High hopes for a real cure for malaria :-)

[Toddy]

Yes, but look at the success with smallpox and polio, when vaccination protocols are actually adhered to.
It all has to start somewhere, and malaria isn't only an African problem.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Dano]

I have just got over a case of Typhoid, not a pleasant experience, if you travel then make sure your jabs are up to date, I though mine were but was wrong (they only offer 75% protection anyway) NB I am generally very very careful and I cook the majority of my own food, this infection may have come from snorkelling…

Back on Malaria prevention is always going to be better than cure, I don’t want to drift from the theme of the thread but would like to offer my experiences of working and living in ME&A and the tropics. I always carry a mozzie net when travelling, very small and light, keep a good length of string with it for stringing up, I have never seen hooks in the ceiling or anything for the purpose of hanging a net in any hotel or boarding house, I have had to resort to tying up to wardrobes or curtain rails, taking pictures down to use the nails or even putting a sweet behind a curtain to tie around, I don’t ever remember getting bitten at night when I have done this, also carry a knockdown spray or plug in, if there is AC or a fan spray into it to distribute through the room, I generally do it when going to dinner that way it’s done its job and settled when I get back
I always carry repellent and have some advice around that, I have used high DEET and skin-so-soft etc etc, they all seem to work, prolonged use of skin-so-soft gives me a rash BUT any time I have used liquid its leaked, roll-ons leaked, pump sprays failed and leaked and they burn through plastic and damage stuff, I had one burn through a cheap version of a sealine bag
Creams seem ok, keep them in zipplock backs (two one inside the other) or I find the wipes even better, you can tear them open and hold the wipe with one half of the packet which stops it getting on your fingers, that stops you transferring to other things like your camera or mouth
Whatever you use get it on after the shower, even in the morning, malaria is not the only nasty, Dengue will get you bad and is carried by mosquitoes that feed during the day, they will bite through denim jeans
Always have your repellent at hand on a flight, put it on before you land, the places I tend to see more mozzies are airports, taxis and lifts for some reason, sitting outside a restaurant at night make sure you have the repellent on and wear long pants and shoes/boots with socks, have shirts with long sleeves, these blighters seem to hang about under tables rather than come right at you from the open, if you are in sandals they are going to feast on you before you even realise
Take the advice of healthcare professionals and take the CORRECT antimalarials they prescribe, sometimes they have side effects, some worse than others, some countries sell anti malarials but they may be counterfeit (as other drugs can be) make sure you go to a good healthcare professional and good pharmacy, take out good health insurance, iSOS offer good services around the world

 

[Jackdaw]

DDT it didn't have much impact on the mozzies.

There is already a very effectice preventable, namely DDT. DDT had a massive impact on mosquitoes and in the prevention of malaria. Unfortunately, lobby environmentalists managed to get politicians to jump on the pseudo-science bandwagon and got the stuff effectively banned based on some very hyped assumptions and some very dodgy science. DDT reduced incidences of malaria in countries such as Sri Lanka where in 1948 there were 2.8 million cases of malaria with just 17 by 1968. When spraying was stopped after the ban the cases went back up to 2.5 million.

The case against DDT was built around a causal link to cancer and diabetes and the effect that DDT was said to have both on numbers of pedatory avian species and on thinning egg shells. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring lays out the green's argument. Unfortunately, the science did not back up the assumptions made, but an effective lobbying effort managed to get the stuff banned anyway, albeit with its usage being allowed as a vector control in houses and on mosquito nets ( and i believe in areas of Africa but can't find a source).

There has since been several studies into the links with DDT and breast cancer such as the study carried out in 1997 and published in the New England Journal of Medicine siting no evidence for a causal link. Another study in America showed that Osprey numbers actually increased during the period that DDT was being used which was mirrored by a study in Britain siting numbers of falcons stopped falling in 1966 whilst DDT was still being used creating yet another anomoly in the argument that DDT was causing the decline.

Finally, the issue of DDT causing the thinning of eggshells in a study written by Cecil Bitmen was a classic case of poor science. Quail eggs were used with the target species being given DDT along with a diet which also included levels of calcium below what is normal for a quail (0.56% of total diet as apposed to 2.7%, an almost 80% reduction in daily intake). This had the very predictable effect of thinning eggshells. When the study was recreated in 1971 by Poultry Science, and when the quail were fed the correct levels of calcium then they found no corelation with DDT and eggshell thinning. The Scott et al (1975) study backed this up.

In 2004, the late Dr Gordon Edwards, Professor Emeritus for Entomology (bugs) at San Jose State University stated: "the ban on DDT, founded on erroneous or fraudulent reports and emposed by one powerful bureaucrat (in this case the UN but started by the Environmental Protection Agency), has caused millions of deaths, whilst sapping the strength and productivity of countless human beings in underdeveloped countries. It is time for an honest appraisal and for the immediate deployment of the best currently available means to control insect bourne deseases. This means DDT."

To give you an idea on the current impact of malaria, in 2010 the World Health Organisation put the annual figures for cases of malaria at 260 million with 665000 deaths each year. The vast majority (86%) being children under 5.

Thankfully, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The WHO, after a review of the science used to back up the assuptions used by green campaigners to get DDT banned in the first place, is finally re-allowing the use of DDT for use in the outside environment but only after 50 years since the publication of Silent Spring and the estimated 50 million deaths attributable caused by malaria in the meantime.

 

[santaman2000]

There is already a very effectice preventable, namely DDT. DDT had a massive impact on mosquitoes and in the prevention of malaria.....

I cain't speak for the rest of the world but as I said we are rife with mosquitos here. But we were just as rife with them back in the 60s also and that's when we WERE using aerial spraying of DDT. It didn't seem to help any against them HERE. It did keep the fire ants at bay though.

 

[santaman2000]

....There has since been several studies into the links with DDT and breast cancer such as the study carried out in 1997 and published in the New England Journal of Medicine siting no evidence for a causal link. Another study in America showed that Osprey numbers actually increased during the period that DDT was being used which was mirrored by a study in Britain siting numbers of falcons stopped falling in 1966 whilst DDT was still being used creating yet another anomoly in the argument that DDT was causing the decline.

Finally, the issue of DDT causing the thinning of eggshells in a study written by Cecil Bitmen was a classic case of poor science. Quail eggs were used with the target species being given DDT along with a diet which also included levels of calcium below what is normal for a quail (0.56% of total diet as apposed to 2.7%, an almost 80% reduction in daily intake). This had the very predictable effect of thinning eggshells. When the study was recreated in 1971 by Poultry Science, and when the quail were fed the correct levels of calcium then they found no corelation with DDT and eggshell thinning. The Scott et al (1975) study backed this up......

I won't dispute the "dodgy" science with you. In fact I tend to agree. One fact I do know (here at any rate) is that since they stopped spraying DDT the quail population has dropped. it's largely put down to decreased habitat as farming practices have changed; more large fields with fewer brushy fence rows for cover. That makes sense and I'm sure it has contributed as has the increase in invasive predeators (namely coyotes) But I'm also convinced that the increase in fire ant population (caused largely by the dicontinuation of DDT use) has also resulted in fewer hatclings surviving.

 

[Hoodoo]

Large quanities of mozzies doesn'r mean malaria in and of itself. We have huge problems with mozzies (always have done) But I don't know of a single case of malaria being contracted in the continental US.

That said, there are loads of other diseases carried by them; both to humans and animals.

Malaria was once a huge problem in the US. The parasite ranged from the east coast to the great plains. In 1901, 1/5th of the population of Staten Island carried the parasite. In the 30s, there were 100,000 cases reported per year in the US. It disappeared mainly because the marshes that bred the mosquitoes disappeared and also the use of DDT in the 40s. We still have cases of malaria in this country but it comes from immigrants who are already infected. Malaria also is not a "permanent" disease but you can contract it more than once.

DDT was also used successfully in Africa and India until a DDT resistant strain of mosquito developed.

Plasmodium itself is a clever little parasite. We didn't figure out how to even culture it in the lab until the 70s so we could study it. In the body, it hides from the immune system and morphs itself very quickly as well. Its reproduction rate can be so explosive that by the time the immune system catches up with it, it has morphed into other forms.

Malaria is one of the greatest scourges of humankind. A couple good reads that cover the malarial parasite as well as others are Parasite Rex by Carl Zimmer and Spineless Wonders by Richard Conniff.

 

[Hoodoo]

I have to amend my post above. After exploring CDC links, evidently there have been small, local reports to the CDC of malaria in the US due to mosquitoes.

 

[santaman2000]

.....Malaria also is not a "permanent" disease but you can contract it more than once.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you go:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recurrent malaria

Malaria recurs after treatment for three reasons. Recrudescence occurs when parasites are not cleared by treatment, whereas reinfection indicates complete clearance with new infection established from a separate infective mosquito bite; both can occur with any malaria parasite species. Relapse is specific to P. vivax and P. ovale and involves re-emergence of blood-stage parasites from latent parasites (hypnozoites) in the liver.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Describing a case of malaria as cured by observing the disappearance of parasites from the bloodstream can, therefore, be deceptive. The longest incubation period reported for a P. vivax infection is 30 years.[SUP][9][/SUP] Approximately one in five of P. vivax malaria cases in temperate areas involve overwintering by hypnozoites, with relapses beginning the year after the mosquito bite.

 

[santaman2000]

I have to amend my post above. After exploring CDC links, evidently there have been small, local reports to the CDC of malaria in the US due to mosquitoes.

As my posts (not the one you quoted) said, I never noticed where the use of DDT resulted in any less mosuitos than we have now. I cain't comment on the stats, but I do know personal experience from the 1960 (when we were spraying the crap out of DDT) and now. Just as many bite then as now.

 

[Hoodoo]

Yup, I'm not disputing that the parasite can linger in some (many) people for long periods of time. But that does not mean that once someone gets it, it's a forgone conclusion that they will have it for life.

 

[santaman2000]

Yup, I'm not disputing that the parasite can linger in some (many) people for long periods of time. But that does not mean that once someone gets it, it's a forgone conclusion that they will have it for life.

Yeah that seems the most logical conclusion; that it's not an automatic life sentence, but it happens. Apparently frequently.

 

[Andy BB]

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring lays out the green's argument. Unfortunately, the science did not back up the assumptions made, but an effective lobbying effort managed to get the stuff banned anyway, albeit with its usage being allowed as a vector control in houses and on mosquito nets ( and i believe in areas of Africa but can't find a source).

There has since been several studies into the links with DDT and breast cancer such as the study carried out in 1997 and published in the New England Journal of Medicine siting no evidence for a causal link. Another study in America showed that Osprey numbers actually increased during the period that DDT was being used which was mirrored by a study in Britain siting numbers of falcons stopped falling in 1966 whilst DDT was still being used creating yet another anomoly in the argument that DDT was causing the decline.

Finally, the issue of DDT causing the thinning of eggshells in a study written by Cecil Bitmen was a classic case of poor science. Quail eggs were used with the target species being given DDT along with a diet which also included levels of calcium below what is normal for a quail (0.56% of total diet as apposed to 2.7%, an almost 80% reduction in daily intake). This had the very predictable effect of thinning eggshells. When the study was recreated in 1971 by Poultry Science, and when the quail were fed the correct levels of calcium then they found no corelation with DDT and eggshell thinning. The Scott et al (1975) study backed this up.

In 2004, the late Dr Gordon Edwards, Professor Emeritus for Entomology (bugs) at San Jose State University stated: "the ban on DDT, founded on erroneous or fraudulent reports and emposed by one powerful bureaucrat (in this case the UN but started by the Environmental Protection Agency), has caused millions of deaths, whilst sapping the strength and productivity of countless human beings in underdeveloped countries. It is time for an honest appraisal and for the immediate deployment of the best currently available means to control insect bourne deseases. This means DDT."

And there you have it. Something that has been lauded as a huge success by the Green movement for decades has - in fact - ended up killing millions of people. "Bad science" and hysterical documentaries again used as the basis for "action" - however naive it all appears in retrospect. Lucky that there's nothing of that sort going on now, isn't it........

 

[Jackdaw]

And there you have it. Something that has been lauded as a huge success by the Green movement for decades has - in fact - ended up killing millions of people. "Bad science" and hysterical documentaries again used as the basis for "action" - however naive it all appears in retrospect. Lucky that there's nothing of that sort going on now, isn't it........

You've just got to look at the base politics of the green movement to see why they pick the fights that they do. Must admit that I was a bit worried about the reception of putting a post up like that. Glad to see people can see through the green hype.

 

[Andy BB]

To be fair, my response might not necessarily be considered typical on here

 

[Toddy]

I think the anti DDT strikes a chord with a lot of people. Most of us fret about using too many chemicals, but our whole modern lifestyle depends on them.
We need a balance in the information we receive, because damned few will ever have access to primary sources.

If nothing else, your post has made folks think

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Harvestman]

I agree with Toddy here. My first reaction to the DDT post was anger and outrage about people talking such rubbish, but then I realised that I had no facts either way; just what i was taught (DDT bad) and the contrary post (DDT good). In fact I know nothing about the subject, and I suspect that is the case for the majority on here.

This forum being the way it is, people don't try to rip your head off (metaphorically) just because you say something controversial. Which is great

I was always taught that the reason DDT was banned was food chain accumulation, affecting apex predators like birds of prey, and also accumulation in fish. Therefore things like ospreys (fish-eating apex predator) were badly affected. I don't know if there is any verification of this though.

 

[Andy BB]

I agree with Toddy here. My first reaction to the DDT post was anger and outrage about people talking such rubbish, but then I realised that I had no facts either way; just what i was taught (DDT bad) and the contrary post (DDT good). In fact I know nothing about the subject, and I suspect that is the case for the majority on here.

This forum being the way it is, people don't try to rip your head off (metaphorically) just because you say something controversial. Which is great

I was always taught that the reason DDT was banned was food chain accumulation, affecting apex predators like birds of prey, and also accumulation in fish. Therefore things like ospreys (fish-eating apex predator) were badly affected. I don't know if there is any verification of this though.

Apparently the exact opposite, according to the evidence quoted above...

Like most of us, I'm no science professor, but I remember enough from my A'levels about scientific method. And whenever I see unsupported scientific "facts" - or even worse, deliberate suppression of scientific evidence and black-balling attempts by other scientists to obtain publication (see UEAgate files) used to push certain agendas - I get suspicious about the motives.

 

[BushrangerCZ]

Hope it´s gonna work, my friend got it last year... had to be evacuated, I thought he´s going to collapse during the worst night.