It is a well-documented fact that transnational corporations engaged in the production and distribution of health-harmful commodities have been able to steer policy approaches to address the associated burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). While the political influence that corporations wield stems in part from significant financial resources, it has also been enabled and magnified by what has been referred to as global health's neoliberal deep core, which has subjected health policy to the individualisation of risk and responsibility and the privileging of market-based policy responses. The accompanying perspective article from Lencucha and Thow draws attention to neoliberalism in the NCD space and the way it has historically structured patterns of thinking and doing that foreground economic interests over health considerations. In this commentary, we explore how shifting from a focus on material power to discursive power creates space to see the NCD agenda as a battle of economic ideas as well as dollars, and consequently the importance of public health engagement in the next vision for the economy.The recent perspective article "How Neoliberalism Is Shaping the Supply of Unhealthy Commodities and What This Means for NCD Prevention," by Lencucha and Throw, interrogates how the dominant neoliberal paradigm restricts meaningful policy action to prevent non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It contributes an NCD perspective to the existing literature on neoliberalism and health, which to date has been dominated by a focus on HIV, gender and trade agreements. It further advances the emerging commercial determinants of health (CDoH) scholarship by calling for more nuanced analysis of how the governance of both health and the economy facilitates corporate influence in policy-making. In political science terms, Lencucha and Throw are calling for greater structural analysis. However, their focus on the pragmatic, as opposed to political, aspects of neoliberalism reflects a hesitancy within health scholarship to engage in political analysis. This depoliticization of health serves neoliberal interests by delegitimizing critical questions about who sustains and benefits from current institutional norms. Lencucha and Throw's call for greater interrogation of the structures of neoliberalism forms a basis from which to advance analysis of the political determinants of health.In the editorial, "A Crisis of Humanitarianism Refugees at the Gates of Europe," Marianna Fotaki elegantly highlights the changing dynamics of governmental policy toward refugees, forced migrants into Europe and the move away from the principles of humanitarianism.1 The perceived threats to economy, security, and concerns of globalization and multiculturalism often are manifested as a "cry of wolf " about alleged health risks. This in effect has raised concerns of inadmissibility on health-related grounds and calls for stricter legislation for determining who is eligible for legal permanent residence, precipitated in part by the "public charge" debate occurring in the United States.2 As Marianna notes "anti-migration rhetoric is now a permanent fixture of European politics."Lencucha and Thow have highlighted the way in which neo-liberalism is enshrined within institutional mechanisms and conditions the policy environment to shape public policy on non-communicable diseases (NCDs). They critique the strong (but important) focus of public health policy research on corporate interests and influence over NCD policy, and point toward neo-liberal policy paradigms shaping the relationship between the state, market and society as an area for critique and further exploration. They also importantly underline the way in which the neo-liberal policy paradigm shapes the supply of unhealthy goods and argue that health advocates have not engaged enough with supply side issues in critiques of policy debates on NCDs. This is an important consideration especially in the Asia-Pacific where trade and agricultural policies have markedly shaped production and what is being produced within countries. In this commentary, I reflect upon how neoliberalism shapes intersectoral action across trade, development and health within and across institutions. I also consider scope for international civil society to engage in advocacy on NCDs, especially where elusive 'discourse coalitions' influenced by neoliberalism may exist, rather than coordinated 'advocacy coalitions.'BACKGROUND In Sudan, where studies on HIV dynamics are few, model projections provide an additional source of information for policy-makers to identify data collection priorities and develop prevention programs. In this study, we aimed to estimate the distribution of new HIV infections by mode of exposure and to identify populations who are disproportionately contributing to the total number of new infections in Sudan. METHODS We applied the modes of transmission (MoT) mathematical model in Sudan to estimate the distribution of new HIV infections among the 15-49 age group for 2014, based on the main routes of exposure to HIV. Data for the MoT model were collected through a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles, grey literature, interviews with key participants and focus groups. We used the MoT uncertainty module to represent uncertainty in model projections and created one general model for the whole nation and 5 sub-models for each region (Northern, Central, Eastern, Kurdufan, and Khartoum regions). Wemostly concentrated among MSM, FSW, and FSW's clients both nationally and regionally. Thus, the authorities should pay more attention to key populations and Eastern and Northern regions when developing prevention programs.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/oxiglutatione.html  The findings of this study can improve HIV prevention programs in Sudan.BACKGROUND Policies assigning low-priority patients treatment delays for care, in order to make room for patients of higher priority arriving later, are common in secondary healthcare services today. Alternatively, each new patient could be granted the first available appointment. We aimed to investigate whether prioritisation can be part of the reason why waiting times for care are often long, and to describe how departments can improve their waiting situation by changing away from prioritisation. METHODS We used patient flow data from 2015 at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Haukeland University Hospital, Norway. In Dynaplan Smia, Dynaplan AS, dynamic simulations were used to compare how waiting time, size and shape of the waiting list, and capacity utilisation developed with and without prioritisation. Simulations were started from the actual waiting list at the beginning of 2015, and from an empty waiting list (simulating a new department with no initial patient backlog). RESULTS From an empty waiting list and with capacity equal to demand, waiting times were built 7 times longer when prioritising than when not.