On Monday, I attended a symposium, titled "One Health: Interface of Human Health/Animal Diseases", at the American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) annual meeting (aka #TropMed17). This was one of many sessions I attended, but one of the few that really stood out to me.
I love the concept of One Health, which emphasizes the interwoven nature of the environment, animals, and humans, where a change to one aspect of the world will affect the other surrounding environments and populations. This is a vital concept when it comes to global health, as we often focus on human disparities without working to improve the person's environment for sustainable health and change. As you can imagine, One Health is a critical component when describing the lifecycles of zoonotic diseases, which infect both animals and humans. I wrote a magazine article for The Biochemist about the impacts of One Health on disease emergence. You can find that here (e-zine) or here (PDF), for free.
Within the One Health symposium, each speaker outlined an important animal exposure for each infection, whether parasitic, viral, or bacterial. For example, the first speaker discussed an outbreak of hantavirus in Peru during the creation of a new interoceanic highway that runs across Peru and Brazil. Deforestation and construction created a new opportunity for exposure to hantavirus for construction workers and residents in the area. Here's some more info on that, if you are interested.
Another speaker spoke about emerging pathogens in Myanmar due to exposure to bats through the use of caves for economic (mostly the creation of tours for tourists) or religions purposes (think shrines in caves). Myanmar apparently has 22% of world's species of bats, meaning it has a diverse population of bats, and they are everywhere.
The two talks that I really enjoyed covered parasitic infections that are a global issue affecting primarily low income populations, even those in the United States.
Angiostrongylus cantonensis, or "rat lungworm",is a parasitic nematode that is found throughout Southeast Asia and the Pacific basin. Rat lungworm causes eosinophilic meningitis in humans. Humans are exposed to A. cantonensis through ingestion of infested foods, like undercooked or seafood, fish, frogs, vegetables, or snails.
Apple snails act as a reservoir for A. cantonensis throughout Southeast Asia. Upon investigation, the larval stage of the nematode can be found invading the lungs of the snail. Adult A. cantonensis live in the pulmonary arteries of rats, and larvae migrate to the pharynx, where they are swallowed by the rat and dispelled in the rat's feces. The larvae are then ingested by the apple snail, or other specific mollusk species.
The apple snail can be purchased to eat from stands along the road in Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, or the larvae can infest other aquatic animals. Once ingested by a human, the nematode travels to the brain through the blood stream, and then dies shortly after. The presence of a foreign body in the central nervous system causes a flood of white blood cells, specifically eosinophils, which triggers inflammation of the meninges. While this can clear on its own, some people have been seen with significant neurological dysfunction, some of which are lifelong, or death. This parasite is most commonly associated with Southeast Asia, in the past few years, has popped up in Hawaii.
Another speaker detailed a project focusing on parasitic load in public parks throughout New York. Toxocara spp. can infect dogs (Toxocara canis) and cats (Toxocara cati), and can also infect humans if the eggs are ingested. I think a lot of people in the US believe that parasites are a problem in other countries, but there are many types of parasites that can infect (and infest) people in urban and rural areas of the US.
Toxocara roundworm image from the CDC
Toxocaraisis, or an infection caused by Toxocara spp., is a roundworm infection that causes symptoms depending on where the larvae migrate in the body. Visceral toxocariasis occurs when the larvae migrate to various organs, most commonly the liver or central nervous system, causing fever, fatigue, coughing or wheezing, or abdominal pain. When in the central nervous system, psychological symptoms and neurological dysfunction can occur. Ocular toxocariasis occurs when the larvae migrate to the eye, causing symptoms relating to the eye, such as vision loss, inflammation of the ocular tissues, or damage to the retina that can cause permanent blindness. The CDC estimates that up to 70 people are blinded each year from Toxocariasis. Many people clear a Toxocara infection without experiencing any symptoms, and have a strong immune response.
This particular project tested soil and sand samples from parks because children are frequently exposed by ingesting soil and sand from parks, and from putting contaminated hands in their mouths. Infection during childhood can affect childhood development, and most people are never diagnosed if they don't present with severe symptoms. Many psychological symptoms aren't linked to parasitic infection, so they aren't treated appropriately!
Some random kid from the internet eating dirt.
More importantly, the presenter emphasized how this is an infection that is more common in low income communities. For example, out of all the areas tested throughout New York, parks in the Bronx had significantly high contamination levels (something like 67% of parks tested in the Bronx had positive samples!). The CDC estimates that ~14% of people in the US have antibodies against Toxocara spp., suggesting that tens of millions of Americans have been exposed to these parasites at one or more points in their lives.
The presenter's data, combined with the CDC's estimates of exposure in the US, suggests that a majority of those exposed to Toxocara are from disadvantaged communities, where public health initiatives fall short. This means that health services are not doing their jobs to protect all people within a community. We can't just protect select groups. All people have a right to be informed of what they may be exposed to in their local environment, and what local organizations (whether nonprofits, government organizations, or research initiatives) are doing to minimize risk!
If you are interested in this specific project, here is an older youtube video of the speaker describing her research:
Its important to remember that the concept of global health affects people around the globe, especially children, no matter where they live or how developed their environment is. Public health interventions have helped reduce the number of diseases that many people in developing countries would be exposed to, but no one lives in a sterile environment!
I haven't posted anything in a while, simply because the last few months have been occupied with self-reflection and constructing a plan of action for 2017. After the US Presidential election results were released, it seemed like a waste of time and energy to write about some disease that most people in the US will never even learn about, let alone be exposed to.
I was caught in an ambiguous fog of wondering whether the work that I do (my research, not necessarily this blog) is truly worth it, or if I'm just contributing to the unsustainable aspects of "global health". It can be frustrating when your subjects are on another continent, in another time zone, and will never interact with you face-to-face. Its also frustrating when you realize that you are just another white lady that claims a passion for global health/"wanting to make a difference". What does that mean, really? And frankly, what does that mean now that our government is lead by someone who believes in business over, well, everything else?
Community health workers in Madagascar (photo from K4Health)
How do you cope with being a person of the scientific community who wants to help initiate positive change, such as expanding the development and access to treatment and vaccinations for neglected diseases, improving access to clean water and sanitation technologies, or expanding educational and economic opportunities for young women in developing countries (just to name a few popular and reoccurring themes in global health), but also realizing that you may be forcing a very biased view on communities that are rarely empowered, but instead labeled has victims? (example: Many journalists claimed the cause for the last, explosive ebola outbreak was initially due to "ignorance" of the affected communities). Similarly, how do you prioritize issues abroad when there is so much happening in your local communities?
I recently finished reading Sometimes Brilliant, by Dr. Larry Brilliant, which details his journey through being a hippy MD with a passion for social justice and civil rights, and how he managed to find a spiritual connection to India while working to eradicate smallpox. On a number of occasions in this story, Dr. Brilliant (lovingly nicknamed "Dr. America" by his guru) questions his actions and whether his efforts are actually helping people in the long term, or if he's contributing to immediate yet unsustainable aid. This obviously spoke to me on a number of levels, but didn't help guide me to a solution (the answer isn't always broad and right in front of you, I guess).
Dr. Larry Brilliant (center) in India in the 1970s, working to educate communities and eradicate smallpox.
The beginning of the year coincides with my birthday, and instead of setting resolutions, I try to revisit the actions I've taken in the last year, and reflect on whether I'm having enough of an impact, giving enough of myself (energy, time, money, values, etc.) to others. This year, I wasn't feeling great about it, because I feel like there isn't enough time in one day, or even one year, to give enough of oneself to a cause (or causes) that will result in a true impact, a change, an improvement.
This dilemma is amplified by the fact that I spend a majority of my time and effort working in a lab at one of the most well known, private universities in the world, wherein I primarily interact with other white people, and everything sparkles with privilege and ongoing gifts from wealthy donors. Despite being in such an environment where low-income students get to attend for free, or where new and extensively valuable discoveries are made regularly, I'm not working in the hospital directly, where I could leave my workday feeling like I had a direct impact on someone's quality of life, or interacting with the students, who will go on to spread their expert educational experiences to many parts of the world with their future careers. When you work in such an environment, it is not clear who is "on your side" politically, or who is there to make a difference versus for the prestige of working with such a well known university. Its easy to feel isolated in a well-off environment when you are aware of inequalities.
Earlier this week, I attended a Global Health Symposium. It was a great event last year, but I wasn't expecting anyone to speak about the real issue at hand: How can we navigate global health issues with the new switch in government? It is typically not talked about, because you never know who voted for which party, or who actually believes the wall should be built. But without discussing such issues, it can make you feel like you are a part of the problem just by going to work.
The opening keynote address was given by Diana Chapman Walsh. Dr. Walsh was president of Wellesley College until 2007, and currently serves on the board of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. She is also on the board of directors for the Mind and Life Institute, where she gets to work with the Dalai Lama. At first look, admittedly, I stereotyped and judged her. I thought, "she appears to be another 'rich white lady' who will talk about working together and doing good things for people of the world, but her talk will be empty and uninspired", because that's how jaded I've been feeling about everything lately. I was clearly desperate for inspiration and guidance.
She proceeded to talk about the urgency of collaboration and navigating our resources while we still have access to them. Stating "they told me I could be political", she spoke outwardly about how white supremacy has put us in our current position, and how it is a danger for the future of global health. Frankly, white supremacists do not value the health and wellness of other, non-white/non-(North) Americans. How does that view impact the health of our nation, and the health of people around the world? Negatively. This new administration is not going to value the federal organizations that perform research and provide aid that benefits people worldwide, as 'they should be able to take care of themselves'. Statements like these do not acknowledge that there is a monopoly on resources that are a fundamental human right. Instead, these resources are traded strategically, doled out as bribes for economic advantage (example: mining natural resources in Africa, trading access to such resources strategically for money and power). Don't even get me started on the white supremacist view of developing countries through the narrow lens of tourism and hospitality industries (Dr. Walsh didn't touch on this, but I bet she has thoughts about it).
Dr. Walsh spoke of climate change as a vital component of global health, which is not a view you hear regularly. You hear of polar bears losing their habitat, and small island villages being swallowed by rising sea levels, but with the polarized nature of climate change, no one likes to talk about the increased spread of disease, how it is affecting animal populations, or how it is going to get extremely difficult for some regions to access basic resources, like clean water and food. Why would you allocate funds for research and innovation to combat these problems if you don't believe in climate change? Also, why would you believe in climate change when you cant see past your own bubble?
A bad photo of an inspiring talk.
What especially surprised me was how Dr. Walsh openly expressed her support for Black Lives Matter. I have never heard anyone at our university (outside of my immediate lab group) express such views openly. It hit me like a punch in the face, because I thought she was going to be someone who wouldn't take a stand, and who would most likely be an expert at straddling the fence. But, no, I was wrong! What a refreshing surprise! She used her position of power to say that we need to consider our local communities as a part of our global health initiatives. What that showed me is that we can be an example, and we shouldn't keep quiet. Also, maybe if we start listening more, we can learn how to get things done? Here's an article that details "8 Black Panther Party programs that were more empowering than federal government programs", just as one example.
A few people referenced the latest Oxfam report on inequality that states "62 people own the same as half of the world", and 53 of them are men (surprised?). Only until the end of the day was the concept of engaging these powerful few for philanthropic endeavors. I mean, look at what a tremendous impact Bill and Melinda Gates have had on research, innovation, and impacting global health. It just has to be seen as a priority.
So where do we go from here? Which causes are you passionate about? How do we harness these ideas for fuel for our activist fire? I hesitated to use the word "activist", but then realized that standing up for global health means being an activist for social justice, no matter where your efforts are targeted.
In a specifically memorable moment of Dr. Brilliant's book, he tells a story about being caught in the middle of a dilemma: to play the game of corruption that may lead to long-term support for their smallpox eradication mission, or to stand up for noble action and do what is immediately right for the cause. He sought guidance from another spiritual leader and was told to consider the question "how are my actions affecting the children who are sick and dying from smallpox?" with every move. Truly how do you navigate these situations when there is a business side to global health? We cannot always only lead with our hearts, because funding will run out in a flash.
I'll still cover infectious diseases, but the tone of my blog may change. There will be more calls to action, for sure. Global health is not only up to the righteously motivated or the extensively educated, especially when we consider global health as all encompassing.
Thanks for the much needed inspiration, Diana Chapman Walsh and Larry Brilliant. I'll see you on the front lines.
This one's for you, Trump:
Note: I've received a number of requests to do a series of posts about vaccinations: how they are developed and manufactured, how they work, etc., so I will be dedicating my next few updates to that subject.
