Ducks And Rice Play Key Role In Avian Influenza Outbreaks

Ducks, people and rice paddies – rather than chickens – are the major factors behind outbreaks of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza in Thailand and Viet Nam, and are probably behind outbreak persistence in other countries of the region such as Cambodia and Lao PDR.

In “Mapping H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza risk in Southeast Asia: ducks, rice and people”, just published in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS), a group of experts from FAO and associated research centers looked at the series of waves of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in Thailand and Viet Nam between early 2004 and late 2005.

Initiated and coordinated by FAO senior veterinary officer Jan Slingenbergh, the researchers applied a modelling technique to establish how different factors contributed to spread of the virus, including the numbers of ducks, geese and chickens, human population size, rice cultivation and local geography. The numbers of ducks and people, and the extent of rice cultivation emerged as the most significant factors, even though the two countries had fought outbreaks in two different ways.

Strong link

The paper notes that there is a strong link between duck grazing patterns and rice cropping intensity. Ducks feed mainly on leftover rice grains in harvested paddy fields, so free-ranging ducks in both countries are moved to many different sites in line with rice harvest patterns.

In Thailand, for example, the proportion of young ducks in flocks was found to peak in September-October; these rapidly growing young ducks can therefore benefit from the peak of the rice harvest in November-December. Meat ducks are slaughtered around the Chinese New Year, a time when the volume of sales-related duck movement rises considerably.

These peaks in congregation of ducks indicate periods in which there is an increase in the chances for virus release and exposure, and rice paddies often become a temporary habitat for wild bird species.

Defining this pattern was made possible through the use of satellite mapping of rice paddy agriculture over time, cropping intensity and duck grazing locations. The intersections among these, together with the chronology of disease outbreaks, helped the scientists pinpoint critical situations in time when HPAI risk was greatest.

Virus evolution may become easier to predict

According to Slingenbergh, “we now know much better where and when to expect H5N1 flare-ups, and this helps to target prevention and control. In addition, with virus persistence becoming increasingly confined to areas with intensive rice-duck agriculture in eastern and southeastern Asia, evolution of the H5N1 virus may become easier to predict.”

FAO estimates that approximately 90 percent of the world’s 1.044 billion domestic ducks are in Asia. China and Viet Nam account for the bulk of this – 775 million or 75 percent. Thailand has about 11 million ducks.

In Thailand during 2005, long-distance duck travelling greatly diminished because farmers and traders had to provide a health certificate for the animals. The local movements of ducks decreased when the government started to support in-door keeping of ducks, offering feed subsidies and construction of enclosures. Together, these measures stopped the H5N1 transmission cycle and since late 2005 Thailand has suffered only sporadic outbreaks.

Viet Nam started nationwide vaccination of all poultry at the end of 2005, including the Mekong delta which is home to 50 million ducks. This large-scale vaccination was repeated in 2006/07. Initially, human infections disappeared and levels of disease in poultry fell noticeably. Only gradually did H5N1 viruses re-appear, mostly in unvaccinated ducks and particularly in the Mekong delta.

Now, says Slingenbergh, interventions based on knowledge of hotspots and local rice-duck calendars is called for, in order to target disease control and replace indiscriminate mass vaccination.

http://www.fao.org
email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article   newsletters

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/101798.php

Drugs Of Destruction And Human Rights

Drugs of Destruction are defined here as, any addictive substance, whose properties are known to bring about disturbing and irreversible changes to the users brain, resulting in loss of control; the erosion of inhibitions which control civilised human behaviour, the loss of the latter more frequently than not, can cause users to display anti social behaviour, characterised by unpredictable and unprovoked, violence being inflicted on others.

Drugs of Destruction, destroy, or damage the cognitive processes of users and their immune systems, rendering them vulnerable to a variety of diseases. Aids, HIV and Hepatitis C & B, are common among drugs users. In addition users develop a number of other psychiatric, mental and behaviour disorders, whilst increasing the severity of any pre-existing disorders. In short Drugs of Destruction deprive users of their ability to participate and enjoy their rights and the rights of others, as enshrined in the ‘Declaration of Human Rights’; including but not limited to:

The right to life, liberty and security of person.

The right to the free development of the user’s personality

The right to work,

The right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, together with the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

To put the above into a contextual and balanced perspective, discussions with users of Drugs of Destruction, who somehow, have found a way out of the slavery those drugs inflict on users, will, if asked, explain how their personalities became warped, and their emotional growth stunted. How Drugs of Destruction robbed them of their ability and motivation to work; how those drugs destroyed their mental, physical and spiritual health; the wellbeing of their families, together with the loss of their ability to provide them with food clothing and shelter, thus making them wholly dependent on the welfare systems, and other charities, of their country of residence.

Apart from this obliteration of the users’ human rights, which by definition includes their dignity, it is apparent that Drugs of Destruction inflict considerable collateral damage on the mental, physical and emotional, well being of users’ families, thus in turn, robbing them of their human rights.

As members of the human race free to exercise our human rights, we enter into a social contract, which requires us not to inflict harm on ourselves, or others. It is therefore not surprising that the elected governments of civilised nations in fulfilling their part of that contract, and in a spirit of worldwide cooperation, unite with other nations to protect their citizens from many of the Drugs of Destruction by outlawing the use of specific substances. In doing so they have with the free and willing, consent of the overwhelming majority of their citizens, passed laws, designed to protect the citizens of the free world, from the horrendous, but avoidable dangers, inherent in the use of Drugs of Destruction. An integral part of that consent is the sovereign right of independent nations, without contravening the Declaration of Human Rights, to decide the penalties they consider necessary, in order to deter those who would prey on their more vulnerable citizens, by encouraging them to use Drugs of Destruction which have been prohibited. Some of those countries consider capital punishment to be appropriate for drug traffickers, as opposed to users, and again, with the free consent of their citizens, following a democratic trial, where the accused has the option of providing his own legal advisers, or those appointed by the court, together with any subsequent appeal, both of which comply fully with the Declaration of Human Rights, exercise their sovereign right to invoke the death penalty.

Whether or not, as individuals we consider such an ultimate, and irreversible punishment, justified for those, whose own regard for the rights of others, and the sanctity of life, makes Genghis Khan appear to be the epitome of moderation, is irrelevant. The inescapable and relevant fact is that, motivated solely by greed, drug traffickers, despite being fully aware of the risks involved, flagrantly disregard the wording and spirit of The Declaration of Human Rights, whilst simultaneously and maliciously, disregarding the sovereign laws of independent nations. In doing so, they arrogantly display their contempt for the express wishes and rights of that nation’s citizens, and the sanctity of their own life. They knowingly, willingly and voluntarily, accept the risk of forfeiting their right to life.

Incredible as it may seem, there are a number of highly influential organisations, who despite being fully aware, of the total harms Drugs of Destruction, inflict on their fellow human beings, and their families, insist that those who so choose, have a right to use them. Some of those organisations openly argue that they should have the legal right to do so. They also insist that it is a contravention of the Declaration of Human Rights to execute what they describe as, ‘drug offenders’, an innocuous sounding, but undefined description. Attempts by this writer to establish what that description meant, was informed by the International Harm Reduction Association, that it did not differentiate between drug users and drug traffickers.

© Peter O’Loughlin, The Eden Lodge Practice.

Peter is the principle of the Eden Lodge Practice, which is a small, private agency, engaged in assisting those seeking freedom from Drugs of Destruction. Other than the obligatory professional bodies, Peter has no affiliation with any other organisation. His sources of funding are the fees paid by those clients, who, by referral from past clients, other psychotherapists, and medical advisers, opt to use his services; fees from his ‘Introduction to Understanding Addiction’ workshops, and public speaking engagements.

The views he expresses are entirely his own, influenced solely by the knowledge he gains from the addictive and recovery experiences of clients, together with empirical and scientific, evidence based practice, and practice based evidence, rather than ideology.

Written by Peter O’Loughlin
The Eden Lodge Practice

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article   newsletters

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/102200.php