The World Health Organization (WHO) today spells out the need to step up cancer services in low and middle-income countries. WHO warns that, if current trends continue, the world will see a 60% increase in cancer cases over the next two decades. The greatest increase (an estimated 81%) in new cases will occur in low- and middle-income countries, where survival rates are currently lowest.
This is largely because these countries have had to focus limited health resources on combating infectious diseases and improving maternal and child health, while health services are not equipped to prevent, diagnose and treat cancers. In 2019, more than 90% of high-income countries reported that comprehensive treatment services for cancer were available in the public health system compared to less than 15% of low-income countries.
“This is a wake-up call to all of us to tackle the unacceptable inequalities between cancer services in rich and poor countries,” says Dr Ren Minghui, Assistant Director-General, Universal Health Coverage/ Communicable and Noncommunicable Diseases, World Health Organization. “If people have access to primary care and referral systems then cancer can be detected early, treated effectively and cured. Cancer should not be a death sentence for anyone, anywhere.”
Yet, progress in poorer countries is achievable. WHO and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) are releasing two coordinated reports on World Cancer Day (4 February), in response to government calls for more research into the scope and potential policies and programmes to improve cancer control.
“At least 7 million lives could be saved over the next decade, by identifying the most appropriate science for each country situation, by basing strong cancer responses on universal health coverage, and by mobilizing different stakeholders to work together”, said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, WHO.
WHO highlights a wide range of proven interventions to prevent new cancer cases. These include controlling tobacco use (responsible for 25% of cancer deaths), vaccinating against hepatitis B to prevent liver cancer, eliminating cervical cancer by vaccinating against HPV, screening and treatment, implementing high-impact cancer management interventions that bring value for money and ensuring access to palliative care including pain relief.
"The past 50 years have seen tremendous advances in research on cancer prevention and treatment,” says Dr Elisabete Weiderpass, Director of IARC. “Deaths from cancer have been reduced. High-income countries have adopted prevention, early diagnosis and screening programmes, which together with better treatment, have contributed to an estimated 20% reduction in the probability of premature mortality between 2000 and 2015, but low-income countries only saw a reduction of 5%. We need to see everyone benefitting equally.” The challenge will be for countries to select treatments balancing considerations including cost, feasibility and effectiveness. Each government is tasked with choosing the appropriate innovative cancer therapies, while recognizing that established treatments, many of which are very effective and affordable, can provide benefits for cancer without causing financial hardship.
Any increase in cancer rates is disturbing but a projected 60% increase? That's global and that's a demand for immediate attention, awareness and preparation. I really am startled by that projection. That's really the sort of number you see during a pandemic -- and maybe that's what we should be calling this?
Switching to a different topic, Marie Godoy (NPR) reports on the impact our food choices can have on our environment:
Most of the time, the researchers found that foods that promote good health also tended to be better for the planet — and vice versa. While nuts require lots of water to produce, Tilman says, water was just one factor that affected their environmental ranking.
"If water is going to be used to irrigate crops, it would seem better for it to be used to grow healthy crops," he says. Producing a serving of nuts has about five times the negative effects on the environment compared with producing a serving of vegetables, according to the study.
That may sound like a lot, until you compare that to red meat; both processed and unprocessed, it's "uniformly bad," Tilman says. Producing a serving of processed red meat, the researchers found, has about 40 times the negative environmental impact of producing a serving of vegetables – and eating an extra daily serving raises the relative risk of overall mortality by 40 percent.
"That doesn't mean you're going to die with a 40 percent chance in a given year," Tilman notes. "It just means whatever your chance was of dying that year for your age, [the relative risk is] about 40 percent larger."
However, just because a food is bad for us doesn't always mean it's bad for the planet. Sugary beverages, for instance, have been linked to an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke, but the study found their environmental impact isn't much more than that of growing vegetables. On the flip side, fish consumption is associated with a lower risk of several diseases, but it's not as great for the planet as a plant-based diet.
That said, Tilman notes that how a fish is caught or grown matters a lot. Fish caught by trawlers in the open ocean have a much higher environmental impact because these boats use "lots of diesel fuel for not a lot of fish," he says in an email. "Fish such as tuna and salmon caught on lines or with seine nets near the surface, and aquaculture fish such as salmon, steelhead, catfish and tilapia grown in ponds, lochs, fjords and ocean cages have moderate greenhouse gas emissions per serving that are about 6 times those of the typical plant-based foods."
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Tuesday:
Tuesday, February 4, 2020. Iowa results have still not been released, a
desperate Joe Biden hopes to fundraise heavily before the results come
out, protests continue in Iraq, the issue of the US leaving Iraq is
discussed in public forums in the US, and much more.
Starting in the US where War Hawk Joe Biden had his "Tyrone" moment last night in Iowa.
Time for Joe to get his s**t and go.
Starting in the US where War Hawk Joe Biden had his "Tyrone" moment last night in Iowa.
So matter of fact, I think ya better call Tyrone (call him)
And tell him come on, help you get your s**t (come on, come on, come on)
You need to call Tyrone (call him)
And tell him I said come on
-- "Tyrone," written by Erykah Badu and Norman "Keys'' Hurt, first appears on her album LIVEAnd tell him come on, help you get your s**t (come on, come on, come on)
You need to call Tyrone (call him)
And tell him I said come on
Time for Joe to get his s**t and go.
I represent the second largest county in Iowa.
Joe Biden was not viable in my precinct. By the second alignment, he had one supporter and received zero delegates.
There’s a lot going on rn, but Biden’s poor performance in MUST-WIN areas should be concerning to Dems. #iacaucus
INTERNAL DATA FROM BERNIE SANDERS
Bernie Sanders 30%
Pete Buttigieg 25%
Elizabeth Warren 21%
Joe Biden 12%
Amy Klobuchar 11%
I'm going to bed, I have class in a few hours
#NotMeUs #TomPerezResign
#IowaCaucuses
We don't know the 'official results.' Why? One reason is Joe Biden learned from Iraq's thug Nouri al-Maliki.
Barack Obama put Joe in charge of Iraq. It was 2010 and elections were held in March. Nouri and the press knew he would win . . . but he didn't. So he immediately threw a fit insisting the results were wrong and whining. Eventually two or three more votes were tossed his way but he still lost.
Joe's doing something similar with his screeching that the Iowa results cannot be released yet.
Whether we're going by THE NEW YORK TIMES' tracking of the caucus or what the heads of various caucuses are saying, Bernie Sanders won.
Joe did very poorly.
Very poorly.\
Why throw a fit?
To delay that reality. The campaign's got orders to spend this morning digging out as much corporate dollars as they can. They're supposed to be sunny and upbeat when the reality is Joe's campaign is cratering financially and if donors realize that and realize how poorly he did in Iowa, it's over for Joe. There's no money to go forward. If donors grasp that Mayor Pete is a better shot than Joe, they will abandon Joe and pour their money into Pete's campaign.
Joe is on the ropes and he knows it. The campaign knows it. Few got any sleep last night. There was a heated strategy session following Joe's live remarks streamed on the net.
A sane person would grasp that it's over and admit it. There aren't any sane people -- including Joe -- in charge at Team Biden.
Say what you will about 2008 Joe, at least he was smart enough to drop out the morning after the Iowa caucus. By the way, NYT and the Sanders campaign both have Joe coming in fifth.
Fifth.
That's where he came in back in 2008. Fifth. Iowa doesn't like him. Fifth, he's not electable. At some point, the results get released and (unless some of the serious issues Max Blumenthal and others are raising bear out) and we see he came in fifth again.
Joe's not likable. Why is that?
Why.
Is.
That?
Maybe because he's disgusting.
Maybe because he's a perv.
The hot mess in Iowa had two specific purposes:
#1) Hide the lack of support for Joe Biden
#2) Ensure Bernie Sanders did not gain momentum...
That's it.
At the end of this predictable rainbow is this:
Chris Matthews called it last night on MSNBC, "I don't know if he [Joe] is going to make it." He wouldn't be around right now if the results had been released.
Bernie won.
Joe's going to lose New Hampshire as well.
Loser Joe. That reality will now impact the polling. People who bought into the media lie that Joe was the most electable will be confronted with the reality that Joe's not all that electable. We saw this in 2008 as well. As 2007 wound down, Hillary Clinton led in the national polls. But then Barack won Iowa and she didn't seem so electable and her support dropped.
Joe should be packing it in right now. Most of his staffers know they can't revive the corpse. Why Joe refuses to admit it is anyone's guess.
Pete and Mike Bloomberg -- because they stand the most to benefit if Joe withdraws -- should be calling for him to drop out. They should be arguing that this election is too important for vanity campaigns and that the voters have spoken so Joe should leave the race.
From snowy Denver, my message is simple: tonite is the beginning. We’re gonna make #PresidentSanders a reality, whether the establishment likes that or not. Stay focused. Redouble your efforts. Let’s do this.
Let’s get #PresidentSanders trending for all the volunteers and staff who worked their hearts out in Iowa — and who launched this amazing grassroots campaign that’s gonna transform this country.
Let's get "loser Joe" trending so that the campaign has no luck this morning trying to scrape up money from various corporate donors.
Joe's not the only one who needs to get their act together. The Democratic Party in Iowa needs to get it together as well. There are no ballots to count. The whole point of the caucus system is that they are open and transparent and, yes, immediate. This is outrageous that they cannot release their results hours after the caucus has ended.
There's no excuse for it.
If they haven't released their results in the next few hours, Iowa needs to be pulled from the front of the 2024 campaign and stuck in a spot sometime after Super Tuesday. If they can't get their act together, that's what needs to happen. Did no one do a dry run on the new software and equipment? Was there no preparation at all?
Sounds like someone's gotten too comfortable with getting the first event every election year. Their actions (inaction) are sewing distrust in the vote. They need to release the totals immediately.
In Iraq, the protests continue.
New painting themed around the ongoing protests in Iraq by Assyrian artist Nenous Thabit, titled "Will of the People."
The Iraqi people are protesting against corruption, they want a responsive government.
Radical cult leader Moqtada al-Sadr has responded to these demands by sending his goons to attack the protesters. See yesterday's "Moqtada's goons attacking Iraqis in the street" and "Editorial: Moqtada is a thug." Moqtada al-Sadr and his cult of thugs are ignoring what Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called for in last Friday's prayers. Even some of his most deluded followers must grasp that.
Anti-government demonstrators face off against followers of influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in protest squares across Iraq, a day after one demonstrator was killed in a clash between the two sides.
Iraqi students in #Baghdad are chanting anti Corruption and anti Al-Sader chants this morning #IraqProtests
تابعوا اخر التطورات من كربلاء عبر حساب المصور حازم حمودي
“ Our homeland here is your youth, we came out without the need for a tweet” in direct reference to Muqtada Al Sader’a loyalist who answer to his tweets and calls to protest on twitter: #IraqProtests #Iraq
Iraqi protests swell despite clash with Sadrist supporters almon.co/3bcl via @AlMonitor #IraqProtests #Save_the_Iraqi_people #iraq #IraqiRevolution
At THE WASHINGTON POST, THE NATION's Katrina vanden Heuvel argues:
Trump’s
broken promise on Iraq will hurt him in the 2020 election, and, given
his narrow margin of victory in key battleground states, it could be the
reason for his defeat. But the Democrats should not rest on this
prospect alone. They should actively make it happen by convincing the
public (or more precisely, those Americans who voted for Trump in 2016
because of his position on endless wars) that they can deliver when
Trump could not.
At THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, Charles Ashurst offers:
Many many years ago, before some of you were born, the justification of
the U.S. occupation of Iraq was along the lines of, “We’re there to
assist some people achieve self-determination. Oh my, yes. We just love
peoples’ right to self-determination, and that is why we must occupy
this country to assist them achieve self-determination.”
Does anyone see the irony of the U.S. occupying Iraq against their will
for the purpose of assisting them toward self-determination?
Apparently, we understand their need for self-determination far better
than they do.
Why aren’t we the American public insisting on an explanation for why
we are still occupying Iraq? What earthly good are we getting from it?
What earthly good are Iraqis getting from it? What’s our objective? When
will it be done? In more practical terms, how long will China keep
lending us the money to occupy the Middle East?
New content at THIRD:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Moqtada is a thug
- TV: America's need for 9-1-1
- Carole King's lost album
- 10 Carole King deep cuts you might not know of
- Jim's World
- Video of the week
- Glenn just cracked her face
- Political Tweet of the week
- This edition's playlist
- Highlights
The following sites updated:
