Dragging aid workers roughshod into political conflicts

Despite their noble efforts, aid workers in marginalized countries remain easy targets in political crossfire. It’s easy enough to predict. In most cases, they are volunteers working outside an official system, or for non-profits. Their security is not necessarily bankrolled, nor is their safety prioritized by military interventions in conflict zones.

Image Source: trust.org

In cases where they aren’t victims, they are suspected of being intelligence operatives. Forgood reason. As Katherine Bigelow’s controversial film Zero Dark Thirty reveals, health programs such as community vaccinations are usually set up by First World intelligence agencies to gather information for counter-terrorism missions. The film shows this happening through a polio vaccination program. Fact-checkers for the movie, however, reveal this as a hush-hush tribal infiltration mission in real life through a CIA-sponsored hepatitis B vaccination program in the hunt for bin Laden.

Image Source: boingboing.net

One of the controversial pressures on Bigelow now is the growing distrust for aid workers arising from her movie’s reception in Pakistan. Truth or assertion, the portrayal of aid workers has its reprisals, with Taliban community heads disallowing polio vaccinations or aid workers now marked out as enemies by tribal leaders. The article also reports the murder of six polio vaccinators. Whether they were murdered as war’s collateral damage or on account of the suspicion they incite is another question.

Image Source: guardian.co.uk

Such fate is not unique to aid workers. But for years, the dodgy place is where they get inadvertently thrown. Ironically, it’s no coincidence that conflict-zones need them more.


The efforts of aid workers go hand in hand with the obligation of pharmaceuticals to promote public health. Mary Szela, an immersed representative of this industry, tackles its work through this webpage.

To curb child obesity, move to cleaner air

Image Source: solutions4cities.com


Child obesity is a recognized epidemic in America. Over the last year, parents, pediatricians, and elementary school teachers have launched an aggressive campaign against sugars and fats. While effective, a recent study shows this attempt to remove fatty food from a child’s diet is futile if the child is predisposed to obesity. While it is true that obesity can be genetic, even children from families without the gene can be exposed to the dangers of obesity while still in the womb. This does not– as one might think– depend entirely on what the mother eats while pregnant. The prenatal factor that has been proven to lead to obesity is in fact what the mother inhales.




Image Source: iqair.com


The debate over air pollution has possibly existed longer than the concern for obesity has. Air pollution has been known to cause allergies, lung infections, and respiratory failure. A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that exposure to air pollution during pregnancy is associated with an increased chance of having heavier children. The research concluded that air pollution contains endocrine disruptors and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)– endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in cigarette smoke and car exhaust. Like estrogen, PAHs interfere with some developmental and metabolic functions. According to the research findings, children born to mothers with the highest PAH levels during their third trimester had a 79% greater risk of becoming obese.




Image Source: telegraph.co.uk


While it is difficult to avoid air pollution– particularly for expectant mothers living in cities– it is possible to consciously avoid the worst sources of PAH exposure. This means avoiding second-hand cigarette smoke and similar exhaust. Knowing that air pollutants can cause child obesity– which is known to lead to diabetes– should be motivation enough for pregnant women to stay vigilant.



Child obesity is known to lead to type 2 diabetes– a growing issue for children in America. As the former Senior VP of Global Strategic Marketing and Services of Abbott Diabetes Care, Mary Szela takes this issue close to her heart. Read more about her advocacy on this website.

The historical research model of pharmaceuticals

Image Source: scientificamerican.com


Admittedly, some big pharmaceuticals have come under fire for their failure to produce safe drugs. Internationally, damages filed against them have drained the resources of some and put to question their models for producing drugs.


These backlashes have naturally tainted their operations, undermining the strong historical foundations of their operations. Pharmaceuticals were once hailed as indices for the advancement of medical technology.




Image Source: businessclimate.com


This exposé by The New Yorker cleverly runs the reader through the development of pharmaceutical companies to what they are now. With billion-dollar mergers behind them, today’s hyphenated pharmaceutical names are a triumph of forgetting the sophisticated Swiss and German models that launched their relevance. Admittedly, pharmaceuticals that have come under fire for failing to produce relevant drugs have failed to derive success from these models after years of trying to develop them.


The Swiss and German laboratories of yore were at the forefront of assiduous discovery and testing of new compounds that form the basic components of drugs. In theory, they have provided a valiant backbone in the crusade against the multiplication of diseases. These models are expensive to maintain, but fruition could have attenuated the costs. However, The New Yorker also points out that despite such a strong foundation, there is still a want for new, innovative drugs that are not of the “me, too” kind.




Image Source: foxnews.com


Perhaps what’s left for big pharmaceuticals to do is forgo aggressive expansion in favor of getting down to productive research. The world is in desperate need of new, safe drugs to combat the rising statistics of mortality and morbidity from diseases.



The pharmaceutical industry is the subject of many analyses for its continuing improvement. For more insights, consult this Facebook page offering the outlook of Mary Szela, a well-placed executive of Abbott Laboratories.

Big pharma, small countries

Image Credit:cubics.co.in

Pharmaceuticals don’t necessarily carry the image of grassroots doctors and aid workers going around underdeveloped countries and crossing warzones to distribute cheap drugs to the world’s poorest populations. However, a report from The Guardian broke down the contributions of the biggest pharmas to the production of accessible and affordable drugs made available in third world countries.



It seems like a case of developing conscience. Or, it could merely be a recognition of conquering markets by volume. The good in all of this is that medicines for epidemic-level diseases are no longer the preserve of rich countries. Logically, diseases such as tuberculosis, diabetes, and malaria are more common in poorer societies. The global pressure to address them is, of course, a by-product of government policies on health in concert with those of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Image Credit: rexbureau.wordpress.com

Pharmaceuticals like Glaxosmithkline, Sanofi, and Johnson and Johnson have notably adjusted their pricing. They are also pledging ethical practices in research and testing, a far cry from the days some of the biggest ones in the industry were being accused of inhuman procedures.


Population boom could also have ushered economies of scale in drug development and production. Diseases have become more common, necessitating a ready supply of specific medications. The drive for perfecting vaccines for diseases such as malaria has intensified. It might really be just a good time to produce drugs.

Image Credit: bestnet-blog.com

Read more about the pharmaceutical industry from this Mary Szela Facebook page.

On ethics and necessity: Pharmaceutical companies and lab rats

Rights are a common topic these days, and the discussion encompasses not just humans’ rights but those of animals as well. This has become a major issue across many industries, particularly in pharmaceutics. For years now, pharmaceutical companies and laboratories have been using animals such as rats, dogs, and guinea pigs to test their products, a practice that has caused quite an uproar especially from animal rights advocates.

Mary Szela Image Credit: boston.com

Ironically, ethics is cited as one of the primary reasons for why animals are used in laboratories. Human testing is considered taboo in practically any territory worldwide. On the other hand, companies cannot release products without being sure of how they affect their potential users. For this reason, they turn to other mammals which, theoretically, would react to a drug or substance the same way that humans would. Animals are used as humanity’s proxy in the creation of medicines that do not have adverse effects on the human body.

Mary Szela Image Credit: labguru2.files.wordpress.com

For animal rights advocates, animal testing is an act of cruelty to animals. The argument is that these animals are not biologically far from human beings, and should be treated with as much dignity and respect as is afforded to any man or woman. Additionally, advocates forward the prevalence of animal abuse across many laboratories worldwide. Some organizations for animal rights are suggesting that laboratories use cells cultured from human bodies in testing pharmaceutical products.

Mary Szela Image Credit: ecouterre.com

Medicine has come a long way, and will no doubt go further as technology and research advance. The argument will continue until a compromise is reached.



Find more information about Mary Szela by visiting this Facebook page.

Living with diabetes - a mum and son's story

For Diabetes Awareness Month

Mary Szela: Me-too drugs

From a consumer perspective, there is no knowing how drugs in the market targeting the same conditions could differ. Pharmaceutical executives like Mary Szela of Abbott Laboratories could be called upon to deliver the upshot on “me, too drugs,” so-named for their generic similarities to previously distributed drugs. They’re in the market carrying variations of the original drug in experimental doses, such as little tweaks in their innate molecules to shift their mechanisms.

Mary Szela. Image credit: packworld.com

“Me, too drugs” are already semantically impaired, implying cheaper reproductions of an original drug, a circumvention of intellectual property, and an imitative response to the market for marked-down drugs.

Mary Szela. Image credit: noiselabs.com

These negatives aside, consumers are wont to try them for the cost and the promise of difference, such as easier or absent side effects. Besides, the tenets of free market competition abet their purpose. No single pharmaceutical company could face down challenges to its monopoly, no matter how pioneering it is. Imagine Mary Szela and her colleagues at Abbott Laboratories working up marketing and legal funds to plug the influx of like-structured drugs. The idea is downright ridiculous, and if pharmaceutical monopoly should be the scenario, then the case might as well be extended to soap and toothpaste.

Mary Szela. Image credit: foxnews.com

There is, however, a magnetic point the opposition makes. Anent the delicate nature of healthcare, “me, too drugs” suffer a lack of regulation, therefore a scientific risk. A single drug existing in the market is easier to control and evaluate for both function and effects. The state could focus better on its improvement, stake its claim on prescriptions by deploying its own experts. Meanwhile, evaluating a deluge of imitation drugs should feel like sifting rice for the worthwhile grains.


Mary Szela has held many positions in Abbott Laboratories. See her updates on Facebook.