Hepatitis is a major cause of jaundice (jaundice is a symptom after all, of the underlying disease).
So it could be that even if you are infected, the symptoms are less pronounced?
Again, I am not an expert. But don't give up hope in doing your own research. Sometimes you will see something that even "experts" miss.
These are pretty common in african populations so I wouldn't be too surprised.
Doesn't exactly sound like lack of immunity either.
I mean, completely non immune people just die.
I've never had malaria and the general approach is 1) if you think you may have malaria keep on testing until it's positive. This is very important as you'll get multiple false negatives. 2) Taking medication is counter productive if you live in these areas permanently or visit frequently as doctors in Limpopo are probably the most clued up on malaria of any place in the world, should you get infected. (Commercial pilots, on the other hand, take very expensive and effective anti-malaria preventative medication.)
Anyway, also shows before & after photos of of treatment of sever psoriasis with LSD and ritalin(?!)
> All jaundice related conditions have a degree of protection against Malaria.
I guess this is the general advice I was given
Wow they must be some tough people. That's no joke.
In fact, the quality/coherence of the whole thing seems to be about on par with those AI-generated articles from OpenAI a few months ago.
This article shouldn't be here, let alone under this headline.
Ivermectin causes severe reactions in people with onchocerciasis (River Blindness) unless treated carefully. Now that oncho is nearly eradicated, deploying ivermectin widely has become easier.
I couldn't find it now but it seemed like a massive success at the time almost eliminating all mosquitoes from the a city in Brazil (iirc).
Anyone know what happened to it? If that were to come to fruition than a lot of disease in addition to malaria like chikungunya, dengue, etc will be cured too.
The idea with mosquitoes specifically is that we can wipe out specifically the mosquito populations that carry most diseases. The debate is around whether or not this will upset balance in ecosystems (many feel it will not).
This is just my interpretation, but it seems like there is a sensible portion of detractors who simply want to derisk the experiment as much as possible by collecting more and more data. Then there are others who are in general opposed to this sort of interference in an animal population on ethical grounds.
Related article: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lab-tests-gene-drive-wip...
This is so infuriating. Many people will die during this extended hemming and hawing.
Humans have driven countless important species to extinction with no thought, but we have to vacillate over a species that is responsible for more deaths than all the wars in human history combined?
My only reservation about driving the mosquitoes to extinction with a gene drive is that we can't guarantee that the mosquitoes will suffer.
I wouldn't want to be one of the people who advocates for it, and then it turns out to be a giant disaster. The potential risk seems huge and could affect generations. Although I it would be pretty easy to hedge against that risk by keeping some mosquitos/eggs alive in a lab, and if the experiment goes wrong, re-populate the mosquitos.
From an economic perspective, how does the cost of all this research compare to mass producing malaria medicine?
The purpose of this is to stop the current giant disaster of 1000+ people a day dying from malaria.
I can't help thinking that if this was affecting American middle class neighborhoods where environmentalists live, the mosquitos would be wiped out quicker than plastic straws.
As for bears, we have them back home in eastern europe, in fact vastly overpopulated given the area available and their territoriality. Practically no attacks on cyclists, hikers etc (yes like 1 every year or two something minor, more people die from ticks and tripping over stones and roots). If you make any noise while in the forest, they will notice you from far and avoid you.
That said, we don't have grizzly or polar bears, those are a bit different and majestic beasts.
As for general discussion, your point doesn't make much sense. We could wipe out just types of mosquitoes responsible for super-deadly diseases like malaria and dengue (and few others) and keep the annoying but otherwise harmless suckers still around. In my subjective opinion we wouldn't even notice the transition (at least not in the bad sense).
My impression is that malaria was wiped out in the rich world by methods that we now deny to Africa, like DDT.
I also believe malaria is a human only disease, so if you cure all sick humans fast enough, the disease dies out, and you're left with mosquitos that only suck blood and are annoying.
I suspect the problem with malaria drugs is not producing them at a factory, but getting them reliably into all sick patients in places where there aren't even doctors or roads.
Anyway, you claim this is a real solution: Is anyone actually ready to do this for real? If not, it's not a real alternative to the gene drive.
So no, unfortunately, curing all the humans will not wipe out malaria. The only real solution is to drive the mosquito vector to extinction, everything else is a temporary half-measure.
Guess what the result was: it exacerbated the Great Chinese Famine, in which 15–45 million people died of starvation. Because with no sparrows to eat the insects, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country.
Don't eradicate a species, before you're really sure it's not going to cause much larger problems.
That goes for wanting humans to suffer too: even the most "evil" among us are doing the best they know how, for some value of "best" that their brains arrive at as a result of the genetic lottery and the "programming" that they've had as a result of their lifetime of experiences. That certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't vigorously oppose some of the things that such folks try to do. But at least an effort at compassion should be the default response. (As a certain Middle Eastern sage is reputed to have said circa 2,000 years ago: Love your enemies.)
That Middle Eastern sage also reputed to have talked about those who would not listen to him being cast into outer darkness where there was weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and the worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.
There are over 250,000 children under the age of 5 that die every year from malaria. In my ethical system, there is very little that can possibly justify trying to prevent something that will save the lives of 250,000 children a year. Anyone who actively tries to delay wiping out malaria causing mosquitoes is classified with climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers.
There are bio-ethicists arguing that it's wrong to eradicate an entire species. There are also biologists expressing concern about damaging the food chain.
Regarding the former concern, it's only a tiny segment of our world that actually cares whether mosquitoes exist or not as part of some abstract idealism or wishing to preserve biodiversity. Most of us would be beyond happy to see this miserable creature eradicated.
Regarding the food chain, there are some 5,000 species of mosquitoes, of which only about 100 feed on mammalian blood. Out of those 100, nine species carry disease such as malaria and zika. If we only targeted those 9, we'd have a huge win while scarcely affecting the pollination and prey species role of the rest of the family of mosquitoes.
If we targeted the 100, we'd greatly increase the quality of life for not only 7 billion humans but also for tens of millions of mammals made miserable by blood sucking swarms. The great herds of reindeer of northern Canada, for example, deliberately run in single file, to reduce exposure to mosquitoes that swarm around them in the spring. Mosquitoes are a serious parasite up there; one herd animal can lose a pint or more of blood in a single day.
A few years ago someone might say kill all bees kids are dying. We know better now.
I don't feel like reductive arguments are useful for incredibly complex systems.
Caution is in order.
It is inconceivable to me how eradicating the malaria parasite by eradicating a few of the thousands of species of mosquitoes could end up killing hundreds of thousands of people every day. The much more likely scenario is that doing nothing allows the malaria parasite to evolve into something much more deadly (and that is pretty unlikely, given how long malaria has been around).
Care to spell out the "100,000 people a day dying" scenario?
Do you believe in evolution? The children who live are more likely to have anti-malaria related genes and so will there kids.
Would you save 250,000 children today just to condemned millions in the future as populations increase and more children as exposed and side effects are discovered.
I would probably save 250,000 kids today but tomorrow when millions more are at risk I will wish I thought longterm.
But seriously I cannot believe that this technology exists, has proven successful in lab test but the reason they're holding it back is because they are afraid of tampering with the eco-system. I'm glad they didn't feel that when eradicating polio and smallpox and other things.
Anyway after reading some more I feel that part of it may be because it is modification to the gene. People are just afraid of some words like "nuclear", "gene", etc.
It seems whenever such technology is part of the solution the progress takes a lot time to happen because we cannot be too catious using it.
The smallpox vaccine which was responsible for the eradication of smallpox was a live virus and could spread from person to person. And through the course of time, it did mutate/become contaminated. It was originally cowpox, but at an unknown time sometime in the 1800's actually became vaccinia virus.
So, the great achievements of the past, such as smallpox eradication were not as risk-free as we perceive them with our 20-20 hindsight.
> It is not known whether vaccinia virus is the product of genetic recombination, or if it is a species derived from cowpox virus or variola virus by prolonged serial passage, or if it is the living representative of a now extinct virus.
It vacillates between “ivermectin effective” and “bacteria killed parasite,” which are in no way equivalent. The latter suggests something like “strep killed plasmodium, so maybe we can find the compound used and use it for malaria.” The latter suggests, well, ivermectin is the compound.
God, science journalism from scientifically illiterate rehashes of press releases is always such garbage.
The actual trial they are discussing doesn’t address using bacteria at all. It is directly the question of “if we repeatedly give ivermectin (the drug) to a population, can we reduce malaria transmission?” ( https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... ) studied in 8 villages for 18 weeks during peak malaria season. With approx 75% participation, malaria incidence dropped around 20%.
Please let’s change the link to the Lancet article.
“We have discovered [that the] bacterium is highly effective in killing plasmodium falciparum, the parasite that causes malaria, but our research is more focused on pregnant women and children as they are more vulnerable. We are getting very motivating leads,” Kariuki said.
Perhaps the issue is that Kariuki is not a listed author on the Lancet paper, so perhaps he's just providing comment generally and not specifically?
I'm disappointed by the quality of this article.
Ivermeticin is commonly used in Veterinary medicine for cattle, horses, sheep, goats, dogs, etc. It is once in a while used to treat worms in people but is more common to use Pyrantel to treat human roundworm infections which are surprisingly common in developed countries.
Thus it is a common drug and will not be crazy expensive. It seems expensive to me when I have to buy it for an animal bigger than me at first world prices, but it is cheap in developing countries.
Bite me and you die.
> Child malaria episodes could be reduced by up to 20% if populations living in high-risk areas are given Ivermectin, [....]
> An expert, independent from the study, said reports of resistance to the current class of malaria drugs are on the rise. [...] “There are cases of the drugs being sold over the counter, leading to their resistance and overuse. [...]”
If the plan is to give everyone the new drug, why don't they expect to get resistant strains soon?
In sheep, the barber-pole worm Haemonchus has become resistant to most approved parasiticides. Resistance is a definite problem.
Grew up in an area that is close to but not in Malaria country.
One day my mom comes back from visiting a friend that had malaria. Reports he was in tears due to suffering.
...that severely rattled me as a kid. Because I knew he's the kind of man that sews himself together again with fishing line. People like that do not as a general rule cry.
The first time in Mali was like the worst cold/flu I've ever had. The "cure" medicine (Coartem ) helped a lot. I was alright.
The second time I was in remote Angola and it was B.A.D. I was only 35 and very fit and strong. For five days I did not walk, talk, eat, sleep or function in any way. My friends were injecting me with the stronger version of Coartem twice a day, and I thought my head was going to split open from the severe headache.
I did not think I was actually going to die, but mighty close.
I lost 20lbs in those 5 days.
After that I was severely paranoid about covering up and using bug spray in the evenings, and I'm extremely happy I didn't get it again all through Southern and Eastern Africa for the 18 months after that.
I've been reading up on the drugs that are supposed to permanently remove it from your system, but they seem to function best on the Asian strain of Malaria. Maybe I'll take it anyway to prevent a relapse.
TLDR: I don't recommend getting Malaria.
Do the downvotes mean this blood medicine does not affect these mosquitoes?
The reason I say this is malaria is a nasty pathogen whose ability to develop resistance is well documented so even though this is an exciting breakthrough, we will always need another exciting breakthrough on the horizon to continually fight it.
... in mice.
I think this is the case for pretty much every area of journalism. If you are a subject matter expert, you quickly realize that 90% of coverage of that subject is dreadful.
Looking at this article, there is no Author by-line, but just the "Global Health" topic. Digging in, their Global Health topic is managed by their "Global development" team, which has a single writer assigned to it on their Contributors page . I am sure free lancers contribute to this section as well, but I am trying to illustrate that this team/writer is probably on the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to resources and priority. If this story would never have been written if it had to pass HN's level of scientific article standards.
It says "Gitonga Njeru in Nairobi" on the left side.
Here's the author: https://news.mongabay.com/by/gitonga-njeru/
Also your description of a journalists "core" job is incredibly reductive. It would be like me saying a programmers job is to just "write code". It's accurate to a point, but fails to capture a majority of a programmers responsibilities and how they do it well.
You read an article on your topic of expertise, it’s bullshit, you read another article, a relevant expert on it pipes up that “that’s bullshit!”, and the prevailing response is, “no, you’re wrong, I’ve read a bunch of articles on this topic.”
That is, the Gell-Mann effect as a justification for over-ruling expert criticism.
I wish there were an equally clever idiom I could trot out when people criticise professions they probably know noting about.
Journalism is an incredibly difficult field to work in, and journalism as a profession is just barely still a thing due to loss of advertising revenue to online platforms.
Think about it, we've traded a profession that has historically been one of the few to tell truth to power for free cloud software.
And we paid for our cloud software and for our and social media¹ skinner boxes, by voluntarily giving our own surveillance data to private non-acountable entities² which probably collude with the government, and which lose our data to organised crime a few times a year³.
To me that doesn't sound so clever.
1: A kind of casino with the doors welded shut where the chips are the precious minutes of our lives.
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism. See also: https://privacysos.org/blog/nsa-calls-the-iphone-using-publi...
3: Equifax, yahoo data breaches just off the top of my head.
Isn't that "Pointy-Haired Boss syndrome"?