Go Back   Sudan.Net Discussion Board - SDB - منتدى سودان.نت > General Discussion Board > General Discussion - المنتدى العام

    

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 20-Mar-20, 04:33   #1
SHARGAWI
Golden Member
 

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,202
Default 'Tip of the iceberg': is our destruction of nature responsible for Covid-19?



theguardian.com



'Tip of the iceberg': is our destruction of nature responsible for Covid-19?


John Vidal


Mayibout 2 is not a healthy place. The 150 or so people who live in the village, which sits on the south bank of the Ivindo River, deep in the great Minkebe Forest in northern Gabon, are used to occasional bouts of diseases such as malaria, dengue, yellow fever and sleeping sickness. Mostly they shrug them off.

But in January 1996, Ebola, a deadly virus then barely known to humans, unexpectedly spilled out of the forest in a wave of small epidemics. The disease killed 21 of 37 villagers who were reported to have been infected, including a number who had carried, skinned, chopped or eaten a chimpanzee from the nearby forest.

I travelled to Mayibout 2 in 2004 to investigate why deadly diseases new to humans were emerging from biodiversity “hotspots” such as tropical rainforests and bushmeat markets in African and Asian cities.

It took a day by canoe and then many hours along degraded forest logging roads, passing Baka villages and a small goldmine, to reach the village. There, I found traumatised people still fearful that the deadly virus, which kills up to 90% of the people it infects, would return.

Villagers told me how children had gone into the forest with dogs that had killed the chimp. They said that everyone who cooked or ate it got a terrible fever within a few hours. Some died immediately, while others were taken down the river to hospital. A few, like Nesto Bematsick, recovered. “We used to love the forest, now we fear it,” he told me. Many of Bematsick’s family members died.

Only a decade or two ago it was widely thought that tropical forests and intact natural environments teeming with exotic wildlife threatened humans by harbouring the viruses and pathogens that lead to new diseases in humans such as Ebola, HIV and dengue.

But a number of researchers today think that it is actually humanity’s destruction of biodiversity that creates the conditions for new viruses and diseases such as Covid-19, the viral disease that emerged in China in December 2019, to arise – with profound health and economic impacts in rich and poor countries alike. In fact, a new discipline, planetary health, is emerging that focuses on the increasingly visible connections between the wellbeing of humans, other living things and entire ecosystems.

Is it possible, then, that it was human activity, such as road building, mining, hunting and logging, that triggered the Ebola epidemics in Mayibout 2 and elsewhere in the 1990s and that is unleashing new terrors today?

“We invade tropical forests and other wild landscapes, which harbour so many species of animals and plants – and within those creatures, so many unknown viruses,” David Quammen, author of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Pandemic, recently wrote in the New York Times. “We cut the trees; we kill the animals or cage them and send them to markets. We disrupt ecosystems, and we shake viruses loose from their natural hosts. When that happens, they need a new host. Often, we are it.”
Increasing threat

Research suggests that outbreaks of animal-borne and other infectious diseases such as Ebola, Sars, bird flu and now Covid-19, caused by a novel coronavirus, are on the rise. Pathogens are crossing from animals to humans, and many are able to spread quickly to new places. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that three-quarters of new or emerging diseases that infect humans originate in animals.

Some, like rabies and plague, crossed from animals centuries ago. Others, such as Marburg, which is thought to be transmitted by bats, are still rare. A few, like Covid-19, which emerged last year in Wuhan, China, and Mers, which is linked to camels in the Middle East, are new to humans and spreading globally.

Other diseases that have crossed into humans include Lassa fever, which was first identified in 1969 in Nigeria; Nipah from Malaysia; and Sars from China, which killed more than 700 people and travelled to 30 countries in 2002–03. Some, like Zika and West Nile virus, which emerged in Africa, have mutated and become established on other continents.

Kate Jones, chair of ecology and biodiversity at UCL, calls emerging animal-borne infectious diseases an “increasing and very significant threat to global health, security and economies”.

Amplification effect

In 2008, Jones and a team of researchers identified 335 diseases that emerged between 1960 and 2004, at least 60% of which came from animals.

Increasingly, says Jones, these zoonotic diseases are linked to environmental change and human behaviour. The disruption of pristine forests driven by logging, mining, road building through remote places, rapid urbanisation and population growth is bringing people into closer contact with animal species they may never have been near before, she says.

The resulting transmission of disease from wildlife to humans, she says, is now “a hidden cost of human economic development. There are just so many more of us, in every environment. We are going into largely undisturbed places and being exposed more and more. We are creating habitats where viruses are transmitted more easily, and then we are surprised that we have new ones.”

Jones studies how changes in land use contribute to the risk. “We are researching how species in degraded habitats are likely to carry more viruses which can infect humans,” she says. “Simpler systems get an amplification effect. Destroy landscapes, and the species you are left with are the ones humans get the diseases from.”

“There are countless pathogens out there continuing to evolve which at some point could pose a threat to humans,” says Eric Fevre, chair of veterinary infectious diseases at the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Infection and Global Health. “The risk [of pathogens jumping from animals to humans] has always been there.”

The difference between now and a few decades ago, Fevre says, is that diseases are likely to spring up in both urban and natural environments. “We have created densely packed populations where alongside us are bats and rodents and birds, pets and other living things. That creates intense interaction and opportunities for things to move from species to species,” he says.

Tip of the iceberg

“Pathogens do not respect species boundaries,” says disease ecologist Thomas Gillespie, an associate professor in Emory University’s department of environmental sciences, who studies how shrinking natural habitats and changing behaviour add to the risk of diseases spilling over from animals to humans.

“I am not at all surprised about the coronavirus outbreak,” he says. “The majority of pathogens are still to be discovered. We are at the very tip of the iceberg.”

Humans, says Gillespie, are creating the conditions for the spread of diseases by reducing the natural barriers between host animals – in which the virus is naturally circulating – and themselves. “We fully expect the arrival of pandemic influenza; we can expect large-scale human mortalities; we can expect other pathogens with other impacts. A disease like Ebola is not easily spread. But something with a mortality rate of Ebola spread by something like measles would be catastrophic,” Gillespie says.

Wildlife everywhere is being put under more stress, he says. “Major landscape changes are causing animals to lose habitats, which means species become crowded together and also come into greater contact with humans. Species that survive change are now moving and mixing with different animals and with humans.”

Gillespie sees this in the US, where suburbs fragment forests and raise the risk of humans contracting Lyme disease. “Altering the ecosystem affects the complex cycle of the Lyme pathogen. People living close by are more likely to get bitten by a tick carrying Lyme bacteria,” he says.

Yet human health research seldom considers the surrounding natural ecosystems, says Richard Ostfeld, distinguished senior scientist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York. He and others are developing the emerging discipline of planetary health, which looks at the links between human and ecosystem health.

“There’s misapprehension among scientists and the public that natural ecosystems are the source of threats to ourselves. It’s a mistake. Nature poses threats, it is true, but it’s human activities that do the real damage. The health risks in a natural environment can be made much worse when we interfere with it,” he says.

Ostfeld points to rats and bats, which are strongly linked with the direct and indirect spread of zoonotic diseases. “Rodents and some bats thrive when we disrupt natural habitats. They are the most likely to promote transmissions [of pathogens]. The more we disturb the forests and habitats the more danger we are in,” he says.

Felicia Keesing, professor of biology at Bard College, New York, studies how environmental changes influence the probability that humans will be exposed to infectious diseases. “When we erode biodiversity, we see a proliferation of the species most likely to transmit new diseases to us, but there’s also good evidence that those same species are the best hosts for existing diseases,” she wrote in an email to Ensia, the nonprofit media outlet that reports on our changing planet.

The market connection

Disease ecologists argue that viruses and other pathogens are also likely to move from animals to humans in the many informal markets that have sprung up to provide fresh meat to fast-growing urban populations around the world. Here, animals are slaughtered, cut up and sold on the spot.

The “wet market” (one that sells fresh produce and meat) in Wuhan, thought by the Chinese government to be the starting point of the current Covid-19 pandemic, was known to sell numerous wild animals, including live wolf pups, salamanders, crocodiles, scorpions, rats, squirrels, foxes, civets and turtles.

Equally, urban markets in west and central Africa sell monkeys, bats, rats, and dozens of species of bird, mammal, insect and rodent slaughtered and sold close to open refuse dumps and with no drainage.

“Wet markets make a perfect storm for cross-species transmission of pathogens,” says Gillespie. “Whenever you have novel interactions with a range of species in one place, whether that is in a natural environment like a forest or a wet market, you can have a spillover event.”

The Wuhan market, along with others that sell live animals, has been shut by the Chinese authorities, and last month Beijing outlawed the trading and eating of wild animals except for fish and seafood. But bans on live animals being sold in urban areas or informal markets are not the answer, say some scientists.

“The wet market in Lagos is notorious. It’s like a nuclear bomb waiting to happen. But it’s not fair to demonise places which do not have fridges. These traditional markets provide much of the food for Africa and Asia,” says Jones.

“These markets are essential sources of food for hundreds of millions of poor people, and getting rid of them is impossible,” says Delia Grace, a senior epidemiologist and veterinarian with the International Livestock Research Institute, which is based in Nairobi, Kenya. She argues that bans force traders underground, where they may pay less attention to hygiene.

Fevre and colleague Cecilia Tacoli, principal researcher in the human settlements research group at the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), argue in a blog post that rather than pointing the finger at wet markets, we should look at the burgeoning trade in wild animals.

“It is wild animals rather than farmed animals that are the natural hosts of many viruses,” they write. “Wet markets are considered part of the informal food trade that is often blamed for contributing to spreading disease. But … evidence shows the link between informal markets and disease is not always so clear cut.”


Changing behaviour

So what, if anything, can we do about all of this?

Jones says that change must come from both rich and poor societies. Demand for wood, minerals and resources from the global north leads to the degraded landscapes and ecological disruption that drives disease, she says. “We must think about global biosecurity, find the weak points and bolster the provision of health care in developing countries. Otherwise we can expect more of the same,” she adds.

“The risks are greater now. They were always present and have been there for generations. It is our interactions with that risk which must be changed,” says Brian Bird, a research virologist at the University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine One Health Institute, where he leads Ebola-related surveillance activities in Sierra Leone and elsewhere.

“We are in an era now of chronic emergency,” Bird says. “Diseases are more likely to travel further and faster than before, which means we must be faster in our responses. It needs investments, change in human behaviour, and it means we must listen to people at community levels.”

Getting the message about pathogens and disease to hunters, loggers, market traders and consumers is key, Bird says. “These spillovers start with one or two people. The solutions start with education and awareness. We must make people aware things are different now. I have learned from working in Sierra Leone with Ebola-affected people that local communities have the hunger and desire to have information,” he says. “They want to know what to do. They want to learn.”

Fevre and Tacoli advocate rethinking urban infrastructure, particularly within low-income and informal settlements. “Short-term efforts are focused on containing the spread of infection,” they write. “The longer term – given that new infectious diseases will likely continue to spread rapidly into and within cities – calls for an overhaul of current approaches to urban planning and development.”

The bottom line, Bird says, is to be prepared. “We can’t predict where the next pandemic will come from, so we need mitigation plans to take into account the worst possible scenarios,” he says. “The only certain thing is that the next one will certainly come.”


• This piece is jointly published with Ensia
SHARGAWI is offline               Reply With Quote               
Sponsored Links
Old 20-Mar-20, 10:09   #2
ash-sharid
Major Contributor
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: East-West
Posts: 504
Thumbs down Debunking Vidal and his pseudo-science

يا رجل الكوبي بيست الهارب. اليلة خم وصر. قول واحد






1

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHARGAWI View Post


theguardian.com






John Vidal


...


Only a decade or two ago it was widely thought that tropical forests and intact natural environments teeming with exotic wildlife threatened humans by harbouring the viruses and pathogens that lead to new diseases in humans such as Ebola, HIV and dengue.



• This piece is jointly published with Ensia





Widely thought? By whom? This is not even pseudo-science. This is a mercenary journalist who is spreading disproved and bigoted LIES. And the source of this amazing citation? An invisible Einstein who could not give their name, credentials or location date, since they simply don't exist. It might as well be widely thought by my grandmother. Zero accountability. Typical mercenary 'liberal' writing.







2

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHARGAWI View Post

theguardian.com



John Vidal



...


But a number of researchers today think that it is actually humanity’s destruction of biodiversity that creates the conditions for new viruses and diseases such as Covid-19, the viral disease that emerged in China in December 2019, to arise – with profound health and economic impacts in rich and poor countries alike. In fact, a new discipline, planetary health, is emerging that focuses on the increasingly visible connections between the wellbeing of humans, other living things and entire ecosystems.

Is it possible, then, that it was human activity, such as road building, mining, hunting and logging, that triggered the Ebola epidemics in Mayibout 2 and elsewhere in the 1990s and that is unleashing new terrors today?


• This piece is jointly published with Ensia


That's better. 'humanity's destruction of biodiversity that creates the condition for new viruses and diseases' and 'researchers' thinking this to be actually the case is suggested. One ight hope that a rational analysis was going to be established on firm scientific ground. But don't hold your breath; the skewed train of thought - the BIAS is in such a hurry the 'scientific' attempt is displaced by the poisoned well of the liberal subconscious: 'is it possible', the liberal subject catches themselves asking, that this long list of human activity is unleashing new forms of 'terror' on all of us today? However, two flaws are immediately observed: one it has never been established that the Ebola was triggered by the the kind of human activity, 'road building, mining, hunting and logging' the liberal intellectual was subconsciously articulating. Baseless, in a word. And the second observation: the list of 'human activity' contributing to the triggering of these horrible viruses furnished by Mr. Vidal contain glaring omissions (same applies to the selective list of viruses). Any mentioning of possible human activity and industrial practices in the West linked to viral diseases like BSE, for instance? How about bilogical warfare, Guardian mercenary, sorry, I mean, Guardian columnist? AIDES, anyone?







3

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHARGAWI View Post

theguardian.com



John Vidal


...



“We invade tropical forests and other wild landscapes, which harbour so many species of animals and plants – and within those creatures, so many unknown viruses,” David Quammen, author of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Pandemic, recently wrote in the New York Times. “We cut the trees; we kill the animals or cage them and send them to markets. We disrupt ecosystems, and we shake viruses loose from their natural hosts. When that happens, they need a new host. Often, we are it.”
Increasing threat

Research suggests that outbreaks of animal-borne and other infectious diseases such as Ebola, Sars, bird flu and now Covid-19, caused by a novel coronavirus, are on the rise. Pathogens are crossing from animals to humans, and many are able to spread quickly to new places. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that three-quarters of new or emerging diseases that infect humans originate in animals.

Some, like rabies and plague, crossed from animals centuries ago. Others, such as Marburg, which is thought to be transmitted by bats, are still rare. A few, like Covid-19, which emerged last year in Wuhan, China, and Mers, which is linked to camels in the Middle East, are new to humans and spreading globally.

Other diseases that have crossed into humans include Lassa fever, which was first identified in 1969 in Nigeria; Nipah from Malaysia; and Sars from China, which killed more than 700 people and travelled to 30 countries in 2002–03. Some, like Zika and West Nile virus, which emerged in Africa, have mutated and become established on other continents.

Kate Jones, chair of ecology and biodiversity at UCL, calls emerging animal-borne infectious diseases an “increasing and very significant threat to global health, security and economies”.

Amplification effect

In 2008, Jones and a team of researchers identified 335 diseases that emerged between 1960 and 2004, at least 60% of which came from animals.

Increasingly, says Jones, these zoonotic diseases are linked to environmental change and human behaviour. The disruption of pristine forests driven by logging, mining, road building through remote places, rapid urbanisation and population growth is bringing people into closer contact with animal species they may never have been near before, she says.

The resulting transmission of disease from wildlife to humans, she says, is now “a hidden cost of human economic development. There are just so many more of us, in every environment. We are going into largely undisturbed places and being exposed more and more. We are creating habitats where viruses are transmitted more easily, and then we are surprised that we have new ones.”

Jones studies how changes in land use contribute to the risk. “We are researching how species in degraded habitats are likely to carry more viruses which can infect humans,” she says. “Simpler systems get an amplification effect. Destroy landscapes, and the species you are left with are the ones humans get the diseases from.”

“There are countless pathogens out there continuing to evolve which at some point could pose a threat to humans,” says Eric Fevre, chair of veterinary infectious diseases at the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Infection and Global Health. “The risk [of pathogens jumping from animals to humans] has always been there.”

The difference between now and a few decades ago, Fevre says, is that diseases are likely to spring up in both urban and natural environments. “We have created densely packed populations where alongside us are bats and rodents and birds, pets and other living things. That creates intense interaction and opportunities for things to move from species to species,” he says.


• This piece is jointly published with Ensia


We, we, we .. 'We kill the animals, or cage them or send them to markets'. What a marvelous, mind boggling discovery!! By 'shake [ing] viruses loose from their natural hosts, the viruses transfer themselves to us as new hosts. One can picture high earning, comfortably living football players here switching allegiance when the time was right to make a bold move and leave the old club. But joking aside, a patient reader might still be hoping for the Guardian hired gun to develop his 'science'. 'Research', he simply states 'suggests' that 'outbreaks of animal-borne and other diseases are on the rise. Ok, genius, continue, please. BUT BY NOW, the mask has completely fallen: the writer, having taken the reader this far makes only a veiled effort to camouflage his actual agenda:
A. Diseases borne by animals are on the rise; B. Pathogens cross over from the animals to us; C It is glaringly obvious what animals East are talking about here: bats in China, camels in the Middle East, and all sorts of exotic species in Nigeria, Malaysia and so on; caused by the kind of human actvity in third world countries; D. Just in case you are not following attentively or do not remember what diseases we are talking about, we are talking about anything from the Corona virus, to Zika, ebola and the West Nile Fever. These observations come with the support and backing of the scientific authority with respected and prestigious credentials, like the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, somewhere along this journey alarm bells might be ringing in the mind of a paranoid reader .. the authorities cited may well have respected and prestigious credentials, BUT, where is the scientific evidence? Where is the soil mechanics test and pathological testthat prove that land use for the purpose of urbanization (say as residential housing), and industrialization not only releases potentially deadly pathogens to the environment, but such pathogens may well cross over from animals and plants to humans? The Chair of ecology and biodiversity at UCL who goes by the name of Kate Jones is one of these scientists with credentials, cited by the Guardan liberal with questionable agenda. Kate Jones may have her established scientific credentials, yes, but in terms of the the argument she seems to be advocating she seems to come short on scientific evidence! Take her quote, for instance: ''We are researching how species in degraded habitats are likely to carry more viruses which can infect humans". We are within our rights to ask this scientist, is this published research you are basing your assertions on, or you are still finding out? when she is quoted in the article to say that, increasingly, 'these zoonotic diseases [like Zika and Covid-19] are linked to environmental change and human behaviour', we cordially mind her, 'linked to'? Excuse me?! Linked to in what way? Where in your study does it establish that link? That just doesn't wash!! Vague, ma'am! Dubious!! Unsafe!!



But Mr. Vidal, the pseduo-scientific maverick from the UK is not done yet, he is just starting, quote:


The resulting transmission of disease from wildlife to humans, she says, is now “a hidden cost of human economic development.


Unquote. Just like the war on terror, which humanity have to support (otherwise we are instantly unpatriotic terrorists), individuals now in every nation have to seriously consider economic development itself, the central foundation of Progress and only ray of hope for millions as our common and universal enemy!! And we the sheep, I mean the people are meant to follow Vidal and every brilliant Anglo-saxon 'scientist' to wherever fantasy or lunatic asylum they may take us.



To save us from our ourselves, from our own own natural destructive tendency to develop and better our lot, we have no choice but to follow the Anglo-Saxon shepherd (and all his dark pseudo-science), even to the slaughter house if necessary! One recalls Prof Samir Amin here: 'in record time, the pursuit of liberal utopia has produced results so catastrophic that the wind is beginning to blow on the side of reason.


The enemy is now, not war or starvation, but 'both urban and natural environments'. The biased narrative, having established its irrational (pathological) prejudice against the third world man, then goes on to suggest that life itself is now the enemy, as seems to be the conclusion of the Guardian mercenary and his quoted ilk, where diseases (from rats, bats and all exotic animals under the sun we are in the habit of being surrounded by) are lurking, ready, ripe and horny to consummate itself upon us and wipe us out of the face of this planet.
__________________
ash-sharid

-------------
في إنتظار السلام, على المرء أن يلعن التثاؤب وينحيه جانبا
ash-sharid is offline               Reply With Quote               
Old 20-Mar-20, 10:10   #3
ash-sharid
Major Contributor
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: East-West
Posts: 504
Thumbs down Debunking Vidal and his pseudo-science

قول إتنين يا وهم.



4
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHARGAWI View Post

theguardian.com



John Vidal


...




Tip of the iceberg


“Pathogens do not respect species boundaries,” says disease ecologist Thomas Gillespie, an associate professor in Emory University’s department of environmental sciences, who studies how shrinking natural habitats and changing behaviour add to the risk of diseases spilling over from animals to humans.

“I am not at all surprised about the coronavirus outbreak,” he says. “The majority of pathogens are still to be discovered. We are at the very tip of the iceberg.”

Humans, says Gillespie, are creating the conditions for the spread of diseases by reducing the natural barriers between host animals – in which the virus is naturally circulating – and themselves. “We fully expect the arrival of pandemic influenza; we can expect large-scale human mortalities; we can expect other pathogens with other impacts. A disease like Ebola is not easily spread. But something with a mortality rate of Ebola spread by something like measles would be catastrophic,” Gillespie says.

Wildlife everywhere is being put under more stress, he says. “Major landscape changes are causing animals to lose habitats, which means species become crowded together and also come into greater contact with humans. Species that survive change are now moving and mixing with different animals and with humans.”

Gillespie sees this in the US, where suburbs fragment forests and raise the risk of humans contracting Lyme disease. “Altering the ecosystem affects the complex cycle of the Lyme pathogen. People living close by are more likely to get bitten by a tick carrying Lyme bacteria,” he says.

Yet human health research seldom considers the surrounding natural ecosystems, says Richard Ostfeld, distinguished senior scientist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York. He and others are developing the emerging discipline of planetary health, which looks at the links between human and ecosystem health.

“There’s misapprehension among scientists and the public that natural ecosystems are the source of threats to ourselves. It’s a mistake. Nature poses threats, it is true, but it’s human activities that do the real damage. The health risks in a natural environment can be made much worse when we interfere with it,” he says.

Ostfeld points to rats and bats, which are strongly linked with the direct and indirect spread of zoonotic diseases. “Rodents and some bats thrive when we disrupt natural habitats. They are the most likely to promote transmissions [of pathogens]. The more we disturb the forests and habitats the more danger we are in,” he says.

Felicia Keesing, professor of biology at Bard College, New York, studies how environmental changes influence the probability that humans will be exposed to infectious diseases. “When we erode biodiversity, we see a proliferation of the species most likely to transmit new diseases to us, but there’s also good evidence that those same species are the best hosts for existing diseases,” she wrote in an email to Ensia, the nonprofit media outlet that reports on our changing planet.

The market connection

Disease ecologists argue that viruses and other pathogens are also likely to move from animals to humans in the many informal markets that have sprung up to provide fresh meat to fast-growing urban populations around the world. Here, animals are slaughtered, cut up and sold on the spot.

The “wet market” (one that sells fresh produce and meat) in Wuhan, thought by the Chinese government to be the starting point of the current Covid-19 pandemic, was known to sell numerous wild animals, including live wolf pups, salamanders, crocodiles, scorpions, rats, squirrels, foxes, civets and turtles.

Equally, urban markets in west and central Africa sell monkeys, bats, rats, and dozens of species of bird, mammal, insect and rodent slaughtered and sold close to open refuse dumps and with no drainage.

“Wet markets make a perfect storm for cross-species transmission of pathogens,” says Gillespie. “Whenever you have novel interactions with a range of species in one place, whether that is in a natural environment like a forest or a wet market, you can have a spillover event.”



• This piece is jointly published with Ensia


The market: a New Frontier in the battle by the Anglo-Saxon Shepherd to save us, the world sheep



So this is what it boils down to, quote:


wet market” (one that sells fresh produce and meat). Unquote. Not only are we running eventual serious risk of dying in urban and natural environments by just being there while trying to develop, but now the market where humans have been selling fresh produce and meat complete an Unholy Trinity of wickedness. Mind you, it's not just bat meat and camel meat and other meat - ANY fresh produce is now potentially a deadly pathogen-releasing incubator.



Is this a movie script declaring war on the very existence of third world countries? War, it may well be, but it's not a movie. It's for real.



When market, a triumph of Capitalism becomes an enemy, it may be time to run away, AND RUN LIKE HELL from a Capitalism who is hellbent on identifying you along with anything and everything around you as a threat to Global Health.









5

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHARGAWI View Post

theguardian.com




John Vidal




...


The Wuhan market, along with others that sell live animals, has been shut by the Chinese authorities, and last month Beijing outlawed the trading and eating of wild animals except for fish and seafood. But bans on live animals being sold in urban areas or informal markets are not the answer, say some scientists.

“The wet market in Lagos is notorious. It’s like a nuclear bomb waiting to happen. But it’s not fair to demonise places which do not have fridges. These traditional markets provide much of the food for Africa and Asia,” says Jones.

“These markets are essential sources of food for hundreds of millions of poor people, and getting rid of them is impossible,” says Delia Grace, a senior epidemiologist and veterinarian with the International Livestock Research Institute, which is based in Nairobi, Kenya. She argues that bans force traders underground, where they may pay less attention to hygiene.

Fevre and colleague Cecilia Tacoli, principal researcher in the human settlements research group at the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), argue in a blog post that rather than pointing the finger at wet markets, we should look at the burgeoning trade in wild animals.

“It is wild animals rather than farmed animals that are the natural hosts of many viruses,” they write. “Wet markets are considered part of the informal food trade that is often blamed for contributing to spreading disease. But … evidence shows the link between informal markets and disease is not always so clear cut.”


• This piece is jointly published with Ensia


Now that the Chinese government have introduced prohibitive measures to combat the Corona pandemic, these measures have been seized upon by the jackal contingent of dodgy science to push its agenda further: Look, wretched third world inhabitant, OK, don't blame the wet market too much, may be you should focus on the trade in 'wild' animals. Do come in, put your headphones and movie goggles on. An ominous voice at the International Institute of Environment and Development in London then provides the voiceover:




Go find yourself alternative sources of protein, ****head!


Weather it's Eric Fevre and his collegue Cecilia Taco at London's IIED , Thomas Gillespie at Emory University, Richard Ostfeld at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York or Felicia Keesing, Kate Jones and countless other heartless and ruthless men and women of expedient biased 'science', the all seem to be saying one thing:



Man and woman of the third world, you have heard us; you know what to do; repent you bastard! Don't let us catch you lurking around your natural Or urban environment with your pants down (all these live wild exotic animals)! Exile yourself NOW! DO IT OR ELSE!









6

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHARGAWI View Post

theguardian.com



John Vidal


...


Changing behaviour

So what, if anything, can we do about all of this?

Jones says that change must come from both rich and poor societies. Demand for wood, minerals and resources from the global north leads to the degraded landscapes and ecological disruption that drives disease, she says. “We must think about global biosecurity, find the weak points and bolster the provision of health care in developing countries. Otherwise we can expect more of the same,” she adds.

• This piece is jointly published with Ensia


Change, it is suggested must now come from both rich and poor countries. We now go from the pledge to global security to an extended version: a new universal initiative, led by the Anglo-Saxons (what else?!) committed to honour and guarantee global biosecurity.







7

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHARGAWI View Post

theguardian.com




John Vidal


...


“The risks are greater now. They were always present and have been there for generations. It is our interactions with that risk which must be changed,” says Brian Bird, a research virologist at the University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine One Health Institute, where he leads Ebola-related surveillance activities in Sierra Leone and elsewhere.

“We are in an era now of chronic emergency,” Bird says. “Diseases are more likely to travel further and faster than before, which means we must be faster in our responses. It needs investments, change in human behaviour, and it means we must listen to people at community levels.”

Getting the message about pathogens and disease to hunters, loggers, market traders and consumers is key, Bird says. “These spillovers start with one or two people. The solutions start with education and awareness. We must make people aware things are different now. I have learned from working in Sierra Leone with Ebola-affected people that local communities have the hunger and desire to have information,” he says. “They want to know what to do. They want to learn.”

Fevre and Tacoli advocate rethinking urban infrastructure, particularly within low-income and informal settlements. “Short-term efforts are focused on containing the spread of infection,” they write. “The longer term – given that new infectious diseases will likely continue to spread rapidly into and within cities – calls for an overhaul of current approaches to urban planning and development.”

The bottom line, Bird says, is to be prepared. “We can’t predict where the next pandemic will come from, so we need mitigation plans to take into account the worst possible scenarios,” he says. “The only certain thing is that the next one will certainly come.”

• This piece is jointly published with Ensia


Finale: meet Professor Bird

'where he leads Ebola-related surveillance activities in Sierra Leone and elsewhere'.


A glimpse into the future. Global surveillance of exotic wild animal trading and whatever else deemed dangerous to Global Biosecurity.


A war without end. One will hope that the People will systematically resist this dark aristocratic enslaving project, this grand madness of the 21st century bourgeoisie. Or die trying.
__________________
ash-sharid

-------------
في إنتظار السلام, على المرء أن يلعن التثاؤب وينحيه جانبا
ash-sharid is offline               Reply With Quote               
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

بحث مخصص

All times are GMT. The time now is 20:58.


Sudan.Net © 2014