baccarat rules
Letters | Heathcote Road upgrade, genuine local news, traffic gridlock, community roots
World News | Canada's Trudeau Returns Home After Trump Meeting Without Assurances That Tariffs Are off the Table
Vancouver Island First Nation whose ancestors met explorer Capt. Cook sue province
AP Sports SummaryBrief at 5:38 p.m. ESTClinical Research Organization Global Template Market Set For 9.8% Growth, Reaching $86.33 Billion By 2028
Racial and geographic health disparities in the US have increased over the last two decades, research shows
Child specialists have warned parents against giving their babies antibiotics without a prescription by qualified medical personnel. They noted that the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in babies was not only harmful but eventually made infections difficult to treat as the drug became resistant to infections, leading to higher costs of treatment, long hospital stays, and deaths. The paediatricians also warned parents against giving their babies antibiotics in an attempt to prevent infections, asserting that such practice was harmful. In exclusive interviews with PUNCH Healthwise, the child experts and researchers on Antimicrobial Resistance, urged parents to take their babies to certified healthcare practitioners before giving them medications. The experts spoke in light of World AMR Awareness Week commemorated on November 18 to 24 every year. The theme for this year is, “Educate. Advocate. Act now.” According to the World Health Organisation, WAAW is a global campaign that is celebrated annually to improve awareness and understanding of AMR and encourage best practices among the public, health practitioners and policymakers to reduce further emergence and spread of AMR. Antimicrobial Resistance, AMR, occurs when bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites no longer respond to medicines, making infections harder to treat and further increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness and death. The WHO notes that antimicrobials are antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals and antiparasitic medicines used to prevent and treat infections in humans and animals. The United Nations Children’s Fund states that in 2019, out of the 1.27 million deaths directly linked to AMR, 254,000 were children mostly under the age of five, representing a disproportionate share of AMR-related deaths globally. It adds that this figure was equal to one child dying nearly every two minutes. The Global Research on Antimicrobial Resistance reports that in 2019, 4.95 million people suffered and died from drug-resistant infections globally. It also reported that Nigeria had about 64,500 AMR-related deaths and 263,400 AMR-associated deaths. Providing insight into the issue, a Professor of Paediatrics at the University of Ilorin, Kwara State, Aishatu Gobir, said that antibiotics should only be given to babies after proper investigations and clear indications for their use. She asserted that the common cold, also known as acute coryza, was a viral infection and babies don’t need antibiotics for its treatment. “Babies with cold need to be given plenty of fluids and breast milk, and steam inhalation is recommended for nasal blockage. Antibiotics are not necessary,” the don said. Gobir, who is the pioneer Provost of the College of Medicine, Federal University of Health Sciences, Ila Orangun, Osun State, further stated that the indiscriminate use of antibiotics led to the emergence of drug resistance. “Indiscriminate use of antibiotics leads to unnecessary drug pressure and the emergence of drug resistance. This is aside from side effects from the antibiotics. From the public health perspective, indiscriminate use of antibiotics results in higher costs of treatment, higher morbidity such as prolonged hospital stays and higher death rates. “Those who use antibiotics indiscriminately can have drug-resistant infections leading to more deaths and complications,” the paediatrician said. Continuing, Gobir advised, “Babies shouldn’t be fed antibiotics. Babies need breastfeeding only from birth to six months. After six months, complementary feeds will be added such as pap, moinmoin etc.” Related News Six out of 10 children with sickle cell anaemia risk stroke – Paediatricians ‘Babies born to smoking parents risk leukemia’ NAFDAC warns of substandard antimalaria, antibiotics in circulation On her part, a Professor of Paediatrics at the Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Anambra State, Joy Ebenebe, noted that babies should only be given antibiotics based on the prescription of an appropriate healthcare professional. She noted such prescriptions should be based on the existence of bacterial infection or suspected clinical bacterial infection. The don further stated that babies on antibiotics should be given the correct and prescribed dosage and urged parents to refrain from sharing such medications with other babies presenting with similar symptoms. “Other important measures that need to be taken when antibiotics are prescribed to a baby, include making sure that the antibiotic, for example, if it is prescribed for seven days, is given for seven days and not for two. “Also, it should not be shared with other siblings. Some people have the habit of sharing antibiotics prescribed to one child in the hospital with other children. This means that so little is taken, fuelling the ground for antimicrobial resistance development,” the paediatrician said. She further asserted that since most colds and flu were due to viral infections, babies with such conditions should not need antibiotics. “We do know that a good number of common colds and flu are due to viral infections, meaning that antibiotic use will not be effective. But it will expose the antibiotics to the development of resistance because you are using it indiscriminately,” Ebenebe said. She asserted that the indiscriminate use of antibiotics posed the risk of developing resistance, making simple bacterial infections severe, leading to the spread of infections and even premature death. The paediatrician further noted that antibiotic resistance gave room for the multiplication of minor infections the body’s immune system could naturally fight, leading to serious infections. The don warned parents against the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, advising them to take ill babies to certified healthcare professionals for proper evaluation and treatment. “Some mothers have the bad habit of giving antibiotics to their babies for prevention against infection. This is a very dangerous practice that breeds antimicrobial resistance. “So my message to mothers is to stop buying over-the-counter antibiotics. Stop practising self-medication. If your child is sick, take your child to go and see a qualified healthcare practitioner,” Enenebe warned. Also, a Professor of Medical Microbiology at the Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Samuel Taiwo, emphasised that parents who gave their babies antibiotics without a healthcare practitioner’s prescription exposed them to danger. The researcher on Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Prevention and Control said, “Remember that the body has a lot of normal organisms, billions of organisms are in the gut. Antibiotics that are not warranted can distort the balance of this normal flora which will affect the child one way or the other. “Many times these antibiotics when not given properly can cause the bacteria flora in the body to develop resistance and when the child develops infections, such a child will not respond to the antibiotics again. If such a child has something like diarrhoea, such a child can spread that resistant infection to another child. “So, parents giving antibiotics to their children without medical authorization create harm to the child and when such a child grows up can develop resistance and can spread the resistance to other children in the society and the parents themselves.” Speaking on WAAW, Taiwo urged parents to only give antibiotics to children when and as prescribed by a doctor. “Also, try as much as possible to maintain proper hygiene and hand washing habits. When this is done, you are taking away microorganisms that might be in your hand because the organisms are usually much in the hands. So, regular hygiene and hand washing would minimise the rate at which infection occurs. If there is no infection, there won’t be a need for the use of antibiotics. “We also tell parents to follow the instructions that are given by the doctor. If the prescription is for five days, give the antibiotic for five days. If you are to give it three times a day, give it three times a day. When you give an underdose, the chance of resistance is also very high,” the don said. The AMR advocate further warned parents against keeping leftover antibiotics and giving them to another child who develops symptoms similar to their child’s.
( MENAFN - Asia Times) The United States, like all nations, was created through territorial conquest. Most of its current territory was occupied or frequented by human beings before the US came; the US used force to either displace, subjugate, or kill all of those people. To the extent that land“ownership” existed under the previous inhabitants, the land of the US is stolen land. This was also true before the US arrived. The forcible theft of the land upon which the US now exists was not the first such theft; the people who lived there before conquered, displaced, or killed someone else in order to take the land. The land has been stolen and re-stolen again and again. If you somehow destroyed the United States, expelled its current inhabitants, and gave ownership of the land to the last recorded tribe that had occupied it before, you would not be returning it to its original occupants; you would simply be handing it to the next-most-recent conquerors. If you go back far enough in time, of course, at some point this is no longer true. Humanity didn't always exist; therefore for every piece of land, there was a first human to lay eyes on it and a first human to say“This land is mine.” But by what right did this first human claim exclusive ownership of this land? Why does being the first person to see a natural object make you the rightful owner of that object? And why does being the first human to set foot on a piece of land give your blood descendants the right to dispose of that land as they see fit in perpetuity, and to exclude any and all others from that land? What about all the peoples of the world who were never lucky enough the first to lay eyes on any plot of dirt? Are they simply to be dispossessed forever? I have never seen a satisfactory answer to these questions. Nor have I seen a satisfactory explanation of why ownership of land should be allocated collectively, in terms of racial or ethnic groups. In general, the first people who arrived on a piece of land did so in dribs and drabs, in small family units and tiny micro-tribes that met and married and fought and mixed and formed into larger identities and ethnicities and tribes over long periods of time. In most cases, the ethnic groups who now claim pieces of land as their own did not even exist when the first humans discovered or settled that land. But even in those cases when it did exist, why should land ownership be assigned to a race at all? Why should my notional blood relation to the discoverers or the conquerors of a piece of land determine whether I can truly belong on that land? Why should a section of the map be the land of the Franks, or the Russkiy, or the Cherokee, or the Han, or the Ramaytush Ohlone, or the Britons? Of course, you can assign land ownership this way - it's called an“ethnostate.” But if you do this, it means that the descendants of immigrants can never truly be full and equal citizens of the land they were born in. If Britain is defined as the land of the Britons, then a Han person whose great-great-great-grandparents moved there from China will exist as a contingent citizen - a perpetual foreigner whose continued life in the land of their birth exists only upon the sufferance of a different race. This is the price of ethnonationalism. The downsides of ethnonationalism have been exhaustively laid out in the decades since World War 2, and I'm not going to reiterate them all now. Suffice it to say that most nations of the world have moved away from ethnonationalism - there is an informal sense in which some people still think of France as the land of the Franks and so on, but almost all nations define citizenship and belonging through institutions rather than race. Israel, one of the few exceptions to this rule, receives a large amount of international criticism for defining itself as an ethnostate. And yet these days I am subjected to a constant stream of ethnonationalist claims from progressives in the country of my birth. Here's one from the ACLU of Nebraska: And here's an Instagram post from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib: This isn't just something you see on social media around Thanksgiving.“Land acknowledgments” have become ubiquitous in progressive spaces and institutions - just the other day I saw one at my friend's community dance recital. These land acknowledgments are, legally speaking, incorrect - there is no legal sense in which the land on which they are being performed belongs to a Native American tribe. These are moral claims about rightful land ownership. But the moral principle to which they appeal is ethnonationalism - it's the idea that plots of land are the rightful property of ethnic groups. There is an obvious moral appeal to these land acknowledgments. They are a way of decrying the brutal, cruel, violent history of conquest and colonization. And they probably feel like a way of standing up for the weak, the marginalized, and the dispossessed. Yet what should we think of the morality of following the principles behind land acknowledgments to their logical conclusion?“Decolonization” of the land of the U.S. would likely be an act of ethnic cleansing surpassing even the previous conquests - there are 330 million people here now, and almost none of them descend from Native Americans. An attempt to dispossess 330 million people would inevitably involve violence on a colossal scale. Here was Najma Sharif Alawi's famous tweet right after the October 7th Hamas attacks on Israel: Of course,“colonizers” could presumably avoid violent death or second-class citizenhood by voluntarily deporting themselves. But where would they go? Take me, for example. My ancestors were Lithuanian Jews. I could leave the country of my birth and go“back” to Lithuania - a land I don't know, whose language I don't speak. Yet my ancestors were not“indigenous” to Lithuania either; they moved there from somewhere else. What if the ethnic Lithuanians chose not to accept me? Where would I go then? Israel? But the folks who do land acknowledgments would consider me a“colonizer” there as well.1 Would I then wander the Earth, desperately seeking some ethnostate that would allow me and my descendants to live there as a permanently precarious resident aliens? Once the logic of land acknowledgments and“decolonization” is followed, it leads very quickly to some very dark futures. Assigning each person a homeland based on their ethnic ancestry and then declaring that that homeland is the only place they or their descendants can ever truly belong, would not be an act of justice; it would be a global nightmare made real, surpassing even the horrors of previous centuries. And in practice, any attempt to create such a world would inevitably lead to violent resistance by the groups in danger of being“decolonized.” The orderly world of nation-states would dissolve into a chaotic free-for-all of competing irredentist claims, backed by genocides and expulsions. Ten thousand October 7th-style attacks would be followed by ten thousand Gaza-style wars. I do not want that, and you should not want it either. The American people certainly don't want it, and the insistence of progressives on intoning land acknowledgments has probably tanked the movement's cachet in wider society. I agree with Wayne Burkett when he says that land acknowledgments have probably hurt the Democratic party: Americans do not want to see their country destroyed in the name of irredentist ethnonationalism. Nor do I blame them. So does this mean we should paper over, ignore, or deliberately forget America's history of violent conquest? Absolutely not. That history ought to be remembered, so that we don't repeat it in the present day. The world's evolution from one based on ethnic cleansing and territorial conquest to one based on fixed borders and institutions is something to celebrate - and something we must fight to preserve . We need to remember what the world used to be like, precisely so we can avoid backsliding. The most recent of conquests, expulsions, and genocides should be the last to ever happen. And what of the Native Americans who still live in America today? Must they simply be regarded as the unlucky losers of history, and told to either assimilate into broader American society or shut up? Absolutely not. For one thing, tribal organizations still exist - they may notionally represent ethnic groups, but they are institutions. And they are institutions with which the United States has many agreements and legal obligations that must be honored, which often give the tribes sovereignty over areas of land. Neil Gorsuch has been especially active in pushing the Supreme Court to uphold tribal rights, and I think this is a good thing. But respect for Native American tribal organizations doesn't have to stop at ancient obligations. There are ways to incorporate those tribes into the modern American nation that both respects them and their history and helps them prosper in the present. Vancouver, Canada shows us an example of how this can be done. Part of Vancouver's downtown urban area is officially under the governance of the Squamish Nation, rather than the city itself. The Squamish Nation, realizing they could do whatever they wanted with that land, decided to build a giant high-rise housing development : Here's a picture of what it will look like: An even bigger development called Jericho Lands is now being planned, by a consortium of tribal organizations, on land officially owned by Vancouver. Hilariously, Vancouver's NIMBYs are complaining , claiming that the developments are not in keeping with Indigenous tradition . But Canada's First Nations seem to have little interest in hewing closely to other people's view of what their traditions are. Modern people do not want to live like premodern farmers. They are not mystical Tolkien elves. They would like to have shiny new apartment buildings and walkable neighborhoods. This, I believe, is the key to respecting and honoring Native Americans - not to focus on the tragedies of their past, but to give them the right to build a better future. Tribal lands should definitely have the autonomy to do whatever they want with their lands, including building housing or industry. In fact, we're starting to see a pattern emerge where Native Americans embrace laissez-faire policies toward industry and manage to poach business from their over-regulated neighbors: This sort of thing could lead to a win-win for the US and Native American tribes. American reindustrialization is being held back by a thicket of procedural requirements and local land-use regulations; if tribes were able to use their special legal status to circumvent those barriers, it could end up benefitting everyone.2 The tribes would get both jobs and the ability to tax local industry; America would get to execute an end run around the NIMBYs that are holding it back. In fact, it's probably possible for various American cities to turn over parts of their land to tribal jurisdiction, with the assistance of the federal government. This would probably result in dense urban developments like the ones being planned in Vancouver. But even if it didn't, it could have other commercial benefits - again, a win-win for the US and for the tribes. That would certainly be a lot more substantive than a bunch of land acknowledgments. And it would likely satisfy many people's desire for“giving land back” to Native Americans, without embracing dubious moral principles of ethnic land rights and irredentism. In other words, you're not living on Indigenous land right now, but you could be in the future - and it might be pretty great. The general principle here is that instead of a dark world of ethnic cleansing in the name of“decolonization”, we should try to build a bright future where Native Americans and the United States of America exist in harmony and cooperation rather than in conflict. And that principle doesn't just apply to America, but to the whole world. The history of land ownership is a violent and terrible one, but that doesn't mean the future has to be more of the same. Notes: 1 It is a bitter irony that many of the same people who morally condemn Israel for setting itself up as an ethnostate also justify its destruction using ethnonationalist principles. Personally, I tend to agree with the criticism of Israel's ethnocentrism, but I don't think replacing this with Palestinian ethnocentrism would make things better. 2 There's a lot of historical precedent for this. For example, in the 1960s, Fairchild Semiconductor opened a factory on Navajo land in New Mexico, which was quite beneficial to the economy until an industry downturn and a labor dispute led to its demise in the late 70s. This article was first published on Noah Smith's Noahpinion Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion subscriber here. Thank you for registering! An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link. MENAFN30112024000159011032ID1108942157 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.Malcolm Barrett, known for starring in TV shows The Boys, Timeless and Average Joe, is being investigated for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman. Law enforcement insiders told TMZ that a woman recently reached out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department about Malcolm. The woman claimed to police that after she and the actor had a night of drinking, she awakened in bed to Malcolm touching her, according to the outlet. Additionally, the woman reportedly accused him of having sex with her against her will. Al Michaels audibly disgusted on NFL's Amazon Prime Video commentary - 'what was that?' How much NFL announcers earn as NBC stars compared to Amazon Prime Video duo Sources revealed to TMZ that the woman informed deputies that she had been friends with Malcolm for months, and initially their night out together was normal. It began with grabbing drinks in Los Angeles, and then after they had drinks at his residence before Malcolm allegedly assaulted her. Following the woman filing the police report, TMZ sources said that she went through a sexual assault kit. As of now, the LASD Special Victims Bureau is on the case. No arrests have been made as the investigation is still ongoing, according to TMZ. The Mirror has reached out to Malcolm and the LASD for comment. Malcolm portrayed the character of public relations writer Seth Reed in The Boys. Along with being a TV star, Malcolm has also starred in feature films, such as the Oscar-winning film The Hurt Locker where he portrayed the supporting character Sergeant Foster. The Boys is praised for its dark humor, unique storytelling, and overt political references as it holds up a mirror to society, debuting in 2019. “The way [the series] reflects everything that’s happening in the world really comes from this understanding, that we found very early on in the process, which is this happens to be a television show based on a comic book,” The Boys showrunner Eric Kripke told Variety. Every season, the Amazon Prime Video series entertains viewers with flying superheroes, laser vision, and chemical injections along with deep narratives about misinformation, unregulated power, and capitalism. “It’s not like we were designing it to reflect reality, but we happen to be making a show about violent authoritarians who present as celebrities. Then suddenly, the world changed to reflect the show, not just in the States – all over the world,” Eric explained. “Suddenly we found ourselves making one of the most current shows on television.” The fifth and final season is set to premiere in 2026.Factbox-How Trump’s new FTC chair views AI, Big Tech
Ubisoft Is Discontinuing XDefiant in 2025, San Francisco and Osaka Studios Shutting Down Amid Major LayoffsDublin Mid-West General Election 2024 updates: Sinn Féin’s Eoin Ó Broin would ‘relish opportunity to fix housing’ as he’s elected on first count
Travis County DA José Garza removal suit dismissedHow to Spot a Bad Stock Before it Drops