RESUMEN
Taking stock of global progress towards achieving the Paris Agreement requires consistently measuring aggregate national actions and pledges against modelled mitigation pathways1. However, national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) and scientific assessments of anthropogenic emissions follow different accounting conventions for land-based carbon fluxes resulting in a large difference in the present emission estimates2,3, a gap that will evolve over time. Using state-of-the-art methodologies4 and a land carbon-cycle emulator5, we align the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-assessed mitigation pathways with the NGHGIs to make a comparison. We find that the key global mitigation benchmarks become harder to achieve when calculated using the NGHGI conventions, requiring both earlier net-zero CO2 timing and lower cumulative emissions. Furthermore, weakening natural carbon removal processes such as carbon fertilization can mask anthropogenic land-based removal efforts, with the result that land-based carbon fluxes in NGHGIs may ultimately become sources of emissions by 2100. Our results are important for the Global Stocktake6, suggesting that nations will need to increase the collective ambition of their climate targets to remain consistent with the global temperature goals.
Asunto(s)
Dióxido de Carbono , Congresos como Asunto , Objetivos , Gases de Efecto Invernadero , Cooperación Internacional , Temperatura , Benchmarking , Ciclo del Carbono , Dióxido de Carbono/análisis , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Gases de Efecto Invernadero/análisis , Actividades Humanas , Cooperación Internacional/legislación & jurisprudencia , Paris , Política Ambiental/legislación & jurisprudenciaAsunto(s)
Congresos como Asunto , Política Ambiental , Combustibles Fósiles , Calentamiento Global , Liderazgo , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Política Ambiental/legislación & jurisprudencia , Política Ambiental/tendencias , Combustibles Fósiles/provisión & distribución , Calentamiento Global/prevención & controlAsunto(s)
Cambio Climático , Congresos como Asunto , Política Ambiental , Cooperación Internacional , Egipto , Política Ambiental/legislación & jurisprudencia , Cooperación Internacional/legislación & jurisprudencia , Calentamiento Global/legislación & jurisprudencia , Calentamiento Global/prevención & control , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Congresos como Asunto/tendenciasAsunto(s)
Cambio Climático , Congresos como Asunto , Países Desarrollados , Cooperación Internacional , Política , Clima , Cambio Climático/economía , Cambio Climático/estadística & datos numéricos , Países Desarrollados/economía , Factores de Tiempo , Cooperación Internacional/legislación & jurisprudencia , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Congresos como Asunto/tendenciasAsunto(s)
Adaptación Psicológica , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Países Desarrollados/economía , Países en Desarrollo/economía , Calentamiento Global/economía , Calentamiento Global/prevención & control , Objetivos , Inversiones en Salud/economía , Organización de la Financiación , Calentamiento Global/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Inversiones en Salud/tendencias , Escocia , Factores de TiempoAsunto(s)
Carbono/análisis , Cambio Climático , Congresos como Asunto , Conservación de los Recursos Energéticos/economía , Conservación de los Recursos Energéticos/métodos , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Conservación de los Recursos Energéticos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Política Ambiental/legislación & jurisprudencia , Paris , Impuestos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Naciones Unidas/legislación & jurisprudenciaAsunto(s)
Congresos como Asunto/ética , Acoso no Sexual/legislación & jurisprudencia , Acoso Sexual/legislación & jurisprudencia , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Medicina de Emergencia , Política de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Formulación de Políticas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled ``E7 Studies in Support of Special Populations: Geriatrics; Questions and Answers.'' The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The questions and answers (Q&A) guidance addresses special considerations for the design and conduct of clinical trials of drugs likely to have significant use in the elderly. The Q&As are intended to provide guidance on the use of geriatric data to adequately characterize and represent the safety and efficacy of a drug for a marketing application, including data collected postmarketing.
Asunto(s)
Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Aprobación de Drogas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Geriatría/normas , Cooperación Internacional/legislación & jurisprudencia , Seguridad/legislación & jurisprudencia , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Química Farmacéutica/normas , Industria Farmacéutica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Unión Europea , Geriatría/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Japón , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug AdministrationAsunto(s)
Comités Consultivos/legislación & jurisprudencia , American Heart Association , Atletas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Cardiología/legislación & jurisprudencia , Anomalías Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Comités Consultivos/normas , Cardiología/normas , Anomalías Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Congresos como Asunto/normas , Humanos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaAsunto(s)
Congresos como Asunto , Bases de Datos Factuales , Registros Electrónicos de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Congresos como Asunto/organización & administración , Congresos como Asunto/normas , Bases de Datos Factuales/legislación & jurisprudencia , Bases de Datos Factuales/normas , Registros Electrónicos de Salud/organización & administración , Registros Electrónicos de Salud/normas , Diseño de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas , Estudios Epidemiológicos , Humanos , Revisión de Utilización de Seguros/legislación & jurisprudencia , Revisión de Utilización de Seguros/estadística & datos numéricos , Legislación Médica , ParisRESUMEN
In testimony before US Congress on March 11, 2020, members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee were informed that estimated mortality for the novel coronavirus was 10-times higher than for seasonal influenza. Additional evidence, however, suggests the validity of this estimation could benefit from vetting for biases and miscalculations. The main objective of this article is to critically appraise the coronavirus mortality estimation presented to Congress. Informational texts from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are compared with coronavirus mortality calculations in Congressional testimony. Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate. Public health lessons learned for future infectious disease pandemics include: safeguarding against research biases that may underestimate or overestimate an associated risk of disease and mortality; reassessing the ethics of fear-based public health campaigns; and providing full public disclosure of adverse effects from severe mitigation measures to contain viral transmission.
Asunto(s)
Sesgo , Infecciones por Coronavirus/mortalidad , Mortalidad/tendencias , Neumonía Viral/mortalidad , Estadística como Asunto/normas , COVID-19 , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Humanos , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Salud Pública/métodos , Salud Pública/tendencias , Estadística como Asunto/métodos , Estadística como Asunto/tendenciasRESUMEN
There is currently limited direct evidence of how sponsorship of scientific conferences fits within the food industry's strategy to shape public policy and opinion in its favour. This paper provides an analysis of emails between a vice-president of The Coca-Cola Company (Coke) and prominent public health figures in relation to the 2012 and 2014 International Congresses of Physical Activity and Public Health (ICPAPH). Contrary to Coke's prepared public statements, the findings show that Coke deliberated with its sponsored researchers on topics to present at ICPAPH in an effort to shift blame for the rising incidence of obesity and diet-related diseases away from its products onto physical activity and individual choice. The emails also show how Coke used ICPAPH to promote its front groups and sponsored research networks and foster relationships with public health leaders in order to use their authority to deliver Coke's message. The study questions whether current protocols about food industry sponsorship of scientific conferences are adequate to safeguard public health interests from corporate influence. A safer approach could be to apply the same provisions that are stipulated in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control on eliminating all tobacco industry sponsorship to the food industry.
Asunto(s)
Bebidas Gaseosas , Congresos como Asunto , Correo Electrónico , Ejercicio Físico , Industria de Alimentos , Bebidas Gaseosas/economía , Bebidas Gaseosas/estadística & datos numéricos , Congresos como Asunto/economía , Congresos como Asunto/ética , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Congresos como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Correo Electrónico/ética , Correo Electrónico/estadística & datos numéricos , Industria de Alimentos/ética , Industria de Alimentos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Industria de Alimentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Salud Pública/normas , Salud Pública/tendencias , Industria del Tabaco/legislación & jurisprudenciaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This paper examines the tobacco industry's efforts to influence litigation by sponsoring judicial seminars. METHODS: Thousands of internal tobacco documents were examined, including memos, reports, presentations, and newsletters. Connections to outside organisations were corroborated by examining tobacco industry financial records, budgets, and letters pledging funds. Facts about outside organisations were triangulated through examining their websites and publicly-filed financial records, and verifying facts through their representatives' statements in newspaper and law review articles. RESULTS: There are direct financial ties between the tobacco industry and groups that organise judicial seminars in an effort to influence jurisprudence, and judges who attend these seminars may be breaching judicial ethics either by not inquiring about the source of funding or by ignoring funding by potential litigants. CONCLUSIONS: The tobacco industry's attempts to clandestinely influence judges' decisions in cases to which they are a party endangers the integrity of the judiciary.
Asunto(s)
Congresos como Asunto , Responsabilidad Legal , Industria del Tabaco/legislación & jurisprudencia , Códigos de Ética , Congresos como Asunto/economía , Congresos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Curriculum , Exposición a Riesgos Ambientales/legislación & jurisprudencia , Organización de la Financiación/métodos , Gobierno , Organizaciones , Prejuicio , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
We conducted a cross-sectional study of all exhibit booths for the 24 pharmaceutical companies at the 2002 American Psychiatric Association (APA) convention. We collected and categorized one of each item distributed by the companies at each booth. A total of 268 items were collected from 24 companies (median=8). The most common categories of items were "reprints or pamphlets" (37%) and "noneducational gifts" (27%), including music CDs and invitations to dinners and museums. There were a total of 16 violations of the APA's own exhibit rules: eight companies had one violation and two companies had four violations. Four companies engaged in FDA-prohibited off-label promotion; one also violated the APA code. Over half of all companies (54%) were in violation of either APA rules or FDA regulations. The APA's voluntary code has failed to adequately reduce inappropriate promotional activity at the annual APA meeting.