Friday, September 22, 2017

Laudable Move of Assam Government in India to Control Population

India’s population which was around 35 crore in 1950 is now around 130 crore.

by N.S.Venkataraman-Sep 21, 2017

( September 21, 2017, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Assam government has approved a proposal to insist that each family in the state should have not more than two children. The proposal of the Assam government is to deny several privileges to those bearing more than two children including the denial of state government jobs. They cannot contest in the local body elections.

This is a much needed step and Government of Assam deserves compliments for this bold and laudable initiative.

India’s population which was around 35 crore in 1950 is now around 130 crore. While it is gratifying that the longevity of Indians have much improved from 35 years to 65 years in the last 70 years due to advancement in medical science, the fact is that the birth rate has not significantly fallen.

While the production of agricultural products like rice, wheat , sugarcane etc. and several industrial products have increased enormously in the last 70 years, this is still not found to be adequate since the population has increased to an alarming level. This cannot go on. India will not be able to meet the needs of such huge population in the future ,with the national population continuing to further increase at around 1.5% per annum.

China effectively controlled the population growth by imposing one child norm China has dictatorial form of governance and it can implement it’s measures ruthlessly. India cannot do this with it’s present democratic set up and free for all scenario.

India is now paying a very big price due to it’s huge population growth and control of population is a pre condition for India to emerge as a strong world power and maintain harmony and peace in the country.

In the last three years, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken on many themes of national importance and introduced several proactive measures to improve the quality of life for the Indians. However, it appears that Mr. Narendra Modi has not spoken about the need for population control. If he has expressed any view on this, it is really not known to large section of the country men and any such news is not in the public domain.

Many well meaning people in India are really finding fault with Mr. Modi for ignoring this grave issue of population explosion.

In such circumstances, the government of Assam has shown the way for the country by proposing the population control in the state. In the year 2001, the population in Assam was 2.66 crore and in the year 2011 census, the population in Assam was assessed as 3.12 crore. In the last six years after 2011, the population in Assam must have grown further.

What is particularly disturbing is that this subject of population explosion is not being discussed much in the print and visual media in India , which are chasing news all the time and conduct heated debates, whether it is important or unimportant subject.

It is necessary that the government of India should emulate the lead given by the Assam government in checking the population growth. It is absolutely necessary that Mr. Modi should speak on this subject at every opportunity. Mr. Modi should ask the other state governments in the country to follow the policy of Assam government in this regard.

In any case, the nation should be grateful to Assam government and it’s Chief Minister for recognizing this grave issue , which gives hopes that there are government and leadership in the state which can be purposive and bold in taking measures of far reaching significance.

Theresa May asks EU for two-year Brexit transition period

Speech calling for a pause to full exit until 2021 described as ‘constructive’ by Michel Barnier, the bloc’s chief negotiator

Anushka Asthana and Rowena Mason-Friday 22 September 2017

Theresa May proposed pausing a full Brexit until 2021 by asking EU countries to agree to a two-year transition period during which the UK would continue to enjoy unfettered access to the single market.

The prime minister said the government would be prepared to accept EU rules in that time, including allowing EU citizens to live and work in Britain, submitting to European laws and continuing to pay into the EU budget.

But although her speech was described as “constructive” by Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, and appeared to have placated Boris Johnson, the two-year transition plan was immediately criticised by hardline Brexiters for lasting too long – and by business groups for being too short.

May had tried to set out an upbeat vision for Britain’s future relationship with the EU in a speech at the Santa Maria Novella church in the heart of Florence, Italy. Arguing that more time was needed to work on the details of Brexit, May insisted the proposed implementation phase would be “strictly time-limited” lasting “about two years” and the UK would still be formally leaving the bloc in March 2019.

Theresa May's Brexit speech in Florence – video highlights

However, she offered a string of concessions to the EU as well as the transition period in a bid to break the deadlock in Brexit negotiations and push talks from the divorce procedures onto questions around the future trading relationship.

The prime minister also suggested that the UK could be ready to offer significantly more than the €20bn (£18bn) bill to cover annual contributions over two years, and discuss other long term liabilities such as pensions and debt.

“I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership,” she said.

In the 45-minute address, the prime minister also:

insisted the UK was “unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security” and offered a new treaty on maintaining law enforcement and criminal justice cooperation
indicated that the UK could make extra financial contributions on top of continuing to pay into the EU budget until 2020. She said Britain would “cover our fair share of the costs” to participate in “specific policies and programmes ... such as science, education and culture – and mutual security.”
reiterated that the UK will not accept “physical infrastructure at the border” between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but gave no details that could help break the stalemate in talks in this area.
promised to enshrine the rights of EU citizens in the Brexit treaty and allow British courts to take the rulings of the European Court of Justice into account when judging disputed cases

May said she recognised that Brexit was a “distraction” from the work that European countries wanted to focus on, but added: “We have to get this right.”

The prime minister did not set out the type of trading arrangement that Britain would seek after the implementation period, instead repeating a call for EU partners to provide a bespoke deal closer than any that already exist.

She argued that neither the Norway-style deal inside the European Economic Area, favoured by the Treasury, nor a Canada-style free trade deal, favoured by Boris Johnson, “would be best for the UK or best for the European Union.”

May argued that EEA membership would mean accepting rules without influence or votes, which would inflict a “loss of democratic control” that she said British voters would not accept.

She added that the Canada-EU deal was the most advanced that had been carried out, but added: “Compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies.”

Despite refusing to pick between the two models, some suggested May’s speech, which comes after a week of infighting triggered by Johnson’s decision to publish his own 4,200-word vision of Brexit, leant towards a closer relationship, as favoured by Hammond.

However, the foreign secretary was quick to respond by telling journalists he was “very happy” with the speech, and tweeting:

Jeremy Corbyn said it sounded as if the prime minister had listened to the Labour party, which has a policy of remaining within the single market and in a customs union for a limited period.

But he added: “Fifteen months after the EU referendum the government is still no clearer about what our long-term relationship with the EU will look like.”

He said May and her cabinet colleagues [were] were “spending more time negotiating with each other rather than with the EU”, and repeated his claim that the Tories were trying to use Brexit to deregulate and cut taxes.

Reaction among senior Brexit campaign supporters was conflicted, with some reservations about May’s strategy for a transitional period that will maintain the status quo. Owen Paterson, a Tory MP and former cabinet minister, told the Guardian: “The speech was very good really, generous in tone and content.”

But he added: “My main quibble is the transition period as it puts off the time when we can really take advantage of having left. The whole establishment mantra is that business wants to ease in and put off the evil day and it’s all going to be very difficult. That is absolute tosh ... ”

One backbench Brexiter argued against the security treaty, saying they did not want the UK to continue to take part in Europe-wide schemes and feared that the move could undermine Nato.

Pro EU Tories were largely pleased with the speech, with Nicky Morgan calling it a “very realistic Brexit position – finally!”

But business offered a more mixed response, with calls for a longer transition period. Adam Marshall, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), praised the “constructive” tone of Theresa May’s speech but he said the transition period should last for at least three years.

“We will challenge both the UK government and the European commission over the coming months to agree a transition that lasts at least three years from the date of our formal exit from the EU, giving businesses enough time to prepare for a final deal,” he said.

Guy Platten, CEO of the UK Chamber of Shipping, said it was welcome to set out plans to reduce friction but argued that a two-year limit was too tight.

India using chilli sprays, stun grenades to dissuade Rohingya influx

Rohingya refugees walk on a muddy path after crossing the Bangladesh-Myanmar border, in Teknaf, Bangladesh, September 6, 2017. REUTERS/Danish Siddiqui/Files

Rupam Jain-SEPTEMBER 22, 2017

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India has stepped up security along its largely porous eastern border with Bangladesh and is using “chilli and stun grenades” to block the entry of Rohingya Muslims fleeing from violence in their homeland of Myanmar, officials said on Friday.

Border forces in Hindu-majority India, which wants to deport around 40,000 Rohingya already living in the country, citing security risks, have been authorised to use “rude and crude” methods to stop any infiltration attempts.

“We don’t want to cause any serious injury or arrest them, but we won’t tolerate Rohingya on Indian soil,” said a senior official with the Border Security Force (BSF) in New Delhi.

“We’re using grenades containing chilli spray to stop hundreds of Rohingyas trying to enter India ... the situation is tense,” added the official, who declined to be identified as he was not authorised to speak to media.

More than 420,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh since Aug. 25, when a coordinated attack by Rohingya insurgents on Myanmar security forces triggered a counteroffensive, killing at least 400 people, mainly militants. The United Nations has called the assault a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.

Densely populated Bangladesh is struggling to shelter all the refugees desperate for space to set up shacks, sparking worries in India that the influx could spill into its territory.

R.P.S. Jaswal, a deputy inspector general of the BSF patrolling a large part of the border in India’s eastern state of West Bengal, said his troops were told to use both chilli grenades and stun grenades to push back the Rohingya.

Border Security Force (BSF) soldiers walk across the open border with Bangladesh to attend a flag meeting in West Bengal, India, June 20, 2015. REUTERS/Rupak De Chowdhuri/Files

A chilli grenade makes use of a naturally-occurring compound in chilli powder to cause severe irritation and temporarily immobilise its target.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government is growing increasingly hostile towards the Rohingya in India, with Home Minister Rajnath Singh calling on Thursday for their deportation as illegal migrants.

Seeking to get legal clearance for the deportation plan, the home ministry told the Supreme Court this week it would confidentially provide it with intelligence information showing Rohingya links with Pakistan-based militants.

Most of the peaceloving refugees had no link to criminal activity, two Rohingya men protesting against the deportation move told India’s top court on Friday.

An official of India’s federal investigations agency said it was seeking help from Muslim religious leaders to step up surveillance of the Rohingya.

Police have arrested a suspected al Qaeda member they believe was trying to recruit Rohingya in the country to fight security forces in Myanmar. More than 270 Rohingya have been in Indian jails since 2014.

“Our investigations have revealed that Al Qaeda wants to use India and Bangladesh as their base to start a religious war against Myanmar,” said New Delhi police official Pramod Singh Khuswah. “Clearly they are a threat to our security.”

The Ethnic Cleansing of the Rohingya Could Be the New Myanmar’s Original Sin

BY MICHAEL H. FUCHS-SEPTEMBER 22, 2017

In 2016, the world had high hopes for Myanmar. Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi had gone from prisoner to the de facto leader of a country slowly moving toward democracy.

In 2017, innocent civilians in Myanmar are watching their homes burn. The military is killing people and forcing entire communities to leave their country. Some 400,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled to Bangladesh.

Myanmar is perpetrating an ethnic cleansing campaign, which, if not stopped, will become the original sin of Myanmar’s new state. The United States — and the world, is sitting on the sidelines watching it happen.

When I began working at the State Department in 2009, there were few signs of hope in Myanmar, which had been ruled by military leaders for decades. Slowly but surely, things began to change, the military opened up, elections were held, a civilian government took over, and all of a sudden Myanmar appeared to be transitioning peacefully away from its dictatorship.

My most direct experience with Myanmar’s transition was overseeing preparations for U.S. involvement in the annual Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summits in 2014, when Myanmar for the first time chaired the organization. Myanmar had been slated to take up the chair in 2006, but relinquished it due to pressure from the United States and EU, imposed because of repression on the part of the ruling junta.

By 2014, Myanmar was opening up. In my many trips to the country, one could see progress in how people spoke openly and positively about the changes. At the annual ASEAN meetings, Myanmar set the agenda for every regional issue, from climate change to the South China Sea. Leaders — including U.S. President Barack Obama — gathered in Myanmar amidst a sense of optimism about the future. It was a coming out party.

The following year, Aung San Suu Kyi’s party won national elections. Countries around the world continued dropping sanctions, and Myanmar appeared set to begin the long, difficult path to building a democracy.

Today, that progress and hopefulness is overshadowed by a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing that the military is conducting against the Rohingya.

The Rohingya — a Muslim ethnic group — have long been persecuted in Myanmar, and are not considered citizens of the majority-Buddhist country. They live largely in squalor in Rakhine state. While the government is attempting a peace process with the numerous minority groups in Myanmar that control their own militias, there has been no willingness to engage in real dialogue with the Rohingya. Instead, it is clear that the central government wants the Rohingya — as a people, and a problem — gone.

In Myanmar’s new, transitioning political structure, the civilian government does not control the military. While the military is leading the violent campaign, Aung San Suu Kyi at the very least is willing to let this happen. In the worst case, she silently supports it. Her speech this week addressing the issue mirrored the military’s talking points and sounded more defiant against international criticism than compassionate towards the Rohingya. Aung San Suu Kyi may have earned international icon status for her efforts to bring democracy to Myanmar, but the value she places on political representation and rights don’t extend to the Rohingya.

If the military is successful, the Rohingya will largely be pushed out of Myanmar in a humanitarian disaster. If that happens, and Myanmar continues to open its political and economic system, any future success will be built on the blood of the Rohingya.

I strongly supported the U.S. decision to drop sanctions step by step in response to Myanmar’s opening. Up until recently, I believed that a re-imposition of sanctions would damage the greater good of Myanmar’s democratic progress. But we are beyond the pale now, and the new government has shown its true colors.

The threat of renewed international pressure is once again necessary. Statements from the United Nations expressing “concern” and condemnations from world leaders at this week’s U.N. General Assembly are not enough. Every leader around the world should immediately call on Myanmar’s government to take the following steps: stop the military’s violent operation, openly criticize the persecution by the military and militia groups, allow humanitarian access, and begin a political dialogue with the Rohingya.

Leaders should make clear that, unless these actions are taken swiftly, countries will respond. Pressure tactics could include withholding aid, stopping economic benefits from the Generalized System of Preferences , or even re-imposing sanctions on the military. And since the Trump administration seems to care little about human rights, in the United States it is likely that Congress will have to take the lead.

There is no guarantee that pressure from the international community will work, but we must do everything we can, while organizing a massive international effort to help the displaced.

If nothing changes in the coming weeks, no matter where the situation goes from here, Myanmar will never be able to remove the stain of its bloody campaign against the Rohingya. And the international community will be stained as well.

Photo credit: DOMINIQUE FAGET/AFP/Getty Images

She chose to die so she could give birth. Now her newborn is dead, too.

The baby girl born to a terminally ill Michigan woman who decided against treatment so she could save the baby's life died on Sept. 20. The mother, Carrie DeKlyen, also died shortly after giving birth. (WOOD TV8)

By Kristine Phillips and J. Freedom du Lac September 21

The headaches began in March. The couple didn’t think much of them — until Carrie DeKlyen began vomiting.

An initial scan showed a mass in her brain. More tests showed that it was a form of cancer, possibly lymphoma, but treatable. But a pathology exam revealed a more grim diagnosis. The 37-year-old mother of five from Wyoming, Mich., had glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer. If lucky, she could live for five more years.

The tumor was removed during surgery in April, said her husband, Nick DeKlyen.

Then, not even a month later, the couple received two pieces of shocking news. Carrie’s tumor was back — and she was eight weeks pregnant.

They had two options: They could try to prolong Carrie’s life through chemotherapy, but that meant ending her pregnancy. Or they could keep the baby, but Carrie would not live long enough to see the child.

It was a wrenching but obvious choice for the DeKlyens: They would have the child, their sixth.

Life Lynn DeKlyen was born at 5:30 p.m. on Sept. 6 — 24 weeks into Carrie DeKlyen's pregnancy.

She weighed 1 pound, 4 ounces. The couple chose her name together.

Carrie DeKlyen was buried six days later.

Then Life Lynn died as well, just 14 days after she was born.

[Baby born to Wyoming mom battling cancer dies]

The infant's death was announced Thursday on the couple's Facebook page.

“It is with great sadness and a absolutely broken heart that I tell you Life Lynn passed away last night,” the post read. “Carrie is now rocking her baby girl. I have no explanation of why this happened, but I do know Jesus loves us and someday we will know why. The grief we feel is almost unbearable, please be praying for our family.”

[A terminally ill woman had one rule at her end-of-life party: No crying]

Nick DeKlyen could not be reached to comment Thursday.

But he told the Detroit News just one day earlier that Life Lynn nearly died Sept. 12, the same day Carrie DeKlyen was buried.

“I know God can turn this around,” he told the News on Wednesday. “And I am going to keep believing that Life is going to be fine.”

Life was delivered by Caesarean section as Carrie DeKlyen was dying.

“That’s what she wanted,” Nick said earlier this month. “We love the Lord. We’re pro-life. We believe that God gave us this baby.”

app-facebook

Cure 4 Carrie

about a week ago

Some photos from this morning.

In the spring, after a second surgery to remove the tumor, the couple had gone home, knowing Carrie had only months left to live.

By the end of June, the tumor was back again.

This time, it was inoperable: Doctors told the DeKlyens that all they could do was to keep taking out the fluid accumulating in Carrie’s brain to relieve the pain, her husband said.

Carrie was rushed back to the University of Michigan hospital in Ann Arbor in mid-July. She was screaming in pain and convulsing. That was the last time she was conscious, her husband said.

“They said that she had a massive stroke,” Nick DeKlyen told The Post this month. “They said the fluid built up so much, the cranium had no place to go.”

Carrie was 19 weeks pregnant by then. Nick said doctors told him they would do what they could to keep the pregnancy going.

But Carrie probably would not wake up again — and if she did, she wouldn’t recognize her family. She had suffered significant brain damage from the stroke. For the next several weeks, a feeding tube and a breathing machine would keep her alive.

Two weeks later, there was another stroke. Carrie’s brain was so swollen that doctors had to remove a portion of her skull, Nick said.

[‘We had no hope’: The amazing story of the baby born with his brain outside his skull]

By the time Carrie was 22 weeks pregnant, the baby wasn't growing fast enough, weighing only 378 grams, or eight-tenths of pound.

To survive birth, the baby had to be at least 500 grams, a little more than a pound, Nick said.
Another two weeks went by, and some good news came: The baby weighed 625 grams.
The bad news was that the baby was not moving.

Nick said he was given two options: He could do nothing and hope that the baby began moving and continued to grow, but doing nothing meant his child could die within an hour. Or he could authorize a Caesarean section.

He chose the latter, and Life was born — an extreme preterm baby who would never know her mother.

“It was kind of bittersweet,” Nick recalled, noting that Carrie was “not awake” during or after the birth. Instead, “she [was] going to pass away,” he said.

“After that, I went to the surgeon and said my wife had enough. She’s gone through so much pain these last five months.”

Carrie lived briefly after doctors removed her from life support.

“I sat by her the whole time; I kind of held her hand and kissing her, telling her that she did good,” Nick said. “I told her, ‘I love you, and I’ll see you in heaven.’ ”

Early in the morning, just days after her daughter was born, Carrie opened her eyes, then closed them again, Nick said.

She clenched her hands tightly, then slowly stopped breathing. She died before dawn.
Carrie’s story was chronicled on a Facebook page called Cure 4 Carrie.

[‘God is telling me not to let go’: A mother fights to keep her 2-year-old on life support]

Four days after his daughter was born and two days after his wife died, Nick said he was dividing his time between planning a funeral and visiting his newborn, who remained in intensive care.

He was living temporarily at the Ronald McDonald House in Ann Arbor, a short walk from the hospital, and driving back to Wyoming on weekends to visit his other children, ages 18, 16, 11, 4 and 2.
The 39-year-old said at the time that he was still figuring out his family’s future.

Four years ago, he said, he started a vending machine company that he later sold to his brother. And now he did not have a source of income.

“My wife’s gone. I have six kids, three are under the age of 5. I’m just going to focus on my daughter right now, getting her home,” he said. “As far as what I'm going to do after that, I can’t tell you.”
A GoFundMe page to help the family has raised more than $150,000.

Earlier this month, Nick dismissed critics who questioned the couple’s decision to put their faith first, saying that continuing the pregnancy showed his wife’s selflessness.

“She gave up her life for the baby,” he said, adding later: “I just want people to know that my wife loved the Lord. She loved her kids. She put anybody in front of her needs. … She put my daughter above herself.”

A service was held for Carrie DeKlyen on Sept. 12 at Resurrection Life Church, in Wyoming, Mich., “where she was remembered as a loving mother, wife, daughter and friend who cooked dinner for neighbors, sang in the church choir, watched kids in the nursery and volunteered as a counselor,” according to the Grand Rapids Press.

An “In Loving Memory” card posted on the Cure 4 Carrie Facebook page that same day quoted the Gospel of John:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Today we begin to say "see you later" to our wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt and friend. Please pray for us! Fly high my angel!

678

Shingles Gets You When You're Down

The painful virus is something most of us know nothing about, until it’s too late.

Sep-21-2017

SALEM, Ore.) - If the threat of a shingles diagnosis worries you, then you already know more than most people about this painful virus.

Shingles (also known as zoster) is a painful, sometimes debilitating rash that blisters. There are an estimated 1 million cases of shingles each year in this country. Almost one out of three people will develop shingles in their lifetime, and it is pretty awful.

The rash can appear anywhere but will usually be on only one side of the body, the left or right. The rash will first form bumps, then blisters, then scab over, and finally clear up over a few weeks.

This band of inflammation, pain and rash is the clearest sign of shingles.

How does the virus get into your system? From chickenpox. It is caused by the varicella-zoster virus, the same virus that causes chickenpox.

The reason behind a shingles breakout is not certain. Shingles happens most to a person with a weakened immune system, which is probably why older adults are more likely to get shingles. A healthy immune system (particularly the T cells) seems to keep the varicella-zoster virus at bay.

Even if you had chickenpox and fully recovered decades ago, the virus may lie dormant in your nervous system for years. Eventually, it may reactivate and travel along nerve pathways to your skin, producing shingles.

Reactivated: Shingles symptoms appear

Early symptoms of shingles include headache, sensitivity to light, and flu-like symptoms without a fever. You may then feel itching, tingling or pain where several days or even weeks later, an area of rash may appear.

Anyone who has recovered from chickenpox may develop shingles, even children, but not everyone will.

The signs and symptoms of shingles usually affect only a small section of one side of your body. These signs and symptoms may include:

Pain, burning, numbness or tingling
Sensitivity to touch
A red rash that begins a few days after the pain
Fluid-filled blisters that break open and crust over
Itching
Fever
Headache
Sensitivity to light
Fatigue

Pain is usually the first symptom of shingles. For some, it can be intense. Depending on the location of the pain, it can sometimes be mistaken for a symptom of other types of problems affecting the heart, lungs or kidneys.

Some people experience shingles pain without ever developing the rash.

Most commonly, the shingles rash develops as a stripe of blisters that wraps around either the left or right side of your torso. Sometimes the shingles rash occurs around one eye or on one side of the neck or face. Rarely, it extends to both sides.

Shingles is very painful

When it becomes activated, the virus travels up the nerve roots that carry sensory signals (touch, pain, and so on) to the spinal cord and brain, in pathways on each side of your body, to the area of skin supplied by those specific nerve roots.

This is why the rash can wrap around either the left or right side of your body, usually from the middle of your back toward your chest. Nerves, skin, and other nearby tissues get inflamed. It can also appear on your face around one eye. It is possible to have more than one area of rash on your body.

Factors that may increase your risk of developing shingles include:

Being older than 50. Shingles is most common in people older than 50. The risk increases with age. Some experts estimate that half the people age 80 and older will have shingles in their lifetime.
Having certain diseases. Diseases that weaken your immune system, such as HIV/AIDS and cancer, can increase your risk of shingles.
Undergoing cancer treatments. Radiation or chemotherapy can lower your resistance to diseases and may trigger shingles.
Taking certain medications. Drugs designed to prevent rejection of transplanted organs can increase your risk of shingles — as can prolonged use of steroids, such as prednisone.

When to see a doctor:

Contact your doctor promptly if you suspect shingles, but especially in the following situations:

The pain and rash occur near an eye. If left untreated, this infection can lead to permanent eye damage.
You're 60 or older, because age significantly increases your risk of complications.
You or someone in your family has a weakened immune system (due to cancer, medications or chronic illness).
The rash is widespread and painful.

How to beat back the virus

Antiviral medicines are administered to reduce the pain associated with shingles, and are most effective if they're taken as soon as possible after shingles has started. Studies show that taking an anti-inflammatory like prednisone along with an antiviral helps reduce the pain from shingles and makes the rash heal faster.

Are you contagious?

Yes. You’re contagious to anyone who isn’t immune to chickenpox until your shingles blisters scab over. This usually means direct contact with the open sores from the rash, but you should avoid physical contact with anyone not immune, especially people with weakened immune systems, pregnant women and newborns.

Most adults in the United States had chickenpox when they were children so they should be immune, as are those who have received the routine childhood vaccination that now protects against chickenpox.

If a person does become infected, they will develop chickenpox, not shingles. It’s important to remember that chickenpox can be dangerous, even deadly, for some people.

After Shingles: Ongoing Complications

Ongoing pain, called postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Sometimes, shingles pain continues long after the blisters have healed. This is from damaged nerve fibers, which send confused and exaggerated messages of pain from your skin to your brain and can last weeks, months, or even years after the rash goes away.

Vision loss. Shingles in or around an eye can cause painful eye infections that may result in vision loss. If the virus is in the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal cranial nerve, parts of the eyes and the eyelids get inflamed.

Neurological problems. Depending on which nerves are affected, shingles can cause an inflammation of the brain (encephalitis), facial paralysis, or hearing or balance problems.

Skin infections. If shingles blisters aren't properly treated, bacterial skin infections may develop.

Avoid Shingles with the Vaccine

The shingles vaccine shot contains a weakened chickenpox (varicella-zoster) virus, made with the same strain (the Oka/Merck strain) as the chickenpox vaccine that children get, but it's at least 14 times stronger. The vaccine primes your immune system to defend against the disease.

According to Harvard Health, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the group that sets vaccine policy for Americans, made its official recommendation for the shingles vaccine in 2008. The committee suggests that ages 60 or older should get the shot, even if they've already had shingles, but many choose to get it at 50, depending on their own situation.

Getting the vaccine can roughly cut your chances of getting shingles in half, and if you’ve already had shingles, the CDC says the vaccine may help prevent it from coming back.

Some people who get the vaccine still get shingles, but will usually have shorter periods of shingles-related nerve pain that develops and continues after the typical rash disappears in about 10% to 15% of people with shingles.

Now is when we should all be thinking about shingles- before we get it. Of course, there is only so much one can do to prevent coming down with any illness, but it is well worth the time and effort to avoid getting shingles.

Most people get through shingles just fine, but life is definitely less painful without it.

Sources: The Mayo Clinic; Centers for Diseases Control (CDC); WebMD; Harvard

Thursday, September 21, 2017

SAMPANTHAN CALLS FOR A SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL MAKING PROCESS

21/09/2017

Speaking at the parliament leader of the opposition and the TNA, R.Sampanthan called all parties to contribute to a successful conclusion of the constitutional making process. Emphasising that the reasonable and acceptable Constitutional arrangements recognising their identity and dignity have been a long standing goal of the Tamil speaking People Sampanthan said that the successful conclusion of this Constitution making process on the basis of an acceptable reasonable and substantial national consensus would bring about a firm finality to this issue.

The full speech fellows:

21st September 2017
Hon Chairman,

It is not my intention at present to comment on the matters contained in the Interim Report submitted by the Hon Prime Minister or the annexures tabled therewith. These matters will be dealt with at future meetings of the Constitutional Assembly that will be held for that purpose.
I wish to lay emphasis on the urgent relevance and importance of some aspects of the process that we are engaged in.

We are engaged in the process of making a Constitution for our country, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. As Sri Lankan Members of Parliament we on behalf of the people we represent are engaged in making the basic Supreme Law – the Constitution of Sri Lanka .

This is being done within the firm framework of a united undivided and indivisible Sri Lanka. This is the framework within which the Constitution will be evolved and which all of us will voluntarily acknowledge and accept.

The successful conclusion of this Constitution making process on the basis of an acceptable reasonable and substantial national consensus would bring about a firm finality to this issue.
Sri Lanka would perpetually be a united undivided and indivisible country in keeping with the basic and Supreme Law of the country, and on the basis of the free will and consent of all its people.

Sri Lanka is a country inhabited by different people with distinct identities, the Sinhalese, the Tamils, the Muslims , the Malays, the Burghers and so on. Sri Lanka is also a functional democracy, in which several political parties function .While the two main political parties have alternatively formed the Government in this country, other parties too have played their own role.

No Constitution has thus far been framed for Sri Lanka on the basis of a substantial bi-partisan consensus amongst it’s different people in particular the Tamil people , or on the basis of such bi-partisan consensus between the two main parties and other political parties. The present exercise in Constitution making presents the first such opportunity. A Constitution based upon such a reasonable consensus, would give the Constitution the basic and Supreme Law of the country, a legitimacy and credibility which the country direly needs.

This would bring the Constitution out of the realm of political expediency and give the Constitution a character which would create the ideal of a Sri Lankan identity and a Sri Lankan nation. We have not been able to achieve this in the Seventy years since independence.

Since 1987-1988 the Constitution making process has been a continuous process. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution was the first time when power sharing arrangements between the center and the Provinces however weak were incorporated in the Constitution. Ever since then, successive Presidents and successive Governments have come up with greatly improved proposals that could contribute towards a final resolution of the national question.

During President R Premadasa’s term there were the Managala Moonasinghe Select Committee Proposals, during President Chandrika Bandaranayake Kumaratunga’s term there were the August 2000 Constitutional proposals brought to Parliament with Cabinet approval, during President Mahinda Rajapakse’s term there were the proposals formulated by the Multi Ethnic Committee of Experts appointed by him ,and the Report of the All parties Representative Committee headed by Professor Tissa Vitharana ,submitted to President Mahinda Rajapakse.
I will not go into details ,at this juncture ,it would be sufficient for me to state that there was substantial consensus ,around all these proposals ,though for various extraneous reasons ,they could not be incorporated into the Constitution. This process, which in fact may be termed as a continuation of earlier processes, takes place in an altogether different environment, with every possibility of success, if all of us are reasonable and committed not to miss this opportunity.

Reasonable and acceptable Constitutional arrangements recognising their identity and dignity have been a long standing goal of the Tamil speaking People. There are many such arrangements the World over .Consequences of non-resolution have had diverse ramifications on the Tamil people and the whole country; educated qualified Citizens of this Country particularly Tamils and Sinhalese have left this Country and taken residence abroad depriving this Country of a great deal of talent; the reputation of this Country has been greatly tarnished internationally having an adverse impact on the Country and its future in several ways; We need to salvage our reputation and win international respect. Our economy has been greatly handicapped and we have been left behind in the economic field, while other Countries in the region have progressed steadily enabling the Citizens of those Countries whose standard of living was lower than us to enjoy a much higher standard of living than we have in our Country, expenditure of vast sums on Defence has deprived us of substantial resources for development in several vital areas, contributing to backwardness.

All these factors make it imperative that we create for our Country, a new future, based upon a new supreme and basic law and that we jointly endeavour to succeed in the fulfilment of this sacred task.
R.Sampanthan

Member of Parliament-Trincomalee
Leader of the Opposition, Parliament of Sri Lanka