts to extend the lifespans of existing treatments. In October, the UK and China agreed to establish a global research and development fund, with the aim of attracting £1bn ($1.5bn) in investment in research to reduce the spread of antimicrobial resistance.

The biggest question that remains to be addressed is how to divide the cost among governments, the pharmaceutical industry, health systems, development agencies, and large charitable foundations. This is where the focus of the discussion needs to be now.

Fortunately, tackling the problem need not break the bank. Ensuring that future generations have access to effective antimicrobial treatments will cost little compared to other global challenges. We estimate that market-entry rewards for about 15 new drugs would cost $16-35bn over 10 years. This is a small price to pay relative to the estimated $100tn in lost global economic output if we do not act.

Finding about $2bn a year over ten years to stop the return of infectious diseases is well within the means of the world's 20 richest countries or 20 of its largest pharmaceutical companies. If they joined forces to fund a solution, the cost would be a rounding error in their bottom lines.
But, given the size of the returns, it would be one of the wisest investments that they – or anyone – could make. - Project Syndicate

source; http://www.gulf-times.com/

BANGKOK, Nov 30 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Funding for tuberculosis research fell $1.3 billion short of global targets last year, threatening worldwide goals to eliminate the disease between 2030 and 2035, researchers said on Monday.

The Treatment Action Group (TAG), an independent think tank, said the $674 million of total funding in 2014 amounted to just a third of the $2 billion experts say is needed per year for research and development to rid the world of TB.

The need for better ways to prevent, diagnose and treat TB has never been greater as it is now the leading cause of death from an infectious disease, responsible for more deaths per year than AIDS, according to World Health Organization (WHO) data.

"Anything short of a massive and sustained infusion of money into TB research will jeopardize our chances of meeting global goals," Mark Harrington, executive director of TAG, said in a statement.

TB death rates have dropped 47 percent since 1990 but the highly infectious, air-borne disease still kills 4,000 people every day.

Progress is threatened by the emergence of drug-resistant strains which are outpacing the development of new drugs and are hard to diagnose and treat.

In 2014, 480,000 people developed multidrug-resistant TB, according to WHO data.

The WHO has called for achieving a world free of TB by 2035, an aspiration reaffirmed by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, agreed by world leaders last September, which include a target to end TB by 2030.

Modest gains in TB research and development funding from 2005 to 2009 have stagnated in the five years since then, according to TAG's research.

An exodus of pharmaceutical companies from TB research since 2012 has left the field dependent on public and philanthropic organisations for support, TAG said.

TAG said it is particularly alarming that funding for TB drug research fell by $25 million in 2014 from a year ago.

"We won't eliminate TB unless we accelerate research and development," said Lucica Ditiu, executive director of the Stop TB Partnership.

Ditiu urged the BRICS countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa - to lead a financial push for research and development.

They accounted for 46 percent of the world's new TB cases and 40 percent of TB-related deaths in 2014, but for only 3.6 percent of public funding, according to TAG. (Editing by Ros Russell; Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, which covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, corruption and climate change. Visit www.trust.org to see more stories)

Read more http://www.reuters.com/