What is Digg?Sponsored by NerdyShirts.com
Buy 80's Casio Watches - Nerd to Live view!
nerdyshirts.com - TV remotes, calculators, solar-powered...it's like McGyver on your wrist
27 Comments
- nixdoctor, on 12/09/2008, -0/+16It's ironic to see people commenting on DDT without knowing the facts. Science does not run on personal beliefs - it runs on hard evidence, or at least plausible logic.
DDT was not outlawed because it was poisonous to humans when consumed. DDT was outlawed because it's not biodegradeable, persists in the environment for thousands of years (like plastic), and accumulates in the food chain, slowly propagating to the humans who are on the top of food chain. Another factor in outlawing DDT in the countries where malaria was rampant (e.g. India) was widespread resistance of mosquitoes to this insecticide because of indiscriminate and overzealous use.
Don't try to guage DDT's toxic potential by "I never heard of someone dying of it". What about birth defects? Cancer-causing potential?
Minimal to no research is taking place in Malaria eradication because it doesn't exist in industrialized ("rich") nations anymore. Malaria is now in the official list of "neglected diseases" thus. But that doesn't' prevent it from consuming millions of lives, including children in parts of the world.
Still didn't get it? Ok, go start eating some DDT. Your children will know what I mean. - inactive, on 12/09/2008, -5/+16DDT could have done that years ago. That explains why it was demonized and outlawed. I have yet to read of an individual who died of DDT poisoning. I have read of a man who took a teaspoon of DDT prior to each lecture he gave regarding its benefits. If I'm not mistaken, he died at roughly 84 years of age. Quite a bit longer than the average African as well as the average American. Go figure? DDT is a known substance. Who knows what will be in the supposed vaccinations.
- metalgearhmn, on 12/09/2008, -0/+9Title = "A Vaccine That Could Help Wipe Out Malaria"
Beginning of last paragraph = "No one pretends that even with these results malaria is anywhere near beaten."
Thanks for the sensationalist title, you cooky journalists! - Lavarock, on 12/09/2008, -1/+8Yep it's called DDT.. oh. OH. Beaten. Damn.
- CRCulver, on 12/09/2008, -0/+7Sanitation? What are you talking about? Malaria is not typhoid or cholera, caused by infected drinking water. Malaria is caused by mosquitos, and the only way to wipe them out is with massive use of pesticides or even more massive civil engineering projects like draining swamps. Even once you eradicate malaria by eliminating stagnant water pools, you have to stay constantly vigilant lest they return. Just look at the worry Hong Kong has to go through every summer to make sure mosquitos aren't breeding anywhere. Developing a vaccine seems like it would save a lot of money and trouble.
- newms32, on 12/09/2008, -0/+5So we're supposed to eliminate all of the standing water in Africa? Good luck. I really doubt that malaria could be eradicated by sanitation improvements alone, if so then give a source.
An effective vaccine would eradicate malaria if it were used in a similar way to the smallpox campaign of the 50s and 60s. Only humans and mosquitos can carry the disease, so a combination of vaccination and quarantine would spell the end of malaria (and the need for continued vaccinations). - iamamaniac, on 12/09/2008, -1/+5Malaria is the biggest problem in developing countries. This vaccine may help to tackle this problem.
- Skafia, on 12/09/2008, -0/+4After playing farcry2 I think no amount of money is too much to stop malaria.
- HappyScrappy, on 12/09/2008, -2/+6The problem with DDT was with reptiles and birds, not with humans. We kinda need reptiles and birds on this plant.
I find your trust in DDT as opposed to unknown vaccinations to be hilarious. - stoppard, on 12/09/2008, -0/+4Actually the world health organization now approves of the use of DDT for indoor spraying.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/ ... - inactive, on 12/09/2008, -0/+4At one point during the sixties, the number of malaria cases in Sri Lanks was down to double digits. Now, it's somewhere around 10,000. It gives a bad reputation to the environmental movement.
- divinediva, on 12/09/2008, -1/+3If the new inoculation wrecks the protections offered by existing ones.
- inactive, on 12/09/2008, -0/+2Ah, so you're a bigot then correct? I mean I assume that you are since you're willing to throw all those poor African people over a cliff just to save the yellow billed red breasted black eye green ass orange feather? DDT has been proven to be SAFE over and over again. It's a COST EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT method of insect control, especially against MARLARIA CARRYING MOSQUITOES But NO, over reacting environmentalists don't give a damn about that, better a dead human than a dead bird, dead and dying children are far better than dead dying defenseless birds, right? So what if the drugs cost hundreds of times more than a few applications of DDT, so what if impoverished nations have to go deeper into debt to pay for part of needed medications, so what if doctors and nurses have TO CHOOSE WHO LIVES AND DIES, none of that matters as long as the ***** birds live. You over reacting, sanctimonious, ignorant, idiotic, narcissistic bitch.
Oh, and as for killing "ll of the birds in the world and see what happens", nature has this thing called "redundancy", I think the lizards would have a buffet field day with all the insects to choose from. - inactive, on 12/09/2008, -0/+2In case you haven't noticed, malaria is environmentally harmful to people.
- Lavarock, on 12/09/2008, -0/+1The only way DDT becomes really toxic is when it is prayed agriculturally in massive quantities. Spraying it on people or in the home does not cause any environmental problems that even come close to the value of a million people dying needlessly each year.
You could argue that it was right to ban DDT... It's possible. But you cannot argue that the ban is costing us millions of lives. That is absolutely a fact, and you have to decide on your own wether you think that is worth the fish and the eagles and such. - Beautyon, on 12/09/2008, -2/+3The amount of money that will be spent vaccinating millions of people would be enough to solve the malaria problem by sanitation improvement. This is about making money off of vaccinating people, not solving the problem of malaria.
And remember, once the sanitation problem is fixed, malaria goes away forever. Vaccinating keeps the malaria mosquito in place, and the need for vaccinating.
???
Profit! - dwninjungleland, on 12/09/2008, -2/+3A known substance? So it's safe? Please excuse me while I snort derisively into my hankerchief made out of asbestos...
- Lavarock, on 12/09/2008, -0/+1DDT nearly ended the malaria epidemic. That's the purpose of this vaccine. They are just different means to similar ends.
- HappyScrappy, on 12/09/2008, -1/+2Actually, my understanding is that SARS failed to break out in the West because it was being spread by poor sewage handling in China and Hong Kong. Once people with it came to the West, even though they still had it, they were very unlikely to spread it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84392,00.html - moosejaw99, on 12/09/2008, -1/+1Why not give the people in these areas clean water, food, training in sanitation so they can survive the things that are ACTUALLY killing them.
***** vaccines. Nothing but a $$$ machine. - syariscrewz, on 06/20/2009, -0/+0nice page
free music downloads
http://www.hotsmusic.com - metalgearhmn, on 12/09/2008, -1/+1uhm...you just sited foxnews.com as the source. this is digg, remember?
- moosejaw99, on 12/09/2008, -1/+1When did 813 become thousands of deaths from SARS? Let alone millions.
"How many people contracted SARS worldwide during the outbreak? How many people died
of SARS?
According to WHO, 8,437 people worldwide became sick with SARS during the course of this
outbreak; of these 813 died. Visit WHO's SARS page (http://www.who.int/csr/sars/en/index.html) for
more information on the numbers of SARS cases and deaths."
Very well researched reporting. I wonder which Pharma is paying this ass clown. - dwninjungleland, on 12/09/2008, -2/+2You can't compare the action of an insecticide to the action of a vaccine- that's just stupid and shows that you have no idea what
you're talking about.
Now that that's over with, I think this article is overly optimistic. A vaccine with 53% success rate? That's pretty dismal. The RTS,S was all but written off when it boasted a 30-40% success rate during initial trials. How are these new results *that* much better? Don't get your hopes up people, this is going to be a long battle.
We need increased investment in malarial DIAGNOSTICS, both in terms of technology and distribution, especially RDTs. Stop wasting money on this vaccine crap. ACTs have the potential to do wonders against this disease, but only if we attack it it from an intelligent angle and don't make the same mistakes we did with chloroquine (namely, cause resistance to our best drug). If we keep these presumptive treatment shenanigans up, however, we'll be wasting millions and millions of dollars of these new EXPENSIVE drugs on people who don't even have malaria, and contributing to resistance as we do it!
Already, reports of ACT resistance have come out of Thailand, and the presumptive treatment model continues to be the norm. Can anyone please explain to me why so much money is being shoved into vaccines when there is such an obvious diagnostic bottleneck? A FRACTION of Africa actually has access to the microscopy materials, training, electricity, and knowledge required for a lab diagnosis- recommending it is just ridiculous, WHO. How can you not see that RDTs are the answer with it staring you right in the face? - Slyfer, on 06/15/2009, -0/+0A vaccine, that could wipe out malaria, thats a brilliant achievement!!!!
Thanks for the info too,
http://phonyexcuse.com/ - inactive, on 12/09/2008, -2/+2DDT? Doh! Beat to the punch.
Well then how about a huge round of applause and big UPS and THANK YOUS to the ENVIRONMENTAL WHACK JOBS OF THE WORLD! Because it's more important to save animals than people! - sanosuke001, on 12/09/2008, -1/+0You go ahead and kill all of the birds in the world and see what happens
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is