Karibkween,

I did not understand your choice of title. What did you mean when you wrote ‘The real gift of colonization’?

I think that these kinds of infections have less to do with hygiene, which would be more related to diseases like typhoid, cholera or gastroenteritis and other water and food borne diseases. Or diseases spread by vectors (mosquitoes or rats) breeding in unclean habitats such as stagnant pools of water or improperly disposed garbage.

While it may be the case that most preventable infection cases do occur in the ‘developing’ world, I think this is a poor comparison to make where the author/researchers juxtapose one geographical region against the other without stressing the medical complexity of ‘developing’ countries. Aside from the diseases identified in the article, I refer to tropical diseases in general.

Most areas that have been defined as ‘developing’ are in tropical regions. This warm, humid, water-rich environment is also invariably more biologically diverse. As a consequence, they are also more diverse in diseases and the potential for infection. Temperate countries, which most often are ‘developed’ countries experience winter, which breaks the cycle of diseases and can reduce the potential for spread for several months of the year. Of course, viruses (such as the four highlighted in the article) are able to survive outside of the body and as a consequence of being inactive and can survive periods of stress such as cold environments. This buffering of activity, mobility, spread and contact should be a consideration that results in significant differences in cases in such regions.

So while, ‘developed’ countries can focus on fewer illnesses due in part to the above considerations, tropical nations have far more to battle with, without considering historical issues of exploitation and disenfranchisement that translates into the difference in resources and ability to access health care, and to research and treat with health care issues. This makes the ‘developed’ country narrative claim we-don’t-have-that-high-incidence-of-disease, so we are the experts and therefore have the solutions to ‘your’ ‘developed’ country problems. Take a page from ‘our’ book.

The article says, “The proportion of cancers related to infection is about three times higher in parts of the developing world, such as east Asia, than in developed countries like the UK - 22.9% versus 7.4%, respectively.’’

Lumping/comparing the UK, to a region as diverse as East Asia is really the strangest comparison to make. One has 60 million people, the other a billion and they vary in area, cultural practices, and so on. I think they should choose to compare regions with at least some closer comparison, but then that would not advance their argument of 23 versus 7 and contributes to a lot of rash and fearful perception of health in ‘developing’ countries. Of course, by ‘in parts’ they may be referring to some specific area, but I can only infer from what they have written.

Fortunately, tropical regions are also more diverse in plant biodiversity and our ancestors used this to treat so many aliments with a great degree of precision. I think more attention should be paid to traditional medicine.

The article below is relevant in this context: Rising cost of healthcare turning Africans to traditional medicine.

http://www.africasciencenews.org/en/index.php/health/63-health/450-rising-cost-of-healthcare-turning-africans-to-traditional-medicine