Public health experts in service of journalism.

Rapid responses to health questions for fact-checkers and journalists.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
0
articles

Are there ayurveda cures for COVID-19?

Ayurveda is ancient Indian medical system that focuses on natural, holistic approaches to physical and mental health. Currently, there is no evidence to indicate that Ayurvedic medicine cures or prevents COVID-19. Similar claims for Ayurvedic cures have been made in the past for other infectious diseases with no known cure, such as HIV/AIDS, without any reliable evidence. Such bold claims should always be treated with caution. In this particular case, the CEO of a major manufacturer of herbal products has claimed to have produced an Ayurvedic cure without providing any independent data to support these claims. While the company claims to have tested hundreds of patients in a "clinical case study" which showed a 100% recovery rate, it is unclear whether any control group was included or whether the design of the study was strong enough to substantiate such claims. In addition, the company stated that all patients tested negative for the virus within 5-14 days after receiving the Ayurvedic medicine, but it is unclear how long each patient had the virus or were symptomatic. The study also falsely claimed that Ayurvedic medicine is a cure for COVID-19 without disclosing how many patients were included in their research and how they can be sure that patients would not have tested negative naturally once the immune system fought off the infection over time. Ayurvedic medicine may be a helpful complement to Western medicine, and may not actively cause harm in some cases, but it should not be consumed as a cure for COVID-19. Instead, traditional prevention measures such as wearing masks and social distancing, should be followed to prevent infections.

What must regulating bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), look out for when approving a vaccine for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vs. approving a vaccine for general use?

Regulatory agencies in multiple countries began granting approvals for emergency use of COVID-19 vaccine candidates in late 2020. The standards can vary from place to place but are typically rigorous, with a focus on evidence for safety and efficacy from large-scale clinical trials. Notable exceptions include China and Russia, which provided early approvals of vaccine candidates before large-scale clinical trials were completed and began widespread vaccinations of people outside of trials months earlier than most other countries. The process for emergency use authorizations can vary widely. For example, some regulatory agencies need to consider not only their country’s policies, but also regional agreements between countries like in the European Union. A few regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. FDA, also do their own careful analysis of the raw data, as opposed to relying on the findings provided from the vaccine manufacturers like the U.K. regulatory agency.  Several health experts have now raised the importance of approving the COVID-19 vaccines for general use, not just emergency use. A major concern is that COVID-19 vaccines may still be needed after the emergency nature of the current pandemic has finally subsided, in order to continue to protect people against COVID-19 in the future. As regulatory licensing for general use can take time and require even higher standards of evidence (ex. often the completion of phase 3 clinical trials), experts are urging regulatory agencies to continue these processes in order to be prepared for health needs after the pandemic. Otherwise, there is a risk of a gap in being able to vaccinate people against COVID-19 once the immediate emergency is over, if only emergency use authorizations have been granted.

Is there a cure for COVID-19? What is the cure?

There is no known cure for COVID-19 right now, but there are ways to manage the symptoms of the disease. A cure is a substance or act that ends and relieves the symptoms of a medical condition so patients can have their health restored. One for COVID-19 is currently being researched in many clinical trials around the world, but no treatment or practice has been shown to effectively meet these standards. Healthcare professionals around the world are researching various treatments for COVID-19, including drugs that already exist to treat other conditions to see if they may be effective against COVID-19 as well. No treatments are currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for COVID-19, but because COVID-19 is a public health crisis, doctors can treat patients using some drugs that are not technically approved for COVID-19. Emergency use authorization enables unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used for diagnosis, treatment or prevention in an emergency setting, even if the treatments may still be under further study. Remdesivir, an antiviral drug manufactured by Gilead Sciences that stops the virus from replicating, received emergency use authorization by the U.S. FDA. It reportedly reduced the recovery time for hospitalized patients from 15 days to 11 days, and early results indicate that it may reduce mortality among patients who are very sick from COVID-19. In terms of clinical management of symptoms, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 treatment guidelines indicate that Remdesivir supplies are limited and should be prioritized for patients who need it most (hospitalized patients who require supplemental oxygen). The guidelines also recommend the use of dexamethasone, a steroid that can reduce inflammation, for patients who require ventilators or supplemental oxygen (and potentially other corticosteroids). Healthcare professionals may use ventilators and supplemental oxygen to ensure that hospitalized patients have a healthy supply of oxygen in the body, and monitor patients accordingly. Prone positioning (flipping COVID-19 patients onto their bellies in order to open up their lungs ) is also widely used to help patients recover from the virus. At present, there is no cure for COVID-19.

In what way could the public better understand efficacy rates of COVID-19 vaccines published by various companies, and do the efficacy rates affect a population’s herd immunity if that is the ideal goal of vaccination programs?

Vaccine efficacy and vaccine effectiveness may sound similar, but are actually different terms to scientists and health professionals. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. CDC), vaccine efficacy is a term used to describe how well the vaccine protects clinical trial participants from getting sick or getting very sick. Vaccine efficacy refers to results reported from clinical trials and reflects circumstances specific to the research settings, rather than describing how well a vaccine works on the general public in real-world conditions.  So far many of the vaccine efficacy rates that have been released (ex. Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine efficacy rates of ~95%) refer to how COVID-19 vaccine candidates can prevent symptomatic disease in people, not how the vaccine candidates reduce transmission. Researchers are still studying how effective the COVID-19 vaccines are in reducing transmission. “Herd immunity” refers to a given percentage of people that need to become immunized to a virus, through vaccines or through becoming infected naturally, against a virus in order to provide safety for an entire population - i.e. the herd. It’s the idea that if most people have developed immunity, then the rate of transmission will be low or non-existent. Researchers are still learning about what herd immunity for COVID-19 looks like. It is hypothesized that we may need at least 60-70% of the population vaccinated or recovered from infection in order to achieve herd immunity, but this has not yet been confirmed in real-world settings. Furthermore, the COVID-19 vaccine efficacy rates published by pharmaceutical companies do not yet tell us the exact vaccine effectiveness rates that can be expected in actual populations, and focus on how the vaccines prevent disease symptoms rather than how the vaccines reduce transmission. Researchers are still understanding how vaccine efficacy reported from clinical trials will impact herd immunity. It is currently thought that the percentage of people who agree to get vaccinated will be a more important factor for achieving herd immunity. It is important to remember that the goal of vaccination is not only to achieve herd immunity and reduce community transmission, in order to reduce the pressures on the healthcare system and protect at-risk individuals who may not be able to receive the vaccine for health reasons - vaccinations are also intended to protect individuals from getting sick or dying. Vaccinations play an important role for individual health as well as for public health on a societal level. Everyone who is able to get a vaccine is highly encouraged to do so, to help protect themselves as well as others.

Is there a specific process through which COVID-19 enters the body? Does COVID-19 first enter through the throat before it "destroys" the lungs?

COVID-19 enters the body through the nose, mouth, and eyes. This happens primarily when someone infected with the virus releases small droplets of liquid that contain part of the virus through actions like coughing, sneezing, speaking, or singing. These small bits of virus range in size, from the wet, teardrop-sized types of droplets you might see when you sneeze, to microscopic ones that are so light and dry, they might remain in the air for hours. When a person is in close contact with these droplets, the virus enters the body through these three areas. Then, the virus lands at the back of the throat, also called the top of the upper respiratory tract, in roughly 80% of people who have mild cases of infection. For other more severe cases, the virus can then move down to the lungs, potentially causing pneumonia, which happens in 15-20% of cases, although most recover. When COVID-19 spreads to the lungs, it does not mean that they will be "destroyed." It means that there is an infection involving fluid within tiny branches of air tubes or sacs in the lungs called 'alveoli.' These air sacs may fill up with so much liquid or pus that they become swollen, and their walls can thicken, so it is hard for oxygen to be processed and delivered through the lungs, making it harder to breathe. Every virus has a different way of infecting humans, though many viruses gain entry into the body through the nose, mouth, and eyes and often cause upper respiratory infections like COVID-19.

In scientific terms, is it absolutely safe to say that "bald men are more likely to have COVID-19?"

No, it is not safe to say in scientific terms that bald men are more likely to have COVID-19. In May 2020, a research study was widely reported in news headlines, which suggested male pattern baldness (androgenetic alopecia) could mean higher risks for severe COVID-19 symptoms. However, this is not exactly what the researchers found. The authors of this publication also acknowledged there were research limitations meaning their results cannot be generalized to a larger population and further studies are needed. Published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (JAAD), the researchers wrote that out of 122 men and 53 women admitted with COVID-19 to hospitals in Madrid, Spain, they found 79% of the male patients had some hair loss or baldness (alopecia) while estimating the prevalence of baldness in the general population is only 31%-53%. However, the researchers acknowledged limitations of their findings, including how only 175 people were studied (in research terminology, this is considered a** **small sample size that limits how findings can be generalized to a larger population). They also acknowledged that patients in the study were all admitted to a hospital with COVID-19, meaning there was no comparison group (control group) of participants without COVID-19 to compare the findings against the general population. Additionally, the research did not include information about patient outcomes (such as how the patients fared after they were admitted to the hospital), so it was not possible for researchers to compare outcomes for patients with and without baldness. In general, many researchers and doctors have cautioned that older people and men are more likely to have severe cases of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, and older men are also more likely to be bald. For these reasons, "bald men are more likely to have COVID-19" is an incorrect interpretation of the published research.

What would successful contact tracing look like following the President of the United States’ COVID-19 infection?

Given that the the period between exposure to COVID-19 and symptom onset can be between 2-14 days, U.S. President Donald Trump could have been infected as early as two weeks ago. He could have been contagious as early as approximately 12 days before his positive test result. Since other prominent individuals in Donald Trump’s circles have also tested positive in days following Trump’s positive result — such as Melania Trump, presidential adviser Hope Hicks, and Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien — all infected members of the White House may have overlapping chains of transmission and as a result, contact tracing efforts will be complex. As a result, the optimal, comprehensive contact tracing approach in this situation would look as follows:  1. Donald Trump and all individuals who tested positive in his close circles would provide detailed information on where they were and who they had close contact with in the 14 days prior each of their positive test results. Close contact includes anyone who has been within 6 feet (2 m) of any of them for at least 15 minutes, or indoors with any of them without a mask on within two days of any of the three diagnoses 2. A team of contact tracers would then quickly alert the identified individuals, to let them know that they may have been exposed to COVID-19 3. The individuals from the close contact group would then be assessed for symptoms and tested for COVID-19 4. The people from the close contact group who test negative for COVID-19 would then be instructed to self-quarantine for 14 days after they were exposed, keep social distance from others, self-monitor for COVID-19 symptoms, and send doctors and the state health department daily health updates 5. The people from the close contact group who don’t have symptoms, but have also not been tested, would be instructed to follow guidelines as if they tested negative 6. The people from the close contact group who test positive would be instructed to self-isolated and recover at home for minimum 10 days and then self-quarantine for 14 days after being exposed, seek medical care if they experience emergency warning signs, and monitor symptoms and avoid spreading the virus 7. The people from the list who have symptoms of COVID-19 but can’t be tested would be asked to follow the guidelines as if they tested positive 8. Each close contact would get tested again one week after initial testing 9. Contact tracing steps 1-8 would repeat for the close contacts of each individual who tests positive Though the incubation period of the virus that causes COVID-19 is 2-14 days, the incubation period of infection is most often 3-5 days, so it's most likely that Trump was infected between Saturday, 9/26/2020, and Monday, 9/28/2020. That makes him mostly likely infectious as of Tuesday, 9/29/2020. This entry was updated with new information on October 4, 2020.

What do rising COVID-19 cases during the fall of 2020 in U.S. Midwestern states mean for other states, like Florida?

Without a distinct, explicit, and obvious uptick in travel pattern volumes, and access to data about those travel pattern volumes, it is not possible to predict how the number of cases in one state or geographical region, such as the U.S. Midwest, will impact COVID-19 infection rates in another state or region, such as Florida. Known mass migration from one region to another could help epidemiologists predict how COVID-19 may spread, but U.S. travel tends to be spontaneous and multidirectional, with individuals traveling across and between different regions, rather than traveling as a large group from one specific region to another. Though widespread travel and transmission patterns are difficult to predict, we can reasonably conclude that a high volume of COVID-19 cases throughout the United States means that the likelihood of transmission of COVID-19 in the country is high, compared to other parts of the world. To prevent the spread of COVID-19, public health experts continue to recommend that people wash their hands, wear masks (the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends wearing a cloth mask over a surgical mask for increased protection), avoid crowds (especially indoors), practice social distancing, and stay home when possible. Out of the top five states that have seen COVID-19 cases rise the fastest during the first couple weeks of October 2020, four states (Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota) are in the Midwest. Some health care workers and public health researchers have referred to the rising cases in the Midwest during the fall of 2020 as a "third wave," after the summer wave and the initial wave of COVID-19 cases. Dr. Anthony Fauci and other infectious disease experts have warned that states across the U.S. could see another wave of COVID-19 cases, particularly with current case numbers remaining high in several places, colder weather setting in and coinciding with what is typically the annual influenza (flu) season, and people starting to become fatigued with maintaining pandemic prevention measures. Simultaneously in Florida, 5,558 new COVID-19 cases were reported on October 22, 2020, which is one of the highest single-day increases that the state has seen since mid-August 2020 (the only days with higher numbers in the fall of 2020 are thought to be due to irregularities in reporting). The reported increase brings Florida's statewide total to 768,091 COVID-19 cases and over 16,470 deaths related to COVID-19 as of October 22, 2020. Following the Florida Governor's decision on September 25, 2020 to move to Phase 3 of their reopening plans, including fully open bars and restaurants, public health experts have been warning that Florida could see a rise in COVID-19 cases and that this could also coincide with the anticipated flu season.

What do we know so far about how the U.K. is approving and rolling out vaccines?

**Approval status:** On December 2, 2020, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) granted an emergency-use authorization to a 2-dose mRNA vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, roughly seven months after the clinical trials started. Other vaccine candidates are currently under review by the regulator. **Approval processes:** In the United Kingdom, vaccines are approved by the regulator (the MHRA) based on criteria including safety, quality, and efficacy. The MHRA has been using a "rolling review" process since June 2020 to assess COVID-19 vaccines in an accelerated timeframe, with teams of scientists often requesting and reviewing data on various topics in parallel. The European Union (EU) requires vaccines to be authorized by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), but allows individual countries to use an emergency procedure to distribute a vaccine for temporary use in their domestic market. The MHRA chief executive stated that they used this existing EU provision to fast-track approval in the U.K. before the rest of the EU, since the U.K. is still subject to EU rules until their transition period for leaving is completed on December 31, 2020. **Distribution status:** The U.K. announced that 357 million doses of seven different vaccines have been purchased, which includes 40 million doses of the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine. An initial delivery of 800,000 doses of the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine (which can provide two doses to 400,000 people) was received from a manufacturing site in Belgium, and was divided between the four countries of the U.K. on the basis of population (with most going to England and Wales, 65,500 doses going to Scotland, and 25,000 doses going to Northern Ireland). The first vaccinations outside of trials in the U.K. began on December 8, 2020, prioritizing residents and caretakers in care homes for older adults (also known as aged-care). A 90-year-old woman was the first person outside of trials to receive a vaccine dose in her country. **Distribution priorities:** The U.K. Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) identified that the first phase of vaccinations should focus on directly preventing mortality and supporting the National Health Service (NHS) as well as the social care system. This first phase includes nine priority groups, which taken together are estimated to represent 99% of preventable mortality: 1. Residents in a care home for older adults and their carers 2. All those 80 years of age and over and frontline health and social care workers 3. All those 75 years of age and over 4. All those 70 years of age and over and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals 5. All those 65 years of age and over 6. All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality 7. All those 60 years of age and over 8. All those 55 years of age and over 9. All those 50 years of age and over The next phase of vaccinations will focus on further reducing hospitalization and targeting those at high risk of exposure and/or those delivering key public services. This next phase is likely to include people at increased risk of exposure to COVID-19 due to their occupation, such as first responders, the military, those involved in the justice system, teachers, transport workers, and public servants essential to the pandemic response. **Distribution processes:** The Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine requires storage in ultra-cold temperatures of -70 degrees Celsius. A shipping box has been developed that is packed with dry ice to maintain the necessary temperature for 5,000 doses, which can be transported by airplane. Once the doses arrive in the target country, the country can store the dry ice packs in a freezer farm for up to 6 months. If unopened, the dry ice packs can keep the doses cold for up to 10 days during transport. After the vaccine is thawed, it can be stored for up to 5 days at between 2 and 8 degrees Celsius. The U.K. Security Service (MI5) and National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) are working to provide security for the vaccine supply chain and distribution, which could be disrupted by hacking and other attacks. The U.K. Ministry of Defence has announced that it is providing 60 military planners to work with the government's vaccine task force and 56 personnel to help construct vaccination centers. The U.K. Armed Forces Minister announced that more than 2,000 military personnel have been deployed so far to help with testing and other COVID-19 response, and that 13,500 military personnel remain on "high readiness" to provide support. In England, 50 NHS hospitals are serving as initial hubs for administering the vaccine.

Previous
Page
1
of
1
Next

Our mission

Health Desk provides on-demand and on-deadline science information to users seeking to quickly communicate complex topics to audiences.

In-house scientists provide custom explainers for critical science questions from journalists, fact-checkers and others in need of accessible breakdowns on scientific information. Topics range from reproductive health, infectious disease, climate science, vaccinology or other health areas.

Meedan's Health-Desk.org makes every effort to provide health- and science-related information that is accurate and reflects the best evidence available at the time of publication. To submit an error or correction request, please email our editorial team at health@meedan.com. All error or correction requests will be reviewed by the Health Desk Editorial and Science Teams. Where there is evidence of a factual error or typo, we will update the explainer with a correction or clarification and follow up with the reader on the status of the request.

Our scientists, writers, journalists, and experts do not engage in, advocate for, or publicize their personal views on policy issues that might lead a reasonable member of the public to see our team’s work as biased. If you have concerns or comments about potential bias in our work, please contact our editorial team at health@meedan.com.

Our mission

Health Desk provides on-demand and on-deadline science information to users seeking to quickly communicate complex topics to audiences.

In-house scientists provide custom explainers for critical science questions from journalists, fact-checkers and others in need of accessible breakdowns on scientific information. Topics range from reproductive health, infectious disease, climate science, vaccinology or other health areas.

Meedan's Health-Desk.org makes every effort to provide health- and science-related information that is accurate and reflects the best evidence available at the time of publication. To submit an error or correction request, please email our editorial team at health@meedan.com. All error or correction requests will be reviewed by the Health Desk Editorial and Science Teams. Where there is evidence of a factual error or typo, we will update the explainer with a correction or clarification and follow up with the reader on the status of the request.

Our scientists, writers, journalists, and experts do not engage in, advocate for, or publicize their personal views on policy issues that might lead a reasonable member of the public to see our team’s work as biased. If you have concerns or comments about potential bias in our work, please contact our editorial team at health@meedan.com.

Nat Gyenes

Nat Gyenes, MPH, leads Meedan’s Digital Health Lab, an initiative dedicated to addressing health information equity challenges, with a focus on the role that technology plays in mediating access to health through access to information. She received her masters in public health from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, with a focus on equitable access to health information and human rights. As a research affiliate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, she studies the ways in which health information sources and outputs can impact health outcomes. She lectures at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health on Health, Media and Human Rights. Before joining Meedan, Nat worked at the MIT Media Lab as a health misinformation researcher.

Megan Marrelli

Megan Marrelli is a Peabody award-winning journalist and the News Lead of Health Desk. She focuses on news innovation in today’s complex information environment. Megan has worked on the digital breaking news desk of the Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper, and on the news production team of the Netflix series Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj. She was a Canadian Association of Journalists finalist for a team Chronicle Herald investigation into house fires in Halifax, Nova Scotia. On top of her role at Meedan Megan works with the investigative journalism incubator Type Investigations, where she is reporting a data-driven story on fatal patient safety failures in U.S. hospitals. She holds a Master of Science from the Columbia Journalism School and lives in New York.

Dr. Anshu Shroff

Anshu holds a Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and a Humanitarian Studies, Ethics, and Human Rights concentrator at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. She is a Harvard Voices in Leadership writing fellow and student moderator, Prajna Fellow, and the John C. and Katherine Vogelheim Hansen Fund for Africa Awardee. Anshu’s interests include: systemic issues of emergency management, crisis leadership, intersectoral approaches to climate risk resilience, inclusion and human rights, international development, access and sustainability of global health systems, and socio-economic equity. Anshu has worked at the United Nations, UNDP, UNICEF, Gates Foundation, and the Institute of Healthcare Improvement.

Dr. Christin Gilmer

Dr. Christin Gilmer is a Global Health Scientist with a background in infectious diseases, international health systems, and population health and technology. In the last 15 years, Christin has worked for the WHO, University of Oxford, World Health Partners, USAID, UNFPA, the FXB Center for Health & Human Rights and more, including volunteering for Special Olympics International’s health programs and running health- and technology-based nonprofits across the country. She obtained her Doctor of Public Health Degree at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, her MPH at Columbia, and spent time studying at M.I.T., Harvard Kennedy School, and Harvard Business School. Christin has worked in dozens of countries across five continents and loves running programs and research internationally, but she is currently based in Seattle.

Dr. Jessica Huang

Dr. Jessica Huang is currently a COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fellow with the Harvard Kennedy School’s Bloomberg City Leadership Initiative. Previously, she worked and taught with D-Lab at MIT, leading poverty reduction and humanitarian innovation projects with UNICEF, UNHCR, Oxfam, USAID, foreign government ministries and community-based organizations across dozens of countries. She also co-founded a social enterprise that has provided access to safe drinking water to thousands in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Formerly trained as an environmental engineer, she earned a Doctorate of Public Health from Harvard and a Master’s in Learning, Design and Technology (LDT) from Stanford. Her projects have won multiple awards, including the top prize in A Grand Challenge for Development: Technology to Support Education in Crisis & Conflict Settings, and led to her being recognized for Learning 30 Under 30. She enjoys being an active volunteer, supporting several non-profits in health, education, environmental sustainability and social justice.

Jenna Sherman

Jenna Sherman, MPH, is a Program Manager for Meedan’s Digital Health Lab, an initiative focused on addressing the urgent challenges around health information equity. She has her MPH from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Social and Behavioral Sciences, with a concentration in Maternal and Child Health. Prior to her graduate studies, Jenna served as a Senior Project Coordinator at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, where she worked on tech ethics with an emphasis on mitigating bias and discrimination in AI and health misinformation online. Previous experiences include helping to develop accessible drug pricing policies, researching access to quality information during epidemics, and studying the impact of maternal incarceration on infant health.

Nour Sharara

Nour is a Global Health Strategy consultant based in Dakar (Senegal) and specialized in health system strengthening. Most recently, she worked with Dalberg Advisors focusing on Epidemic Preparedness & Response and Vaccination Coverage and Equity across 15 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Her previous work experiences include researching the clinical needs in point-of-care technology in cancer care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston; and coordinating the implementation of a colonoscopy quality assurance initiative for a colorectal cancer screening program at McGill University in Montreal. Nour has a Master of Public Health from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, a Master of Arts in Medical Ethics and Law from King’s College London, and a Bachelor of Science from McGill University. She is fluent in French and English.

Shalini Joshi

Shalini Joshi is a Program Lead at Meedan and formerly the Executive Editor and co-founder of Khabar Lahariya - India’s only independent, digital news network available to viewers in remote rural areas and small towns. Shalini transformed Khabar Lahariya from one edition of a printed newspaper to an award-winning digital news agency available to over ten million viewers. She has a sophisticated understanding of local media and gender, and the ways in which they can inhibit women from participating in the public sphere in South Asia. Shalini was a TruthBuzz Partner & Fellow with the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ). She is a trainer in journalism, verification and fact-checking. She has designed, implemented and strengthened news reporting & editorial policies and practices in newsrooms and fact-checking organisations. Shalini set up and managed the tipline used to collect WhatsApp-based rumors for Checkpoint, a research project to study misinformation at scale during the 2019 Indian general elections.

Mohit Nair

Mohit Nair currently serves as Partnerships Director at FairVote Washington, a non-profit organisation based in Seattle, WA. Previously, he worked with the Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) Vienna Evaluation Unit and with MSF Operational Centre Barcelona in India. He has conducted research studies on diverse topics, including the drivers of antibiotic resistance in West Bengal and perceptions of palliative care in Bihar. Mohit has also worked as a research consultant with Save the Children in Laos to identify gaps in the primary health system and develop a district-wide action plan for children with disabilities. He holds a Master of Public Health from the Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health and a Bachelor of Science from Cornell University.

Dr. Seema Yasmin

Seema Yasmin is an Emmy Award-winning medical journalist, poet, physican and author. Yasmin served as an officer in the Epidemic Intelligence Service at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where she investigated disease outbreaks. She trained in journalism at the University of Toronto and in medicine at the University of Cambridge. Yasmin was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in breaking news in 2017 with a team from The Dallas Morning News and received an Emmy Award for her reporting on neglected diseases. She received two grants from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting and was selected as a John S. Knight Fellow in Journalism at Stanford University iin 2017 where she investigated the spread of health misinformation and disinformation during epidemics.

Dr. Saskia Popescu

Dr. Saskia Popescu is an infectious disease epidemiologist and infection preventionist with a focus on hospital biopreparedness and the role of infection prevention in health security efforts. She is an expert in healthcare biopreparedness and is nationally recognized for her work in infection prevention and enhancing hospital response to infectious diseases events. Currently, Dr. Popescu is an Adjunct Professor with the University of Arizona, and an Affiliate Faculty with George Mason University, while serving on the Coronavirus Task Force within the Federation of American Scientists, and on a data collection subcommittee for SARS-CoV-2 response with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. She holds a PhD in Biodefense from George Mason University, a Masters in Public Health with a focus on infectious diseases, and a Masters of Arts in International Security Studies, from the University of Arizona. Dr. Popescu is an Alumni Fellow of the Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Initiative (ELBI) at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Health Security. She is also an external expert for the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC), and a recipient of the Presidential Scholarship at George Mason University. In 2010, she was a recipient of the Frontier Interdisciplinary eXperience (FIX) HS-STEM Career Development Grant in Food Defense through the National Center for Food Protection and Defense. During her work as an infection preventionist, she managed Ebola response, a 300+ measles exposure resulting in an MMWR article, and bioterrorism preparedness in the hospital system. More recently, she created and disseminated a gap analysis for a 6-hospital system to establish vulnerabilities for high-consequence diseases, helping to guide the creation of a high-consequence disease initiative to enhance readiness at the healthcare level.

Ben Kertman

Ben Kertman is a behavior change scientist and public health specialist who became a user research consultant to help organizations design experiences that change behaviors and improve human well-being. Impatient with the tendency of behavior change companies to use a single discipline approach (e.g. behavioral economics) and guard their methods behind paywalls, Ben spent the last 7 years developing an open-source, multi-discipline, behavior change framework for researchers and designers to apply to UX. Ben is an in-house SME at Fidelity Investments and consults for non-profits on the side. Ben holds a masters in Social and Behavior Science and Public Health from Harvard.

Dr. Emily LaRose

Emily LaRose is a Registered Dietitian and Nutrition and Global Health Consultant who, in addition to her work with Meedan, currently works as a Technical Advisor for Nutrition for Operation Smile. She has been a dietitian for more than 18 years and, over the past 10 years, she has worked for the World Bank, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), PATH, Johnson & Wales University, and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. In her work, she has conducted analytical research and written specialty reports on infant and young child malnutrition, health misinformation, global human milk banking practices, and innovative food system programs; developed tools and protocols for clinical nutrition care delivery in humanitarian hospitals; taught university-level nutrition courses; and provided nutritional care for critically ill hospitalized patients. Emily earned her Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) degree with a Nutrition and Global Health Concentration at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, her Master of Science in Dietetics at Kansas State University, and her Bachelor of Science in Culinary Arts Nutrition at Johnson & Wales University.

Dr. Bhargav Krishna

Bhargav Krishna is a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, and adjunct faculty at the Public Health Foundation of India and Azim Premji University. He previously managed the Centre for Environmental Health at the Public Health Foundation of India, leading research and teaching on environmental health at the Foundation. He has been a member of Government of India expert committees on air pollution and biomedical waste, and has led work with Union and State governments on air pollution, climate change, and health systems. His work has been funded by the World Health Organization, Rockefeller Foundation, Packard Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, and others. He holds bachelors and masters degrees in Biotechnology and Environmental Science respectively, and graduated recently from the Doctor of Public Health program at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Bhargav also co-founded Care for Air, a non-profit working on raising awareness related to air pollution with school children in Delhi.

Dr. Christine Mutaganzwa

Dr. Christine Mutaganzwa is a medical doctor pursuing a Ph.D. program at the Université de Montréal in Biomedical Sciences. She holds a Master of Medical Sciences in Global Health Delivery (MMSc-GHD) from Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, and a Master of Sciences (MSc) in Epidemiology and Biostatistics from the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. She graduated from the University of Rwanda with a degree in General Medicine and Surgery. Christine has worked with referral hospitals in Kigali, the capital city of Rwanda, during her medical training and after graduation. In addition, she has extensive experience working with rural communities in the Eastern province of Rwanda, where she organized clinical and research activities in active collaboration with colleagues within and outside Rwanda. Her research portfolio cuts across maternal and child health to infectious and chronic diseases. Christine is an advocate for children's healthcare services, especially for underserved populations. She is part of a community of scientists translating scientific findings into understandable and accessible information for the general population. Christine is an avid reader and a lover of classical/contemporary music.

Dr. Ahmad Hegazi

Ahmad is an experienced physician, who earned his medical degree from Cairo University, Faculty of Medicine, in Egypt. He practiced medicine between 2012 and 2017 as a general practitioner where he was involved in primary care, health quarantine services, and radiology. He then taught medicine in Cairo for two years prior to starting his MPH program, at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, where he supplemented his experience with knowledge on epidemiology, health systems and global health issues. Additionally, Ahmad has an interest in nutrition, which started as a personal curiosity to how he can improve his own health, then quickly saw the potential for public health nutrition in the prevention and management of multiple, lifelong diseases. His enrollment at Harvard started his transition towards learning about food, and public health nutrition. Ahmad now combines the knowledge and experience of his medical career, with the learnings of his degree to navigate public health topics in his writing and his career. He is a life-long learner and continues to gather knowledge and experience, and works towards maximizing his impact through combatting misinformation through his work with Meedan.

Dr. Uzma Alam

Dr. Uzma Alam is a global health professional working at the intersection of infectious diseases and healthcare delivery in the international development and humanitarian contexts. She focuses on the use of evidence and innovation to inform strategies and policies. Her work has appeared globally across print and media outlets.She has international experience with roles of increasing responsibility across the science value chain having served with academic, non-profit, corporate, and governmental agencies, including advisory commissions and corporate counsel. Uzma is the former secretary of the Association of Women in Science and editor of the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics. Currently she serves on the Board of the Geneva Foundation. She also leads the Biomedical and Health Sciences Portfolio of the Developing Excellence, Leadership and Training in Science in Africa program (DELTAS-Africa). A US$100 million programme supporting development of world-class scientific leaders on the continent. Plus heading the African Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) Priorities Programme. A programme that engages Africa’s science and political leaders to identify the top STI priorities for the continent that if addressed, offer the highest return on investment for Africa’s sustainable development.

Contact us

Visit the
Health Desk
website.