Public health experts in service of journalism.
Health Desk
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.
Rapid responses to health questions for fact-checkers and journalists.
Positivity rates of COVID-19 are not an indication of herd immunity. The rate of positivity in a community is defined as the percentage of total COVID-19 tests that come back positive out of all the people who have been tested in that community or population, within a given time period. Positivity rates can indicate an increasing outbreak, if the rate of positive tests increases while the amount of testing stays the same. A positivity rate can also indicate that not enough tests are being conducted, if more tests come back with positive results but tests were conducted on a smaller percentage of the population than the week before. Neither of these have anything to do with herd immunity. "Herd immunity" refers to a given percentage of people that need to become immunized to a virus, through vaccines or through becoming infected in a natural setting, against a virus in order to provide safety for an entire population—i.e. the herd. It's the idea that if most people are immune, then the rate of transmission will be low or non-existent. COVID-19 is not vaccine-preventable at this time and we know very little about how we become immune to the virus. Herd immunity would require a large majority of the population to become infected with the virus and obtain long-term immunity to COVID-19 — but since we know so little about long-term immunity right now, we can't say anything about herd immunity in relation to COVID-19. Percent positive rates of COVID-19 are not being used to determine herd immunity in a community because we know so little about immunity in general, and because positive rates can mean a wide variety of things. If there is a higher percentage of positive test results in a region, this is not indicative of any potential for herd immunity, because evidence to support long-term immunity is lacking.
Antihistamines are medications people can purchase over the counter without a prescription to help improve their allergy symptoms. They are among the many medications being researched as potential treatment options for COVID-19. Few studies about the efficacy of antihistamines as a treatment for COVID-19 are complete, and there is no evidence that supports the theory that antihistamines are an effective treatment for the virus. Current research is investigating whether some antihistamine medications like cloperastine, clemastine, and Azelastine can help improve symptoms or shorten the duration of COVID-19 infections, but early research has only identified these potential medications in laboratories. That means that they have not completed testing these medications in humans, so we don't know if they have any impact. Cetirizine (an antihistamine medication also known as Zyrtec) is currently being studied with famotidine (an antihistamine and antacid medication) to see whether it can be effective in treating COVID-19, particularly in patients with very aggressive immune system responses. An early study in a pre-print journal that has not been reviewed by experts or published yet, found promising results for helping ease symptoms in hospitalized patients. The study did not have a control group to compare these patients to (which is generally part of published studies on medication) and had a small population size. Overall, there has yet to be evidence that antihistamines —including certirizine—can treat COVID-19.
Recent research has shown that a person infected with COVID-19 may be able to spread the virus up to 72 hours before they begin to have any symptoms and up to 10 days after symptoms disappear. New studies have suggested that people are the most infectious in the 48 hours before they start to experience any symptoms. People who test positive for COVID-19 but do not develop symptoms in the 10 days following the test result are considered to be likely no longer contagious after those 10 days. There may be exceptions to these timings, so experts recommend 10 days of isolation after either testing positive for the virus, being exposed to a person who has been infected with COVID-19, or developing any symptoms. The best way to ensure you are no long contagious is by having two negative COVID-19 tests more than 24 hours apart. However, as per the U.S. CDC, individuals who were severely ill from COVID-19 or are severely immunocompromised might need to remain isolated for longer than 10 days and up to 20 days because they may still be producing viral particles.
While a varied and balanced diet including fruits and vegetables does help to support the immune system in general, there is no evidence to suggest that special diets, consumption of particular foods, or taking vitamin, mineral, or herbal supplements will prevent, treat or cure COVID-19. For patients with type 2 diabetes, using medications, diet controls (intentionally eating for your condition, like controlling carbohydrate intake and limiting sugar), and exercise to keep blood sugar levels within a normal range has been associated with better outcomes in patients with COVID-19. While diets high in sugar have been shown to impact health, it is not well understood how much added sugar is needed to cause health problems. Studies show that people who consume diets that are high in sugar are more likely to be overweight or obese and have other health problems like insulin resistance (where their bodies are not able to use sugar correctly), type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, kidney disease, or fatty liver disease than people who consume little added sugar. In addition, sugar has been linked with inflammation and poor immune function in the body, especially when a person has insulin resistance or excess body fat. Researchers do not know how much, what type, or under which conditions sugar may cause problems in the short or long term.
We are still learning a lot about what kind of immunity a person has after being infected with COVID-19, and how long that immunity lasts. A a small number of people have reportedly become reinfected with virus following an initial infection and research is ongoing. According to the US Centers fo Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "reinfection means a person was infected (got sick) once, recovered, and then later became infected again. Based on what we know from similar viruses, some reinfections are expected. We are still learning more about COVID-19." In a press conference on December 4th, 2020, the World Health Organization acknowledged emerging evidence that suggests that COVID-19 immunity is unlikely to be lifelong, which suggests reinfection may be possible. The most reliable way to measure immunity to COVID-19 is unclear, and, whether from infection or vaccination, scientists still do not know how long immunity to COVID-19 may last. Though reinfection has been documented, there are many ongoing questions about whether or not reinfection poses an ongoing risk, how common it is, and what kind of immunity to the virus people might obtain once they have been infected. Currently researchers believe that most people will be protected from reinfection for up to six months following infection, but research is ongoing. There are multiple pre-print studies with large participant groups that suggest immunity does last for up to six months but decreases over time. Antibodies decrease more quickly in young adults who have had an asymptomatic infection. Pre-print studies have also suggested that reinfection is possible. It is important to note that there is a shortage of peer-reviewed papers (so other scientific experts are not yet able to rigorously study the data or full results). It is also important to note that antibody levels may not be a strong indicator of immunity against the virus and likelihood of reinfection. To prevent infection, reinfection, and spread of COVID-19, experts recommend frequent hand washing, social distancing (6 feet/2 meters apart), avoidance of crowded areas (especially indoors), wearing a face mask (though the U.S. CDC now suggests wearing a cloth mask over a surgical mask or a high grade respirator), and staying home when you are sick or know that you have been exposed to COVID-19.
After vaccines are approved for use they are monitored closely by national and international health and medicine regulators. Studying long-term effects of vaccines helps health authorities ensure that protection from taking a vaccine outweighs risks. The United States uses several reporting mechanisms for monitoring long-term vaccine side effects. They include: - Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which works as an early warning system to detect possible safety issues with vaccines by collecting information about possible side effects or health problems that occur after vaccination - The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) which helps discover if possible side effects identified using VAERS are actually related to vaccination - The Post-Licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring (PRISM) system which is the largest vaccine safety surveillance system in the United States and actively monitors a subset of the general population for vaccine impacts - The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project which works alongside health systems to consistently monitor and evaluate the safety of vaccines throughout large populations Additionally, the U.S. CDC unveiled V-safe in response to COVID-19. V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to provide personalized health check-ins after you receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Using V-safe allows vaccine recipients to quickly tell the CDC if they are experiencing any side effects after getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Depending on which side effects people are experience, someone from the CDC may call to check on them and get more information. Monitoring vaccines and reporting any side effects to local and national health agencies is an important part of the vaccine process. Any reports of a potential side effect from a vaccine can lead to health officials issuing new recommendations or warnings, restricting the vaccine, or even recalling it if necessary (but very few vaccines have even been recalled). Though safety and efficacy data are intensely reviewed before vaccines are approved for usage, constant monitoring of their side effects is a necessary step in ensuring the public's safety.
The intended purpose of curfew orders is to reduce nonessential interactions between individuals from different households by keeping people at home during a time when they are more likely to participate in nonessential activities that could result in less compliance with public health practices. The logic of this argument is that people are more likely to be working during the day and running essential errands such as grocery shopping, whereas in the evening and early hours people are less likely to be gathering for essential reasons, and are more likely to be gathering socially with a risk of leniency towards public health recommendations and mandates. Contact tracing efforts have shown that the most common sources of COVID-19 spread include gatherings at places such as bars and restaurants. In addition, the percent positivity of COVID-19 is highest among 18 to 24-year-olds across counties in the United States—the country with the most cases and deaths of COVID-19—indicating high public health need to target that age group, which curfews do. By maintaining most normal activities, curfews also have less of a negative financial and mental health impact on society than lockdowns. Curfews also signal the severity of the situation, and as a result, are potentially helpful for reducing interactions between people overall. One critique of curfews, particularly ones that start early in the evening, is that for a short period of time before a curfew begins they can result in more people being crammed together (on transit, in stores, etc.) who are rushing to get errands done and get home on time. In addition, jurisdictions close by (such as neighboring cities) can have different curfews, making it difficult to really ensure the curfew is effective as an individual with an early curfew could stay out in a neighboring city with a later curfew. It could also create difficulty for local businesses when curfews differ and one jurisdiction’s businesses are able to stay open later than others'. In addition, individuals can go around the curfew, for instance, by gathering in homes after the start of curfew. Overall, there isn’t strong evidence that curfews help or hurt efforts to curb the spread of COVID-19. There are pros and cons to curfews, with logical reasons pointing towards their use. However, targeted actions such as limiting indoor dining or cracking down on large indoor gatherings are more likely to be more effective.
As the Northern Hemisphere enters influenza (flu) season during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever to get vaccinated against the flu. Reasons include: - Reducing strains on health systems providing testing and care - Preventing patients from becoming infected with the flu and COVID-19 at the same time - Protecting the lives of people who are the most vulnerable to getting sick, such as very young children, people with certain health conditions, and older adults Flu cases occur year-round, but tend to peak during the fall and winter seasons in the Northern Hemisphere. Seasonal flu vaccines, also called flu shots when given via injection, help the body to develop antibodies about two weeks after vaccination. These antibodies help the immune system fight against infection from certain strains of influenza viruses. Each year, research indicates what the most common influenza viruses may be during the upcoming season, and flu vaccines are developed to tackle those strains. Flu vaccines do not protect against every strain of influenza because there are many, and mutations are frequent. Flu vaccines are widely considered safe and effective for preventing illness and death from the flu. Flu vaccines can have added benefits for people with certain chronic medical conditions, such as reducing illness flare-ups in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and reducing the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and death among people with heart disease. There are many types of flu vaccines available, including for children as young as 6 months of age and for older adults above 65 years of age. Most flu vaccines are considered safe for the general population between 6 months and 65 years of age, including pregnant women and people with certain health conditions. There are limited exceptions to who should get a flu vaccine, based on factors such as age, health status, and allergies. Anyone with concerns about getting a flu vaccine can consult a doctor. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends getting a flu vaccine every year, and emphasizes the importance of getting vaccinated against the flu in 2020 due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It is better to get a flu vaccine early in the season, before the flu season peaks, rather than waiting until influenza viruses are spreading in your community. When going to get a flu vaccine during the COVID-19 pandemic, plan to take recommended precautions such as wearing a face covering (preferably a cloth mask over a surgical mask) and practicing good hygiene.
Virgin coconut oil (VCO) is being studied in the Philippines and other countries as a potential supplementary treatment for COVID-19 — that is, a potential additional treatment used in combination with other COVID-19 treatments. These community-based trials are being carried out by the Filipino Department of Science and Technology (DOST) at the Sta. Rosa Community Hospital in Laguna, and involved both probable cases of COVID-19 (i.e. highly suspected cases) and mild cases of COVID-19. There are also two trials being carried out at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) looking into the effects of VCO on moderate cases of COVID-19 or those who are hospitalized. These two sets of studies aim to understand if VCO can shorten the COVID-19 recovery time, prevent further complications, and prevent hospitalization time. These studies follow 6 months of laboratory experiments that found VCO to decrease the coronavirus count by 60 to 90% for mild to moderate cases of COVID-19. If proven to be effective with sufficient evidence in the community-based trials, VCO could be a safe and affordable supplementary treatment for COVID-19. It is important to note that these studies are still in development and that The World Health Organization (WHO) does not support the use of any specific medication to treat, cure, or prevent COVID-19. While coconut oil is safe in certain doses, more evidence is needed to understand its effect on COVID-19 and it should not be used as a COVID-19 treatment or prevention medication.
According to the US National Institutes of Health, "there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19." Researchers are now working on several studies to determine if Vitamin D can be effective in preventing or treating COVID-19. Multiple observational studies have shown an association between vitamin D deficiency and higher numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths. While current evidence does suggest that vitamin D deficiency may be a risk factor for COVID-19, there have not been studies to evaluate whether vitamin D supplementation may help prevent COVID-19. Further studies are also needed to better understand what level of deficiency carries COVID-19 risk. A pre-print study from November 2020, found that vitamin D supplementation did not benefit hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Researchers noted that vitamin D levels did increase, but hospital length of stay, mortality (death), admission to the intensive care (ICU), and the need for mechanical ventilation (ventilator support for breathing) did not significantly differ between the experimental group who received vitamin D and the placebo group (who did not receive vitamin D). Studies to explore the possible benefit of vitamin D supplementation in prevention and treatment of COVID-19 are ongoing.
Side-effects of hand sanitizer are short-term and often mild. The side effects are usually related to skin irritation, like cracking and bleeding, due to either irritation from the product or overuse and drying of the skin. It is important to always check the label to ensure safe use. Ingestion or use around the eyes and nose can cause irritation. Alcohol-based hand sanitizer should contain at least 60% alcohol to be effective. Hand sanitizer is a good way to clean hands when soap and water isn't available and is effective against the virus that causes COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently issued a warning on the increase in hand sanitizer products containing methanol, instead of ethanol. Methanol, or wood alcohol, is a toxic substance when absorbed through the skin or when ingested that can lead to blindness, hospitalizations, or death. On August 5, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 4 deaths and 3 patients with visual impairments from drinking hand sanitizer. The FDA has recalled over 135 hand sanitizer products for safety reasons, and also warns against false labels claiming a hand sanitizer product is "FDA-approved" (because the FDA has not and does not approve any hand sanitizer products). Hand sanitizer products should be stored out of the reach of children to help prevent accidental ingestion. If you become exposed to hand sanitizer containing methanol and are experiencing symptoms, seek immediate treatment for potential reversal of methanol poisoning. _This entry was updated with new information on August 10, 2020._
On January 11, 2020, the CEO of BioNTech Dr. Ugur Sahin, designed 10 different possible candidates for a COVID-19 vaccine in one day. Two of them were selected for study in initial COVID-19 vaccine trials, and one (the mRNA-1273 vaccine) advanced onwards to trial phase 2/3, and has now been approved for emergency use in countries around the world such as the UK, Israel, Singapore, and the US, with other authorizations pending. In addition to the vaccine's rapid design, the timeline from start to approvals (under one year) is also the shortest overall vaccine timeline ever. There are two primary reasons that the Pfizer vaccine was developed so quickly: 1) The use of mRNA vaccine technology, and 2) the rapid sharing of the COVID-19 virus’ genetic sequence. The mRNA-1273 vaccine works by injecting genetic information from the coronavirus into human cells. This instructs the body to make special spike proteins like the coronavirus, and causes the immune system to respond effectively against the virus. This specific method means that BioNTech only needed the genetic sequence of the COVID-19 virus to design a vaccine. Other methods involve more timely processes, like weakening or killing a virus, or producing part of the virus in the lab. The mRNA process involves slotting genetic material from the virus into a tested and reliable delivery “package.” The process, also known as an mRNA vaccine “platform technology,” is not the most traditional vaccine approach, but has been in development for over 20 years. mRNA vaccines are non-infectious, so this type of vaccine can have safety benefits over conventional vaccines that contain weakened or inactivated germs. Production for mRNA vaccines is also cell-free and tends to be faster, cheaper and easier to scale than cell-based vaccine manufacturing techniques (ex. inactivated influenza vaccines are typically grown in cultured cells). China’s initial rapid identification of the genetic sequence and early sharing of the sequence globally on January 10, 2020, prior even to the understanding of human-to-human spread of COVID-19, promoted rapid availability of this critical vaccine development data. The speed of the Pfizer vaccine timeline was also aided by other factors, such as ongoing work studying coronaviruses, a growth in preprint publications (where researchers can share findings before the peer-review publication process is completed), and the unprecedented scale of COVID-19 that continues to infect, harm, and kill people across the world, leading to more resources being allocated to preventing and treating COVID-19 and well as expedited logistical timelines. There are multiple, clear, reasons that explain both the quick design of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and the quick overall Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine timeline, none of which jeopardize the safety or efficacy of the vaccine.
Pool testing, distinct from individual testing, tests a pool (or group) of people at the same time and is a form of testing that has been used for diseases like HIV/AIDS before the current COVID-19 pandemic. Normally, when a COVID-19 test is done using a nasal swab on a patient, that sample is then tested individually to determine if the virus is present, and this can take anywhere from 15 minutes to several days, depending on the abilities of the lab running the test. With pool testing, anywhere from roughly 3 - 50 samples are combined and all of the swabs are tested at once. If the test result from that pool test is negative, then all patients in that pool do not have the virus. If the result is positive, then each swab must then be tested one-by-one. Pool testing, also called "batch testing," is currently being used in order to test many more people for COVID-19 than individual tests alone. This is because instead of testing patients and then analyzing their samples individually to determine whether or not one patient has been infected with COVID-19, pool testing combines many samples and tests them at the same time. Pool testing has gained popularity in recent months due to surging numbers of COVID-19 infections around the world. This method gives laboratories the ability to save time, test greater numbers of people, and use their resources most efficiently. These tests are most useful in places with large populations but a lower number of COVID-19 cases within that population, including group settings like schools or workplaces. In places with with a high rate of infections, this testing strategy would not be as beneficial since most patients would be tested individually either way. Another potential hurdle is that pool testing might lead to more false-negative tests. This is because if a patient does have the virus and it is present in their individual test sample, that sample will be diluted when it is combined with the rest of the samples from the larger group, possibly to the point where the viral load is undetectable.
SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19. It leaves the human body through our waste, so flushing the toilet with that waste means traces of the virus can be found in sewage water. This is why COVID-19 has been recently detected in sewage water in regions that have tested for it. By collecting water from sewers, scientists in the U.S. and Europe are now testing sewage for the virus, using it as a collective sample to measure infection levels among thousands of people. Recent studies have shown that sewage water can be used as an early diagnostic tool for determining where potential COVID-19 cases might be occurring in a city. A recent study showed that measuring virus levels in municipal sewage helped researchers predict where forthcoming COVID-19 cases would be coming from a week before people began testing positive for the virus in that area. They did this by comparing the amount of virus found in the sewage water with the amount of confirmed cases in an area's hospitals. We have observed that estimating the true number of COVID-19 cases is extremely challenging; these estimates often lead to underestimating the true scope of the pandemic in a community because many people are never tested for the virus even if they are ill. Moreover, asymptomatic patients or those with mild symptoms may never seek out testing and therefore won't be counted; but they can still transmit the virus. In this context, measuring overall virus levels in sewage over time could indicate the scope of the pandemic; indicate whether an outbreak is growing or shrinking; and can act as a surveillance system that would allow to detect new waves of an outbreak before patients develop symptoms and go to hospitals. (Source: [Biobot Analytics](https://www.biobot.io/))
There is a whole branch of medical research and pharmaceutical companies dedicated to drug repurposing. In practice, it has led to some therapeutic breakthroughs. For example, aspirin which is historically known for treatment of pain, fever or inflammation, has then be found to be effective against some cardiovascular diseases and is now being studied for potential anti-tumor growth in some cancers. Developing new treatments against new diseases often takes several years, if not decades. With the COVID-19 pandemic death toll increasing by the day, scientists are racing to find drugs that could prevent, treat or simply decrease the severity of COVID-19. Scientists have therefore turned their attention to studying drugs that have been studied for other viruses like the MERS coronavirus, HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), hepatitis C, ebola, influenza, etc. to see whether these drugs would also be effective against this new threat, COVID-19. Since these studies build on existing knowledge, the drug development timeline is substantially shortened, as is the required financial investment. Beyond the time-intensive process of developing new drugs, the advantages of repurposing drugs are numerous. First, existing drugs already have an existing safety track record, and have obtained regulatory approval or are in the later stages of clinical trials. Moreover, they have already been produced and may already be on the market, so plans to increase manufacturing can rapidly occur since the infrastructure already exists and does not need to be re-created. Because of this, scientists can focus on studying whether these drugs are effective against COVID-19, and if so, they can be brought to clinical use at the bedside of patients rapidly. Drug repurposing is very common in medical research as science rarely happens in a vacuum, but rather builds on previous iterations and experience.
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.
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, 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 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.
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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
