| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Sat, 1 Mar 2014 18:36:36 +0100 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dear Paul
Dear colleagues
First of all I would like to apologize as I could not contribute to all sessions of the conference. I was and still too busy in other urgent issues need to do them.
I followed up some contributions in different conference subject and I have some points:
1. I really found those themes included in Paul’s table are good and acceptable as they cover most of issues related not only to PPR, but to other diseases
2. Improved laboratory based technology I think should be stand alone theme. For me research is two main activities one is Laboratory type of work and the other one is field type of work. In addition despite that we have number of good developed lab tests for PPR in particular in the field of sero-surveillance and sero-monitoring (thank for RP), some work still needed to develop diagnostic laboratory techniques in particular those tests are looking for the virus or its particles (these tests should be not expensive and available for all in reasonable price) . In the late stage of eradication it will be needed to have tests to diagnose the disease in the field in order to have quick response (such as LAMP techniques or any other tests to detect the Ag) in particular in our parts, where cold chain is difficult to follow, resources are limited to get samples on the time and other constrains complicating the diagnoses such as vaccination.
3. To my knowledge we have very few labs considered as ref. labs for PPR. I think it will be good if the international community support to establish number of regional ref. labs in Africa and Middle-East.
4. Taking in consideration the lessons learned for RP eradication process, the role of other animals in the epidemiology of PPR such as cattle , camels and other animals, should be well studied.
5. Including other small ruminant diseases to be part of the PPR eradication process: number of contributions suggested different diseases to be included according to their countries or regions needs. I think from resources point of view yes as everyone wants to minimize the cost of the control process, but we have to look for it from other views:
a. To have combined vaccines . can we really have enough knowledge about this process for example when we have brucella vaccine with PPR ………..?????
b. In any eradication process OIE pathway should be developed. Can we have one pathway for two or more disease they are totally different in their control approach (again Brucella and PPR)? (I do not know I am asking these questions).
c. In my opinion we have to concentrate in one disease to eradicate . we know some data to justify that PPR is a good candidate to be eradicated . most of its features are similar or close to RP. Other diseases do we know enough data to justify. In addition to the resources required for the eradication process it will be huge and I think international community will have difficulties to handle this (we know that most of national countries have limited resources to spend on the eradication of the diseases).
6. One last point is the suggestion of some colleagues to give vaccines to the farmers to handle it: apart of the professional ethics, which is very important to consider (qualified personnel only allowed to medically handle the animal), we know currently the small ruminants play important role in food security net as a livelihood asset for income generating for most of the rural population in particular the poor, because of this role to fight the diseases that can be a threat to these asset as a ‘’public good” activities and should be supported by the public services.
all the best
Mansoor Alqadasi
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1
|
|
|