Tag: Fear

  • Even Though Your Wounds Are Not Your Fault, Your Healing Is Still Your Responsibility

    Even Though Your Wounds Are Not Your Fault, Your Healing Is Still Your Responsibility

    [ad_1]

    Pain is inevitable throughout life although to carry it unnecessarily fuels suffering. Even though our wounds are not our fault, our healing remains within our control. You’re no doubt reading this since you identified with the title, perhaps your own wounds or someone close to you has been hurt? Healing is a difficult and yet liberating journey of self-discovery. Forgiveness teaches us self-resiliency and self-reliance. It awakens us to a greater love and peace that resides within us.

    It is why I am drawn to the words of the spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle who wrote on his Instagram account recently: “If you cannot accept what is outside, then accept what is inside. If you cannot accept the external condition, accept the internal condition. This means: Do not resist the pain. Allow it to be there. Surrender to the grief, despair, fear, loneliness, or whatever form the suffering takes. Witness it without labelling it mentally. Embrace it. Then see how the miracle of surrender transmutes deep suffering into deep peace. This is your crucifixion. Let it become your resurrection and ascension.” Tolle reminds us not to resist our pain but surrender to it in order to transform our suffering. I realise this advice goes against what people want to hear. I equate it to running towards a lion instead of fleeing for your life. Nevertheless, by facing our fears we allow pain to move through us and realise pain is not who we really are; it is an emotional state we have held on to and kept alive.

    Beyond our pain lies an ever expansive love which at its essence is our true nature. Even though our wounds may not be our fault, our healing remains our responsibility. To heal means to accept what happened to us and discover our true selves through the healing process. Let me be very clear: acceptance does not mean we like what took place. It simply means to acknowledge the events and work towards healing ourselves of the pain associated with it. People might say: “I wish the event never occurred because I wouldn’t have to deal with the anguish, let alone the long road to recovery.” Whilst that may be true, if we believe everything happens for a reason, what if our pain is there to teach us self-compassion and forgiveness? Perhaps the lesson is not so much about the transgression that took place but how we love and nurture ourselves when we are wounded. How do you feel about this? I know it may be difficult to accept especially if your wounds are fresh. Let it sit for a while and try to see your situation through the lens of love and healing.

    Dr. Mario Martinez, a clinical neuropsychologist, writes in The Mindbody Code: How To Change The Beliefs That Limit Your Health, Longevity, And Success that “When you’re wounded, especially by significant people in your life, your empowerment is challenged, and your worthiness is called into question. The vulnerability your loss of empowerment creates within you allows the wound to damage your worthiness.” To reclaim our empowerment and worthiness once more, we must cross the threshold of pain and let go of our hurt and anguish. It’s essential you understand, I am not inviting you to forget, but to forgive yourself for being caught up what took place. Through the healing process, we restore any sense of shame, guilt and anger we inherited as a result of our wounds. Dr. Martinez further explains, instead of trying to forgive the perpetrator or minimise the events of the past, we should focus on re-establishing our sense of self which is more important: “Rather than forgiving the perpetrator or minimizing the intensity of the misdeed, you recover the empowerment and self-worthiness you thought had been taken from you.”

    What are your thoughts by now? Are you willing to take ownership of the past in the way you process it? There is rarely ever a right way to heal our wounds. Though, it requires courage to appreciate that our emotional wounds are not permanent and exist to awaken us to the loving presence within us. This presence can never be taken away or deprived through physical or nonphysical acts because at its essence, this is the foundation of who we are. As a result, we lean into this oneness of love, knowing like a net which supports a trapeze artist should they fall, we will be guided through our healing journey. Our priority is to nurture ourselves foremost through the eyes of kindness and compassion however painful our wounds may be. After all, the love within us is far greater than our wounds because it is the greatest purifier and healer there is.

    [ad_2]

    Source by Tony Fahkry

    Views: 0

  • 7 Thoughts From Scripture for Struggling Christian Business Owners

    7 Thoughts From Scripture for Struggling Christian Business Owners

    [ad_1]

    I have seen a lot of articles that list scriptures for Christian business owners, but rarely do they have practical wisdom that goes with them. Yes, scripture can speak for itself, but when we are struggling Bible verses seem to get glossed over by our stressed out mind.

    I want to share with you seven Bible verses with seven thoughts and seven insights. I know when I am going through a tough time, it helps me to ‘hear’ from someone who understands what I am going through. It makes the Bible come to life when someone shares it from a perspective of a Christian entrepreneur.

    Worries are like butterflies, they need to be released.

    It is easy to worry. There are so many things to think about it can be overwhelming. Take heart… and mind. When we look at the way we try to handle our problems, we often leave God out of the solution. He cares about all the things you go through and is there to help when we ask Him. We must learn to release our worries to God so that He can work wondrous things for us.

    Philippians 4:6-7 “do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”

    Humility lets us bring others into our struggles.

    Sometimes when we get caught up in tough times we try to take on everything ourselves. We must learn to delegate and let others help us. We must bring others in to pray for us and with us. We are leaders in our business, but more than that, we are part of a faith community. God wants us to help us with our anxieties and He may have placed people in your life to do just that. We must remember that God cares for us.

    1 Peter 5:6-7 “Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.”

    Our reaction to our struggles defines our success.

    We don’t like to go through hard times, but when we do our reaction to those tough times can make or break us. When we redefine our struggles in light of what God is doing and has done in our lives, we find God’s power working even in the tough times.

    James 1: 2-4 “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.”

    Perspectives help us define our problems.

    When we go through tough times, we get caught up thinking about all the bad things that could happen. I have an elderly lady at my church tell me, “Quit sowing worries.” If you look at your troubles in light of all the things that others are going through, your problems may seem a lot less. Across the world people are starving, being beheaded for their faith and their homes are being destroyed by bombs. How does your problem look compared to those?

    Psalm 46: 1-3 “God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and mountains quake and with their surging.”

    We can praise God even when times are tough.

    David went through some horrible trials. His boss tried to kill him. His best friends betrayed him. His kids killed each other. Yet, through all of these things, he always took time to worship. He looked to God in the good and the bad. There are so many Psalms that start out talking about how bad thing are only to end by focusing his attention back to praising God for all he has.

    Psalm 37: 3-6 “Trust in the Lord and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him and he will do this; He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.”

    Action trumps worry almost every time.

    Worrying is what happens when we are not taking action. Christian business owners are people of action. Instead of worrying about the things you cannot change, take action on the things you can. Action will lead to better results than thinking and worrying about your struggles. Take time to write out your problems, get them out of your head and plan a strategy to take care of business.

    Matthew 6:25-27 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?”

    You have a purpose

    If there is one thing you will see over and over again on this webpage, it is the fact that you have a purpose. You are a Christian. You were created to be an entrepreneur. God placed a desire in your life to help other and you are a Christian business owner who can make a difference in the world. Go and do what God has called you to do.

    Romans 8:28 “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

    [ad_2]

    Source by Lyle H

    Views: 0

  • I Miss My Separated Husband And Fear That He’s Never Coming Back

    I Miss My Separated Husband And Fear That He’s Never Coming Back

    [ad_1]

    There are certain times in your life where it’s very easy to dread the worst case scenario. Even if you are a natural optimist, when you are faced with the reality that you dread and fear the most, you tend to allow your mind to go to unfortunate places and you almost expect the worst to happen to you.

    This is very common. Unfortunately though, your sense of dread can cause you to make desperate moves that you would not normally make, so that your worst case scenario actually becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It’s extremely normal to expect the worst during a separation. For example, a wife might say: “my husband and I have been separated for almost six months. If you would have told me at the beginning of the separation that things would be this bad, I would not have believed you. But they are pretty darn bad. When my husband left home and declared us separated, he made it sound like it would hopefully only be a temporary thing. I don’t know if this was really his intention or if he just did this for my benefit. But the separation has been anything but temporary. My husband never calls. I ask mutual friends if he asks about me and they have to admit that he does not. He acts like I am an annoyance to him. When we first separated, I figured that he would be back in less than three months time. I never in my wildest dreams thought that this much time would go by. And I have to be honest. I now think that he is never coming back. And I miss him so much. I am generally an upbeat person, but this has brought me down so badly. It is all I can think about. In the beginning of our separation, I tried to reach out to my husband all of the time, but he was not receptive to me. I still try, but not as often because the rejection is very hard to take. Some of my friends and family tell me that I need to just accept that he is never coming back and I guess that they are right. But this is a very sad reality for me to face and I’m finding it affecting me much more than I thought it would. How do you face the reality that the separated husband you miss so much is probably never coming back?”

    I am probably not the best person to ask as, despite all evidence to the contrary, I never really accepted that my husband wasn’t coming back. But things did get so bad that at one point, it became clear that I needed to live my life. I never gave up on my husband or my marriage. And I figured that if we were going to divorce, then he would need to be the one to pursue it. I left that alone and I tried to live my life as best as I could. I forced myself to stay busy so that I would stop continuously bothering my husband and being rebuffed. I traveled a lot so that the distance made it almost impossible for me to continue on with this cycle.

    Ironically, once I forced this shift on myself, my husband became receptive again. But I like to think that I would have carried on regardless. It is true that you can not control what your husband is ultimately going to do. But you do have control over what YOU are going to do. Focusing on the negative while standing still in your own life, (while absolutely understandable,) is not the best course of action. It took me far too long to learn this.

    You deserve better than just treading water. As hard as it is to see at the time, your marriage is just one aspect of your life. You have many others. Sure, no one willingly wants to put their marriage on hold. But when you have no choice in this, it is best not to put yourself dead last on your priority list. Because in that sense, you are suffering twice. You are suffering because of what is happening with your marriage. But you are also suffering as an individual because you are basically standing still – just waiting for something that is not completely within your control.

    Sure, you can certainly paint yourself in the best light, work on yourself, address your marital issues, and take advantage of any interaction with your spouse. (These things all help tremendously and may make it so that he might eventually come back.) But you can’t control what he thinks or does. So the best course of action is to do what you can and then to focus on moving yourself forward. Doing this doesn’t mean that you have to accept that your husband is never coming back – I certainly didn’t. But it does mean that you’ve made a conscious decision to not solely focus on the negative and to prioritize yourself enough to continue to live your life — rather than putting it off and seeing it through the negative lens that the separation has brought about.

    [ad_2]

    Source by Leslie Cane

    Views: 0

  • THE ARGUMENT AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL

    THE ARGUMENT AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL

    The argument against Birth Control, urged by those who are opposed to the dissemination of scientific information on the subject, may be reduced to a few general points. These points of objection I shall now state, together with the rejoinder to each as given by the advocates of the proposition. I think that these points cover the main argument advanced against Birth Control, and I shall endeavor to state them as fully and as fairly as possible.

    Opposed to Religious Teachings. One of the most common arguments advanced against Birth Control is the one which holds that the idea is opposed to religious teachings. The statement, however, is usually made in a vague general way, the charge of “irreligious” being hurled without explanation, and usually without any attempt to show any proof of the accusation.

    As a matter of fact, as the advocates of Birth Control have pointed out, there is nothing whatsoever in the New Testament which in fairness may be construed as indicating Birth Control as sinful; in fact, it has been frequently asserted by authorities on the subject that there is nothing to be found in either the Old Testament or the New Testament which directly or indirectly prohibits the limitation of offspring, or which encourages the production of an unlimited number of children regardless of all other conditions.

    Nor do the majority of the various religious denominations seem to have in their statements of doctrine and living anything in the nature of prohibition along the lines indicated above. It is true, however, that the Roman Catholic Church does quite positively, and vigorously, condemn and prohibit the use of contraceptive methods among its members; and I have been informed that its priests place such methods in the category of methods producing abortion, both being regarded as practically identical with infanticide. I have been informed, however, that in this Church the restriction of marital relations to certain periods of the month in which conception is held to be not so likely to be effected, with abstinence at other periods, is a method of limiting offspring that does not come under the ban, particularly if there be a reasonable excuse offered for the desire to limit the size of the family; though, as a rule, even such method is frowned upon unless the reasonable excuse be forthcoming.

    In the case of members of the Catholic Church—and these only—there may seem to be warrant for the objection to Birth Control as “contrary to religion,” it being assumed that the teachings and rules of the Church constitute the true measure of “religion.” To such there is, of course, only one answer, and that is that if the teaching or practice of Birth Control methods be held by them to be “contrary to religion” (according to their definition of “religion”) then they have merely to adhere to the said religious teachings, and to refuse to learn anything about Birth Control. The matter undoubtedly is one entirely for the exercise of their own judgment and conscience. There is no desire on the part of the advocates of Birth Control to insist that such people must limit the size of their families—or for that matter that there is any “must” about it for anyone whatsoever.

    But we must not lose sight of the fact that the laws and customs of society in general are not based upon, or bound up with, the teachings and rules of this particular Church. On the contrary, particularly in the instance of Marriage and Divorce, many of our customs sanctioned by our laws permit and sanction things which are not countenanced or approved of by the Church in question. But just as persons outside of that Church are in no way bound by the teachings or rules thereof in the matter of Marriage and Divorce, so are they in no way bound by the teachings and rules of the said Church concerning the limitation of the size of families. The Church in question does not regard “civil marriages” as true marriages at all—yet our laws, and general public opinion, countenance such marriages; and it is extremely probable that within a comparatively short time the status of Birth Control will likewise manifest the same conflict between State and Church. But just as no Catholic is compelled to accept or practice civil marriage, so no Catholic will be compelled to accept or practice Birth Control.

    Religion is entirely a matter of individual belief and faith, and binds no one not agreeing with its precepts. There is no union of Church and State in this country, or in most other modern civilized countries; and we are not under the jurisdiction of the Church in matters of conscience or conduct, unless we voluntarily so place ourselves under such jurisdiction and control. The argument that Birth Control which is based upon the assertion that it is opposed to the edicts or dogmas of some particular Church organization, is found to be no true argument for the reasons given above; and such argument must be dismissed as fallacious by those who base their judgments and conduct upon the dictates of science, reason, and common-sense, rather than upon the dogmas or decrees of any Church organization. The answer to those who urge that “Birth Control is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church” is: “Well, what of it? if you are not a Catholic!”

    The force of the above objection to Birth Control becomes important when we find that those who are opposed to Birth Control merely because their Church condemns it do not content themselves with letting alone the subject, but would also endeavor to fasten the rule of their Church upon the rest of society. While such persons are undoubtedly acting in good faith, and inspired by motives which seem good to them, they should stop to remember that general society refuses to accept the rules of their Church in the matter of Marriage and Divorce, and is likely to refuse a like attempt to fasten upon it the rules of the Church in the case of Birth Control. The general public, here and in the first mentioned cases, will insist upon entering a plea of “lack of jurisdiction.”

    In the cases of persons outside of the Church in question who may consider Birth Control to be contrary to their religious convictions and teachings, there is to be made the same answer given above, namely, that the advocates of Birth Control are not trying to force anything upon those who entertain such religious or conscientious scruples—they would leave such persons free to follow the dictates of their own conscience or the religious teachings favored by them. But at the same time they would demand the legal and moral right to follow the dictates of their own conscience and reason, and would insist upon their right to receive legal protection for the dissemination of their scientific teachings. All that the advocates of Birth Control are claiming is the right of free speech and free knowledge concerning this subject which they deem concerned with the future progress and well-being of the race.

    The argument against Birth Control which is based upon the claim that it is “irreligious,” arises from the general tradition based upon the Hebrew conception of a Deity who bade the legendary first families of the race to “increase and multiply.” According to the scriptural narrative this authoritative command was addressed to a world inhabited by eight people. From such a point of view a world’s population of a few thousand persons would have seemed inconceivably great. But the old legendary command has become a tradition which has survived amid conditions totally unlike those under which it arose.

    Under this old traditionary conception reproduction was regarded as a process in which men’s minds and wills had no part. To those holding it, knowledge of Nature was still too imperfect for the recognition of the fact that the whole course of the world’s natural history has been an erection of barrier against wholesale and indiscriminate reproduction. Thus it came about that under the old dispensation, which is now forever passing away, to have as many children as possible and to have them as often as possible—providing that certain ritual prescriptions were fulfilled—seemed to be a religious duty.

    Today the conditions have altogether altered, and even our own feelings have altered. We no longer feel with the ancient Hebrew who bequeathed his ideals, though not his practices, to Christendom, that to have as many wives and concubines and as large a family as possible is both natural and virtuous and in the best interests of religion. We realize, moreover, that such claimed Divine Commands were the expression of the prophets and rulers of the people to whom they were addressed, and in accordance with the ideals concerning race-betterment which were held by these self-constituted authorities.

    To the educated men and women of today, it is seen that these ideals of human-betterment (no longer imposed upon the people under the guise of Divine Commands, but rather by an appeal to their reason and judgment) are no longer based upon the sanctification of the impulse of the moment, but rather involve restraint of the impulse of the moment as taught by the lessons of foresight and regard for the future which the race has received. We no longer believe that we are divinely ordered to be reckless, or that God commands us to have children who, as we ourselves know, are fatally condemned to disease or premature death. Matters which we formerly believed to be regulated only by Providence, are now seen to be properly regulated by the providence, prudence, foresight, and self-restraint of men themselves. These characteristics are those of moral men, and those persons who lack these characteristics are condemned by our social order to be reckoned among the dregs of mankind. Our social order is one in which the sphere of procreation could not be reached or maintained by the systematic control of offspring.

    More and more is Religion perceived to be more than a mere matter of the observance of certain ritual and ceremonies, or the belief in certain dogmas. More and more is true religion seen to be vitally concerned and bound up with the relations of man to man, and the welfare of society in general. More and more is it being perceived that anything which is decidedly anti-social, or opposed to the best interests of human-betterment, is not truly “religious,” no matter how sanctified by tradition, or bound up with ritual and ceremonies it may be.

    The spirit of modern Christianity is seen to consist of two fundamental principles, viz.: (1) the love of God; and (2) the Golden Rule. The conscientious Christian who uses head and heart in harmony and unison, cannot avoid the conclusion that the avoidance of the bringing into the world of offspring destined by social and economic conditions to misery, poverty, and sin, is more in accordance with the true spirit of Christianity than opposed to it—the ancient dogmas and traditions of the Church to the contrary notwithstanding. Modern religion is based upon Reason as well as upon Faith, and it is safe to predict the time when Birth Control will not only be sanctioned by “religion,” but also encouraged by it.

    Is It Immoral? Akin to the objection urged against Birth Control on the score of conflict with religious teachings, we find the one which states that “it is immoral.” Morality means “quality of an action which renders it right or good; right conduct.” Right conduct or “good” action depends upon the effect of the conduct or action upon the individual, other individuals, or society in general. The standards of morality, right conduct, and good actions have changed from time to time in the history of the race, and are not fixed. Reason teaches that that which is for the benefit of the individual and the race is and must be “moral,” and that which is harmful to the individual and the race is and must be “immoral.”

    As to whether Birth Control is helpful or harmful to the individual and the race—moral or immoral—the individual student of the question must decide for himself after having given the subject careful and unprejudiced consideration. The advocates of Birth Control hold that every fair argument and consideration of the question must bring the unprejudiced person to the conviction that the ideals advanced by them are in the direction of the betterment of the race, and the increased happiness of the individuals composing the race. If such be the case, then Birth Control must be regarded as positively “moral” in character and principles, and its teachings directly in the interests of “morality.”

    So true is the above statement that every argument of the advocates of Birth Control is based upon the assumption of its “morality,” in the sense of making for human betterment. If it be shown that the teachings are in anywise “immoral,” in the sense indicated, then no one would be quicker to condemn them than the intelligent and conscientious advocate of Birth Control, for the reason that his whole case is based upon the inherent “morality” of his ideals.

    Any one who has made a careful and unprejudiced study of the subject of Birth Control will discard the idea that a tendency so deeply rooted in Nature as is Birth Control can ever be in opposition to morality. It can only be so held as contrary to morality when men confuse the eternal principles of morality, whatever they may be, with their temporary applications, which are always becoming modified in adaptation to changing circumstances.

    The old ideals of morality placed the whole question of procreation under the authority (after God) of men. Women were in subjection to men, and had no right of freedom, no right to responsibility, no right to knowledge, for, it was believed, if they were entrusted with any of these they would abuse them at once. This view prevails even today in some civilized countries, and middle-aged Italian parents, for instance, will not allow their daughters to be conducted by a man even to Mass, for they believe that as soon as they are out of their sight they will be unchaste. That is their morality.

    Our morality today is different. It is inspired by different ideas, and aims at a different practice. We are by no means disposed to rate highly the morality of a girl who is only chaste so long as she is under her parents’ eyes; for us, indeed, that is much more like immorality than morality. We, today, wish women to be reasonably free; we wish them to be trained in a sense of responsibility for their own actions; we wish them to possess knowledge, more especially in the sphere of sex, once theoretically opposed to them, which we now recognize as peculiarly their own domain.

    Our ideal woman today is not she who is deprived of freedom and knowledge in the cloister, even though only the cloister of her own home; but rather the woman who being instructed from early life in the facts of sexual physiology and sexual hygiene, is also trained to exercise judgment, will, self-restraint, and self-responsibility, and able and worthy to be trusted to follow the path which is right according to the highest ideals of the society of which she is a part. That is the only kind of morality which now seems to us to be worth while.

    And, as any unprejudiced intelligent person is forced to admit, there is nothing in the policy of scientific Birth Control to run contrary to such an ideal of moral womanhood.

    But the relation of Birth Control to morality is, however, by no means a question which concerns women alone. It equally concerns men. Here we have to recognize, not only that the exercise of control over procreation enables a man to form a marriage of faithful devotion with the woman of his choice at an earlier age than would otherwise be possible, but it further enables him, throughout the whole of his married life, to continue such relationship under circumstances which might otherwise render them injurious or else undesirable to his wife.

    That the influence exerted by a general knowledge of scientific methods of Birth Control would suffice to entirely abolish prostitution it is foolish to maintain, although it would undoubtedly tend to decrease the social evil. And even the partial elimination of prostitution would be in the interests of general morality, not only in thedirection of lessening the brutal demand of women to serve in the ranks of prostitution, but also in many other ways of importance to society as a whole. The decrease of venereal disease would follow a decrease in prostitution caused by a general knowledge and practice of scientific methods of Birth Control on the part of married people; and it must be remembered that venereal disease spreads far beyond the patrons of prostitution and is a perpetual menace to others who may become innocent victims. And any influence that serves to decrease prostitution and the spread of venereal disease, must be placed in the category of “moral,” and certainly not in the opposite one.

    The objection is frequently heard that the general knowledge of scientific methods of contraception would lead to increased illicit relations among unmarried persons, particularly among the young people. This argument is apparently based upon the belief, or fear, that the fear of conception is the only thing which prevents many persons from indulging in illicit relations. It assumes that a large portion of our womankind are chaste simply because of fear of pregnancy; and that this fear once removed these women would at once plunge into such relations. In other words, it assumes that mentally and in spirit these women are already unchaste, but are restrained from physical unchastity by reason of the fear of conception.

    The answer of the advocates of Birth Control takes direct issue with the above contention. On the contrary, it asserts that the chastity of our women is the result of their general training, education, heredity, observance of the accepted customs and standards of their community, religious and moral training, etc. The woman who is chaste simply through fear, usually manages to allay that fear in one way or another, often by mistaken methods which work great harm to the woman and the community in general. The general knowledge of scientific contraceptive methods might result in such women manifesting their inclinations and desires in a “safer” manner, but this “safety” would not consist of protection against conception (for that they already think they have) but rather of a protection against the dangers of abortion and similar evil practices.

    Some of the writers go further in this matter, as for instance Dr. Robinson, who says: “If some women are bound to have illicit relations, is it not better that they should know the use of scientific preventives than that they should become pregnant, disgracing and ostracising themselves, and their families; or that they should subject themselves to the degradation and risks of an abortion; or failing this, take carbolic acid or bichloride, jump into the river, or throw themselves under the wheels of a running train?”

    The objection to Birth Control on the ground that it would increase illicit relations among men and women by means of removing the fear of physical consequences, seems to many careful thinkers to be akin to the old objection (now happily passing away) to the dissemination of the knowledge of the treatment of venereal diseases, and to the public cure of such diseases, on the ground that by so doing a part of the fear concerning illicit relations was removed, and thereby illicit relations actually encouraged. The result of this fallacious argument was the enormous spread of venereal diseases, to the great hurt of the race; and the encouragement of quacks and charlatans who fattened on the gains received from the sufferers from this class of complaints. The argument against Birth Control on similar grounds will be seen to be equally fallacious, and capable of equally evil consequences, if the matter be fairly and carefully considered.

    Illicit relations, if prevented or regulated at all by society, must be so regulated or prevented by other means than fear of conception. Such fear, though it may deter for a short time, will usually be overcome in time if the desire and temptation remain sufficiently strong. It is doubtful whether any considerable number of women remain chaste for any length of time simply by reason of fear of conception. If such fear be the only remaining deterring factor, it will usually be swept away in time under continued temptation, opportunity, and desire. Chastity and virtue must have a far more solid foundation than such fear; and experience repeatedly shows that such fear is but as shifting sand sought to be employed as a foundation for the structure of chastity.

    There is no reason whatsoever for believing that the scientific knowledge of contraceptive methods, if generally possessed by married people under the sanction of the law and society, would result in any more cases of illicit relations than exist at the present time. It might, it is true, result in less evil consequences of such relations in some cases, as Dr. Robinson has so clearly pointed out in the above quotation; but the relations in such cases would exist in either event. Fear of conception, like fear of infection, has never, and will never entirely prevent illicit relations between men and women; and to oppose scientific information in the one case on these grounds, is as futile as to oppose scientific treatment in the other case on the same grounds. And when it is considered how society in general is injured by the withholding of such information or treatment, respectively, the argument in favor of such suppression of scientific truth and method is seen to be actually dangerous to society and sub-service of the public good.

    I would like to add a few words concerning the question of morality in the matter of practicing scientific Birth Control. To me what I shall say in the succeeding paragraphs of this chapter have a vital bearing on the whole subject, and should be taken into serious consideration by the fair-minded and conscientious student of the subject. Here follows my thought in the matter:

    In my consideration of the arguments against scientific Birth Control I am impressed with one particular thought which refuses to be silenced, but which insists upon persistently presenting itself to my consciousness. This particular thought may be expressed as follows: It is admitted by unprejudiced students of the subject that the educated and cultured portions of the civilized countries of modern times do actually practice, to some extent, in some form, manner, or degree, the limitation of offspring—no honest observer will dispute this statement. This being so, does it not seem that the race should fairly and squarely, honestly and frankly, face this question and decide whether or not such rules of conduct are “right” or “wrong”—”moral” or “immoral”—and to what extent, if any, they should be permitted or encouraged to be practiced toward the ends of individual and race happiness and betterment.

    If the decision is totally against this rule of conduct, then it should be vigorously denounced, and all honest people should refrain from it. If, on the contrary, the decision should be that this mode of conduct, or some phases of it, are justified, then, in the name of Honesty and Truth, let us turn on the full light of general information, knowledge, and instruction on the subject, under the full protection of the laws and public opinion. Why should we not throw aside the mask of cowardly hypocrisy, and stand before the world showing ourselves as just what we really are?

    My thought, in essence, is that the chief “wrong,” and “immorality” about the whole matter consists in our present practice of doing one thing in private, and condemning the same thing in public. There can be no excuse, to the intellectually honest person at least, for the course of tacitly holding that a certain thing is “all right for us,” while “all wrong for the other folks.”

    Is It Injurious to Health? It is sometimes urged against Birth Control that the use of contraceptive methods is injurious to the health of women, in some cases a long list of physical and mental ills being given as possible of being caused by such methods. Opposed to this is the contention of the members of the medical profession who have arrayed themselves on the side of scientific Birth Control. The latter authorities positively contradict the assertion that women’s health is injured by the practice of rational and scientific methods of Birth Control; although these authorities freely admit, in fact they claim, that certain unscientific methods and practices popular among certain persons—such as the use of certain chemicals and mechanical appliances—undoubtedly have resulted in physical harm, and they strongly advise against the use of such bunglesome methods.

    One of the leading medical advocates of scientific Birth Control in the United States throws down the gauntlet squarely before those of his profession, and others, who urge this objection to scientific Birth Control, in the following challenging words: “I challenge any physician, any gynecologist, to bring forth a single authenticated case in which disease or injury resulted from the use of modern methods of prevention. I know they cannot do it.” And others in the ranks of the medical profession have made similar assertions and claims. The unprejudiced person who will consult the best medical authorities on the subject will unquestionably agree that the best medical opinion of the day holds that scientific Birth Control is not in fairness to be open to this objection.

    Is Birth Control Unnatural? Another favorite argument of the opponents of scientific Birth Control is the broad statement and claim that “all voluntary attempts to limit procreation are unnatural,” and therefore wrong. This objection, while usually offered without any particular argument, explanation, or proof, must be carefully and honestly met and answered by the fair-minded advocate of Birth Control.

    In the first place, it may as well be admitted that regulation, restriction, or control of the procreative functions by application of the intellect or reasoning processes isunnatural, in the sense of not being indicated by Nature and enforced through the instinctive actions of the race. The only instinct which primitive man seems to have had in this case (and these he held in common with the lower animals) was that of free and unlimited sexual intercourse, in response to his instinctive desires, with this exception (and this exception should be carefully noted), i. e.: that the male respected the instinctive disinclination to cohabit during the period in which the woman was pregnant, and often also during the period in which she nursed her infant. This instinct, unhappily for the race, the “civilized” man has overridden until it has practically ceased to manifest its voice.

    The lower animals, obeying this primitive instinct, do not manifest violation of this law of Nature. On the contrary, the female will not allow the male to approach her at such times, and will fight savagely at any attempt to violate this instinctive law of her nature. The male usually recognizes the existence of this law, and makes no attempt to violate it, but should he attempt the same he is defeated by the female as above stated. It has remained for Man alone to override and violate, and to eventually render nul and void this wise instinctive provision of Nature.

    But beyond this there is no “natural,” instinctive regulation of the sexual activities of animal or man, other than the desires of the male and female. If civilized man adhered wholly to the “natural” in this respect, he would obey the voice of instinct alone, and would show reason and intellect the door in such matters, and would also bid defiance to all legal or ecclesiastical authority when it sought to “control” his activities along these lines. But, it is needless to say, such is not the case. Not only has the Law of the Church insisted upon certain “control” of these matters—as witness the laws against adultery, illicit relations, incest, bastardy, etc.—but man, himself, has asserted a greater and still greater voluntary control over the reproductive functions as he has risen in the scale of civilization and culture.

    Today it is only the lowest and least cultured classes of society who (to use the expressive but somewhat inelegant term) persist in “breeding like pigs.” All other classes exercise a greater or less degree of “control” of some kind in the matter of limitation of offspring. In making this broad assertion I, of course, have in mind not only the modern methods urged by the advocates of scientific contraception, but also the “control” and regulation observed by married persons in either total abstinence from the marital relations for a stated time, or else the abstinence from such relations during certain portions of the lunar month, the latter method (somewhat uncertain, however, in its efficacy in some cases) being apparently favored by certain ecclesiastical authorities as the “only moral” method.

    In view of the above facts, which might be enlarged and extended if necessary, it is seen that as soon as man rises above the level of the beast or savage—as soon as he begins to manifest culture and civilization—he begins to exercise a certain “control” over the procreative function, and in the direction of the limitation of the size of his family of offspring. The contention of the modern advocates of scientific Birth Control is that the “new ideas” on the subject are simply a natural and inevitable evolution from the degrees of “control” which man has exercised since the time he emerged from savagery. The later developments are no more “unnatural” than the earlier—nor the accepted methods and forms any more “natural” than those which are now opposed by the more conservative elements of society.

    When anyone begins to talk about things being “natural” or “unnatural,” respectively, he should tread softly and watch his steps carefully. For at every step he treads upon instances of “unnatural” modes and methods of living. Strictly speaking, it is “unnatural” to wear clothes, or to cook food, or to live in houses, or to ride in conveyances or on horseback. All of these things have been evolved by the use of intellect and reason, and are not instinctive or “natural” to man. Birds build nests, wasps build shelter, hornets build homes, bees build honey-combs, worms build cocoons, snails build shells—all by instinct and “naturally”—and the young of such species do not have to be taught how to do these things. But the young of the human race requires to be taught such things as above mentioned as having been evolved by man in the course of his rise from savagery—instinct will not do it for them. And all of these things outside the plane of instinct, and within the plane of intellect, cannot be called “natural” in the strict sense of the term.

    You think that I am exaggerating the matter, perhaps. Well, then, I ask you to consider the meaning of the two terms which I have employed so freely in the foregoing paragraphs: First, let us consider the term, “Natural“; we find it defined as “fixed or determined by nature, and, therefore, according to nature, and not artificial, assumed, or acquired.” Next, let us consider the term, “Instinct“; we find it defined as “natural impulse, or unconscious, involuntary, or unreasoning prompting to any action.” It will be seen, accordingly, that merely the most elemental and primitive activities of man are “natural” in this sense; and that all his acquired activities and methods are “not natural.”

    The activities of man which are in the “not natural” class may be either desirable for the individual and the race, or else undesirable for both. Therefore, it will be seen, all such activities must be subjected to the test of reason and experience in order to determine whether they are in the best interests of the individual and the race, or else opposed to these. This is the only sane method of testing the validity and desirability of such things—Birth Control among the others. The claim of “not natural,” if applied at all, must be extended to all things which are not strictly “natural” or instinctive—it is casuistical to apply the term in reproach to certain things and to withhold it from others in the same general class.

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    For Young Wives and those who Expect to be Married.

    Views: 0

  • Social Media Trends For 2012 & Beyond

    Although social media marketing is a small component of our service offerings at Anvil & Formic, we?re constantly asked our opinions and advice on the matter. I?ve personally helped clients develop, implement, manage and measure social media campaigns since 1998 (no, that?s not a typo). Since then, I?ve kept a finger on the pulse of the social media industry, and I fear we?re near cardiac arrest. Regardless, I?ve put together the following social media marketing predictions and trends for 2012 and beyond.

    Read More
    http://www.associationofmarketing.org/articles/view.php?article_id=5331

    Views: 0

  • Glossary of Youth: Its Education, Regimen, and Hygiene, by G. Stanley Hall

    Glossary of Youth: Its Education, Regimen, and Hygiene, by G. Stanley Hall

    GLOSSARY

    AGAMIC. Unmarried; unmarriageable, sometimes non-sexed.

    AGENIC. Lacking in reproductive power; sterile.

    AMPHIMIXIS. That form of reproduction which involves the mingling of substance from two individuals so as to effect a mixture of hereditary characteristics. It includes the phenomena of conjugation and fertilization among both unicellular and multicellular organisms.

    ANABOLISM. See METABOLISM.

    ANAMNESIC. Pertaining to or aiding recollection.

    ANEMIC. Deficient in blood; bloodless.

    ANTHROPOMORPHISM. The attributing of human characteristics to natural, supernatural, or divine beings.

    ANTHROPOMETRY. Science of measurement of the human body.

    ARTIFACT. Any artificial product.

    APHASIA. Impairment or lose of the ability to understand or use speech.

    ASSOCIATIONISM. The psychological theory which regards the laws of association as the fundamental laws of mental action and development.

    ATAVISTIC. Pertaining to reversion through the influence of heredity to remote ancestral characteristics.

    ATAXIC. Pertaining to inability to coördinate voluntary movements; irregular.

    CALAMO-PAPYRUS. Reed papyrus or pen-paper.

    CATABOLISM. See METABOLISM.

    CATHARSIS. Purgation or cleansing. Aristotle’s esthetic theory that little renders immune for much.

    CEREBRATION. Brain action, conscious or unconscious.

    CHOREA. St. Vitus’s dance; a nervous disease marked by irregular and involuntary movements of the limbs and face.

    CHRESTOMATHY. A collection of extracts and choice pieces.

    CHRISTENTHUM. The Christian belief; the spirit of Christianity.

    COMMANDO EXERCISES. Gymnastic exercises whose order is dependent upon the spoken command of the director.

    CORTEX. The gray matter of the brain, mostly on its surface.

    CORTICAL. Pertaining to the cortex.

    CRANIOMETRY. The measurement of skulls.

    CRYPTOGAMOUS. Having an obscure mode of fertilization; or, of plants that do not blossom.

    CULTUS. A system of religious belief and worship.

    DEUTSCHENTHUM. The spirit of the German people.

    DIATHESIS. A constitutional predisposition.

    EPHEBIC. Pertaining to the Greek system of instruction given to young men to fit them for citizenship; adolescent.

    EPIGONI. Successors; followers who only follow.

    EPISTEMOLOGY. The theory of knowledge; that branch of logic which undertakes to explain how knowledge is possible and to define its limitations, meaning, and worth.

    EUPEPTIC. Having good digestion.

    EUPHORIA. The sense of well-being; of fullness of life.

    EVIRATION. Emasculation; loss of manly characteristics.

    FERAL. Wild by nature; untamed; undomesticated.

    FORMICARY. An artificial ants’ nest.

    GEMÜTH. Disposition; the entire affective soul and its habitual state.

    HEBETUDE. Dullness; stupidity.

    HEDONISTIC. Relating to hedonism, that form of Greek philosophy which taught that pleasure is the chief end of existence.

    HETAERA. A Greek courtesan. This class was often highly trained in music and social art, and represented the highest grade of culture among Greek women.

    HETEROGENY. (1) The spontaneous generation of animals and vegetables, low in the scale of organization, from inorganic elements. (2) That kind of generation in which the parent, whether plant or animal, produces offspring differing in structure or habit from itself, but in which after one or more generations the original form reappears.

    HETERONOMOUS. Having a different name.

    HOROLOGY. The science of measuring time and of constructing instruments for that purpose.

    HYGEIA. The Greek goddess of health; health.

    HYPERMETHODIC. Methodic to excess; overmethodic.

    HYPERTROPHY. Excessive growth.

    INDISCERPTIBLE. Incapable of being destroyed by separation of parts.

    INHIBITION. Interference with the normal result of a nervous excitement by an opposing force.

    IRRADIATION. The diffusion of nervous stimuli out of the path of normal discharge which, as a result of the excitation of a peripheral end organ may excite other central organs than those directly connected with it.

    KINESOLOGICAL. Pertaining to the science of tests and measurements of bodily strength.

    KINESOMETER. An instrument for measuring muscular strength.

    MEDULLATION. The investment of nerve fibers with a protective covering or medullary sheath, consisting of white, fat-like matter.

    MERISTIC. Pertaining to the levels or spinal and cerebral segments of the body.

    METABOLISM. The act or process by which, on the one hand, dead food is built up into living matter—anabolism, and by which, on the other, the living matter is broken down into simpler products within a cell or organism—catabolism.

    METAMORPHOSIS. Change of form or structure; transformation.

    METEMPSYCHOSIS. The doctrine of the transmigration of the soul from one body to another.

    MONOPHRASTIC. Pertaining to or consisting of a single phrase.

    MONOTECHNIC. Pertaining to a single art or craft.

    MORPHOLOGY. The science of form and structure of plants and animals without regard to function.

    MYOLOGY. The scientific knowledge of the muscular system.

    MYTHOPOEIC. Producing or having a tendency to produce myths.

    NOETIC. Of, pertaining to, or conceived by, mind.

    NUANCE. Slight shade; difference; distinction; degree.

    ORTHOGENIC. Pertaining to right beginning and development.

    ORTHOPEDIC. Relating to the art of curing deformities.

    OSSUARY. A depository of dry bones.

    PALEOPSYCHIC. Pertaining to the antiquity of the soul.

    PANTHEISTIC. Relating to that doctrine which holds that the entire phenomenal universe, including man and nature, is the ever-changing manifestation of God, who rises to self-consciousness and personality only in man.

    PATRISTICS. That department of study occupied with the doctrines and writings of the fathers of the Christian Church.

    PHOBIA. Excessive or morbid fear of anything.

    PHYLETICALLY. In accordance with the phylum or race; racially.

    PHYLETIC. Pertaining to a race or clan.

    PHYLOGENY. The history of the evolution of a species or group; tribal history; ancestral development as opposed to ontogeny or the development of the individual.

    PHYLUM. A term introduced by Haeckel to designate the great branches of the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Each phylum may include several classes.

    PICKELHAUBE. The spiked helmet of the German army.

    PLANKTON. Sea animals and plants collectively; distinguished from coast or bottom forms and floating in a great mass.

    POLYGAMIC (LOVE). Pertaining to the habit of having more than one mate of the opposite sex.

    POLYPHRASTIC. Having many phrases; pertaining to rambling, incoherent speech.

    POST-SIMIAN. Pertaining to an age later than that in which simian or monkey-like forms prevailed.

    PRENUBILE. Pertaining to the age before sexual maturity or marriageability is reached.

    PRIE DIEU. A praying desk.

    PROPEDEUTIC. Preliminary; introductory.

    PROPHYLACTIC. Any medicine or measure efficacious in preventing disease.

    PSEUDOPHOBIAC. Pertaining to a morbid condition in which the subject is continually in fear of having said something not strictly true.

    PSYCHOGENESIS. The origin and development of soul.

    PSYCHONOMIC. Pertaining to the laws of mind.

    PSYCHOSIS. Mental constitution or condition; any change in consciousness, especially if abnormal.

    PUBERTY. The age of sexual maturity.

    PUBESCENT. Relating to the dawning of puberty.

    PYGMOID. Of pygmy size and form.

    RABULIST. A chronic wrangler; one who argues about everything.

    SCHEMA. A synopsis; a summary. In the Kantian sense, a general type.

    SCHEMATISM. An outline of any systematic arrangement; an outline.

    SUPERFOETATION. A second conception some time after a prior one, by which two foetuses of different age exist together in the same female. Often used figuratively.

    TEMIBILITY. (From Italian temibile, to be feared.) The principle of adjustment of penalty to crime in just that degree necessary to prevent a repetition of the criminal act.

    TIC. A nervous affection of the muscles; a twitching.

    TRANSCENDENTAL. In the Kantian system having an a priori character, transcending experience, presupposed in and necessary to experience.

    TRAUMATA. Wounds.

    TRAUMATISM. A wound; any morbid condition produced by wounds or other external violence.

    VERBIGERATION. The continual utterance of certain words or phrases at short intervals, without reference to their meaning, as seen in insane Gedankenflucht or rapid flight of thought.

    Extract from Youth: Its Education, Regimen, and Hygiene, by G. Stanley Hall

    Views: 0

  • EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 1

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 2

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 3

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 4


     

    Following several stories by SaharaReporters on the unjust sacking of six nurses attached to the University of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital, Ondo State, the state government has now told the affected persons to deny the reports by the online news publication before being reinstated into service.

    In a letter signed by Adeeyo Babatunde, Director of Administration for the Chief Medical Director, Dr Oluwole Ige, and seen by SaharaReporters, the management of the hospital gave a number of other stringent conditions to five of the affected individuals before they are to be reinstated. 

    See Also

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 5

    Exclusive

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Sacks Nurses For Demanding Payment Of Accumulated Salaries


    The letter reads, “The management of the teaching hospital has considered your letter of apology on the matter and has approved your re-absorption into the services of the teaching hospital on the  following conditions:

    “That you submit two letters from two guarantors that are not less than the grade of a director in the state public service.

    “That you submit a letter that you would be of a good conduct while in the service of the teaching hospital.

    “That you should show evidence of your rebuttal of the malicious publications currently circulating in an online news media.

    “Please note that the effective date of your re-absorption shall be the date you resume duty in your department and the period of your absence will be treated as leave without pay.

    “By this letter, you are hereby instructed to report back to your department after complying with the above stated conditions.” 

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 6


    Recall that after forcefully removing them from service for protesting the non-payment of their salaries, the hospital’s management also coerced them into writing letters of apology after SaharaReporters exposed the injustice and victimisation of the affected nurses.

    The latest twist is however, another way the hospital’s management intends to put fear into the affected nurses to prevent them from demanding their rights while still in the employ of the state government.

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 7


    A source on Tuesday confirmed to SaharaReporters that the nurses were summoned to the office of the CMD a few days ago where the letters containing the new conditions were listed. 

    “Although, I cannot really state the outcome of the meeting between the sacked nurses and the management last week, but I am sure it was because of the story over their (affected nurses) sack by the hospital. The management was not really happy about it especially the bashing from the public.

    “Out of the six nurses that were sacked by the management, the hospital still refused to reinstate one of the guys among identified as Peace.

    “He is one of the best hands in his department at the hospital but he is being victimised to leading others to demand for their rights.

    “The hospital’s management is committing this evil despite an order from Governor Rotimi Akeredolu for the nurses to be unconditionally reinstated.”

    One of the affected nurses, who spoke with our correspondent, said he has rejected the conditions attached to the reinstatement.

    He said, “They gave five of us the letters and left one person out but as for me, I see those conditions as a way to further punish us for demanding for our rights.”

    CMD of the hospital, Dr Ige, did not respond to calls or text messages sent to him when contacted by SaharaReporters to react to the issue.

     

    PUBLIC HEALTH

    Exclusive

    News

    AddThis

    : 

    Original Author

    : 

    SaharaReporters, New York

    Disable advertisements

    : 
    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service
    Read More
    http://saharareporters.com/2020/04/07/exclusive-ondo-government-asks-sacked-nurses-deny-saharareporters%E2%80%99-story-being-reinstated

    Views: 0

  • Virtual Press Conference on COVID-19- 06 April 2020

    Virtual Press Conference on COVID-19- 06 April 2020

    Originally broadcast live on 06 April 2020, the daily press briefing on coronavirus COVID-19, direct from WHO Headquarters, Geneva Switzerland with Dr Tedros WHO Director-General, Dr Micheal Ryan, Executive Director of the Health Emergencies Programme, and Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, Technical lead, WHO Health Emergencies Programme with special guests Lady Gaga and Hugh Evans, CEO and Co-founder of Global Citizen.

    Transcript:

    Speaker key:

    TJ        Tarik Jasarevic

    TAG    Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus

    LG       Lady Gaga

    HE       Hugh Evans

    MR      Dr Michael Ryan JA  Jamie

    MK      Dr Maria Van Kerkhove KA Kai

    KT       Kate

    IN        Innocent

    YA      Yang

    00:00:19

     

    TJ        Good evening to everyone from Geneva and WHO headquarters. Welcome to the regular press conference on COVID-19. Journalists who are online can ask their questions by clicking  raise hand if  you are
    on Zoom.  Today we have a special guest but  I will  let Dr Tedros do his opening remarks and introduce them.  Before I give  the floor  to Dr Tedros, just to remind you, we will also be sending you some news from other
    WHO offices around the world with the audio file  from this  press briefing a little  bit  later. I give  the floor  immediately to Dr Tedros.

     

    00:01:07

     

    TAG    Good morning, good  afternoon and good  evening.  The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a heavy toll on families, communities and nations the world over but it’s also giving rise to incredible acts of generosity,
    solidarity and co-operation. We have said consistently that we’re all in this together and we can only succeed together. We need an all- of-society approach with everyone playing their part. That includes  people  in  the entertainment
    industry.

     

    Today I’m very delighted to be joined by one of the biggest names in entertainment in the world, Lady Gaga, and my friend Hugh Evans, the founder and CEO of Global Citizen.

    WHO has been working with Global Citizen for several weeks on the Together At Home concert series with artists like Chris Martin and John Legend giving free online performances.

    Now we’re working with Lady Gaga and Global Citizen to take this concept and make it even bigger through the  One World  Together  At Home virtual  global  special on Saturday 18th April. It’s now my great pleasure to invite
    Lady Gaga and Hugh Evans to say more about this very special event, One World.

    00:03:10

     

    LG       Thank you very much, Dr Tedros. Good morning, good afternoon  and good  evening to everyone who’s listening and watching. I would  like  to thank the World  Health Organization and the
    United Nations as well as Global Citizen; thank you very much, Dr Tedros and Hugh Evans, for all of your leadership in this fight against COVID-19 and thank you very much to the World Health Organization  for asking  me to collaborate 
    with  you on this special.

    We are also very grateful to all of the healthcare professionals across the country and around the world who are on the front lines during COVID-19. This  global  pandemic  is  a catastrophe. I’m so thankful to them and I’m also
    praying for those who are sick. It’s been a pleasure to partner with Global Citizen  and we’ve been working  all together  behind  the scenes to raise money for the World Health Organization.

    I would also like to send my prayers as well to people  that are losing  their  jobs  and are having a hard time feeding themselves  and their  children.  We are raising  money  for  the World Health
    Organization’s COVID-19 Solidarity  Response  Fund and seven days ago we held a  call with more than 68 corporate leaders from some of the world’s biggest and most generous companies and I asked them to join my corporate kindness
    list as there have been many corporations and philanthropists that have been very, very generous during this time.

    00:04:38

     

    Since then we have also been calling on philanthropists around the world as well and tech companies included. I’d like  to reiterate our deep gratitude  to the medical  community.  My heart is very, very aching and warm for those
    who are ER doctors as well as nurses who are sleeping in cars to make sure they don’t infect their families  or  their  patients.  What you’re doing is putting  yourselves  in  harm’s way to help the world 
    and we all salute  you and you are a triumph truly.

    I am proud to say that over the past seven days we’ve raised a total of $35 million for the Solidarity Fund. This money will [inaudible]  essential PPE, supplies  and testing kits around  the world and will help improve lab capacity
    to rapidly process tests. It will also [inaudible] research development. It is so important to think globally and to support the World Health Organization to curb the pandemic and prevent future outbreaks.

    I know Dr Tedros is particularly concerned about Africa and [inaudible]. We also need to act globally by supporting local charities  and initiatives so that the front-line health  workers in most immediate need have the resources they need
    to survive during this time. It has been an honour to help with this huge broadcast event, which will take place on April 18th, where we need to tell the stories of and celebrate the front-line community, healthcare workers and their acts of kindness.

    We will be on different networks, many networks actually and I want to [inaudible] about what we’re going to be doing. What’s very important is that two things happen for all of us; that we celebrate and we highlight the singular, kind global community
    that is arising right now. Two, we want to highlight the gravity of this historically unprecedented cultural movement and, three, we want to celebrate and encourage the power of the human spirit.

    00:06:47

    I would like to, on behalf of  the World  Health Organization  and Global  Citizen,  thank Dr Tedros as well as everyone that has donated so far. We are going to continue fundraising but I would like to also let you know that
    this broadcast special is not actually a fundraiser. We all wanted to raise the money before we went on air so when we do  air  live  on  April  18th  put your wallets away, put your credit  cards away, anything 
    away that you need to and just  sit back and enjoy the show that you all very much deserve.

    I’d like to pass this now to Hugh Evans, who’s been a wonderful partner of mine. Hugh, thank you so much and thank you, Dr Tedros.

    HE       Good morning, good afternoon,  good  evening  and thank you,  Dr Tedros  and thank you, Lady Gaga. Your Excellencies,  ladies  and gentlemen;  Lady Gaga, Dr Tedros, 
    you’ve both demonstrated extraordinary leadership at an unprecedented moment when our society is being challenged like never before and we are so thankful for your leadership. I’d like to echo Lady Gaga’s sentiment and commend the incredible acts
    of bravery demonstrated by the front-line community  health  workers around the world  and I hope  that we as a shared humanity emerge from this moment forever grateful for the work of doctors, nurses, teachers, grocery store workers and all of those who are
    the backbone of our communities.

    Global health is at the very core of the global citizen mission and we must  ensure that the world’s poorest and most  marginalised  people  have  access to resources to cope with and tackle this health crisis. Through One
    World:  Together At Home on April 18th  we’ll be calling on philanthropists, corporations and governments to fund critical global COVID-19 response efforts including distribution of resources and PPE to critical front-line healthcare
    workers.

    00:09:09

    In our partnership with the WHO and United Nations Global Citizen is committed to driving action to help ensure our global health systems are strong enough to stop a future pandemic before it happens. April 18th is going to be a moment of global unity
    connecting the world through a historic global broadcast. We are bringing together the greatest artists in the world under the passionate and extremely talented curation of Lady Gaga.

    In alphabetical order some of the artists we’ll be announcing today include Alanis Morissette, Andrea Bocelli,  Billie  Eilish,  Billy  Joe Armstrong  of Green Day, Burna Boy, Chris Martin, Sir David Beckham, Eddie Vedder,
    Sir Elton John, Finneas, Idris and Sabrina Elba, J Balvin, John Legend, Kacey Musgraves, Keith Urban, Kerry Washington,  Lang Lang,  Lizzo, Maluma, Sir Paul McCartney, Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Shah Rukh Khan, Stevie Wonder and many more to be announced over the coming weeks from all corners of the globe under the passionate and extremely talented curation of Lady Gaga.

    We’re grateful to all of you for participating and supporting this critical effort. One World Together At Home will be broadcast live on Saturday April 18th 2020 at 5:00pm PDT, 8:00pm EDT and 12:00am BST, airing on ABC, NBC, Viacom and CBS networks,
    IHeartMedia, and Bell media networks and platforms in Canada. Internationally BBC1 will run the programme on Sunday April 19th and additional  international  broadcasters include BN Media Group, Multi-Choice Group and RTE in Ireland.

    00:11:43

    The digital broadcast will celebrate and support brave community  health workers who are doing life-saving work on the front line and we’ve all seen the limitations of world leaders around this world to step up and face this extraordinary challenge 
    and we want to do our best to support the essential work of the World Health Organization, driving action and raising critical funds. Thank you again, Dr Tedros, and thank you, Lady Gaga, for your leadership.

    Thank you all.

    TJ        Thank you very much to our guests for their remarks. Dr Tedros, I guess you would like to thank them too.

    TAG    Once again I would like  to thank Lady Gaga and Hugh Evans for their  partnership. We had a call last week and I was so amazed by the energy and passion of Lady Gaga. It’s incredible commitment to humanity and that’s
    when I said, I think what she has planned can happen. It’s bringing the world together to improve awareness and to mobilise  resources to fight the pandemic so I thank her for her incredible passion and commitment  and leadership and
    also to my friend, Hugh Evans, for connecting all the dots and for his leadership.

    We all look forward to joining you for the One World: Together  At Home concert on 18th April. As the pandemic continues we recognise that individuals and governments want to do everything they can to protect themselves and others and so do we.
    We understand that some countries have recommended or are considering the use of both medical  and non-medical masks in the general population to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

    00:14:21

    First and foremost medical masks must be prioritised for health workers on the front lines  of  the response. We know medical masks can help to protect health workers but they’re in short supply globally.  We’re concerned that the mass
    use of medical  masks by the general population could exacerbate the shortage of these specialised masks for the people who need them most. In some places these shortages are putting health workers in real danger.

    In healthcare facilities WHO continues to recommend the use of medical masks, respirators and other personal protective equipment for  health workers. In the community we recommend the use of medical masks by people who are sick and those who
    are caring for a sick person at home.

    WHO has been evaluating the use of medical and non-medical masks for COVID-19 more widely. Today WHO is issuing guidance and criteria to support countries in making that decision. For example countries could consider using masks in communities where other measures such as cleaning hands and physical distancing are harder to achieve because of lack of water or cramped living conditions.

    If masks are worn they must be used safely and properly. WHO has guidance on how to put on, take off and dispose of masks. What’s clear is that there is limited research in  this  area. We encourage countries that are considering the use
    of masks for the general population to study their effectiveness so we can all learn. Most importantly masks should only  ever be used as part of a comprehensive package of interventions. There is no black or white answer and no silver bullet.
    Masks alone cannot stop the pandemic. Countries must continue to find, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact. Mask or no mask, there are proven things all of us can do to protect ourselves and others.

    00:17:13

    Keep your distance, clean your hands, cough or sneeze into your elbow  and avoid  touching your face. Less than 100 days since WHO was notified about the new coronavirus  research has accelerated at incredible speed. The viral genome
    was mapped  in  early January and shared globally, which enabled tests to be developed and vaccine research to start. More than 70 countries have joined WHO’s Solidarity Trial to accelerate the search for an effective treatment and about
    20 institutions and companies are racing to develop a vaccine.

    WHO is committed to ensuring that as medicines and vaccines are developed they’re shared equitably with all countries  and people.  I want to thank the  Medicines  Patent Pool and Unitaid for the initiative they announced last
    Friday to include medicines and diagnostics for COVID-19 in their licensing pool.

    I also want to thank the President of Costa Rica, President Carlos Alvadaro, and the Health Minister, Daniel Salas, for their proposal to create a pool of rights to tests, medicines and vaccines with free access or licensing on reasonable and affordable
    terms for all countries. Muchas gracias, Mr President. I support this proposal and we’re working with Costa Rica to finalise the details.

    00:19:09

    Poorer countries and fragile  economies  stand to face the biggest  shock from this  pandemic and leaving anyone unprotected will  only  prolong  the health crisis  and harm economies  more.  I call
    on all countries, companies and research institutions to support open data, open science and open collaboration so that all people can enjoy the benefits of science and research.

    Finally we’re nearing the end of the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This is one piece of good news. If there are no more cases the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo could declare the outbreak over  as early
    as this  Sunday.  We’re not  there yet and we remain in full response mode. We’re continuing to investigate alerts and to test samples.

    This would not have been possible without the incredible  health workers who have put themselves at risk for more than 18 months to stop this outbreak, just as health workers are putting themselves in danger to save lives from COVID-19. Health
    workers in DRC faced the 
    double threat of fighting a deadly virus in one of the world’s most dangerous and unstable regions, exposing themselves to Ebola and bullets.

    Tomorrow, as you know, is WHO’s birthday, a day we celebrate each year as World Health Day. This year we’re paying tribute to the incredible contribution of all health workers, especially nurses and midwives. Nurses and midwives are the backbone of
    every health system. They’re there from the first moments of life to the last. Tomorrow we’re publishing our first report on the state of the world’s nursing which highlights gaps and makes recommendations for all countries.

    00:22:00

    One of the lessons I hope the world learns from COVID-19 is that we must invest in health workers, not only to protect lives but also to protect livelihoods. I thank you.

    TJ        Thank you very much, Dr Tedros. Also, as always, we have Dr Mike Ryan and Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, who will be answering questions. We will  now open the floor.  I will  go to one question
    that I received by email this morning and I promised to answer; that’s Ankit Kumar from India Today. Ankit is asking; we have recently seen a spike in  cases caused through religious gatherings in India, in fact almost a third of new cases
    were linked to one gathering in India. We have also seen incidents of violence against health workers due to fear and misinformation. Is WHO concerned with these developments, what is WHO’s message to religious and community leaders and their
    followers?

    MR      First and foremost the idea of violence against health workers is driven by fear and it’s driven by misunderstanding but it’s  really  unacceptable. We ask everyone and every community to see our health workers
    as our heroes and to support them in every way we can.

    With regard to gatherings of any type, be they religious or be they for other  purposes,  there are always risks associated with such gatherings in the midst of a major epidemic. WHO has issued guidance on that. Many of these gatherings
    are now postponed or cancelled.  We’ve been working very, very closely with religious  and faith-based organisations  all  over the world including  groups  from the Islamic  tradition,  Christian 
    traditions  and others and continue to work through faith-based organisations to communicate  using  our  Epiwin platform.

    00:24:21

    We’re also continuing to develop guidance specifically  for the holy  month  of Ramadan and are working through our Eastern Mediterranean regional office to be able to advise governments and religious institutions on how best to manage
    the risks associated with such holy events.

    But it’s very important again; having COVID-19 is not anybody’s fault. Every case is a victim and every case needs to be  treated with sensitivity,  as the health workers who treat them so it’s very important that we’re not profiling COVID-19
    along  racial,  along  religious,  along ethnic lines. This is not helpful.

    TJ        Thank you very much. This was a question  from Ankit  Kumar from India  Today. Now we will go to journalists online. We will start with Jamie from Associated Press. Jamie, can you hear us?

    JA        Hi, yes. Can you hear me? TJ            Yes. Please go ahead.

    JA        Great, thank you very much. I wanted to ask you about… Over the weekend Dr Anthony Fauci mentioned that – if I understood it correctly – as much as 50% of transmission could be asymptomatic. Just aligned 
    with that, if  you could  give  us a little  bit  more  about what you’re thinking about the fact that some countries have said that this outbreak is more infectious than influenza. The CDC is saying that it’s up
    to three times more infectious than influenza so what do you have to say about that? Thanks.

    00:26:13

    MK      I’ll start and then perhaps Mike or DG would like to supplement. The modes of transmission and the way in which this virus is transmitted  are of significant  interest to all of us. What we are doing is working
    with member states, we’re working with everyone that’s affected by this, looking through the research and trying to understand  when most transmission is happening, when any transmission is happening.

    What we know from reports, what we know from published literature is that the predominant way in which transmission is occurring is amongst symptomatic individuals  and these are people that can be very early on in symptoms, even when they start
    to feel a little bit unwell. This is supported by some data that attempts to catch a virus from individuals who are symptomatic.

    We also know that it’s possible that people can transmit in the few days before they become symptomatic or in their pre-symptomatic  phase. There have been some studies  that have come out and we learned about this when we were on mission
    in China back in January or early February, that there are individuals that can shed virus one to three days before they develop symptoms.

    However it’s very important to note that even if you are pre-symptomatic or even if you don’t have any recognised symptoms you still have to transmit through  droplets,  you still  have to have these infectious particles that come out
    of your nose and your mouth. So while we know that that is possible we do not believe that it’s a major driver of transmission.

    00:27:42

    We’ve also seen modelling estimates that suggest that there’re large numbers of unrecognised transmission and I used unrecognised on purpose because I’m not saying asymptomatic. I’m saying that we may be missing people who are out there who are infected
    but we’re missing them because of current surveillance strategies. That is certainly possible in many parts of the globe.

    Whether or not those individuals are asymptomatic; we will have to wait until we see the results of serologic studies, which we hope we’ll be seeing in the coming days if not weeks.

    So what we can say is that most people are transmitting this virus while they are symptomatic.

    JA        Hi, Jamie. Just in addition because I think – I would never in any way contradict my good friend, Tony Fauci, such an eminent man. There are many different estimations of what might represent asymptomatic
    transmission or other infections in the community and we do know and everyone accepts that when the seroepidemiology studies do come online we will probably find more people who’ve been infected unknowingly; there’s no question of that.

    The thing we need to address in all of this is  very often the idea of  severity versus infection and there is a huge association  between the dose  of exposure  and the severity  of infection. We see this in many other
    infectious diseases so we also probably need to look  at who is getting sick and very sick and is the dose and the type of exposure they’re getting different to those who may be exposed and seroconverted in the community.

    00:29:26

    So it’s not just a matter of looking at how many people in the community are infected but are there specific elements  of exposure  that cause individuals  to have  a higher dose of exposure or a specific route of exposure 
    that causes more severe infection?  There is  also that concept of infectious dose when we talk about the different types of transmission. If somebody is exposed to a high dose from another individual directly or from a surface that’s
    heavily contaminated you can imagine the large dose.

    In other circumstances individual particles or virus particles potentially floating through  the air; it can be demonstrated that that may happen in certain circumstances, certainly in healthcare settings. But is that significant  in 
    terms of driving  infection,  is  that significant, does that produce an infectious dose that can successfully infect another individual?

    These are all very important things that still need to be studied. Again we’re only a number of weeks into this. I think we need to have the seroepi studies. I think  we need more information on what is the infectious  dose  and particularly 
    the relationship  between the dose  of exposure or infection and the severity of disease subsequently, which has been seen with many, many other diseases in the past including cholera, Ebola and others.

    TJ        Thank you very much, Mike and Maria. We will go now to our next question; that’s Kai Kupferschmidt. Kai, can you hear us?

    00:31:01

    KA      Yes, Tarik. Thanks a lot for taking my question. I wanted to ask about the global  push  to try and find a pre-exposure  prophylaxis  or a post-exposure  prophylaxis. I understand there’re
    several trials going on, most of them with chloroquine  or hydroxychloroquine.  I was just wondering whether you can speak a little bit to what role this could potentially play.

    Of course also there’re a lot of smaller studies going on. Is there any way to make sure that they all lead to results that can be proved in the end?

    MR      Maria can give you more detail but certainly one of the Solidarity trials – I think Solidarity 3 or 4 – we have one of the trials under design which will be a multi-centre study which will look at prophylaxis in healthcare workers to see whether there’s evidence that giving lower doses of drugs like chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to healthcare workers would reduce their risk of becoming infected in a healthcare environment.

    Those studies are certainly underway and again there are a number of those studies underway in smaller studies around the world but again as WHO we’re trying  to bring  together  a larger set of collaborative studies that will give
    us the answers we need.

    In terms of post-exposure prophylaxis I don’t believe  we have at the moment  studies  planned but Maria can speak to that but there is certainly evidence for the use of – not proven  evidence of effectiveness but there are a number
    of studies underway and trials underway that use hyperimmune globulin  in  the treatment  of disease; in  other words  they use that purified plasma of recovered individuals to give an antibody boost to people who are
    suffering the disease.

    00:32:49

    Similar approaches have been used in post-exposure prophylaxis for other diseases but Maria may be aware of studies underway in that area.

    MK      Only to add that, as you mentioned, there are a number of smaller studies that are happening globally and across a large number of countries.  We have teams through  our science division and through GOARN,
    through the Global Outbreak Alert Network, who are pulling together  available  literature  on a number  of topics,  one  of which is  looking  at different types of therapeutics and drugs.

    The idea is until we can have a study that pulls together enough of a sample size to get these answers to these questions we’re trying  to evaluate  every piece of evidence  that is  published so that we can look at the way in
    which these studies were done, we can look at the strengths, we can look at the limitations so that can help guide us closer  towards an effective treatment for COVID-19.

    TJ        Thank you very much. The next question is from BFM Radio. Is is Kate who is with us?

    KT       Yes, hi. Good evening or good morning.  I’m from BFM Radio  Malaysia. My question is, many countries around the world have imposed lock-downs or some sort of restrictions on movement. I was wondering
    what WHO’s guidance would  be; what’s the sweet spot, the kind of data that governments need to consider before lifting or relaxing  some  of these lock- downs? Thank you very much.

    00:34:29

    MR      Thank you. It is a difficulty for governments right  now  because the lock-downs  in many situations are proving effective in dampening the flames of the epidemic  in  those countries but those
    lock-downs are also causing great economic hardship and everybody especially in the developing world needs to get to a more sustainable way of managing this epidemic and controlling COVID-19 without continuing to damage economic and social life.

    The transition strategy out  of lock-down  requires  a calibrated,  step-wise approach.  It would be probably very inadvisable just to lift a complete lock-down, all of the measures because lock-downs are a general term that
    include closure of schools, closure of  churches, stay-at- home orders, closure of workplaces. It’s a mixture of different things and I think each government needs to break out, what does our lock-down actually constitute, what are the elements
    of our lock-down, where is that happening in the country, do we now understand the epidemiology of the disease in each area in which we have an element of lock-down or shut- down.

    Then to chart the path out, you have to build strong public health capacity to take over from the lock-down. In other words the lock-down is pushing the disease down by putting people back in their homes, by separating communities. Once you raise
    the lock-down you have to have an alternative method to suppress the infection. The  way to do that is active  case finding, testing, isolation of cases, tracking of contacts, quarantining of contacts and strong community education and
    participation and ownership around normal physical distancing, hygiene and giving communities the power to control infection by in effect managing their own physical distance, managing their own capacities to support the response.

    00:36:32

    In that situation, if you’ve strong public health capacity, if you’ve got a community that’s mobilised and empowered and if you’ve strengthened your health system then you’re potentially in a position to start unlocking or unwinding the lock-down.
    The specific parameters you need to be looking at are on two sides.

    One is, it would be very inadvisable to lock down [sic] if the number  of cases coming  through the hospital is already at a level where your  occupancy of  beds is  nearly at 100%.  You need to be in a position where
    you now have free beds in your system so that you’re managing and coping with the caseload and that means you have some absorption capacity left.

    You need to look at things like the doubling  rate; how  many days does it  take for the  number of cases to double? You need to look at positivity rates; what proportion of all samples that we test are positive? You’ll see in
    somewhere like Korea two to 6% of the samples  they test are positive. Last week in New York 37% of tested samples were positive so you need to carefully look at what proportion of people you test are positive.

    00:37:45

    You need to look at the number of contacts that are generated per case and it goes on and on and WHO will be issuing guidance to countries that is a much more specific around the parameters they should be looking at. There are no absolutes here, there
    are no answers, there are no numbers that say if this number is this then you do that. That doesn’t exist but what we can do is offer countries very specific  measurements  that they need to look  at to chart the path out of lock-down.

    That step-wise approach of unlocking somewhat and then waiting to see; I think you need to say, we will stop doing this element of the shut-down  and then we will  wait and we will  look at the data and if that works we go to the next
    stage and the next stage. So a careful, calibrated, step-wise exit from lock-down with putting in place public health capacities, putting in place community capacity, building the capacity of the health system to cope should the disease bounce back up; that’s the safe path out of lock-down.

    We want to achieve it as quickly as possible and we want to avoid many countries going  into that circumstance and we still have many countries around the world who are not in a locked- down situation. In fact their epidemiology would suggest
    they can avoid the worst of this and we need to support them to avoid them going into that situation.

    The most damaging lock-downs are in many developing countries  where people  – as the  DG has said many times – can live from hand to mouth, not from pay cheque to pay cheque but from day to day and we have to find adaptive solutions
    around lock-down and around disease control in vulnerable periurban populations living in poverty,  in  poor  rural communities.  We have to find alternative, adapted ways to manage lock-downs or slow-downs or shut-downs in
    those situations.

    00:39:41

    TJ        Thank you very much. This was Kate from BFM Radio in Malaysia. Now we will  go to Nigeria to Natural Star and it’s Innocent. Innocent, can you hear us?

    IN        Thank you. Can you hear me?

    TJ        Not very well but we will try. Please go ahead.

    IN        Okay, thank you for taking my questions. I have two questions to ask. One; how will WHO assess African countries on what they’ve done concerning the lock-down and management of COVID-19?

    Then the second one; there’s news going around that vaccines are to be tested on Africans when they’re developed. How true is that and is there a window that’s in the nearer future when a vaccine will be developed for COVID-19? Thank you.

    Hello?

    TJ        Yes, we are just trying to make sure that we understood the question but we will try. MR     I think this is Nigeria. Is it?

    TJ        Yes.

    00:41:08

    MR      Maria may answer the question around vaccine development. With regard to our general assessment on lock-down – and the Director-General may wish to comment on this because he’s been speaking with many leaders in Africa
    and, I believe, spoke with  the whole of the African Union leadership and countries late last week so therefore is in a much better position than me to speak about that.

    We would characterise so far, Africa’s actually doing well in this response thus far. Countries have essential capacities for testing, many countries are taking strong action and want to really focus on finding cases and doing contact tracing and trying to stop this disease becoming much more extensive given the fact that health systems are not as strong in many countries. 

    They need support in that though, they need support in testing, they need support with protective gear and they need to be given the resources to be able to mount those types of responses so I would characterise that Africa has not suffered the worst
    of this pandemic so far. The worst of it can be avoided with very, very swift action to support those countries in Africa who really do want to take a comprehensive approach to this disease.

    With the many vulnerable  people  including  refugees and migrants  who live  in  those countries it is our responsibility to provide that support but, DG, you may wish to speak about your interactions with the African
    Union countries.

    00:42:46

    MK      I’ll answer the question  around vaccines. What we can say is  that there are a number of vaccines that are in development and vaccines will be tested through clinical trials with all ethical considerations
    in place in whichever  populations  are under  study  with informed consent, with open and transparent communication. This is of the utmost importance, that not only do we have strong, robust  scientific  evidence 
    but  we ensure that all  of the studies  that are done are done with appropriate and the highest level of ethical considerations.

    One thing on the first question around Africa is that there are a number of countries in Africa right now which have very few cases and Mike has alluded to this in his earlier response.

    Some only have imported cases and there is an opportunity here, this  window  of opportunity that the DG has spoken about exists  in  many countries  still.  There is  an opportunity to prevent the worst from happening
    in a number of countries across Africa and across countries that are still seeing their first case; in some island countries.

    We need to support those governments, those countries, all of the people in those areas to prevent the worst from happening, to prevent these individual cases from becoming clusters, these clusters from becoming community transmission. I think that’s
    where we need to put  a lot of emphasis and support so that we can prevent countries  from reaching a point  where they need to put in these very restrictive movement restrictions.

    TAG    Thank you. Thank you for that question, my brother from Nigeria. On the situation, as Mike said, of course when you see the number of cases the African continent has the lowest number of cases so far but that doesn’t mean that
    the situation will not deteriorate. It may.

    00:45:06

    So Africa should do everything to prevent this situation from getting worse and that’s why African leaders are doing their best. I had a chance to participate in a meeting, a Leaders’ Coalition which was arranged or invited by the current Chairperson
    of the African Union, the President of South Africa, President Ramaphoza and many leaders from all corners of the continent have actually participated.

    The main agenda is to have a continental strategy and also make sure that that continental strategy helps the national strategy but in addition to a coalition of political leaders or the heads of state and government they have also agreed to have a coalition of business leaders. Business leaders in Africa are also getting together because Africa will need resources and one of the major problems that was identified during the discussion
    was especially shortage of equipment starting from medical equipment, PPE and test kits and so on.

    The leaders have agreed to look for concrete solutions to address the problem and they also believe that considering the number of cases we have in the continent testing cases, tracing contacts and isolating them, meaning using the comprehensive approach,
    will actually  help. They believe that lock-downs alone may not help or the physical distancing alone cannot help and they have agreed to do everything to follow the comprehensive approach.

    From WHO’s side we have been supporting and we increased, improved  the testing capacity in Africa significantly in the past two months and many countries in Africa have now testing capability although we may have a shortage of test kits but 
    we’re working  on that too and we’re finding different ways of addressing the gap.

    00:48:06

    But we will support the African Union, we will support the Africa CDC and also we will continue working through our WHO regional office in Congo Brazzaville and continue to support and fight the pandemic together.

    Then on the vaccines issue there was, I think, a comment last week from a couple of

    scientists who said the testing ground for the new vaccines will be Africa. To be honest,  I was so appalled and it was a time when I said, when we needed solidarity these kind of racist remarks actually would not help, it goes against the solidarity.

    Africa cannot and will not be a testing ground for any vaccine. We will follow all the rules to test any vaccine or therapeutics all over the world using exactly the same rules. Whether it’s

    in Europe, Africa or wherever we will use the same protocol and if there is a need to be tested elsewhere to treat human beings the same way, equally.

    The hangover from a colonial mentality has to stop — and WHO will  not  allow  this  to happen. It was a disgrace actually  and appalling  to hear during the 21st century from scientists that kind of remark and we condemn
    this in  the strongest  terms possible  but  we assure you  that this will not happen in Africa and will not happen elsewhere, in any country. Proper protocols will be followed and human beings will be treated as human
    beings because we’re all human beings.

    00:50:37

    Then after saying this the vaccine development; we’re addressing two issues and we will be announcing as soon as possible, hopefully during this week, a big initiative to accelerate the research and development and production of vaccines and also
    design mechanisms for equitable distribution of the vaccines.

    While we’re looking for vaccines, unless we break the barriers to equitable distribution of the products, whether it’s vaccines or therapeutics, we will have a problem, so we need to address the problem ahead of time, we need to address the problem
    of access or challenges to access ahead of time.

    That’s why we will put together a mechanism and we will appoint senior people from the North and South that will work out the details on how they can accelerate production but at the same time how they can ensure equitable distribution. Solidarity
    is very important here. When a vaccine or a medicine is ready we have to be able to deliver it all over the world.

    There should not be a divide between the haves and the have-nots.

    If we say solidarity, solidarity should be in its full form and I hope each and every individual, each and every human being will go for that kind of solidarity. I thank you.

    TJ        Thank you, Dr Tedros. We’ll take a couple more questions. We go to Yang from Xinhua news agency. Yang, can you hear us?

    00:52:58

    YA      Can I hear you?

    TJ        Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead.

    YA      As World Health Day is approaching  what do you  have to say to the  front-line medical workers in China and around the world in  the global  anti-virus  efforts? This  question is
    for Dr Tedros. Thank you.

    TJ        If we understood well, the question is what is the message to health workers in China and around the world. Maybe you can repeat the question one more time, please.

    YA      Okay. As World Health Day is approaching what would you say and what message do you want to deliver to the front-line medical workers in China  and around the world  in  the global anti-virus effort?

    TAG    I think I have said it earlier;  as you  know,  this  is  the year of  the nurse and the midwife, 2020. We were ready to celebrate it in a big way and it was supposed to be the main event in our
    Assembly in mid-May. Unfortunately we’re in this situation but  we will  be launching a report tomorrow which is the first of its kind.  It’s a report on the  state of nursing. We will launch it tomorrow during the World Health
    Day.

    00:55:01

    But while launching that report, although it’s about nursing, we will celebrate all health workers, midwives, pharmacists, doctors, you name it. I think the world is now seeing the importance and the central role that health workers play. People,
    when they’re asked, of course, to choose they would say health first because it’s only when you’re healthy that you can aspire to anything, whether it’s wealth or fame or anything. It doesn’t matter if you’re not healthy.

    If you’re not healthy the first thing you ask for is to get back your health and our health workers are making sure that happens and they’re central and very important for any individual. So not only during COVID but during other times too health
    professionals are very important because they are safeguarding that very important aspect of life — that’s health.

    So we have to celebrate them every day. Of course during COVID we can see to what extent they’re sacrificing. We have lost many of them. They’re dying while  saving lives  so my message first is to the public at large; that each and every individual 
    should  recognise, whether it’s during normal times or pandemics like now, the role of health  professionals  and help them, protect them, really appreciate and respect what they are doing.

    To the health workers, although especially during this COVID pandemic you’re working in a difficult situation you should know that your work is the most blessed one, your work is something  special to the extent of losing  your  life 
    while  helping  others to live.  We respect you and appreciate you for that and we also believe in you and that you will do everything to control this pandemic.

    00:58:11

    But you should know that you have – and the world understands – the most important job. We can see the humility which is coming from some leaders because of this pandemic. I know they’re seeing, starting from their own lives, the whole world through 
    a different  prism  and they will also see your role.

    But the most important is not the recognition from the public or from leaders but the internal commitment and passion you have and believing that you’re doing the most blessed thing  and you have all our respect and appreciation and we believe in 
    you,  that together  we will  finish this pandemic. All the respect and appreciation we have to you, the greatest respect and appreciation ever. Thank you.

    TJ        Thank you very much, Dr Tedros. I think this important message will be heard from everyone and we will  conclude  this  press briefing with these important  words from Dr Tedros. We will
    have an audio file available in the minutes to come and we invite you for our next briefing on Wednesday. Thank you.

    TAG    [Inaudible] and see you on Wednesday – tomorrow actually for the launch. Yes, see you tomorrow.

    01:00:18

    Virtual Press Conference on COVID-19- 06 April 2020
    Read More
    https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/06-04-2020-virtual-press-conference-on-covid-19–06-april-2020

    Views: 0