Podcasts about duke global health institute

Donald Trump has taken office in the US and immediately turned his attention to dismantling the US position as a world leader in global health. How will actions taken so far affect the health of people around the world? Gavin is joined by co-host Miriam Sabin, North American Executive Editor at The Lancet, and they speak to Dr. Gavin Yamey, lead author of The Lancet's recent Commission on Investing in Health, and Director of the Center for Policy Impact in Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute.Send us your feedback!Read all of our content at https://www.thelancet.com/?dgcid=buzzsprout_tlv_podcast_generic_lancetCheck out all the podcasts from The Lancet Group:https://www.thelancet.com/multimedia/podcasts?dgcid=buzzsprout_tlv_podcast_generic_lancetContinue this conversation on social!Follow us today at...https://twitter.com/thelancethttps://instagram.com/thelancetgrouphttps://facebook.com/thelancetmedicaljournalhttps://linkedIn.com/company/the-lancethttps://youtube.com/thelancettv

Season 2 of Every Day Is Groundhog Day (Except for the Days When It's Not) is here! In this episode we speak to Dr. Eric Green from Duke University in the Duke Global Health Institute about Groundhog Day, data science, and AI. Check out Dr. Green's Groundhog Day data package. Get your own Groundhog Day prediction from Byte Burrower. Cover art by Tom Mike Hill.Music by the Fantastic Breakmaster Cylinder. Transcriptions are provided by Aveline Malek at TheWordary.com. Visit Countdown to Groundhog Day, the most powerful Groundhog Day resource on the internet. Send questions or comments about the podcast or Groundhog Day in general, as well as voice messages about your Groundhog Day memories, to podcast@countdowntogroundhogday.com.

For much of history, the word 'epidemic' applied to infectious diseases. Large numbers of cases of disease caused by organisms such as bacteria and viruses that spread through water, air, or other means, sometimes transmitted from person to person, or back and forth between people and animals. Then came epidemics of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease - diseases occurring in very large numbers and created not by infectious agents, but by drivers in our day to day lives, such as a bad food environment. A new paper was just published in the PLOS global health literature that I found fascinating. It focuses on another use of the concept of epidemics: market driven epidemics. Let's find out what these are and find out a little bit more about their implications for our health and wellbeing. Our guests today are two of the authors of that paper. Dr. Jonathan Quick is a physician and expert on global health and epidemics. He is an adjunct professor at Duke University's Global Health Institute. Eszter Rimanyi joins us as well. She works on chronic disease and addiction epidemiology at Duke university. Interview Summary Access the PLOS article “Dynamics of combatting market-driven epidemics: Insights from U.S. reduction of cigarette, sugar, and prescription opioid consumption.” So, Jono, let's start with you. Tell us what you mean by market driven epidemics. The pattern is familiar to people. There is a product that that humans like and the business community says we can make a lot of money on this unmet need. And so they do that and they start selling a lot of it. And then people start noticing that this thing that the humans like is killing some of them. And so, the scientists do the public health. And then the business community says these scientists are going to kill the golden goose. They buy up other scientists and try to defend themselves. And then it goes on and on before we really bend the epidemic curves. This pattern of consumer products that have harmful effects, those products are major contributors to the root causes of at least a million deaths a year in the US, and over 20 million deaths worldwide. So, to try to look at this from an epidemic point of view, we first established a case definition. Our definition of market driven epidemic is a significant increase in death, disability and other harmful effects on humans and human health and wellbeing. It's arising from a consumer product whose use has been accelerated by aggressive marketing. Whose harmful effects have been denied or otherwise minimized by producers. And for which effective mitigation is possible but actively opposed by producers. So, we looked at the natural history of this, and we found five phases through which these epidemics pass. There's market development, either inventing a new product, developing a product like prescription opioids, or transforming an existing product like tobacco. Phase two is evidence of harm. First, there's suspicion, astute clinicians, whistleblowers, and then eventually proof of harm. Phase three is corporate resistance. Companies deny harm, seek to discredit accusers, commission counter science, manufacture doubt, mount legal challenges. All the while deaths and social upheaval and economic costs are mounting. And finally, our next phase four is mitigation. We get some regulatory efforts going, and there's a tipping point for the consumption and resulting deaths. And then finally, phase five of this is market adaptation. In a response to decreasing or threatened consumption, companies and consumers typically seek alternatives. Adaptations can be positive or negative. Some are healthier, some are equally or more harmful. Thanks very much for that description. It really helps explain what the concept is all about. You chose three areas of focus. You could have chosen others, but you chose cigarettes, sugar, and prescription opioid use. Why those in particular? We wanted to identify differences in these market driven epidemics in a few product categories. We wanted to look at distinctly different consumer experiences so we could see what worked and what didn't in terms of bending the epidemic curve. We picked nicotine delivery, food, and prescription medicine. And to choose within those categories we established five inclusion criteria. So, number one, the product had to have proven adverse health effects. Number two, there needed to be well documented histories of product development, marketing, mitigation efforts, and so forth. Number three, the product needed to meet the overall case definition. That is, companies knew they were doing harm, continued to do harm, and fought that harm. Number four, there needed to be long term data available for product consumption and associated impact. And number five, most important, we chose products for which mitigation efforts had already resulted in significant sustained reduction in product consumption. Based on these three criteria, cigarettes, sugar, and prescription opioids came out as the ones that we studied. Thanks. I really appreciate that description. And when we get to the punchline in a minute, it's going to be interesting to see whether the behavior of the industry in this natural history that you talked about is similar, given that the substances are so different. We'll get to that in a minute. So Eszter, I'd like to turn to you. What kind of information did you pull together to write this paper? I think I looked at over a thousand different documents. But there were two clear types that I interrogated to pull together all of our background data. The first category was publicly available data, so that could have been a clinical study, epidemiological study, advertisement by the company, CDC or other government reports, mortality data, etc. But then there was also a distinct different type of data that we really looked at and that was really useful for putting together these pictures of the natural history, which was internal documents. In some cases, these could have been leaked by an internal employee, which was the case with the so called 'brown documents' with tobacco. But it also came from sometimes court hearings or as a result of lawsuits that the companies had to release internal data. It was really interesting to compile together the different sides, of the outside look from CDC reports, and then the insider scoop from Purdue Pharma. So, it's a very well rounded, interesting way to find all this data. I admire your effort. It's a big job to do a normal scientific review where you might have 50 papers and you were looking at things that were much harder to obtain and a vast number of things that are really quite different in character. Boy, congratulations for just reading all those things. Tell us what you found. Gosh, so even though there's so many distinct differences between a lot of these epidemics, what we actually found was that there was a lot of narrative similarities. And because of that, we could really create this holistic, but also really well-fitting idea of market driven epidemics. A lot of the corporate strategies were either mirrored, imitated, or in some cases quite literally lifted over because of overlapping ownership between the companies. One of the things that we really wanted to hammer into our article was that producers not only created their product, but they also manufactured doubt. Which means that they created, on purpose, public hesitancy around their product even when they internally knew that it was harmful to health. They wanted the public to be on the fence about what the health impact of their product was. There was a lot of different ways that they achieved that goal. Sometimes it was through showing propaganda films in high schools. Which I still can't believe that happened and then that was legal. But also in different ways, like co-opting science, paying scientists to publish articles in their favor. I know a really famous example of this that has now been public is that two Harvard researchers in cardiovascular disease published saying that sugar was not harmful to health. So, there's a lot of different ways that they achieved it, but the goals overall were very similar by all the companies. You know, you mentioned overlapping ownership. And so, you might have been referring specifically to the ownership of the food companies by the tobacco companies. Correct. Because it happened a while ago, that's not something that was well known. But there's a fascinating history there about how the tobacco industry used its technology to maximize addiction and used that to develop food products and to change the DNA of the food companies in ways that still exist today, even though that ownership ended many years ago. I'm really glad you pointed that out. Yeah, exactly. I think there's this shared idea that there's a turning point for companies. Where they know internally that their product is causing harm. And what really tips them over into becoming market driven epidemics is not actually coming out and saying that there's an issue with their product or not improving it. But you know really digging that information into the dirt and saying no we're going to protect our product and keep giving this out to the public despite the harms. You know, maybe we can come back to this, but the fact that you're finding similarities between these areas suggests that there are contingencies that act on corporate executives that are similar no matter what they're selling. And that's helpful to know because in the future, you can predict what these companies will be doing because there are many more similarities than differences. Jono let me ask you this. You've talked about this appalling period of time between when there are known health consequences of use of some of these things and the time when meaningful action occurs to curb their consumption and to rein in the behavior of the companies. How long is this gap, and what explains it? Kelly, this is one of the most fascinating things about this study. And it really highlights the importance of taking an epidemiologic approach. This is a behavioral epidemic, not a viral one. But it has so many characteristics. One of the key points is that is how important time is. And we see that in any epidemic curve when things start going exponential. If we take cigarettes, okay, the harms of cigarettes had long been suspected. But the first credible scientific publication was by a US physician, Isaac Adler, in a 400-page 1912 book where he first associated cigarettes with cancers. Fast forward over 40 years to British scientists Doll and Hill, and they did the epidemiology which definitively and convincingly links cigarette cancer with smoking deaths. So that gap was incredible and so that's one of the first examples. Once those articles were published, others followed the initial one. It took about a decade until the 1964 Surgeon General's report on smoking and health. And that was quickly followed by a series of federal actions. So, 1964, '63, '64 was the tipping point. Five decades after the initial suspicion. For sugar, the journey from suspicion to compelling evidence was more complex. There was a big debate between researchers, clinicians, scientific journalists, that began in the '50s. A diabetologist from Britain John Yudkin, argued in the 1957 Lancet piece, it's sugar that's equal or larger than fats. An American physiologist, Enzo Keyes, says au contraire. He said it on the cover of Time Magazine. From 1950 to 2000, there was this debate back and forth. Finally, sugar consumption in the US peaked in '99 when a sugar wary group of researchers, journalists, and advocacy groups began becoming really vocal. And that was the tipping point. The actual compelling science, it came a few years after the preponderance of folks engaged said, no, it's sugar. You got to do something. And finally, with prescription opioids: 1997, rural doctors Art Van Zee and another fellow, alerted Purdue Pharma, the producer of OxyContin, about rising overdoses. A year later, there was a publication that said the sustained release version of OxyContin, which was a hydrocodone that was sustained release, that they first tried it with morphine, and they had evidence from there that the sustained release drugs were a problem. And again, it was over a decade later that mounting prescription opioid deaths in the US convinced CDC to declare an epidemic of [00:14:00] opioid prescribing. This gap, if you look at it, to summarize, for cigarettes, the journey from credible suspicion of harm to consumption tipping point, five decades. Sugar, four decades. Prescription opioids, fourteen years. But the key thing is that the power of collective action, because today, only one in eight Americans smoke, and it was nearly 50 percent at the peak. The US consumption of sugar, which increased by 30 pounds between the year 1950 and the year 2000, when all this debate was going on. We picked up an extra 30 pounds of sugar consumption per person per year, but within two decades, that was cut back. We gave back 15 pounds of that. And now prescription opioids have gone back to a medically defendable level, having risen to 8 to 10 times that in the peak of the prescription opioid epidemic. Hearing you talk about that, it's nice that there's sometimes light at the end of the tunnel. But boy, it's a long tunnel. And that you can count the, the number of deaths during that tunnel period of time in the millions. It's just unspeakable how much damage, preventable damage gets caused. Now, and I'd like to, when I come back to wind up this podcast, I'd like to ask each of you, what do you think might be done to help narrow that or shrink that time gap and to prevent these long delays and to help address these corporate determinants of health. But before I get there, Eszter, you know, I'd like to follow up on the conversation we had earlier. You know where it's clear that sugar and tobacco and opioids are all quite different substances, but the companies, the natural history of these things looks quite similar. And you mentioned in particular the industry attempt to plant doubt. To create doubt in the minds of people about the stories they were hearing of the dangers of these things, whether they were true or not. And were there other things that the industry was doing during that time that you noticed might have similarities across these areas? Oh my gosh, so many. I have to go through all the examples in my head and make sure that I have a very crisp message out of all of them One of the ones that is interestingly being employed today in a very different epidemic with firearms and guns, is this idea of whose choice is the consumer product in its use. And today there's a lot of ideas that were initially created by tobacco, and then used by food, that are currently being used by gun lobbyists talking about individual freedoms. So with some of the previous market driven epidemics, like tobacco and prescription opioids, it's a way easier argument to make that the individual at some level does not choose to use the product. Maybe in the beginning, the first couple uses were their individual choice, but then there's on purpose, a really strong withdrawal response in the body and socially. The individual kind of had to continue using the product. But some of those ideas are being used today with firearms. The idea that somebody has the liberty to use this product or to purchase this product, which undoubtedly causes harm. You know, it's probably not really good for public health if this argument exists. And, in the cases with firearms, which I think is a little bit ironic and sad, a lot of the people that buy guns for their own self-defense actually experience those guns turned around and used on them, usually by the perpetrators of aggression. These ideas of individual freedoms usually backfire to the people that are consuming the products. It's interesting to me that a lot of these ideas were initially created for very different products, but are being used in the current day. So interesting to hear you say that because here we have yet another area where there are similarities with the firearms. And the companion argument to that idea that it's your personal liberty to use these things is the argument that there's overreach by government, big brother, things like that. When government wants to, you know. Yeah. It's so interesting. So one point on that. The market economy was never meant to be a free for all. Because the reality is that the market economy has brought billions of people out of poverty and saved more lives than most health interventions. But the problem is, as I said, it wasn't meant to be a free for all. And it depends on having good consumer information and when companies are distorting it, they're basically taking away the informed choice, which is critical. The other part of it is, when they are purposely engineering their products for maximal addictiveness, which is done with clicks and social media, and was done purposefully with the nicotine content in cigarettes, then you don't have a real informed choice. The freedom of choice. You've had your brain pleasure center hijacked by, by purposely addictive products. Right, and you didn't mention food, but there's another example of substances that are created to hijack the reward pathway in the brain. Absolutely. I'd like to ask each of you, what in the heck can we do about this? I mean, you've pointed out a massive problem. Where the number of lives that are sacrificed because of corporate behavior, just enormous numbers. What can we do about it? Jono, I will start with you. And, you know, you've written this very highly regarded book called The End of Epidemics. And you've talked about things like bending epidemic curves and accelerating shifts. But tell us more. What do you think can be done in the case of these market driven epidemics like we're talking about? Well, I think it's important to realize that both kinds of epidemics, viral and behavioral, are communicable. Both involve a lot of rumor, blame, uncertainty. And as we've talked about both cause deaths in the thousands or millions. And we haven't talked so much about the significant social disruption, and the cost. Trillions of dollars in economic losses and additional health burdens. So let me focus on four kinds of key actors because when it comes down to it, it's groups that that really start acting against these things. The first is the research community and its funders. You won't be surprised given the time it takes to get the evidence because what's clear is without clear evidence of product associated harm, we're not going to move the political agendas. We're not going to get public support for epidemic curves. So, we have really good researchers working in these areas. They need to guard against groupthink. That's what happened with our salt sugar 50 years of chaos discussion. And conflict of interest because companies do try to undermine the database. The second is the funders of research, foundations and all, and national health services need to have an early warning system and an annual research roadmap in this area. I think Eszter will probably talk about the importance of public health leaders, because she's looked a lot at that. Another community though is the different civil society groups that are active. Because there's Mothers Against Drunk Driving, there's the Sandy Hook group on gun shooting, and there are a variety of interest groups. But what we realize is that there are lots of different strategies for how you move decision makers and all. So, more information sharing from those groups, civil society groups and all across. And finally, companies. It's actually in their interest to be more forthcoming earlier on. With tobacco, with prescription opioids, and now with baby powder, with talc, what we're seeing is companies at risk of bankruptcy paying billions of dollars. And if their CEOs aren't looking at that, then their board needs to be. Can I ask you a quick question about that? When the chickens come home to roost, and those bad things befall a company, you know, really seriously damaging lawsuits, or the possibility that perhaps sometime the executives will go to jail for corporate malfeasance. You know, the behavior that caused all the millions of deaths occurred 15 CEOs before them. So, if you're a CEO and you know you have a certain shelf life as CEO, you want to maximize profit during that time. And by the time anything happens negatively to the company, you're on vacation, you're retired, or you're gone. So how do you deal with that? Here's the thing, it's having criminal and civil liability that can go back to the individuals involved. From a different sector, an example. The German executive who was head of Volkswagen over a decade ago when they cheated on their environmental issues. He's been criminally charged today, a decade later. And I think that sort of personal accountability, it'll be hard to get, but that's the kind of thing that will make CEOs and their boards, if their boards also become responsible for hiding information in a way that it resulted in deaths. I think that, unfortunately, that kind of hammer, although it's going to be hard to get, that's probably what's needed. Okay, that makes good sense to me, and I'm glad I asked you that question. And I appreciate the answer. Eszter, anything you'd like to add to what Jono said about what could be done. Yes. One of the amazing things about market driven epidemics was when we were creating the paper, we created a table of all the different types of actors that could have very successful mitigation. And that table actually ended up being cut from the paper because it was so long that the editor said that it might distract from the rest of the paper. But that's actually a very positive message because there are so many actors that can have positive change, I'm going to highlight a couple of them because I think there's a few things here that are fairly good core messages that we can take away. One of the ones is the need for a trusted public health authoritative voice. I think nowadays there's a lot of commotion over how much we trust the government. And how much we trust, for example, the head of the CDC and the types of data they're talking about in terms of public health. But in the past, when we had a very trusted public health voice, that was really crucial in getting consumers to change their behavior. For example, in the 1964 Surgeon General's report, seemingly overnight changed people's behavior. Before then, smoking was a common, everyday social event. And after that, people started viewing it as a deadly, bad habit that some people had. And that type of change was really hard to get in the modern day. When we were talking about public health crises that were viral. So, I think one of the things that we really need to get again in the modern day is this trust between the people and public health voices so that when we have such good forthcoming information those statements actually mean something. So much so that the consumers change their behavior. Another thing is with us individuals who maybe aren't part of public health, we actually play a pretty big role in how much other people consume these different products. I remember when I was researching cigarettes in particular and the intersection with social media. I think if somebody under 18 saw a peer smoking and posted that to Instagram, that doubled their likelihood of trying out smoking for the first time. You have to be really careful with how you show yourself in the presence of others, and online too with a new digital age. Because you might tip the scale in somebody trying out a product for the first time. Which then if it has a very strong withdrawal effect, you know that person might have to might feel that they have to continue using that product to avoid withdrawal. I think as an individual, you can be more mindful about if you have a certain product use that you don't want others to also pick up, to maybe not do it or not show it as much so that other people aren't interested in doing that. Okay, the last really positive message I have is that I think as my generation gets into higher positions of power, even within corporations, I think Gen Z and Gen Alpha and other young people have the sense of responsibility for others and for the planet. And I think if there was a young person in power in a corporation and saw that oh no this product that we've had is now there's evidence that's harmful. I think there would be more accountability and more of a want to do something that's good for the planet and for people. I'm hopeful that, maybe 50, 60 years ago, if people were more in favor of kind of brushing things under the rug, then maybe the young generation won't be as into those ideas. And we'll actually want to be accountable and do what's right. BIOS Jonathan D. Quick, MD, MPH (“Jono”) is adjunct Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute, where he teaches global health policy, serves on foundation grant advisory boards, and mentors students. Dr. Quick's current research and writing focuses on market-driven epidemics, from tobacco to opioids to social media.  He is also Affiliated Faculty in Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Global Health & Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Quick is the author of The End of Epidemics: The Looming Threat to Humanity and How to Stop It  (Australian, Italian, Korean, South Asia, U.K. and U.S. 2018/2020/2021 editions), creator of MDS-3: Managing Access to Medicines and Health Technologies and an author of  The Financial Times Guide to Executive Health, Preventive Stress Management in Organizations, as well as more than 100 other books, chapters, and articles in leading medical journals.  Eszter Rimanyi is a chronic disease epidemiologist working with Dr. Jonathan D. Quick at the Duke Global Health Institute. Her research interest centers around Market-Driven Epidemics, including tobacco, sugar, opioids, and breastmilk substitute/infant formula. She is currently working on applying the market-driven epidemics approach to new epidemics, such as social media and firearms. Rimanyi has authored scientific papers in journals such as PloS Global Public Health and MDPI.

About this episode: A concerning and deadly outbreak of mpox is spreading across central Africa and the world's response has been lackluster. In this episode: an overview of the virus and a brief history of mpox outbreaks, a breakdown of the different clades, and why this particular epidemic is so concerning—not just for the regions impacted but for the rest of the world. Guest: Dr. Chris Beyrer is the director of the Duke Global Health Institute and an epidemiologist who has worked on the front lines of infectious diseases like HIV and human rights issues across Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe for more than 30 years. Host: Stephanie Desmon, MA, is a former journalist, author, and the director of public relations and communications for the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, the largest center at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Show links and related content: How the hard lessons of the AIDS crisis are reshaping the response to the monkeypox outbreak—STAT News Bonus Episode: A Conversation With an Mpox Patient—Public Health On Call Archive Ep 500: How Did Mpox Become a Public Health Crisis?—Public Health On Call Archive Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on X @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed

About Rekha Kumar:Dr. Rekha Kumar is a globally recognized leader in the field of Obesity Medicine, currently holding the position of Chief Medical Officer at Found, a weight care platform. With a past role as the medical director of the American Board of Obesity Medicine, Dr. Kumar has shared her insights on the international stage regarding the medical evaluation and treatment of obesity. Contributing significantly to her field, she has authored various papers and textbook chapters and serves as an Associate Editor for the Obesity Journal. Her expertise extends to diverse topics, including the clinical assessment of patients with obesity and metabolic syndrome, the impact of obesity on reproductive health and fertility, and thyroid disease. Beyond her clinical work, Dr. Kumar has actively participated in global health initiatives, exploring the landscape of metabolic diseases in countries like India, China, and Tanzania. She is a valued member of the board of advisors for the Duke Global Health Institute and holds Board Certifications in Internal Medicine, Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, and Obesity Medicine.Things You'll Learn:Obesity is a heterogeneous disease. What works for one person may not work for another.Found's outcomes boast a 90% success rate, with patients achieving a 10% body weight loss in one year.Research says 40% of adults and 20% of children have obesity. The US obesity treatment market is about $15 billion. The US weight loss market is about 160 billion.There's a biological component to obesity; it's not just willpower, diet, and exercise.The root cause of each person's weight gain can be vastly different.Resources:Connect with and follow Rekha Kumar on LinkedIn.Follow Found on LinkedIn and visit their website.

PEPFAR, or the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, was initiated by President Bush in 2003 is credited with saving 25 million lives over the past 20 years and remains the largest commitment to a single disease in history. But the global bipartisan program is now at the mercy of American politics. Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Duke Global Health Institute and a member of the scientific advisory board for PEPFAR, returns to the podcast to talk with Stephanie Desmon about why PEPFAR's reauthorization is in jeopardy and what the failure of reauthorization could mean for global health.

This week's guest is the incredible Dr. Emily Smith, who you might also know as the Friendly Neighbor Epidemiologist on social media. Emily is an assistant professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine and Surgery at Duke University and at the Duke Global Health Institute. With a background that includes four years at Baylor University, a PhD in Epidemiology from UNC Chapel Hill, and an MSPH from the University of South Carolina, Emily brings a wealth of expertise to the table. Beyond her professional achievements, Emily is a devoted wife of 20 years, the mom of two incredible children, and shares her home with a sweet golden retriever and golden doodle puppy. I am so excited to dive into Emily's story and the heart behind her new book, The Science of The Good Samaritan: Thinking Bigger About Loving Our Neighbors, with you today. Stay tuned for a powerful conversation that challenges, uplifts, and encourages a deeper understanding of what it means to truly love our neighbors. 6:04 – Emily 101 Born in eastern New Mexico Moving around, medical school + research at Duke A passion for global engagement + public health 14:07 – The Good Samaritan Two questions from the Good Samaritan story The Science of the Good Samaritan Recognizing and addressing structural injustices 20:35 – Becoming Authentic Neighbors Moving beyond token gestures of kindness Recognizing the historical context of poverty and inequality  Shifting from shame to understanding Emily finding her calling 29:49 – The Birth of "Friendly Neighbor Epidemiologist" Responding to the pandemic Navigating rapid online growth + hostility from strangers Finding courage in the face of adversity Discovering a like-minded community  44:44 – The Work of Neighborly Love Taking a deeper look at “Science of The Good Samaritan” Recognizing injustice + entering the conversation like a good neighbor  Heart-centered faith A call for courage FEATURED QUOTES “Epidemiology is the science of the Good Samaritan... it's a science of quantifying who is most at need so that we don't walk by.” “It feels very natural as a person of a Christian faith to do the type of science that I do, because it's quantifying those that are typically overlooked.” “When we consider health for our children, we want them to be fully healthy, thriving, happy, live out their full potential. So why don't we want that for the rest of the world?” Learn more about Dr. Emily Smith: https://www.facebook.com/friendlyneighborepidemiologist/ https://emilysmith.substack.com/ https://www.instagram.com/friendlyneighborepidemiologist/?hl=en https://globalhealth.duke.edu/news/epidemiologist-next-door

In this episode of Ways & Means – New research into how solar mini-grids could change lives for farmers in Ethiopia, and why that matters for the climate as a whole. This is the fifth episode in our Climate Change Solutions series, where we look at surprising answers to the question of what we can do to help cool a rapidly heating planet. Guests: Jonathan Phillips, Director, James E. Rogers Energy Access Project at Duke University Rahel Bekele, Postdoctoral Associate at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, DREAM Project Team Member Marc Jeuland, faculty member at Duke Sanford School of Public Policy and Duke Global Health Institute, Principal investigator DREAM Project Resources, Credits, Transcript  Season 8 of Ways & Means is made possible thanks to support from the Office of the Provost at Duke University. Find out more about the Duke Climate Commitment.

On this week's show: Meta's algorithm tackles both language and strategy in a board game, and measuring how much water people use on a daily basis First up this week on the podcast, artificial intelligence (AI) wins at the game Diplomacy. Freelance science journalist Matthew Hutson joins host Sarah Crespi to talk about the advances needed for an AI to win a game that requires cooperation and trust between human and AI players. Next, we hear about how much water people need to stay hydrated. It's not the eight glasses a day recommendation we've heard so much about. Herman Pontzer, a professor in Duke University's Department of Evolutionary Anthropology and the Duke Global Health Institute, talks about a study that involved recording water turnover from 5000 people around the world. It turns out daily water needs vary from person to person and place to place. This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy. [Image: manus1550/iStock; Music: Jeffrey Cook] [alt: photo of a stack of drinking water bottles with podcast overlay symbol] Authors: Sarah Crespi; Matt Hutson Episode page: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf8979  About the Science Podcast: https://www.science.org/content/page/about-science-podcast See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this week's show: Meta's algorithm tackles both language and strategy in a board game, and measuring how much water people use on a daily basis First up this week on the podcast, artificial intelligence (AI) wins at the game Diplomacy. Freelance science journalist Matthew Hutson joins host Sarah Crespi to talk about the advances needed for an AI to win a game that requires cooperation and trust between human and AI players. Next, we hear about how much water people need to stay hydrated. It's not the eight glasses a day recommendation we've heard so much about. Herman Pontzer, a professor in Duke University's Department of Evolutionary Anthropology and the Duke Global Health Institute, talks about a study that involved recording water turnover from 5000 people around the world. It turns out daily water needs vary from person to person and place to place. This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy. [Image: manus1550/iStock; Music: Jeffrey Cook] [alt: photo of a stack of drinking water bottles with podcast overlay symbol] Authors: Sarah Crespi; Matt Hutson Episode page: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf8979  About the Science Podcast: https://www.science.org/content/page/about-science-podcast See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"Science writing at its best: big ideas, wild and often hilarious stories from the field, and deft explanations. [This book] will reshape what you thought you knew about how our metabolisms work." -- Alex Hutchinson, author of "Endure"

Herman Pontzer is an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University and Associate Research Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute. He is an internationally recognized researcher in human energetics and evolution. Over two decades of research in the field and laboratory, Dr. Pontzer has conducted pathbreaking studies across a range of settings, including fieldwork with Hadza hunter-gatherers in northern Tanzania, fieldwork on chimpanzee ecology in the rainforests of Uganda, and metabolic measurements of great apes in zoos and sanctuaries around the globe. In our conversation today and in his new book, Burn: The Misunderstood Science of Metabolism, Herman reveals his findings that despite the fact that Hadza men and women get between five and ten times more physical activity every day than most women in the USA or Europe, their total energy expenditure – the number of calories they burn – is the same. DNA and body type. Exercise does not increase our metabolism. Instead, we burn calories within a very narrow range: nearly 3,000 calories per day for men and 2,400 calories for women, no matter our activity level. In fact, our metabolism – the way our body burns energy – affects every aspect of our biology from our pace of growth, reproduction, and aging to our weight and health. If we burn more energy in one area, our bodies will adjust by spending less energy in another. But all this doesn't mean that you shouldn't exercise. Far from it. Herman explains why movement is essential for humans.Herman Pontzer on Twitter Pre-order my new book 'The Path of an Eagle: How To Overcome & Lead After Being Knocked Down'.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/thestorybox. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

He was awesome to talk to as we discuss his research looking at the impact that energy expenditure (IE the exercise we do) has on our overall metabolic rate, how little this actually contributes to our overall metabolism (which was so different to what we expected) and what this means for our ability to improve body composition. Make no mistake: exercise is actually king with regards to its health-related benefits) but Herman's research really opened our eyes to the caloric expenditure that does (or doesn't) occur because of it.Herman Pontzer is an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University and Associate Research Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute. He is an internationally recognized researcher in human energetics and evolution. Over two decades of research in the field and laboratory, Dr. Pontzer has conducted pathbreaking studies across a range of settings, including fieldwork with Hadza hunter-gatherers in northern Tanzania, fieldwork on chimpanzee ecology in the rainforests of Uganda, and metabolic measurements of great apes in zoos and sanctuaries around the globe. Dr. Pontzer's work has been covered in The New York Times, BBC, PBS, Washington Post, The Atlantic, NPR, Scientific American, and others.Twitter: @HermanPontzer The Exercise Paradox is a great popular-press article by Dr. Pontzer in Scientific American IS THERE A LIMIT TO HUMAN ENDURANCE? SCIENCE SAYS YES: Some say the breaking point is all in your head, but new research suggests it's also in your gut Find all of Dr. Pontzer peer-reviewed publications HERE on PubMed Burn: the misunderstood science of metabolism: click here Sign up to my recipe library: mikkiwilliden.com/recipeaccessContact Mikki:https://mikkiwilliden.com/https://www.facebook.com/mikkiwillidennutritionhttps://www.instagram.com/mikkiwilliden/https://linktr.ee/mikkiwilliden

Our guest is Herman Pontzer, an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University and Associate Research Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute. An well-known researcher in human energetics and evolution, he joins us to discuss his new book, "Burn: New Research Blows the Lid Off How We Really Burn Calories, Lose Weight, and Stay Healthy." The book draws on Pontzer's groundbreaking studies with hunter-gatherer tribes in order to show how exercise actually **doesn't** increase our metabolism. Instead, human beings generally burn calories within a very narrow range -- nearly 3,000 calories per day, no matter our activity level. The book thus offers, per a starred review in Kirkus, "an absorbing, instructive lesson for anyone concerned about their health."

Herman Pontzer is an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University and Associate Research Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute. He is an internationally recognized researcher in human energetics and evolution.   Time Stamps: 0:11:16 Podcast begins with Herman Pontzer 0:14:04 The skulls that Herman Pontzer has come across 0:16:34 Herman's experience hunting with the podcast 0:19:14 What is it like hunting big game with the Hadza 0:22:04 What else did the Hadza eat? 0:25:44 Why don't they give any honey to the honey guide? 0:26:54 How was the mental health of the Hadza? 0:28:44 How was the health of the Hadza? 0:29:54 Physical activity patterns and biomarkers of cardiovascular disease risk in hunter-gatherers: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajhb.22919 0:31:54 Red meat and heart diesease with the Hadza 0:33:04 Tubers and how they are too fiberous to swallow 0:36:24 Metabolism and human evolution 0:39:14 The body burns roughly the same amount of calories every day 0:45:14 The "biggest loser" method to losing weight is not healthy nor sustainable 0:48:19 How humans are meant to move 0:49:44 Calories and food quality, each has it's own role 0:55:54 Obesity is associated with hypothalamic injury in rodents and humans: https://www.jci.org/articles/view/59660 1:03:14 Boston study: those who exercised maintained weight loss 1:07:04 Food quality matters for weight loss 1:40:54 Where to find Herman Pontzer   Sponsors: Heart & Soil: www.heartandsoil.co Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/carnivoremd use code “CARNIVOREMD” Sacred Hunting: www.sacredhunting.com/Paul for $250 off your hunt White Oak Pastures: www.Whiteoakpastures.com, use code: CarnivoreMD for 10% off your first order Belcampo: www.belcampo.com use code: CarnivoreMD for 20% off your order

We burn 2,000 calories a day. And if we exercise and cut carbs, we'll lose more weight. Right? Wrong. In this paradigm-shifting book Burn, Dr. Herman Pontzer reveals for the first time how human metabolism really works so that we can finally manage our weight and improve our health.Pontzer's groundbreaking studies with hunter-gatherer tribes show how exercise doesn't increase our metabolism. Instead, we burn calories within a very narrow range: nearly 3,000 calories per day, no matter our activity level. Hunter-gatherers like the Hadza move about five hours a day and remain remarkably healthy into old age. But elite athletes can push the body too far, burning calories faster than their bodies can take them in. It may be that the most spectacular athletic feats are the result not just of great training, but of an astonishingly efficient digestive system.Dr. Herman Pontzer joins Dr. Pam today to talk about this research. He is an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University and an Associate Research Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute, as well as an internationally recognized researcher in human energetics and evolution.

We burn 2,000 calories a day. And if we exercise and cut carbs, we’ll lose more weight. Right? Wrong.We burn 2,000 calories a day. And if we exercise and cut carbs, we’ll lose more weight. Right? Wrong. In this paradigm-shifting book Burn, Dr. Herman Pontzer reveals for the first time how human metabolism really works so that we can finally manage our weight and improve our health.Pontzer’s groundbreaking studies with hunter-gatherer tribes show how exercise doesn’t increase our metabolism. Instead, we burn calories within a very narrow range: nearly 3,000 calories per day, no matter our activity level. Hunter-gatherers like the Hadza move about five hours a day and remain remarkably healthy into old age. But elite athletes can push the body too far, burning calories faster than their bodies can take them in. It may be that the most spectacular athletic feats are the result not just of great training, but of an astonishingly efficient digestive system.Dr. Herman Pontzer joins Dr. Pam today to talk about this research. He is an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University and an Associate Research Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute, as well as an internationally recognized researcher in human energetics and evolution.

Our guest is Herman Pontzer, an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University and Associate Research Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute. An well-known researcher in human energetics and evolution, he joins us to discuss his new book, "Burn: New Research Blows the Lid Off How We Really Burn Calories, Lose Weight, and Stay Healthy." The book draws on Pontzer's groundbreaking studies with hunter-gatherer tribes in order to show how exercise actually **doesn't** increase our metabolism. Instead, human beings generally burn calories within a very narrow range -- nearly 3,000 calories per day, no matter our activity level. The book thus offers, per a starred review in Kirkus, "an absorbing, instructive lesson for anyone concerned about their health."

Herman Pontzer, PhD is an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University and Associate Research Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute. He is an internationally recognized researcher in human energetics and evolution. Over two decades of research in the field and laboratory, Dr. Pontzer has conducted pathbreaking studies across a range of settings, including fieldwork with Hadza hunter-gatherers in northern Tanzania, fieldwork on chimpanzee ecology in the rainforests of Uganda, and metabolic measurements of great apes in zoos and sanctuaries around the globe. Find the show notes to this episode at sigmanutrition.com/episode377

Science journalist and author James Nestor explains how you can breathe better. Then, learn about the secret identity of Bitcoin creator “Satoshi Nakamoto” and whether farming really was a step up for our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Additional resources for James Nestor: Pick up "Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art" on Amazon: https://amzn.to/3qoXzaL James Nestor's website: https://www.mrjamesnestor.com/ James Nestor on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MrJamesNestor No One Knows the Identity of Bitcoin's Creator by Cody Gough Patron, T. (2014, December). Who Is Satoshi Nakamoto? – Diginomics Corporation. Diginomics.com. https://diginomics.com/2014/11/09/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/  Decoding the Enigma of Satoshi Nakamoto and the Birth of Bitcoin (Published 2015). (2021). The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/business/decoding-the-enigma-of-satoshi-nakamoto-and-the-birth-of-bitcoin.html?_r=0 ‌ Business Insider UK. (2016, June 14). The mysterious creator of bitcoin is sitting on a $700 million fortune - Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/satoshi-nakamoto-owns-one-million-bitcoin-700-price-2016-6  ‌Satoshi Nakamoto. (2019, November 20). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Manubot. https://git.dhimmel.com/bitcoin-whitepaper/  ‌Wallace, B. (2011, November 23). The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/2011/11/mf-bitcoin/  ‌Leah McGrath Goodman. (2014, March 6). The Face Behind Bitcoin. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/face-behind-bitcoin-247957.html  ‌Nour Al Ali, & Kingdon, C. (2017, November 28). Musk: I Am Not Bitcoin’s Satoshi Nakamoto. Bloomberg.com; Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/elon-musk-tweets-to-debunk-speculation-that-he-s-behind-bitcoin  Was farming really a step up for our hunter-gatherer ancestors? by Cameron Duke Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. (2011). When the World’s Population Took Off: The Springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition. Science, 333(6042), 560–561. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208880  Dyble, M., Thorley, J., Page, A. E., Smith, D., & Migliano, A. B. (2019). Engagement in agricultural work is associated with reduced leisure time among Agta hunter-gatherers. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(8), 792–796. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0614-6  Gallagher, S. (2019, April 21). What Can Hunter-Gatherers Teach Us about Staying Healthy? Duke Global Health Institute. https://globalhealth.duke.edu/news/what-can-hunter-gatherers-teach-us-about-staying-healthy  O’Grady, C. (2019, May 24). Hunter-gathering seems to have been easier than farming. Ars Technica; Ars Technica. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/adopting-agriculture-means-less-leisure-time-for-women/  Sahlins, M. (2006). The politics of egalitarianism : theory and practice (J. S. Solway, Ed.; pp. 79–98). Berghahn Books. http://www.vizkult.org/propositions/alineinnature/pdfs/Sahlin-OriginalAffluentSociety-abridged.pdf  Yuval Noah Harari. (2019). Sapiens. Random House Uk. Subscribe to Curiosity Daily to learn something new every day with Cody Gough and Ashley Hamer. You can also listen to our podcast as part of your Alexa Flash Briefing; Amazon smart speakers users, click/tap “enable” here: https://www.amazon.com/Curiosity-com-Curiosity-Daily-from/dp/B07CP17DJY  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this seventh episode, experts discuss how the vaccine gets from the manufacturers gate into a patient's arm and all the challenges in between. The episode looks at how transportation and storage has been planned and executed by the big international transportation players thus far. While there have been some pleasant surprises with smooth deliveries in some western countries, getting the vaccine to lower income countries will remain an ongoing challenge. Freezer storage capacity — both during transportation and at vaccination sites — will be a crucial consideration and this will only get more challenging as more vaccines get authorized and distributed. Meanwhile, with a very short planning process ahead of rollout, experts discuss the greater potential for human error when trying to keep the limited vaccine supply viable. Finally, experts discuss the need for better planning and investment around scheduling vaccine administrations, which has been the biggest unexpected hurdle thus far, particularly in the US. Expert Guests: -- Dr Prashant Yadav is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development and Affiliate Professor of Technology and Operations Management at INSEAD. Yadav has with governments and global organizations to improve medical product supply chains. Previous roles include Strategy Leader-Supply Chain at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Chair of the Market Dynamics Advisory Group of the Global Fund. -- Professor Hani S. Mahmassani is Director at the Northwestern University Transportation Center and William A. Patterson Distinguished Chair in Transportation. He specializes in multimodal transportation systems analysis, large-scale human infrastructure systems, and real-time operation of logistics and distribution systems. -- Dr Gregory Gray is a Professor at Duke University and infectious disease epidemiologist with three affiliations: Duke Global Health Institute, Division of Infectious Diseases, and Duke Nicholas School of Environment. He was on the FDA advisory committee for vaccines and related biologics between 2010-2013.

In this second episode, experts talk about what goes into designing a clinical trial, how they are set up to give answers and where they can be flawed. We'll look at a few key questions about the ongoing Covid-19 vaccine trials including the vaccines being set up to show protection against mild disease versus severe disease and how releasing results early may raise some concerns in how we can interpret the results. Experts also discuss the regulators that approve the vaccines and their tough position to release a new vaccine to the public on limited data and very tight review timelines amid the pressure of a pandemic. Expert Guests: -- Dr Deborah Fuller is a Professor of Microbiology at The University of Washington School of Medicine. A veteran vaccinologist and researcher, she has been working on vaccine development for the last 30 years with specific research around DNA and RNA technologies. -- Dr Michael Kurilla is the Director of the Division of Clinical Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, US National Institute of Health. He has been a member of the advisory committee for vaccines and related biologics since 2018. -- Dr Scott Evans is a Professor and Founding Chair of The Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics at George Washington University. He is a former member of an FDA advisory committee and a member of the steering committee of the clinical trials transformation initiative. -- Dr Nikolai Petrovsky is a Professor of Medicine, Flinders University in Australia and vice-president and secretary general of the International Immunomics Society. He is the founder of vaccine biotech Vaccine, which has a protein based candidate in early development for Covid-19. -- Dr Gregory Gray is a Professor at Duke University and infectious disease epidemiologist with three affiliations: Duke Global Health Institute, Division of Infectious Diseases, and Duke Nicholas School of Environment. He was on the FDA advisory committee for vaccines and related biologics between 2010-2013.

In this introductory episode, Surani speaks to Kent Collier, the independent sponsor of the podcast, about what this series hopes to achieve. This episode sets us up with some foundations on vaccine development, and where we are right now with the current vaccine approaches for Covid-19. We'll also get an understanding from experts on where Covid-19 sits in comparison to SARS in 2003 and the seasonal flu. Experts finally discuss their initial outlook for the future. Expert Guests: -- Dr Michael Kurilla is the Director of the Division of Clinical Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, US National Institute of Health. He has been a member of the advisory committee for vaccines and related biologics since 2018. -- Dr Nikolai Petrovsky is a Professor of Medicine, Flinders University in Australia and vice-president and secretary general of the International Immunomics Society. He is the founder of vaccine biotech Vaccine, which has a protein based candidate in early development for Covid-19. -- Dr Gregory Gray is a Professor at Duke University and infectious disease epidemiologist with three affiliations: Duke Global Health Institute, Division of Infectious Diseases, and Duke Nicholas School of Environment. He was on the FDA advisory committee for vaccines and related biologics between 2010-2013.

In this special episode of the show, all three hosts sit down with two public health experts to investigate the very premise of the podcast itself: how a global pandemic is impacting the world of sport. Gavin Yamey is Associate Director for Policy at the Duke Global Health Institute, Professor of the Practice of Global Health and Public Policy, and Director of the Center for Policy Impact in Global Health. His public health interventions appear in venues such as Time and the British Medical Journal, among countless others. Zachary Binney is an epidemiologist of sport and Assistant Professor of Quantitative Research and Methods at Oxford College of Emory University. He is a staff writer at Football Outsiders and perhaps the most relied-upon quote from journalists during the pandemic looking for an epidemiological take on sport. The episode begins with a discussion of the basics of understanding the pandemic. What exactly is Covid-19 and how does it affect the human body? From there we move through an examination of fatality rates, complications, 'herd immunity,' and transmission as we attempt to sift through myth and fact about the virus and implications for how we might move forward. With a capacious understanding of the virus in mind, we then turn to sport and the varying ways sport organizations in the college and professional realms, particularly in North America, have attempted to navigate the virus. We get into the question of protocols and the best and worst of pandemic sport policy. We also take a close look at university campuses and the way that the pandemic has been handled, both from an athletic perspective and otherwise. This is a comprehensive discussion of the pandemic, sport, and US universities. If you have an interest in any of these things, we think you will really enjoy it. You can find Gavin Yamey on reopening universities in the British Medical Journal here. Gavin Yamey writes about how we can reopen universities more safely next semester in Time here. Gavin Yamey writes about caring for long-haul Covid patients here. You can find Zach Binney's interview with Fangraphs on MLB and Covid here. Zach Binney writes in Neurology with friend of the show Kathleen Bachynski on CTE prevalence in football here. Zeynep Tufecki's brilliant recent Atlantic story on Covid transmission is here. For a transcription of this episode, please click here. (Credit @punkademic) After listening to the episode, check out our most recent pieces: “Red-Scare Rhetoric Isn't Gone From Histories of American Sport” in Jacobin Magazine "Canceling the College-Football Season Isn't Enough" published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. “'We are being gaslit': College football and Covid-19 are imperiling athletes” in The Guardian “Canceling the college football season is about union busting, not health” also in The Guardian __________________________________________________________________________ As always, please like, share, and rate us on your favorite podcast app, and give follow us on Twitter or Instagram. @Derekcrim @JohannaMellis @Nkalamb @EndofSportPod www.TheEndofSport.com

In this episode, Khaliah and Shayne chat with Dr. Sallie Permar, National CMV Foundation Board Director, Professor of Pediatrics at Duke University, a member of the Duke Human Vaccine Institute, an affiliate of the Duke Global Health Institute, and Associate Dean of Physician-Scientist Development at Duke University Medical School. We speak about her CMV research, how COVID-19 has affected it, why attention should still be placed on CMV, and much more. Enjoy!

Many in the US were blindsided by the COVID-19 pandemic’s severity. Not Gavin Yamey. In early 2018 he wrote the op-ed, The Odds of a Devastating Pandemic Just Went Up. Yamey is a professor at the Duke Sanford School of Public Policy and director of The Center for Policy Impact in Global Health, based at the Duke Global Health Institute.

Infectious disease expert Greg Gray, MD, PhD, FIDSA, discusses why COVID-19 spread so quickly, why it’s so deadly compared to other viruses, and what we should be doing to prevent another pandemic. Dr. Gray Is an infectious disease epidemiologist, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases, and member of the Duke Global Health Institute. Transcript: Lindsay Key: Welcome to HeadScratchers, a minicast from the Duke University School of Medicine. We ask Duke experts to help us understand the questions in science that have us scratching our heads. Today we're speaking with Dr. Greg Gray, an expert in infectious disease. Dr. Gray, the coronavirus has spread quickly around the globe. What makes this virus so special? Why did it catch us so off guard? Dr. Gray: Well, this virus is unique in that 100% of people, essentially, are susceptible to infection. And it is highly infectious. And it has a long incubation period. It's a real super challenge, if you will. It's difficult to control. LK: As an infectious disease researcher, is this epidemic that we're experiencing? Is it something that you thought might happen one day or were you really surprised by it? GG: Yeah, I think those of us in infectious disease epidemiology recognize that in the last 25 years, we've had seven or so of these events. This is not the first one. And it's a repetitive issue: we see the emergence of a virus that causes an epidemic in man, we try to understand it, we mitigate it. And we do the best that we can to put out the fire. So what can we do when the next virus surfaces? We need to do a better job. What we need to really be doing is looking at the human-animal interface and monitoring for novel viruses that might emerge from that interface. Looking at people who have close contact with animals and seeing when they have evidence in their respiratory tract of a new virus that's emerged from the animals, and then making preparations way before the virus cycles over and over and becomes highly infectious to man. And we can do that -- and the way to do it is through something called One Health. Working together with human health, veterinary health, environmental health on specific problem areas like these, to get ahead of this, so we're not always responding to the latest threat. Often we've been to that in partnership with the animal industries, animal production industries. You might not know it, but there have been three emerging coronaviruses that really had a big negative impact on the swine industry, they've not affected humans. But we could help, and at the same time we're looking for novel viruses that would have an impact on humans, we could help them get a handle on the viruses that are going to only cause deaths in their animals. We talk about zoonosis as a pathogen that causes disease. And usually we talk about a pathogen that moves from animals to man. But we can also see zoonosis, sometimes called reverse zoonosis, where a pathogen that is normally affecting man moves to the animals. And that's another reason to do One Health -- because understanding zoonosis, we can help not only human health, but animal health and the animal industries. So, Duke has been a great place to do the research we do, because Duke is very forward thinking and we're very connected to the Global Health Institute. And we have studies right now in about 14 countries and many of these studies are looking for zoonosis. Right now we're doing big studies and northern Vietnam. We just wrapped up a study in Yangon, Myanmar. We're wrapping up a study that was conducted in South Africa. And over the last several years, we've done studies in many different places. Yeah, we’ve found some pretty unusual things right now that we're still working them up -- some viruses that shouldn't be in humans, and unless you look for them, you can't easily find them. But we're able with some of the technologies that we've adapted or developed here

In this episode, we speak with Dr. Jonathan Quick of the Duke Global Health Institute about the coronavirus epidemic. We look at what you need to know about the global and local responses, as well as how to keep yourself well. This episode takes a balanced approach to the topic and will help you to wade through the various theories, conspiracies, and half-truths that are circulating.

A conversation with Dr. Sallie Permar, National CMV Foundation Board Director, Professor of Pediatrics at Duke University, member of the Duke Human Vaccine Institute, an affiliate of the Duke Global Health Institute, and Associate Dean of Physician-Scientist Development at Duke University Medical School.Dr. Permar is a physician scientist focusing on the prevention and treatment of neonatal viral infections. She leads a research laboratory at Duke investigating immune protection against vertical transmission of neonatal viral pathogens, namely HIV and cytomegalovirus (CMV), using human cohorts and nonhuman primate models.

Show from 8/7/19In this episode of Wharton Moneyball host Cade Massey flies solo. He kicks off the show talking about his favorite college football teams and his projections for the upcoming season. Next he brings on an expert in the limits of human endurance. How do you measure high intensity events and what is your endurance ceiling? Plus find out how we can grow soccer in the US and what analytics they're using to enhance in game experience.Guests:Herman Pontzer is an Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University. He is also an Associate Research Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute. Through lab and field research, he investigates the physiology of humans and apes to understand how ecology, lifestyle, diet, and evolutionary history affect metabolism and health.Follow him on Twitter @HermanPontzerBill Connelly is a College Football Writer for ESPN. He is also the Author of Study Hall and The 50 Best* College Football Teams of All Time.Follow him on Twitter for all things College Football analytics at @ESPN_BillCChris Alexopoulos is the lead Soccer Producer for ESPN. Chris worked on every World Cup from 1994 to 2012.Follow him on Twitter @ChrisZop See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Anthony Costello gives his regular news update. This week he discusses Yemen conflict; Spain's donation to UNRWA; Leptospirosis in India, UK child poverty; the WHO Global Exercise Report. He then interviews two contributing authors on the latest BMJ Series on the WHO UNICEF Strategic Review of Child Health 1. Mike Merson Wolfgang Joklik Professor of Global Health and Vice President and Vice Provost for Global Affairs at Duke University. He joined the Duke faculty in November 2006 as the founding director of the Duke Global Health Institute and served in that role through 2017. In addition, Dr. Merson was Vice Chancellor for Duke-National University of Singapore (NUS) Affairs until 2017. In 1978, he joined the World Health Organization (WHO) as a Medical Officer in the Diarrheal Diseases Control Program. He served as Director of that Program from January 1980 until May 1990. In August 1987, he was also appointed Director of the WHO Acute Respiratory Infections Control Program. In May 1990, he was appointed as Director of the WHO Global Program on AIDS. This Program was operational worldwide and responsible for mobilizing and coordinating the global response to the AIDS pandemic. 2. Theresa Diaz Public health physician, trained at Columbia University, Coordinator Epidemiology and Monitoring and Evaluation Team, MCA, WHO. Formerly with CDC Atlanta and UNICEF.

Dr. Joseph Egger from the Duke Global Health Institute joins directors of SECURED, a student-led non-profit organization to discuss the mosquito-borne peril of dengue fever. The conversation includes insights into the specific means of dengue transmission, how researchers are working to combat this growing issue, and how students can contribute to the cause. This segment is an introduction to a comprehensive video series on dengue prevention, diagnosis, and treatment launched by SECURED. Learn more at http://www.secured-intl.org/.

This presentation will address the issues underpinning the reality that AIDS remains the number one killer of youth in Africa and second leading killer of adolescents globally. Primary research from Tanzania will be presented to describe mental health difficulties, stigma, and the association with anti-retroviral medication adherence. The process of developing and testing a novel mental health intervention, Sauti ya Vijana (the Voice of Youth) to address these problems will be discussed along with preliminary outcomes and policy implications towards an AIDS free generation. Dr. Dorothy Dow is an Assistant Professor in Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Assistant Research Professor in the Duke Global Health Institute. She has a Master of Science in Global Health from Duke university and has been living and working in Moshi, Tanzania since 2011 focused on research in pediatric HIV. Dr. Dow’s current research project is investigating the feasibility and acceptability of a uniquely designed mental health intervention, developed specifically for HIV-infected Tanzanian youth to improve mental wellness, anti-retroviral therapy adherence, and overall HIV outcomes. This event is presented by the John Hope Franklin Center, Duke University’s International and Global Studies Center, and Duke’s Africa Initiative.

Proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would remove requirements to cover maternity care and contraception. Those changes would hurt women especially hard, says Dr. Megan Huchko. Huchko is an associate professor in the Duke University department of obstetrics and gynecology and the Duke Global Health Institute.

Increased drilling for oil is meant to stimulate the economy. But what effect will greater use of oil and gas have on public health? David Boyd challenges our new president to consider this and other unintended consequences of public policy decisions in this episode of "Glad You Asked." Boyd is an associate professor of the practice at the Duke Global Health Institute and is an expert in global health and cross-cultural medicine.

What happens when there are very high hopes for a particular policy idea, and then researchers conclude the results are not as promising as they once seemed? Are there lessons to be learned from this? A widely hailed initiative that combines franchising business models and telemedicine to deliver better quality health care in rural India has failed to improve care for childhood diarrhea and pneumonia, found a large-scale study by Assistant Professor Manoj Mohanan and researchers at Stanford and University College London. Manoj Mohanan is an assistant professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke. He’s also appointed in Economics at Duke and as an assistant research professor in the Duke Global Health Institute. Mohanan talks with Sanford's Dean, Kelly Brownell. Music: Impromptu in Blue by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. Artist: www.incompetech.com/

Biological agents can make "cheap weapons" for those who want to do us harm, says Dr. Christopher Woods of the Duke Global Health Institute. But protecting ourselves against natural and man-made biological threats will require greater investment, Woods says

Ebola exposed just how weak the international public health system is, says Duke's Gavin Yamey. We're not ready for the next global pandemic, says Yamey, a professor of the practice of global health at the Duke Global Health Institute and Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy.

John Bartlett, Professor of Medicine, Global Health, Associate Director for Research of the Duke Global Health Institute, Co-Director of the Duke University Center for AIDS Research Creative Solutions to the Global Needs in Human Resources for Health