<h2>New Class</h2>
Marijuana could soon be reclassified on an international scale.
In 1948, the United Nations (UN) established the World Health Organization (WHO) to serve as its conduit to all things health-related. Now, the agency is <a href="https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/un-proposes-removing-cannabis-from-most-dangerous-drug-category/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recommending</a> that the UN reclassify marijuana to a less restrictive narcotics schedule — a move that could have a huge impact on public health worldwide.
<h2>Narcotics Treaty</h2>
Under the UN&#8217;s Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, an international treaty that regulates the production and sale of certain drugs, cannabis is listed as a Schedule IV drug. That&#8216;s the most restrictive class, reserved for drugs that have &#8220;<a href="http://www.incb.org/incb/en/narcotic-drugs/1961_Convention.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">particularly dangerous properties</a>.&#8221;
Earlier this month, the WHO published <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l574" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new recommendations</a> to the UN regarding the classification of marijuana in the medical journal The BMJ. <a href="https://mjbizdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Annex-1-41-ECDD-recommendations-cannabis-22Jan19.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According to the WHO,</a> there&#8217;s growing evidence that cannabis has medical applications, and the UN should reschedule the plant to take into account these applications.
<h2>Medical Marijuana</h2>
The WHO&#8217;s proposal to reclassify marijuana could go before the UN&#8217;s Commission on Narcotic Drugs as soon as March, at which point 53 countries will have the option of voting on it.
Although a vote to reclassify wouldn&#8217;t <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/senate-legalize-marijuana-nationwide" target="_blank" rel="noopener">make cannabis legal</a> everywhere overnight, it would mark a major shift in how political leaders view the drug — which could have a huge impact on the drug&#8217;s use for medical purposes.
Scientists have already noted potential uses for cannabis to treat everything from <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/cbd-psychosis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">psychosis</a> and <a href="https://futurism.com/study-shows-marijuana-can-effectively-treat-a-severe-and-often-fatal-epilepsy-disorder" target="_blank" rel="noopener">epilepsy</a> to <a href="https://futurism.com/a-pharmaceutical-company-is-officially-using-cannabis-to-treat-disease" target="_blank" rel="noopener">heart disease</a> and <a href="https://futurism.com/videos/could-cannabis-be-the-secret-to-curing-alzheimers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alzheimer&#8217;s,</a> but researching these links <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hasn&#8217;t been easy</a> given marijuana&#8217;s legal status.
If governments decide to revisit their cannabis laws in the wake of a UN reclassification, it might be easier for researchers to gain approval — <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5798990/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">and funding</a> — for their marijuana-focused studies, meaning we could see a dramatic increase in the number of cannabis-based medical treatments in the future.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/un-proposes-removing-cannabis-from-most-dangerous-drug-category/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In Historic Announcement, the World Health Organization (WHO) Proposes Removing Cannabis From Most Dangerous Drug Category</a> [Good News Network]
More on marijuana: <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/senate-legalize-marijuana-nationwide" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Senate Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Nationwide</a>

If it does, the impact on public health could be massive.

WHO says UN should reclassify marijuana as less dangerous

Weed Need

The World Health Organizations recommends that the United Nations reclassify marijuana, and the move could have a major impact on public health.

WHO Says UN Should Reclassify Marijuana as Less Dangerous

The drug shouldn't be in the most restrictive category, says the WHO.

<h2>Anti-Vaxxers</h2>
The World Health Organization (WHO) has released its <a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019">annual roundup</a> of the gravest threats to global health — and one of them is the growing resistance to vaccination, a threat the group listed alongside Ebola and air pollution.
&#8220;Vaccine hesitancy – the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines – threatens to reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases,&#8221; the group wrote. &#8220;Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease – it currently prevents 2-3 million deaths a year, and a further 1.5 million could be avoided if global coverage of vaccinations improved.&#8221;
<h2>Disease Please</h2>
Fighting the ideas propagated by anti-vaxxers, which often hold — against nearly all available evidence — that vaccines are ineffective or harmful, is a complex problem. Many subscribe to conspiratorial worldviews, meaning that messages from traditional authority figures like doctors and public health researchers can be unsuccessful.
For now, the WHO urges nuance.
&#8220;The reasons why people choose not to vaccinate are complex; a vaccines advisory group to WHO identified complacency, inconvenience in accessing vaccines, and lack of confidence are key reasons underlying hesitancy,&#8221; the group wrote, diplomatically. &#8220;Health workers, especially those in communities, remain the most trusted advisor and influencer of vaccination decisions, and they must be supported to provide trusted, credible information on vaccines.&#8221;
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019">Ten threats to global health in 2019</a> [World Health Organization]
More on anti-vaxxers: <a href="https://futurism.com/56667-2">Australia Will Now Prosecute Nurses Spreading Anti-Vaccination Messages</a>

"The reasons why people choose not to vaccinate are complex."

WHO: Anti-vaxxers now one of the greatest threats to world health

Health & Medicine

The World Health Organization released its annual roundup of the gravest threats to global health — and one of them is anti-vaxxers.

WHO: Anti-Vaxxers Now One of the Greatest Threats to World Health

Should parents be allowed to not vaccinate their kids?

<h2>Wrong Direction</h2>
<a href="http://www.who.int/air-pollution/news-and-events/how-air-pollution-is-destroying-our-health" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Breathing polluted air</a> is as likely to kill you as <a href="http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tobacco use</a> — worldwide, <a href="https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/problem/toll-global">each</a> kills <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-01/air-pollution-kills-7-million-people-a-year-who-reports">about</a> 7 million people annually. But while the world is <a href="http://www.who.int/news-room/detail/31-05-2018-world-no-tobacco-day-tobacco-and-heart-disease" target="_blank" rel="noopener">making progress</a> in the war against tobacco, <a href="http://www.who.int/news-room/detail/12-05-2016-air-pollution-levels-rising-in-many-of-the-world-s-poorest-cities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">air pollution is getting worse</a>.
The Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) hopes to change that.
&#8220;The world has turned the corner on tobacco,&#8221; wrote Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/27/air-pollution-is-the-new-tobacco-time-to-tackle-this-epidemic" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opinion piece</a> published by The Guardian on Saturday. &#8220;Now it must do the same for the &#8216;new tobacco&#8217; — the toxic air that billions breathe every day.&#8221;
<h2>Taking Action</h2>
According to the WHO, nine out of 10 people in the world breathe polluted air.
This week, the organization is hosting the first <a href="http://www.who.int/airpollution/events/conference/en/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Global Conference on Air Pollution and Health</a>, and Ghebreyesus is hopeful world leaders will use the conference as the opportunity to commit to cutting air pollution in their nations.
&#8220;Despite the overwhelming evidence, political action is still urgently needed to boost investments and speed up action to reduce air pollution,&#8221; he wrote, noting that this action could take the form of more stringent air quality standards, improved access to clean energy, or increased investment in green technologies.
<h2>Reduced Risk</h2>
The impact sustained action against air pollution could have on public health is hard to overstate.
&#8220;No one, rich or poor, can escape air pollution. A clean and healthy environment is the single most important precondition for ensuring good health,&#8221; wrote Ghebreyesus in his Guardian piece. &#8220;By cleaning up the air we breathe, we can prevent or at least reduce some of the greatest health risks.&#8221;
The conference ends on Thursday, so we won&#8217;t have to wait long to see which nations do — or don&#8217;t — heed the WHO&#8217;s call to action.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/27/air-pollution-is-the-new-tobacco-time-to-tackle-this-epidemic" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Air Pollution Is the New Tobacco. Time to Tackle This Epidemic</a> [The Guardian]
More on air pollution: <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/air-pollution-intelligence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dumber Humans — That&#8217;s Just One Effect of a More Polluted Future</a>

Breathing polluted air is as likely to kill you as tobacco use.

WHO Director: Air pollution is the “new tobacco”

Smoking Gun

We need to do something to address the problem of air pollution, according to the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO).

WHO Director: Air Pollution Is the “New Tobacco”

“The world has turned the corner on tobacco. Now it must do the same for the 'new tobacco.'" 

Earlier this year, scientists published <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188453" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a paper</a> describing how they pieced together segments of DNA in order to bring back a previously eradicated virus called horsepox.
The paper, written by two University of Alberta researchers and the co-founder of a New York pharmaceutical company, was controversial because, as various experts <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/how-canadian-researchers-reconstituted-extinct-poxvirus-100000-using-mail-order-dna" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told the magazine Science</a>, someone could use a very similar process to bring back a related virus: smallpox.
Smallpox, you&#8217;ll recall, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">killed hundreds of millions</a> of people before the World Health Organization declared it eradicated in 1980. That was the result of a long vaccination campaign — so the idea of piecing the virus back together from bits of DNA raises the specter of a horrifying pandemic.
Two journals rejected the paper before PLOS One, an open access peer-reviewed journal, published it. Critics <a href="https://futurism.com/scientists-eradicated-smallpox-with-synthetic-biology-we-can-bring-it-back">argue that</a> the paper not only demonstrates that you can synthesize a deadly pathogen for what Science reported was about $100,000 in lab expenses, but even provides a slightly-too-detailed-for-comfort overview of how to do it.
Some of the horsepox scientists&#8217; coworkers are still pretty upset about this. PLOS One&#8217;s sister journal, PLOS Pathogens, just published <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1007286" target="_blank" rel="noopener">three</a> <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1007129" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opinion</a> <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1007019" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pieces</a> about the whole flap, as well as <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1007025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a rebuttal</a> by the Canadian professors.
Overall, everyone&#8217;s pretty polite. But you get the sense that microbiologists are really, really worried about someone reviving smallpox.
MIT biochemist Kevin Esvelt, for instance, <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1007286" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote on Thursday that</a> the threat is so grim that we shouldn&#8217;t even talk about it:
At present, we decidedly err on the side of spreading all information. Despite entirely predictable advances in DNA assembly, every human with an internet connection can access the genetic blueprints of viruses that might kill millions. These and worse hazards are conveniently summarized by certain Wikipedia articles, which helpfully cite technical literature relevant to misuse.
Note the deliberate absence of citations in the above paragraph. Citing or linking to already public information hazards may seem nearly harmless, but each instance contributes to a tragedy of the commons in which truly dangerous technical details become readily accessible to everyone. Given that it takes just one well-meaning scientist to irretrievably release a technological information hazard from the metaphorical bottle, it may be wise to begin encouraging norms of caution among authors, peer reviewers, editors, and journalists.
Then, in a <a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/taming-information-hazards-synthetic-biology-research-1004" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Q&amp;A with an MIT blogger,</a> also published Thursday, Esvelt blamed interest in smallpox synthesis on people who talk to the media as well:
DNA synthesis is becoming accessible to a wide variety of people, and the instructions for doing nasty things are freely available online. 
In the horsepox study, for instance, the information hazard is partly in the paper and the methods they described. But it’s also in the media covering it and highlighting that something bad can be done. And this is worsened by the people who are alarmed, because we talk to journalists about the potential harm, and that just feeds into it.
The Canadian professors — though not their colleague from the pharmaceutical company, interestingly — <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1007025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fired back</a> by arguing that, well, it was gonna happen anyway:
Realistically all attempts to oppose technological advances have failed over centuries. We suggest that one should instead focus on regulating the products of these technologies while educating people of the need to plan mitigating strategies based upon a sound understanding of the risks that such work might pose. In these discussions, a long-term perspective is essential.
It&#8217;s grim to envision engineered smallpox infecting and killing humans, the way its naturally-evolved predecessor did. Perhaps some subjects aren&#8217;t worth studying, after all.
More on smallpox: <a href="https://futurism.com/scientists-eradicated-smallpox-with-synthetic-biology-we-can-bring-it-back">Scientists Eradicated Smallpox. With Synthetic Biology, We Can Bring it Back.</a>

Publishing a paper about it is like publishing the instructions on how to make a bomb.

Microbiologists are suddenly really, really worried about synthetic smallpox

Don't You Know That You're Toxic?

Scientists are arguing about whether you be allowed to publish a paper that could be used to bring back smallpox, which could cause a deadly pandemic.

Microbiologists Are Suddenly Really, Really Worried About Synthetic Smallpox

Should you publish a paper describing how to bring back smallpox in a lab?

Economic sanctions. Withdrawing military support. Defunding the largest public health organization in the world.
This is what the U.S. delegation to the World Health Assembly threatened to do to ally nations if the organization passed a resolution that would encourage member governments to do the unthinkable: support breastfeeding infants when possible.
Yes, we&#8217;re talking about breastfeeding, something that humans have been doing, well, as long as we&#8217;ve been human. In doing so, the Trump Administration flew in the face of decades worth of science demonstrating that breastfeeding newborns and infants promotes health in ways that formula or powdered milk cannot.
At the <a href="http://www.who.int/world-health-assembly/seventy-first">May meeting</a>, every other member nation of the World Health Organization (WHO) supported the measure, which included the phrase “protect, promote and support breast-feeding.&#8221; But the U.S. managed to stall the entire process, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html">according to The New York Times</a>, until Russia reintroduced a version of the proposal, which the Trump Administration chose not to challenge.
As The New York Times wrote: &#8220;Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.&#8221;
What research are they talking about, exactly? Well, there&#8217;s been a lot. An <a href="https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Breastfeeding">exhaustive and exhausting body of scientific research</a> conducted over the past 40 years shows that breastfeeding children promotes a healthy immune system and microbiome, both of which are linked with improved health outcomes. In 2016, a <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00210-5/fulltext">series of major studies</a> concluded that universal breastfeeding may have prevented the early deaths of about 823,000 children and saved the world $300 billion. All these studies point to one conclusion: kids who breastfeed are healthier. And encouraging breastfeeding could do wonders for public health.
<q class="pullquote">Research over the past 40 years shows that breastfeeding children is linked to better health.</q>
That’s part of the reason that the <a href="http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/infantfeeding/code_report2018/en/">World Health Organization advises</a> governments to prevent companies from directly advertising formula to mothers. Yet, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/27/formula-milk-companies-target-poor-mothers-breastfeeding">the</a><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/27/formula-milk-companies-target-poor-mothers-breastfeeding"> Guardian </a><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/27/formula-milk-companies-target-poor-mothers-breastfeeding">reported</a>, companies such as Nestlé, Abbott, and Mead Johnson often do just that, in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world. Sometimes those companies dance around the borders of the WHO guidelines, sometimes they flagrantly violate them.
When companies advertise formula to families and doctors in impoverished areas, mothers sometimes have to choose between buying food and buying formula for their babies. Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w24452">a major study published this spring</a> compared Nestlé’s presence in low-income countries to infant mortality and found an increase of 9.4 infant deaths per 1,000 births in areas where formula was heavily marketed.
The main factor, the researchers learned, was that formula is being advertised and promoted in areas where mothers don’t have access to clean water. Instead of breastfeeding, these mothers are being made to believe that formula is the better choice for their children, who are then consuming water-borne pathogens along with their powdered milk.
The scientific evidence seems pretty unequivocal. So you, like all the other stunned representatives present at May&#8217;s World Health Assembly, are probably wondering: Why did the U.S. delegation oppose this? The New York Times notes that there’s no direct evidence that the baby food industry — those that make something like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/08/trump-administration-opposes-breastfeeding-resolution-report?CMP=fb_gu">$70 billion every year</a> selling powdered milk — was involved in the U.S.’s decision-making. But, <a href="https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/health-companies-gave-generously-president-trumps-inauguration/">as Spectrum reported</a>, these companies donated to Trump’s inauguration and it is likely that their financial interests were considered more important than distributing accurate information on child healthcare.
President Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1016385867529773058">has already criticized</a> The New York Times’ coverage of the World Health Assembly. On — yes — Twitter, he repeated the U.S. World Health Organization delegation’s claim that the proposal to promote breastfeeding would be a disservice to mothers who, for one reason or another, cannot breastfeed.
Let&#8217;s fact check that for a sec. Yes, lots of mothers cannot breastfeed. Some choose not to for reasons that are up to them. Couples adopt children and rely on formula during the early years. That’s all completely OK. Breastfeeding comes with <a href="https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/nursing-basics#1-2">added health benefits</a> for babies, but formula feeding is <a href="https://www.webmd.com/baby/breastfeeding-vs-formula-feeding#1">a perfectly fine alternative</a> to breastfeeding — one that won’t harm a child. But there’s a difference between making that caveat and threatening ally nations to drop a proposal that would improve public health around the world.
The Russian delegate who reintroduced the pro-breastfeeding proposal, as The New York Times reported, said, “We’re not trying to be a hero here, but we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world.” Today, that blackmailing bully is the U.S. And luckily for families worldwide, the delegation did not succeed.

The U.S. was the only nation to oppose an international resolution to promote breastfeeding worldwide. Here's why they're wrong.

Decades of scientific research does, in fact, suggest breastfeeding is best for babies

Sci-Fi Visions

The Trump Administration's opposition to pro-breastfeeding initiatives goes against well-established science and public health research.

Decades Of Scientific Research Does, In Fact, Suggest Breastfeeding Is Best for Babies

*Anyone* who suggests otherwise is just wrong.

We have a problem. A serious one. At any moment, a life-threatening global pandemic could spring up and wipe out a significant amount of human life on this planet. The death toll would be catastrophic. One disease could see as many as 100 million dead.
It sounds like a horrifying dream. It sounds like something that can&#8217;t possibly be true. But it is. The information comes from Tedros Adhanom, <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/director-general-elect/en/">Director General of the World Health Organization</a>. He spoke today at the <a href="https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/">World Government Summit</a> in Dubai, and according to his assessment, things are not looking good.
&#8220;This is not some future nightmare scenario,&#8221; said Tedros (as he prefers to be called by Ethiopian tradition). &#8220;This is what happened exactly 100 years ago during the Spanish flu epidemic.&#8221; A hush fell across the audience as he noted that we could see such devastation again, perhaps as soon as today. Tedros was equal parts emphatic and grave as he spoke: &#8220;A devastating epidemic could start in any country at any time and kill millions of people because we are still not prepared. The world remains vulnerable.&#8221;
What is the cause of this great vulnerability? Is it our inability to stave off Ebola? Rising incidents of rabies in animal populations? An increased number of HIV and AIDS cases?
No. The threat of a global pandemic comes from our apathy, from our staunch refusal to act to save ourselves — a refusal that finds its heart in our indifference and our greed.
&#8220;Universal health coverage is the greatest threat to global health,&#8221; Tedros proclaimed. As the audience shifted in their seats uncomfortably, he noted that, despite the fact that universal health coverage is &#8220;within reach&#8221; for almost every nation in the world, 3.5 billion people still lack access to essential health services. Almost 100 million are pushed into extreme poverty because of the cost of paying for care out of their own pockets.
The result? People don’t go to the doctor. They don’t seek treatment. They get sicker. They die. And thus, as Tedros explained, &#8220;the earliest signals of an outbreak are missed.&#8221;
<figure id="attachment_122670" style="width: 600px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/armymedicine/15594956578/"><img class="wp-image-122670 size-infographicListing" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2018/02/15594956578_d67fec6176_k-600x404.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="404" /></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">A black fluorescent light shows where a simulated bodily fluid containing a mock Ebola virus landed on a care team&#8217;s personal protective equipment, during a training exercise at Madigan Army Medical Center&#8217;s Andersen Simulation Center.</figcaption></figure>
Surveillance is one of the most vital forms of protection the world&#8217;s public health agencies can offer, but these agencies rely on the money of the governments they serve. And in the United States, which is presently enduring a <a href="https://futurism.com/its-been-a-century-since-the-1918-flu-pandemic-were-still-not-rid-of-the-virus/">flu season of record-breaking severity</a>, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently announced they would be <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/02/01/cdc-to-cut-by-80-percent-efforts-to-prevent-global-disease-outbreak/">cutting their epidemic prevention programs back</a> by 80 percent. Programs for preventing infectious diseases, such as Ebola, are being scaled back in 39 of the 49 countries they&#8217;ve been employed in, according to The Washington Post.
The reason? Quite simply, governments are pulling money from these programs, and it&#8217;s not clear whether any more will ever be allocated — at least, not in the U.S. during the current administration.
It might seem a bit obtuse. But, as Tedros pointed out, too often we &#8220;see health as a cost to be contained and not an investment to be nurtured.&#8221;
Aside from the obvious — avoiding a global pandemic that ravages humanity — healthy societies are advantageous for reasons that are more economic than epidemiological. &#8220;The benefits of universal health coverage go far beyond health,&#8221; Tedros said. &#8220;Strong health systems are essential to strong economies.”
We know that the <a href="http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/publications/WHO-MCA-PNC-2014-Briefer_A4.pdf">quality of pre- and post-natal care</a> a person receives when a child is born has a direct impact on how soon they&#8217;re able to return to work (if they choose to). If we want our <a href="http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/child/en/">children to grow up healthy</a> enough to become functioning, contributing members of society, then the quality of care they receive from birth throughout childhood can&#8217;t be underestimated.
&#8220;We do not know where and when the next global pandemic will occur,&#8221; Tedros admitted, &#8220;but we know it will take a terrible toll both on human life and on the economy.&#8221;
While Tedros acknowledged there&#8217;s no guarantee we&#8217;ll one day create a completely pandemic-free world, what is within our reach — if we have the investment and support — is a world where humans, not pathogens, remain in control. We can do better. And if most of us are to survive in the long term, we must.

We're officially on the path to a global pandemic

At any moment, a life-threatening global pandemic could wipe out a significant amount of human life on this planet, according to the head of the WHO.

We're Officially On the Path to a Global Pandemic

One disease could see as many as 100 million dead.

We’re Officially On the Path to a Global Pandemic

<h2>Gaming Disorder</h2>
In 2018, the World Health Organization plans to add “gaming disorder” – characterized by a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behavior – to its list of mental health conditions.
According to the beta draft site, the <a href="http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WHO&#8217;s</a><a href="http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/"> 11th International Classification of Diseases (ICD)</a> defines a number of diseases, disorders, injuries and other related health conditions, which are listed in a comprehensive, hierarchical fashion. It enables the sharing of health information between countries and facilitates the analysis of “health information for evidence-based decision-making.” The previous version of the ICD was approved in 1990 by the 43rd World Health Assembly. The current draft that lists “gaming disorder,” is not final, nor does it list prevention or treatment options. The beta draft site, updated daily, is also not approved by the WHO.
The WHO’s impending beta draft for the next ICD classifies gaming disorder as a pattern of behavior with “impaired control over gaming,” in terms of its frequency, intensity, duration, and the capacity to quit. The disorder falls under the parent category of “Disorders due to addictive behaviors,” and is characterized by giving increased priority to gaming over other daily activities.
Applying to both online and offline <a href="https://futurism.com/videos/how-do-video-games-actually-impact-our-society/?src=featured" target="_blank" rel="noopener">video gaming</a>, the condition is also defined by the “continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences.&#8221; In order to be diagnosed, these behaviors must be evident over a period of at least 12 months, according to the draft.
<figure id="attachment_117641" style="width: 600px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://pixabay.com/en/joystick-video-game-girl-television-1079756/"><img class="wp-image-117641 size-infographicListing" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2018/01/video-game-1079756_1280-600x397.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="397" /></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">image credit: creative commons</figcaption></figure>
<h2>A Matter of Contention</h2>
“The WHO designation is now generally in line with the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)’s description of internet gaming disorder (IGD),” Nancy Petry, a professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut Health Center, told Futurism. The main difference though, Petry said, is that the DSM-5 didn’t consider the data sufficient to classify IGD as a unique mental health condition. Rather, it’s categorized under “conditions for further study.”
The WHO’s decision highlights a schism among psychologists: some think the new designation is a welcome one, but others don&#8217;t see enough evidence to justify it.
Alexander Blaszczynski, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Sydney, Australia told Futurism he is concerned about “the absence of clear diagnostic criteria determining what constitutes a gaming disorder, and the validity of applying existing addiction criteria to a behavior.” He noted that there is a range of behaviors now being identified as addictions — everything from salsa dancing, to smartphones, to in vitro fertilization. “At what point does an activity transform from an entertainment to a disorder?” he said.
The controversy ultimately reflects some deeper philosophical debates that have dogged most areas of medicine for many years, Ronald Pies, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine, told Futurism. “What should or should not count as &#8220;disease&#8221; or &#8220;disorder&#8221;? Do we require physiological, biochemical, or neurological &#8220;markers&#8221; of a putative disease entity in order to validate it, or is it sufficient to document substantial impairment and dysfunction in activities of daily living, responsibilities, etc., as the WHO criteria emphasize?”
Chris Ferguson, a professor of psychology at Stetson University in Florida told Futurism that he does not support the WHO’s designation. “Basically I don&#8217;t think the research is there yet to support this as a diagnosis and there is considerable risk of harm due to a &#8216;junk diagnosis,'&#8221; he said.
He said research suggests what we&#8217;re calling &#8220;gaming disorder&#8221; isn&#8217;t really a solitary diagnosis. Ferguson said some people certainly overdo gaming, as others may &#8220;overdo&#8221; or develop addictions to myriad other activities like shopping, exercise, and sex, “but the data we have suggests that usually individuals have a preexisting mental health condition like depression or anxiety first, then use these activities as coping mechanisms.”
Pies said he shared many of Ferguson’s concerns, saying he was “more skeptical than not” of the designation. “While some recent neurophysiological studies suggest that IGD may be a discrete disorder, there is still no scientific consensus on this point. It is unclear whether IGD is truly a &#8220;stand alone&#8221; condition; whether it is mostly explained by other underlying conditions, such as anxious or depressive disorders; or whether it is merely a subtype of so-called &#8220;behavioral addictions&#8221;, which are themselves sources of scientific controversy,” Pies said.
<figure style="width: 360px" class="wp-caption alignright"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/30-oculus-rift-games-launching-day-one/"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2016/03/HomeThumb.jpg" alt="INFOGRAPHIC: Meet the Oculus Rift Games That Just Launched" ></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text center"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/30-oculus-rift-games-launching-day-one/" target="_blank">Click to View Full Infographic</a></figcaption></figure>
Others, like Douglas Gentile, a psychology professor at Iowa State University, see this as a big step in the right direction. Gentile compared where we are with gaming “addiction” as “similar to where we were with alcoholism in the 1960s.” At that time, alcoholism was considered a moral failing — people thought ‘it’s your own damn fault,’” he told Futurism. “It took another 30 years for people to agree that a medical model for alcoholism makes sense and now people can get the help they need.”
Gentile doesn&#8217;t think our culture is ready to accept the medical model of video gaming, and still sees it as a moral failing — mostly by the children’s parents. “We have lots of people who could be helped, but aren’t being helped. If you walk into a doctor or psychiatrist’s office, they either won’t treat it or you have to pay out of pocket.”
Ferguson isn’t sure “why the WHO is so obsessed with gaming when a wide range of behaviors can be overdone.” Given that other potential addictions, like food or sex, have as much research as gaming, it seems likely that the WHO&#8217;s kneejerk reaction comes from a broader moral panic over video games and technology, he said.
But Gentile counters that the WHO’s acknowledgement that video gaming could be a problem “puts truth back on the table,” Gentile said. “We need to treat games with more respect. We play them because we want to be affected, but then say they have no effects.”
<h2>Access Is a Predictor Of Addiction</h2>
As our video game experience expands with virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), the argument gets even murkier. “One thing that we do know about addictions, generally, is that the number one predictor [for] if you’re going to become an addict is access,” said Gentile. “If you can’t get drugs, you can’t become addicted to them. Now that we’ve made gaming this ubiquitous — on phones, with gaming tech and VR tech in-house — we’ve made access open to everyone.”
Gentile isn’t certain that VR games are more addicting than their traditional counterparts. “We don’t know if greater immersion makes the games more addictive. To say that VR will be more addictive is making the argument that seeing things in three dimensions is more addictive than seeing them in two.” But he added that we don’t have the scientific evidence to support that.
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/142905527" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" title="Virtual Reality and the Future of Gaming: Highlight Reel" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>
Scientists do tend to agree on one thing: that the designation will ensure researchers pay more attention to the problems that can arise from excessive gaming. “It is important that people with this condition receive help, and that research progresses in a manner consistent with state of the art science applied toward other mental health conditions,” said UCONN’s Nancy Petry.
Moreover, the WHO designation could help those diagnosed with video gaming disorder in another way: if they&#8217;re able to access treatment, it could be covered by insurance. However, Ronald Pies warned that “social goods&#8221; of this sort do not amount to a scientific justification for a disease category, and even among supporters of the diagnosis, there is no consensus regarding what the effective &#8220;treatment&#8221; would be.

The WHO's decision highlights a schism among psychologists.

The World Health Organization identifies Gaming Disorder as a mental health condition

Virtuality

"Gaming disorder" will be listed as a mental health condition in the WHO's next ICD. It's a contentious classification that's sparked debate.

The World Health Organization Identifies Gaming Disorder as a Mental Health Condition

"At what point does an activity transform from an entertainment to a disorder?"

<h2>Dwindling Resources</h2>
Last year, the United Nations <a href="https://futurism.com/a-world-without-antibiotics-the-un-has-elevated-the-issue-of-antibiotic-resistance/" target="_blank">raised the issue of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to crisis level</a>, calling the situation &#8220;a fundamental, long-term threat to human health, sustainable food production, and development.” Now, <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/running-out-antibiotics/en/" target="_blank">the World Health Organization (WHO) is reporting that</a> not nearly enough <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/health/antibiotic-resistance-who/index.html" target="_blank">new antibiotics</a> are in development to replace those that <a href="https://futurism.com/superbug-resistant-to-all-available-u-s-antibiotics-claims-victim/" target="_blank">are now ineffective</a>.
<figure style="width: 360px" class="wp-caption alignright"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/bioprinting-how-3d-printing-is-changing-medicine/"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2015/12/home.jpg" alt="Bioprinting: How 3D Printing is Changing Medicine" ></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text center"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/bioprinting-how-3d-printing-is-changing-medicine/" target="_blank">Click to View Full Infographic</a></figcaption></figure>
<a href="http://www.who.int/medicines/news/2017/world-running-out-antibiotics-WHO-report/en/" target="_blank">In their newly published report</a>, the organization notes that only 51 new antibiotics and 11 biologicals are in clinical development. Only 33 of those target the &#8220;<a href="http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/global-priority-list-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria/en/" target="_blank">priority pathogens</a>&#8221; identified by the WHO last year. These pathogens are showing an increased immunity against current drugs, and they can be deadly — tuberculosis alone is responsible for more than 250,000 deaths each year.
Of those 33 antibiotics in development, only eight are said to be innovative in a way that will be beneficial. The other 25 are tweaks to existing treatments that are, ultimately, short-term solutions. Additionally, the WHO reports that very few oral antibiotics, which are vital to treating infections outside of hospitals in low- or middle-income nations, are in development.
<h2>Fighting Back</h2>
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of WHO, laid out the situation <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/running-out-antibiotics/en/" target="_blank">in a statement</a>: &#8220;There is an urgent need for more investment in research and development for antibiotic-resistant infections including [tuberculosis], otherwise we will be forced back to a time when people feared common infections and risked their lives from minor surgery.&#8221;
Thankfully, the WHO is doing something to combat this issue. They&#8217;ve partnered with the <a href="https://www.dndi.org/" target="_blank">Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi)</a> to set up the <a href="https://www.dndi.org/diseases-projects/gardp/" target="_blank">Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP)</a>. The goal of that collaboration is to gather funding for the research and development of new antibiotics that bacteria and other diseases have yet to build an immunity to.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/znnp-Ivj2ek?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
According to Dr. Mario Raviglione, Director of the WHO Global Tuberculosis Program, new tuberculosis treatments are particularly needed. &#8220;Research for tuberculosis is seriously underfunded, with only two new antibiotics for treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis having reached the market in over 70 years,&#8221; said Raviglione. &#8220;If we are to end tuberculosis, more than US$800 million per year is urgently needed to fund research for new antituberculosis medicines.&#8221;
New medicines alone won&#8217;t be enough, however — we also need to improve infection prevention and control. To that end, the WHO is creating a series of guidelines that will hopefully ensure better use of antibiotics in the human, animal, and agricultural sectors. When combined, these various efforts, and <a href="https://futurism.com/shape-shifting-space-bacteria-could-help-us-treat-earthly-antibiotic-resistance/" target="_blank">others like them</a>, are our best hope for fighting the superbugs currently plaguing the world&#8217;s population.

New medicines alone won't be enough to beat superbugs.

The development of new drugs isn't matching the pace of antibiotic resistance

According to the World Health Organization, not nearly enough new antibiotics are in development to replace those that are now ineffective against bacteria.

The Development of New Drugs Isn’t Matching the Pace of Antibiotic Resistance

Our research isn’t keeping up with bacteria’s evolution.

The <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/">World Health Organization (WHO)</a> announced that their efforts to eradicate measles, one of the most contagious diseases around the world, has finally ended 50 years after the vaccine first became available.
Measles is a viral disease notorious for being a leading cause of death among young children, responsible for <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/" target="_blank">over 100,000 deaths globally</a> each year. Access to vaccination, however, led to a 79-percent drop in measles-related deaths between 2000 to 2014.
<figure id="attachment_9824" style="width: 625px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="wp-image-9824 size-full" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2015/11/measles.jpg" alt="measles.jpg" width="625" height="414" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Creative Commons / Via Flickr: julien_harneis</figcaption></figure>
The effort to eliminate measles in the U.S. started as early as 1994, and today, America has been declared as the first region to effectively eliminate the disease via stringent nationwide vaccination programs and political commitment. This means that, for at least 12 months, the country has had no cases of measles originating within its borders.
“This is a historic day for our region and indeed the world,” <a href="http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-measles-has-been-eliminated-from-the-americas">said Carissa Etienne, Director of the Pan American Health Organization</a>, which is part of the WHO. “It is proof of the remarkable success that can be achieved when countries work together in solidarity towards a common goal.”

Hard Science

America has been declared the first region to effectively eliminate the disease.
Measles is responsible for over 100,000 deaths globally each year.

It’s Official: Measles Has Been Completely Eradicated in the United States

22-year fight against measles has finally ended. 

<h5>Aging as a Disease</h5>
A new controversy is brewing, as one group of scientists is recommending that aging be considered a disease.
Scientists from <a href="http://insilicomedicine.com" target="_blank">Insilico Medicine</a> are highlighting the need to create a more granular and applied classification for what happens to our bodies when we age. Their work is outlined in a <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2015.00326/full" target="_blank">recent paper published in Frontiers in Genetics</a>. The classification that they argue for is based on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11), which is expected to be finalized in 2018.
In the study, CEO of Insilico Medicine, Inc. Alex Zhavoronkov and his colleagues explore the evolution of disease classification practices and discuss a few additions to the ICD-10, which included obesity. Notably, they argue that this one addition, in particular, may set a precedent for the classification of aging as a disease.
The paper also looks at the progress made since William Cullen’s seminal Nosolagae Methodicae synopsis was published in 1769. You can see more information on Insilico, and learn about their mission, in the video below.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l62jlwgL3v8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<h5>Pushing Research to Prevent Aging</h5>
The subject is a contentious one, with demographers, gerontologists, and biogerontologists all disagreeing on the subject.
Ultimately, the researchers believe that classifying aging as a disease will help direct resources to aging research and urge scientists and medical practitioners to work towards preventing pathological age-related processes. However, others assert that it devalues older individuals and could be used as a way of &#8220;otherizing&#8221; the elderly.
Zhavoronkov notes that the designation is non-traditional, but feels that it will be helpful in the long run: &#8220;Aging is a complex multifactorial process leading to loss of function and a very broad spectrum of diseases. While the notion of whether aging itself is a disease is usually disputed, classifying it as such will help shift the focus of biomedicine from treatment to prevention.”
“Classifying aging as a disease with multiple &#8216;non-garbage&#8217; ICD codes may help create business cases for large pharmaceutical companies to focus more R&amp;D resources on this important field. Considering the unprecedented increases in life expectancy and the heavy burden of medical costs in the developed countries, maintaining the human body in the disease-free youthful state for as long as possible is not just an altruistic cause, but a pressing economic necessity,&#8221; he adds.

Is it time to classify biological aging as a disease? One group of scientists thinks so, and they are asking the WHO to make it offical. 

/World Health Organization

Weed Need

WHO Says UN Should Reclassify Marijuana as Less Dangerous

Health & Medicine

WHO: Anti-Vaxxers Now One of the Greatest Threats to World Health

Smoking Gun

WHO Director: Air Pollution Is the “New Tobacco”

Don't You Know That You're Toxic?

Microbiologists Are Suddenly Really, Really Worried About Synthetic Smallpox

Sci-Fi Visions

Decades Of Scientific Research Does, In Fact, Suggest Breastfeeding Is Best for Babies

Health & Medicine

We’re Officially On the Path to a Global Pandemic

Virtuality

The World Health Organization Identifies Gaming Disorder as a Mental Health Condition

Health & Medicine

The Development of New Drugs Isn’t Matching the Pace of Antibiotic Resistance

Hard Science

It’s Official: Measles Has Been Completely Eradicated in the United States

Sci-Fi Visions

Scientists Assert That the WHO Should Classify Aging as a Disease

Load More