To save a life

?How far would you go to save a life??   

This is a question that has spawned hundreds of stories, brimming with protagonists who go to the ends of the earth to provide salvation. They go to extreme measures to save loved ones, doing whatever it takes. We admire them for their courage, their selfless dedication to saving other people despite the risk.?   

Reality, however, tells a different  story.?   

The medical issue churning up the headlines today is rife with misunderstanding about an innovative — and very promising — treatment for dengue known as ActRX TriAct. As expected, critics are (ironically) decrying the research as unethical human testing with unproven elements. They say that the ActRX treatment represents too great a risk for too high a cost, and should not be considered, despite the numbers that prove it works and the lives that it has already saved.?   

Dengue has long been a predator of the Philippines, a figurative bogeyman that frightens both adults and children because the danger is all too real. In 2014 alone, there have been at least 50,000 cases, with over 200 deaths. It’s a sensitive issue fraught with political land mines, made even more so because most of those infected are children.?    

Modern medical treatments that seem to provide a glimmer of hope always cause a stir, populated in equal parts with those who genuinely want assurance that this treatment is sound and those who are blustering loudly for less altruistic reasons of their own.?     Last year, during a similar controversy surrounding stem cell therapy, I wrote a column that mentioned the Declaration of Helsinki. This is the set of principles established by the World Medical Association (WMA) about the ethics of human research. Regarding “Unproven Interventions in Clinical Practice,” the code states:? 

“In the treatment of an individual patient, where proven interventions do not exist or other known interventions have been ineffective, the physician, after seeking expert advice, with informed consent from the patient or a legally authorized representative, may use an unproven intervention if in the physician’s judgment it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering.”?  

In other words, if nothing else works and you have his/her consent, do whatever you can if it offers the slimmest chance of giving your patient a fighting chance. Save lives.

ActRX TriAct falls squarely into the boundaries of this principle. Dengue has no proven cure; in all our years of struggling with this sickness, we have only been able to treat its symptoms. Sometimes, it’s enough, but most of the time it isn’t. Every year, people still succumb en masse to the ravages of this deadly illness.

According to Dr. Juvencio Ordoña, the recently-retired director general of the Department of Health’s (DOH) Philippine Institute of Traditional and Alternative Health Care (PITACH), ActRX is the first treatment that goes directly to the virus itself. “This is not some radical new treatment, despite what some people want the public to believe,” he emphasized. “The essential ingredients are herbal-based, namely berberine, artesunate, and artemether. All three have long histories of safe and proven use, and are widely accepted all over the world.”

Ordoña makes an important point: this treatment is not composed of unknown elements, mixed up by mad scientists in some darkened laboratory. If berberine, artesunate, and artemether each have established safety records, and their combination can fight dengue with no recorded side effects, why not look into it? Every effective medical treatment has to start somewhere, and this could be where the downfall of dengue really begins.

When you’re a doctor charged with the responsibility of saving lives, you’ll pursue every lead. Indeed, standing by and doing nothing for fear of the unknown can be considered a violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic oath.?  

We are not the ones who have to shroud these children when their little bodies give up the fight. We are not the ones who have to face their grieving parents with the cold and unmoving evidence of our failure. We are not the ones who have to lie to them and say we did everything we could, short of giving them the one thing that could give them their children back.? 

Dr. Enrique Ona understands this. As such, faced with the undisputable, fully-audited data of 144 dengue patients cured by a new treatment, he did what any rational and compassionate human being in his position would do. He encouraged the treatment to be tested and analyzed further, in the hopes of benefiting the entire nation. Rather than criticism, I say this man deserves encouragement and appreciation.

* * *

Turgay Unlu, chair of Turkish Flour Yeast & Ingredients Promotion Group, has issued an official statement on the decision of the Tariff Commission imposing dumping duties on some of its traders who export products to the Philippines.

Originally, the tariff duty imposed on Turkish flour imports was pegged at only 7 per cent. After the Philippine Association of Flour Millers (PAFMIL) filed a dumping petition, the Department of Agriculture ordered additional provisional dumping duties to some Turkish flour importers on top of the 7 percent as follows:  35 per cent on hard flour for bread; 39.26 per cent on biscuit flour; and 35.21 percent on soft flour for pastries and cookies.

TFYI made an appeal and presented its case to the Tariff Commission.  The Tariff Commission held a public hearing and deliberated on the case and consequently made its recommendation, which the DA approved for the Bureau of Customs to implement and impose, as follows:  Out of the 17 Turkish Flour traders,  13 were imposed tariff duties ranging from 2.87-16.19 percent.

 Unlu sees the Philippines as a close trade partner in the Southeast Asian region.  TFYI, he says,  greatly values its relationship with trade associates, the Philippine government and the Filipino people. This is reflected in its fair trade practice specifically in relation to the wheat flour it exports to the Philippines and “its comitment to continue providing Filipinos with affordabe ingreadients for their bread, noodles and other flour-based products.”

However, while it respects the DA’s decision, “as an  organization representing all Turkish flour exporters we believe this decision is based on misunderstanding or miscalculations of data. We presented proper documentation and evidence to support our position that Turkish flour is not being dumped in the Philippines. Our companies do not practice trade that is at a capacity or under conditions to threaten or injure the domestic flour industry.

“Moreover, we assert that the presence of Turkish flour in the Philippine market allows a more competitive atmosphere and provides local bakers and small- to- medium scale food producers a more affordable alternative.”

“We would like to assure our partners, our customers and the Filipino people that Turkey will continue to do business with the Philippines. We hope that the local wheat flour producers of the Philippines will start seeing our presence in the market as a motivation to improve their products, rather than seeing us as a threat and constantly trying to eliminate a healthy competition.”

* * *

My email:[email protected]