bbc--2019-02-03--Pope Francis arrives on historic visit to UAE

Pope Francis has arrived in the United Arab Emirates for the first ever visit by a pontiff to the Arabian peninsula.  He landed in Abu Dhabi where he was greeted by Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan.  The Pope will take part in an interfaith conference and on Tuesday hold Mass in which 120,000 people are expected to attend.  Before leaving he expressed concern about the war in Yemen, in which the UAE is engaged.  "The population [in Yemen] is exhausted by the lengthy conflict and a great many children are suffering from hunger, but cannot access food depots," the Pope said.  "The cry of these children and their parents rises up to God," he said.  It is not clear whether the Pope plans to raise the issue in public or in private while visiting the UAE. The UAE is involved in Yemen as part of a Saudi-led coalition.  The UAE is home to nearly a million Roman Catholics, most of them from the Philippines or India.  Some have been queuing for passes for Tuesday's Mass. One told AFP news agency the Pope's visit "opens doors for conversations about tolerance that the whole world needs to hear".  In a video message on Thursday, the Pope said: "Faith in God unites and does not divide, it draws us closer despite differences, it distances us from hostilities and aversion."  He paid tribute to the UAE as "a land that is trying to be a model of coexistence, of human brotherhood, and a meeting place among diverse civilisations and cultures".  While in Abu Dhabi, the Pope will also hold a meeting with Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the grand imam of Cairo's al-Azhar mosque, which is the highest seat of learning for Sunni Muslims.  BBC Arabic's Murad Batal Shishani, who is in Abu Dhabi, says the Vatican hopes that the Pope's visit might loosen restrictions on the building of churches in the region, particularly in neighbouring Saudi Arabia where non-Muslim places of worship are forbidden.  Vatican officials say they need a stronger Church presence in the UAE to minister to the Catholic community there.  "We are really stretched. We need more churches. We need more priests," one official was quoted by Reuters as saying.


bbc--2019-03-31--Pope Francis visits Morocco

Pope Francis visits Morocco

Pope Francis has visited Morocco on his latest trip to a predominantly Muslim state.  He met migrants and Muslim leaders, and held a Mass for the country's small Roman Catholic community.  The Pope celebrated Mass in a sports centre in the Moroccan capital Rabat on Sunday.  Speaking in Rabat's cathedral, the pontiff warned Catholics against trying to convert people to their own belief, saying this "always leads to an impasse".  "Please, no proselytising," he told the audience.  On Saturday the Pope met migrants when he visited a centre run by the Catholic humanitarian organisation Caritas.  "The issue of migration will never be resolved by raising barriers," he had said in a speech earlier.  On Saturday, the Pope was welcomed to Morocco by King Mohammed VI.


bbc--2019-05-05--Pope Francis begins visit to Orthodox Bulgaria and North Macedonia

Pope Francis has begun a three-day visit to Bulgaria and North Macedonia aimed partly at improving relations with the Orthodox Church.  The Pope met Orthodox leaders in Bulgaria on Sunday, but they had already rejected taking part in joint services or prayers with him.  The Vatican has long been pushing for unity between the two branches of Christianity, which split in 1054.  The two Balkan countries have tiny Catholic communities.  The pontiff's arrival in Bulgaria on Sunday marked the first visit by a pope to the country in 17 years.  The trip to North Macedonia will be the first by a pope and comes just months after the country ended a decades-long dispute with Greece by changing its name, and as it votes for a new president.  Central to the Balkan trip is the Vatican's desire to heal the 1,000-year-old schism that has divided Christianity.  The Pope met Orthodox Patriarch Neofit and visited an Orthodox cathedral in the capital, Sofia, on Sunday.  But the Bulgarian Orthodox Church rejected the idea of joining prayers or services with him.  In a statement last month, it explained its position, saying that the invitation for the Pope's visit was made by state authorities.  In what is being viewed as an effort not to upset other Orthodox churches, the Pope is not expected to meet privately with North Macedonian Orthodox Primate Stephen in his upcoming visit.  The Macedonian Orthodox Church declared its independence, or autocephaly, in 1967 but has not been recognised by other Orthodox churches.  Aside from moves to heal the rift with the Orthodox Church, the pontiff will meet the Balkan countries' minority Catholic communities.  Sister Elka Staneva, a nun in Rakovski, Bulgaria's largest predominantly Roman Catholic town, described the excitement there ahead of the visit.  "It is a great joy, a great spiritual experience, a feast of faith for the whole community here in Rakovski as well as for the whole country," she told Reuters.  There are an estimated 58,000 Catholics in Bulgaria and 15,000 in North Macedonia.  Speaking at the presidential palace in Sofia on Sunday, Pope Francis addressed the issue of low birth rates and high levels of emigration in Bulgaria.  "Bulgaria, like so many other countries of Europe, must deal with what can only be called a new winter: the demographic winter that has descended like an ice curtain on a large part of Europe, the consequence of a diminished confidence in the future," he said.  The Pope called on Bulgaria to "strive to create conditions that lead young people to invest their youthful energies and plan their future, as individuals and families, knowing that in their homeland they can have the possibility of leading a dignified life."  He also urged government officials "not to close your eyes, your hearts or your hands" to migrants.  Bulgaria is the European Union's poorest member state, and has seen some two million people leave the country since the fall of communism in search of new opportunities and better living standards.


fortruss--2019-01-31--Patriarch Kirill affirms political neutrality of the Russian Orthodox Church

MOSCOW – The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) will not support any political forces, said Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia on Thursday, January 31, at a meeting with journalists dedicated to the tenth anniversary of his ascension to the patriarchal throne.  “We should not expect any political program or support of any political forces, pro-government or opposition, from us,” Kirill said, adding that the ROC will not turn into a political force that serves the interests of only a part of society, reports TASS .  The patriarch added that he did not support the multi-party political system. In his opinion, the party division contributes to the division of society into parts with different political orientations. The church seeks to reach agreement and consensus on the most important public issues and openly speaks of its position, Kirill concluded.  On January 25, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia called the practice of abortion sinful in cases where deviations in the development of the fetus are revealed. He added that the presence of abortions in the compulsory health insurance system encourages the killing of unborn children, and the church opposes this, as it considers each embryo as a person.


sottnet--2019-02-14--Church and state equal partners for the first time in history - Russian Patriarch Kirill

Church and state equal partners 'for the first time in history' - Russian Patriarch Kirill

On February 1, 2009, Patriarch Kirill officially became Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus and Primate of the Orthodox Church.The Russian Orthodox Church builds equal dialogue and shares common goals with the Russian state, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia stated on Thursday during a ceremony held at the State Kremlin Palace and timed to the tenth anniversary of his enthronement.the patriarch said."And I would even dare say that for the first time in Russia's history, such a relationship has established itself between the Church and the state. Because even in the times of the Russian Empire, the church did not have an equal partner in the face of the government.," he added.According to the Russian patriarch, today's dialogue between the church and the stateThe patriarch thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was present at the ceremony, as well as the Russian government and Russian officials for the successful establishment of dialogue between the church and the state, "held in a friendly and open environment."On February 1, 2009, Patriarch Kirill officially became Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus and Primate of the Orthodox Church. Celebrations in honor of the tenth anniversary of this date will be held in Moscow. Representatives of local Orthodox churches are expected to attend the celebrations, along with members of the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant denominations and Muslim organizations.


tass--2019-01-06--Patriarch Kirill calls for kindness on Orthodox Christmas

### Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia  © Sergey Bobylev/TASS  MOSCOW, January 7. /TASS/. Christmas is a good reason for giving love, care and attention to surrounding people, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia reiterated in his televised address on the coming of one of the main Orthodox Christian holidays.  "There must be someone beside you who needs your support. Christmas is a great opportunity to show one's best human qualities and bestow joy and love on people. Even small deeds can make this world kinder and brighter. Anyone can do it, as God is with us," he said.  The patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church reiterated that society was always built on the principles of division and called for the fight against these sinful aspects. "Human society was always built on the principles of division: the lucky and the unlucky, the happy and the unhappy, the smart and the narrow-minded, the rich and the poor. This list can be long. We, Christians, understand that the imperfection of the world is the consequence of the sin, so it is necessary to fight against not just the external reason for this illness, but with its internal aspects all the more," the patriarch of Moscow and All Russia noted.  He highlighted that to Jesus Christ each person is equally valuable, irrespective of his income and social position. "By his birth Christ shows that material conditions are not important to God. He descends to birth in a stable, lying beside animals. He equally accepts simple gifts from poor shepherds and royal gifts from wise men from the east," the patriarch said.  "Let Christmas inspire you to kind deeds, and let the born Savior’s blessing and help be with you in your life. May God keep you safe," patriarch Kirill said.  In other media


tass--2019-02-03--Religion is often used to manipulate public conscience says Patriarch Kirill

Religion is often used to manipulate public conscience, says Patriarch Kirill

# An error occurred.  Sorry, the page you are looking for is currently unavailable.   Please try again later.  If you are the system administrator of this resource then you should check the [error log](http://nginx.org/r/error_log) for details.  _Faithfully yours, nginx._


tass--2019-07-28--Patriarch Kirill leads Holy Cross Procession marking Christianization of Kievan Rus

Moscow, July 28./TASS/. Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill led the Holy Cross Procession to the Monument to Vladimir the Great on Moscow’s central Borovitskaya Square after a prayer service at the Kremlin’s Assumption Cathedral earlier on Sunday.  Prince Vladimir [b. circa 960, d. 1015], the ruler of Novogorod from 970 through 988 and of Kiev from 988 through 1015, who brought the Orthodox Christian faith from Constantinople to Kiev, was canonized as an equal to the Apostles. Tradition based on olden Russian chronicles suggest the baptism took place in 988.  The Orthodox communities around the world mark Day of Christianization of Rus on July 28.


bonginoreport--2019-12-22--2016 Flashback: Economists Predicted Trump Presidency Would Tank the Markets

NEW YORK — Wall Street is set up for a major crash if Donald Trump shocks the world on Election Day and wins the White House.  New research out on Friday suggests that financial markets strongly prefer a Hillary Clinton presidency and could react with panicked selling should Trump defy the polls and deliver a shocking upset on Nov. 8.  “Wall Street clearly prefers a Clinton win certainly from the prospective of equity prices,” said Dartmouth College’s Eric Zitzewitz, one of the authors of the new study along with the University of Michigan’s Justin Wolfers. “You saw Clinton win the first debate and her odds jumped and stocks moved right along with it. Should Trump somehow manage to win you could see major Brexit-style selling.”  Stock prices around the world tanked over the summer when British voters surprised pundits and voted in favor of pulling the country out of the European Union. Trump himself now talks about his own upset prospects as “another Brexit.”  The report also shows where investors around the world are making big money on the 2016 campaign. Traders betting on the Mexican peso to take a beating under a President Trump, who has promised a trade crackdown, have lost big following debates in which Clinton did well.  After hitting new lows against the dollar during Trump’s rise to the GOP nomination, the peso has spiked higher following the debates and after the release of the audiotape showing Trump making disparaging remarks about women.  The Trump effect also shows up for traders betting on market volatility. Futures contracts for the VIX index, which tracks market volatility, fell sharply during the first debate, suggesting investors expect much less volatility under a Clinton White House than a Trump White House.  Oil prices rose during the first debate and gold fell. Gold tends to be a safe haven when investors are worried about possible economic and financial instability. And oil tends to go up when investors expect stronger economic growth and more demand for energy.  Traders and money managers betting on a Clinton win could wind up in trouble if the outcome goes the other way.   Michael Obuchowski of Merlin Asset Management has watched every move in the campaign closely— including all the WikiLeaks email dumps on Clinton — and made two calls based on it: that Clinton will win and that she won’t go as far left as some investors initially feared.  “I always assumed Trump would eventually collapse so that meant staying in equities and going away from certain high-dividend stocks assuming Clinton is going to win and try and tax those dividends at a higher rate,” he said. “And I watched all the WikiLeaks and they are positive from an investment perspective especially for bank stocks because it looks like her moves left were more in response to Bernie Sanders rather than her actual beliefs.”  The new report suggests that the stock market is worth 11 percent more under a Clinton presidency than a Trump presidency. This is a highly unusual circumstance because markets historically prefer Republican policies on taxes, regulation and trade to those of Democrats.  And while Trump has pledged to rip up free trade deals and slap tariffs on imports, he has also pledged massive tax cuts on individuals and businesses, policies that Wall Street investors usually embrace.  Current market action is the direct reverse of what happened in 2012 when President Barack Obama was running for reelection against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. When Romney clearly beat Obama in the first debate, markets rallied. The study looked at presidential races dating back to 1880 and found that markets typically preferred the GOP nominee. The difference has been narrowing over the years. Until 2016. Investors now clearly back a Clinton presidency and by a large margin.  The Trump effect is also global.  Britain’s FTSE 100 traced U.S. stock prices higher following the first debate. Currencies in Canada, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand — all major U.S. trading partners — tend to rise when it appears Clinton is doing well and headed to victory.  “All told, these movements suggest that financial markets expect a generally healthier domestic and international economy under a President Clinton than under a President Trump,” Wolfers and Zitzewitz write in their new paper.  But there is also evidence that Wall Street investors playing the 2016 election for profit have largely already made their money. U.S. equity prices showed little movement after the third debate, which scientific polls also suggest Clinton won handily.  The Mexican peso spiked again in the moments after the debate ended. But it sagged lower on Thursday suggesting that the dollar-peso trade is no longer a big play for Wall Street.  Online betting markets are now pricing in an over 80 percent chance that Clinton wins. Betting site PaddyPower is so certain that Clinton will win that it is already paying out $1.1 million to investors who bought contracts betting on the Democratic nominee.  “At this point, even though the odds are so high that it’s all but certain Clinton wins, it’s best to hedge right now,” said Christopher Vecchio, currency analyst at DailyFX. “Maybe look at some short options or look at dollar-Mexican peso longs to hedge off the risk.”  This also suggests that a shock Trump victory next month could crush stock prices, perhaps by as much as 10 percent, and send the peso and other currencies sharply lower while ushering in a period of intense market volatility as investors try and discern how Trump would govern and whether he would make good on his pledge to start trade wars with Mexico and China and deport 11 million current undocumented immigrants.  “You would see incredible pressure on stock prices if Trump wins and everyone flooding into rare metals like gold and into bonds” in the U.S., Germany and the United Kingdom, said Erik Jones, professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.  Jones said the depth of markets for so-called “safe haven” assets could be severely tested should Trump win. “The gold markets are just not deep enough to hold this much scare,” he said.  Overall, the authors of the new paper envision a massive global market shock should Trump win. “Given the magnitude of the price movements, we estimate that market participants believe that a Trump victory would reduce the value of the S&P 500, the UK, and Asian stock markets by 10-15%,” they write and “would reduce the oil price by $4, would lead to a 25% decline in the Mexican Peso, and would significantly increase expected future stock market volatility.”  There remains one bright spot for Wall Street should Trump shock the world. In the immediate aftermath, investors could bet on high volatility in stocks and a sharp rise in gold and other safe havens. And then they could bet on a recovery as occurred in the weeks following the Brexit vote.  “You could bet on an initial adverse reaction and a bounce back after the initial shock,” said Gregory Daco of Oxford Economics. “But that would require you to take the risk that he does actually tone down some of his positions.”


cnsnews--2019-06-19--Economist Who Predicted 2008 Economic Crisis Warns of 2020 Recession Risk

Economist Nouriel Roubini, who foresaw the 2008 world economic crisis, is now warning about the growing risk of a 2020 recession. In 2018, he had identified 10 potential downside risks with his colleague Brunello Rosa, risks that they believe could trigger a U.S. and global recession in 2020.  Roubini, co-founder of the economic forecasting team Rosa & Roubini Associates in London,  was a senior economist for International Affairs in the White House's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration. He currently is a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business and CEO of Roubini Macro Associates.  On Sept. 7, 2006, Roubini warned about the potential economic crisis of 2008 while speaking to an audience of economists at the International Monetary Fund. His forecast proved correct, as the 2007-2008 financial crisis severely hurt the U.S. and world economy.  In 2018, Roubini and Rosa said there were 10 factors that could trigger a global recession in 2020. Many of the factors involve the United States.  In a recent commentary based on those factors, Roubini wrote, “Trade wars with China and other countries, along with restrictions on migration, foreign direct investment, and technology transfers, could have profound implications for global supply chains, raising the threat of stagflation (slowing growth alongside rising inflation).”  Prohibiting Chinese firms from using U.S. components could trigger a process of de-globalization, he said.  “With the current tension already denting business, consumer, and investor confidence and slowing global growth, further escalation would trip the world into a recession,” said Roubini.  China’s reaction to President Trump’s tariff restrictions could also hurt some multi-national companies in China, such as America’s Apple.  “Both Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping know that it is in their countries’ interest to avoid a global crisis, so they have an incentive to find a compromise in the next few months,” said Roubini. “Yet both sides are still ratcheting up nationalist rhetoric and pursuing tit-for-tat measures.”  “Trump and Xi each seem to think that his country’s long-term economic and national security may depend on his not blinking in the face of a new cold war,” said the economist. “And if they each genuinely believe the other will blink first, the risk of a ruinous clash is high indeed.”  The other factors Roubini mentioned, in addition to the trade war, is China’s heavy debt and the U.S. Federal Reserve’s interest-rate policy.  In Europe and Japan, central banks are already in negative-rate territory, said Roubini, and it seems clear that they cannot go much further down without triggering economic problems.  In September 2018, Roubini wrote, “Trump was already attacking the Fed when the growth rate was recently 4%. Just think about how he will behave in the 2020 election year, when growth likely will have fallen below 1% and job losses emerge. The temptation for Trump to ‘wag the dog’ by manufacturing a foreign-policy crisis will be high, especially if the Democrats retake the House of Representatives this year,” which they did.  “Since Trump has already started a trade war with China and wouldn’t dare attack nuclear-armed North Korea, his last best target would be Iran,” wrote Roubini.  “By provoking a military confrontation with that country, he would trigger a stagflationary geopolitical shock not unlike the oil-price spikes of 1973, 1979, and 1990. Needless to say, that would make the oncoming global recession even more severe.”


politicalwire--2019-08-20--Majority of Economists Predict Recession Before 2021

Washington Post: “The outlook reflects growing skepticism among economists and investors that the U.S. economy will be able to withstand a protracted trade war with China without serious harm amid a weakening global outlook.”  “The survey of 226 economists was conducted from July 14 to Aug. 1, before Trump announced the latest round of tariffs against China and before the last bout of market volatility. The report reinforced the pessimism seen earlier this year, illustrating that for many economists the question is not so much whether the U.S. economy will enter a recession but when.”


thedenverpost--2019-02-02--Analyst predicts US economic growth but at a slower pace in 2019 and 20

Analyst predicts U.S. economic growth, but at a slower pace in 2019 and ’20

The U.S. stock market just finished its best January since 1987, employers added 304,000 jobs despite the prolonged government shutdown and the Federal Reserve plans to take a breather on interest rate hikes.  None of that points to an economy about to roll over. But the country still faces several “showdowns” likely to slow down growth this year and next, predicted KC Matthews, chief investment officer with UMB Bank during a presentation Wednesday to Colorado clients.  “Economic showdowns can negatively impact growth, stock prices and inflation,” said Matthews, who picked a Western theme for his forecast this year.  The key showdowns include trade tensions, a tight labor market, and the political standoff in Washington, D.C. And further out, one huge desperado, escalating federal debt, will represent the toughest challenge the country has ever faced.  The U.S. and China are trying to hammer out a trade deal, the one the U.S. argues is needed to eliminate unfair practices and give its exporters a chance to compete. The key will be to achieve that without tanking the world’s second-largest economy.  The tight labor market represents another showdown. Shortages are so severe that they are impeding the ability of companies to expand. And rising wages, while good for consumers, could cause a trigger happy Federal Reserve to overreact and send interest rates too high, the most common cause of a recession.  “It really looks like we are out of workers,” said Eric Kelley, UMB’s director of research.  U.S. population growth has crawled to its slowest rate since 1937, young adults are having fewer children, and the population is graying. At the same time, the country is taking a much harder stance on immigration, reducing the number of outside workers available to fill openings.  Matthews predicts GDP growth will move from around 3 percent in 2018 to between 2 percent to 2.4 percent this year and then down to 1.8 percent to 2.3 percent in 2020.  As the pair were making their presentation, they predicted the Federal Reserve would not raise rates and announce a breather in tightening monetary policy, which it did, effectively putting its gun back in the holster. Kelley predicted the Fed would only hand out one more rate hike, this summer, and be done.  “For the first time ever, they may do it right,” Kelley said of the Fed’s attempt to arrest an economic expansion without shooting it dead.


slate--2019-10-01--How to Think Like a Linguist

How to Think Like a Linguist

What do linguists think about when they think about language? For starters, individual alphabets are relatively arbitrary. Let’s talk about “sounds” and “units of meaning.”


sottnet--2019-01-14--Linguist explains Macrons hidden message to Yellow Vests

Linguist explains Macron's hidden message to Yellow Vests

A stylistic and linguistic analysis of French President Emmanuel Macron's speeches conducted by linguist and author Helios Jaime indicates that the president is trying to calm the yellow vests down without offering any specific promises in response to their demands for reform.Speaking to Sputnik France , linguist and author Helios Jaime expressed doubt that French President Emmanuel Macron will pursue any changes in his domestic policies in the wake of the yellow vests protests Jaime carried out a stylistic and linguistic analysis of Macron's three speeches concerning the yellow vests protests: the one he delivered on 1 December 2018 in Argentina, his 10 December speech, as well as his response to the petition on fuel prices published on 20 December 2018 on Change.org.Before examining each of Macron's statements in detail, the linguist remarked that although the expression "yellow vests" had already entered the lexicon of the French, neither of these two words was used by the president in the aforementioned speeches.Citing Macron's Argentina address , the author drew attention to its ending: "I will always respect those who disagree and I will alwaysany dissent but I will never accept violence".The linguist highlighted that the president used verbs in the future tense, while the adverb "always" prolongs the perception evoked by Macron's words.Jaime also placed emphasis on the word "to hear" that was chosen by the president in contrast to the verb "to listen".In the first part of his speech , Emmanuel Macron "focused on the suppression of violence that, according to him, benefits opportunists and politicians, without specifying who these opportunists are, without naming specific parties and political leaders", the linguist noted.The president also "explained the fall in living standards by the policy pursued during the last 40 years", stressing that he wanted to change this "through reforms which were conducted during the 18 months of his presidency", the author noted.Jaime stressed.Additionally, the linguist pointed out that Macron "addressed [French] citizens almost individually, using the personal pronoun 'you' instead of the noun 'people'".Finally, the linguist highlighted several vague points in the French president's response to the Yellow Vests' petition on fuel prices.For instance, Macron noted that there would be no increase in electricity and gas prices during the winter. "Does this mean that they will rise at the end of winter?" Jaime asked. "Mr Macron did not specify anything."Then, he admitted that 'after 18 months of action, the ongoing reforms have not brought any tangible results'. But the fact that they are not perceptible enough does not imply that these reforms are erroneous. This could imply that his government would continue to adhere to the basic principles of the policy that caused the protests," the author presumed.Jaime concluded that Macron's "main message is the intention to suppress violence without specifying the means or naming the perpetrators". The French President "accepted the popular anger, which led to some concessions to yellow vests and an invitation to dialogue", the author continued.the linguist highlighted.


sputnik--2019-01-12--Three Speeches Linguist Explains Macrons Hidden Message to Yellow Vests

Three Speeches: Linguist Explains Macron's Hidden Message to Yellow Vests

Speaking to Sputnik France, linguist and author Helios Jaime expressed doubt that French President Emmanuel Macron will pursue any changes in his domestic policies in the wake of the yellow vests protests.  Jaime carried out a stylistic and linguistic analysis of Macron's three speeches concerning the yellow vests protests: the one he delivered on 1 December 2018 in Argentina, his 10 December speech, as well as his response to the petition on fuel prices published on 20 December 2018 on Change.org.  Before examining each of Macron's statements  in detail, the linguist remarked that although the expression "yellow vests" had already entered the lexicon of the French, neither of these two words was used by the president in the aforementioned speeches.  The linguist highlighted that the president used verbs in the future tense, while the adverb "always" prolongs the perception evoked by Macron's words.  Jaime also placed emphasis on the word "to hear" that was chosen by the president in contrast to the verb "to listen".  "You can hear a noise without paying much attention to it, but 'listening' means being attentive to what one says", the author underscored. "Is this semantic difference one of the reasons why Mr. Macron did not mention 'yellow vests' [in his speeches]?"  In the first part of his speech, Emmanuel Macron "focused on the suppression of violence that, according to him, benefits opportunists and politicians, without specifying who these opportunists are, without naming specific parties and political leaders", the linguist noted.  "However, he did not mention the fact that the yellow vests protests were prompted by these reforms," Jaime stressed.  Additionally, the linguist pointed out that Macron "addressed [French] citizens almost individually, using the personal pronoun 'you' instead of the noun 'people'".  "Since he did not mention either the people or the nation, the pronoun 'you' could be referred only to those who voted for him, excluding in this case those who did not," the author opined.  For instance, Macron noted that there would be no increase in electricity and gas prices during the winter. "Does this mean that they will rise at the end of winter?" Jaime asked. "Mr Macron did not specify anything."  Jaime concluded that Macron's "main message is the intention to suppress violence without specifying the means or naming the perpetrators". The French President "accepted the popular anger, which led to some concessions to yellow vests and an invitation to dialogue", the author continued.  However, "the analysis of the linguistic and semantic means used in these three speeches indicates that the president is trying to convince the yellow vests of his government's good intentions without offering specifically even the slightest revision of the basic principles of his policy," the linguist highlighted.  The views and opinions expressed by the speaker do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.


theguardianuk--2019-06-17--Language wars the 19 greatest linguistic spats of all time

Language wars: the 19 greatest linguistic spats of all time

What is it about language that gets people so hot under the collar? That drives them to spend hours arguing with strangers on the internet, to go around correcting misspelt signs in the dead of night, or even to threaten acts of violence? The languages we speak are central to our sense of self, so it is not surprising that their finer points can become a battleground. Passionate feelings about what’s right and wrong extend from the use of “disinterested” to what gay people are allowed to call themselves. Here are some of the most memorable rows, spats and controversies.  A so-called “grammar vigilante” has been correcting shop fronts in Bristol, England, for more than a decade. His pet peeve is the confusion of plain old plurals with possessives, which in English are usually marked by an apostrophe followed by an S. Confronted with a sign advertising “Amy’s Nail’s”, he will obliterate the second apostrophe with a sticker. Addressing the potentially illegal nature of his mission in a BBC report, he said: “It’s more of a crime that the apostrophe is wrong in the first place”. Linguist Rob Drummond disagrees: “Fetishising the apostrophe as if its rules are set in stone,” he writes, “and then fostering an environment in which it is acceptable to take pleasure in uncovering other people’s linguistic insecurities is not OK.”  Use this word at your own risk. If what you want to say is “lacking in interest” then brace yourself, because there’s an army of people who will point out that it should be “uninterested”, and that “disinterested” must mean “impartial”. They are sticklers for what they regard as the correct meaning, and have taken up columnist William Safire’s command to “rear up and rage, rage against the dying of an enlightening distinction”. The problem is that if a word is more frequently used to mean one thing than another, then that’s effectively what it means: you can’t fight a linguistic consensus. The news for pedants gets worse, however. The OED tells us that the use of “disinterested” to mean not interested or unconcerned has been around since at least the 17th century, used by no less a stylist than the poet John Donne.  “It is an insult to a generation of sailors ... a ship is like a mother.” An incensed Admiral Lord West was speaking earlier this year about the Scottish Maritime Museum’s decision to stop using “she” to describe ships and boats on its information signs. The move, made after the female pronouns were scratched out by persons unknown, provoked a furious debate, with feminists arguing that the tradition was anachronistic and “perpetuat[ed] the patriarchal view” while naval enthusiasts claimed it was “political correctness gone mad”. Unlike English, many languages force speakers to assign a gender to inanimate objects, and there is evidence that it influences the way they think about them. For example, “bridge” is feminine in German and masculine in Spanish. When asked by researchers to pick words they associated with it, German speakers chose adjectives like “beautiful”, “elegant”, “pretty” and “slender” and the Spanish speakers chose “big”, “strong”, “sturdy” and “towering”.  The fact that we used to make fun of George W Bush for his malapropisms seems quaint these days. But it was worrying to many of us at the time that the man in charge of the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal didn’t seem to be able to pronounce it right. He said “nucular” and it was one more black mark against his intelligence. But this syllable-flip is in fact a fairly common linguistic process called metathesis. All English speakers live with the results of historic metatheses that caught on: horse used to be “hros” and bird used to be “brid”.  Now we have far greater opportunities for ridicule in Donald Trump, whose multisyllabic manglings have become world famous: “covfefe” anyone? But acting as a linguistic irritant appears to be a family trait. Journalist Eve Peyser has kept tabs on words the president’s daughter Ivanka seemed to misuse in public pronouncements, and they included relative (“my husband keeps incredibly long hours, so I try to keep mine on a relative basis”), otherwise (“Cuddling my little nephew Luke, the best part of an otherwise incredible day!”) and “indeniably” (“Indeniably it’s very expensive to raise children”).  Let’s just hope none of the Trump family gets to rewrite the US constitution, because it’s there that linguistic quirks get really serious. Its precise wording, even punctuation, has been endlessly scrutinised, sometimes with life-and-death consequences. The second amendment states that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The comma after the word “arms” has been used to argue that the framers of the constitution believed the right of an individual to own a gun was more important than collective self-defence. That interpretation ultimately resulted in the striking down of some Washington DC gun controls, which had been among the strictest in the nation.  The word used to refer to gay people has been controversial in several languages, not least English, where people railed against the co-option of the term until quite recently. In 1990 an anonymous journalist wrote a piece for Newsweek headlined “Please return the word ‘gay’”. “It is of the least possible concern to me what homosexuals do with one another in the privacy of their homes ... But I want the word ‘gay’ back. ‘Gay’ used to be an extremely useful word. It showed up frequently in poetry and prose – Shakespeare used it 12 times.” Fast forward 30-odd years and a similar row is playing out in China, where the word tongzhi, whose literal meaning is “comrade” increasingly only has one interpretation. That didn’t stop the Contemporary Chinese Dictionary from prudishly refusing to list its common connotation, with one compiler telling the BBC they “did not want to draw attention to its more colloquial meaning”.  In 1996 the school board of Oakland, California, decided to recognise the dialect of many of its African American pupils, which it called “Ebonics”, as a language. It would henceforth be used to “facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English-language skills”. The move became a major flashpoint in the US culture wars after being attacked by commentators across the country. Then Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel labelled it “a big mistake” and black leaders weighed in, too, with Jesse Jackson writing “in Oakland some madness has erupted over making slang talk a second language”. But the Linguistic Society of America took a different view. It said: “Characterisations of Ebonics as ‘slang’, ‘mutant’, ‘lazy,’ ‘defective’, ‘ungrammatical’, or ‘broken English’ are incorrect and demeaning” and argued that evidence from other countries suggested its use in the classroom would help students. The storm of criticism stifled sensible discussion of the issue for years. “Ever since,” according to the Economist, “any recognition that there is such a thing as Ebonics sets people foaming at the mouth.”  You may have been told that it’s bad to split your infinitives in English – that you should never put anything between “to” and the verb – meaning a sentence like: “She wanted to fully support him” would be wrong. This was certainly a tenet of prescriptive works (like Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style) and classroom instruction for much of the 20th century. But the Chicago Manual of Style dropped its objection in 1983, and there are relatively few pedants now prepared to die on a hill to keep the infinitive joined in matrimony. The origins of the “rule” are shrouded in mystery, with perhaps its earliest appearance in an 1803 grammar guide. But in reality, English speakers have been splitting their infinitives for hundreds of years. For an edict that’s never been properly observed, it has loomed surprisingly large in the grammatical consciousness.  The self-appointed guardians of French, a once dominant language assailed by the rise and rise of English, can be especially touchy about changes to the conventions that govern speech. Particularly, it seems, when you add gender to the mix. In 2014 a row over whether masculine titles should be changed when the bearer is a woman erupted in the French National Assembly. Conservative representative Julien Aubert insisted on referring to socialist Sandrine Mazetier as Madame le president, using the masculine article and noun ending. Mazetier responded that he must call her Madame la presidente, and when he refused, she fined him €1,378 (£1,230).  In the late 2000s, the problem of obscure government language was getting so bad that the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee wrote a report on it. They referred back to comments by Tessa Jowell who, as culture secretary, said: “I have what I call a ‘bollocks list’, where I just sit in meetings and I write down some of the absurd language we use.” The report notes: “The unlovely language of this unreal world floats along on a linguistic sea of roll-outs, step changes, public domains, fit for purposes, stakeholder engagements, across the pieces, win-wins, level playing fields and going forwards.” In what must be a rare rebuke of Latin from a Conservative leadership hopeful , Michael Gove lamented that: “Since becoming a member of parliament I’ve been learning a new language … No one ever uses a simple Anglo-Saxon word, or a concrete example, where a Latinate construction or a next-to-meaningless abstraction can be found.”  An interesting sub-genre of language controversy is the tiny translation error that has gigantic geopolitical ramifications. In 1956 Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev told western ambassadors at an event in Moscow My vas pokhoronim!, using a Russian idiom that means roughly “we will outlast you” – in other words, that communism would prevail in the long run. Against the background of a nuclear arms race, the English translation, “we will bury you”, took on an altogether more sinister meaning, particularly when it was splashed across the front pages of western newspapers. Five years later the Cuban missile crisis brought the Soviet Union and the United States to the brink of nuclear war.  Richard Nixon was foxed by elaborate Japanese politeness in 1969. Prime minister Eisaku Satō visited the White House amid a trade row over textile imports. Nixon’s job was to get him to agree to restrict them. According to the New York Times, “Mr Sato replied as he looked ceilingward, Zensho shimasu. Literally, the phrase means: ‘I will do my best,’ and that’s how the interpreter translated it. What it really means to most Japanese is: ‘No way.’” When the Japanese government did precisely nothing, Nixon was furious, branding Sato a liar.  There’s often a dark side to disputes over language: they are often the medium through which inter-ethnic conflicts are brutally expressed. Linguists Marko Dragojevic and colleagues recount the story of a cafe in an area of Bosnia and Herzegovina controlled by Croatians during the 1992-95 war. “On its menu, the cafe offered its customers coffee at three different prices, depending on which pronunciation customers used to order the item. Kava, indexing a Croatian, and by extension, Catholic identity, was sold for the modest price of 1 Deutsche Mark. Kafa, indexing a Serbian and Orthodox Christian identity, was not available for sale. Finally, kahva, indexing a Bosnian Muslim identity, cost the customer a ‘bullet in the forehead’.”  In 1840, the British government and more than 500 local chiefs signed a bilingual agreement that made New Zealand a colony. English missionaries had translated the draft of the Treaty of Waitangi into Maori but the two versions had important differences. The New Zealand Ministry of Culture explains that “in Maori it gave Queen Victoria governance [kawanatanga] over the land, while in English it gave her sovereignty over the land, which is a stronger term”. The English text also assured the Maori that they would have “undisturbed possession” of all their “properties”, whereas the Maori translation merely gave them tino rangatiratanga (full authority) over taonga (treasures) – a more nebulous term.  If you’re a ruler with absolute power there’s nothing to stop you issuing any manner of linguistic decrees. Turkish leader Atatürk, for example, masterminded the abolition of the Arabic script and the adoption of a Latin-based alphabet in 1928. In 2002, in another country where a Turkic language is spoken, a more eccentric set of reforms failed to meet with universal approval. Turkmen president-for-life Saparmurat Niyazov decided to rename the months and days of the week according to some of his favourite things: April changed from Aprel to Gurbansoltan, which happened to be Niyazov’s mum’s name. January was no longer Ýanwar, but Türkmenbaşy, which means “leader of the Turkmen” and was one of Niyazov’s self-bestowed titles. A Turkmen source told the BBC: “It seems like he lives on another planet,” and the changes never gained popular legitimacy. They were reversed in 2008, two years after his death.  Belgium is a country divided between Walloons who speak French, and Flemings who speak Flemish, a variety of Dutch (Walloon and Fleming are the demonyms for people from Wallonia and Flanders). The linguistic conflict simmers in places like Linkebeek, whose population is 85% Walloon, despite being in Flanders. In 2010, the Guardian reported that the man who had been elected mayor on 66% of the local vote was barred from taking office because he sent out election literature in French to French speakers, and not in Dutch as the law stipulated. Conflict over language and identity was at the heart of Belgium’s failure to form a government for 589 days in 2010–11, setting a record for a democracy.  Linguists use the word “agreement” to describe the way the form of a word can change depending on its relationship with other words in a sentence. For example, if a man is named, then at second mention a pronoun can be used instead, but it has to “agree” in gender and number – so it would be “he” not “she”. But can it also be “they”? “They” is traditionally regarded as being plural: it refers to more than one person. As a result, sentences like: “If someone wants me, tell them I’ll be in the kitchen” are frowned upon. But, as so often with grammatical bugbears regarded as dastardly innovations, this kind of usage has been around a long time – since at least 1375, according to the OED. And now, of course, “they” is increasingly being used to refer to those who do not identify with gender-specific pronouns. A key pedantic bastion fell in 2017, when the Chicago Manual of Style changed its advice to read “a person’s stated preference for a specific pronoun should be respected”.  How can a word come to mean its opposite? That’s against nature, surely. Except when you consider “cleave” or “sanction”, so-called auto-antonyms (you can cleave something apart or together; you can sanction a behaviour, then sanction someone for doing it). But enough of them. Literally seems to be a word on a journey from one meaning – “In a literal, exact, or actual sense; not figuratively, allegorically” – to its polar opposite – “the strongest possible version of a figurative or allegorical sense”. Once more, this is a journey that began far earlier than you might think. The OED records the following sentence, from 1825: “Lady Kirkclaugh ... literally worn to a shadow, died of a broken heart”. William Makepeace Thackeray wrote “I literally blazed with wit” in 1847. That hasn’t stopped repeated shock not only at the usage itself, but at dictionaries’ radical decisions to include it. “Merriam-Webster caves in: ‘literally’ now means ‘figuratively’” declared one blog in 2011. “Merriam-Webster says the word can now mean its exact opposite” reported Salon in 2013. The pedant community is convulsed like this every few years despite the fact that, according to Merriam- Webster’s own lexicographers, the definition has been sitting there for all to see since 1909.  Don’t Believe a Word: The Surprising Truth About Language will be published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson in August


theguardianuk--2019-12-04--Why are British people such nervous linguists? Shame | Adrian Chiles

‘No other subject,” says my language teacher, “is the cause of so much shame. You might struggle with other subjects, but you’ll probably never berate yourself like you do about your shortcomings in language learning.”  That’s a good point or, as they say in Welsh, mae e’n gwneud pwynt da.  I’m learning Welsh because I thought it was about time I did so, having spent so much time there on holiday all my life. It struck me that I wasn’t much different to the kind of expats in Spain I might sniff at for not knowing any Spanish beyond dos cervezas por favor.  I felt a kind of shame about this. There we go; it’s that word shame again. And there’s that feeling of self-loathing you get when you know that, at some point, you knew the German word for exhaust pipe but suddenly can’t remember it. I don’t recall this ever happening in maths – “I used to know what eight times seven was, but now it’s gone” – or geography – “I’m so idiotically stupid; I used to know exactly how an oxbow lake was formed, but I’ve forgotten.”  I expect many Guardian readers made a resolution earlier this year to learn a new language or “brush up” their school French. And now, as they are preparing to make the same resolution, they will be feeling a little, yes, ashamed.  What is this self-flagellation all about? My Croatian teacher thinks it is a peculiarly British thing. She says you never hear French, German or Spanish speakers berating themselves about how poor their English is. Nor Croats actually – never have I heard one of my mum’s countryfolk seek forgiveness for grammatical errors, or the word they can’t quite recall. They just crack on, and quite right, too. Perhaps it’s some expression of guilt about our linguistic imperialism. How many times have we been told how hopeless at languages we are as a nation? It’s true, but the message might have sunk in so far that it’s holding us back from rectifying the situation.  Being brought up bilingually didn’t seem to help me with other languages at school. With French, I always felt as if I had missed a key lesson early on and never quite caught up. All of a sudden, the teacher was talking about something mysteriously called the “perfect” tense. Eh? Seriously, I couldn’t see what was so special about it. Then came the imperfect tense, which looked no worse than any other tense, as far I could see. As for pluperfect, well, enough was enough. I gave up French and took up German. To my dismay and bewilderment, I was soon presented with something more confusing than even the French had thought up, bizarre things called cases – nominative, accusative etc. I duly failed my O-level.  Now, realising (with shame, naturally) that my Croatian is the standard of a small child’s, I am having Croatian lessons. To my horror, there are seven cases. And now I am hearing all the mistakes I am making, I am too ashamed (sorry to labour the point, but it’s so true) to speak. All fluency has gone.  So, all told, I have failed at French, German, Croatian and, while it’s great to be learning a language from scratch with a great teacher, I am sure I will soon be failing at Welsh too. The shame of it.  PS. German for exhaust pipe is auspuff, to my mind easily the most delightful word in any language.


windowoneurasiablog--2019-07-07--A Majority of Russians Want Change But Many Fear Instability Moscow Institute of Sociology Study Sa

A Majority of Russians Want Change But Many Fear Instability, Moscow Institute of Sociology Study Says

Staunton, July 5 – “A relative majority of Russians” believe that the country’s economic and political arrangements need to be changed, Vladimir Petukhov of the Moscow Institute of Sociology says, especially those in the most active social groups. But at the same time, “no small number” worry that any change could threaten the country’s stability.  But in the fall of 2017, the share of those who supported change reached 51 percent, with higher figures among younger age groups. “Supporters of reform formed a majority in the megalopolises, oblast centers and – unexpectedly – among rural residents,” while backers of stability retained their majority in district centers and settlements of an urban type.  This desire for change, Petukhov says, “has arise from the prolonged crisis: now the status quo and stability are associated in the minds of many with economic problems and a decline in the standard of living.” And it has intensified as people have concluded that Russia isn’t going to get out of the current situation anytime soon.  In reporting these findings in Rossiiskaya gazeta, commentator Valery Vyzhutovich spoke with Academician Mikhail Gorshkov who oversaw Petukhov’s work. According to the academician, “the authorities have a broader understanding of change” that does the population. The powers that be “connect it both with domestic life and with international relations.”  Ordinary Russians in contrast “want a transition to a new quality of life but this does not especially concern the transformation of political institutions.” Their interest in change therefore is not necessarily a threat to those institutions but simply an indication that they want a better life.  According to Gorshkoov, the authorities need to make use of this set of attitudes, but unfortunately, none of them except the president is ready to do so at present. Instead, most of them avoid interacting with the population, “even though now society is ready for dialogue” and would respond positively to it.  Vyzhutovich points out that the Institute’s findings are consistent with those of the Public Opinion Foundation and VTsIOM. And he notes in particular the finding of the latter that “in the opinion of the Russian majority, democracy is “needed but ‘a very special kind corresponding to the national traditions and specific features’ of the country.”  “Almost 45 percent of those queried [by VTsIOM] are certain that Western democracy will bring Russia chaos and destruction.” Such attitudes have been intensified by the conclusion of nearly two-thirds of all Russians that relations between Russia and the West will always be distrustful. Only 24 percent think they could ever be friendly.  Vyzhutovich sums up: “The absence of any demand for civic freedoms is explained besides everything else by paternalistic attitudes. These attitudes as before remain very strong. Therefore, demands of a significant part of society are directed to the authorities” rather than directed against them.  “In this sense,” the commentator says, “the demand for change which citizens understand in their own way does not in their understanding go beyond the limits of the economy and social spheres.”


aljazeera--2019-10-31--WHO, DRC eye tighter rules for Ebola care over immunity concerns

The World Health Organization (WHO) and Congolese authorities are proposing changes to how some Ebola patients are cared for, new guidelines show, after a patient's death challenged the accepted medical theory that survivors are immune to reinfection.  There are many unanswered questions surrounding the circumstances of the woman's death in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has not previously been reported. • On the front line of the Ebola epidemic  But it has raised concerns because the woman, whose name has not been released for confidentiality reasons, was thought to have had immunity after surviving infection, but fell ill again with Ebola and died.  "That was a big red flag event for all of us," said Janet Diaz, who leads WHO's clinical management team for the epidemic in the DRC.  DRC's Ebola outbreak has infected over 3,000 people and killed more than 2,000 since August last year.  It is the second-worst outbreak after one in West Africa between 2013 and 2016 that killed more than 11,000 people.  The woman was working as a caregiver in the high-risk "red zone" of a treatment centre in Beni, eastern DRC, according to health officials familiar with her case.  She was one of dozens of people assigned to care for Ebola patients because it was assumed they would not get sick as Ebola survivors, although some researchers have considered reinfection to be at least a theoretical possibility.  Their presumed immunity allowed for closer contact with sufferers, many of them children.  Alima, the medical charity that co-ran the Beni centre where she worked, said she tested positive for Ebola and died in July before she could be readmitted for treatment.  But it is not yet known whether the woman received a false positive result the first time she was tested, experienced a relapse or was reinfected, health officials say.  Medical experts say it could be years before Ebola survivors' immunity is fully understood. Yet the recent case is sufficiently worrying for health authorities to rethink how care should be provided to Ebola patients across eastern DRC.  The WHO and Congolese officials have drafted new guidelines, seen by Reuters News Agency, that warn that some Ebola survivors may have "incomplete immunity" and advise that additional measures should be taken to protect them from possible reinfection.  The new protocols would set limits on which Ebola survivors can work in treatment centres and standardise precautions that must be taken.  Survivors who had mild cases of Ebola and those who were found to have low viral loads - or lower levels of the virus circulating in their blood - while infected "need to be carefully assessed, as they may be at risk for having incomplete immunity after infection," the draft says.  Diaz said the protocols were still being discussed with health organisations and could change in the drafting process.  Efforts to contain the DRC outbreak have been hampered by insecurity and public mistrust, but aided by medical advances including new vaccines and therapies.  Ebola survivors, known as "les vainqueurs" - French for "the victorious" - have been at the forefront of treatment, offering vital care, especially to children.  Their assumed immunity has meant they could spend extended time with patients and provide much-needed human contact. The protective gear they must wear is lighter and less restrictive than that worn by other health workers.  But the draft protocols being discussed by health authorities would bar some survivors from working in the contaminated red zone.  These include people whose immune systems may be weaker because they are pregnant or because they have other infections such as HIV or tuberculosis, and those who had low viral loads during their Ebola infection.  The woman who died was pregnant at the time, which she had not disclosed to the treatment centre, according to Nicolas Mouly, Alima's emergencies coordinator. But it is not known if that played a role in her falling sick again.  Mouly said the DRC's biomedical research institute was running tests to learn more about the case. Officials with the DRC's Ebola response and the institute did not respond to phone calls and text messages seeking comment.  In response to the case, health authorities have reviewed the clinical histories of all Ebola survivors working with Ebola patients, WHO's Diaz said. They have also reminded treatment centres to ensure their employees are following biosafety rules.  Much remains unknown about how immunity works in Ebola survivors, including how treatments might affect a patient's susceptibility to reinfection.  "I think that's the big question: What is the true immunity of an Ebola patient who survived?" Diaz said.  "Everyone's working very hard right now to both care for patients and also move science along."  There have been several confirmed cases of relapse with Ebola, including a Scottish nurse who was infected in Sierra Leone in 2014 and fell ill again 10 months after recovery.  But the symptoms have tended to be localised in certain parts of the body and are not known to have been fatal, according to Raina MacIntyre, who heads the Biosecurity Program at the University of New South Wales' Kirby Institute.  No case of reinfection has been confirmed since the disease was discovered near the Ebola River in northern Congo in 1976.  Short-term immunity has largely been treated as a given. And a study of 14 survivors of the first documented Ebola outbreak in 1976 found that all were able to develop an immune reaction to at least one of three Ebola virus proteins 40 years later.  Alima's Mouly said the creation of a standardised set of rules for survivors working in treatment centres was a positive step, but recommended further measures to ensure the physical and mental wellbeing of all survivors.


theguardianuk--2019-05-21--NHS failure to agree child sepsis alert system risking lives

NHS failure to agree child sepsis alert system 'risking lives'

Thousands of children have died or been left disabled because NHS bosses have dithered for at least a decade over introducing a checklist to spot sepsis, nurses and campaigners have claimed.  NHS chiefs in England stand accused of inaction for not ordering hospitals to bring in a standard system to detect the condition, which kills between 1,000 and 4,000 children under five every year in the UK.  Sepsis, also known as blood poisoning or septicaemia, is hard to detect because many of its symptoms, such as a high temperature, are also indicators of other illnesses. It can be the result of a severe infection and without rapid treatment can lead to organ failure, loss of limbs or death because the body’s immune system reverses its usual role and starts to attack organs and tissues.  The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) is urging NHS England and NHS Improvement to reduce child deaths from sepsis by urgently implementing the first national early warning system for identifying children whose health is deteriorating so badly that their life is at risk.  Children’s doctors, the UK Sepsis Trust and bereaved parents have joined the RCN’s call for the NHS to roll out the alert system for sepsis, which affects about 25,000 children a year.  Dame Donna Kinnair, the RCN’s chief executive, said the speed with which sepsis can change from appearing to be a minor ailment to a life-threatening illness meant all hospitals in England needed to follow an agreed system which alerted medical staff to the condition. At the moment many hospitals have their own individual versions of the scheme while some have none.  “This could save lives because you are looking for those early symptoms. What we’re saying as nurses is we believe it should be a priority,” said Kinnair.  “Sepsis in a child is so sudden, you see a child go from life to death. If you see a child and an hour later they come back with sepsis that is truly devastating for any health professional. It’s really important we get a way of ensuring that we diagnose this accurately.”  The RCN has been urging the NHS since 2007 to introduce a children’s version of the national early warning score (News) system, which helps health professionals see if a seriously ill adult’s health has suddenly worsened. Scotland already has such a scheme for under-18s. It involves staff assessing all of a patient’s vital signs together, including their temperature, heart rate and blood pressure, to judge how seriously unwell they are.  Melissa Mead, whose 12-month-old son William died of sepsis in 2014, said it was time to end what the RCN called a “postcode lottery” in different practices between hospitals.  “To have a standardised system across the country would be amazing. Ever since William died, we have been stuck in a situation where lots of different groups and people cannot decide what the standard should be, what should be measured and what it should look like,” she said.    “Why can’t people at these organisations come together for the good of the public? Thousands of children have died or suffered disability while health organisations continue to drag their heels and can’t make a decision.”  NHS Improvement has convened a group of experts to look into implementing a paediatric News system. Great Ormond Street children’s hospital, in London, has been testing a version which could be used across the NHS.  Celia Ingham Clark, the medical director for clinical effectiveness at NHS England, said: “The NHS has made huge improvements in spotting and treating sepsis quickly with screening rates in emergency departments rising from 78% in 2015 to 91% in 2018.  “The NHS is working with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to develop a national early warning system for children which will help NHS staff to rapidly identify acutely unwell children and ensure they are looked after in the most appropriate place.”


theguardianuk--2019-09-08--Stop return of measles by making MMR jab compulsory say GPs

Stop return of measles by making MMR jab compulsory, say GPs

The MMR jab should be compulsory for children before they are allowed to start primary school to stop the resurgence of measles and mumps, leading GPs are demanding.  Schools should ask all parents to prove their four- or five-year-old has had their two recommended doses of the vaccine before they can attend, they say in a letter to ministers seen by the Guardian.  They want school entry procedures toughened so that the only exceptions made to the new rule would be for children whose parents have registered a conscientious objection to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine or those whose health means they cannot have it.  The four London GPs, who include a former government adviser on health policy, have urged the health secretary, Matt Hancock, and the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, to embrace the proposed change in policy. Doing so would save lives and tackle dangerous “complacency” among parents who do not ensure that their child is fully immunised, they say.  “Schools need to check that all their pupils have been vaccinated. In other countries, certificates of vaccination are required prior to school entry,” they say in the letter. “Here in the UK we could mandate that all children need to be vaccinated by a health professional, allowing for exemptions for either conscientious objection or medical contraindication.”  History shows that mandatory vaccination can be necessary, they add. “There is a precedent in the UK. Vaccination against smallpox was made compulsory for all children born after 1853 and today doctors need to show evidence of vaccination or immunity from various illnesses so we do not put patients at risk,” they say.  The four GPs include Sir Sam Everington, the chair of all the capital’s 32 NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), which allocate health service cash in their areas. He helped advise the then health secretary Jeremy Hunt and was acting chair of the British Medical Association.  He is also the clinical (medical) chair of CCGs in north-east London while his co-signatories – Dr Mohini Parmar, Dr Andrew Parson and Dr Josephine Sauvage – occupy the same senior roles in the NHS in the north-west, south-east and north central regions of the city.  Their move comes as the proportion of five-year-olds in England receiving both doses has fallen in recent years to 87.2%, below the 95% the World Health Organization says is necessary to provide herd immunity and in effect eradicate measles, mumps and rubella. Public Health England figures show that cases of measles and mumps are rising sharply, a trend that doctors fear is linked to parents heeding misinformation spread by anti-vaccination campaigners.  Hancock recently refused to rule out a switch to mandatory MMR for primary schoolchildren and said anti-vaxxers had “blood on their hands”. “I do think we need to consider all options. I don’t want to reach the point of compulsory vaccination, but I will rule nothing out,” he said.  However, the GPs’ move triggered an immediate backlash. Medical and public health organisations voiced their unease and warned that making the switch would lead to “potential harms”.  Making MMR compulsory would be hasty, premature and “a kneejerk reaction” to falling immunisation rates, they said. Vaccination could deny patients a choice, lessen trust between patients and doctors and lead parents sceptical about the jab to home school their children, they warned.  Prof Helen Stokes-Lampard, the chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: “As GPs we have an important relationship with our patients, built on trust and understanding, and in order to keep that we need to help people make their own decisions. Positive, informed and educated choice is always going to be more desirable long-term, and we are concerned that rushing down the route of enforcing methods of healthcare could have unintended consequences.”  It would be wrong on principle to deny patients a choice over what medical interventions they had or to “impose” compulsory vaccination on them, she added.  “Mandation should be the end of the road, after we’ve tried everything else. There’s no body of evidence that it works. It’s a kneejerk reaction,” said Helen Bedford, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health’s spokeswoman on immunisation.”  “If it’s linked to school entry, if you are opposed to vaccination then you are just going to go for home schooling,” added Bedford, a professor of children’s health at University College London.  The Royal Society for Public Health and Faculty of Public Health both opposed the plan.  Hancock declined to respond to the call. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said: “We have a world-leading vaccination programme and uptake remains very high at around 90% for most childhood vaccines, including MMR.  “We are committed to driving up uptake rates further and our new vaccination strategy will draw together concerted efforts across the health system.”


ageofautism--2019-08-15--Challenging Murdoch influence on Australias coercive vaccination policy - the example of meningococ

Challenging Murdoch influence on Australia's coercive vaccination policy - the example of meningococcal B vaccination

Terry Nolan, former Chair of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), is the Group Leader of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute's Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group (VIRGo).[5]  Terry Nolan has been involved in research regarding the GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product, research which has been funded by GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis, and listing VIRGo and the Murdoch Children's Research Institute on published papers. [6] Terry Nolan has also been influential at the World Health Organisation, via his membership of SAGE - the 'Strategic Advisory Group of Experts'.  In light of the ongoing aggressive media campaign by the Murdoch tabloids, demanding that the GlaxoSmithKline Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product be added to Australia's taxpayer-funded vaccination schedule, there must be full disclosure of conflicts of interest, i.e. the Murdoch Children's Research Institute's association with the GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product. Rupert Murdoch's mother, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, was involved with the founding of this institute[1], and News Corp and Foxtel are corporate partners of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute[2], which has also received funding from vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and others.[3] Lachlan Murdoch's partner Sarah Murdoch is on the Board of Directors and is the Ambassador for the Murdoch Children's Research Institute.[4]  Professor Wilson, there must be an urgent investigation into the Murdoch-run media/News Corp’s influence on Australia’s taxpayer-funded coercive vaccination policy, and this organisation’s conflicts of interest via its association with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, which is involved in vaccine development.  Below: see Elizabeth's email to the Chair of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Challenging Murdoch influence on Australia's coercive vaccination policy - eg Men B vax Citizens need to be warned how vaccination policy is being manipulated. Click here to see the PDF with attachments.  Terry Nolan was recently featured discussing the GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product on the ABC World Today program titled "Experts concerned Australia's vaccine program lagging behind".[7] The ABC did not disclose Terry Nolan's conflicts of interest, i.e. his involvement with GSK/Novartis funded research on the GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product. (See below my previous email to you on this subject (22 July 2019) for a transcript of the ABC World Today segment.)  Professor Wilson, on 4 August 2019 the Murdoch tabloid The Sunday Telegraph ran a front page story with the headline "Prime Minister, if little Donald Peach's life means anything to you...FUND THE JAB" (See copy attached, plus other relevant articles.)  Donald Peach's death is a tragedy, but this sad case must not be used to impose mass vaccination against very rare invasive meningococcal disease with multiple doses of an aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine of questionable effectiveness, as acknowledged in the PBAC's previous rejection of the GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product in its 'subsequent decision not to recommend' outcomes document, dated July 2015. (See highlighted copy attached.)  Professor Wilson, The Sunday Telegraph demands that the Prime Minister "FUND THE JAB", i.e. Scott Morrison. This raises questions about the influence being wielded by the Murdochs on Australia's politicians and taxpayer-funded vaccination policy. Scott Morrison was Social Services Minister in 2015 when the No Jab, No Pay bill was raised. According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald[8], Scott Morrison had lunch with Rupert Murdoch around that time - did Mr Morrison receive instructions from Mr Murdoch in regards to the No Jab, No Pay bill, which was fast-tracked and enacted as the No Jab, No Pay law in January 2016? Can we have transparency and accountability on this matter?  A Sunday Telegraph editorial published on 28 July 2019 titled "Fund vaccine for this killer" boasts "Since we began the No Jab, No Pay and No Jab, No Play campaigns, immunisation rates have surged and are now at nearly 95 per cent, the level experts say is needed to protect the whole community. This is because we pushed governments to introduce new rules stripping families with unvaccinated children of government payments and giving childcare centres the right to ban unvaccinated kids." (See copy attached.)  As a result of the Murdoch tabloids' aggressive No Jab, No Play vaccination campaign, the community is being forced to be compliant to an ever-increasing number of vaccine products and revaccinations, without consultation with the community. For example, since the Federal No Jab, No Pay law was enacted in January 2016, yet another aluminium-adjuvanted diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis containing revaccination has been added to the schedule for infants around 18 months, making six doses of this vaccination combination for children now, despite the fact there are known problems with the effectiveness of the pertussis component of these vaccinations.  Meningococcal A, C, W, Y vaccination has also been fast-tracked onto the national schedule since the No Jab, No Pay law was implemented. I suggest there should be an investigation into the lobbying for this vaccine product, indeed for every product and revaccination on the current coercive vaccination schedule, the entire schedule is awash with conflicts of interest that must be examined.  Professor Wilson, it is wrong that parents are being coerced to have their children vaccinated and revaccinated with an ever-increasing list of very questionable vaccine products, without the right to consider the risks and benefits of each of these interventions. With the coercive No Jab, No Pay and No Play laws campaigned for by the Murdoch media, the right to 'informed consent' before each of these medical interventions has effectively been trashed.  And now we see the Murdoch tabloids 'demanding' that meningococcal B vaccination for very rare invasive meningococcal disease be added to the taxpayer-funded schedule, where presumably it will be compulsory to access financial benefits and childcare. The Sunday Telegraph editorial "Fund vaccine for this killer" says "This is the last demand from our original campaign that has not been solved, and the Morrison government should know by now we are not going to give up until something is done to protect families". (See copy attached.)  Was this the goal of the Murdoch media all along, i.e. to get the GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product, which is associated with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, onto the taxpayer-funded schedule, and effectively mandated thanks to the No Jab, No Pay and No Play laws campaigned for by the Murdoch media? Was this part of a plan to develop a multi-billion dollar global market for this GSK vaccine product?  Is Prime Minister Scott Morrison going to bow to the demands of the Murdoch media, and add the very questionable GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product to the taxpayer-funded coercive vaccination schedule? Is this how taxpayer-funded vaccination policy is formulated in Australia, at the behest of the Murdoch empire?  The PBAC previously rejected the GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product due to "multiple uncertainties in relation to the clinical effectiveness of the vaccine against the disease when delivered in a vaccination program", among other reasons.[9] Any information provided by GlaxoSmithKline to counter these concerns must be examined very carefully by independent and objective specialists in the area. Mass vaccination against very rare invasive meningococcal disease is highly questionable given it is not a serious risk for most individuals.  I suggest there should be more research into invasive meningococcal disease and why it strikes so few people, what makes them vulnerable? In light of the emerging problems with pertussis vaccination, and the unknown cumulative consequences of the ever-increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations being added to the schedule, we must be very concerned about the potential for 'unintended consequences'.  Professor Wilson, it is the PBAC's primary role "to recommend new medicines for listing on the PBS...no new medicine can be listed unless the committee makes a positive recommendation". The community is relying on the independence of this "expert body appointed by the Australian Government" to objectively evaluate vaccine products for the taxpayer-funded schedule.[10]  Yet, the Murdoch tabloids appear to be seeking to circumvent this process, and are 'demanding' Rupert Murdoch's lunch partner[11], Prime Minister Scott Morrison, add the GSK Bexsero meninogoccal B vaccine product to the taxpayer-funded coercive vaccination schedule. This appears to be an abuse of power that is undermining the political process in our liberal democracy.  Australia's taxpayer-funded coercive vaccination policy is in crisis, it is critically damaged by being heavily influenced by parties with conflicts of interest.  We have no effective media to shine a light on this matter. Apart from the Murdoch media's dominance on this subject, other media such as Fairfax/Nine and Seven West Media have largely fallen into line behind the Murdoch tabloids. We have been most badly let down by the taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS, which have utterly failed to provide critical analysis of Australia's taxpayer-funded vaccination policy, and instead provide unquestioning free promotion for vaccine products in their news services.  We must have an urgent investigation into Murdoch influence on our elected politicians and taxpayer-funded vaccination policy, and also conflicts of interest via the Murdoch Children's Research Institute.  Again Professor Wilson, it is alarming that the aluminium-adjuvanted GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product of questionable effectiveness against very rare invasive meningococcal disease may be added to the national taxpayer-funded vaccination schedule, and made compulsory for children to access financial benefits and childcare. I am concerned that you and your fellow members of the PBAC will be persuaded by the Murdoch media, politicians and potentially conflicted industry-funded data to approve this vaccine product for the coercive vaccination schedule - only independent and objective medical and scientific evidence should influence your decision.  I request your urgent response on this matter.  Independent citizen investigating conflicts of interest in vaccination policy and the over-use of vaccine products.  - Prime Minister, if little Donald Peach's life means anything to you...FUND THE JAB. The Sunday Telegraph, 4 August 2019.  - Fund vaccine for this killer. The Sunday Telegraph, 28 July 2019.  - Why did our child die? Pages 1 and 2. The Sunday Telegraph, 4 August 2019.  Includes the article 'Only' nine lives could be saved.  - How much was this little life worth? The Sunday Telegraph, 4 August 2019.  References:  1. See 'History' on the 'About' page on the Murdoch Children's Research Institute website (current as at 12 August 2019).


aljazeera--2019-11-14--'Worst-ever' UK health service results pile pressure on Johnson

The United Kingdom's health service recorded its worst-ever performance in England in October, and 100,000 people could end up stuck on trolleys waiting for hospital beds in the depths of winter, experts said.  New figures from NHS England show performance of Accident and Emergency departments, or emergency rooms, is at its worst-ever level, while the health service has also missed a series of other targets, including how long people wait to start planned treatment. • Half of citizens think UK might not exist in decade  The data shows one in six patients waited longer than four hours in A&E in England during October - the worst-ever performance since the four-hour target was introduced in 2004 by the Labour government of the day. The figures do not cover Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.  "Under Boris Johnson, the NHS is in crisis and we're heading for a winter of abject misery for patients," said Labour's shadow health secretary, Jonathan Ashworth.  "Our A&Es are overwhelmed, more so than ever ... The Tories spent a decade cutting over 15,000 beds. Now, they should apologise to every patient languishing on a trolley and waiting longer for treatment."  The state-run NHS has provided free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare for more than 70 years, making it a highly emotive issue during elections, when voters rate it as the second most important subject after Brexit.  Liberal Democrat health spokeswoman Luciana Berger said: "This is a damning indictment of the Conservatives' dismal record on the NHS."  Conservatives, who have been in power in the UK since 2010 - in coalition with the Liberal Democrats until 2015 - were eager to push anti-immigration talking points on the election campaign trail on Thursday, but Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the figures showed the UK could not afford to have a Labour government run by Jeremy Corbyn.  "We are giving the biggest cash boost ever to our NHS, but Corbyn's chaotic policies will put that at risk," he said in a statement.  While the UK's health service remains ostensibly public-owned and free to access, services are often put out to private tender, which critics say drives up waiting times. This "stealth privatisation" was started by Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives in the 1980s, accelerated by Tony Blair's New Labour project in the 1990s, and further ramped up by subsequent Conservative administrations.  Cuts to social services, the transfer of funding responsibilities for some services to local government, and a crisis in social housing have all led to increased pressure on the NHS in recent years.  The data released on Thursday said 83.6 percent of patients arriving at A&E were treated or admitted in four hours - the target is 95 percent, but that has not been met since July 2015.  In September, 84.8 percent of patients started treatment within 18 weeks of being assessed, against a target of 92 percent - a continued decline in performance.  "These figures show the next government will immediately be faced with one of the bleakest winters in the NHS' history," said Nuffield Trust chief economist John Appleby.  "Meanwhile, the number of people waiting on trolleys in corridors because no beds are available has already hit 80,000 - something we have only seen before in the very coldest part of the year. If this trend keeps going, I fear we could see 100,000 people stuck on trolleys this coming January.  "As the election promises roll in, we should be under no illusion about the money, staff and time it will take to turn this situation around."  An NHS spokesman said: "These figures show that while NHS staff are looking after a markedly higher number of older and sicker patients, a higher number of patients are being seen quickly than a year ago."  Writing to all party leaders, Derek Alderson, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, and Liam O'Toole, chief executive of Versus Arthritis, said: "It just isn't acceptable for so many people to languish on these [waiting] lists, with deteriorating physical and mental health as they wait for treatment.  "In the absence of any proven, better measure, we are calling on all parties to commit to upholding the 18-week maximum wait not just in law but in practice."  The Society for Acute Medicine said acute and emergency care in the NHS was "imploding" before the expected winter crisis hits.  Dr Nick Scriven, immediate past president of the Society for Acute Medicine, said hospitals were under "intense pressure" with many at full capacity, yet politicians were "avoiding the elephant in the room".  Struggling under the pressure of record demand because of a growing and ageing population, as well as cutbacks to social care services, the NHS has warned it faces a shortfall in funding despite government promises of extra money.  Corbyn's Labour Party, which is traditionally favoured by voters to run the NHS, has said it will outspend the Conservatives if it wins the election, though Johnson has also promised to spend big to build new hospitals.  "Boris Johnson is visibly keen to keep the election campaign focused on Brexit, but the widespread flooding in Yorkshire, and now these bleak statistics on the state of the much-cherished National Health Service are opening up the political debate into a much wider examination of the Conservatives' record in power," said Al Jazeera's Paul Brennan, reporting from London.  "The figures, and the prediction of a bleak winter ahead, are a gift to the opposition parties' campaigns. The NHS is a crucial battleground issue, with 77 percent of Britons wanting it to be maintained, and 90 percent supportive of the founding principles which underpin it," he added.  "A party which loses the public's trust on the NHS will suffer at the ballot box on December 12."


bbcuk--2019-02-12--Can video consultations combat global doctor shortages

Can video consultations combat global doctor shortages?

Would you be happy to see your doctor online? Growing numbers of patients seem to be attracted by the convenience. And doctors are also finding it useful as health services come under pressure from growing and ageing populations.  Lydia Campbell-Hill, a 35-year-old doctor from Cornwall, England, says switching to online consultations has transformed her life.  "As a 'part-time' GP [general practitioner] working three days a week, I was doing 39 hours or more," she says.  "I was solo parenting, paying vast amounts on childcare, and not seeing my child much."  After leaving her clinic-based job and working mainly online from her lounge or kitchen, she says: "My stress levels dropped and I can fit my hours around school, even working a couple of hours in the evening after my son has gone to bed."  Doug Sweeny, from US primary care provider One Medical, says giving doctors the flexibility to work remotely greatly improves their quality of life.  "The virtual team, they may have kids at home, they may be in places like Hawaii," he says.  "It works brilliantly, it actually helps if you need a flexible schedule or are in an area [where] we don't have bricks and mortar."  Quality of life is one thing, but telemedicine is also about hard-headed economics.  "A significant portion of the patients doctors see daily are quick follow-ups of well-managed, long-term conditions, lab results, or script renewals," says Oyuka Byambasuren, a Mongolian GP researching technology and healthcare delivery, "and these can be addressed through teleconsultations."  It is a point echoed by Luke Buhl-Nielsen, from Swedish telemedicine app KRY (which uses the name LIVI outside Scandinavia).  "In Sweden, up to 45% of the volume that comes into general practice can be dealt with digitally," he says.  And virtual visits are roughly two-thirds cheaper to provide than in-person visits, research suggests.  Doctor shortages is a growing problem around the world.  The US could have up to 50,000 fewer than it needs by 2030, research firm IHS Markit believes. In Asia, the doctor shortage is fuelling the rapid rise of telehealth apps such as Halodoc, Doctor Anywhere, and Ping An Good Doctor.  Private equity firms and venture capitalists are piling in to the sector, investing billions, as healthcare providers respond to the app-savvy, more consumer-focused generations.  Nearly two-fifths of Americans aged 22-38 now seek routine medical services virtually these days, says a digital health survey from consultancy firm Accenture.  And this generation demands more convenient appointment times and a better service than that enjoyed by their elders.  "People are wanting to receive healthcare with the simplicity and convenience they receive in other services in their life," says Brian Kalis, Accenture's head of digital health services.  The number of virtual visits to the doctor in the US will reach 105 million by 2022, up from 23 million in 2017, says IHS Markit.  Celina Schocken has gone to the doctor virtually for a year.  "You go to the app and request a consult, and then it assigns you to a nurse or doctor, they open your electronic chart, and it feels like a FaceTime session," she says.  Ms Schocken, a 46-year-old consultant in Washington DC who works on women's health in developing countries, says she enjoys not having to waste time in waiting rooms running the risk of catching flu from other patients.  The service costs $200 (£154; €176) a year to join and online consultations are free. But in-person visits and other services are extra.  "It is really clean and efficient, and I love it," she says.  Telemedicine has particularly taken off in Nordic countries, and is popular with women in Turkey, where birth control is coming under attack, according to analytics firm App Annie.  Employers are also cottoning on to the benefits of telemedicine as a workplace perk. In the US, retail chain Walmart is offering employees doctor's appointments for $4 if they use a telemedicine service.  "Employers are very sensibly appreciating that booking a meeting room for a 15-minute Skype consult is more productive than missing maybe an entire day to attend a GP appointment," says Dr Campbell-Hill.  But there are challenges integrating telemedicine into healthcare systems, like Britain's or Canada's, that are paid for primarily from taxation.  In the UK, for example, National Health Service GP surgeries receive a fixed amount of money for each patient on their books.  The patients with easily treatable conditions effectively subsidise those with more complex conditions who require more care and attention.  So the concern is that telemedicine services could simply "cherry pick" the younger, healthier patients, leaving bricks-and-mortar surgeries with less money to treat those patients who are more expensive to treat, warns Dr Campbell-Hill.  And while chatbot-based health apps, such as Babylon, are also proving useful for initial triage or assessment of simple patient conditions, there are some concerns about how accurate the artificial intelligence (AI) underlying such chatbots really is.  Dr Annette Neary, a former NHS consultant now based in Galway, Ireland, says: "Chatbot algorithms frequently ask overly broad questions and often come up with bizarre diagnosis options."  For example, she recently input symptoms of a man having a heart attack, and the AI came up with "panic attack" as a diagnosis.  "Another one for sepsis came up with gonorrhoea," she says.  So while many doctors think you can't beat a face-to-face consultation, there are plenty of benefits if that face is on a smartphone or computer screen.