

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

A World Health Assembly (WHA) resolution on Chagas disease control
and elimination, to be adopted this week, is a step in the right
direction but does not go far enough to fully tackle the disease since
it focuses only on prevention, the international medial humanitarian
organization Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) and
the Drugs for Neglected Disease initiative=
(DNDi) said today.
The groups are calling on WHA member states to also focus on the
integration of diagnosis and treatment of Chagas at primary health care
levels and to increase research and development of effective drugs to
treat the parasitic disease, common in parts of Latin America.
"After more than 10 years of experience, MSF has successfully treated
thousands of patients with Chagas," said Fran Roman, vice-president of
MSF. "We would like to see equal importance given to treatment and
diagnosis as to prevention strategies. The countries affected must agree
to integrate diagnosis and treatment at the primary health level if
they want to reach all patients-children and adults-in both acute and
chronic phases of the disease."
While the intention of the resolution is to control and eliminate
Chagas disease, it includes no clear statement addressing diagnosis,
treatment once patients are diagnosed, or the research and development
of new tools to the fight the disease.
"Chagas patients have been forgotten because they are poor and fall
outside mainstream market interest," said Bernard Pecoul, executive
director of DNDi. "But science exists to develop better treatments and
diagnostic tools for all. The first steps toward progress at an
international level are through sustainable, predictable funding and
strong public support. The delegates at the WHA now have the opportunity
to move forward and take concrete action," he said.
The WHA resolution has the potential to impact millions of people
infected by Chagas, the leading parasitic killer in the Americas, with
an estimated 10 to 15 million people infected per year.
The WHA should follow the example of the Pan American Health
Organization (PAHO), which prioritized treatment in its 2009 resolution
"Elimination of neglected diseases and other poverty-related
infections," said the organizations.
Urgent actions and measures to increase medical response must be taken
to scale up diagnosis, treatment and patient access to care and to boost
research and development for new tools. MSF and DNDi also call on
member states to reinforce the supply chains of existing treatments so
that they are available to health staff and national programs and to
promote much-needed research and development, which is virtually
non-existent. They also urge a focus on better treatment (less toxic,
shorter and more efficient treatment courses in all stages of the
disease for children and adults), diagnostic tools adapted to the
limited resources settings and a test of cure to control Chagas disease.
About American Trypanosomiasis or Chagas Disease
Each year, an estimated 10 to 15 million people across the world are
infected with the Chagas disease. Every year 14,000 people die as a
consequences of the disease. Endemic in 21 Central and Latin American
countries, it also has growing presence in non-endemic countries through
migration of people. In Central and South America, Chagas kills more
people than any other parasite-borne disease, including malaria. The
disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi transmitted
primarily by insects known as "kissing bugs". The existing treatments
have an unsatisfactory cure rate and can have toxic side effects. DNDi
aims to develop affordable, safe, and efficacious treatments for
children and adults.
Doctors Without Borders /Medecins Sans Frontieres/ (MSF)
has screened more than 60,000 people for Chagas and has treated over
3,000 patients with the disease since 1999. MSF opened its first Chagas
treatment program in Honduras. MSF has developed programs in Nicaragua,
Guatemala and currently screens, diagnoses and treats children and
adults in Bolivia and Colombia. A new project is opening in Paraguay.
About DNDi
The Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) is a not-for-profit
product development partnership working to research and develop new and
improved treatments for neglected diseases, in particular human African
trypanosomiasis, leishmaniasis, Chagas disease, and malaria. With the
objective to address unmet patient needs for these diseases, DNDi was
established in 2003 by the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation from Brazil, the
Indian Council for Medical Research, the Kenya Medical Research
Institute, the Ministry of Health of Malaysia, the Pasteur Institute,
and Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF). WHO/TDR acts
as a permanent observer. Working in partnership with industry and
academia, DNDi has the largest ever R&D portfolio for kinetoplastid
diseases. Since 2007, DNDi has delivered three products, two fixed-dose
anti-malarials "ASAQ" and "ASMQ", and a combination treatment for the
advanced stage of sleeping sickness "NECT" (nifurtimox-eflornithine
combination therapy).
The first Chagas treatment for children, pediatric strength
benznidazole, will be made available in the near future by DNDi and
Pharmaceutical Laboratory of Pernambuco (LAFEPE) in Brazil. Furthermore,
in 2009 DNDi signed a collaboration and license agreement with the
Japanese pharmaceutical company Eisai Co. Ltd. for the clinical
development of the promising compound E1224, to treat Chagas disease.
Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971. MSF's work is based on the humanitarian principles of medical ethics and impartiality. The organization is committed to bringing quality medical care to people caught in crisis regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. MSF operates independently of any political, military, or religious agendas.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."