Fantastic treatment breakthrough highlights utter scandal of British banking crisis

Here is an amazing good news story I first read about on Aljazeera which has had wide coverage outside the UK but has been largely ignored by the BBC and most British newspapers.

I have previously highlighted on this blog that by focussing exclusively on HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB, Western governments and NGOs have neglected other easily treatable and curable diseases.

The neglected diseases, which include schistosomiasis, river blindness, ascariasis, elephantiasis and trachoma, affect more than 750 million people and kill at least 500,000 every year.

Treating all of these illnesses with a cocktail of four readily available drugs would cost less than 50 cents (28p) a person a year. Furthermore dealing with the forgotten diseases would reduce susceptibility to malaria and help to make socio-economic improvements for those in poverty, as well as save lives.

Reaching everyone in Africa who needed treating would cost $200 million a year, a mere fraction of the $15 billion a year being spent on malaria, HIV and TB.

But this week a fantastic breakthrough has been announced.

Thirteen major pharmaceutical companies, government groups and health charities will work together in a push to eliminate or control by 2020 ten tropical diseases that affect more than a billion people in poor countries.

The partners, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, call it the largest coordinated effort ever to combat neglected tropical diseases. The government groups and charities alone are committing just over $785 million in new funding.

The drug makers are donating billions of doses of their medicines over the rest of the decade, but did not attribute a value to them. The companies also will work together to speed up development of new treatments, and the partners will work on improving drug delivery and treatment programs, including prevention and education.

The project, announced Monday at the Royal College of Physicians in London, aims to meet the goals of the World Health Organization's roadmap for controlling the diseases by 2020.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the project’s biggest donor, with a five-year, $363 million donation to support research and operations. The U.K. Department for International Development is committing about $305 million, and the U.S. Agency for International Development is providing $89 million. That's on top of USAID’s $212 million investment since 2006. Other governments or charities are giving smaller amounts.

This is wonderful news indeed but in reading the main thing that struck me was the miniscule cost of this project alongside the scale of our British national debt.

I have previously also remarked that the cost of tackling non-communicable diseases (eg. heart disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease and diabetes) worldwide each year in poor countries is less than 1% of what we spent bailing out British banks.

This cost, calculated at £7.2 billion, is more than ten times what has been pledged this week but less than 1% of what we will spend bailing out British banks (£850 billion). Much has been made of the £45 billion of taxpayers money used to bail out Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). But this £850 billion total is almost 20 times that.

According to the National Audit Office the Government spent £117 billion buying shares in banks and lending directly to financial institutions.

The audit office also suggested that the bill could rise further, as the total of investments, guarantees, loans and insurance schemes established to support the banks meant that the taxpayer was liable for up to £850 billion - £40,000 for each family.

The £850 billion includes buying £76 billion of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group; indemnifying the Bank of England against losses incurred in providing more than £200 billion of liquidity support; guaranteeing up to £250 billion of wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity; providing £40 billion of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and insurance cover of over £280 billion for bank assets.

Given how little it costs in comparison to prevent, treat or eliminate disease imagine what impact we could have made had we chosen to invest our money in caring for the poor rather than in borrowing to live beyond our means!

Perhaps this is one reason why the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, recently said that Britain’s public debt, which last month topped £1 trillion, was the ‘greatest moral scandal’ facing the country.

God said of Sodom, ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.’ (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)

If this was what he thought of Sodom, I wonder what he thinks of us.

The WHO is wrong about the two major causes of death world-wide

According to the World Health Organisation 57 million people die every year world-wide.

WHO says that cardiovascular diseases kill more people each year than any others. In 2008, 7.3 million people died of ischaemic heart disease, 6.2 million from stroke or another form of cerebrovascular disease. That’s a total of 13.5 million.

Tobacco use is a major cause of many of the world’s top killer diseases – including cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease and lung cancer. In total, tobacco use is responsible for the death of almost one in 10 adults worldwide – that’s 5.7 million per year. Smoking is often the hidden cause of the disease recorded as responsible for death.

WHO lists the top ten killers worldwide as follows:

Ischaemic heart disease - 7.25 million deaths
Stroke and other cerebrovascular disease - 6.15
Lower respiratory infections - 3.46
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - 3.28
Diarrhoeal diseases - 2.46
HIV/AIDS - 1.78
Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers - 1.39
Tuberculosis - 1.34
Diabetes mellitus - 1.26
Road traffic accidents - 1.21

Of course the distribution of deaths is different in different countries.

In high-income countries more than two thirds of all people live beyond the age of 70 and predominantly die of chronic diseases: cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancers, diabetes or dementia. Lung infection remains the only leading infectious cause of death.

In low-income countries less than one in five of all people reach the age of 70, and more than a third of all deaths are among children under 15. People predominantly die of infectious diseases: lung infections, diarrhoeal diseases, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Complications of pregnancy and childbirth together continue to be leading causes of death, claiming the lives of both infants and mothers.

More than 8 million deaths in 2008 were among children under five years of age, and 99% of them were in low- and middle-income countries.

So here are WHO’s big three: Cardiovascular disease – 13.5 million deaths; Tobacco – 5.7 million; Childhood diseases – 8 million.

But these three are not actually the biggest killers.

About 18 million deaths annually are either directly, or indirectly, the result of poverty.

But even poverty – which kills about one in three people on the planet - is not the greatest killer.

The WHO has also failed to count 45 million deaths every year because in reality there are not 57 million annually but 102 million.

The WHO has failed to count 3 million stillbirths and 42 million abortions.

There is no one more vulnerable, more innocent and killed in greater numbers than the child in the womb.

Together poverty and abortion kill 60 million people every year. These two causes account for 60% of all deaths.

Every Christian who cares about human rights should be aware of the effects of both poverty and abortion on the world’s most vulnerable people and every Christian and every church should be doing something about both issues.

Christians must be concerned for vulnerable people – whether they are children on a garbage heap in a developing world city or defenceless babies in the womb. Both are equally important to God.

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy. (Proverbs 31:8,9)

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. (Proverbs 24:10-12)

The cost of tackling non-communicable diseases worldwide each year in poor countries is less than 1% of what we spent bailing out British banks

The BBC has reported on the World Health Organization’s plan to tackle non-communicable diseases like heart disease, which it says now pose a greater global burden than infectious diseases.

‘Lifestyle-related’ diseases are now the leading cause of death worldwide, killing 36 million people a year. Cardiovascular diseases were responsible for 48% of these deaths, cancers 21%, chronic respiratory diseases 12% and diabetes 3%.

Cancer, diabetes, heart diseases and lung diseases are normally thought of as diseases of the affluent West, but 80% of all deaths caused by them happen in the developing world. Much of the toll is in low and middle-income countries and this is where efforts must be focused, says WHO. It suggests affordable steps governments should take.

The list includes measures that target the population as a whole, such as excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, smoke-free indoor workplaces and public places, as well as campaigns to reduce salt and dangerous fats in foods.

Other tactics focus on individuals and include screening and treatment for cardiovascular disease and cervical cancer, as well as immunisation against hepatitis B to prevent liver cancer.

WHO estimates the total cost for adopting these strategies in all low-and middle-income countries would be $11.4bn (£7.2bn) per year. Many countries have already adopted the public health interventions, and have seen a marked reduction in disease incidence and mortality.

In comparison, the cumulative costs of heart diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, cancer and diabetes in poorer countries are expected to top $7 trillion (£4.4 trillion) in 2011-2025, an average of nearly $500bn (£316bn) a year, according to the World Economic Forum.

£7.2 billion seems a lot of money. But it is really a very small investment indeed alongside the bill for rescuing British banks following the near-collapse of the financial system in 2008-2009.

According to the National Audit Office the Government spent £117 billion buying shares in banks and lending directly to financial institutions.

The audit office also suggested that the bill could rise further, as the total of investments, guarantees, loans and insurance schemes established to support the banks meant that the taxpayer was liable for up to £850 billion — £40,000 for each family.

These commitments include buying £76bn of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group; indemnifying the Bank of England against losses incurred in providing more than £200bn of liquidity support; guaranteeing up to £250bn of wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity; providing £40bn of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and insurance cover of over £280bn for bank assets.

So the cost of tackling non-communicable diseases worldwide each year in poor countries (£7.2 bn) is less than 1% of what we will spend bailing out British banks (£850 bn).

Imagine what impact we could have made had we chosen to invest our money in caring for the poor rather than in borrowing to live beyond our means.

God said of Sodom, ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.’ (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)

I wonder what he would say of us?

Is seven billion people too many? More nonsense from the population control lobby

SPUC Director John Smeaton has drawn my attention to an article I missed in last weekend’s Observer titled ‘Beckhams a “bad example” for families’.

Now you might wonder why the Beckhams are a bad example. Is it for calling their daughter ‘Harper Seven’? Or their expensive tastes? Or their choice of friends?

It’s actually none of these. According to ‘population experts’ they have joined the ranks of the irresponsible by having four children.

Apparently the world’s population is about to pass seven billion in the next few days and so environmentalists like the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas and zoologist David Attenborough are using it as an opportunity to call for the UK to open a public debate about how many children people should have.

This is a recurring theme for Britain’s liberal elite and drives much of the obsession with population control in developing countries. Back in February 2009 Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the UK Government’s Sustainable Development Commission, said that curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of efforts to combat global warming, and that couples who had more than two children were irresponsible. This idea - that our planet is heating up as a result of people in developing countries breeding too much – seems to be gaining more adherents amongst the Western intelligentsia.

Simon Ross of Population Matters (formerly the Optimum Population Trust) is quoted in last weekend’s Observer article as saying:

‘[F]amily planning is cheap, yet many people don't use it properly and accidental pregnancy rates are very high. We need to change the incentives to make the environmental case that one or two children are fine but three or four are just being selfish. The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families." [Smeaton’s emphases]

Smeaton identifies the coercive element in this statement:

‘Excuse me? For all my adult life, supporters of "family planning" have claimed - repeatedly and in no uncertain terms - that "family planning" is all about choice, that no one (especially not men) has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies and that one should never, ever be judgmental about another person's private reproductive decisions. Mr Ross' chutzpah shows that population control extremists are as bendy as a Beckham free-kick.’

But is seven billion people too many? Whether the world is overpopulated is debatable. All the world's buildings would fit in Scotland or Ireland alone and the world's population could currently stand shoulder to shoulder on the Isle of Wight. World per capita food production has more than kept pace with population and Europe's own past demonstrates that fertility can be managed effectively - even without contraceptives - as living standards improve.

Furthermore citizens of the developing world choose large families for good reasons, as insurance against an uncertain future in circumstances of high infant mortality, low and insecure income and labour intensive farming.

Family planning combined with economic development allows couples to plan the number and spacing of their children in the light of their own circumstances and beliefs. On the other hand imposed population control, with all that involves, coupled with mounting developing world debt and economic austerity measures which slash health and education budgets, actually causes huge damage to poor indigenous populations.

Our stewardship of the earth is not a licence to exploit but to govern wisely. We cannot impose solutions on the world's poor without addressing our complicity in unjust economic structures, environmentally destructive technologies, and consumptive lifestyles.

I have previously argued that, regardless of what we might believe about the importance of global warning, those countries which are amongst the biggest contributors are not those in the developing world with rapidly growing populations but those in the developed world with relatively static populations.

In other words carbon footprint is much more about consumption per capita than about population. It is not how many children the Beckham’s have, but how much resource each one consumes. That is the real issue.

Sodom came under God's judgment, at least in part, because she was 'arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; (she) did not help the poor and needy' (Ezekiel 16:49).

This description fits our Western World well. Let’s not simplistically condemn people for having children without addressing the real problem – consumption of more resources than one needs coupled with neglect of those in real need.

The real challenge is how we can live more simply in order that others might simply live.

The real answer to reducing maternal mortality is not 'safe' abortion but better education, obstetric and midwifery care, CMF tells DFID

The Christian Medical Fellowship has now published its submission to the Department for International Development (DFID) Consultation on Maternal Health Strategy: 'Choice for women: wanted pregnancies, safe births'

The Government proposals have been criticised for appearing to link the provision of abortion services with international development aid as DFID says one of its key proposals is ensuring access to contraception and ‘safe’ abortions.

By contrast the CMF submission tackles the problem in an evidence-based way reviewing the real causes of maternal mortality and the interventions that have been shown in practice to reduce it.

It concludes that the real solution to maternal mortality is multi-level: addressing social attitudes, education and empowerment and good quality obstetric and midwifery care and better birth spacing.

Furthermore this is best achieved through positive engagement with religious leaders, communities and faith based organisations (FBOs).

The whole submission is available on the CMF website but its main points are as follows:

1. In the last two decades we have seen a marked reduction globally in maternal mortality from 500,000 deaths per annum to 350,000 per annum. The vast majority of these are still in the developing world.

2. The interventions that have reduced this mortality rate have been multi-level: addressing social attitudes towards women, pregnancy and child birth; providing education for girls and the empowerment of women; increasing access to good quality obstetric and midwifery care (in the local community and in accessible secondary care institutions); and providing family planning services to allow better birth spacing, etc. We hold that the evidence suggests that only such multi-level interventions will have significant or lasting success in tackling maternal mortality; and further, that strengthening health systems for maternal health will have collateral benefits for other areas of health need.

3. Positive engagement with religious leaders, communities and faith based organisations (FBOs) is vital, as they are not only significant providers of services, but also hold the key to challenging and changing social attitudes and values that can devalue women and their health needs.

4. Empowering women, and changing socio-cultural and religious values that disenfranchise women and girls and deny them access to healthcare and education, are priorities. This requires engagement with community leaders in general, and religious leaders and communities in particular, in their own terms and context, rather than imposing Western worldviews and values.

5. Single issue interventions are damaging to wider health needs in the long term. We advocate strengthening the broad range of health infrastructure and provision (both primary and secondary) in developing nations. This includes appropriate training (undergraduate and postgraduate), professional support for healthcare staff, and adequate provision of properly maintained equipment with appropriate supply chains.

Helping Haiti

Following the devastating earthquake that struck Haiti on Tuesday 12 January, causing tragic loss of life and massive destruction, CMF members have been asking how they should respond to this disaster.

The UK Department of Health reports that the initial acute medical response is now well underway with 14 field hospitals, one US hospital ship and 800 Cuban doctors. The UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) Team leader has announced that other than those teams already en route, no further Search and Rescue (SAR) teams are currently required.

CMF is therefore encouraging members primarily to:

1. Pray for all involved

2. Give via the following routes:
Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) - representing UK agencies responding
International Health Partners - supplying drug packs
CMDA - our US sister organisation

The Department of Health has advised that individuals should not try to go to assist unless registered with an agency which is part of the Global Health Cluster response. However, if you have the appropriate language (French), skills and experience you can contact aid agencies for inclusion on their roster:
Médecins Sans Frontières
Merlin
Save the Children

Meanwhile regular updates are available on the evolving situation at:
BBC
DFID
WHO

In the midst of this tragedy there are encouraging reports of local Christians being at the forefront of aid and relief, and of Christians praising God in the disaster:

God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble (Psalm 46:1)

Global warming is much more about per capita consumption than population

In February Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the UK Government’s Sustainable Development Commission, said that curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of efforts to combat global warming, and that couples who had more than two children were irresponsible. This idea - that our planet is heating up as a result of people in developing countries breeding too much – seems to be gaining more adherents amongst the Western intelligentsia.

Two of its most recent exponents are Times Journalists Bronwen Maddox (Chief Foreign Commentator) and Ben Webster (Environment Editor).

But what is the evidence for it?

Wikipedia carries a list of countries ranked by carbon dioxide emissions per country. All data were calculated by the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), mostly based on data collected from country agencies by the United Nations Statistics Division. Countries are ranked by their metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

In total the world emitted 28,431,741 thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2006. The top six contributors to this were China (21.5%), US (20.2%), EU (13.8%), Russia (5.5%), India (5.3%) and Japan (4.6%), which together made up 70.9% of the total.

Of the top 20 countries (which together make up 80.6% of all emissions), only four (China, Brazil, Indonesia and India) were developing countries - but these countries all have huge populations and on the carbon dioxide emissions per capita list they were ranked 96, 123,134 and139 respectively. Together they account for 43% of the world’s population but only make up 29% of the carbon emissions. By contrast the US, Germany and Japan account for 7.5% of the world’s population but 27.6% of the carbon emissions. In other words their carbon emissions per capita are almost six times higher.

What does this tell us? That regardless of what you believe about the importance of global warning those countries which are amongst the biggest contributors are not those in the developing world with rapidly growing populations but those in the developed world with relatively static populations.

Carbon footprint is much more about consumption per capita than about population.