Hasta La Gadget!

Ready the tiny paper umbrellas!

The geniuses at HelloDenizen have rounded up all the necessities for a tiny hamster tiki party: Little coquito nuts filled to the brim with tropical smoothies, hamster-sized grass skirts, and a wee tiki hut fit for a rodent king.

The hamster and hedgehog duo does a number on a pu pu platter and the pina coladas flow like water. Needless to say, this is one party we really wish we’d been invited to.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

On Tuesday, May 12, public health organizations around the world breathed a sigh of relief as the U.S. Senate voted against the motion to grant the president trade promotion authority (TPA) — only to find this relief replaced by frustration and anxiety as the Senate announced, only 24 hours after its initial decision, that the body will reconsider the TPA. TPA, or fast track, removes Congress’s right to amend or negotiate the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement between 12 countries controlling 40 percent of the world’s economy, and allows the president to expedite completion of the deal. While President Obama has touted the TPP as “the most progressive trade agreement in history,” citing the labor and environmental regulations incorporated in the document, he fails to acknowledge the severe impact that the TPP will have on human rights and welfare globally.

Namely, the TPP, as currently written, threatens to block access to life-saving medicines around the world. The agreement includes provisions on intellectual property, enabling pharmaceutical companies to extend their patents on existing medications by up to 20 years based on minor modifications, such as new doses or delivery mechanisms, without any proof of increased efficacy — a practice known as “evergreening.” Moreover, the TPP requires that all member countries grant data exclusivity on expensive biologic drugs for 12 years. Data exclusivity prohibits drug companies from accessing and using the patent holder’s clinical trial data to accelerate approval of biosimilar drugs (which are, in simplified terms, generic versions of biologic drugs). Together, these provisions halt progress in the development, approval, and accessibility of affordable generic small-molecule and biosimilar drugs.

Proponents of the TPP and, in particular its provisions on pharmaceuticals, argue that intensified intellectual property regulations are necessary to incentivize innovation. They argue that without such protections, the costs and time required to develop complex biologic drugs and complete the intense regulatory approval process would deter research of these therapies. Yet these arguments are highly contestable. In 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded that data exclusivity periods for biologics were not justifiable, as other incentive structures such as patent protection and market-based pricing were more than sufficient to spur innovation in the field. The FTC’s analyses were based on the projected research and development costs for biosimilars, which would drive down prices significantly, but not as dramatically or quickly as seen in the generic drug market. Even President Obama’s administration has pushed for the reduction of data exclusivity for biologics from 12 years to seven within the U.S. We must acknowledge that if the U.S. itself has not reached consensus on this issue, we cannot justify exporting such strong protections abroad at the expense of patient lives.

Why does this matter? Because the TPP stipulations on biologics would extend to such life-saving drugs as vaccines and treatments for chronic diseases, including diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease, and put them out of reach for patients both in high, and low and middle-income countries (LMICs). While LMICs claim almost 80 percent of the disability adjusted life years lost worldwide to cancer, these countries only have an estimated of 5 percent of global cancer resources. In 2001, the WHO reported availability of anti-cancer drugs in only 22 percent of African countries, 43 percent of South East Asia, and 57 percent of countries in the Americas, compared to 91 percent in Europe. In recognition of these disparities, which still persist today, the World Health Organization added 16 anti-cancer medications among other biologic drugs to its Model Essential Medicines List just last week. The purpose of the list is to indicate which medicines should be made available and affordable at all times, and thereby guide public procurement.

Progress toward mitigating these disparities has been accelerated through generics production. Many generic cancer medications are available for less than $100 per treatment course, as opposed to the thousands of dollars charged for branded medications. In Brazil, generics competition was able to reduce price of certain cancer medications by 90 percent. In India, generic companies were able to cost imatinib, a leukemia drug, at approximately $167, as opposed to roughly $3,000 and over $2,000 for the branded drug (Gleevec) in the United States and India, respectively. India’s booming generics industry not only supplies the Indian market, but also exports its more affordable formulations around the world – including the U.S., where India accounts for approximately 40 percent of generic drug imports, and generics have saved the health system $239 billion over their branded counterparts. Regardless of whether more countries are added to the TPP in the future, the stipulations on intellectual property would impede generic drug companies from such countries as India from gaining access to external markets and improving access to life-saving and essential medicines. Thus, the TPP threatens to work against public interest as defined last week by the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines List.

The Senate’s deal with the White House is to reconsider the TPA after voting on bills surrounding concerns on customs enforcement, trade preference to sub-Saharan African countries, and Trade Adjustment Assistance. But the legislative body made no mention of the key provisions that will threaten decades of global health progress. We must stand against the fast track in order to buy Congress the time and ability to revise the provisions on biologics and patent protection. And if we successfully stop the fast track, we must learn from these last few days that complacency is not an option. We do not want a short-lived sigh of relief, but to be able to breathe easy after changing the TPP stipulations on medicines. We, the Young Professionals Chronic Disease Network, stand with Doctors Without Borders, OXFAM, and amFAR, among other human rights organizations, to fight for access to medicines around the world, and the prioritization of human life over excessive and unjustifiable financial interests.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Is it possible to live fearlessly? Probably not.

Fear is integral to our natural fight or flight response. It’s a protection mechanism to fend off danger. The issue, however, is that when we continually live from a place of fear, we use up all our energy on avoidance versus moving forward.

Sometimes when we go through hard times, we fear rejection. In order to avoid that feeling, you may find yourself withdrawing from the public eye. It becomes much easier to avoid going out or to go out at odd hours to duck and hide.

You end up using your energy to steer clear of potential rejection or criticism to keep yourself safe. It can become a conditioned response, which establishes a negative pattern of behavior. How long can these patterns last? As long you live from a place of fear.

It is normal to live from a place of fear when you are exposed to negative circumstances, but to move forward, you need to prevail over your fear. Here are five tips to get there:

1. Acknowledge It
Acknowledge that your fear is there and identify what it is. An example of fear could be that you are afraid that people are talking about you. Other examples include fear of rejection or fear that you may be perceived as a failure due to your association with a person or an event.

2. Recognize Self-Defeating Behavior
Identify the self-defeating behavior that this fear has caused in you. For example, you may say, “As a result of my fear of rejection, I have been hiding out in my home instead of living my life.” Make the decision that this behavior is no longer acceptable to you.

3. Take Action Against It
Take action against the fear and its corresponding negative behavior. Say to yourself, “Although certain people may reject me, I am not going to let their bad behavior influence mine. I will venture forth and hold my head high despite the fear and pain. I know that in time this will become easier.”

4. Recognize & Celebrate Your Courage
When you venture forth, recognize your courage and celebrate stepping out of your comfort zone. Say to yourself, “While that was scary, I did it. I didn’t die from it. I am becoming stronger every day.” Your inner dialogue just went from self-defeat to self-encouragement.

5. Move Boldly Forward
Now shampoo, rinse, and repeat! Every time you venture forth and celebrate your courage, it will be easier.

By recognizing your fear and taking action against it, you can free yourself from self-defeating patterns and become a resilient warrior. You have it in you!

Tired of feeling like you’ll never be happy again?

Mary Holloway empowers individuals to reach down and find their inner warrior. Mary is a sought after speaker, resilience coach, and most importantly, a survivor of soul crushing life experiences. She is the founder of Resilience Café and the creator of the Boom Bounce Wow Resilience Method. Mary believes that every person has an incredible warrior within them that can help them take back their life and emerge better, stronger, happier, and surprisingly thankful for the experience. She knows that indviduals can choose not to be defined by their situation but rather by how they respond to it.

Follow Mary at ResilienceCafe.com or on Facebook.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

WASHINGTON — American taxpayers have spent $62.5 billion on Afghanistan’s military and police forces since the U.S. invaded that country in 2001. It could all go to waste — or, worse, to extremists — if the Afghan and U.S. governments don’t increase their vigilance, according to the top watchdog for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.

“The evidence strongly suggests that Afghanistan lacks the capacity — financial, technical, managerial or otherwise — to maintain, support and execute much of what has been built or established during more than 13 years of international assistance,” said John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, in an address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Wednesday.

Sopko described himself as “more optimistic” about the situation in Afghanistan than he has been since he became inspector general three years ago. He pointed to innovations by the U.S. military and the fact that the new Afghan government has proved to be less antagonistic to Washington — and to its important neighbor, Pakistan — than its predecessor was.

But he underscored that he has serious doubts about the Afghan army, which is central to President Barack Obama’s plan to end the U.S. war in Afghanistan by 2016. The Afghan army is the chief line of defense in that country against the resurgent Taliban and a deadly Islamic State offshoot.

“Developing a capable [Afghan National Defense and Security Force] is essential to the success of the reconstruction effort and to the Afghan government’s prospects in any peace talks [with Taliban militants],” Sopko said. “Considering the effect a lack of security has on good governance, rule of law, and economic and social development, it may be the most important issue.” (The Afghan National Defense and Security Force is the umbrella term for the country’s army and police.)

Sopko’s comments come half a year after the U.S. and its NATO partners in Afghanistan formally ended their combat mission and turned over responsibility for security to the Afghan forces. The coalition allies then began a smaller support program. In late March, after consultations with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, Obama announced that he would slow down the withdrawal of remaining U.S. troops in 2015 but would stick to his plan of limiting the U.S. presence to an embassy and a small Kabul-based force after 2016.

The U.S. currently has 9,800 troops in Afghanistan who are supposed to be training the local security forces and seeking out what remains of al-Qaeda elements in the country. But The New York Times revealed last November that the president had quietly authorized U.S. forces to engage in combat against the Taliban if the militants directly threatened Americans or other coalition forces. Obama also signed off on the use of U.S. air power to support Afghan troops, according to the Times.

Sopko said Wednesday that he is not confident about the current capabilities of the Afghan troops, which face what experts describe as a Taliban growing increasingly confident as the U.S.-led coalition departs.

He added that it is difficult to assess the capacity of the Afghan forces because the U.S.-led coalition has changed its measurement methods numerous times. Moreover, last year the new NATO support mission said it would be classifying the executive summary of its Afghan force assessments, previously provided to the inspector general. Sopko blasted the move, as did such lawmakers as Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and an advocate for broader accountability on U.S. money spent abroad.

Sopko said Wednesday that he had received a new unclassified assessment in March, but that he was “skeptical” about its findings “after 10 years of assessments where [Afghan security forces] have yo-yoed with every new system.” The Afghan army did not score the highest possible points on any measure defined in the new assessment, Sopko added.

The inspector general noted that the oft-cited 352,000-person count for the Afghan military and police is simply a still-unmet target. And he suggested there’s only a small chance that the Afghan government in its current condition will be able to improve or even pay for its security forces.

Sopko’s remarks came the same day as two deadly attacks by militants in Afghanistan. The first targeted Islamic scholars, while the second was at a guesthouse frequented by foreigners.

Shamila Chaudhary, who served as director for Afghanistan and Pakistan on the National Security Council in 2010-11, told The Huffington Post that Sopko’s views on the weakness of Afghan security forces are just a more pointed version of the consensus among U.S. government officials, particularly in the military, and outside analysts.

“They’ve known this for quite a long time,” Chaudhary said. “The problem is that the politics of the [withdrawal] don’t allow for the U.S. to commit to the security forces financially for an indefinite period of time. … It’s a clash of political culture and what needs to happen on the ground.”

Chaudhary, who is now a senior adviser to the dean at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced and International Studies, added that Obama’s plan to slow down U.S. troop withdrawal is unlikely to change Afghanistan’s security situation much.

“We set up ourselves for the problem that we’re facing today: What do you do with all these folks?” she said. “The Afghan government is not financially in a position to take ownership of this issue.”

Yet Afghanistan will remain a core U.S. interest for counterterrorism purposes, she said, particularly given the Islamic State’s expansion there and the potential that Afghanistan could become a battleground for broader Shiite-Sunni tensions around the Muslim world.

“A strong, secure and self-sustaining Afghanistan is important for stability in the region, the well-being of 30 million Afghans, and ultimately the security of the United States,” Sopko said Wednesday. Just minutes earlier, he had compared a potential U.S. loss in Afghanistan to the scarring defeat of U.S.-backed South Vietnam in 1975.

“I am often the bringer of bad news,” the inspector general said. “But that is my job description: to look for waste, fraud and abuse and determine what is working and what is not, and what could be improved.”

He is “cautiously optimistic about a brighter future for Afghanistan.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Biometrics have changed the way we use smartphones, but they haven’t really revolutionized it, yet. Being able to unlock your smartphone with a fingerprint is convenient, but it has become so commonplace that the feature doesn’t stand out anymore. One of the latest smartphones due to hit Japan this summer sets itself apart from the crowd by allowing users to … Continue reading