Archive | April, 2020

كيف تحول محاضراتك من (باوربوينت) إلى فيديو على يوتيوب؟

3 Apr
من منافع الابتلاء الحالي وجلوسنا الاجباري في منازلنا أن لدينا مزيداً من الوقت نتفرغ فيه لنفع أنفسنا والناس من خلال مشاركتهم معارفنا وما تعملناه، وأعتقد أن معظم من يعملون في مجال التعليم العام أو العالي لديهم العديد من المحاضرات في صيغة باربوينت، ولعلهم يريدون مشاركتها مع شرحهم بصوتهم وربما صورتهم حتى تزيد الفائدة وتعم، ولكن
يعتقد الكثير منا ان تحويل هذه المحاضرات الى فيديوهات ومقاطع على يوتيوب عمل تقني مهول ويحتاج لبرامج وامكانيات وهذا غير صحيح
في هذه المقطع القصير اشرح فيه خطوة بخطوة يف يمكنك تحويل محاضراتك من ملف باوربوينت الى فيديو على يوتيوب بل وارشح لك بدائل اخرى غير يوتيوب

في ما يلي شرح بالخطوات 


About 'compassionate use of drugs' to treat COVID-19

3 Apr
Dear colleagues,
 Medicine
I have written a chapter in my doctoral thesis about what defines ‘research’ given that many public health activities are very similar to research and I have tried to draw such a line but I couldn’t. I have tried to label them ‘research-like’ activities and that did not work very well, either. At last, I came to the conclusion that we do not need a label for a scientific/professional activity to render it ethical.
Before elaborating on my idea further, I would like to take this quote from the technical report of a meeting that I participated in at the WHO’s HQ in Geneva back in 2009:
“Despite the conceptual problems of distinguishing between research and non-research, the distinc­tion is deeply ingrained in many countries’ regula­tory structures and is unlikely to be changed any time soon. However, this does not mean that all research must undergo full REC review, nor does it mean that activities that fall outside local or in­ternational definitions of research should escape ethics review entirely.” (Research Ethics in International Epidemic Response, WHO Technical Consultation, 2009, p.1)
This quote captured what I said back then and what I found again in my thesis. We have fell in the trap of ‘legalizing ethics’, which is very much an American phenomenon. They want to give everything a label so they know who they can sue if something goes wrong. Now, let me return to our point of discussion, the ‘compassionate use of drugs’, which I prefer to describe as the use of drugs for treating diseases other than what they were approved for by clinicians within a clinical setting, usually upon the approval and supervision of a committee/panel within that clinical setting, usually a hospital.
To put things in context, let’s remind ourselves that research ethics, a branch of bioethics, aims at making sure that the people who trusted as are not exploited, abused, cheated, etc. and above all having their rights protected. We, the professionals/bioethicists, have agreed that the way to do is to voluntary expose our practice to a group of colleagues who are entrusted to tell us honestly if what we are planning to do is ethical, based on a set of standards and principles that are known and documented in guidelines and frameworks.
If we agree that this is what bioethics, in general, is trying to achieve, then eventually no professional practice done by professionals in a professional setting should be immune from some sort or ethical oversight. THIS DOES NOT MEAN SUBMIT IT TO IRB. (This is why I started with the quote because it says that clearly.)
I understand that pharma giants will not allow us to compare their drugs with their drugs to prove that a cheaper drug is as efficient as an expensive one but there are ways through that. We have generic drugs, we have different companies that produce the same drug. For example, the chloroquine ‘course’, as we the Sudanese used to call it was roughly one dollar for 10 tab(cap)lets because we buy it from Jordanian company before manufacturing it in Sudan, while in the US it costs around $66 USD for the 10 tablets.
The bottom line is this. Using a drug for a purpose other that what it was approved for includes: 1) testing if the drug will work; 2) at what dose will it work; 3) does it affect or get affected by comorbidities and or other drugs; and finally reporting the outcome of this usage/testing. Now the question is: how does that differ from a trial, apart from that this ‘usage’ is not randomized among the patients and not called ‘testing’.
So, what we can/should do about it?
First of all, the good news. Don’t change the label of your activity. You may still call ‘compassionate use of drugs’ but assure us (the people, the bioethicists, the professional community, etc.) that:
The clinician using this drug beyond its approved purpose is qualified to do so. Set the criteria you like but share them with the rest of the professional community.
The clinician using the drug AND the panel that approved such usage do not have conflicting interests with the pharma companies manufacturing, or their agents in the region, for whatever drug used.
The clinician doing this has and can provide some genuine evidence of ‘clinical equipoise’, i.e. a genuine doubt that the drug being used in not optimum in terms of its efficacy, safety, or affordability. This should be easier in COVID-19, as there is no approved drug.
The clinicians doing this have to set clear criteria on who will get the drug, how many of them, who will be excluded, what are the precautions s/he is taking into consideration should some goes wrong, when s/he will stop this usage, and is s/he planning to report any adverse event should they happen.
Is this too much to ask?
Best regards,
Ghaiath M. A. Hussein, PhD
MBBS (SUD), MHSc. (CAN), PhD (UK)
Assistant Professor of Bioethics
Alternative email: gmh232@alumni.bham.ac.uk 
“Opportunities are outside the comfort zone.”Khalifa Elmusharaf
YouTube Channel – My Lectures- My PhD Thesis
“The ethical considerations in the health-related research activities conducted during armed conflicts.”
Show quoted text
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Ghaiath Hussein
Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: “Off-label”
To: ALHASSNAN, ZUHAIR NASSER , Mohammed alkawi , jamal jarallah , Amin Kashmeery , , Abdallah Adlan , Abdullah Aljoudi
Cc: Ross Upshur
Dear colleagues,
I have written a chapter in my doctoral thesis about what defines ‘research’ given that many public health activities are very similar to research and I have tried to draw such a line but I couldn’t. I have tried to label them ‘research-like’ activities and that did not work very well, either. At last, I came to the conclusion that we do not need a label for an scientific/professional activity to render it ethical.
Before elaborating on my idea further, I would like to take this quote from the technical report of a meeting that I participated in at the WHO’s HQ in Geneva back in 2009:
“Despite the conceptual problems of distinguishing between research and non-research, the distinc­tion is deeply ingrained in many countries’ regula­tory structures and is unlikely to be changed any time soon. However, this does not mean that all research must undergo full REC review, nor does it mean that activities that fall outside local or in­ternational definitions of research should escape ethics review entirely.” (Research Ethics in International Epidemic Response, WHO Technical Consultation, 2009, p.1)
This quote captured what I said back then and what I found again in my thesis. We have fell in the trap of ‘legalizing ethics’, which is very much an American phenomenon. They want to give everything a label so they know who they can sue if something goes wrong. Now, let me return to our point of discussion, the ‘compassionate use of drugs’, which I prefer to describe as the use of drugs for treating diseases other than what they were approved for by clinicians within a clinical setting, usually upon the approval and supervision of a committee/panel within that clinical setting, usually a hospital.
To put things in context, let’s remind ourselves that research ethics, a branch of bioethics, aims at making sure that the people who trusted as are not exploited, abused, cheated, etc. and above all having their rights protected. We, the professionals/bioethicists, have agreed that the way to do is to voluntary expose our practice to a group of colleagues who are entrusted to tell us honestly if what we are planning to do is ethical, based on a set of standards and principles that are known and documented in guidelines and frameworks.
If we agree that this is what bioethics, in general, is trying to achieve, then eventually no professional practice done by professionals in a professional setting should be immune from some sort or ethical oversight. THIS DOES NOT MEAN SUBMIT IT TO IRB. (This is why I started with the quote because it says that clearly.)
I understand that pharma giants will not allow us to compare their drugs with their drugs to prove that a cheaper drug is as efficient as an expensive one but there are ways through that. We have generic drugs, we have different companies that produce the same drug. For example, the chloroquine ‘course’, as we the Sudanese used to call it was roughly one dollar for 10 tab(cap)lets because we buy it from Jordanian company before manufacturing it in Sudan, while in the US it costs around $66 USD for the 10 tablets.
The bottom line is this. Using a drug for a purpose other that what it was approved for includes: 1) testing if the drug will work; 2) at what dose will it work; 3) does it affect or get affected by comorbidities and or other drugs; and finally reporting the outcome of this usage/testing. Now the question is: how does that differ from a trial, apart from that this ‘usage’ is not randomized among the patients and not called ‘testing’.
So, what we can/should do about it?
First of all, the good news. Don’t change the label of your activity. You may still call ‘compassionate use of drugs’ but assure us (the people, the bioethicists, the professional community, etc.) that:
The clinician using this drug beyond its approved purpose is qualified to do so. Set the criteria you like but share them with the rest of the professional community.
The clinician using the drug AND the panel that approved such usage do not have conflicting interests with the pharma companies manufacturing, or their agents in the region, for whatever drug used.
The clinician doing this has and can provide some genuine evidence of ‘clinical equipoise’, i.e. a genuine doubt that the drug being used in not optimum in terms of its efficacy, safety, or affordability. This should be easier in COVID-19, as there is no approved drug.
The clinicians doing this have to set clear criteria on who will get the drug, how many of them, who will be excluded, what are the precautions s/he is taking into consideration should some goes wrong, when s/he will stop this usage, and is s/he planning to report any adverse event should they happen.
Is this too much to ask?
Best regards,
Ghaiath M. A. Hussein, PhD
MBBS (SUD), MHSc. (CAN), PhD (UK)
Assistant Professor of Bioethics

About \'compassionate use of drugs\' to treat COVID-19

3 Apr
Dear colleagues,
 Medicine
I have written a chapter in my doctoral thesis about what defines ‘research’ given that many public health activities are very similar to research and I have tried to draw such a line but I couldn’t. I have tried to label them ‘research-like’ activities and that did not work very well, either. At last, I came to the conclusion that we do not need a label for a scientific/professional activity to render it ethical.
Before elaborating on my idea further, I would like to take this quote from the technical report of a meeting that I participated in at the WHO’s HQ in Geneva back in 2009:
“Despite the conceptual problems of distinguishing between research and non-research, the distinc­tion is deeply ingrained in many countries’ regula­tory structures and is unlikely to be changed any time soon. However, this does not mean that all research must undergo full REC review, nor does it mean that activities that fall outside local or in­ternational definitions of research should escape ethics review entirely.” (Research Ethics in International Epidemic Response, WHO Technical Consultation, 2009, p.1)
This quote captured what I said back then and what I found again in my thesis. We have fell in the trap of ‘legalizing ethics’, which is very much an American phenomenon. They want to give everything a label so they know who they can sue if something goes wrong. Now, let me return to our point of discussion, the ‘compassionate use of drugs’, which I prefer to describe as the use of drugs for treating diseases other than what they were approved for by clinicians within a clinical setting, usually upon the approval and supervision of a committee/panel within that clinical setting, usually a hospital.
To put things in context, let’s remind ourselves that research ethics, a branch of bioethics, aims at making sure that the people who trusted as are not exploited, abused, cheated, etc. and above all having their rights protected. We, the professionals/bioethicists, have agreed that the way to do is to voluntary expose our practice to a group of colleagues who are entrusted to tell us honestly if what we are planning to do is ethical, based on a set of standards and principles that are known and documented in guidelines and frameworks.
If we agree that this is what bioethics, in general, is trying to achieve, then eventually no professional practice done by professionals in a professional setting should be immune from some sort or ethical oversight. THIS DOES NOT MEAN SUBMIT IT TO IRB. (This is why I started with the quote because it says that clearly.)
I understand that pharma giants will not allow us to compare their drugs with their drugs to prove that a cheaper drug is as efficient as an expensive one but there are ways through that. We have generic drugs, we have different companies that produce the same drug. For example, the chloroquine ‘course’, as we the Sudanese used to call it was roughly one dollar for 10 tab(cap)lets because we buy it from Jordanian company before manufacturing it in Sudan, while in the US it costs around $66 USD for the 10 tablets.
The bottom line is this. Using a drug for a purpose other that what it was approved for includes: 1) testing if the drug will work; 2) at what dose will it work; 3) does it affect or get affected by comorbidities and or other drugs; and finally reporting the outcome of this usage/testing. Now the question is: how does that differ from a trial, apart from that this ‘usage’ is not randomized among the patients and not called ‘testing’.
So, what we can/should do about it?
First of all, the good news. Don’t change the label of your activity. You may still call ‘compassionate use of drugs’ but assure us (the people, the bioethicists, the professional community, etc.) that:
The clinician using this drug beyond its approved purpose is qualified to do so. Set the criteria you like but share them with the rest of the professional community.
The clinician using the drug AND the panel that approved such usage do not have conflicting interests with the pharma companies manufacturing, or their agents in the region, for whatever drug used.
The clinician doing this has and can provide some genuine evidence of ‘clinical equipoise’, i.e. a genuine doubt that the drug being used in not optimum in terms of its efficacy, safety, or affordability. This should be easier in COVID-19, as there is no approved drug.
The clinicians doing this have to set clear criteria on who will get the drug, how many of them, who will be excluded, what are the precautions s/he is taking into consideration should some goes wrong, when s/he will stop this usage, and is s/he planning to report any adverse event should they happen.
Is this too much to ask?
Best regards,
Ghaiath M. A. Hussein, PhD
MBBS (SUD), MHSc. (CAN), PhD (UK)
Assistant Professor of Bioethics
Alternative email: gmh232@alumni.bham.ac.uk 
\”Opportunities are outside the comfort zone.\”Khalifa Elmusharaf
YouTube Channel – My Lectures- My PhD Thesis
\”The ethical considerations in the health-related research activities conducted during armed conflicts.\”
Show quoted text
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Ghaiath Hussein
Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: \”Off-label\”
To: ALHASSNAN, ZUHAIR NASSER , Mohammed alkawi , jamal jarallah , Amin Kashmeery , , Abdallah Adlan , Abdullah Aljoudi
Cc: Ross Upshur
Dear colleagues,
I have written a chapter in my doctoral thesis about what defines ‘research’ given that many public health activities are very similar to research and I have tried to draw such a line but I couldn’t. I have tried to label them ‘research-like’ activities and that did not work very well, either. At last, I came to the conclusion that we do not need a label for an scientific/professional activity to render it ethical.
Before elaborating on my idea further, I would like to take this quote from the technical report of a meeting that I participated in at the WHO’s HQ in Geneva back in 2009:
“Despite the conceptual problems of distinguishing between research and non-research, the distinc­tion is deeply ingrained in many countries’ regula­tory structures and is unlikely to be changed any time soon. However, this does not mean that all research must undergo full REC review, nor does it mean that activities that fall outside local or in­ternational definitions of research should escape ethics review entirely.” (Research Ethics in International Epidemic Response, WHO Technical Consultation, 2009, p.1)
This quote captured what I said back then and what I found again in my thesis. We have fell in the trap of ‘legalizing ethics’, which is very much an American phenomenon. They want to give everything a label so they know who they can sue if something goes wrong. Now, let me return to our point of discussion, the ‘compassionate use of drugs’, which I prefer to describe as the use of drugs for treating diseases other than what they were approved for by clinicians within a clinical setting, usually upon the approval and supervision of a committee/panel within that clinical setting, usually a hospital.
To put things in context, let’s remind ourselves that research ethics, a branch of bioethics, aims at making sure that the people who trusted as are not exploited, abused, cheated, etc. and above all having their rights protected. We, the professionals/bioethicists, have agreed that the way to do is to voluntary expose our practice to a group of colleagues who are entrusted to tell us honestly if what we are planning to do is ethical, based on a set of standards and principles that are known and documented in guidelines and frameworks.
If we agree that this is what bioethics, in general, is trying to achieve, then eventually no professional practice done by professionals in a professional setting should be immune from some sort or ethical oversight. THIS DOES NOT MEAN SUBMIT IT TO IRB. (This is why I started with the quote because it says that clearly.)
I understand that pharma giants will not allow us to compare their drugs with their drugs to prove that a cheaper drug is as efficient as an expensive one but there are ways through that. We have generic drugs, we have different companies that produce the same drug. For example, the chloroquine ‘course’, as we the Sudanese used to call it was roughly one dollar for 10 tab(cap)lets because we buy it from Jordanian company before manufacturing it in Sudan, while in the US it costs around $66 USD for the 10 tablets.
The bottom line is this. Using a drug for a purpose other that what it was approved for includes: 1) testing if the drug will work; 2) at what dose will it work; 3) does it affect or get affected by comorbidities and or other drugs; and finally reporting the outcome of this usage/testing. Now the question is: how does that differ from a trial, apart from that this ‘usage’ is not randomized among the patients and not called ‘testing’.
So, what we can/should do about it?
First of all, the good news. Don’t change the label of your activity. You may still call ‘compassionate use of drugs’ but assure us (the people, the bioethicists, the professional community, etc.) that:
The clinician using this drug beyond its approved purpose is qualified to do so. Set the criteria you like but share them with the rest of the professional community.
The clinician using the drug AND the panel that approved such usage do not have conflicting interests with the pharma companies manufacturing, or their agents in the region, for whatever drug used.
The clinician doing this has and can provide some genuine evidence of ‘clinical equipoise’, i.e. a genuine doubt that the drug being used in not optimum in terms of its efficacy, safety, or affordability. This should be easier in COVID-19, as there is no approved drug.
The clinicians doing this have to set clear criteria on who will get the drug, how many of them, who will be excluded, what are the precautions s/he is taking into consideration should some goes wrong, when s/he will stop this usage, and is s/he planning to report any adverse event should they happen.
Is this too much to ask?
Best regards,
Ghaiath M. A. Hussein, PhD
MBBS (SUD), MHSc. (CAN), PhD (UK)
Assistant Professor of Bioethics

اختيار د. غياث حسين عضوا في مجموعات عمل لوضع الموجهات الأخلاقية

2 Apr
Task Force rubber stampتم ترشيح د. غياث محمد عباس عضوا في لجنتين لوضع الموجهات الأخلاقية الخاصة بجائحة كورونا (كوفيد ١٩) أحدهما تابعة للجنة الوطنية للأخلاقيات الحيوية وتعمل على وضع الموجهات الأخلاقية للأبحاث الصحية خلال الجائحة، والأخرى لوضع الموجهات الأخلاقية للتعامل مع المرضى في حال شح الموارد – لا قدر الله