POPULARITY
4 episodes with global health law
3 episodes with global health law
2 episodes with global health law
2 episodes with global health law
2 episodes with global health law
2 episodes with global health law
2 episodes with global health law
This episode of Justice Above All highlights the centrality of birthing centers, which provide historically informed and culturally competent care to Black birthing people, to the realization of reproductive justice. We will discuss a wave of new state-level regulations that are severely impacting the ability of midwives and other birthing center staff to provide their services. We will also explore how these attacks on birthing centers relate to historic efforts to unwind progress towards reproductive justice. Today's host is Karla McKanders, Director of the Thurgood Marshall Institute. She is in conversation with the following guests: - Dr. Michele Goodwin, Linda D. & Timothy J. O'Neill Professor of Constitutional Law and Global Health Policy, Georgetown University Law Center and Co-Faculty Director, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law - Jennie Joseph, Founder and President, Commonsense Childbirth Inc., and midwife - Lindsey Kaley, Staff Attorney, Reproductive Freedom Project, ACLU - Ashton Wingate, Digital Archives Manager, Thurgood Marshall Institute For more information on this episode, please visit https://tminstituteldf.org/reproductive-justice-and-black-birthing-centers/.This episode was produced by Jakiyah Bradley, Keecee DeVenny, Ananya Karthik, and Lauren O'Neil. It is hosted by Karla McKanders. Resonate Recordings edited the episode. If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf.If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf.
US withdrawal from the World Health Organization will have significant implications for global health. Lawrence Gostin, JD, JAMA Legal and Global Health Correspondent and Faculty Director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, joins JAMA Health Forum Editor in Chief Sandro Galea, MD, DrPH, to discuss global health in an era of new uncertainty. Related Content: The US, the World Health Organization, and the Global Health Infrastructure
Send us a textWith Israel banning UNRWA and the US planning to withdraw from WHO, our Inside Geneva podcast reports on a turbulent couple of weeks for United Nations agencies. In Gaza, Israel's ban on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has come into effect.“UNRWA is what we call the backbone of the humanitarian operation. Meaning that they not only bring in aid themselves, but they are also the operation on which all other humanitarian actors depend,” says Jorgen Jensehaugen from the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO).US President Donald Trump has also announced that the US will leave the World Health Organization (WHO).“This is going to mean that all of the vital work of the WHO – polio eradication, AIDS, TB and malaria – will be even more underfunded,” continues Lawrence Gostin, professor of Global Health Law at Georgetown University in the United States.Trump has also ordered a freeze on US foreign aid.“The 90-day suspension is a death sentence for many small NGOs who simply don't have the finances to weather this period,” says Colum Lynch, a senior global reporter for Devex, a media platform for the development community.Where does that leave the UN's humanitarian work?“I think there is an increasing disrespect for what the UN stands for,” says Jensehaugen.“This is really the end of foreign aid as we know it,” concludes Lynch.Join host Imogen Foulkes on our Inside Geneva podcast.Get in touch! Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter. For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/Host: Imogen FoulkesProduction assitant: Claire-Marie GermainDistribution: Sara PasinoMarketing: Xin Zhang
US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the US out of the WHO. This would cut funding for the UN's medical agency by one-fifth. Will they really exit, or can a deal be made? Lawrence Gostin hopes so, and as a professor of law at Georgetown, and director of the World Health Organisation Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, he is working with senior US and WHO officials to try and understand what reforms could be made to WHO what would allow a such a deal to be be struck. Gostin also believes that the president cannot withdraw from the WHO with an executive order, but instead requires congressional approval - and is exploring the options for legal challenge to the move. 00:00 Intro 01:01 US history with the WHO 03:31 Executive order 06:35 WHO's relationship with China 11:14 Funding 12:47 Benefits to US from the WHO 18:05 H5N1 threat 19:43 World benefits from US involvement 21:57 A deal to be made? 24:55 Legal action? 26:37 Administration responses Read Professor Larry Gostin's co-written opinion piece on the dangers of a US withdrawal from the WHO here: https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r116
As part of his blitz of executive orders, President Trump delivered on a promise to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization. The Trump White House accuses the WHO of mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic and bias toward China. Amna Nawaz discussed potential implications with Lawrence Gostin of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
As part of his blitz of executive orders, President Trump delivered on a promise to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization. The Trump White House accuses the WHO of mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic and bias toward China. Amna Nawaz discussed potential implications with Lawrence Gostin of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
UK Businessman and Entrepreneur, Jim Ferguson, has a big vision for bringing the Peoples of the world together in a way that honours the sovereignty of individuals, and of nations, that builds independence from the centralised and oppressive systems that have sought to rip our freedoms from us, and that honours a true sense of Justice. In this interview he expands on that exciting, inclusive vision and on the fastest growing Freedom Movement in the world which he has founded: Freedom Train International. He invites all who want to be free of oppression from the WEF, the UN and the WHO, to join this Movement and to be a part of the upcoming 24-hour Freedom Train International Conference. Jim, and the thousands and thousands who now support him, have an entirely different and far more human-friendly vision, than those who want us all to bow down to Agenda 2030 and its heartless goals. Links: Website Freedom Train International 24-hour global conference WASHINGTON, Dec 23 (Reuters) - Members of Donald Trump's presidential transition team are laying the groundwork for the United States to withdraw from the World Health Organization on the first day of his second term, according to a health law expert familiar with the discussions. "I have it on good authority that he plans to withdraw, probably on Day One or very early in his administration," said Lawrence Gostin, professor of global health at Georgetown University in Washington and director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. Trump initiated the year-long withdrawal process from the WHO in 2020 but six months later his successor, President Joe Biden, reversed the decision: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-transition-team-plans-immediate-who-withdrawal-expert-says-2024-12-23/ Globalist agenda exposed: Human rights, pandemic cover-ups, and a new call for justice
Lecture summary: In this talk Sharifah Sekalala examines this critical moment in the making of Global Health Law, with two treaty making processes: the newly finalised revisions of the International Health Regulations and ongoing negotiations by the Intergovernmental Negotiation Body for a possible pandemic Accord or Instrument, as we well as soft-law proposals for the World Health Organization proposal for a medical countermeasures platform.The lecture will illustrate that despite the laudable objectives of creating a new system of international law that attempts to redress previous inequalities in accessing vaccines and countermeasures, they are unlikely to meet these broader objectives. The lecture will argue that this is because, despite being a public good, Global Health Law has always been underpinned by capitalist and post-colonial rationales which privilege trade. In order to make lasting changes, the current system of Global Health Law must focus on broader questions of ‘reparations' that will achieve greater equity.Sharifah is a Professor of Global Health Law at the University of Warwick and the Director of the Warwick Global Health Centre. She is an interdisciplinary researcher whose work is at the intersection of international law, public policy and global health. Professor Sekalala is particularly focused on the role of human rights frameworks in addressing global health inequalities. Her research has focused on health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, international financing institutions and the rise of non-communicable diseases and she has published in leading legal, international relations and public health journals.Prof Sekalala is currently the PI on a Wellcome-Trust-funded project on digital health apps in Sub-Saharan Africa. Professor Sekalala is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FaSS) and she has consulted on human rights and health in many developing countries and worked for international organisations such as UNAIDS, the WHO and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Her research has also been funded by the Wellcome Trust, GCRF, ESRC, Open Society Foundation and international organisations including the International Labour Organisation and the WHO. Sharifah also sits on the Strategic Advisory Network of the ESRC.Sharifah holds a PhD in Law (Warwick, 2012), an LLM in Public International Law (Distinction in research, Nottingham, 2006) and an LLB Honours (Makerere University, Uganda 2004). She was called to the Ugandan Bar in 2005.
Lecture summary: In this talk Sharifah Sekalala examines this critical moment in the making of Global Health Law, with two treaty making processes: the newly finalised revisions of the International Health Regulations and ongoing negotiations by the Intergovernmental Negotiation Body for a possible pandemic Accord or Instrument, as we well as soft-law proposals for the World Health Organization proposal for a medical countermeasures platform. The lecture will illustrate that despite the laudable objectives of creating a new system of international law that attempts to redress previous inequalities in accessing vaccines and countermeasures, they are unlikely to meet these broader objectives. The lecture will argue that this is because, despite being a public good, Global Health Law has always been underpinned by capitalist and post-colonial rationales which privilege trade. In order to make lasting changes, the current system of Global Health Law must focus on broader questions of ‘reparations’ that will achieve greater equity. Sharifah is a Professor of Global Health Law at the University of Warwick and the Director of the Warwick Global Health Centre. She is an interdisciplinary researcher whose work is at the intersection of international law, public policy and global health. Professor Sekalala is particularly focused on the role of human rights frameworks in addressing global health inequalities. Her research has focused on health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, international financing institutions and the rise of non-communicable diseases and she has published in leading legal, international relations and public health journals. Prof Sekalala is currently the PI on a Wellcome-Trust-funded project on digital health apps in Sub-Saharan Africa. Professor Sekalala is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FaSS) and she has consulted on human rights and health in many developing countries and worked for international organisations such as UNAIDS, the WHO and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Her research has also been funded by the Wellcome Trust, GCRF, ESRC, Open Society Foundation and international organisations including the International Labour Organisation and the WHO. Sharifah also sits on the Strategic Advisory Network of the ESRC. Sharifah holds a PhD in Law (Warwick, 2012), an LLM in Public International Law (Distinction in research, Nottingham, 2006) and an LLB Honours (Makerere University, Uganda 2004). She was called to the Ugandan Bar in 2005.
Lecture summary: In this talk Sharifah Sekalala examines this critical moment in the making of Global Health Law, with two treaty making processes: the newly finalised revisions of the International Health Regulations and ongoing negotiations by the Intergovernmental Negotiation Body for a possible pandemic Accord or Instrument, as we well as soft-law proposals for the World Health Organization proposal for a medical countermeasures platform.The lecture will illustrate that despite the laudable objectives of creating a new system of international law that attempts to redress previous inequalities in accessing vaccines and countermeasures, they are unlikely to meet these broader objectives. The lecture will argue that this is because, despite being a public good, Global Health Law has always been underpinned by capitalist and post-colonial rationales which privilege trade. In order to make lasting changes, the current system of Global Health Law must focus on broader questions of ‘reparations' that will achieve greater equity.Sharifah is a Professor of Global Health Law at the University of Warwick and the Director of the Warwick Global Health Centre. She is an interdisciplinary researcher whose work is at the intersection of international law, public policy and global health. Professor Sekalala is particularly focused on the role of human rights frameworks in addressing global health inequalities. Her research has focused on health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, international financing institutions and the rise of non-communicable diseases and she has published in leading legal, international relations and public health journals.Prof Sekalala is currently the PI on a Wellcome-Trust-funded project on digital health apps in Sub-Saharan Africa. Professor Sekalala is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FaSS) and she has consulted on human rights and health in many developing countries and worked for international organisations such as UNAIDS, the WHO and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Her research has also been funded by the Wellcome Trust, GCRF, ESRC, Open Society Foundation and international organisations including the International Labour Organisation and the WHO. Sharifah also sits on the Strategic Advisory Network of the ESRC.Sharifah holds a PhD in Law (Warwick, 2012), an LLM in Public International Law (Distinction in research, Nottingham, 2006) and an LLB Honours (Makerere University, Uganda 2004). She was called to the Ugandan Bar in 2005.
Lecture summary: In this talk Sharifah Sekalala examines this critical moment in the making of Global Health Law, with two treaty making processes: the newly finalised revisions of the International Health Regulations and ongoing negotiations by the Intergovernmental Negotiation Body for a possible pandemic Accord or Instrument, as we well as soft-law proposals for the World Health Organization proposal for a medical countermeasures platform.The lecture will illustrate that despite the laudable objectives of creating a new system of international law that attempts to redress previous inequalities in accessing vaccines and countermeasures, they are unlikely to meet these broader objectives. The lecture will argue that this is because, despite being a public good, Global Health Law has always been underpinned by capitalist and post-colonial rationales which privilege trade. In order to make lasting changes, the current system of Global Health Law must focus on broader questions of ‘reparations' that will achieve greater equity.Sharifah is a Professor of Global Health Law at the University of Warwick and the Director of the Warwick Global Health Centre. She is an interdisciplinary researcher whose work is at the intersection of international law, public policy and global health. Professor Sekalala is particularly focused on the role of human rights frameworks in addressing global health inequalities. Her research has focused on health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, international financing institutions and the rise of non-communicable diseases and she has published in leading legal, international relations and public health journals.Prof Sekalala is currently the PI on a Wellcome-Trust-funded project on digital health apps in Sub-Saharan Africa. Professor Sekalala is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FaSS) and she has consulted on human rights and health in many developing countries and worked for international organisations such as UNAIDS, the WHO and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Her research has also been funded by the Wellcome Trust, GCRF, ESRC, Open Society Foundation and international organisations including the International Labour Organisation and the WHO. Sharifah also sits on the Strategic Advisory Network of the ESRC.Sharifah holds a PhD in Law (Warwick, 2012), an LLM in Public International Law (Distinction in research, Nottingham, 2006) and an LLB Honours (Makerere University, Uganda 2004). She was called to the Ugandan Bar in 2005.
Subscribe to UnitedHealthcare's Community & State newsletter.Health Affairs' Jeff Byers welcomes Andrew Twinamatsiko of O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law back to the program to discuss the Supreme Court's recent overturning of the Chevron doctrine and the implications for health policy moving forward. Check out our Request For Abstracts page for the April 2025 theme issue focusing on Food, Nutrition, and Health.Related Articles:The Supreme Court And The Future Of Expert Preventive Recommendations by Richard Hughes IV (Forefront)Two Obscure Cases about Fish May Disempower Health Agencies by Suhasini Ravi, Andrew Twinamatsiko, and Lawrence O. Gostin (MedPage Today)What the Supreme Court's Rulings on Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless Could Mean for Health Care by Suhasini Ravi (The O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law) Subscribe to UnitedHealthcare's Community & State newsletter.
Health Affairs' Jeff Byers is joined by Andrew Twinamatsiko of O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law to discuss a recent Supreme Court decision to reject a challenge to the FDA's approval of abortion medication. Join us for this upcoming event:7/10/24 - Lunch and Learn: Supreme Court Wrap-Up (Health Affairs Insider Exclusive Event)Become an Insider this week for $40 Off when you use the code InsiderAtTwo at checkout.Related Articles:Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Abortion Medication, But At What Cost? by Andrew Twinamatsiko et al. (Forefront)
Show Notes and Transcript Noor Bin Ladin returns to Hearts of Oak to discuss the World Health Organization's role in advancing globalism and its impact on the United States. She highlights amendments at the 77th World Health Assembly regarding pandemic treaties and national health authorities. Noor delves into WHO's funding sources and expresses worries about the organization's expanded powers in responding to global health emergencies, emphasizing the implications for national sovereignty and individual freedoms. She calls for local activism to challenge health-related laws, repeal unconstitutional measures, and reduce big pharma's influence on global health policies, advocating for awareness, involvement in local politics, and the defence of bodily autonomy and constitutional rights in the face of potential global health governance by the WHO. *Items of reference mentioned in the podcast... WEBSITE wehurtothers.com JAMES ROGUSKI jamesroguski.substack.com Noor Bin Ladin was born in Switzerland to a Swiss mother and Saudi father with the most controversial last name of the 21st century, at first glance it isn't obvious that she would be a freedom loving, Americanophile and patriot at heart. Noor's background story and early life were recorded in her mom's bestselling book, "Inside the Kingdom: my life in Saudi Arabia", by Carmen Bin Ladin. In short, her mother realised that she couldn't bring herself to raise her three girls according to Saudi culture, she fought a long, harsh battle in Swiss courts in order to gain their freedom and secure their upbringing in the West with Judeo-Christian values. This clash between her life and how different it would have been in Saudi Arabia had her mother lost, made Noor appreciative of the values and freedoms in the West from early on in her childhood. Travelling to America extensively from the age of three onwards further cemented her love for the American way. Though she has largely kept to herself since the tragic day of 9/11, Noor can no longer stand by and watch as America burns. A supporter of President Trump since his campaigning days of 2015, she felt compelled to speak up ahead of the 2020 elections, the most consequential in America's history. Why? Because the more we are to take a stand in the fight for the Free World, the higher the chance of saving Western Civilization from the brink of collapse. Connect with Noor... X/TWITTER x.com/NoorBinLadin SUBSTACK noorbinladin.substack.com/ PODCAST rumble.com/c/NoorBinLadin Interview recorded 4.6.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) I am so happy to have Noor Bin Ladin back with us once again. Noor, thank you so much for joining us again today. (Noor Bin Ladin) Thank you for having me, Peter. It's a pleasure to be back on the show with you. Oh, thank you. It's always good having someone on more than once. I thoroughly enjoyed discussing your background, your life, and where you are now in your activism. And we're going to talk about something completely different today, which is a huge topic, a contentious topic and a confusing topic. So we'll see what happens there. But people can find you @NoorbinLadin on Twitter or X. And of course, your Substack, which is essential reading. And that's just noorbinladin.substack.com And all the notes, all the links are in the description for viewers and listeners. So make sure you go after the end of this. I know you'll want to subscribe to NoorbinLadin.substack.com. The WHO, World Health Organization, we've heard. Maybe I can just ask you first, Noor, how did you kind of become interested in an entity that probably most of us hadn't actually heard about until the COVID tyranny? But how did you get interested and begin to delve into the WHO and kind of what they were? Well, Peter, as we discussed last time when I was on the show for the first time, you know, my interest is in the history of globalism and how obviously that intersects with the planned decline of the United States of America, you know, my nation that is very dear to me. And looking at globalism as a whole, especially the last 200 years, but more specifically the 20th century, you understand that the globalists have built one giant superstructure in order to advance their agenda of a one world order, this new world order, this one world government and the who is one of many many vehicles that was set up in order to push forward with this agenda of theirs of you know centralizing all the resources in the world centralizing power into one governing body essentially and they use many different tools many different crises such as you know quote pandemics and for that reason the WHO plays a key role so that's how I became interested in the WHO, but it's very much related to all the work that I've been doing in the sense that the WHO is one piece of the puzzle. And of course, I know you've been a key reporter on the ground there on this topic and many others for the War Room. And it's always good to connect with the War Room posse and anyone who brings information and news to the number one political podcast in the States. And I've enjoyed many of those. Thank you. Let me get into what we want to talk about, which is this decision at the World Health Association. It was the 77th meeting. I know many of us think, where have we been? 77 of these just flew past. But there have been 77 of these. Most of them, many of us were and have been completely unaware. But they adopted what are called the IHR, which are the International Health Regulations Amendments. Tell us how this meeting, the WHA, what was the intention of it? And again, we'll go into talking about how this was pushed through seemingly at the very end of it without proper assessment or looking at, probably when everyone was just wanting to finish off and go to bed, this was slipped through. But yeah, tell us about the WHA, this 77th meeting of it. Sure. I'll start by giving a little bit of context. So indeed, all eyes were on Geneva last week, Geneva, Switzerland, my hometown, where the WHO have their headquarters. Every year they meet in the UN building to host the World Health Assembly which is their annual meeting and this is where the member states and you know the executive board and the WHO entity essentially decides on their plans and whatever items are on the agenda and this year's annual meeting the 77th World Health Assembly was of particular interest to a lot of people in the world because everybody was kind of holding their breath to see what was going to happen with the so-called pandemic that was one track that was one legal instrument that was supposed to be presented last week and then the second track were the amendments to the international health regulations which were initially adopted back in 1969, there was a first big set of amendments that were adopted in 2005 and now this is the second, you know, kind of package of amendments that were adopted, as you mentioned, at the 11th hour on the final day of the WHA. And so coming back to the first track so that we get that one out of the way. Everybody was waiting to see what was going to happen with the so-called pandemic treaty. A lot of propaganda over the past couple of years, you know, post the scamdemic. A lot of our leaders in the world, many different, quote, stakeholders pushing for a pandemic treaty to be reached at this 77th WHA. Obviously, Big Pharma, manufacturers of, quote, vaccines, different alliances. We can come back into that later because there were a few announcements by CEPI and Gavi following the WHA. But on the Friday prior to the WHA starting on the 27th of May, it was announced by the WHO that it was likely that they weren't going to be able to reach an agreement on the pandemic agreement. I smelled a decoy straight away while others were prematurely celebrating and unfortunately it was unwarranted. This is also something we can get back into a bit later. But essentially the decision what transpired and this was announced as well on the final day of the WHA at the same time as the adoption of the amendments. But the WHO, the member states have decided that they were extending the negotiation period for the pandemic agreement. Up until next year at the next WHA, WHA 78 in May here in Geneva once more. And with an objective of actually finalizing the agreement before the end of the year. So they're going to put pressure on the different member states to reach an agreement before the end of 2024 but they're giving themselves some extra time until May just in case and also announced in that same statement negotiations will resume in July of this year so we're going to keep looking at what's coming out of these negotiation meetings out of Geneva and, over the next few months, because that's not over at all. It's just delayed, but it's very much still on. So that's the first track. And then the second track, the amendments were adopted very late on the 1st of June, the final day. I think it was expected that they were going to pass at some point during this week. It wasn't expected that it was going to be so late during the time frame for the WHA. And these amendments are certainly not a victory for the people. And we can get into that in terms of what the amendments actually are during this interview. Okay, well, you mentioned about we were all given this false sense of security by many people by being told, It's not going to happen. It's been paused, delayed. Don't worry, we've won the battle, but the war may go on. I think we've talked before about the danger of putting out information which is not necessarily true, maybe wishful thinking, maybe pure misinformation. And we attack governments and mainstream media for misinformation but it does seem as though sometimes it happens on our side and that announcement by many commentators that actually it's been paused, we've won this battle seem to be part of that misinformation. Yes it was actually quite frustrating and I did my best to push back against it straight out of the gates already on that Friday that I mentioned before the start of the WHA on social media. Because it's hard enough that we need to fight against the disinformation on quote, the other side from the other side from the mainstream media, like all the propaganda that they wage against us. But then we also need to fight back against disinformation, you know, whether ill intentioned or not, you know, So from our side, it's a little bit disheartening. And because the issue here is that you give people a false sense of hope or a false sense of having a moment of respite. Is that how you pronounce the word? Yeah, respite, yeah. Respite when actually this is the time where we really need to be pushing back really strongly and even more so like there's no space for us to let down our guard and I think the other the other side understands that very well which is why you know they make it so convoluted and they have all these different tracks and instruments and they put out the propaganda it's a way of, I mean, there are many objectives to that, but including demoralization and getting people discouraged. And so when you have that thing on our side where people are celebrating, although it's unwarranted, you kind of like take the wind out of people's sails at a very critical moment in reality. We obviously we have two main international bodies which we are all concerned, we've got the WEF and that's more in the economic and the WHO is looking at health but how does because we've seen some discussions in the media in the UK over the last maybe two months, three months calling into question the power of the WHO and these regulations. But how is it made up? Is it government representatives that go and they vote? Because the WHO is funded by individuals and entities and governments. But what individual power is it that Switzerland sent a representative, the UK sent a representative, and they come together and vote and they're accountable to their national governments or people? Or how does the setup work? I'm so glad you asked that question, Peter. Thank you so much. There is a lot of confusion and many misconceptions as to what is actually going on, especially with this term sovereignty. And this is the reason why I have been doing a podcast series on my podcast, Noor Bin Ladin Calls, with James Roguski, who is the number one researcher on the WHO. A lot of what I know and what I'm learning about the WHO is thanks to my conversations with James and his Substack, which I have subscribed to and read regularly. And that's the reason I really wanted to do regular phone calls with him for myself, but more importantly for the audience to try and make sense of actually what is going on and the key distinctions, because as I said, they make it complicated on purpose. And people need to understand, I'm going to try and make it as simple as possible. We are dealing with tentacles of the same octopus, and they advance in lockstep, all of like all of these stakeholders to use, you know, the globalist terms, they're all advancing together. And so the key point, if I had to boil it down to one thing, is that this has nothing to do with health. And this is about all of these stakeholders getting together and figuring out how they are going to continue to poison world populations. And I'm going to borrow a brilliant sentence by James, who I just mentioned. You know, this is about our decreased health and their increased wealth. This is what the WHO, Big Pharma and our governments and all these other organizations and institutions are working towards and we can get into as well the the inception of the WHO why it was set up in the first place and the fact that it's been rotten since the very beginning and designed for this purpose but this is especially true or manifests in a very clear way when you look at the the last few years and the pandemic industry that they've essentially created out of thin air to push these, quote, pandemic related products onto the population, whether it be faulty PCR tests that we know are completely useless for the purpose of diagnostics, these so called, you know, medications, these drugs like Remdesivir, and, of course, the genetic modifying jabs. Experimental jabs. What they're trying to do with these two instruments, along with many other initiatives and regulations and activities, is to institutionalize this new pandemic industry and push more of this poison onto the population. And it's not a question of the WHO stealing the sovereignty of our nations. And this is something, again, I understood with James, because in the documentation, it doesn't say that. It's about coordinating the response to these so-called pandemic emergencies between the different stakeholders, allowing them to make a profit while poisoning us. And our governments are in on this. This is the crux of the matter, is that our governments are driving this. They themselves are drafting and enacting legislation that not only supports these international instruments, but actually are even stricter in their application. And it's not the WHO that's going to say, close down your borders. It's our own countries that are going to close down our borders, make foreign travellers either quarantine, get jabs, and have these procedures done to them upon entry of the country if they want to continue to travel, vaccine passports, etc.. We saw with COVID, we got the preview of what our governments did to us. They didn't need the WHO. WHO makes recommendations, has these regulations, and then our nations can point to the WHO, as you know, the health authority, to justify their tyrannical rule over the populations. And, I think it's very important for these distinctions to be made because when people go around saying certain things, that aren't right, or precise, it leads to a lot of confusion. And then, you know, you have Tedros who goes on stage or whatever in different conferences and says, oh, there's so much disinformation and misinformation and we have to fight against that. Well, he's not entirely wrong when he says that, because on our side, we're not doing the due diligence of communicating accurately about what's actually going on. And, you know, obviously everybody makes mistakes. I make mistakes. I just really do try my best to do a good job in terms of explaining this. And when I don't know what I refer to people who really know their stuff. And in this case, it's James Roguski. You know, we mentioned that the outset of this conversation, the WHO, it's just one piece. And I'm much more of a macro person looking at how all of these pieces fit together and I also love history so you know I'll look more into the history of things and how we got to this point and the different steps that the globalists took in order to get us to where we are, which is, you know, on the brink of the realization of this agenda, 2030 agenda, new world order agenda. But looking at the different individual pieces, we really need to look to people who are doing the most thorough job. And in this case, it's James Roguski. So you really need to have him back on the show, Peter. I will, I love talking with James. He was thorough. He was open. It was a great conversation. And I know you and James have done many chats, many interviews. I had one. Yeah on that on that point I encourage people to go to my Substack the latest article is a 15 minute chat I had like, the last episode of the podcast with James is featured in the latest article on my Substack and we do a kind of like briefing or debrief of what happened during the WHA so to understand what transpired I would encourage people to watch that Oh, absolutely. Can I ask about the, I want to get into the regulation, but another question about the makeup. You've got a lot of money comes from countries and private organizations into a lot of these entities. And I think the US is maybe the biggest funder of the WHO with probably, I think, $400 million is what I read. But then the Bill and Melinda Gates also gives a lot. Then you've got other UN bodies like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, that also give a lot of money. Explain a little bit maybe about what that means because you've got the vax, a quasi, organization representing vaccine organizations and it is pumping money into this and that could be seen as very good that the media could portray that as this is wonderful they're actually contributing to world health but there seems to be a darker side and I always worry about when organisations are involved in funding that have no representation, no say with the public, with the government. It's one thing you can lobby your government. But actually with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we don't have a seat on the table. We can't write a letter to Bill and complain. They are a power and authority onto themselves. So tell us a little bit about the funding. Great question. I actually built a website with my friend Nick Chirruti called wehurtothers.com. And you'll see there's a whole section on the page dedicated to the WHO on funding. So all this information is available there, but I'll obviously just answer your question. WHO gets funding via two key ways. The first one is through the membership fees of the member states, that accounts for about 20% of their funding. And the rest, the 80%, is done through voluntary donations, which can be from the member states themselves if they want to give more than what they're obligated to give. And via any other institution, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, such as the Rockefeller Foundation. I made sure that in that section on wehurtothers.com, I had a special link regarding the relationship between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation. The WHO wouldn't have been able to exist in its shape without funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and support from the Rockefeller Foundation, who had already been instrumental in setting up the WHO's predecessor health body in the League of Nations. So we can draw a straight line, you know, from the early 20th century to today with the Rockefeller Foundation. And anyway, we can do that with regards to anything that has to do with, quote, health and medicine, because they really captured all of this. And to your point what I was describing a bit earlier about you know the WHO being this coordinator or facilitator or quote middleman acting you know for the benefit of big pharma and for them to be able to put more and more and more money into their pockets, this is what this funding is about and this is what you know CEPI's role Gavi's role is about it's about putting in place via the WHO, the structure of this business deal in order for them to continue profiting of off of our ill health caused by them in the first place. Well, this is how the industry works. They give us something which has side effects, and then there's a solution for that, which is another drug. So it is, yeah. And one thing that is interesting, and I actually pulled it up for you before we did our interview, but you see both Gavi... And CEPI made announcements relating to the pandemic treaty following the World Health Assembly's decision. And I mean, I'll put this online on my Twitter just after our call. So in the meantime, it'll be available. They urge the delegates the member states the WHO to reach an agreement with regards to this pandemic treaty because obviously they have an interest there in terms of getting all of this deal structured so that they can continue as I just mentioned pushing their poisonous jabs onto the population. Let me just mention it was wehurtothers.com we'll put the link in the description of wehurtothers.com for delving into the work that Noor and others have done into the background of the WHO. So make sure and use that and delve in deeper. Yeah, if I just may say one word about this, it's a great tool that we built with Nick because we aimed to do a sort of repository of WHO information from alternative sources, you know, who are trying to draw attention to the ills of the WHO, but also we have a lot of official documentation in there so that you can see for yourself through the WHO speak, obviously, what it is that they're pushing forward through that vehicle. So I really encourage people to go look at that website. And obviously, I also have all the interviews I've done with James listed there and just documentaries, articles. So whatever medium you prefer, it's a great tool for you to educate yourself on the WHO and the con that is WHO on behalf of big pharma. Absolutely. Let's go into the amendments that were passed at the 11th hour. Again, you mentioned this has been there, the International Health Regulations 2005. So they've been there, set in legal stone. However, that actually works. But this has now been a big change to that. And of course, off the back of a supposed pandemic, it's a perfect opportunity to revisit something like this. But maybe let us know some of those amendments and why they are concerning. Yes, the first thing I'll say in terms of procedure is that these were adopted in a fraudulent way, because according to Article 55 of that very document, this final text needs to be made available a minimum of four months before the World Health Assembly. So that would have been end of January. So that was completely thrown out of the window. And in terms of what happens now that they've been adopted, there wasn't a vote or anything like that. It's more of a tacit acceptance. Member states now have, I think, between 10 and 18 months to reject these amendments. So this is where we need to be acting and telling our, governments and the representatives, you asked me a question earlier about how it works, our government sent a delegate, there's a delegate that is selected by our government. So the Biden regime has, you know, their who delegate that comes here to Geneva for these meetings etc representing the government the Biden regime I can't call it a government obviously, there are 10 to 18 months now to reject for our you know countries our governments to reject them so we need as you know a people in each of our respective countries to be like banging on about this and asking for our governments to reject this, obviously. But I'm not sure how successful we will be considering that all of our governments are captured, but this is very important and that's why a lot is riding as well on what happens this year in 2024 with so many elections going on in the world, but most importantly in the US. It's true. And with all the meaning, you've got European parliamentary elections happening more or less now. And I'm intrigued at the change that could bring with so many populist parties on the right raising concerns. Sadly, in the UK, we've also got an election and we're going to get a Labour government. So it's going to be the love of the WHO is going to just be increased massively with a hard left government. But of course, then the election in November could change how funding works for the WHO. But I kind of think even if President Trump is able to regain that position in the White House, probably other entities, I mean, if that's 400 million, that drops off. I can imagine other entities will step up because this project is too important to fail. Yeah. Before we go into the amendments, as you just asked, to that very point, I wanted to bring up this special character. His name is Lawrence Gostin, and he is currently the director of the WHO's Center on Global Health Law. He's been working in the health, public health sector for decades. He even worked with Hillary in the 90s. He was working on health policy since the 70s, but in the 90s, he was working with Hillary when she was the first lady. He authored the US's Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in 2001. And we know how much legislation came out of that that was detrimental to the people. He authored a book entitled global health security, a blueprint for the future, I posted this on Twitter you just go and read the book's description and you understand exactly what we're talking about in terms of them building out this architecture for global health and how this is going to impact us as people using national institutions like our health services etc, national governments and also international institutions working hand in hand to push this, right? So this is what the book is about. And he put out an interesting tweet. Saying, Dr. Tedros tells the WHA he's confident the pandemic agreement will be finalized. WHA is likely to extend the mandate for negotiations for five to 24 months. So this was during the week before the official announcement came out. U.S. diplomats wait to find consensus, but think it'll take one to two years. If Biden loses the White House, the US will surely pull out. So he was saying that during the week. So they're aware that it depends on what happens in the US, right? And it's obvious that they're expecting that the US would pull out should President Trump regain, and rightfully so, his place in the White House, because he started the process of exiting, of having the U.S. exit the WHO. Unfortunately, the timeframe wasn't long enough because once you trigger that, you need one year before it comes into effect. And one of the very first executive orders that Biden signed after that sham of an inauguration ceremony was to get the US back into the WHO. Okay, so take us through some of the amendments that have been made and why they should be of concern to us. I really encourage people to read the amendments themselves to echo what James says. I know it's really convoluted. So I also encourage people to go to James's Substack because he highlights the key bits. And I'm actually going to read from one of the articles that he made with regards to that, selecting a few of the key amendments that we need to be looking at. And the first one people need to read in full actually is Article 1, because Article 1 is all about definitions. So from the outset of the regulations, they just changed a few of the definitions and added some of them or amended some of them. And so the first one I'd like to read, which is relevant to everything we've been discussing in terms of them wanting to poison us with these products, is the definition of, quote, relevant health products. So, relevant health products means those health products needed to respond to public health emergencies of international concern, including pandemic emergencies, which may include medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, vector control products, personal protective equipment. Decontamination products, assistive products, antidotes, cell and gene-based therapies and other health technologies. So those were added. And if you paid attention, they used the term pandemic emergency and that definition. So now I want to read the definition for pandemic emergency. Pandemic emergency means a public health emergency of international concern that is caused by a communicable disease. And one, has or is at high risk of having wide geographical spread to and within multiple states. [34:42] Two, and is exceeding or is at high risk of exceeding the capacity of health systems to respond in those states. Three, and is causing or is at high risk of causing substantial social and or economic disruption, including disruption of international traffic and trade. Four, and requires rapid equitable and enhanced coordinated international action with whole of government and whole of society approaches. And so the point that needs to be made with this definition it's that it's so vague and so wide-ranging and the person, according to these regulations that gets to determine what is quote a pandemic emergency is the director general of the WHO Dr Tedros Gabriel and so he can wake up tomorrow and say oh this is this pathogen or this you know virus qualifies as a pandemic emergency and then that would trigger certain things and allow states to implement some of some of the regulations that are in this in this document and one of the key new things in the document pertains to the creation of what they have termed a national IHR authority. So each member state within their health system is going to create a national IHR authority and also an IHR focal point that will be tasked with coordinating with the WHO. And I think if I had to choose one term to to make it clear for people is coordination, switch it for sovereignty and the who is going to steal your sovereignty which is not accurate and change it for coordination this is about coordination the who coordinating with our own governments and our own governments being you know the the tyrannical organisms that will be effectively enacting laws on a national level in and as an expression of their national sovereignty, you see this is where this is perverse and James explains this very well, if the United States of America, if the the federal government decides, hey you. You're a Swiss national, if you want to come and visit in the US you need to be jabbed, you need to have digital id with your vax status etc, you need to quarantine upon your arrival regardless of whether you come via air, boat, seas or land, this is a decision by the US government and it's a decision that they already made Peter, during this scamdemic, the first round COVID, I was not allowed to go to the US as a unvaxxed non US citizen. And we got a preview during that round of what it is our countries, our governments can do as an expression of their national sovereignty with the full backing and complicity of the WHO and these regulations. So this moves from previously, the WHO gave recommendations and governments fell into line, every single government but in theory I guess a government could have said, this is nonsense, we're going to reject that, but this seems to be legally making that enforceable that states must now comply. That's a great point you make, because a lot of the confusion is also due to the fact that we had quite different drafts a year ago. And in the initial drafts, it did appear that there was an issue of sovereignty and the WHO having these types of powers over states. It was the reading of those documents with the legally binding, they had the term legally binding in there and other provisions. And I was also following the release of these documents, I was also mentioning the fact that this was a power grab by the WHO. But in the meantime, throughout this year, we've had new information with leaked documents. And now we have this final official document that was released a few days ago. That is the final version that was adopted, as we mentioned, at the 11th hour. And it's not as, I want to say stringent as the previous versions, there is language you know, the member states shall, the state party that's how it's referred to in the document, the state party shall, you know, may compel the traveller to undergo, so they do kind of like a, it's kind of like a gymnastics exercise where they they manage to circumvent certain things, but the end goal is the same for all of them and so they're playing with the law, they're very good at playing with the law but the result inevitably is the same, loss of freedom for us, the people at it, the loss of sovereignty at the individual level. Using or abusing power at the state, at the national level, and the international level. And of course, I mean, James' article is exceptional. We'll put a link in going through those. But it does seem that the ritual of absolute power to quarantine anyone, to demand that happens. But then it's also about international travel. It's not just about the States. They then will make recommendations which are, in effect, demands that actually international travel is subject to whatever. I think one of the that talks about vaccinations but i think in in part of it it says any in article 31 it says additional established health measures that prevent the control, so any extra health measure, it's not, it doesn't say you know, you need to get a jab or wear a mask, it's like anything that may be needed that is dangerous. Yeah and what is key here, Peter, is that they agree on all this stuff when it comes to the measures and what our own, countries are going to compel people to do. This is not the point of contention. And I understood this very well with James. This is about the business deal. The negotiations is about figuring out who is going to get a piece of the pie. They've agreed on all the measures and how they're going to deal with us plebs once the next pandemic comes around, which there is a consensus. It's not about if, it's about when the next pandemic comes around. So the point of contention, why these negotiations are taking so long, be it with the IHR or with the pandemic treaty, is about how they're going to structure their deal and how they're going to distribute the spoils. And that's why I wanted to come to Article 44 because this is what it's about, Article 44 and Article 44BIS. Not BS. No, it should be BS. It definitely should be BS, but let me read. I'm not going to read the full thing. It's a little bit long, but no, but I should. It's really important. If you bear with me like two minutes, I'll read the full thing. So Article 44.2bis states parties subject to applicable law and available resources shall maintain or increase domestic funding as necessary and collaborate, including through international cooperation and assistance as appropriate to strengthen sustainable financing to support the implementation of these regulations. Tutor, pursuant to subparagraph C of paragraph 1, state parties shall undertake to collaborate to the extent possible to a. Encourage governance and operating models of existing financing entities and funding mechanisms to be regionally representative and responsive to the needs and national priorities of developing countries in the implementation of these regulations, b. Identify and enable access to financial resources, including through the coordinating financial mechanism established pursuant to Article 44b is, necessary to equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries, including for developing, strengthening, and maintaining core capacities. [Which brings me to Article 44bis. 1. A coordinating financial mechanism. The mechanism is hereby established to a. Promote the provision of timely, predictable, and sustainable financing for the implementation of these regulations in order to develop, strengthen, and maintain core capacities as set out in Annex I of these regulations, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. B. Seek to maximize the availability of financing for the implementation needs and priorities of state parties, in particular of developing countries. And C. Work to mobilize new and additional financial resources and increase the efficient utilization of existing financing instruments relevant to the effective implementation of these regulations. This is an important part I'm almost done. 2. In support of the objective set out in paragraph 1 of this article, the mechanism shall enter alia a. User conduct relevant needs and funding gap analysis. B. Promote harmonization, coherence, and coordination of existing financing instruments. C. Identify all sources of financing that are available for implementation support and make this information available to state parties. D. Provide advice and support upon request to state parties in identifying and applying for financial resources for strengthening core capacities, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. C. Leverage voluntary monetary contributions for organizations and other entities supporting state parties to develop, strengthen, and maintain their core capacities, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. 3. The mechanism shall function in relation to the implementation of these regulations under the authority and guidance of the health assembly and be accountable to it. And so I'm not going to read Annex 1, but as it refers to Annex 1, and it's all about creating the structure and the core capabilities for surveillance, on-site investigation. Laboratory diagnostics, implementation of control measures, etc., determining the risk of communication in terms of the disease. But what it means is that they are essentially setting up the infrastructure so that the poorer nations can also be able to say, hey, the pathogen you've identified, well, that we've identified in our mechanism, like in our, how would you say, with the core capabilities set up that we've put in our countries, the pathogen comes from us. So we want to be able to get a percentage of all the profit that you make off of the products, the health-related products that you create for the so-called pandemic. And this is what happened, you know, with Omicron in Africa, right, where they gave away, you know, Omicron, the genetic resources, the genetic resource, pardon me, of Omicron, and then Big Pharma created all these products off of the back of it, you know, the boosters and stuff. And so they made an agreement where rich countries would give funding so that the poorer nations could set all of this up and have the right to claim the spoils basically of the products that will be created off of the back of these pathogens. And this is the point of contention, by the way, with the pandemic treaty was how they were going to agree on the PABS system, the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, because they need, you know, these quote, pathogen or genetic resources or sequences to base their poison on and then it's about distribution and it's you know these nations they're not saying what they should be saying, is that we don't want these poisonous products, we don't want to be forced to take these poisonous products which is what our nations should be saying, they're saying, hey we want a piece of that poisonous pie, as James refers to it, we also want to to get money from these criminals that are in charge of our different countries, they also want to get money in their pockets so this is what this whole process has been about. It's about profiteering off of our continued ill health. Yeah profiteering and control absolutely. Noor it's always difficult to squeeze a huge topic like this into an hour but maybeI will put the links up and people do need to read James's Substack and they can go through the articles and everything is there. Yeah I'm sorry reading article 44 and article 44bis, it's so dry this language and it's, James said it on our podcast the other day, he gave out very good medical advice. He said, if you want to fall asleep at night, if you, suffer from insomnia, just read these documents. And it was so true, ahead of recording that very podcast episode with James, you know, we did it 24 hours after all of these announcements were made. And so that following day, I was reading the amendments and it wasn't in the evening, it was in the afternoon and it still managed to make me really drowsy. So listen, bless James for spending so many hours reading every single word in these documents. But, yeah, it's done on purpose, you know, to really not make people want to read these documents and therefore be properly informed. But I'll echo James, you know, read the damn documents if you want to know what it is they're up to. And for sure, listen to other people that are talking about this subject by all means. But if you really want to grasp what's going on, just go and do the research as well and do the reading yourself. Thankfully, you have a few people that you can look up to who can give you pointers. This is what James does. He gives you pointers and he says, hey, look at this, look at this, look at this, look at this. But the time to just consume news from whatever source and just take it at face value, we know that doesn't really work. So don't even listen to me. Just go and read the documents. I agree. And just for the last few minutes, can I just ask you about people responding? We talked about 10 to 18 months about being extended, the negotiating period being extended. That's part of the pandemic treaty. But, I mean, how can people be involved? They can obviously raise awareness online, on social media. Is it a case of writing to governments? I mean, what can people do when they're armed with the information? What's kind of their next step? Listen, you need to be focusing at the local level and regional level. So, for example, in Switzerland, they are preparing a law on epidemics. That's the name of the law. It's currently being redrafted it's to be presented in 2026, I'm involved with local, associations and organizations that are trying to raise awareness in the wider population, we have, we are very fortunate here because we can vote directly on on laws you know through our referendum process we also have the ability to put forward quote initiatives, so for example on the 9th of June, I'm going to go vote. There's an initiative to protect bodily autonomy in terms of vaccine mandates and to have that added specifically in the constitution. We do have an article in the constitution that protects the integrity of a human being, but we want to make it specific so that there's no way to go around it when they introduce the law on epidemics. And in the US, I mean. You have so many laws that should be repealed because they're completely unconstitutional. Laws, as I mentioned, some of them that derive from this act that Lawrence Gostin authored, the U.S. Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in 2001. This was, when the anthrax thing was going on. He had actually started working on it two years prior in 1999 kind of like the patriot acts you know they had started working on it also in the 90s so they were preparing a few things ahead of different crises, let's put it that way and so that US model state emergency health powers act from that I don't know how much legislation, how many laws were derived that you really need to be looking in your own country what's going on, your health and, what's HHS in the US, oh you're in England sorry, but for the American audience stuff coming out of HHS, how they coordinate with the CDC and all of these corrupt sick and evil institutions. Listen, just take big pharma down, all of it, and all of these associated institutions. It's been going on for at least 100 years longer. But, for the sake of focus, we can just talk about the 20th century and how basically everything was set up to push poison and to suppress actual remedies. Not manufactured by big pharma. So this is the root of the problem of what's going on. It's really looking at the entire structure within which the WHO sits. Well, Noor, I really do appreciate you coming on and giving us that, not only background information, but the call to action. I know people want to delve deeper into your Substack and also James both of the links are in the description so thank you so much for coming on unpacking what you're seeing there and what's going to impact every country in the world, so thank you. I hope I was able to bring a little bit of of clarity because as I mentioned at the outset of the conversation, it is very convoluted it does take time, people don't have time, people are busy fighting other battles, figuring out how to survive. And I just hope that, my work, certainly James's work that I know for sure because it does help me, but I hope that what I'm doing can help orient a little bit and provide a little bit of clarity with all this confusion. So thank you everyone for listening up to now and even sticking till the end, despite the reading of Article 44 and 44 BIS, which was so boring, but important. It is. And, Noor, I've certainly learned a huge lot just listening to you. So I know our audience will feel exactly the same. So, Noor, thanks so much for today. Thank you.
In this episode, taped in front of a live audience at Georgetown Law in Washington, D.C., a panel of health and legal experts unpack what's happening around the world—from Gaza, to Afghanistan and beyond. How can governments and NGOs best act to preserve health, enforce legal norms, and protect humanity in times of conflict, and what can we learn from the doctors and human rights advocates who have been on the ground in these situations?Joining me to discuss these issues is a panel of very special guests:Lawrence Gostin: Larry Gostin is co-director of the O'Neill institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown, and the director of the World Health Organization's Collaborating Center on National and Global Health.Dr. Houssam al-Nahhas: Houssam al-Nahhas is a Middle East and North Africa researcher at Physicians for Human Rights, leading the organization's work on documenting attacks on healthcare, and a Syrian physician.Dr. Sima Samar: Sima Samar is a doctor, activist and human right defender. She is currently a visiting scholar with Fletcher School at Tufts University.Karen Joy Greenberg: Karen Greenberg is the Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School.Saman Zia-Zarifi: Sam Zarifi is the Executive Director of Physicians for Human Rights. Check out this episode's landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Support the Show.
This episode,The 9th Annual MLK Convocation - Dr. King and the Long Arc Toward Reproductive Freedom and Justice, features a conversation between Professor Michele Bratcher Goodwin with Assistant Dean of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Ra'Shya Ghee '13 on the topic of Dr. King's 1966 Planned Parenthood award acceptance speech titled Family Planning - A Special and Urgent Concern Professor Michele Bratcher Goodwin is the Linda D. & Timothy J. O'Neill Professor of Constitutional Law and Global Health Policy and the co-faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown Law. You can find a direct link to the acceptance speech in the show notes. (https://z.umn.edu/MLKAcceptanceSpeech) This event was recorded on February 29, 2024. You can watch this episode on the Minnesota Law YouTube channel. (https://youtu.be/UqGgNkyJN6M?si=6LSfumxW0LQVBcpq) A transcript of this episode is available here: z.umn.edu/Ep38Transcript Learn more about the University of Minnesota Law School by visiting law.umn.edu
In his address to the IIEA, Alberto Alemanno shares his views on the state of the European Union and the major political, legal and public policy trends in advance of the European Parliament elections and the new legislature. About the Speaker: Alberto Alemanno is the Jean Monnet Professor of European Union Law & Policy at HEC Paris. Alberto's research has been centered on how the law may be used to improve people's lives, in particular through the adoption of power-shifting reforms countering social, health, economic, and political disparities of access within society. He's the author of more than sixty scientific articles and a dozen books, including ‘Lobbying for Change: Find Your Voice to Create a Better Society'. Alberto is also a permanent visiting professor at the University of Tokyo School of Public Policy, the College of Europe, in Bruges and a scholar at the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law as well as fellow at The Rutgers Institute for Corporate Social Innovation at Rutgers University.
Four years on since the pandemic broke across the world SCGA looks at the prospects for a new Pandemic Treaty. John Edward speaks to Dr Stephanie Switzer of the University of Strathclyde and Dr Mark Eccleston-Turner of King's College London. Equity has been sorely lacking in pandemic preparedness and response, and COVID-19 is the latest example. The World Health Assembly of the WHO is due to finalise a Pandemic Treaty negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body in May/June 2024. We look at how far apart countries of the Global North and South still are, and what this intergovernmental response tells us about preparedness and the search for equity ahead of whatever pandemic may come next. An SCGA Insight paper on this project is also available, with the contribution of Abbie Rose-Hampton and Michelle Rourke. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Launched in February 2023, the Health Care Litigation Tracker is a free digital resource that tracks and analyzes health care litigation in the United States. The tracker contains current health policy litigation cases, with an emphasis on health care access, coverage, affordability, transparency, and equity. Founded in 2007, the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law is a research institute based at Georgetown Law focused on public and private law in health policy analysis. Zachary Baron is a director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O'Neill Institute. He focuses on providing technical assistance for policymakers and public education on health policy legal issues with an emphasis on access to coverage, affordability, transparency, and equity. Cases discussed in the conversation are: American College of Pediatricians et al. v. Becerra et al. https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/american-college-of-pediatricians-et-al-v-becerra-et-al-2/ Barrows et al v. Humana, Inc. https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/barrows-et-al-v-humana-inc/ Eli Lilly and Company et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al. https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/eli-lilly-and-company-et-al-v-u-s-department-of-health-and-human-services-et-al/ #health #law #oneillinstitute #georgetown #policy
This episode marks the first in a new On the Issues series: “Collateral Damage.” In these episodes, we probe where news typically falls off, and its neglect of the impact of war on women. The crises of sexual violence they face, which is a deliberate tactic in war. We examine maternal and reproductive health, the role of women in peacekeeping, and so much more. In this episode, we start with health and why it's sacred and must be protected even in war, delving into issues of bioethics and health care during conflict. In times of war, who protects the patients, the mothers, the babies? Are there bridges too far that shouldn't be crossed, even in war? Joining us to discuss these crucial matters is a very special guest:Larry Gostin: Professor Larry Gostin co-directs the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and is a university professor and the Founding O'Neill Chair in Global Health Law at Georgetown University. He is also the Director of the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. Check out this episode's landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Tips, suggestions, pitches? Get in touch with us at ontheissues@msmagazine.com. Support the show
JAMA Senior Editor Kristin Walter, MD, MS, and Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, JAMA Legal and Global Health Correspondent and Faculty Director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, discuss the Inflation Reduction Act, which for the first time allows the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to negotiate prescription drug prices with drug manufacturers. Related Content: Medicare's Historic Prescription Drug Price Negotiations
The Green Wave movement has swept through Latin America and has increased the liberalization of abortion law. Still, criminalization, and medical privacy and medical secrecy concerns can impact someone's access to care or have patients and professionals facing prison sentences. Gloria Orrego-Hoyos, fellow with the Health and Human Rights initiative at Georgetown Law's O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, sits down to talk with us about the status of criminalization, medical privacy and medical secrecy when it comes to abortion across Latin America. Some Latin American regions criminalize abortion to the extreme. In El Salvador, abortion carries a charge of “aggravated homicide” and can punished by up to 30 years in prison, while in Nicaragua, those who access an abortion face a sentence of up to two years in prison, with medical professionals facing sentences of up to six years in prison for administering care. Some medical professionals feel pressure to, and do end up, reporting abortions to the police. Many doctors are also afraid to provide care until the most dangerous point, due to the shadow of the criminal system. LinksGloria Orrego-Hoyos on TwitterPlan C Abortionfinder.org Ineedana.com Repro Legal Helpline Repro Legal Defense Fund Digital Defense Fund Take ActionFollow Gloria on Twitter to stay up-to-date on her incredible work. You can also follow the O'Neill Institute here. If you ever find yourself on the other end of criminalization for accessing abortion care, you can contact the Repro Legal Helpline and the If/When/How's Repro Legal Defense Fund. Try to have conversations in your homes, in your places of work, and with your friends about abortion and access to basic healthcare in an effort to break stigma. Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!
Lawrence Gostin is the faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. L.O. Gostin and G.K. Gronvall. The Origins of Covid-19 — Why It Matters (and Why It Doesn't). N Engl J Med 2023;388:2305-2308.
Growing calls for a public inquiry into allegations of China's interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections Guest: Jonathan Manthorpe, author, “Claws of the Panda: Beijing's Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada” What does election interference look like Guest: Kenny Chiu, former Conservative MP TikTok banned on all Canadian government devices over ‘unacceptable' risk Guest: Sara Grimes, Director of the Knowledge Media Design Institute (KMDI) and Semaphore Labs, as well as Associate Professor in the Faculty of Information at the University of Toronto New US report raises more questions about the origins of COVID Guest: Lawrence Gostin, faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, and the founding O'Neill chair in global health law, Georgetown University Why close friendships may be the key to good health Guest: Esme Fuller-Thomson, Director of the Institute for Life Course and Aging, University of Toronto Cocaine bear and the long history of animals and intoxication Guest: Oné Pagán, biology professor, author of “Drunk Flies and Stoned Dolphins”
Michele Bratcher Goodwin, JD (Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy, University of California, Irvine), Molly Meegan, JD (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), and Lisa Harris, MD, PhD (University of Michigan) discuss how new abortion bans in the US are creating serious legal and ethical dilemmas for clinicians. Hosted by JAMA Legal and Global Health Correspondent Lawrence O. Gostin, JD (Georgetown University). Related Content: Legal Risks and Ethical Dilemmas for Clinicians in the Aftermath of Dobbs The Future of Ob-Gyn Training in the US Post-Dobbs Medical Indications for Abortion Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, is the Legal and Global Health Correspondent for JAMA and Faculty Director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. No other disclosures were reported. Michele Bratcher Goodwin, JD, LLM, SJD is Director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy at University of California, Irvine. No other disclosures were reported. Lisa Harris, MD, PhD, is the F. Wallace and Janet Jeffries Collegiate Professor of Reproductive Health, and Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University of Michigan. She is also a Professor in the Department of Women's Studies. No other disclosures reported. Molly Meegan is the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). No other disclosures reported.
In this episode, CSIS Senior Associate Jeffrey L. Sturchio speaks with Matt Kavanagh, Deputy Executive Director for Policy, Advocacy, and Knowledge at UNAIDS, where he is responsible for the organization's work to advance policy, law and political change to end the AIDS pandemic. Matt begins by noting some of the recent advances in the science of HIV prevention and treatment (such as new tools for long-acting HIV prophylaxis), which are causes for optimism in the global response to the HIV pandemic. At the same time, there are worrying trends in new HIV infections due in part to the impact of COVID-19 and economic crises on country investments in HIV programs. Despite these challenges, some countries are still making encouraging progress in fighting HIV/AIDS. As Kavanagh observes, “science doesn't implement itself,” and we need to look to politics and the enabling policy environment to understand why some countries are doing better than others at addressing HIV/AIDS. Countries as diverse as Botswana, Nigeria, and Thailand have responded effectively: by comparing their approaches, we find that a combination of political leadership, partnerships, community engagement, structural interventions, and changes in law and policy help to explain their success. Another important factor in understanding success in addressing HIV/AIDS is the role of vibrant civil society and strong community response to the epidemic. Matt also discusses the importance of ending inequalities to end the AIDS epidemic: we need to know where the gaps in coverage are – by geography, income level, or key populations – and tailor interventions that work to close the gaps. Matt concludes by calling for more investment in global public goods, not only to sustain the AIDS response, but also to be better prepared for future global pandemics. Matthew M. Kavanagh has worked internationally for more than 20 years at the intersection of global health, politics and law and comes to UNAIDS on secondment from Georgetown University, where he holds faculty appointments in international health and law and is a director at the O'Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law.
Reproductive health care is a human right. Learn how this connects to health equity and explore the impacts of the overturn of Roe v. Wade with a panel of experts. Panel: Lawrence Gostin, JD—Professor, Global Health Law at Georgetown University and Director, WHO Center on Global Health Law Jamila Perritt, MD, MPH—President and CEO, Physicians for Reproductive Health Krishna Upadhya, MD, MPH—Vice President, Quality Care and Health Equity, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Moderator: Aletha Maybank, MD, MPH—chief health equity officer, senior vice president, Center for Health Equity, American Medical Association Topics discussed in this episode: Introduction Introduction of the panelists Policing and criminalization of reproductive health care Abortion access and inequities in health care The end of Roe v Wade and a new legal frontier for abortion rights The impact of the overturning of Roe and access to abortions Substandard medical care being mandated by states How the legal system can provide rights & access to health services Abortion, reproductive justice, & human rights Finding hope in health care justice work The AMA's Digital Code of Conduct: https://www.ama-assn.org/code-conduct
In this crossover episode with CSIS's Coronavirus Crisis Update podcast, Andrew Schwartz and Steve Morrison are joined by Dr. Larry Gostin, professor of global health law and the faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. They discuss the aftermath of the April 18 nationwide injunction to block government mask mandates on public transportation. In Judge Mizelle's opinion, the C.D.C. has exceeded its legal authority. But if the C.D.C. doesn't have the power to make someone do something as unintrusive as wearing a mask, what can it do? If this ruling stands, it changes the role of the government, and our regulatory institutions will lose the power to protect us. The C.D.C. has been in a weakened position since the Trump administration but is staffed by strong scientists who want to do their best for Americans. Dr. Gostin argues for a High-Level Commission to take a top-down and bottom-up review of the C.D.C. to determine what systems, data, scientists, funding CDC needs, and what powers are legitimate. He does have hope: the U.S. is approaching higher levels of immunity, and the darkest days of the pandemic may be behind us.
Dr. Larry Gostin is a professor of global health law and the faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. Dr. Gostin joins Steve Morrison and Andrew Schwartz for this 134th episode in the aftermath of the April 18 nationwide injunction to block government mask mandates on public transportation. In Judge Mizelle's opinion, the C.D.C. has exceeded its legal authority. But if the C.D.C. doesn't have the power to make someone do something as unintrusive as wearing a mask, what can it do? If this ruling stands, it changes the role of the government, and our regulatory institutions will lose the power to protect us. The C.D.C. has been in a weakened position since the Trump administration but is staffed by strong scientists who want to do their best for Americans. Dr. Gostin argues for a High-Level Commission to take a top-down and bottom-up review of the C.D.C. to determine what systems, data, scientists, funding CDC needs, and what powers are legitimate. He does have hope: the U.S. is approaching higher levels of immunity, and the darkest days of the pandemic may be behind us.
#neurotech #neuroethics #neuroscience James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, is a Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry, Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program, leads the Sub-program in Military Medical Ethics of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics; is Special Advisor to the Brain Bank, and is Co-director of the O'Neill-Pellegrino Program in Brain Science and Global Health Law and Policy at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA. He is also a Distinguished Visiting Professor of Brain Science, Health Promotions, and Ethics at the Coburg University of Applied Sciences, Coburg, Germany, and was formerly JW Fulbright Foundation Visiting Professor of Neurosciences and Neuroethics at the Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. Dr. Giordano is currently Fellow of the Project on Biosecurity, Technology, and Ethics at the US Naval War College, Newport, RI; chairs the Neuroethics Program of the IEEE Brain Initiative; is Senior Science Advisory Fellow of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment Branch of the Joint Staff of the Pentagon, serves as an appointed member of the Neuroethics, Legal and Social Issues, Advisory Panel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency , and is consulting bioethicist to the Department of Defense Medical Ethics Center His ongoing research addresses the neurobiological bases of neuropsychiatric spectrum disorders; and neuroethical issues arising in and from the development, use and misuse of neuroscientific techniques and neurotechnologies in medicine, public life, global health, and military applications. In recognition of his work, he was elected to membership in the European Academy of Science and Arts and named as an Overseas Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-james-giordano-8454476 https://twitter.com/neurobioethics Kindly Subscribe to CHANGE- I M POSSIBLE - youtube channel www.youtube.com/ctipodcast
In light of the alarming surge of Covid-19 infections in India, pressure has mounted on developed nations to improve equity in global vaccine distribution. Professor Lawrence Gostin, Director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, joins GJIA to discuss how the United States can improve global vaccine distribution, including the recent Biden administration decision to support intellectual property waivers for vaccines.
On February 2, 2022, Lawrence Gostin, David Hyman, and Jenin Younes joined the Federalist Society's Georgetown Law Student Chapter to debate COVID-19 vaccine mandates.Featuring:- Lawrence Gostin, University Professor, Founding Linda D. & Timothy J. O'Neill Professor of Global Health Law, Faculty Director of O'Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law, Georgetown University- David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University- Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance- [Moderator] Courtney Stone Mirski, Editor in Chief, Food and Drug Law Journal- [Introduction] Elizabeth Henry, President, Federalist Society's Georgetown Law Student ChapterVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
We talk with Dr. James Giordano, a Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry at Georgetown University Medical Center and a Senior Fellow at the Stockdale Center. In this three-part series, we discuss what are some of the latest developments in brain science and technology related to military applications? These include brain scanning tools, directed energy, trans-cranial magnetic and electrical stimulation, and deep brain stimulation - all of which can be used in military and intelligence operations. How might differing values around the world address the development and use of these technologies? What are the relative costs and the burdens or risks associated with these possible values?Dr. James Giordano is Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program, Scholar-in-Residence, leads the Sub-Program in Military Medical Ethics, and Co-director of the O'Neill-Pellegrino Program in Brain Science and Global Health Law and Policy in the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics. He is a Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry at Georgetown University Medical Center. He is also Distinguished Visiting Professor of Brain Science, Health Promotions and Ethics at the Coburg University of Applied Sciences. He served in the Navy as a Naval Aerospace Physiologist, and was the director of the aerospace training center at Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point. Dr. "G" is a Senior Fellow at the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership.
Study estimates lower risk of cardiovascular disease associated with improved vitamin D level University of South Australia, December 10 2021. Research reported on December 5, 2021 in the European Heart Journal estimated that improvement of vitamin D levels to 20 ng/mL could eliminate 4.4% of all cases of cardiovascular disease. “Our results are exciting as they suggest that if we can raise levels of vitamin D within norms, we should also affect rates of cardiovascular disease,” she stated. “By increasing vitamin D-deficient individuals to levels of at least 50 nmol/L [20 ng/mL], we estimate that 4.4 percent of all cardiovascular disease cases could have been prevented.” (NEXT) Capsaicin molecule inhibits growth of breast cancer cells Centre of Genomics (Germany) December 18, 2021 Capsaicin, an active ingredient of pungent substances such as chilli or pepper, inhibits the growth of breast cancer cells. This was reported by a team following experiments in cultivated tumour cells. In the cultivated cells, the team detected a number of typical olfactory receptors. One receptor occurred very frequently; it is usually found in the fifth cranial nerve, i.e. the trigeminal nerve. It belongs to the so-called Transient Receptor Potential Channels and is named TRPV1. That receptor is activated by the spicy molecule capsaicin as well as by helional – a scent of fresh sea breeze. (NEXT) Running down the exercise 'sweet spot' to reverse cognitive decline University of Queensland (Australia), December 14 2021 University of Queensland researchers have discovered an exercise 'sweet spot' that reverses the cognitive decline in aging mice, paving the way for human studies. After more than a decade of research, led by Queensland Brain Institute, the team found 35 days of voluntary physical exercise improved learning and memory. "We tested the cognitive ability of elderly mice following defined periods of exercise and found an optimal period or 'sweet spot' that greatly improved their spatial learning," Dr. Blackmore said. The researchers also discovered how exercise improved learning. (NEXT) Reducing copper in the body alters cancer metabolism to reduce risk of aggressive breast cancer Weill Cornell Medicine, December 15, 2021 Depleting copper levels may reduce the production of energy that cancer cells need to travel and establish themselves in other parts of the body by a process referred to as metastasis, according to a new study by investigators from Weill Cornell Medicine and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). The discovery of the underlying mechanisms of how copper depletion may help reduce metastasis in breast cancer will help inform the design of future clinical trials. In a series of research papers from 2013 to 2021, Weill Cornell Medicine researchers showed that in a phase II clinical trial when patients who had high-risk triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) were treated with a drug that lowers the levels of copper in their bodies, it prolonged the period of time before their cancer recurred and spread or metastasized. (NEXT) Yerba mate decreases your risk of metabolic disorders Kyungpook National University (Korea), December 4, 2021 Yerba mate is a herbal dietary supplement taken for weight loss. A study published in the Journal of Medicinal Food examined its ability to treat obesity and metabolic disorders. Rats were divided into two groups: a control group given a high-fat diet and a control group with a high-fat diet but supplemented with yerba mate. Upon analysis of the animals, the researchers found that yerba mate increased energy expenditure and thermogenic gene mRNA expression in white adipose tissue (WAT) and decreased fatty acid synthase (FAS) mRNA expression in WAT. These changes were associated with decreases in body weight, WAT weight, epididymal adipocyte size, and plasma leptin level. (OTHER NEWS NEXT) High-ORAC Foods May Slow Aging USDA. Foods that score high in an antioxidant analysis called ORAC may protect cells and their components from oxidative damage, according to studies of animals and human blood at the Agricultural Research Service's Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts in Boston. ARS is the chief scientific agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture ORAC, short for Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity, is a test tube analysis that measures the total antioxidant power of foods and other chemical substances. Early findings suggest that eating plenty of high-ORAC fruits and vegetables--such as spinach and blueberries--may help slow the processes associated with aging in both body and brain. In the studies, eating plenty of high-ORAC foods: Raised the antioxidant power of human blood 10 to 25 percent Prevented some loss of long-term memory and learning ability in middle-aged rats Maintained the ability of brain cells in middle-aged rats to respond to a chemical stimulus--a function that normally decreases with age Protected rats' tiny blood vessels--capillaries--against oxygen damage "It may be that combinations of nutrients found in foods have greater protective effects than each nutrient taken alone," said Guohua (Howard) Cao, a physician and chemist who developed the ORAC assay. Examples Women gave blood after separately ingesting spinach, strawberries and red wine--all high-ORAC foods--or taking 1,250 milligrams of vitamin C. A large serving of fresh spinach produced the biggest rise in the women's blood antioxidant scores--up to 25 percent--followed by vitamin C, strawberries and lastly, red wine Men and women had a 13- to 15-percent increase in the antioxidant power of their blood after doubling their daily fruit and vegetable intake compared to what they consumed before the study. Just doubling intake, without regard to ORAC scores of the fruits and vegetables, more than doubled the number of ORAC units the volunteers consumed, said Prior. Rats fed daily doses of blueberry extract for six weeks before being subjected to two days of pure oxygen apparently suffered much less damage to the capillaries in and around their lungs, Prior said. Middle-aged rats that had eaten diets fortified with spinach or strawberry extract or vitamin E for nine months. A daily dose of spinach extract "prevented some loss of long-term memory and learning ability normally experienced by the 15-month-old rats," said Shukitt-Hale. Spinach was also the most potent in protecting different types of nerve cells in two separate parts of the brain against the effects of aging, said Joseph. (NEXT) Paul Kingsnorth Interview Video Paul Kingsnorth is an English environmental writer, novelist and the former deputy-editor of The Ecologist and a co-founder of the Dark Mountain Project. Kingsnorth's nonfiction writing addresses macro themes like environmentalism, globalization, and the challenges posed to humanity by civilization-level trends. He is a graduate of Oxford University and later joined the environmental campaign group EarthAction. He has subsequently worked as commissioning editor for openDemocracy, as a publications editor for Greenpeace and, between 1999 and 2001, as deputy editor of The Ecologist. He was named one of Britain's "top ten troublemakers" by the New Statesman magazine in 2001. In 2020, he was called "England's greatest living writer" by Aris Roussinos. In 2004, he was one of the founders of the Free West Papua Campaign, which campaigns for the secession of the provinces of Papua and West Papua from Indonesia, where Kingsnorth was made an honorary member of the Lani tribe in 200. His most notable book is Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist (NEXT) Video - James Giordano Lecture James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, is Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program, Scholar-in-Residence, leads the Sub-Program in Military Medical Ethics, and Co-director of the O'Neill-Pellegrino Program in Brain Science and Global Health Law and Policy in the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics; and is Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA. He is also Distinguished Visiting Professor of Brain Science, Health Promotions and Ethics at the Coburg University of Applied Sciences, Coburg, Germany, and was formerly 2011-2012 JW Fulbright Foundation Visiting Professor of Neurosciences and Neuroethics at the Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. Prof. Giordano currently serves as Chair of the Neuroethics Program of the IEEE Brain Project, and an appointed member of the Neuroethics, Legal and Social Issues (NELSI) Advisory Panel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects' Agency (DARPA). He has previously served as Research Fellow and Task Leader of the EU Human Brain Project Sub-Project on Dual-Use Brain Science; an appointed member of United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Council on Human Research Protections (SACHRP); and as Senior Science Advisory Fellow of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment Branch of the Joint Staff of the Pentagon.
For decades, the portrayal of cancer in movies and television was grim. If a character was diagnosed with cancer, it was a near certainty they'd be dead by the credits. But, like cancer treatment itself, Hollywood evolved, and many storylines about cancer became stories of survival. In this episode, we ask the question, "Who influences us and why?" From musicians to television stars, film producers to televised cancer screenings, when celebrities lend their voices to raising awareness and fundraising, that kind of star power can move mountains. Join us as we hear from voices such as actor Patrick Dempsey, StandUp2Cancer Co-Founders Katie Couric, Pam Williams, the late Laura Ziskin. Also appearing in this episode: Steven Hoffman (Professor of Global Health Law and Political Science at York University in Toronto, Canada,) Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov (Director of Internal Medicine for Cancer Survivors at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute,) Kami Kosenko (Professor of Communication at North Carolina State University,) and Milton Kent (Former reporter and sports columnist for The Baltimore Sun). For more information about this series, visit https://CancerMavericks.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
For decades, the portrayal of cancer in movies and television was grim. If a character was diagnosed with cancer, it was a near certainty they'd be dead by the credits. But, like cancer treatment itself, Hollywood evolved, and many storylines about cancer became stories of survival.In this episode, we ask the question, "Who influences us and why?" From musicians to television stars, film producers to televised cancer screenings, when celebrities lend their voices to raising awareness and fundraising, that kind of star power can move mountains. Join us as we hear from voices such as actor Patrick Dempsey, StandUp2Cancer Co-Founders Katie Couric, Pam Williams, the late Laura Ziskin. Also appearing in this episode: Steven Hoffman (Professor of Global Health Law and Political Science at York University in Toronto, Canada,) Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov (Director of Internal Medicine for Cancer Survivors at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute,) Kami Kosenko (Professor of Communication at North Carolina State University,) and Milton Kent (Former reporter and sports columnist for The Baltimore Sun).For more information about this series, visit https://CancerMavericks.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
On October 7, Andrew and Steve sat down with a close friend, Georgetown's Prof. Larry Gostin, for a lively live-cast conversation about his new book, ‘Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future.” The podcast captures that rich, vivid exchange. The big messages: We underestimate the power of the SAR-CoV-2 virus: it is wily and pernicious and will continue to surge. We cannot forget anti-microbial resistance. A fundamental shift is needed in the US international approach – away from charity and towards advancing technology transfer to manufacture vaccines in low and middle-income countries to create resilience. That requires far greater pressure upon Moderna and Pfizer to cooperate in meeting urgent global needs. The USG has the legal authorities to make that happen but has not yet followed through. USG health communications have been “pitiful” and left the public “utterly confused.” That too can be corrected. Professor Lawrence O. Gostin is University Professor at Georgetown University where he directs the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.
Today is a researchers' roundtable, with: Renu Singh, Jon Shaffer, and Lucia Vitale. Jon Shaffer is a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at Boston University. He is studying how global health NGOs resist dominant field pressures and develop alternative strategies in advancing state-protected universal health care access, social change, and human rights. Before starting graduate school, Jon was involved in the founding and served as the executive director of GlobeMed. He then served as the senior strategist for community organizing at Partners In Health, where he launched PIH Engage, a program that links trains activists around the country to fight for the right to health here and around the world. Most recently, Jon and colleagues launched R2H Action, a campaign to leverage the COVID-19 disaster to ensure that the human right to health and a safe environment is realized by everyone, everywhere. Renu Singh, PhD is a Research Assistant Professor within the Division of Public Policy, a Jockey Club Institute for Advanced Study Junior Fellow, and a Faculty Affiliate with the Institute for Emerging Market Studies at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST). She is also a Scholar at the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown Law and a DAAD Research Ambassador for the German Academic Exchange Service. As a political scientist and microbiologist by training, Renu aims to bridge the worlds of science and policy through her research on comparative social policy, global health security and governance, and the political economy of health. Lucia Vitale is an interdisciplinary global health scholar who uses comparative political science methods, theories in sociology, and also geography to explore multi-scale effects of global health governance and primary healthcare access. While her research is geographically located along the border of the Dominican Republic with Haiti, non-state transnational decision making spaces are central to her work. After graduating with her B.A. in 2015, Vitale taught English in Comayagua, Honduras, served as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic (DR), and then worked as a contractor for USAID's Local Works program where she investigated access to documentation, and assessed the needs of cooperatives at the community level.
Mandating the COVID-19 vaccine has been called presidential overreach, un-American, even unprecedented, despite a long history of requiring vaccines to prevent other illnesses. In August, President Joe Biden mandated employees at all companies with more than 100 employees get vaccinated or undergo routine testing. And now, beginning in early November, federal agencies can enforce that same mandate on federal employees. Mass firings have occurred; but more often than not, employees chose to get the shot over losing their job. On this week's episode, Lawrence Gostin, JD, professor of global health law at Georgetown University, author of the new book "Global Health Security," and director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center for National and Global Health Law, joins us to discuss where we may see legal challenges and if those challenges have a sound footing.
The O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law is taking a close look at the extended use of emergency powers across the world, even as the COVID pandemic moves into an endemic phase. Their experts are recommending reforms to emergency powers. https://loom.ly/WSahLqE #Opinion #Column #JasonMercier #WashingtonPolicyCenter #ONeillInstituteForNationalAndGlobalHealthLaw #ONeillInstitute #EmergencyDeclarations #WashingtonState #JayInslee #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday
Lawrence Gostin, who directs the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown Law. says there's a long history of vaccine mandates in the U.S. that have paved the way for those President Biden recently announced.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Vaccine Inequality Between Wealthy and Poor Countries The Takeaway talks about the worldwide vaccination gap between high- and low-income countries with Apoorva Mandavilli, science reporter at the New York Times, and Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, director of the World Health Organization Center on National and Global Health Law, and author of the forthcoming book “Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future.” The Water Crisis facing Iraq and Syria A new report by 13 aid groups notes that the water crisis in Syria and Iraq could leave 12 million people without access to drinking and agricultural water. It is also disrupting electricity across the region as dams run out of water. It could potentially lead to an “unprecedented catastrophe” in the region. Joining us to discuss this is Nirvana Shawky, CARE's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa. The Evolution of Black TV Though there were countless Black characters in front of the camera, behind the scenes was a different story. From the writers rooms to the executive suite, Black creators were few and far between. In decades since, it's gotten better but there's still much work to be done. The Takeaway spoke to Hannah Giorgis, culture writer for The Atlantic, and Kim Bass, creator of Sister, Sister and Kenan and Kel. For transcripts, see individual segment pages.
Vaccine Inequality Between Wealthy and Poor Countries The Takeaway talks about the worldwide vaccination gap between high- and low-income countries with Apoorva Mandavilli, science reporter at the New York Times, and Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, director of the World Health Organization Center on National and Global Health Law, and author of the forthcoming book “Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future.” The Water Crisis facing Iraq and Syria A new report by 13 aid groups notes that the water crisis in Syria and Iraq could leave 12 million people without access to drinking and agricultural water. It is also disrupting electricity across the region as dams run out of water. It could potentially lead to an “unprecedented catastrophe” in the region. Joining us to discuss this is Nirvana Shawky, CARE's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa. The Evolution of Black TV Though there were countless Black characters in front of the camera, behind the scenes was a different story. From the writers rooms to the executive suite, Black creators were few and far between. In decades since, it's gotten better but there's still much work to be done. The Takeaway spoke to Hannah Giorgis, culture writer for The Atlantic, and Kim Bass, creator of Sister, Sister and Kenan and Kel. For transcripts, see individual segment pages.
Professor Larry Gostin joined us for a spirited conversation of where America as a country stands today, almost two years into Covid-19. Human ingenuity and scientific gains have been “astounding,” while our preparedness, in the face of such a “wily enemy,” has too often been “abysmal.” We experienced shock when the first wave that began in Wuhan landed at our shores, CDC bungled tests, the Trump administration stoked anti-Asian hatred and politicized essential tools – masks, vaccines, and temporary lockdowns. Public health messaging too often has been “appalling," as CDC's scientific leadership has stumbled. Now, in late 2021, we face the danger of dividing our society into two opposing camps, the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. The Biden administration has refused to take up vaccine credentialing, a significant mistake. It has also shown remarkable leadership in trying to overcome vaccine hesitancy and refusal, and now must turn increasingly to mandates. Larry Gostin is University Professor and Director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown Law.
Intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, discusses the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirming its ruling that artist Andy Warhol's series on rock star Prince infringed the copyright of a photo of the star. Lawrence Gostin, director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, discusses lawsuits over vaccine mandates at colleges and universities. June Grasso hosts Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, discusses the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirming its ruling that artist Andy Warhol's series on rock star Prince infringed the copyright of a photo of the star. Lawrence Gostin, director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, discusses lawsuits over vaccine mandates at colleges and universities. June Grasso hosts Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
As students once again head back to school amid increasing Covid cases and hospilizations, can states and districts legally require eligible students and staff to receive the Covid-19 vaccine? Should they? https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/lawrence-o-gostin/ (Lawrence Gostin), the Linda D. & Timothy J. O'Neill Professor of Global Health Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, weighs in on this episode of The Report Card with https://www.aei.org/profile/nathaniel-n-malkus/ (Nat Malkus).
In September 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its first nationwide eviction moratorium. Since then, the CDC renewed the moratorium several times and most recently issued a new eviction moratorium that is substantially the same as prior versions, but its applicability depends on COVID-positivity rates in each jurisdiction. Under the CDC eviction moratorium orders, state courts are prohibited from proceeding with eviction proceedings if the renter asserts that he cannot pay his rent as a result of the pandemic. The private property owners are required to allow the non-paying renter to live rent-free, until the renter can pay at a later, unspecified date.Following the CDC's first eviction moratorium, lawsuits were filed across the country. Many of them arguing that the federal government lacked the constitutional and statutory authority to stop state court eviction proceedings. As federal courts declared the CDC eviction moratorium unconstitutional and illegal, housing advocates rallied around the eviction moratorium in an effort to keep renters housed in their rental properties. And both sides – the private property owners and renters – all sought relief that never came from Congress and state legislatures. Many questions remain. In this virtual event, top experts dove deep into the CDC eviction moratorium, the legal issues, and the relief sought by both landlords and renters.Featuring:- Lawrence Gostin, University Professor, Founding Linda D. & Timothy J. O'Neill Professor of Global Health Law, Faculty Director of O'Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law, Georgetown University; Director, World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law & Human Rights- Luke Wake, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation- [Moderator] Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
Guests: Bloomberg Health Editor, Drew Armstrong, Lawrence Gostin, Professor of Medicine at Georgetown University and Director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, Republican South Carolina Congressman Ralph Norman, Ambassador Tim Roemer, former Indiana Congressman and 9/11 Commissioner, and Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jeanne Sheehan Zaino. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Guests: Bloomberg Health Editor, Drew Armstrong, Lawrence Gostin, Professor of Medicine at Georgetown University and Director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, Republican South Carolina Congressman Ralph Norman, Ambassador Tim Roemer, former Indiana Congressman and 9/11 Commissioner, and Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jeanne Sheehan Zaino. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
On Friday, April 16, 2021, the Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter hosted a webinar featuring professors Gregg Bloche, Larry Gostin, David Hyman, and Timothy Westmoreland discussing the current state of healthcare policy in the United States.Featuring:- M. Gregg Bloche, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Health Law, Policy, and Ethics, Georgetown University- Lawrence Gostin, University Professor and Director, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University- David A. Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University- Timothy M. Westmoreland, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University- [Moderator] Patrick Lyons, Co-President, The Federalist Society's Georgetown Student ChapterVisit our website – https://RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
On Friday, April 16, 2021, the Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter hosted a webinar featuring professors Gregg Bloche, Larry Gostin, David Hyman, and Timothy Westmoreland discussing the current state of healthcare policy in the United States.Featuring: Prof. David A. Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown LawProf. Lawrence O. Gostin, Founding Linda D. & Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Global Health Law, Georgetown LawProf. M. Gregg Bloche, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Health Law, Policy, and Ethics, Georgetown LawProf. Timothy M. Westmoreland, Professor from Practice, Georgetown LawModerator: Patrick Lyons, Co-President, The Federalist Society's Georgetown Student ChapterVisit our website – https://RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
This is part 1 of a 2 part episode. In this episode Vince hosts Jani, the Health Geenie. Jani is a global health lawyer with a passion for bringing healthy living to all. Jani & Vince touch on topics like COVID, racial inequalities, birth control, tea & herbs, health habits, our perspective on what guilt & shame mean, & a lot more!Check out her work on all social media @HealthGeenie.Sponsors:Thank you to our sponsors Tiesta Tea! Try their exciting blends using the link below & remember to use code TEAMIGOS20 at checkout for 20% off your first order.TiestaTea.com
This is part 2 of a 2 part episode. In this episode Vince hosts Jani, the Health Geenie. Jani is a global health lawyer with a passion for bringing healthy living to all. Jani & Vince touch on topics like COVID, racial inequalities, birth control, tea & herbs, health habits, our perspective on what guilt & shame mean, & a lot more!Check out her work on all social media @HealthGeenie.Sponsors:Thank you to our sponsors Tiesta Tea! Try their exciting blends using the link below & remember to use code TEAMIGOS20 at checkout for 20% off your first order.TiestaTea.com
On this week's episode, Andrew Neil is joined by Jill Rutter, senior research fellow at UK in a Changing Europe and a former civil servant; Sir Christopher Meyer, former UK ambassador to the United States; environmental campaigner Stanley Johnson; Professor Lawrence Gostin, director of the WHO's Center for National and Global Health Law; and a team of Spectator journalists.We discuss the Greensill scandal, Boris's plans to rebrand Britain, and how vaccine passports are being used in the US. To watch the show, go to www.spectator.co.uk/tv.
This episode is an audio version of a video interview conducted by the Journal’s editor in chief, Dr Audiey Kao, with Professor Lawrence Gostin. Professor Gostin is the founding O’Neill Chair in Global Health Law at Georgetown University and a Professor of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. He joined us to talk about the challenges of balancing public health ethics and personal civil liberties during the COVID-19 pandemic. To watch the full video interview, head to our site, JournalOfEthics.org, or visit our YouTube channel.
President Biden has released a health care plan that proposes reducing the age of eligibility for Medicare to 60 years and introducing a public option. Larry Levitt, MPP, Executive Vice President for Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, JAMA Associate Editor Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, Co-Director of the Center for Health Economics and Policy (CHEP) at Washington University School of Medicine, and Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, from the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University discuss prospects for health care reform under the new administration. Recorded January 21, 2021. Related Article(s): Moving Patient Care Forward in the Biden Era
Every continent on the planet has now been touched by the COVID-19 virus, launching the world into an unprecedented state of lockdowns and the many negative consequences that follow from it. Orders to wear masks, socially distance, and limit large gatherings have not only brought to the table a whole layer of global and public health law, but illuminated health and racial inequalities. Press play to learn the following: What aspects of global health law are ripe for reform in light of the COVID-19 pandemic The effect of and reason behind contradictory messages from the CDC and WHO regarding the appropriate response to and science of the COVID-19 virus Are travel restrictions and lockdowns actually effective at preventing spread of the COVID-19 virus? Why lockdowns should be a last resort, and what should be changed in the coming weeks and months to mount a better, more effective response to COVID-19 Lawrence Gostin is University Professor at Georgetown University and Founding O'Neill Chair in Global Health Law. Since the beginning of the pandemic, his focus has been almost exclusively on the COVID-19 response in the US and globally. In addition to discussing the sheer unequalness illuminated by COVID-19, he talks about the hope he sees in human ingenuity and science, and the vaccines that are being administered in the US and Europe. He explains what a “global health law” is, and discusses international law in the form of international health regulations, such as the WHO treaty by which 196 states are bound, including the US. This treaty deals with matters such as how to detect, report, and response to novel infectious disease. Gostin also shares his opinion about what might lay ahead of us in the coming months, what he sees as the light at the end of the tunnel, his conviction that another pandemic will inevitably emerge, why he believes the WHO should be granted additional powers, and more. Tune in for all the details. Available on Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2Os0myK
The new Coronavirus vaccines are coming soon to people in Britain - but there's a dissenting view from America that's asking for more transparency over the trial data – we speak with Dr Lawrence Gostin, Professor of Global Health Law at Georgetown University in Washington DC, to discuss the tough line between collective health and individual freedom, as many question whether or not to take the vaccine. Plus, as the EU strikes an investment agreement with China, we look at the recent discovery of the forced labour factories inside China's internment camps in Xinjiang; we speak with Megha Rajagopalan of BuzzFeed News who used pioneering architectural and aerial expertise to find the hidden labour factories. We discuss all this with guests Jyoti Malhotra, National & Strategic Affairs Editor at The Print, in Delhi, and Ralph Silva of the Silva Research Network in Toronto. (Image: A vaccination centre in London. Photo by Justin Tallis/ AFP / Getty Images)
James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, is Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry; Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program, Co-director of the Program in Science and Global Health Law and Policy, and Chair of the Sub-program in Military Medical Ethics of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center. He is Senior Fellow of the Project on Biosecurity, Technology, and Ethics at the US Naval War College, Newport, RI; and consulting bioethicist to the US Defense Medical Ethics Center, currently addressing ethical issues in biosecurity and biomedical responses to the COVID-19 crisis. As well, he chairs the Neuroethics Subprogram of the IEEE Brain Initiative; is a Fellow of the Defense Operations Cognitive Science section, SMA Branch, Joint Staff, Pentagon; and is an appointed member of the Neuroethics, Legal and Social Issues Advisory Panel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He has previously served as Donovan Senior Fellow for Biosecurity at US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM); as Research Fellow and Task Leader of the EU-Human Brain Project Sub-Program on Dual-Use Brain Science; as an appointed member of the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP); and as senior consultant to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Working Group on Dual-Use of International Neurotechnology
Shelly Weizman is the Associate Director of the Addiction and Public Policy Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. She works on a project portfolio focused on the opioid epidemic, addiction policies, barriers to treatment for substance use disorders, public health approaches to drug policies and how law can promote access to treatment and support recovery. Before joining the Institute, Ms. Weizman worked as the Assistant Secretary for Mental Hygiene in the Office of Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. In that role, she oversaw New York State’s efforts to address the opioid epidemic as well as policy and operations related to addiction, mental health and developmental disabilities. Prior to joining the Governor’s office, Ms. Weizman served as Policy Director for Managed Care at the New York State Office of Mental Health, where she focused on developing and implementing systemic reforms within New York’s public mental health system. Shelly and James discuss her unique recovery journey that began during her teenage years while she was still in high school and how her experiences have led her to dedicating her career to driving change both through education and the public sector.
The laws and systems dealing with addiction and mental health are in need of a radical overhaul. Our guest this week has dedicated her life to the cause. Listen and learn what she doing to help change the landscape and get inspired to fight for changes in your community. Shelly Weizman is the Associate Director of the Addiction and Public Policy Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. She works on a project portfolio focused on the opioid epidemic, addiction policies, barriers to treatment for substance use disorders, public health approaches to drug policies and how law can promote access to treatment and support recovery.Before joining the Institute, Ms. Weizman worked as the Assistant Secretary for Mental Hygiene in the Office of Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. In that role, she oversaw New York State’s efforts to address the opioid epidemic as well as policy and operations related to addiction, mental health and developmental disabilities. Prior to joining the Governor’s office, Ms. Weizman served as Policy Director for Managed Care at the New York State Office of Mental Health, where she focused on developing and implementing systemic reforms within New York’s public mental health system.Previously, Ms. Weizman served as a Senior Staff Attorney at MFY Legal Services, a not-for-profit legal services organization in New York City. At MFY, she led efforts to expand and enforce the rights of people with psychiatric and physical disabilities, promote deinstitutionalization, and improve government oversight and accountability through legislative and regulatory reform, community organizing, and federal and state civil rights litigation. Ms. Weizman also provided advice and representation to hundreds of individual clients on civil legal matters including eviction prevention, access to health care and transportation, and individual civil rights matters.Ms. Weizman received her JD with a concentration in Health Law and Policy from Seton Hall University School of Law and her BA from the University of Houston.--
The international hunt for a COVID-19 vaccine is the most consequential medical challenge of the 21st century. The race is marked by both intense collaboration among scientists and fierce competition between governments – particularly between China and the US. As coronavirus cases mount and economies limp through lockdowns, nations are not just competing for a life-saving vaccine – they’re jockeying for political glory and a leg up on the rest of the world. And even after a vaccine is developed, count on clashes over adequate and ethical distributions. Professor Lawrence Gostin joins Altamar to discuss the geopolitics of the global vaccine race – and how countries can mitigate winner-take-all risks. Gostin is the Director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University and Director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. He is also a Professor of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. ----- Produced by Simpler Media
On this episode, we speak with Susan Crockin about surrogacy contracts. Susan Crockin, JD runs the Crockin Law & Policy Group and is also a Senior Scholar and Adjunct Professor at the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at the Georgetown University Law Center.
Safura Abdool Karim is a public health lawyer and senior researcher at the SAMRC Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (PRICELESS SA), Wits School of Public Health. Safura completed her LLB at the University of Cape Town and thereafter did her LLM in Global Health Law at Georgetown University. She is currently pursuing her PhD in Law at the University of KwaZulu-Natal on constitutional rights and non-communicable diseases. Prior to joining PRICELESS SA, Safura completed her articles at a major corporate firm, acted as a public defender and clerked for Justice Leona Theron at the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Safura has also worked at notable health law organisations such as the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the O'Neill Institute as well as being the first legal journalist at GroundUp. Her work at PRICELESS SA focuses on prevention and control of non-communicable diseases as well as using the law to improve health outcomes more broadly. She is also a 2020 Aspen New Voices Fellow. Tune in to hear about Safura's most challenging experiences in her journey as a legal professional. Tag us on Instagram @safsaksa @sister_in_law_ Remember to always use your voice and your resources to amplify the issues which matter. In South Africa a black woman is has an equal chance at securing employment as she does being murdered by her intimate partner. This cannot be our narrative and it is important to speak out about injustices against women. It is also important that if you are a victim of GBV that you gather the strength to see to it that your abuser is brought to book. Reach out to Sonke Gender Justice: To report an incident of sexual harassment, bullying, abuse or any other form of harassment experienced, seen or heard about, or an incident of fraud, corruption or bribery: CALL the toll-free whistleblower hotline: 0800 333 059 SMS: 33490 EMAIL: sonke@whistleblowing.co.za --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/tebello-motshwane/message
UN MORT NOIR DE PLUS, UN MORT NOIR EN TROPLe 25 mai un policier de Minneapolis a été filmé alors qu'il écrasait de son genou pendant neuf minutes le cou d'un Africain-Américain, George Floyd jusqu’à ce que mort s’ensuive. Dans son agonie, Floyd a gémi qu'il ne parvenait plus à respirer, une plainte qui rappelle les derniers mots d'Eric Garner, dont le décès, en 2014, a contribué à donner naissance au mouvement Black Lives Matter « les vies noires comptent ». La mort de Floyd est survenue seulement trois jours après l'arrestation en Géorgie de trois hommes accusés d'avoir traqué et assassiné un jeune Noir, Ahmaud Arbery, alors qu'il faisait son jogging.À Minneapolis, les manifestants ont déferlé dans les rues, et la police a réagi beaucoup plus durement que face aux contestataires anticonfinement armés jusqu'aux dents. Dans la soirée du 27 mai, les manifestations pacifiques ont dégénéré en émeutes. Le lendemain, le gouverneur démocrate du Minnesota appelait en renfort la Garde nationale. La colère provoquée par la mort de George Floyd à Minneapolis a continué de s'étendre, embrasant quelque 40 grandes villes du pays. Certaines ont dû instaurer un couvre-feu.Face à ces troubles, le président américain a menacé de déployer l'armée pour venir à bout de ce qu'il a qualifié de « terrorisme intérieur ». Il pourrait mettre en œuvre une loi de 1807, qui n’a pas été appliquée depuis 30 ans. Cette éventualité a semé le trouble dans l’institution militaire. L’ancien Secrétaire d’État à la défense, l’ex-général des marines, James Mattis, a publié, mercredi, une tribune incendiaire accusant le président de diviser le pays. « Je n’ai jamais imaginé qu’on ordonnerait à des soldats de violer les droits constitutionnels de leurs concitoyens », écrit-il dans le magazine The Atlantic. L’amiral Mullen, ex-chef d’état-major des armées, le général Allen, ancien patron de la coalition contre Daech et l’actuel chef d’état-major se sont prononcé contre le président. Mark Esper, l’actuel Secrétaire à la défense, a, lui aussi, pris ses distances avec la menace de la militarisation brandie par le président américain. Selon le New York Times, 40% des effectifs de l’armée américaine sont des « personnes de couleur ». Barak Obama a estimé que les noirs ont joué un rôle prépondérant pour « réveiller » le pays. ***DONALD TRUMP CONTRE L’OMS Le président Trump a annoncé le 29 mai « mettre fin à la relation » entre son pays et l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (l'OMS. Il accuse l'organisation onusienne de se montrer depuis le début de la pandémie trop indulgente avec la Chine, où le coronavirus est apparu en décembre avant de se répandre sur la planète. La décision était redoutée mais attendue : après avoir gelé son financement en avril, puis l'avoir sommée, mi-mai, de se réformer en profondeur dans les 30 jours, Donald Trump a finalement privé l’OMS d'une part essentielle de son maigre budget et menacé ainsi des programmes de santé dans les pays les plus pauvres.Née en 1948, l'OMS est une énorme machine de 7.000 employés présente dans le monde entier. Ses missions sont tributaires des crédits accordés par ses États membres et les dons de bienfaiteurs privés. Dotée de 2,8 milliards de dollars par an (5,6 milliards sur l'exercice biennal 2018-2019), l'OMS a « le budget d'un hôpital de taille moyenne dans un pays développé », a déploré son directeur général, l'Éthiopien Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Avec 893 millions de dollars apportés sur la période 2018-2019, (15 % du budget), les États-Unis en sont le premier bailleur de fonds, devant la fondation Bill et Melinda Gates, premier contributeur privé, l'Alliance du vaccin Gavi, le Royaume-Uni et l'Allemagne, et loin devant la Chine et ses 86 millions.La contribution américaine va essentiellement en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient. Environ un tiers de ces contributions co-finance les opérations de lutte contre les urgences sanitaires, le reste étant d'abord consacré aux programmes d'éradication de la poliomyélite, à l'amélioration de l'accès aux services de santé et à la prévention et la lutte contre les épidémies. L'annonce américaine a stupéfié la communauté scientifique. Richard Horton, rédacteur en chef de la revue médicale britannique The Lancet, l'a qualifiée de « folle et terrifiante », estimant que « le gouvernement américain joue au voyou en pleine urgence humanitaire ».Une question demeure sans réponse pour le moment : quand et comment les Etats-Unis couperont-ils concrètement les vivres à l’OMS ? Dans un tweet publié le 29 mai, Lawrence Gostin, professeur au O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law à l'université de Georgetown et collaborateur de l'OMS, a jugé la décision du président américain « illégale » à deux titres : les Etats-Unis ont signé et ratifié un traité d'adhésion à l'OMS et les crédits sont votés par le Congrès américain.
The World Health Organization warned this week that the coronavirus "may never go away," even after there is a vaccine. We analyze this and other news with Lawrence Gostin, professor of law at Georgetown University and director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. And, most Americans eat far more salt that they should and it's in all kinds of food products. But how much is too much? Dr. Dariush Mozzafarian, a cardiologist at Tufts, joins us to discuss how people can reduce their sodium intake.
Professor of Law, and Associate Dean for Faculty Research, Development and New Programs, Christina Ho discusses global health law in the context of COVID-19 with Co-Dean David Lopez. Learn more about Professor Ho. The Power of Attorney is produced by Rutgers Law School. With two locations minutes from Philadelphia and New York City, Rutgers Law offers the prestige and reputation of a large, nationally-known university combined with a personal, small campus experience. Learn more by visiting law.rutgers.edu. Series Producer and Editor: Kate Bianco Series Creator: Emily Brennan --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rutgerslaw/message
International cooperation and multilateral approaches are being strained by rising populism and nationalism. The unabated march of the novel coronavirus (COVID19) across the globe threatens to further entrench unilateral approaches and nationalistic attitudes at a time when a global response is needed to combat this pandemic. Yet, we see travel bans being introduced, countries closing their boarders, schools and offices closing their doors, and shortages of medical and household supplies on the rise. COVID19 is the most recent example of how seemingly unpolitical and unideological issues can be politicized, becoming a potentially decisive matter such as this year’s US presidential elections. In this episode, Joel Sandhu from the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) talks with Mara Pillinger about what makes COVID19 so different from other epidemics and pandemics. Mara explains the difference between an epidemic and pandemic; whether travel bans could work to tackle COVID19; whether she thinks the US is doing enough to prepare itself for the pandemic; and now that its 2020, what impact is this pandemic going to have on the upcoming US elections. Mara is an Associate at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown Law School in Washington, DC where she is part of the Global Health Policy and Governance Initiative. Her research focuses on the political, organizational and power dynamics at work behind the scenes of the World Health Organization and major multisectoral global health partnerships.
Wuhan City, China has been a focus for infectious disease and public health experts over the past month due to a pneumonia outbreak where the etiology is not quite clear. News keeps trickling in on this outbreak, but there is still a lot unknown. Hoping to shed some light on this outbreak today is Daniel Lucey, MD, MPH. Dr Lucey is a Senior Scholar with the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. He is also an adjunct Professor of Medicine-Infectious Diseases at Georgetown University Medical Center.
In 2016, the World Health Organization announced that a single full dose of yellow fever vaccine would provide lifelong protection from the virus. However, due to global shortages and complicated production requirements, there has not been sufficient supply to meet the demands of recent outbreaks. Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2016 and now Brazil in 2018 have turned to using fractional doses, or about 1/5 of a full dose, as a stopgap measure—these diluted doses are only known to offer one year of protection against the virus. In this episode of Take as Directed, Daniel Lucey, a senior scholar with the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, joins us to discuss the threat of yellow fever, our lack of preparedness, and the potential for a significant outbreak in Asia. Hosted by Steve Morrison. Produced by Alex Bush. Edited by Ribka Gemilangsari.
John Robinson, EdD, MPH, ABPP, ABCHP, is a retired licensed clinical psychologist and Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Surgery at Howard University College of Medicine. Dr. Robinson is a pioneer and one of the proverbial “grandparents” of the field of transplant psychology and clinical health psychology in the U.S. He was the first African-American psychologist in the U.S. Air Force and the U.S Navy, and was one of the first transplant psychologists in the U.S. Dr. Robinson has written widely on health psychology topics, with reference to diversity in the provision of services and career advancement. APA has recognized Dr. Robinson with the Stanley Sue Award for Distinguished Contributions to Diversity, and the Association of Psychologists in Academic Health Centers awarded him the Joseph Matarazzo Award for distinguished service and contributions to clinical health psychology, their highest honor bestowed to him from a very competitive field of nominees. He was also awarded the Nate Perry Award from the Society of Health Psychology (APA Division 38). Dr. Robinson is board-certified in both clinical and clinical health psychology by the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP), but in addition has served as president of both boards. Dr. Robinson received his bachelor’s degree in human physiology and biochemistry and a master’s degree in counseling psychology from the University of Texas at Austin. He received his doctorate in counseling psychology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He completed his masters of public health at Harvard University. Hrant Jamgochian, JD, LL.M., is the chief executive officer of Dialysis Patient Citizens. Formerly the Director of Health Policy for the United Way Worldwide, Jamgochian has extensive expertise in formulating and advancing effective health care policies at the national and state levels. Hrant previously served as Director of Congressional and State Relations for the American Pharmacists Association and as Director of Field and State Operations for the American Psychological Association, where he spearheaded a number of successful national advocacy initiatives and grassroots campaigns. He also previously worked at the Armenian Assembly of America, where he led the organization's membership, grassroots and public relations activities. Jamgochian received his Juris Doctor (JD) degree from Catholic University Columbus School of Law as well as his Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Global Health Law from the Georgetown University Law Center. He looks forward to applying his extensive public policy experience to help elevate the voices of dialysis patients with policy makers. Nancy Scott, is from Newark, Delaware, and is a registered nurse and an ordained minister. Scott was an in-center hemodialysis patient since her kidney disease diagnosis in 2004 until she received a kidney transplant in the Spring 2012. She has been involved with Dialysis Patient Citizens as a Patient Ambassador, Secretary of the Board of Directors, Vice President of the Board, and currently serves as the President of the Board of Directors for DPC Education Center. Beyond her DPC involvement, Scott serves as a patient representative of the Advisory Board at ESRD Network 4 and is a chairperson at Henrietta Johnson Medical Center for the Clinical Evaluation Committee. Scott established a support group to encourage better communication between clinic staff and patients, and has traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with lawmakers. Before joining the Board in 2007, Scott was honored to receive the DPC Hero Award.
Neural Implant podcast - the people behind Brain-Machine Interface revolutions
James Giordano PhD, MPhil., is Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry, Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, and Co-director of the O’Neill-Pellegrino Program in Brain Science and Global Health Law and Policy at the Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington DC. As well, he is Distinguished Visiting Professor of Brain Science, Health Promotions and Ethics at the Coburg University of Applied Sciences, Coburg, Germany, and was formerly Fulbright Visiting Professor of Neuroscience and Neuroethics at the Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. He currently serves as a member of the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary’s Advisory Council for Human Research Protection; and has served as an appointed member of the Neuroethics, Legal and Social Issues Advisory Panel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and as Senior Science Advisory Fellow of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment Group of the Joint Staff, Pentagon.
Speaker: Dr Mark Dybul, Executive Director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Dr Dybul has worked on HIV and public health for more than 25 years as a clinician, scientist, teacher and administrator. After graduating from Georgetown Medical School in Washington DC, Dybul joined the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, where he conducted basic and clinical studies on HIV virology, immunology and treatment optimisation, including the first randomised, controlled trial with combination antiretroviral therapy in Africa. Dybul became a founding architect and driving force in the formation of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, better known as PEPFAR. After serving as Chief Medical Officer, Assistant, Deputy and Acting Director, he was appointed as its leader in 2006, becoming U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, with the rank of Ambassador at the level of an Assistant Secretary of State. He served until early 2009. Before coming to the Global Fund, Dybul was co-director of the Global Health Law Program at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, where he was also a Distinguished Scholar. Dybul has written extensively in scientific and policy literature, and has received several Honorary Degrees and awards. The Harold Mitchell Development Policy Annual Lecture Series, of which this is the fourth, has been created to provide a forum at which the most pressing development issues can be addressed by the best minds and most influential practitioners of our time. This lecture was presented by the Development Policy Centre at Crawford School of Public Policy, with generous support from the Harold Mitchell Foundation.
Watch Video | Listen to the AudioRELATED LINKSCuba pledges 165 healthcare workers to combat Ebola outbreak U.S. offers support to fragile, West African health systems to combat Ebola Why Ebola is proving so hard to contain JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s dive deeper now into the president’s plan to ramp up the response to the Ebola outbreak and to try preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. It comes amid prior criticism of the administration, along with the WHO and of other countries, for not doing more and for not getting it done faster. We turn back to two who have been closely watching this and speaking with government officials in recent days. Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations, she has written widely about Ebola, including the books “Betrayal of Trust” and “The Coming Plague,”and Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University. He’s the director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. And we welcome you — welcome both of you back to the program. Laurie Garrett, to you first. What is your assessment of the president’s plan that he outlined today? LAURIE GARRETT, Council on Foreign Relations: Well, it’s a bold step forward. I’m delighted it’s actually taking place. But I think everything depends on the haste with which we can mobilize. And I am afraid a lot of people don’t understand that committing troops and saying you’re going to build a hospital are all very good steeps, but it takes weeks to execute these things. And, in the meantime, the epidemic is doubling every 10 to 20 days. We don’t have a lot of time. We’re racing against a clock. JUDY WOODRUFF: Lawrence Gostin, do you have the same concerns? What’s your assessment? LAWRENCE GOSTIN, Georgetown Law: I think Laurie is right about timing. First of all, I am very proud of my country. I mean, we have stepped forward when no one else would or could. But there are major unanswered questions. It’s not just timing, but also command-and-control. There’s chaos on the ground. It’s uncoordinated. I was very pleased to see the president say that we have a command post, but how are we going to command Chinese or Cuban workers? I do think we need a U.N. Security Council resolution to actually have the kind of international legitimacy that we need. JUDY WOODRUFF: So going beyond what the U.S… LAWRENCE GOSTIN: Yes, the U.S. can’t do it alone. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me just go further here with what the U.S. is doing. You said you’re proud of your country. What specifically do you think is going to make the most difference here? LAWRENCE GOSTIN: Well, I think the most difference will be training health workers, although — and building health facilities in the community, contact tracing. All of those things are very important. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meaning going back and finding out where… LAWRENCE GOSTIN: Meaning going back, finding out who has been in contact with whom, and quickly isolating them in safe conditions. One of the big problems, though, is, is that even once we have built these treatment facilities, it’s going to be handed over eventually to the Ministry of Health in Liberia. And they just don’t have the health workers. The doctors and the nurses have been decimated. And so we really do have a huge infrastructure task. JUDY WOODRUFF: Laurie Garrett, you laid out your concerns, but of what has been announced, how do you see this unfolding and making any difference? LAURIE GARRETT: Well, first of all, we don’t have any commercial flights landing in the area now. And so just getting doctors on the ground, getting medical supplies, keeping stocks in place of such simple things as latex gloves to protect you from infection have all proven daunting, in the absence of real solidarity from neighboring countries and the willingness to have planes land and commercial flights. So one huge role for the U.S. military is going to be helping Ghana, which has very kindly and generously agreed to be the air bridge for all supplies and human movement into the area, to extend their runway, build their airport up, have logistic and supply operations in place, and then to have smaller flights go from Ghana into specific targeted areas carrying supplies with them as needed. But Larry points out a crucial problem with all of this. We don’t have a central command, which means we don’t even have a centralized list of what’s needed. Who needs latex gloves where? Is the situation more dire in this county in Sierra Leone or in this county in Liberia? Where do we need to deploy people first? We don’t have that kind of operation in place. And our U.S. military is not going to play that role. We will have a central command, but it will be commanding U.S. military personnel, not people from other countries and certainly not the Liberians themselves. And we also see that the response is not a regional one. We are, unfortunately, dividing our response according to kind of old colonial ties. So the French are focusing on Guinea, which used to be a French colony. The United Kingdom is focused on Sierra Leone, which is settled by the descendants of British slaves who came from the Caribbean, and we’re focused on Liberia, which is settled by former American slaves. And so there’s this sort of distasteful neocolonial feel to things, and it means that the responses are not unified. They are very divided by country. So you have heard of 165 Cuban responders and 59 Chinese. They’re all going to Sierra Leone, where they will be under we don’t know what kind of command, loosely coordinated by the Sierra Leone government. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Lawrence Gostin, this is sounding like a very complicated effort, which we already knew, but it sounds even more complicated listening to the two of you. What about the timing of this? How long is it going to take to begin to make a difference, to begin to get to the people who need treatment and are not receiving it? LAWRENCE GOSTIN: Well, first of all, we are very late to the game. The fire has nearly burned the house down, and we have arrived. The cavalry has arrived. It will take a long time, I think, to build the kind of facilities that we want. I mean, the whole idea, for example, that we’re sending 500,000 home kits suggests that we can’t get people into hospitals quick enough to treat them and isolate them, and people who… JUDY WOODRUFF: These are self-testing kits? LAWRENCE GOSTIN: These are self-testing kits or self-protecting kits. I’m not sure the community will know what to do with them when they get them. And so this is a — this is a makeshift response to a huge humanitarian crisis. I don’t think it had to come to this, but now that we’re there, I’m really glad the see the United States military involved. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Laurie Garrett, should we be pleased that this is happening or more worried because it’s not the holistic response that I heard you describing that’s necessary? “…if we can’t get a response on the ground immediately, effectively, across the region … then we’re talking about something equivalent to the Black Death’s impact on Tuscany and Florence in 1346. “ LAURIE GARRETT: Look, I’m delighted, like Larry, to see my country step up to the plate and play a role. And I’m hoping that we can save lots and lots and lots of lives and bring this epidemic under control. But I agree completely we’re late to the game. And if you just do the math, based on the statement made today by WHO, a doubling time every 10 to 21 days, and you take the number of actually identified and suspected cases existing now and do your math, you can see that if we can’t get a response on the ground immediately, effectively, across the region, we will be looking at a quarter of a million cases by Thanksgiving, and 400,000 by Christmas if this is not abated and brought under control. And then we’re talking about something equivalent to the Black Death’s impact on Tuscany and Florence in 1346. JUDY WOODRUFF: Sobering, sobering any which way you look at it. We appreciate both of you joining us. Laurie Garrett, Lawrence Gostin, thank you. LAWRENCE GOSTIN: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: And one country in West Africa that has had relative success in controlling this virus so far is Nigeria. While this nation has had 21 confirmed and suspected cases of the Ebola virus, including seven deaths, it has not had an explosive surge and spread since its first victim was reported in late July. Our special correspondent, Fred de Sam Lazaro, is on assignment in Lagos, and he checked in with us earlier today. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country. It has the largest economy on the continent and its commercial capital, Lagos, has 20 million inhabitants, all of which have raised concerns that an Ebola outbreak would be catastrophic. But that hasn’t happened, in part due to an early break, and in large part due the a good public health response, experts say. The virus was first brought to Nigeria by a Liberian traveler who fell ill at the airport, and, in a peculiar twist of fate, medical doctors were on strike when he was taken in for health care. That exposed far fewer health workers to the virus, and health care workers have been especially hard-hit during this epidemic. They have contracted the virus and they have passed it on to their patients. Despite its reputation for chaos and dysfunction, Nigeria has launched a very sophisticated response to Ebola. Everyone entering the country, including this reporter when we arrived yesterday at the airport, is screened for any symptoms. Those with an elevated fever, for example, are taken in for secondary screening to make sure it’s not related to Ebola. There’s a call center where people can report suspected cases, and a concerted public awareness campaign that has kept fear from turning into panic. And a sophisticated surveillance system has enabled this country to trace and keep track of all cases and people with whom they came into contact. All of these cases have been directly traced to that original index case, the Liberian traveler. This is reassuring, but at a time when there’s so much travel and when the virus is running amuck in other parts of West Africa, Nigeria is nowhere near being able to declare victory. A lot of fingers are still crossed tightly here. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we will have more of Fred’s reporting from Nigeria in the coming days. The post As epidemic escalates, can U.S. aid for Ebola be deployed quickly enough? appeared first on PBS NewsHour.
Watch Video | Listen to the AudioRELATED LINKSCuba pledges 165 healthcare workers to combat Ebola outbreak U.S. offers support to fragile, West African health systems to combat Ebola Why Ebola is proving so hard to contain JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s dive deeper now into the president’s plan to ramp up the response to the Ebola outbreak and to try preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. It comes amid prior criticism of the administration, along with the WHO and of other countries, for not doing more and for not getting it done faster. We turn back to two who have been closely watching this and speaking with government officials in recent days. Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations, she has written widely about Ebola, including the books “Betrayal of Trust” and “The Coming Plague,”and Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University. He’s the director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. And we welcome you — welcome both of you back to the program. Laurie Garrett, to you first. What is your assessment of the president’s plan that he outlined today? LAURIE GARRETT, Council on Foreign Relations: Well, it’s a bold step forward. I’m delighted it’s actually taking place. But I think everything depends on the haste with which we can mobilize. And I am afraid a lot of people don’t understand that committing troops and saying you’re going to build a hospital are all very good steeps, but it takes weeks to execute these things. And, in the meantime, the epidemic is doubling every 10 to 20 days. We don’t have a lot of time. We’re racing against a clock. JUDY WOODRUFF: Lawrence Gostin, do you have the same concerns? What’s your assessment? LAWRENCE GOSTIN, Georgetown Law: I think Laurie is right about timing. First of all, I am very proud of my country. I mean, we have stepped forward when no one else would or could. But there are major unanswered questions. It’s not just timing, but also command-and-control. There’s chaos on the ground. It’s uncoordinated. I was very pleased to see the president say that we have a command post, but how are we going to command Chinese or Cuban workers? I do think we need a U.N. Security Council resolution to actually have the kind of international legitimacy that we need. JUDY WOODRUFF: So going beyond what the U.S… LAWRENCE GOSTIN: Yes, the U.S. can’t do it alone. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me just go further here with what the U.S. is doing. You said you’re proud of your country. What specifically do you think is going to make the most difference here? LAWRENCE GOSTIN: Well, I think the most difference will be training health workers, although — and building health facilities in the community, contact tracing. All of those things are very important. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meaning going back and finding out where… LAWRENCE GOSTIN: Meaning going back, finding out who has been in contact with whom, and quickly isolating them in safe conditions. One of the big problems, though, is, is that even once we have built these treatment facilities, it’s going to be handed over eventually to the Ministry of Health in Liberia. And they just don’t have the health workers. The doctors and the nurses have been decimated. And so we really do have a huge infrastructure task. JUDY WOODRUFF: Laurie Garrett, you laid out your concerns, but of what has been announced, how do you see this unfolding and making any difference? LAURIE GARRETT: Well, first of all, we don’t have any commercial flights landing in the area now. And so just getting doctors on the ground, getting medical supplies, keeping stocks in place of such simple things as latex gloves to protect you from infection have all proven daunting, in the absence of real solidarity from neighboring countries and the willingness to have planes land and commercial flights. So one huge role for the U.S. military is going to be helping Ghana, which has very kindly and generously agreed to be the air bridge for all supplies and human movement into the area, to extend their runway, build their airport up, have logistic and supply operations in place, and then to have smaller flights go from Ghana into specific targeted areas carrying supplies with them as needed. But Larry points out a crucial problem with all of this. We don’t have a central command, which means we don’t even have a centralized list of what’s needed. Who needs latex gloves where? Is the situation more dire in this county in Sierra Leone or in this county in Liberia? Where do we need to deploy people first? We don’t have that kind of operation in place. And our U.S. military is not going to play that role. We will have a central command, but it will be commanding U.S. military personnel, not people from other countries and certainly not the Liberians themselves. And we also see that the response is not a regional one. We are, unfortunately, dividing our response according to kind of old colonial ties. So the French are focusing on Guinea, which used to be a French colony. The United Kingdom is focused on Sierra Leone, which is settled by the descendants of British slaves who came from the Caribbean, and we’re focused on Liberia, which is settled by former American slaves. And so there’s this sort of distasteful neocolonial feel to things, and it means that the responses are not unified. They are very divided by country. So you have heard of 165 Cuban responders and 59 Chinese. They’re all going to Sierra Leone, where they will be under we don’t know what kind of command, loosely coordinated by the Sierra Leone government. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Lawrence Gostin, this is sounding like a very complicated effort, which we already knew, but it sounds even more complicated listening to the two of you. What about the timing of this? How long is it going to take to begin to make a difference, to begin to get to the people who need treatment and are not receiving it? LAWRENCE GOSTIN: Well, first of all, we are very late to the game. The fire has nearly burned the house down, and we have arrived. The cavalry has arrived. It will take a long time, I think, to build the kind of facilities that we want. I mean, the whole idea, for example, that we’re sending 500,000 home kits suggests that we can’t get people into hospitals quick enough to treat them and isolate them, and people who… JUDY WOODRUFF: These are self-testing kits? LAWRENCE GOSTIN: These are self-testing kits or self-protecting kits. I’m not sure the community will know what to do with them when they get them. And so this is a — this is a makeshift response to a huge humanitarian crisis. I don’t think it had to come to this, but now that we’re there, I’m really glad the see the United States military involved. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Laurie Garrett, should we be pleased that this is happening or more worried because it’s not the holistic response that I heard you describing that’s necessary? “…if we can’t get a response on the ground immediately, effectively, across the region … then we’re talking about something equivalent to the Black Death’s impact on Tuscany and Florence in 1346. “ LAURIE GARRETT: Look, I’m delighted, like Larry, to see my country step up to the plate and play a role. And I’m hoping that we can save lots and lots and lots of lives and bring this epidemic under control. But I agree completely we’re late to the game. And if you just do the math, based on the statement made today by WHO, a doubling time every 10 to 21 days, and you take the number of actually identified and suspected cases existing now and do your math, you can see that if we can’t get a response on the ground immediately, effectively, across the region, we will be looking at a quarter of a million cases by Thanksgiving, and 400,000 by Christmas if this is not abated and brought under control. And then we’re talking about something equivalent to the Black Death’s impact on Tuscany and Florence in 1346. JUDY WOODRUFF: Sobering, sobering any which way you look at it. We appreciate both of you joining us. Laurie Garrett, Lawrence Gostin, thank you. LAWRENCE GOSTIN: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: And one country in West Africa that has had relative success in controlling this virus so far is Nigeria. While this nation has had 21 confirmed and suspected cases of the Ebola virus, including seven deaths, it has not had an explosive surge and spread since its first victim was reported in late July. Our special correspondent, Fred de Sam Lazaro, is on assignment in Lagos, and he checked in with us earlier today. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country. It has the largest economy on the continent and its commercial capital, Lagos, has 20 million inhabitants, all of which have raised concerns that an Ebola outbreak would be catastrophic. But that hasn’t happened, in part due to an early break, and in large part due the a good public health response, experts say. The virus was first brought to Nigeria by a Liberian traveler who fell ill at the airport, and, in a peculiar twist of fate, medical doctors were on strike when he was taken in for health care. That exposed far fewer health workers to the virus, and health care workers have been especially hard-hit during this epidemic. They have contracted the virus and they have passed it on to their patients. Despite its reputation for chaos and dysfunction, Nigeria has launched a very sophisticated response to Ebola. Everyone entering the country, including this reporter when we arrived yesterday at the airport, is screened for any symptoms. Those with an elevated fever, for example, are taken in for secondary screening to make sure it’s not related to Ebola. There’s a call center where people can report suspected cases, and a concerted public awareness campaign that has kept fear from turning into panic. And a sophisticated surveillance system has enabled this country to trace and keep track of all cases and people with whom they came into contact. All of these cases have been directly traced to that original index case, the Liberian traveler. This is reassuring, but at a time when there’s so much travel and when the virus is running amuck in other parts of West Africa, Nigeria is nowhere near being able to declare victory. A lot of fingers are still crossed tightly here. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we will have more of Fred’s reporting from Nigeria in the coming days. The post As epidemic escalates, can U.S. aid for Ebola be deployed quickly enough? appeared first on PBS NewsHour.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
