Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:1308 (6 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7427.1308
Geoff Watts
London
In the late 1960s a research institute in Bangladesh pioneered a treatment that has saved 40 million lives worldwide. What happened next? David Sack explains
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
"We ought to pass a UN resolution that no country should be allowed to make a nuclear weapon until its infant mortality rate has dropped below 30 [per thousand]." Dry humour from Professor David Sack, as he points out how different countriesPakistan and Bangladesh, in this casehave different priorities. Pakistan possesses the bomb, but Bangladesh, though poorer, and without nuclear weapons, has fewer deaths in infancy.
As director of the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research in Dhaka, Sack rejoices in the positive things he can say about Bangladesh, a country often dismissed as one of the world's basket cases. Sack views it in a more sympathetic light. "I often say it's one of the most successful nations. Nowhere else is there a piece of land that supports so many people with such little adverse impact on its ecology."
The centre itself is descended from the Cholera Research Laboratory set
-->
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
UK medical students have published unreleased government plans to restrict failed asylum seekers' access to medical care