Meet @Mel_Bertram , the world class leader in
🧩Health Economics
🧩Modelling
🧩Epidemiology
🧩Health Systems Reforms
🌈(all of them including for) #UHC , #NCDs & #Cancer
Dr Bertram is a well-recognized advocate and technical expert for the #cancer community, for the brilliant work to support efficient & effective global 🌐 cancer control planning!
Find more at: 👇👇👇
She led the developments of the first exercise of @WHO@UN@SDGoals#BestBuys recommendations for #Cancer, turning the Impossible into the possible:
👩🏼🏫 achieve cancer- specific goals in low- and middle- income countries, where #cancer should NOT be a sentence of death!!
Bringing help, expertise, strong passion (and smiles!) to help countries develop #NCDs & #Cancer effective health policies @UNDP
Working on #Cancer when... It was a "Western Countries health problem" @dcp3
.
Then, enforcing the development of a resilient community for global cancer control!
I am sure Dr Bertram's work at #DDI will deliver some of the most impactful programs & projects to #HealthForAll , the @WHO@DrTedros commitment for a healthy planet!!
The high-throughput screening of approved molecules capable to dock to the key protein domains of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis or related to the immune-dysregulation has the potential to identify thousands of possible compounds, from in silico models..
Therefore, we identified possible candidate drugs, providing rational for use and ongoing studies.
While I can feel some discomfort in reviewing reviewers' comments, and I would get upset as a reviewer - feeling a threat to the independency of judgement..
The scientific peer- reviewing process is not a childish joke, to vomit the revenge sedimented there from years.
1/n
My take from an interesting dialogue with a high-level editorial board this afternoon can be summarised as:
> 80% of High-impact editors would "alter" the revision proof if a reviewer uses offensive language or makes inappropriate personal comments about the authors..