Podcasts about global health science

In this episode of the Leading Voices in Food podcast, Norbert Wilson of Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy speaks with researchers Jean Adams from the University of Cambridge and Mike Essman from Duke's World Food Policy Center. They discuss the mandatory calorie labeling policy introduced in England in April 2022 for large food-away-from-home outlets. The conversation covers the study recently published in the British Medical Journal, exploring its results, strengths, limitations, and implications within the broader context of food labeling and public health policies. Key findings include a slight overall reduction in calorie content offered by food outlets, driven by the removal of higher-calorie items rather than reformulation. The discussion also touches on the potential impacts on different consumer groups, the challenges of policy enforcement, and how such policies could be improved to more effectively support public health goals. Interview Summary Now everyone knows eating out is just part of life. For many, it's a place to make connections, can be a guilty pleasure, and sometimes it's just an outright necessity for busy folks. But it is also linked to poor dietary quality, weight gain, and even obesity. For policymakers, the challenge is identifying what policy changes can help improve population health. Jean, let's begin with you. Can you tell our listeners about the UK's menu labeling intervention and what change did you hope to see? Jean - Yes, so this was a policy that was actually a really long time in coming and came in and out of favor with a number of different governments. So maybe over the last 10 years we've had various different suggestions to have voluntary and/or mandatory calorie labeling in the out-of-home sector. Eventually in April, 2022, we did have new mandatory regulations that came into a force that required large businesses just in England - so not across the whole of the UK, just in England - if they sold food and non-alcoholic drinks and they had to display the calories per portion of every item that they were selling. And then have alongside that somewhere on their menu, a statement that said that adults need around 2000 calories per day. The policy applied just to large businesses, and the definition of that was that those businesses have 250 or more employees, but the employees didn't all have to be involved in serving food and drinks. This might apply also to a large hotel chain who just have some bars or something in their hotels. And the food and drinks covered were things that were available for immediate consumption. Not prepackaged. And then there was also this proviso to allow high-end restaurants to be changing their menus regularly. So, it was only for things that were on the menu for at least 30 days. You mentioned that this policy or a menu labeling might have at least two potential modes of impacts. There's first this idea that providing calories or any sort of labeling on food can somehow provide information for consumers to make what we might hope would be better choices. Might help them choose lower calorie options or healthier options. And then the second potential impact is that businesses might also use the information to change what sort of foods they're serving. It might be that they didn't realize how many calories were in the foods and they're suddenly embarrassed about it. Or as soon as their customers realize, they start to put a little bit of pressure on, you know, we want something a little bit lower calorie. So, there's this potential mechanism that operates at the demand side of how consumers might make choices. And another one at the supply side of what might be available to consumers. And we knew from previous evaluations of these sorts of interventions that there was some evidence that both could occur. Generally, it seems to be that findings from other places and countries are maybe null to small. So, we were thinking that maybe we might see something similar in England. Thank you for sharing that background. I do have a question about the length of time it took to get this menu labeling law in place. Before we get into the results, do you have a sense of why did it take so long? Was it industry pushback? Was it just change of governments? Do you have a sense of that? Jean - Yes, so I think it's probably a bit of both. To begin with, it was first proposed as a voluntary measure actually by industry. So, we had this kind of big public-private partnership. What can industry do to support health? And that was one of the things they proposed. And then they didn't really do it very well. So, there was this idea that everybody would do it. And in fact, we found maybe only about 20% of outlets did it. And then definitely we have had government churn in the UK over the last five years or so. So, every new prime minister really came in and wanted to have their own obesity policy threw out the last one started over. And every policy needs consulted on with the public and then with industry. And that whole process just kind of got derailed over and over again. Thank you. That is really helpful to understand that development of the policy and why it took time. Industry regulated policy can be a tricky one to actually see the results that we would hope. You've already given us a sort of insight into what you thought the results may be from previous studies - null to relatively small. So, Mike, I want to turn to you. Can you tell us what came out of the data? Mike - Thank you, yes. So, we found a small overall drop in average calories offered per item. That amounts to a total of nine calories per item reduction in our post policy period relative to pre policy. And this is about a 2% reduction. It was statistically significant and we do in public health talk about how small effects can still have big impacts. So, I do want to sort of put that out there, but also recognize that it was a small overall drop in calories. And then what we did is we looked at how different food groups changed, and also how calories changed at different types of restaurants, whether it was fast food, restaurants, sit downs that we call pubs, bars, and inns. And then also other different types of takeaways like cafes and things like that where you might get a coffee or a cappuccino or something like that. What we found was driving the overall reduction in calories was a reduction in higher calorie items. So, as Jean mentioned at the outset, one of the things we were trying to identify in this analysis was whether we saw any evidence of reformulation. And we defined reformulation as whether specific products were reduced in their calories so that the same products were lower calories in the post period. We define that as reformulation. And that would be different from, say, a change in menu offering where you might identify a high calorie item and take it off the menu so that then the overall calories offered goes down on average. We found more evidence for the latter. Higher calorie items were removed. We separated into categories of removed items, items that were present in both periods, and new items added in the post period. There were higher calorie items in the removed group. The items that were present in both periods did not change. The new items were lower calorie items. What this says overall is this average reduction is driven by taking off high calorie items, adding some slightly lower calorie items. But we did not find evidence for reformulation, which is a crucial finding as well. We saw that the largest reductions occurred in burgers, beverages and a rather large mixed group called Mains. So, burgers reduced by 103 calories per item. That's pretty substantial. One of the reasons that's so large is that burgers, particularly if they're offered at a pub and might even come with fries or chips, as they say in the UK. And because they have such a high baseline calorie level, there's more opportunity to reduce. So, whether it's making it slightly smaller patty or reducing the cheese or something like that, that's where we saw larger reductions among the burgers. With beverages, typically, this involved the addition of lower calorie options, which is important if it gives an opportunity for lower calorie selections. And that was the main driver of reduction there. And then also we saw in Mains a reduction of 30 calories per item. A couple of the other things we wanted to identify is whether there was a change in the number of items that were considered over England's recommended calories per meal. The recommended calories per meal is 600 calories or less for lunch and dinner. And we saw no statistical change in that group. So overall, we do see a slight reduction in average calories. But this study did not examine changes in consumer behavior. I do want to just briefly touch on that because this was part of a larger evaluation. Another study that was published using customer surveys that was published in Nature Human Behavior found no change in the average calories purchased or consumed after the policy. This evaluation was looking at both the supply and the demand side changes as a result of this policy. Thanks, Mike and I've got lots of questions to follow up, but I'll try to control myself. The first one I'm interested to understand is you talk about the importance of the really calorie-heavy items being removed and the introduction of newer, lower calorie items. And you said that this is not a study of the demand, but I'm interested to know, do you have a sense that the higher calorie items may not have been high or top sellers. It could be easy for a restaurant to get rid of those. Do you have any sense of, you know, the types of items that were removed and of the consumer demand for those items? Mike - Yes. So, as I mentioned, given that the largest changes were occurring among burgers, we're sort of doing this triangulation attempt to examine all of the different potential impacts we can with the study tools we have. We did not see those changes reflected in consumer purchases. So, I think sticking with the evidence, the best thing we could say is that the most frequently purchased items were not the ones that were being pulled off of menus. I think that would be the closest to the evidence. Now, no study is perfect and we did in that customer survey examine the purchases and consumption of about 3000 individuals before and after the policy. It's relatively large, but certainly not fully comprehensive. But based on what we were able to find, it would seem that those reductions in large calorie items, it's probably fair to say, were sort of marginal choices. So, we see some reduction in calories at the margins. That's why the overall is down, but we don't see at the most commonly sold. I should also mention in response to that, a lot of times when we think about eating out of home, we often think about fast food. We did not see reductions in fast food chains at all, essentially. And so really the largest reductions we found were in what would be considered more sit-down dining establishment. For example, sit-down restaurants or even pubs, bars and ends was one of our other categories. We did see average reductions in those chains. The areas you kind of think about for people grabbing food quickly on the go, we did not see reductions there. And we think some of this is a function of the data itself, which is pubs, bars and inns, because they offer larger plates, there's a little bit more space for them to reduce. And so those are where we saw the reductions. But in what we might typically think is sort of the grab and go type of food, we did not see reductions in those items. And so when we did our customer surveys, we saw that those did not lead to reductions in calories consumed. Ahh, I see this and thank you for this. It sounds like the portfolio adjusted: getting rid of those heavy calorie items, adding more of the lower calorie items that may not have actually changed what consumers actually eat. Because the ones that they typically eat didn't change at all. And I would imagine from what you've said that large global brands may not have made many changes, but more local brands have more flexibility is my assumption of that. So that, that's really helpful to see. As you all looked at the literature, you had the knowledge that previous studies have found relatively small changes. Could you tell us about what this work looks like globally? There are other countries that have tried policy similar to this. What did you learn from those other countries about menu labeling? Jean - Well, I mean, I'm tempted to say that we maybe should have learned that this wasn't the sort of policy that we could expect to make a big change. To me one of the really attractive features of a labeling policy is it kind of reflects back those two mechanisms we've talked about - information and reformulation or changing menus. Because we can talk about it in those two different ways of changing the environment and also helping consumers make better choices, then it can be very attractive across the political landscape. And I suspect that that is one of the things that the UK or England learned. And that's reflected in the fact that it took a little while to get it over the line, but that lots of different governments came back to it. That it's attractive to people thinking about food and thinking about how we can support people to eat better in kind of a range of different ways. I think what we learned, like putting the literature all together, is this sort of policy might have some small effects. It's not going to be the thing that kind of changes the dial on diet related diseases. But that it might well be part of an integrated strategy of many different tools together. I think we can also learn from the literature on labeling in the grocery sector where there's been much more exploration of different types of labeling. Whether colors work, whether black stop signs are more effective. And that leads us to conclusions that these more interpretive labels can lead to bigger impacts and consumer choices than just a number, right? A number is quite difficult to make some sense of. And I think that there are some ways that we could think about optimizing the policy in England before kind of writing it off as not effective. Thank you. I think what you're saying is it worked, but it works maybe in the context of other policies, is that a fair assessment? Jean - Well, I mean, the summary of our findings, Mike's touched on quite a lot of it. We found that there was an increase in outlets adhering to the policy. That went from about 20% offered any labeling to about 80%. So, there were still some places that were not doing what they were expected to do. But there was big changes in actual labeling practice. People also told us that they noticed the labels more and they said that they used them much more than they were previously. Like there was some labeling before. We had some big increases in noticing and using. But it's... we found this no change in calories purchased or calories consumed. Which leads to kind of interesting questions. Okay, so what were they doing with it when they were using it? And maybe some people were using it to help them make lower calorie choices, but other people were trying to optimize calories for money spent? We saw these very small changes in the mean calorie of items available that Mike's described in lots of detail. And then we also did some work kind of exploring with restaurants, people who worked in the restaurant chains and also people responsible for enforcement, kind of exploring their experiences with the policy. And one of the big conclusions from that was that local government were tasked with enforcement, but they weren't provided with any additional resources to make that happen. And for various reasons, it essentially didn't happen. And we've seen that with a number of different policies in the food space in the UK. That there's this kind of presumption of compliance. Most people are doing it all right. We're not doing it a hundred percent and that's probably because it's not being checked and there's no sanction for not following the letter of the law. One of the reasons that local authorities are not doing enforcement, apart from that they don't have resources or additional resources for it, is that they have lots of other things to do in the food space, and they see those things as like higher risk. And so more important to do. One of those things is inspecting for hygiene, making sure that the going out is not poisonous or adulterated or anything like that. And you can absolutely understand that. These things that might cause acute sickness, or even death in the case of allergies, are much more important for them to be keeping an eye on than labeling. One of the other things that emerged through the process of implementation, and during our evaluation, was a big concern from communities with experience of eating disorders around kind of a greater focus on calorie counting. And lots of people recounting their experience that they just find that very difficult to be facing in a space where they're maybe not trying to think about their eating disorder or health. And then they're suddenly confronted with it. And when we've gone back and looked at the literature, there's just not very much literature on the impact of calorie labeling on people with eating disorders. And so we're a little bit uncertain still about whether that is a problem, but it's certainly perceived to be a problem. And lots of people find the policy difficult for that reason because they know someone in their family or one of their friends with an eating disorder. And they're very alert to that potential harm. I think this is a really important point to raise that the law, the menu labeling, could have differential effects on different consumers. I'm not versed in this literature on the triggering effects of seeing menu labeling for people with disordered eating. But then I'm also thinking about a different group of consumers. Consumers who are already struggling with obesity, and whether or not this policy is more effective for those individuals versus folks who are not. In the work that you all did, did you have any sense of are there heterogeneous effects of the labeling? Did different consumers respond differentially to seeing the menu label? Not just, for example, individuals maybe with disordered eating? Mike - In this work, we mostly focused on compliance, customer responses in terms of consumption and purchases, changes in menus, and customers reporting whether or not they increase noticing and using. When we looked at the heterogeneous effects, some of these questions are what led us to propose a new project where we interviewed people and tried to understand their responses to calorie labeling. And there we get a lot of heterogenous groups. In those studies, and this work has not actually been published, but should be in the new year, we found that there's a wide range of different types of responses to the policy. For example, there may be some people who recently started going to the gym and maybe they're trying to actually bulk up. And so, they'll actually choose higher calorie items. Conversely, there may be people who have a fitness routine or a dieting lifestyle that involves calorie tracking. And they might be using an app in order to enter the calories into that. And those people who are interested in calorie counting, they really loved the policy. They really wanted the policy. And it gave them a sense of control over their diet. And they felt comfortable and were really worried that if there was evidence that it wouldn't work, that would be taken away. Then you have a whole different group of people who are living with eating disorders who don't want to interact with those numbers when they are eating out of home. They would rather eat socially and not have to think about those challenges. There's really vast diversity in terms of the responses to the policy. And that does present a challenge. And I think what it also does is cause us just to question what is the intended mechanism of action of this policy? Because when the policy was implemented, there's an idea of a relatively narrow set of effects. If customers don't understand the number of calories that are in their items, you just provide them with the calories that are in those items, they will then make better choices as rational actors. But we know that eating out of home is far more complex. It's social. There are issues related to value for money. So maybe people want to make sure they're purchasing food that hasn't been so reduced in portions that now they don't get the value for money when they eat out. There are all sorts of body image related challenges when people may eat out. We didn't find a lot of evidence of this in our particular sample, but also in some of our consultation with the public in developing the interview, there's concern about judgment from peers when eating out. So, it's a very sensitive topic. Some of the implications of that are we do probably need more communication strategies that can come alongside these policies and sort of explain the intended mechanism impact to the public. We can't expect to simply add numbers to items and then expect that people are going to make the exact choices that are sort of in the best interest of public health. And that sort of brings us on to some potential alternative mechanisms of impact and other modes of labeling, and those sorts of things. Mike, this has been really helpful because you've also hinted at some of the ways that this policy as implemented, could have been improved. And I wonder, do you have any other thoughts to add to how to make a policy like this have a bigger impact. Mike - Absolutely. One of the things that was really helpful when Jean laid out her framing of the policy was there's multiple potential mechanisms of action. One of those is the potential reformulation in menu change. We talked about those results. Another intended mechanism of action is through consumer choice. So, if items have fewer calories on average, then that could reduce ultimately calories consumed. Or if people make choices of lower calorie items, that could also be a way to reduce the overall calories consumed. And I would say this calorie labeling policy, it is a step because the calories were not previously available. People did not know what they were eating. And if you provide that, that fulfills the duty of transparency by businesses. When we spoke to people who worked in enforcement, they did support the policy simply on the basis of transparency because it's important for people to understand what they're consuming. And so that's sort of a generally acceptable principle. However, if we want to actually have stronger population health impact, then we do need to have stronger mechanisms of action. One of the ways that can reduce calories consumed by the consumers, so the sort of demand side, would be some of the interpretive labels. Jean mentioned them earlier. There's now a growing body of evidence of across, particularly in Latin America. I would say some of the strongest evidence began in Chile, but also in Mexico and in other Latin American countries where they've put warning labels on items in order to reduce their consumption. These are typically related to packaged foods is where most of the work has been done. But in order to reduce consumer demand, what it does is rather than expecting people to be sort of doing math problems on the fly, as they go around and make their choices, you're actually just letting them know, well, by the way, this is an item that's very high in calories or saturated fat, or sodium or sugars. Or some combination of those. What that does is you've already helped make that decision for the consumers. You've at least let them know this item has a high level of nutrients of concern. And you can take that away. Conversely, if you have an item that's 487 calories, do you really know what you're going to do with that information? So that's one way to have stronger impact. The other way that that type of policy can have stronger impact is it sets clear thresholds for those warnings. And so, when you have clear thresholds for warnings, you can have a stronger mechanism for reformulation. And what companies may want to do is they may not want to display those warning labels, maybe because it's embarrassing. It makes their candy or whatever the unhealthy food look bad. Sort of an eyesore, which is the point. And what they'll do is they can reformulate those nutrients to lower levels so that they no longer qualify for that regulation. And so there are ways to essentially strengthen both of those mechanisms of action. Whereas when it's simply on the basis of transparency, then what that does is leave all of the decision making and work on the consumer. Mike, this is great because I've worked with colleagues like Gabby Fretes and Sean Cash and others on some menu labeling out of Chile. And we're currently doing some work within the center on food nutrition labels to see how different consumers are responding. There's a lot more work to be done in this space. And, of course, our colleagues at UNC (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill) have also been doing this work. So, this work is really important because it tells us how it can help consumers make different choices, and how it can affect how companies behave. My final question to the two of you is simply, what would you like policymakers to learn from this study? Or maybe not just this study alone, but this body of work. What should they take away? Jean - Well, I think there's lots of information out there on how to do food labeling well, and we can certainly learn from that. And Mike talks about the work from South America particularly where they're helping people identify the least healthy products. And they're also providing messaging around what you should do with that - like choose a product with fewer of these black symbols. But I think even if labeling is optimized, it's not really going to solve our problem of dietary related diseases. And I think I always want policymakers to know, and I think many of them do understand this, that there is no one magic solution and we need to be thinking about labeling as part of a strategy that addresses marketing in its entirety, right? Companies are using all sorts of strategies to encourage us to buy products. We need to be thinking of all sorts of strategies to support people to buy different products and to eat better. And I think that focuses on things like rebalancing price, supporting people to afford healthier food, focusing advertising and price promotions on healthier products. And I also think we need to be looking even further upstream though, right? That we need to be thinking about the incentives that are driving companies to make and sell less healthy products. Because I don't think that they particularly want to be selling less healthy products or causing lots of illness. It's those products are helping them achieve their aims of creating profit and growth for their shareholders. And I think we need to find creative ways to support companies to experiment with healthier products that either help them simultaneously achieve those demands of profit or growth. Or somehow allow them to step away from those demands either for a short period or for a longer period. I think that that requires us to kind of relook at how we do business in economics in our countries. Mike? Yes, I think that was a really thorough answer by Jean. So, I'll just add a couple points. I think most fundamentally what we need to think about when we're doing policy making to improve diet is we need to always think about are we helping to make the healthier choice the easier choice? And what that means is we're not implementing policies that merely provide information that then require individuals to do the rest of the work. We need to have a food environment that includes healthier options that are easily accessible, but also affordable. That's one thing that's come through in quite a lot of the work we've done. There are a lot of concerns about the high cost of food. If people feel like the healthier choices are also affordable choices, that's one of many ways to support the easier choice. And I really just want to reiterate what Jean said in terms of the economics of unhealthy food. In many ways, these large multinational corporations are from their perspective, doing right by their shareholders by producing a profitable product. Now there are debates on whether or not that's a good thing, of course. There's quite a lot of evidence for the negative health impacts of ultra-processed (UPF) products, and those are getting a lot more attention these days and that's a good thing. What we do need to think about is why is it that UPFs are so widely consumed. In many ways they are optimized to be over consumed. They're optimized to be highly profitable. Because the ingredients that are involved in their production means that they can add a lot of salt, sugar, and fat. And what that does is lead to overconsumption. We need to think about that there's something fundamentally broken about this incentive structure. That is incentivizing businesses to sell unhealthy food products with these food additives that lead to over consumption, obesity, and the associated comorbidities. And if we can start to make a little progress and think creatively about how could we incentivize a different incentive structure. One where actually it would be in a food business's best interest to be much more innovative and bolder and produce healthier products for everyone. That's something that I think we will have to contend with because if we are thinking that we are only going to be able to restrict our way out of this, then that's very difficult. Because people still need to have healthy alternatives, and so we can't merely think about restricting. We also have to think about how do we promote access to healthier foods. This is great insight. I appreciate the phrasing of making the healthy choice the easy choice, and I also heard a version of this making the healthy choice the affordable choice. But it also seems like we need to find ways to make the healthy choice the profitable choice as well. Bios: Jean Adams is a Professor of Dietary Public Health and leads the Population Health Interventions Programme at the University of Cambridge MRC Epidemiology Unit. Adams trained in medicine before completing a PhD on socio-economic inequalities in health. This was followed by an MRC Health of the Population fellowship and an NIHR Career Development Fellowship both exploring influences on health behaviours and socio-economic inequalities in these. During these fellowships Jean was appointed Lecturer, then Senior Lecturer, in Public Health at Newcastle University. Jean moved to Cambridge University to join the MRC Epidemiology Unit and CEDAR in 2014 where she helped establish the Dietary Public Health group. She became Programme Leader in the newly formed Population Health Interventions programme in 2020, and was appointed Professor of Dietary Public Health in 2022. Mike Essman is a Research Scientist at Duke University's World Food Policy Center. His background is in evaluating nutrition and food policies aimed at improving diets and preventing cardiometabolic diseases. His work employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore drivers of dietary behavior, particularly ultra-processed food consumption, across diverse environments and countries. Mike earned his PhD in Nutrition Epidemiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where his research focused on evaluating the impacts of a sugary beverage tax in South Africa. He completed MSc degrees in Medical Anthropology and Global Health Science at the University of Oxford through a fellowship. Prior to joining Duke, he conducted research at the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge, where he evaluated the impacts of calorie labeling policies in England and led a study examining public perceptions of ultra-processed foods.  

Distributed to millions of people annually across Africa and the global south, insecticide-treated bed nets have become a cornerstone of malaria control and twenty-first-century global health initiatives. Despite their seemingly obvious public health utility, however, these chemically infused nets and their rise to prominence were anything but inevitable. In Nothing But Nets: A Biography of Global Health Science and Its Objects (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2023), Dr. Kirsten Moore-Sheeley untangles the complicated history of insecticide-treated nets as it unfolded transnationally and in Kenya specifically—a key site of insecticide-treated net research—to reveal how the development of this intervention was deeply enmeshed with the emergence of the contemporary global health enterprise. While public health workers initially conceived of nets as a stopgap measure that could be tailored to impoverished, rural health systems in the early 1980s, nets became standardised market goods with the potential to save lives and promote economic development globally. This shift attracted donor resources for malaria control amid the rise of neoliberal regimes in international development, but it also perpetuated a paradigm of fighting malaria and poverty at the level of individual consumers. Africans' experiences with insecticide-treated nets illustrate the limitations of this paradigm and provide a warning for the precariousness of malaria control efforts today. Drawing on archival, published, and oral historical evidence from three continents, Dr. Moore-Sheeley reveals the important role Africans have played in shaping global health science and technology. In placing both insecticide-treated nets and Africa at the center of global health history, this book sheds new light on how and why commodity-based health interventions have become so entrenched as solutions to global disease control as well as the challenges these interventions pose for at-risk populations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Distributed to millions of people annually across Africa and the global south, insecticide-treated bed nets have become a cornerstone of malaria control and twenty-first-century global health initiatives. Despite their seemingly obvious public health utility, however, these chemically infused nets and their rise to prominence were anything but inevitable. In Nothing But Nets: A Biography of Global Health Science and Its Objects (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2023), Dr. Kirsten Moore-Sheeley untangles the complicated history of insecticide-treated nets as it unfolded transnationally and in Kenya specifically—a key site of insecticide-treated net research—to reveal how the development of this intervention was deeply enmeshed with the emergence of the contemporary global health enterprise. While public health workers initially conceived of nets as a stopgap measure that could be tailored to impoverished, rural health systems in the early 1980s, nets became standardised market goods with the potential to save lives and promote economic development globally. This shift attracted donor resources for malaria control amid the rise of neoliberal regimes in international development, but it also perpetuated a paradigm of fighting malaria and poverty at the level of individual consumers. Africans' experiences with insecticide-treated nets illustrate the limitations of this paradigm and provide a warning for the precariousness of malaria control efforts today. Drawing on archival, published, and oral historical evidence from three continents, Dr. Moore-Sheeley reveals the important role Africans have played in shaping global health science and technology. In placing both insecticide-treated nets and Africa at the center of global health history, this book sheds new light on how and why commodity-based health interventions have become so entrenched as solutions to global disease control as well as the challenges these interventions pose for at-risk populations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Distributed to millions of people annually across Africa and the global south, insecticide-treated bed nets have become a cornerstone of malaria control and twenty-first-century global health initiatives. Despite their seemingly obvious public health utility, however, these chemically infused nets and their rise to prominence were anything but inevitable. In Nothing But Nets: A Biography of Global Health Science and Its Objects (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2023), Dr. Kirsten Moore-Sheeley untangles the complicated history of insecticide-treated nets as it unfolded transnationally and in Kenya specifically—a key site of insecticide-treated net research—to reveal how the development of this intervention was deeply enmeshed with the emergence of the contemporary global health enterprise. While public health workers initially conceived of nets as a stopgap measure that could be tailored to impoverished, rural health systems in the early 1980s, nets became standardised market goods with the potential to save lives and promote economic development globally. This shift attracted donor resources for malaria control amid the rise of neoliberal regimes in international development, but it also perpetuated a paradigm of fighting malaria and poverty at the level of individual consumers. Africans' experiences with insecticide-treated nets illustrate the limitations of this paradigm and provide a warning for the precariousness of malaria control efforts today. Drawing on archival, published, and oral historical evidence from three continents, Dr. Moore-Sheeley reveals the important role Africans have played in shaping global health science and technology. In placing both insecticide-treated nets and Africa at the center of global health history, this book sheds new light on how and why commodity-based health interventions have become so entrenched as solutions to global disease control as well as the challenges these interventions pose for at-risk populations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Distributed to millions of people annually across Africa and the global south, insecticide-treated bed nets have become a cornerstone of malaria control and twenty-first-century global health initiatives. Despite their seemingly obvious public health utility, however, these chemically infused nets and their rise to prominence were anything but inevitable. In Nothing But Nets: A Biography of Global Health Science and Its Objects (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2023), Dr. Kirsten Moore-Sheeley untangles the complicated history of insecticide-treated nets as it unfolded transnationally and in Kenya specifically—a key site of insecticide-treated net research—to reveal how the development of this intervention was deeply enmeshed with the emergence of the contemporary global health enterprise. While public health workers initially conceived of nets as a stopgap measure that could be tailored to impoverished, rural health systems in the early 1980s, nets became standardised market goods with the potential to save lives and promote economic development globally. This shift attracted donor resources for malaria control amid the rise of neoliberal regimes in international development, but it also perpetuated a paradigm of fighting malaria and poverty at the level of individual consumers. Africans' experiences with insecticide-treated nets illustrate the limitations of this paradigm and provide a warning for the precariousness of malaria control efforts today. Drawing on archival, published, and oral historical evidence from three continents, Dr. Moore-Sheeley reveals the important role Africans have played in shaping global health science and technology. In placing both insecticide-treated nets and Africa at the center of global health history, this book sheds new light on how and why commodity-based health interventions have become so entrenched as solutions to global disease control as well as the challenges these interventions pose for at-risk populations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-studies

Distributed to millions of people annually across Africa and the global south, insecticide-treated bed nets have become a cornerstone of malaria control and twenty-first-century global health initiatives. Despite their seemingly obvious public health utility, however, these chemically infused nets and their rise to prominence were anything but inevitable. In Nothing But Nets: A Biography of Global Health Science and Its Objects (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2023), Dr. Kirsten Moore-Sheeley untangles the complicated history of insecticide-treated nets as it unfolded transnationally and in Kenya specifically—a key site of insecticide-treated net research—to reveal how the development of this intervention was deeply enmeshed with the emergence of the contemporary global health enterprise. While public health workers initially conceived of nets as a stopgap measure that could be tailored to impoverished, rural health systems in the early 1980s, nets became standardised market goods with the potential to save lives and promote economic development globally. This shift attracted donor resources for malaria control amid the rise of neoliberal regimes in international development, but it also perpetuated a paradigm of fighting malaria and poverty at the level of individual consumers. Africans' experiences with insecticide-treated nets illustrate the limitations of this paradigm and provide a warning for the precariousness of malaria control efforts today. Drawing on archival, published, and oral historical evidence from three continents, Dr. Moore-Sheeley reveals the important role Africans have played in shaping global health science and technology. In placing both insecticide-treated nets and Africa at the center of global health history, this book sheds new light on how and why commodity-based health interventions have become so entrenched as solutions to global disease control as well as the challenges these interventions pose for at-risk populations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Distributed to millions of people annually across Africa and the global south, insecticide-treated bed nets have become a cornerstone of malaria control and twenty-first-century global health initiatives. Despite their seemingly obvious public health utility, however, these chemically infused nets and their rise to prominence were anything but inevitable. In Nothing But Nets: A Biography of Global Health Science and Its Objects (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2023), Dr. Kirsten Moore-Sheeley untangles the complicated history of insecticide-treated nets as it unfolded transnationally and in Kenya specifically—a key site of insecticide-treated net research—to reveal how the development of this intervention was deeply enmeshed with the emergence of the contemporary global health enterprise. While public health workers initially conceived of nets as a stopgap measure that could be tailored to impoverished, rural health systems in the early 1980s, nets became standardised market goods with the potential to save lives and promote economic development globally. This shift attracted donor resources for malaria control amid the rise of neoliberal regimes in international development, but it also perpetuated a paradigm of fighting malaria and poverty at the level of individual consumers. Africans' experiences with insecticide-treated nets illustrate the limitations of this paradigm and provide a warning for the precariousness of malaria control efforts today. Drawing on archival, published, and oral historical evidence from three continents, Dr. Moore-Sheeley reveals the important role Africans have played in shaping global health science and technology. In placing both insecticide-treated nets and Africa at the center of global health history, this book sheds new light on how and why commodity-based health interventions have become so entrenched as solutions to global disease control as well as the challenges these interventions pose for at-risk populations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Distributed to millions of people annually across Africa and the global south, insecticide-treated bed nets have become a cornerstone of malaria control and twenty-first-century global health initiatives. Despite their seemingly obvious public health utility, however, these chemically infused nets and their rise to prominence were anything but inevitable. In Nothing But Nets: A Biography of Global Health Science and Its Objects (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2023), Dr. Kirsten Moore-Sheeley untangles the complicated history of insecticide-treated nets as it unfolded transnationally and in Kenya specifically—a key site of insecticide-treated net research—to reveal how the development of this intervention was deeply enmeshed with the emergence of the contemporary global health enterprise. While public health workers initially conceived of nets as a stopgap measure that could be tailored to impoverished, rural health systems in the early 1980s, nets became standardised market goods with the potential to save lives and promote economic development globally. This shift attracted donor resources for malaria control amid the rise of neoliberal regimes in international development, but it also perpetuated a paradigm of fighting malaria and poverty at the level of individual consumers. Africans' experiences with insecticide-treated nets illustrate the limitations of this paradigm and provide a warning for the precariousness of malaria control efforts today. Drawing on archival, published, and oral historical evidence from three continents, Dr. Moore-Sheeley reveals the important role Africans have played in shaping global health science and technology. In placing both insecticide-treated nets and Africa at the center of global health history, this book sheds new light on how and why commodity-based health interventions have become so entrenched as solutions to global disease control as well as the challenges these interventions pose for at-risk populations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Distributed to millions of people annually across Africa and the global south, insecticide-treated bed nets have become a cornerstone of malaria control and twenty-first-century global health initiatives. Despite their seemingly obvious public health utility, however, these chemically infused nets and their rise to prominence were anything but inevitable. In Nothing But Nets: A Biography of Global Health Science and Its Objects (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2023), Dr. Kirsten Moore-Sheeley untangles the complicated history of insecticide-treated nets as it unfolded transnationally and in Kenya specifically—a key site of insecticide-treated net research—to reveal how the development of this intervention was deeply enmeshed with the emergence of the contemporary global health enterprise. While public health workers initially conceived of nets as a stopgap measure that could be tailored to impoverished, rural health systems in the early 1980s, nets became standardised market goods with the potential to save lives and promote economic development globally. This shift attracted donor resources for malaria control amid the rise of neoliberal regimes in international development, but it also perpetuated a paradigm of fighting malaria and poverty at the level of individual consumers. Africans' experiences with insecticide-treated nets illustrate the limitations of this paradigm and provide a warning for the precariousness of malaria control efforts today. Drawing on archival, published, and oral historical evidence from three continents, Dr. Moore-Sheeley reveals the important role Africans have played in shaping global health science and technology. In placing both insecticide-treated nets and Africa at the center of global health history, this book sheds new light on how and why commodity-based health interventions have become so entrenched as solutions to global disease control as well as the challenges these interventions pose for at-risk populations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at CFR, and Rebecca Katz, professor and director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University, lead the conversation on global health security and diplomacy.

Ian is an Academic Clinical Fellow and junior doctor in Obstetrics & Gynaecology. After graduating in English during the 2008 credit crunch, he pursued Graduate Entry Medicine and an MSc in Global Health Science. He divides his time between clinical work and research into complications of pregnancy. Transcript and useful links This is a re-released episode which was first published in March 2021

In September 2023, Mathematica and Congressman Don Beyer's office hosted an event on Capitol Hill to discuss artificial intelligence (AI) and its implications for health equity. This episode of On the Evidence features audio from the September event, anchored by Victoria Knight, a health care policy reporter for Axios, who interviewed Congressman Beyer and moderated a subsequent panel with Ellie Graeden, Jen Roberts, Ngan MacDonald, and Deliya Wesley. • Beyer represents the 8th Congressional District of Virginia and is a vice chair of both the bipartisan Congressional AI Caucus and an AI working group recently formed by the New Democrat Coalition. • Graeden is a professor at the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security. • Roberts is a director of resilient systems at the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, also known as ARPA-H. • MacDonald is the chief of data operations for the Institute for AI in Medicine at Northwestern University. • Wesley is a senior director of health equity at Mathematica. Learn more about how Mathematica's experts harness vast data, advanced analytics, and deep health care policy experience to help organizations make sense of real-world data in a way that enables exploration and innovation: https://mathematica.org/sp/data-analytics/real-world-data Find a transcript of the episode at mathematica.org/blogs/how-artificial-intelligence-can-advance-health-equity

The World Health Orgnization's European Regional Obesity Report makes grim reading. It says nearly two-thirds of European adults are obese, a third of children are overweight or obese, and crucially, the numbers are rising. The WHO says no European country is on track to stop obesity rising by 2025. For UK readers, the standout headline is that Britain is on course to have the worst obesity rate in Europe by 2033. But there is one line within the report that offers a glimpse of hope. It says: "Europe can reverse its obesity epidemic." In this episode of the Food Matters Live Podcast, we interview one of the authors of the report, Kremlin Wickramasinghe, Acting Head of the WHO European Office for the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable diseases. For decades obesity has been a major global health issue and as time has ticked on, despite research, government health legislation, campaigns, changes within the food industry, things continue to get worse. It's a topic we've covered before on the podcast, but when we have asked where the solutions are coming from, convincing answers have often been in short supply.      In order to understand how we might reverse rising obesity rates, we first need to understand how we ended up here in the first place. This WHO report is the first we've had for 15 years and some of the changes that have happened in that time, appear to be contributing to the obesity crisis. The Coronavirus pandemic is highlighted in the report as having increased our consumption of fast-food, led to more screen time, and a more sedentary lifestyle. The increased use of food delivery apps is also playing a role, says the report, and in more ways than might immediately be obvious. Listen to the full episode to get some answers to questions such as; why are all of Europe's nations failing to get a grip of the obesity crisis? Whose responsibility is it to reverse the current trend? And where can European countries look to for inspiration? And then there's that slight glimmer of hope. If Europe really can reverse its obesity epidemic, how exactly does it go about doing it? Dr Kremlin Wickramasinghe, Acting Head, WHO European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases Kremlin leads the Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Programme which is responsible for providing support to the 53 Member States of the WHO European Region on the implementation of the European Food and Nutrition Action Plan and Physical Activity.  Prior to this position he worked as a Technical Officer on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) Risk Factors, since 2017 in the same office.  Before joining WHO, he was a researcher and the co-director of the WHO Collaborating Centre on Population Approaches to NCD Prevention at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom.  He co-edited the text book “An Introduction to Population-level Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases” published by the Oxford University Press.  He has a special interest in multisectoral responses to health promotion, quantifying the outcome of health policies and implementation research. Kremlin graduated as a medical doctor with MBBS from the University of Colombo.  He holds an MSc in Global Health Science and a DPhil (PhD) in Public Health from the University of Oxford.

In this session we will examine the recent viral Monkeypox (MPV) outbreak with Professor Kelechi Nnoaham. We dig into the anatomy of the virus, the possibility of local transmission of the virus, the origins of the current outbreak, current prevalence, symptomatology, known transmission pathways, viral genetic adaptation, the R rate, Case Fatality Rate, containment (ring vaccination strategies), whether the MSM data is outlier data, and finally, surveillance of MPV. Professor Kelechi is the Executive Director of Public Health and lead for Research & Development, Innovation and Value-Based Health for Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, Wales. Kelechi has held Honorary Professorships in Public Health and Epidemiology at Plymouth University (since 2015) and Cardiff University (since 2021) medical schools and previously worked as the Director of Public Health for Plymouth and Bristol City Councils. He has subsequently worked throughout leadership roles in public health and healthcare leadership across the UK. Kelechi has an MPH in Global Health Science (with Distinction) at Oxford University and followed that up with a PhD in Public Health & Epidemiology at Oxford University in 2011. This podcast is brought to you in association with BHA Medical. BHA medical source, supply and implement innovative medical technology and solutions across the globe. BHA provide market leading services in covid 19 testing kits, medical products, smart technology and consultancy. BHA's latest innovation is a Monkeypox Lateral Flow Antigen Rapid Test. The product is a lateral flow detection of monkeypox virus antigen in human whole blood, serum, plasma, rash exudate, or nasal swab. The product uses a double antibody sandwich method. During the test, a specimen is dropped into the specimen hole, the specimen is superimposed under the capillary effect. If the specimen contains monkeypox virus, a colour band appears in the test area (T) indicating a positive result for monkeypox virus. If the specimen does not contain the corresponding substance, there will be no colour bands in the test area (T), and the result will be negative. The Performance Characteristics show that the positive and negative coincidence rates are 100% Please see the show notes for further details and how to order kits: https://www.bha-medical.com/monkeypox-virus-antigen-rapid-test-kit https://www.bha-medical.com Please enjoy this wide ranging episode with an insightful guest.

What is a design anthropologist? How can design reframe challenges in global health? Why does Montreal have outdoor staircases? Tracy Johnson is a Design Anthropologist at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation where she ​ leads a portfolio of interdisciplinary investments, integrating human-centered design with the social and behavioral sciences and data analytics to bring about a deeper understanding of vulnerability as a pathway to the delivery of more equitable health outcomes. She leads the DesignforHealth.org community and was the guest editor of the Global Health: Science & Practice special supplement entitled Design for Health: Human Centered Design Looks to the Future. She received her PhD in social and cultural anthropology from Columbia University. Other Episode Mentions: Video: Blinded by Empathy Follow Tracy: Twitter | LinkedIn Episode website link: https://mailchi.mp/designlabpod/tracyjohnson More episode sources & links Sign-up for Design Lab Podcast's Newsletter Newsletter Archive Follow @DesignLabPod on Twitter Instagram and LinkedIn Follow @BonKu on Twitter & Instagram Check out the Health Design Lab Production by Robert Pugliese Cover Design by Eden Lew Theme song by Emmanuel Houston

At the centre of the international response to the COVID-19 pandemic was a set of public health obligations called the International Health Regulations (IHR). The IHR is a legally-binding instrument designed to help the international community prevent and respond to acute public health risks that have the potential to cross borders and threaten people worldwide. They include specific obligations for the World Health Organization to declare a public health emergency of international concern if certain thresholds are met.This week on Contain This we talk to Australian Assistant Professor Alex Phelan who has made the IHR her area of expertise at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Alex is an Assistant Professor at the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University Medical Center, and also Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. In this episode, she talks to Australian Ambassador for Regional Health Security Stephanie Williams about what went wrong with the response to COVID-19 and outlines some proposed changes to strengthen international public health law in the future.Our conversation also celebrates the phenomenal Australian women working in public health in the Indo-Pacific and around the world. It's always a pleasure to meet remarkable women like Alex, making important contributions in her chosen field. We hope you hope enjoy the conversation and follow @CentreHealthSec.

Omicron is spreading across the D.C. area fast, causing some schools to go virtual and limiting hospitals in Maryland to critical care. This week, WTOP's Kate Ryan explains why Prince George's County Public Schools decided to shift to virtual learning and whether other school systems in the area will do the same. Kate then shares her reporting on Maryland hospitals, which are facing bed shortages amid this latest surge. A public health expert Dr. Claire Standely also joins the show. She is an Associate Research Professor of Public Health within the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security. She gives the latest status report on this new and evasive variant.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: How well did EA-funded biorisk organisations do on Covid?, published by John G. Halstead on the effective altruism forum. EA funders have funded various organisations working on biosecurity and pandemic preparedness, including: John Hopkins Center for Health Security Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security Center for International Security and Cooperation Biosecurity Initiative Nuclear Threat Initiative Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense It seems to be widely accepted that many mainstream institutions got important things about COVID wrong, such as masks, travel bans, and lockdowns. Have there been any reviews of how these and other EA-funded things performed on COVID-related matters, with the benefit of hindsight? New Answer Ask Related Question New Comment Write here. Select text for formatting options. We support LaTeX: Cmd-4 for inline, Cmd-M for block-level (Ctrl on Windows). You can switch between rich text and markdown in your user settings. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

We spoke with Dr. Angela Rasmussen, research scientist - Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO), adjunct professor in the Department of Biochemistry, Microbiology, and Immunology at the University of Saskatchewan, and affiliate - Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, I am joined by a very special guest, Selam. She is from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. She studied at Seton Hall University in New Jersey majoring in Physics with a minor in Medical Humanities. She graduated early in December of 2020 and she is currently in the UK studying Global Health Science and Epidemiology at the University of Oxford. In this episode we discussed our own journeys regarding uncertainty and how not knowing what is going to happen next, might not necessarily be a bad thing. We also shared our own struggles and how we dealt with the feeling of anxiety that comes from uncertainty and the importance of focusing on what we want to do in life and enjoy the process of not knowing what the future holds for us. Tune-in to laugh, learn and appreciate the international student experience! Please send questions and feedbacks you have to internationaliebyruth@gmail.com or DM on the Instagram page @internationaliebyruth

Season 3, Episode 6: ISD Director of Programs and Research Kelly McFarland talks to Rebecca Katz, professor and director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security, who holds joint appointments in Georgetown University Medical Center and the School of Foreign Service, and Matt Boyce, PhD student in the Global Infectious Diseases program at Georgetown, about the COVID-19 pandemic and cities' responses. They discuss the public health and medical responses to COVID-19, vaccine development, the HIV and Malaria pandemics, and the ways in which city, state, and local governments have responded. Rebecca also draws on over 15 years experience working on infectious disease at the State Department.  The Rise of Metropolitanism: The International Order and Sub-National Actors, ISD New Global Commons Working Group Report (September 2019) The New Weapon of Choice: Technology and Information Operations Today, ISD New Global Commons Working Group Report (October 2020) Matt Boyce and Rebecca Katz (eds.), Inoculating Cities: Case Studies of Urban Pandemic Preparedness (Elsevier, 2021)  Rebecca Katz, "Case 342 - Global Governance of Disease," ISD Case Studies Library (2017) Episode recorded: October 28, 2021.  Episode image: Peace Through Food (Institute for the Study of Diplomacy)  Diplomatic Immunity: Frank and candid conversations about diplomacy and foreign affairs Diplomatic Immunity, a podcast from the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, brings you frank and candid conversations with experts on the issues facing diplomats and national security decision-makers around the world.  Funding support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Produced by Alistair Somerville and Kelly McFarland. For more, visit our website, and follow us on Twitter @GUDiplomacy. Send any feedback to diplomacy@georgetown.edu.

In this session I speak with Professor Kelechi Nnoaham. We examine the prevailing themes of public health within the contemporary pandemic. We examine some of the key aspects of public health necessary to overcome one of the most challenging public health issues since the inception of the NHS. We dissect some of the fundamental principles of public health, the info-demic war of information, the contemporary evidence-based research, decentralised leadership and more. Professor Kelechi is the Executive Director of Public Health and lead for Research & Development, Innovation and Value-Based Health for Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, Wales. Kelechi has held Honorary Professorships in Public Health and Epidemiology at Plymouth University (since 2015) and Cardiff University (since 2021) medical schools and previously worked as the Director of Public Health for Plymouth and Bristol City Councils. He has subsequently worked throughout leadership roles in public health and healthcare leadership across the UK. Kelechi has an MPH in Global Health Science (with Distinction) at Oxford University and followed that up with a PhD in Public Health & Epidemiology at Oxford University in 2011. In the conversation we examine: The current public health climate – acute versus chronic needs, secondary infection rates. Collaboration – joined up working versus independent initiative The information war – The ‘info-demic' ‘Press release' medicine – effectiveness and impact. The principles of public health - The big 5 - population health management, prevention, population health research, knowledge mobilisation and collaborative working with communities. The 4, 4, 54 principles within a public health context Empirical research in the current climate; disaggregation of data (lack of sub-group analysis), action with absence of published data, equity of authorship, retraction of papers, robustness of evidence, retraction of studies, increase in corrections in 2020, decrease in RCTs & Meta analysis, decrease in ethics and consent. Decentralised ownership of health (internal locus of control). Professor Kelechi can be contacted through the following platforms; • Twitter - @CwmTaf_DPH, @KelechiNnoaham • LinkedIn - linkedin.com/in/kelechi-nnoaham-1649937 Please enjoy this interview with an insightful and fascinating guest.

Outbreaks of Covid-19 are continuing to spread across the country, hitting largely unvaccinated and unprepared populations.Eighteen months into the pandemic many Australians are feeling exhausted, and compliance with public health measures is dropping off - leading governments to ramp up policing efforts.Today, infectious disease and pandemic response expert Dr Alexandra Phelan on the situation in Australia, how governments can maintain public trust, and what the end game looks like.Guest: Member of the Center for Global Health Science and Security, Dr Alexandra PhelanStay in touch with us on Twitter and Instagram See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Angela Rasmussen, virologist, research scientist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO) and affiliate at the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security, answers listeners' questions about the COVID vaccines and immunity to the virus.  

As COVID vaccines become more accessible to the public, it's important to keep in mind the present dangers of other common respiratory illnesses. Transmission of these infections affects everyone, from Baby Boomers to Gen Zers, in various ways that could be fatal for some but a cough to others. Dr. Angela Rasmussen joins us to discuss testing and transmission regarding influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and COVID-19. Hosted by: Silvia Quevedo, CAE About our Guest: Angela L. Rasmussen, Ph.D Angela L. Rasmussen, Ph.D. is a virologist currently affiliated with the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security. In spring 2021, Dr. Rasmussen will also be starting a lab at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization-International Vaccine Centre (VIDO-InterVac), a vaccine research institute at the University of Saskatchewan. Dr. Rasmussen is a member of the Verena Consortium, a multi-disciplinary, international effort to predict and study emerging viral pathogens. Dr. Rasmussen studies the role of the host response in emerging virus pathogenesis, with a particular interest in viruses that are or have the potential to be major threats to global health, such as influenza, dengue, Ebola, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2.

I'm so excited to share one of the women whose praises I could sing over and over who was originally lined up for International Women's Day for the incredible impact she has had on my journey through many different chapters. Dr Alexandra Phelan was a few years ahead of me at Monash University and, as you'll hear, has a very similar personality combination of "nerdburger vs arty farty" with a splash of languages and also started her career at the same law firm as I did which was one of the reasons I wanted to work there in the first place. While we both ultimately left corporate law. Alex is a glowing example of how you can stay within the law and find a niche that suits your strengths and interests and she has gone on to become a seriously impressive Member of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University School of Medicine, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. Her Honours AND Doctoral theses both focused on International Law and the prevention of infectious diseases (including the possibility of measures like quarantine and border closures before they became as relevant as we know them to be), which has made her a leading global authority on health security and INCREDIBLY relevant to the world's response to COVID-19. Alex is infinitely impressive, painfully humble and continues to inspire me every day - I'm so honoured she made time to join the show from Washington DC. She shares some fascinating insights on the more technical side to the challenge of a global pandemic like COVID-19 with her intellect and empathy shining through. + Follow Alex here + Announcements on Insta at @spoonful_of_sarah + Join our Facebook community here

As many as a dozen COVID-19 variants are knowingly circulating worldwide. Among them, B.1.1.7 and B.1.351, the highly transmissible strains that originated in the U.K. and South Africa, respectively. As more vaccines continue to push forward for emergency approval worldwide, we're still learning the effectiveness of the current vaccines against the new strains; and how the new mutations mean even those who have already had COVID-19 may not be immune from reinfection. To explore the new strains and what it means for vaccination efforts, future mutations, and herd immunity, Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist with Georgetown University's Center for Global Health Science and Security, joins us on this week's episode.

UK investigators are looking into reports of coronavirus vaccine recipients having allergic reactions. Dr. Angela Rasmussen from the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science & Security says it may take a while before we know the allergic reactions are linked to the vaccine.Many of us may be tired of wearing facial coverings, but Dr. Chris Colbert from the Emergency Medicine Residency Program at the University of Illinois/Chicago says it'll take at least an year before we can interact with others without face masks. President-elect Joe Biden has announced set of plans to combat the pandemic, including a possible national mandate on facial coverings. Dr. Peter Katona from UCLA's Geffen School of Medicine offers "cautious optimism."A California small business-owner is keeping her café doors open by designating the patio area as "protest zones" to work around the State government's outdoor dining ban. Tricia Neal, who owns the Swork coffee shop in Eagle Rock, CA, says, while she doesn't blame health officials, the outdoor dining ban has been hard on her business.Americans are desperately in need of financial assistance from the second COVID relief bill. But what's holding it up in Congress? Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) says Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is to be blamed.  To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

UK investigators are looking into reports of coronavirus vaccine recipients having allergic reactions. Dr. Angela Rasmussen from the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science & Security says it may take a while before we know the allergic reactions are linked to the vaccine. Many of us may be tired of wearing facial coverings, but Dr. Chris Colbert from the Emergency Medicine Residency Program at the University of Illinois/Chicago says it'll take at least an year before we can interact with others without face masks.  President-elect Joe Biden has announced set of plans to combat the pandemic, including a possible national mandate on facial coverings. Dr. Peter Katona from UCLA's Geffen School of Medicine offers "cautious optimism." A California small business-owner is keeping her café doors open by designating the patio area as "protest zones" to work around the State government's outdoor dining ban. Tricia Neal, who owns the Swork coffee shop in Eagle Rock, CA, says, while she doesn't blame health officials, the outdoor dining ban has been hard on her business. Americans are desperately in need of financial assistance from the second COVID relief bill. But what's holding it up in Congress? Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) says Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is to be blamed.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

COVID-19 strikes close to home for one family after one person spread the virus to multiple family members. Pfizer has updated its data on its coronavirus vaccine, saying it's now showing a 95% effectiveness rate. Dr. Peter Hotez from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston explains what the latest findings mean.A Danish study questions the effectiveness of face masks. Dr. Angela Rasmussen from the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science & Security explains.Google Maps has a new feature called the COVID Layer, which provides real-time data on the coronavirus.  To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

COVID-19 strikes close to home for one family after one person spread the virus to multiple family members.  Pfizer has updated its data on its coronavirus vaccine, saying it's now showing a 95% effectiveness rate. Dr. Peter Hotez from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston explains what the latest findings mean. A Danish study questions the effectiveness of face masks. Dr. Angela Rasmussen from the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science & Security explains. Google Maps has a new feature called the COVID Layer, which provides real-time data on the coronavirus.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The number of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 is rising in almost every state. America averaged over 100,000 new cases every day over the last seven days and 1,000 deaths every day over the same period. The positivity rate is more than 50 percent in some states, straining hospital systems and front line staff. Have we normalized the pandemic to the point where we're no longer taking it seriously enough? Also this hour: President Trump will no longer be protected from federal and state prosecution for questionable business and tax dealings when he exits the office of the presidency. There are also several civil lawsuits, including from two women who have filed separate civil suits for defamation after he denied their allegations of sexual assault. How legally vulnerable is President Trump? GUESTS: Dr. Angela Rasmussen is a virologist and an affiliate at the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security. She’s a contributor to Slate (@angie_rasmussen) Ross Garber is a lawyer specializing in political investigations and impeachment and a legal analyst for CNN. He teaches at Tulane Law School. (@rossgarber) Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There are just over 10 million cases of coronavirus globally and almost 500,000 deaths. U.S. deaths recently rose to 125,000. Yet, the Trump Administration continues to downplay the seriousness of this pandemic. The White House Coronavirus Task Force met Friday for the first time in two months, with Vice-President Pence acknowledging the surge in several states but insisting, "We're in a much better place," than we were two months ago. Also this hour: The estimated backlog of unopened mail at the IRS is about eleven million. And that doesn't include the one million pieces of mail that continue to come in every day. It may take a while to get your tax refund. Lastly, fireworks are a rite of summer. In this summer of pandemic, police brutality, and overall mistrust, fireworks have attracted darker conspiracies. GUESTS: Rebecca Katz is a Professor and Director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University Medical Center. (@rebeccakatz5) Kelly Phillips Erb is a managing shareholder at the Erb Law Firm, a Senior Contributor at Forbes, regular columnist for Bloomberg Tax, and author of the “Taxgirl” blog. (@taxgirl) Kaitlyn Tiffany is a staff writer for The Atlantic. (@kait_tiffany) Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“What are the underlying drivers of risk that created the conditions for Covid-19 to emerge, and how do we better address them?” said Lauren Herzer Risi, Project Director for the Environmental Change and Security Program, in this week’s Friday Podcast, recorded during a recent Wilson Center Ground Truth Briefing on the Covid-19 pandemic. This question framed the discussion, which explored the intersection of the environment, public health, and national security. Although the global pandemic came as a shock to many, the novel coronavirus was not a surprise to epidemiologists and experts who had been sounding the alarm for decades. There have been clear signals of the risks we face from animal-to-human virus transmission, including Ebola, SARS, and other regional epidemics, said Risi. These zoonotic diseases, especially now, are creating concerns about food safety, wildlife conservation, and public health. But the risks don’t just come from wet markets and our increasingly connected world. Drivers of the Outbreak Rapid urbanization and population growth created a ticking time bomb, as we have increasingly intruded into natural habitats. The loss and fragmentation of wildlife ecosystems has brought humans into closer contact with animals than ever before. While the exact origins of coronavirus have yet to be confirmed, we know that this amplified opportunity for virus transmission is a major factor. “An estimated 70 percent of new human infectious disease outbreaks come from pathogens that originated in animals,” said Sharon Guynup, Global Fellow at the Wilson Center and a National Geographic Explorer. We are constantly expanding our interaction with animals and nature. “We need to be very, very clear that this is a human-made problem, a humanity-made problem,” said Dr. Ellen Carlin, Assistant Research Professor at the Center for Global Health Science and Security and Director of the Graduate Program in Global Infectious Disease at Georgetown University. “It’s really all of us collectively making decisions about the way that we live.” Human behavior puts pressure on natural ecosystems through land use and development, mass urbanization, agricultural intensification, extractive industries, and the growing global demand for commodities. Climate change further exacerbates the environmental degradation. Overall this trend is accelerating the emergence of zoonotic diseases in human populations. Another aspect of this close contact between humans and animals is the prevalence of illegal wildlife trade and consumption. Some have called for bans in China, but wildlife trade and wet markets aren’t unique to China, and a solution will require global efforts, said Guynup. It will also be crucial to uphold and enforce the bans put into place, as China’s actions will have a ripple effect on the policies of neighboring consumer and hub countries. For progress to be made, she said, countries must develop multi-pronged approaches, including strengthening policies and enforcement at national levels, raising public awareness, promoting community involvement, and changing consumer behavior. While Covid-19 is much bigger than just a wildlife trade issue, it is a critical piece of the puzzle, said Guynup. National Security Risks The cascading impacts of the pandemic on human health, national economies, and society has elevated the coronavirus as not just a public health crisis, but a national security threat as well. There is currently a disconnect between environmental threats and security paradigms, said Rod Schoonover, founder and CEO of Ecological Futures Group. “Unfortunately, U.S. national security is outdated and needs to be recalibrated, I think, to reflect the threats that the country faces,” he said. Topics like climate change, land use, and biodiversity need to be core national security concerns instead of add-ons to geopolitical goals, said Schoonover, who was Director of Environment and Natural Resources for the National Intelligence Council. Security dialogues need to involve experts such as epidemiologists, ecologists, and climate scientists in order to establish a climate-smart, ecologically informed pandemic preparedness policy. “If you understand the deep connectedness of the planet,” he said, “you understand that the very support system of humanity is in jeopardy.” Solutions for Covid-19 How to solve the current pandemic is a priority, but developing long-term plans for how we can better prepare for next pandemic is also important. “Given the deep interconnectedness of our world, this coronavirus will not be the last outbreak,” said Guynup. Among the many scientific and global health initiatives looking to develop solutions, the Global Virome Project is working to discover unknown zoonotic viral threats and stop future pandemics before outbreaks occur. The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness is coordinating the development of vaccines against coronavirus and emerging infectious diseases. Although there is no binding global legal agreement on wildlife crime, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), is scaling up enforcement efforts and incorporating the consideration of health risks. We need to tackle the drivers of the pandemic to ultimately achieve prevention, said Dr. Carlin. A shift of epic proportions will be needed to reduce environmental and ecosystem harm. We have a choice to ignore recommendations and continue on with business as usual, or we can recognize our vulnerability to these emerging viral threats, Guynup said. “Our well-being is inextricably linked with that of the planet’s web of life,” she said. “In fact, one could argue that the state of the world can be measured by the state of the wild.”

In the 20th episode I chat for a 2nd time with Dr. Rebecca Katz, a professor from Georgetown University. We chat ALL about the #CoronaVirus. She is an Associate Professor and Director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University. ... Since 2007, much of her work has been on the domestic and global implementation of the International Health Regulations. Enjoy the listen and please leave us a review on your thoughts!  Listen and please don't forget to COMMENT and SHARE! Follow us! The Podcast - @EforExplicitPodcast Corey Packer - @cp_films Rebecca Katz - @RebeccaKatz5 Website: GHSS.Georgetown.edu

In the 8th episode I chat with Dr. Rebecca Katz, another professor from Georgetown University. She is an Associate Professor and Director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University. ... Since 2007, much of her work has been on the domestic and global implementation of the International Health Regulations. Enjoy the listen and please leave us a review on your thoughts!  Watch and please don't forget to COMMENT and SHARE! Follow us! The Podcast - @EforExplicitPodcast Corey Packer - @cp_films Rebecca Katz - @RebeccaKatz5 Website: GHSS.Georgetown.edu 

“How do our interventions provide an opportunity to really work at some of the core drivers of instability or lack of resilience?” said Larry Cooley from Management Systems International at a recent Wilson Center event on scaling up reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health interventions. In fragile settings—countries in conflict or crisis—scaling up healthcare is increasingly complex, yet incredibly urgent. Maternal mortality in fragile states is almost quadruple that of other low- and middle-income countries, and infant mortality is double. And 60 percent of the countries with the highest maternal and neonatal mortality rates are classified as fragile, conflict, and violence impacted by the World Bank. Understanding the context in fragile states is key, said Cooley. “Governments and markets”—the two main platforms for scaling up health interventions—“are both compromised.” Interventions and programs are often politicized along battle lines. Countries experiencing conflict or instability often cannot rely on public financing, and international support is inconsistent. “Resources tend to flow in very quickly around a crisis,” said Cooley, “and they flow out equally quickly.” Consequently, financing organizations such as the Global Financing Facility (GFF) invest in non-governmental organizations and humanitarian aid programs to secure stable ground. “Always—even within fragile systems—there are people and points of strength that can be built upon,” said Laura Ghiron, vice president of Partners in Expanding Health Quality and Access. “For example, there are those who know the limitations of the system,” said Ghiron, “but are trying…to work around them.” Most importantly, scaling up in fragile settings requires a heavy focus on the system, and not the details of the intervention in and of itself. “We need to be giving appropriate attention to the system that is going to have to deliver that intervention,” said Dr. Stephen Hodgins, associate professor for Global Health at the University of Alberta and editor-in-chief of Global Health: Science and Practice. “Sometimes the interventions that we are introducing make relatively heavy demands,” said Dr. Hodgins, “and we need to make a determination whether that is realistic given the system that we actually have to work with.” At the end of the day, scaling up interventions should be doing no harm, said Cooley, and should be seen as “a chance to really advance some of the building blocks of peace and stability.” Sources: Global Financing Facility, World Bank