

Malaria vaccine gets 'green light' - sjcsjc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33641939

======
mkingston
Progress, perhaps. I really, really hope this doesn't end up having the
unintended consequence of people coming to believe (consciously or
unconsciously) that bed nets are no longer required. Maybe we should wait
until we have something more effective. Does anyone know: are malaria vaccines
not interesting for drug companies because there's no money in them?

~~~
Ma8ee
> are malaria vaccines not interesting for drug companies because there's no
> money in them

Considering the nature of market economies and how the wealth is distributed
in the world, it is not particularly surprising that most most medical
research is aiming to cure ailments that affect white western men.

This is why the huge commitment from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is
such a huge boon. We see progress in the fight against malaria in the
developing world for the first time in many decades.

~~~
todd8
I agree with melling's comment here, and I wanted to add that malaria has been
a difficult disease. Attempts to create a vaccine for it have been going on
for decades. It is a disease caused by a parasite, not a virus nor a bacteria.
No other parasitic disease has ever had a successful vaccine created for it.

Malaria lingers in infected people for their entire lives with periodic
disabling relapses. The malaria antigens, that trigger the antibody response,
are extremely variable and allow the malaria parasites to evade the body's
immune system. It is surprising to me that any vaccine can be developed which
is effective against it.

~~~
icegreentea
I was researching stuff for another post I was going to make (didn't end up
making it), but I think it's worth adding an caveat to your point re parasitic
vaccines, namely that we do have anti-parasitic vaccines for livestock [0].
This is not an attempt to down play the general difficulty of anti-parasitic
vaccines in general, or of malaria especially. My understanding is that
malaria is sufficiently nasty that even repeated childhood exposure typically
only grants partial immunity - as opposed to say some other nasty like
smallpox or measles which grants much fuller acquired immunity.

[0]
[http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/d4014.pdf](http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/d4014.pdf)

~~~
todd8
Oh, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

------
steve19
I was excited then read this:

"A bed net is more effective than this vaccine, but nonetheless it is a very
significant scientific achievement... "

Seems like like I will still be taking that damned medicine when I visit
materia regions.

~~~
murbard2
Twist: you are actually visiting the region and you're currently dreaming
vividly.

~~~
murbard2
(for those who do not get it, a side effect of many Malaria medications are
extremely vivid and realistic dreams)

------
pmontra
Why not sales to travelers? Is there no extra productive capacity or is it
because the not for profit statement?

~~~
dominicgs
I can't say any of this for certain, and I have no qualifications to back it
up, but I would assume that any or all of the following may apply:

1) Cost - if a you only visit an area with a risk of malaria for two weeks
every year (which is far more often than most holiday makers), then taking a
short course of pills that cost pennies a dose will be cheaper than receiving
a vaccine that requires three doses and a booster.

2) Malaria strains - if you've been to multiple places in the world with
malaria risk, you may have been given different medication. The first time I
went to Cambodia/Vietnam I was given Larium, but the most recent time I took
Doxycycline because the NHS no longer recommends Larium for the region. For
Iran they recommended Cloroquine, which was significantly cheaper. This
vaccine may only fight one strain, leaving you to have to take pills for other
destinations anyway.

3) Effectiveness in adults - The article suggests that the vaccine was most
effective in children within a given age range, so it may be the case that it
simple doesn't work on adults. I have no idea if this is likely or even
possible, but it certainly seems plausible to me.

I don't know anything about fighting malaria, but it looks to me like they are
giving these vaccines to children to get them through the time when they are
most vulnerable, rather than giving them lifelong protection.

~~~
jessriedel
I don't think (1) really applies. It sounds like the vaccine is very cheap
($20) and you simply don't take the boosters if you're not returning. At that
price, the significant side-effects of most antimalarials are more important
considerations.

~~~
dominicgs
I think you make a valid point, although I was able to acquire a course of
Chloroquine to cover me for a couple of months at one week's notice, for <£10,
whereas the vaccine would need two months for the three initial doses. So
maybe it's a practicality argument that I'm making, rather than a financial
one.

------
VeejayRampay
Sounds awesome. Malaria seems like it has the capacity to really ruin
someone's life.

~~~
zamalek
> Malaria seems like it has the capacity to really ruin someone's life.

I contracted a unknown variant of malaria when I was a kid. It really wasn't a
pleasant experience. There's sickness; then on a _completely_ different level
there's malaria.

It won't ruin your life - if you survive you'll be left as healthy as you were
before. However, that's _IF_ you survive.

~~~
berekuk
It can leave you slightly more stupid, though:
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124005),
[http://www.malariajournal.com/content/9/1/366](http://www.malariajournal.com/content/9/1/366),
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629612...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629612000896)

~~~
zamalek
> It can leave you slightly more stupid, though

That explains a lot ;)

------
wdr1
"Malaria kills around 584,000 people a year worldwide..."

Consider that's more _per year_ than the number of people the United States
lost during _all_ of World War II.

"...most of them children under five in sub-Saharan Africa."

Ugh, that's a gut punch.

I have this image of young children storming the beaches of Normandy and how
we celebrate as a country when the madness was finally over & our children
were no longer being slaughtered.

Science is truly awesome.

