Cambodia gives high priority to people's health, HIV AIDS prevention control: PM Hun
He made the remarks during a meeting with Winnie Byanyima, under-secretary-general of the United Nations and executive director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), at the Peace Palace in the capital Phnom Penh, said a news release from the prime minister's spokesperson unit.
"Samdech Thipadei highlighted the attention of the Royal Government of Cambodia in the fight against HIV/AIDS through the launches of many policies and strategic action plans," the news release said.
Samdech Thipadei is the honorific title of Hun Manet.
"He said the Royal Government of Cambodia has given high priority to strengthening the health sector, especially improving people's well-being," the news release added.
"When we talk about building human capital, we must pay attention to our people's health," the prime minister said.
Hun Manet thanked the UN for its contribution to Cambodia's socio-economic development and highly appreciated UNAIDS for its active participation in the fight against HIV/AIDS in the Southeast Asian country.
HIV is the virus that causes AIDS, Xinhua news agency reported.
For her part, Byanyima commended Cambodia's remarkable progress in all sectors and outstanding achievements in responding to HIV/AIDS.
"Cambodia's successful response to HIV/AIDS has not only reduced the rate of new HIV infections, but has also contributed to regional and global efforts in combating HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases," she said.
She reaffirmed UNAIDS' continued support to Cambodia to achieve the 95-95-95 HIV treatment targets.
The targets mean 95 per cent of the people who are living with HIV know their HIV status, 95 per cent of the people who know that they are living with HIV are on lifesaving antiretroviral treatment, and 95 per cent of people under treatment are virally suppressed.
According to the news release, the kingdom has so far achieved a response rate of 92-100-98.
The National Centre for HIV/AIDS, Dermatology and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (NCHADS) said Cambodia has roughly 76,000 people living with HIV/AIDS, of which 69,413 have received antiretroviral drugs.
Some 7,000 people were still unaware that they were infected with HIV, and had not yet received antiretroviral drugs, the NCHADS said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
a day ago
- Mint
Vinay Prasad is a Bernie Sanders acolyte in MAHA drag
Meet Vinay Prasad, a young disciple of Bernie Sanders who ranks as one of the most powerful officials in the federal government. He determines whether patients get access to many life-saving medicines. Or not. Think of him as a one-man death panel. Dr. Prasad was named by Marty Makary, the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, as head of the agency's biologics division in May, and last month as its chief medical and scientific officer. More on why he was tapped to these posts later. But it isn't an exaggeration to say that Dr. Prasad wields more power than Anthony Fauci ever did at the National Institutes of Health. Like Dr. Fauci, Dr. Prasad thinks he knows what's best for people, and that it's government's job to make it happen. 'I favor a strong regulatory state," he proudly professes. And just as Dr. Fauci slowed experimental HIV treatments during the 1980s by rigidly adhering to strict trial protocols, Dr. Prasad is now scuttling potentially life-saving therapies. In recent weeks, the FDA has rejected three therapies for debilitating diseases that have shown promise in clinical trials. The agency has also forced off the market a gene therapy that can slow the degenerative loss of muscular function in young boys with certain genetic mutations. Behold America's strong and arbitrary regulatory state at work. If you read Dr. Prasad's paper—or follow his smash-mouth Substack and feeds—the FDA's recent actions are no surprise. Dr. Prasad has long criticized the FDA for approving too many treatments that, in his view, provide only marginal benefits. He's also lambasted President Trump's first-term 'right to try" law, which lets terminally ill patients try experimental drugs not yet approved by the FDA. 'It is crucial to question whether non-curative therapies . . . are worth it," Dr. Prasad wrote in a 2021 paper about an FDA-approved cell therapy for multiple myeloma. The therapy reduced disease progression or death by half in patients with advanced cancers who hadn't responded to already approved therapies. Impressive. But Dr. Prasad complained that the treatment was pricey (then $419,500 for a course) and may 'only delay inevitable progression" in some patients. In other words, sick patients should just give up and die. Got that? In 2016 he wrote an op-ed titled 'The case for rationing: Why we should limit public spending on cancer drugs." He exalted the United Kingdom's socialized health system for restricting access to new treatments until they demonstrate a high degree of efficacy in multiple trials and that their benefits—as determined by the government—exceed their costs. Such government rationing is why survival rates for hard-to-treat cancers are much lower in the U.K. than in America—and why British patients with the financial means cross the pond to receive innovative and often life-saving treatments. Tough luck to Brits of average means. Of course, Dr. Prasad insists he really has patients' best interests at heart. Why would terminally ill patients want to waste their precious remaining time on earth schlepping to hospitals for treatments that may not cure them when they could be preparing for their deaths? That's the gist of his 2022 paper, which estimated patients with advanced cancers spend 16 more hours a month accessing and receiving novel treatments than if they accepted hospice or home palliative care. 'Time is a valuable resource for people who have cancer," the paper noted. Yes, and that's why they want to continue living. He has also argued that 'genome-informed cancer medicine"—treatments targeted based on a patient's genes or tumor mutations—'is mostly hype," no matter that such treatments have produced most recent improvements in cancer survival. Take CAR T-Cell therapies that re-engineer a patient's immune cells to target proteins on tumor cells. Such therapies can cure aggressive cancers that not long ago carried a death sentence, though Dr. Prasad has hyped their side effects. He has done the same for Sarepta Therapeutics' Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene therapy, which the agency this month forced off the market after two patients in the advanced stages of the disease died from apparent side effects. The deaths look to have been a pretext for Dr. Prasad to deep-six the drug, which he had previously criticized as too costly for its benefits. Most treatments carry rare, life-threatening side effects, but doctors and patients can weigh their risks against their benefits. Perhaps Dr. Prasad doesn't trust people to do so any more than Dr. Fauci did. Dr. Prasad found common cause with Dr. Makary and conservatives in opposing paternalistic Covid policies including vaccine mandates and school shutdowns. But his other positions are at odds with Dr. Makary's stated support for more flexible reviews of drugs that treat rare and deadly diseases and the MAHA ethos of patient empowerment. Dr. Makary in spring 2021 lambasted the FDA for using the 'eternal excuse of safety" to pause the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine after a rare blood-clotting side effect cropped up, mostly in middle-aged women. 'This is a life-saving medication," he then wrote. 'What ever happened to giving people the data and letting them make their own health decisions?"
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag
Meet Vinay Prasad, a young disciple of Bernie Sanders who ranks as one of the most powerful officials in the federal government. He determines whether patients get access to many life-saving medicines. Or not. Think of him as a one-man death panel. Dr. Prasad was named by Marty Makary, the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, as head of the agency's biologics division in May, and last month as its chief medical and scientific officer. More on why he was tapped to these posts later. But it isn't an exaggeration to say that Dr. Prasad wields more power than Anthony Fauci ever did at the National Institutes of Health. Vinay Prasad. Like Dr. Fauci, Dr. Prasad thinks he knows what's best for people, and that it's government's job to make it happen. 'I favor a strong regulatory state,' he proudly professes. And just as Dr. Fauci slowed experimental HIV treatments during the 1980s by rigidly adhering to strict trial protocols, Dr. Prasad is now scuttling potentially life-saving therapies. In recent weeks, the FDA has rejected three therapies for debilitating diseases that have shown promise in clinical trials. The agency has also forced off the market a gene therapy that can slow the degenerative loss of muscular function in young boys with certain genetic mutations. Behold America's strong and arbitrary regulatory state at work. If you read Dr. Prasad's paper—or follow his smash-mouth Substack and feeds—the FDA's recent actions are no surprise. Dr. Prasad has long criticized the FDA for approving too many treatments that, in his view, provide only marginal benefits. He's also lambasted President Trump's first-term 'right to try' law, which lets terminally ill patients try experimental drugs not yet approved by the FDA. 'It is crucial to question whether non-curative therapies . . . are worth it,' Dr. Prasad wrote in a 2021 paper about an FDA-approved cell therapy for multiple myeloma. The therapy reduced disease progression or death by half in patients with advanced cancers who hadn't responded to already approved therapies. Impressive. But Dr. Prasad complained that the treatment was pricey (then $419,500 for a course) and may 'only delay inevitable progression' in some patients. In other words, sick patients should just give up and die. Got that? In 2016 he wrote an op-ed titled 'The case for rationing: Why we should limit public spending on cancer drugs.' He exalted the United Kingdom's socialized health system for restricting access to new treatments until they demonstrate a high degree of efficacy in multiple trials and that their benefits—as determined by the government—exceed their costs. Such government rationing is why survival rates for hard-to-treat cancers are much lower in the U.K. than in America—and why British patients with the financial means cross the pond to receive innovative and often life-saving treatments. Tough luck to Brits of average means. Of course, Dr. Prasad insists he really has patients' best interests at heart. Why would terminally ill patients want to waste their precious remaining time on earth schlepping to hospitals for treatments that may not cure them when they could be preparing for their deaths? That's the gist of his 2022 paper, which estimated patients with advanced cancers spend 16 more hours a month accessing and receiving novel treatments than if they accepted hospice or home palliative care. 'Time is a valuable resource for people who have cancer,' the paper noted. Yes, and that's why they want to continue living. He has also argued that 'genome-informed cancer medicine'—treatments targeted based on a patient's genes or tumor mutations—'is mostly hype,' no matter that such treatments have produced most recent improvements in cancer survival. Take CAR T-Cell therapies that re-engineer a patient's immune cells to target proteins on tumor cells. Such therapies can cure aggressive cancers that not long ago carried a death sentence, though Dr. Prasad has hyped their side effects. He has done the same for Sarepta Therapeutics' Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene therapy, which the agency this month forced off the market after two patients in the advanced stages of the disease died from apparent side effects. The deaths look to have been a pretext for Dr. Prasad to deep-six the drug, which he had previously criticized as too costly for its benefits. Most treatments carry rare, life-threatening side effects, but doctors and patients can weigh their risks against their benefits. Perhaps Dr. Prasad doesn't trust people to do so any more than Dr. Fauci did. Dr. Prasad found common cause with Dr. Makary and conservatives in opposing paternalistic Covid policies including vaccine mandates and school shutdowns. But his other positions are at odds with Dr. Makary's stated support for more flexible reviews of drugs that treat rare and deadly diseases and the MAHA ethos of patient empowerment. Dr. Makary in spring 2021 lambasted the FDA for using the 'eternal excuse of safety' to pause the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine after a rare blood-clotting side effect cropped up, mostly in middle-aged women. 'This is a life-saving medication,' he then wrote. 'What ever happened to giving people the data and letting them make their own health decisions?'
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Hepatitis alert: Gastroenterologist lists 8 groups of people who are at higher risk; shares when to get tested
Liver inflammation caused by viral infections can result in hepatitis, a condition that may present with symptoms such as dark urine, jaundice, fatigue, and abdominal pain. Depending on the type of infection, hepatitis can be either acute or chronic. Certain groups of people, however, are at a significantly higher risk of contracting the disease. Also read | Hepatitis can cause liver disease: Gastroenterologist shares common causes, symptoms, prevention tips Know who are at an increased risk of getting hepatitis. (Freepik) In an interview with HT Lifestyle, Dr. Gourdas Choudhuri, chairman, gastroenterology and hepatobiliary sciences, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram shared who are at an increased risk of getting hepatitis. 1. Healthcare professionals Healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses, and lab technicians, face occupational exposure to infected blood and body fluids. 2. Patients exposed to dialysis Patients on long-term dialysis may be at risk, especially if infection control practices are inadequate. 3. Patients who received blood transfusion Anyone who received a blood transfusion or organ transplant before 1992 should consider getting tested, as blood screening for hepatitis B and C became more stringent after that time. 4. Newborns Newborns of hepatitis B-infected mothers can contract the virus during delivery if appropriate precautions aren't taken. 5. People with HIV People living with HIV often share common routes of transmission and may be co-infected with hepatitis B or C. 6. People in close contact with hepatitis patients Close household contacts of hepatitis B or C patients may also be at risk through shared items like razors or toothbrushes that can carry microscopic amounts of blood. 7. People with multiple sexual partners Individuals with multiple sexual partners or those engaging in unprotected sex are at risk, particularly for hepatitis B, which can spread through bodily fluids. Also read | Hepatologist and gastroenterologist reveal if your love of tattoos or piercings increases your risk of hepatitis: 'If…' 8. People who inject drugs People who inject drugs or share needles are at significantly higher risk for both hepatitis B and C due to possible blood contamination. When should you get tested for hepatitis?(Shutterstock) When is it essential to get tested for hepatitis? If you're experiencing symptoms such as prolonged fatigue, unexplained weakness, jaundice (yellowing of eyes or skin), dark-colored urine, abdominal discomfort, nausea, or loss of appetite; these can all be signs of hepatitis. If your liver enzymes are elevated on a routine blood test, even in the absence of symptoms, it's important to investigate further. Anyone with a history of high-risk exposure, including needle use, tattoos or piercings in unregulated settings, or unsafe medical procedures, should be screened. Also read | Truth about viral hepatitis: Facts, myths and stigma If you've been in close contact with someone who has hepatitis, testing is strongly advised, even if you feel well. Women who are pregnant or planning pregnancy should be screened early to prevent mother-to-child transmission. Note to readers: This article is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your doctor with any questions about a medical condition.
