Ref.: (LML) Advocacy/lobbying, influence & justice
From: Joel Almeida, Mumbai, India
Dear Pieter and colleagues,
There have been several thought-provoking contributions to LML recently. Is scientific validity determined by the weight of influence or the weight of evidence? This talk by Dr. Kang, of the Gates Foundation, might be of interest. People tend to listen to the Gates Foundation because it has money. Dr. Kang is worth listening to because she has valuable experience. HD (H Disease) is mentioned.
https://youtu.be/WZtL3Z6RPDI?si=FUaKzDhfkuQTyHmN&t=128
How can we achieve better and safer outcomes for the people we seek to serve in HD?
Polio has some lessons. The tragedy of acute flaccid paralysis attributable to mutant live polio vaccine holds lessons for well-intentioned interventions in HD control. The much safer and much more effective Injectable polio vaccine was highlighted by researchers in endemic countries long before the switch away from OPV was finally initiated. Regardless of intent, outcomes matter. The devastating impact of harmful interventions is not mitigated by advocacy/lobbying, committee resolutions or mathematical models. None of those suffices to restore eyes, hands or feet deformed by well-intentioned but harmful interventions. Advocacy/lobbying may seek to condone harmful elements by citing beneficial elements. Unfortunately, that is like condoning poison because it is mixed with food. The two are separable.
Fortunately, exemplary districts demonstrate growing success in rapidly and safely reducing the incidence rate of HD, post-COVID. Especially in countries that have a strong tradition of local expertise in science and public health. They tend to have constantly improving policies and implementation, grounded in evidence rather than advocacy/lobbying. Science is trustworthy because it does not claim infallibility. Instead, it steadily corrects errors. In the end outcomes speak more loudly than words. Conflicts of interest can lead to advocacy/lobbying that is against the best interests of people whose eyes, hands and feet are at risk. Scientific knowledge, with its self-correction, offers the most reliable shield for vulnerable people.
As the centre of gravity shifts towards endemic countries, more room can be created for science, justice and humanity. Would it be a bad idea to boost the influence of those whose nerves, eyes, hands and feet are at risk?
With all sincerity,
Joel Almeida
___________________________________________________________________
LML - S Deepak, B Naafs, S Noto and P Schreuder
LML blog link: http://leprosymailinglist.blogspot.it/
Contact: Dr Pieter Schreuder << editorlml@gmail.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Leprosy Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leprosymailinglist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leprosymailinglist/91ef71f8-dbee-441b-9eae-6c7e33a92555n%40googlegroups.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment