
Drug resistant malaria takes new ground, raising fears of global spread - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/#!/science/news/2012/03/drug-resistant-malaria-takes-new-ground-raising-fears-of-global-spread.ars
======
JumpCrisscross
Sensationalist headline.

One drug in a multi-drug treatment is taking longer to be effective. The
malaria is not resistant to the partner drug, nor even to the primary drug -
it's just more tolerant in that the primary drug _alone_ may not clear the
parasite in under 72 hours.

Cause for concern? Yes. Cause for alarm? No.

~~~
nakkiel
I think you're missing the point. It's about "The loss of ACTs as an effective
therapy". ACT has been the goto treatment for long now and what is at risk is
an effective goto treatment which would leave each clinic with no easy and
effective solution to cure people. Procedures are standardized and applied as
per the WHO recommendations (which largely originate from the work in the Mae
Sot area).

Mae Sot (really, it's the Thai-Burmese border as there is virtually no Malaria
cases in Mae Sot as the mosquitos hate cities) is an area that has been
leading the research and study of Malaria treatments for years now and is
generally regarded and the trend-maker of Malaria as a whole.

------
Tsagadai
I'm just getting a redirect to local host for that article. Other articles on
arstechnica.com work fine. Broken link?

Edit: Going directly to the comments works (no RST or redirect):
[http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/drug-
resistant-m...](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/drug-resistant-
malaria-takes-new-ground-raising-fears-of-global-
spread.ars?comments=1#comments-bar)

------
thret
NSF Weak Stomach warning, the images are not pretty.

I would like to see a solution of the 'mosquito genocide' variety.

~~~
iacvlvs
We're already working on a mosquito genocide solution. Ever since the Nature
article ( <http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html> ) about
how the ecosystem would be fine without mosquitoes I've seen a number of
mosquito genocide solutions that just yell "mad scientist".

We're using lasers <http://www.physorg.com/news185463943.html>

We're using smelly socks [http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-07/sock-
science-f...](http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-07/sock-science-
fighting-malaria-bearing-mosquitoes-stinky-socks)

We're tricking them into drinking poison
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/health/27mosquito.html>

We're even genetically engineering them to self destruct
[http://gizmodo.com/5852703/mosquitoes-
genetically+engineered...](http://gizmodo.com/5852703/mosquitoes-
genetically+engineered-to-self-destruct-could-wipe-out-dengue-fever)

It's a bad time to be a mosquito.

(Also, I think this is how a Starship Troopers / Ender's Game scenario
starts.)

~~~
nakkiel
A quick search on the Internet for the downside of such a genocide has yielded
no results. Would you care to give some pointers or explanations if you have
any?

I'm a firm believer that all actions have consequences and even if presented
with "proves" that a mosquito genocide is without risks for the environment as
a whole, I still wouldn't believe it totally.

For instance, mosquitos are traditionally eaten by Geckos (Mourning Gecko) in
SEA which can be found in very large quantities. People mostly don't pay
attention to them (although some people are scared of them) and couldn't care
less when they emit their "weird sounds".

Such a large quantity of Geckos is abundant food for all sort of animals such
as snakes, birds, and whatnot.

I'm not even a scientist so I really don't know why I'm following this obvious
path unless an outreach of creationism has blind-folded actual the scientists?

~~~
thret
Species die out every day, and they will continue to do so with our without
our help. That's natural selection. Deliberate genocide is an irrevocable step
in theory, but with something as ubiquitous as the mosquito it's unlikely to
ever be completely successful.

That said, it's doubtful their extinction would cause any other species
immediate trouble. What it will do is save hundreds of millions of human
lives.

------
civilian
Let's bring back DDT. I'm serious. human life is more important than some
shitty apex predators.

~~~
icegreentea
DDT is already back in use in many places. In fact, it's been in use so much
(mostly to protect crops) that there is significant DDT resistance in some
parts of the world. Now, it's not as simple as DDT doesn't work anymore, but
it's also definitely not the same as 'if we just used it, it would fix
everything'.

In fact, most 'bans' on DDT are actually primarily bans on agricultural use of
DDT. Use of DDT as malaria vector control (for example in the United States)
is allowed (as well as controlling other disease vectors). The problem is
primarily the countries who haven't banned DDT for agricultural use, as it is
that usage that has most greatly contributed to DDT resistance.

------
astrofinch
Not too many mosquitoes here in California.

~~~
astrofinch
Sorry for writing this, I didn't mean to be insensitive. What I meant to say
was that a malaria epidemic seems unlikely to pose an existential threat to
humanity because mosquitoes aren't everywhere. I was hoping someone would
correct me if I was wrong and there was some other way for malaria to
spread...

