Very little in this film failed to convice me. The information was well thought out and put together, the resources that were in this film were vaild and cannot be refuted because they are first hand accounts. This film does shine a negative light on nuclear power, which made me a little concerned because nuclear power is not always dangerous, but other then that nothing was done sloppily or had incorrect information
It is not addressed, but public health and the system of healthcare as a whole is discussed.
Three ways the argument is supported is through evidence provided from rurual Hati- supervised ART and the effects the treatment and betterment of AIDS/HIV infections in Rwanda. Also through explaining that old methods could not wotk- to look at the population and realize its the infrastructure that is at fault.
The study was published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed journal on the prevention, diagnoisis, and management of infectious disease. The journal seems to be genrally well respected.
Three ways the article is supported through using statements from the WHO about the problems of public health security, research studies on global epidemics such as “dark winter”, TB DOTS, and others. The article also uses direct quotes from credible sources such as national security officials: Richard Clark and the NSABB to name a few.
Following the attacks on 9/11/2001, a number of health issues arose in the population of residents and workers present. Dust and other toxins inhaled from the rubble created a number of respiratory issues. The need for monitoring of these, and other, health conditions is what lead to the need for such a policy. Without the policy in place, victims would need to fund their own healthcare, and with the large number of affected people, the price would be more or less ridiculous to force on people.
The author is Scott Gabriel knowles he works for the department of history and politics at Drexel University. His area of expertise is risk and disaster in modern cities, technology and public policy.
The program is funded by the IAEA
The film gave a lot of instances where the providers were more or less just having fun. For example, nearly every interview invoved the guys sitting down and drinking a beer while joking. While this proved their humanity, it also showed that the doctors spent much of their free time having fun rather than getting sleep. I would assume that they weren't drinkng while still "on call" or planning on giving care, and thus had the time to get proper rest. The amount of luxury afforded to the doctors after the trip also was a bit less compelling. At the end, the doctors were swimming at a nice pool and just relaxing, which is understandable for destressing. But it also seemed to take away some perspective. These doctors go on about how little resources they have to give and how the wish they could stay on their mission, but immediately turn back to luxury. Its just a bit hypocritical. And I understand that they cannot directly contribute to the people they care for in terms of wealth, but I found it was a bit unnecessary to include in the film.
The research the organization has done in the past year is calling for the closure of Guantanomo Bay and ensuring that the US accepts Syrian refugees. They have taken first hand accounts of individuals in both circumstances. They provide annual reports for each year of the work they have accomplished these reports are extensive and explain what human rights were taken away and what PHR has done to help.