CROSS RIVER STATE: Due Processs And Price Intelligence Unit: one of the department to focus on, if proper and early execution of contract is a key interest of Governor Ben Ayade

writen by

odey michael owjoku

Admin ogojovoice

 brief history of the department

Due process is a mechanism for ensuring strict compliance to openness, competition and cost accuracy rules and procedures that guide contract awards in Cross River State. The Department is charged with the responsibility of implementing Public Procurement Reform Programme in the State. This reform was put in place as a result of flagrant abuse of procedures for award of public contracts, inflation of contract cost, lack of transparency and lack of merit as the criteria for award of public contracts.
The reform policy was also put in place to reduce and check large scale corruption and loss of several hundred funds in the state.

Vision

To ensure government procurement of goods and services and implementation adheres to the tenets of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, while enthroning transparency and accountability so as to deliver value for money and promote good governance in Cross River State.

Mission

To establish an open, transparent, effective and competitive procurement system that is integrity driven, upholds spending within appropriation, ensures speedy implementation of projects according to priority thus achieving value for money without sacrificing quality and standards. Due process mechanism is therefore an anti-corruption strategy deployed and set up as measures that will reduce both the opportunities and need for corruption.

Address

Due Process and Price Intelligence Department,
Calabar, Cross River State.#

who is heading this department

            Barr Alphonsus Ogar Eba                                                        director general Due Processs And Price Intelligence Unit

 He is generally known as a man of discipline, orderliness, great enthusiasm, a team player, generally one who is selfless, passionate for the growth and development of the state and  one who strongly believe that "the only future is in the future of the land", cross river state

New STD? What You Should Know About Mycoplasma Genitalium

A little-known sexually transmitted disease that has attracted more attention lately may actually be fairly common, according to a new study.

The study found that the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, which is thought to be sexually transmitted, infects more than 1 percent of people ages 16 to 44 in the United Kingdom. That comes out to about 250,000 people, according to U.K. census data. Studies in the United States have found that a similar percentage of people here are infected with M. genitalium.

That makes M. genitalium a more common sexually transmitted disease (STD) than gonorrhea, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention





A little-known sexually transmitted disease that has attracted more attention lately may actually be fairly common, according to a new study.

The study found that the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, which is thought to be sexually transmitted, infects more than 1 percent of people ages 16 to 44 in the United Kingdom. That comes out to about 250,000 people, according to U.K. census data. Studies in the United States have found that a similar percentage of people here are infected with M. genitalium.

That makes M. genitalium a more common sexually transmitted disease (STD) than gonorrhea, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Preventio

HERE IS HOW IT WORKS


Is this a new STD?
Some news outlets have described M. genitalium as a "new" sexually transmitted infection, but the bacteria were first discovered in 1980. At this time, researchers didn't have the right types of test to study M. genitalium, so the connection between M. genitalium and sexual activity came a little later — around the mid-1990s, said Lisa Manhart, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington in Seattle, who was not involved in the new study, but has researched M. genitalium. For example, early studies found that people who tested positive for M. genitalium often had sexual partners who were infected with the disease as well.
The new study adds to the evidence that M. genitalium is an STD, because it found that the infection was more common in people who had at least four new sexual partners in the past year than in people who had one or fewer new partners in the past year. In addition, people were more likely to have M. genitalium if they had unprotected sex, and no infections were found in people who had never had sex, according to




What symptoms does it cause?
In men, the bacteria can cause inflammation of the urethra (called urethritis) that leads to symptoms such as a burning pain while urinating or discharge from the penis.
Whether M. genitalium causes disease in women is less clear, but the bacteria have been linked to inflammation of the cervix (cervicitis), as well as pelvic inflammatory disease, an infection of the female reproductive organs that can lead to pain in the lower abdomen and pain or bleeding during sex, according to the CDC. In severe cases, pelvic inflammatory disease can lead to infertility in women.
"Most of the research that’s going on now is trying to better understand the implications of [M. genitalium] infection in women," Manhart said. A recent review study by Manhart and colleagues found that the risk of inflammation of the cervix, pelvic inflammatory disease and preterm birth was about twice as high in women with M. genitalium infection, compared to women without the infection. Still, some researchers want to see more evidence before concluding that M. genitalium does cause complications in women, Manhartsaid.
The new study in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that about 94 percent of men and 56 percent of women infected with M. genitalium did not have symptoms.
Should people be tested for it?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved a test for M. genitalium, and doctors do not routinely test for the bacteria, said Dr. Jamin Brahmbhatt, a urologist at Orlando Health in Florida. However, doctors may consider testing for M. genitalium in patients who have persistent symptoms after treatment for other sexually transmitted diseases that can cause similar symptoms, said Brahmbhatt, who was not involved in the study but treated people with M. genitalium infections.
More research is needed to better understand how common M. genitalium is among people in the U.S., and whether routine screening for the bacteria may be warranted, he said.
Do you need to treat it?
The antibiotics that are generally recommended to treat urethritis, cervicitis and pelvic inflammatory disease are usually not very effective against M. genitalium, Manhart said. So doctors might suspect that a patient has M. genitalium if he or she doesn't get better after taking the drugs typically used to treat these other STDs. Doctors could then provide other antibiotics that are more effective against M. genitalium, Manhart said.
Treatment for M. genitalium is often a five-day course of antibiotics, Brahmbhatt said.
Follow Rachael Rettner @RachaelRettner. Follow Live Science @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.
 

The Real Face Of Jesus Advances in forensic science reveal the most famous face in history.

 

From the first time Christian children settle into Sunday school classrooms, an image of Jesus Christ is etched into their minds. In North America he is most often depicted as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes. Familiar though this image may be, it is inherently flawed. A person with these features and physical bearing would have looked very different from everyone else in the region where Jesus lived and ministered. Surely the authors of the Bible would have mentioned so stark a contrast. On the contrary, according to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples. Further clouding the question of what Jesus looked like is the simple fact that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus described, nor have any drawings of him ever been uncovered. There is the additional problem of having neither a skeleton nor other bodily remains to probe for DNA. In the absence of evidence, our images of Jesus have been left to the imagination of artists. The influences of the artists' cultures and traditions can be profound, observes Carlos F. Cardoza-Orlandi, associate professor of world Christianity at Columbia Theological Seminary in Atlanta. "While Western imagery is dominant, in other parts of the world he is often shown as black, Arab or Hispanic." And so the fundamental question remains: What did Jesus look like?

 

An answer has emerged from an exciting new field of science: forensic anthropology. Using methods similar to those police have developed to solve crimes, British scientists, assisted by Israeli archeologists, have re-created what they believe is the most accurate image of the most famous face in human history.

The Changing Face of Jesus

The Body As Evidence

An outgrowth of physical anthropology, forensic anthropology uses cultural and archeological data as well as the physical and biological sciences to study different groups of people, explains A. Midori Albert, a professor who teaches forensic anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Experts in this highly specialized field require a working knowledge of genetics, and human growth and development. In their research they also draw from the fields of primatology, paleoanthropology (the study of primate and human evolution) and human osteology (the study of the skeleton). Even seemingly distant fields like nutrition, dentistry and climate adaptation play a role in this type of investigation.

While forensic anthropology is usually used to solve crimes, Richard Neave, a medical artist retired from The University of Manchester in England, realized it also could shed light on the appearance of Jesus. The co-author of Making Faces: Using Forensic And Archaeological Evidence, Neave had ventured in controversial areas before. Over the past two decades, he had reconstructed dozens of famous faces, including Philip II of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the Great, and King Midas of Phrygia. If anyone could create an accurate portrait of Jesus, it would be Neave.

 

Matthew's description of the events in Gethsemane offers an obvious clue to the face of Jesus. It is clear that his features were typical of Galilean Semites of his era. And so the first step for Neave and his research team was to acquire skulls from near Jerusalem, the region where Jesus lived and preached. Semite skulls of this type had previously been found by Israeli archeology experts, who shared them with Neave.

With three well-preserved specimens from the time of Jesus in hand, Neave used computerized tomography to create X-ray "slices" of the skulls, thus revealing minute details about each one's structure. Special computer programs then evaluated reams of information about known measurements of the thickness of soft tissue at key areas on human faces. This made it possible to re-create the muscles and skin overlying a representative Semite skull.    

The entire process was accomplished using software that verified the results with anthropological data. From this data, the researchers built a digital 3D reconstruction of the face. Next, they created a cast of the skull. Layers of clay matching the thickness of facial tissues specified by the computer program were then applied, along with simulated skin. The nose, lips and eyelids were then modeled to follow the shape determined by the underlying muscles.

A Matter Of Style

Two key factors could not be determined from the skull—Jesus's hair and coloration. To fill in these parts of the picture, Neave's team turned to drawings found at various archeological sites, dated to the first century. Drawn before the Bible was compiled, they held crucial clues that enabled the researchers to determine that Jesus had dark rather than light-colored eyes. They also pointed out that in keeping with Jewish tradition, he was bearded as well.

It was the Bible, however, that resolved the question of the length of Jesus's hair. While most religious artists have put long hair on Christ, most biblical scholars believe that it was probably short with tight curls. This assumption, however, contradicted what many believe to be the most authentic depiction: the face seen in the image on the famous—some say infamous—Shroud of Turin. The shroud is believed by many to be the cloth in which Jesus's body was wrapped after his death. Although there is a difference of opinion as to whether the shroud is genuine, it clearly depicts a figure with long hair. Those who criticize the shroud's legitimacy point to 1 Corinthians, one of the many New Testament books the apostle Paul is credited with writing. In one chapter he mentions having seen Jesus—then later describes long hair on a man as disgraceful. Would Paul have written "If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him" if Jesus Christ had had long hair? For Neave and his team this settled the issue. Jesus, as drawings from the first century depict, would have had short hair, appropriate to men of the time.

The historic record also resolved the issue of Jesus's height. From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds. Since Jesus worked outdoors as a carpenter until he was about 30 years old, it is reasonable to assume he was more muscular and physically fit than westernized portraits suggest. His face was probably weather-beaten, which would have made him appear older, as well.

The "Real" Face Of Jesus Uncovered

the claimed face of JESUS

 

 

 

 

 a discovery from British scientists, assisted by Israeli archeologists, of what they believe is the most accurate image of the most famous face in human history.

While this field of science, “forensic anthropology” is usually used to solve crimes, Richard Neave, a medical artist retired from the University of Manchester in England, realized it also could shed light on the appearance of Jesus. 
                This is not Neave’s first discovery as he has ventured into controversial areas before. Over the past two decades, he had reconstructed dozens of famous faces, including Philip II of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the Great, and King Midas of Phrygia.   

In order to create an accurate portrait of Jesus, Neave and his research team’s first step was to acquire skulls from near Jerusalem, the region where Jesus lived and preached.

With three well-preserved specimens from the time of Jesus in hand, Neave used computerized tomography to create X-ray “slices” of the skulls, thus revealing minute details about each one’s structure.

Special computer programmes then evaluated reams of information about known measurements of the thickness of soft tissue at key areas on human faces. This made it possible to re-create the muscles and skin overlying a representative Semite skull.

From the first time Christian children settle into Sunday school classrooms, an image of Jesus Christ is etched into their minds. In North America he is most often depicted as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes. Familiar though this image may be, it is inherently flawed. A person with these features and physical bearing would have looked very different from everyone else in the region where Jesus lived and ministered. Surely the authors of the Bible would have mentioned so stark a contrast. On the contrary, according to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples. Further clouding the question of what Jesus looked like is the simple fact that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus described, nor have any drawings of him ever been uncovered. There is the additional problem of having neither a skeleton nor other bodily remains to probe for DNA. In the absence of evidence, our images of Jesus have been left to the imagination of artists. The influences of the artists' cultures and traditions can be profound, observes Carlos F. Cardoza-Orlandi, associate professor of world Christianity at Columbia Theological Seminary in Atlanta. "While Western imagery is dominant, in other parts of the world he is often shown as black, Arab or Hispanic." And so the fundamental question remains: What did Jesus look like?

More From Popular Mechanics