Trypanosoma cruzi :: Essays Papers

Trypanosoma cruzi Life History: Trypanosoma cruzi, a protozoan parasite, is the causative agent of Chagas disease. It is most commonly found among people, dogs, cats, and wild mammals in Central and South America, especially in rural communities where people reside in houses constructed from mud or thatch. The vector is the reduviid or kissing bug, which lives in the cracks of buildings and substandard houses8. Often substandard housing/living conditions are shown to have these structural fractures, which provide suitable habitats for reduviid bugs. The reduviid bug transmits T. cruzi by rubbing its own contaminated feces into an abrasion (wound or bug bite) or a mucous membrane of the host. Two other modes of infection are blood transfusions/organ transplants and perinatal/vertical transfer from mother to child3. In addition, there have been reports that infections originated from undercooked food that was contaminated8. The life cycle of T. cruzi: The vector, reduviid bug, bites and defecates on host. Parasites, in the form of trypomastigotes, are able to enter the blood via mucous membranes or a cut. During cell invasion, the trypomastigotes transform into amastigotes and undergo multiplication. Parasites are then released into the blood stream as trypomastigotes where they either spread to other tissues or are taken up by the vector to perpetuate the life cycle2. Chagas disease: Chagas disease exists in three stages: acute, indeterminate, and chronic. 1. The acute stage manifests shortly after infection from a bite or alternate mode of transmission and is generally found in only 1% of reported cases8. Although it is often asymptomatic, symptoms can include Romaà ±a’s sign (one swollen eye), fever, fatigue, enlarged liver/spleen, swollen lymph nodes, rash, loss of appetite, diarrhea, and vomiting. In adults, these symptoms generally subside within 4-8 weeks and may or may not require treatment. Very young children are a concern because they may sustain severe brain damage or die as a result of infection8. 2. The indeterminate stage may also be asymptomatic. Onset of this stage is reported about 8-10 weeks following infection and may persist for years. 3. The chronic stage is the most severe and the most common manifestation of Chagas disease. Chronic Chagas disease usually presents itself 10-40 years after infection, in about 30% of infected individuals. On average, developing this class of Chagas

Forces of Nature Mic Heal Porter

In dealing with strategic planning, I think that this would deal with the way an organization try’s to incorporate strategy in their decision making process. The correct strategy will allow the organization to plan a set of goals and also be able to achieve these goals. Strategic planning is how the organization tries to evolve their current status into where they feel they should be in the future. In routine planning this is the type of planning that is by the book. Routine meaning by the book and following all the procedures with no actual goals and no mention of the future. The differences between the two planning systems is that one only follows the rules and the other thinks outside the box by thinking about the future of the organization. An example of strategic planning, is when an organization starts with having a mission by coming up with the organizations strengths and weaknesses. The plan has to have an outcome that leads the organization into the future (my strategic plan. com). An example of a routine plan would be a book list of instructions and it is mapped out and the first thing they will do is try to find certain goals to move the company forward to the next level but is not worried about the future of the organization. When an organization does not use strategic planning than the organization will not be able to control their futures and be stuck following a routine approach. If an organization does not have a strategic plan they will only be able to address the immediate problems and this is a form of crisis management. When an organization has a strategic plan, the organization becomes more proactive in achieving their goals instead of reactive. When an organization is reactive they are following the set of guidelines of a routine. When an organization has a strategic plan but it is poor it is really like not having one at all. The organization that has a poor strategic planning system is not on a good track and when the plan was implemented it was done incorrectly. When the people of the organization implemented the plan not everyone bought into this plan this is one of the reasons why it is broken and it is poor. The only way to un-break or fix what is broken is to re-implement the plan to make sure that every person in the organization will buy into for the sake of the organizations future (Iowa State University, 1995-2013). The organization that does not have a strategic plan will not be able to make a future for their organization. When an organization thinks outside the box they usual are the organization will flourish in the long-run. The only problem with having a failing strategic plan is the fact that it could have been a good plan if all the members of the organization bought into it. Fixing a strategic plan is sometimes more difficult than actually rolling one out to your organization. References My Strategic Plan (2103). Researched the difference between routine planning and strategic plan. Found an article on what is the difference between a strategic plan and a business plan. Retrieved from website http://mystrategicplan.com/resources/what-is-the-difference-between-a-business-plan-and-a-strategic-plan/ Iowa State University (1995-2013). Researched what happens when an organization has a poor strategic plan. Retrieved from website http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-strategic-planning-shortterm-operational-planning-24227.html

Globalization itself Essay Essays

Globalization itself Essay Essays Globalization itself Essay Essay Globalization itself Essay Essay Globalization is non value free ; instead. the force per unit areas to conform to cosmopolitan criterions of behavior and competitory public presentation force organisations and persons to absorb new values. which may be in struggle with local cultural values and patterns. This requires the persons. organisations. and states to construct the necessary mentality. competences. capablenesss. and capacities to pull off the transmutations associated with globalisation. Globalization is founded on fight. To stay competitory. histrions must â€Å"continue to innovate† ( Anton. 1995 ) . Inventions are based on promotions in scientific discipline. engineering. and commercialisation. It is. hence. logical to add to the centre the institutional histrions involved in advancing scientific discipline. engineering. and invention. This includes universities. research research labs. startups. enterprisers. cognition workers. venture capitalists. direction experts. confer withing houses. stock markets. stockholders. and corporate managers. The United States presently leads the universe in puting in scientific discipline. engineering. and inventions and remains the most dominant histrion at the centre. A cardinal lesson we learn from these experts is that globalisation can and must be managed. Since globalisation affects all states. authoritiess. concerns. communities. and persons. the best we can make is fight back or respond in sort in order to take advantage of its chances and to minimise its possible inauspicious effects. This requires a â€Å"strategic attack to globalization† ( Fischer. 2000 ) . : States. authoritiess. concerns. establishments. communities. and persons should non see themselves as incapacitated victims of globalisation ; instead. they should actively take the enterprise to understand the nature of globalisation. its causes. and its effects on the land ; assess their ain chances. strengths. and restrictions ; and develop realistic ends and a program of action for pull offing globalisation. It is non easy. and there are no warrants or cutoffs. but the strategic attack is better than isolation or resignation. Making it in partnership with others increases the opportunities of success and mitigates against some of the negative effects. The direction literature is rich with descriptive stuffs on how concerns can go globally strategic and competitory in the 21st century. ( Hirst. 1999 ) Nations. authorities establishments. communities. and persons can pull on this organic structure of cognition to develop their ain bespoke strategic waies and action programs for pull offing globalisation. In its 1999 Human Development Report on globalisation with a human face. the United Nations Development Program ( UNDP ) . one of the U. N. specialized bureaus making extended work in developing states. provides a model and guidelines for pull offing globalisation. Acknowledging that globalisation is characterized by new markets. new tools. new histrions. and new regulations. the study challenges authoritiess and the international community to happen regulations and establishments for stronger administration at the local. national. regional. and planetary degrees. Globalization is multidimensional and. therefore. means different things to different people across clip and infinite. Globalization is about transformational alteration with intended and unintended inauspicious effects. Since its kineticss and effects are non to the full predictable. some of its facets may be emphasized or deemphasized at different times for different parts. states. or societies. ( Friedman. 2000 ) Yet. because the cardinal drivers of globalisation come from industrialised states. single developing states have no realistic option but to take part in the globalisation procedure. Many people are openly opposed to globalisation: the construct. its pattern. and its effects. This is in malice of its existent and possible benefits to both rich and hapless states. This resistance. if left unbridled. threatens to force the universe back to the dark yearss of protectionism and closed societies reminiscent of the Cold War. Many universe leaders have. at one clip or another. expressed uncertainty. apprehensiveness. qualified support. or straight-out resistance to globalisation and have questioned its moral justification. However. Globalization can be and in most instances has been. good for cultural diverseness and development. By lending to â€Å"liberalization. lifting incomes. increased usage of engineering. better instruction. and planetary migration. † ( Prakash A ; Hart. 1997 ) globalisation helps to make multiple environments in support of cultural and synergistic diverseness. It allows people to experiment with alternate theoretical accounts of development. while at the same clip borrowing thoughts and patterns from other civilizations and establishments. It provides people with the chance to bask freedom for their ain civilization and. at the same clip. be exposed to other civilizations. It allows weaker and smaller civilizations to coexist alongside the large and powerful civilizations. It allows minor or provincial linguistic communications and distant civilizations to link with other civilizations. As it soon exists in the universe today. globalisation is an asymmetrical and imperfect system. To be committed to globalisation is to understand its deficiency of symmetricalness among the participants and its built-in imperfectnesss. Therefore. globalising states. authoritiess. concerns. establishments. and communities must perpetrate themselves to work toward its betterment. For developing states. this means. among other things. non to advance globalisation as a â€Å"panacea for all jobs. † ( Micklethwait. 2000 ) but to construct the necessary institutional capacities and competences for the defence and betterment of globalisation for the greater benefit of all citizens. Resources Anton. D. J. 1995. Diversity. Globalization. and the Way of Nature. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. 1995. Fischer. T. C. 2000. The United States. the European Union. and â€Å"Globalization† of World Trade: Allies or Adversaries? Westport. Connecticut: Quorum. Hirst. P. . and G. Thompson. 1999. Questioning Globalization: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press. Friedman. T. L. 2000. The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. New York: Anchor Books. Prakash. A. . and J. A. Hart. 1997. Globalization and Governance. London: Routledge. Micklethwait. J. . and A. Wooldridge. 2000. A Future Perfective: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalization. New York: Random House.