17 November 2014
Paper entitled "How can Southeast Asia increase its preparedness for an Ebola outbreak?", has been published in the East Asia Forum.
Mishal Khan, Andrew Lover and Richard Coker authored the paper entitled "How can Southeast Asia increase its preparedness for an Ebola outbreak?", which has been published in the East Asia Forum on 15 November 2014
Southeast Asia is no stranger to epidemics and is a hotspot for emerging disease threats. There have been serious economic and health-sector impacts from zoonoses including Nipah virus infections, SARS and highly pathogenic avian influenza (commonly known as bird flu)....
The paper is available online here.
WHO's response "Tuberculosis control: hard questions" on the paper "How to hinder tuberculosis control: five easy steps", has been published in The Lancet, Volume 384, Issue 9956, Page 1744, 15 November 2014, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62065-1
Although in their Comment in The Lancet Mishal Khan and Richard Coker (Aug 23, p 646) raise real and well known challenges in the global tuberculosis response, they fail to propose any solutions and downplay efforts and achievements by many stakeholders to address these complex issues. We have some questions:
How much can the statement that countries are “incentivised to obscure programmatic challenges” be generalised? Are the definite tuberculosis burden declines in countries such as China and Cambodia, reported from prevalence surveys somehow unconnected to the expansion of tuberculosis control efforts over the past few years?...read more
All authors are staff members of WHO. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of WHO. We declare no competing interests.
The WHO response is available online here.
Tuberculosis control: hard questions — Authors' reply, has been published in The Lancet, Volume 384, Issue 9956, Page 1745, 15 November 2014, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62066-3
We thank Karin Weyer and colleagues for their interest in our Comment. We would like to address the following two conceptual disagreements.
First, in reference to the role of academic discourse, we happily accept the criticism that our Comment does not propose simple solutions to all issues raised. The purpose of our Comment, in keeping with the role of academic discourse, was to stimulate debate about questions that do not yet have clear answers. Although we do not downplay the efforts of any stakeholder, we question the need to promote simple solutions that WHO seems to expect to work in all settings...read more
Authors' reply is available online here.