Tim Lambert over at Deltoid notes Dunk malaria day is coming up this Sunday, and has offered to match donations (up to $300 total) readers make to The Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. Very cool--I'm kicking in a few bucks for a good cause--if you do the same, drop a line at Tim's blog.
Aetiology
Discussing causes, origins, evolution, and implications of disease and other phenomena.
Profile
Tara C. Smith is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology. Her research involves a number of pathogens at the animal-human nexus. She also writes for The Panda's Thumb and previously for WIRED SCIENCE's Correlations. Please note the views expressed on this site are Dr. Smith's alone and may not be representative of the groups mentioned above.
"...a veritable expert on tawdry cosmetic procedures gone horribly awry..."--Kevin Beck
Follow Tara on Twitter
Search
Recent Posts
- Great Plains Emerging Diseases Conference
- Infectious disease epidemiology and zombies
- MRSA in pork products: does the "antibiotic-free" label make a difference?
- Castrating sheep with teeth: not a good idea (with video!)
- Is the HPV vaccine "weak science?" (Hint: no)
- Climate change and public health
- Does bestiality increase your risk of penile cancer?
- MRSA found in Iowa meat
- Another advantage of blogging
- Chickenpox parties--just a Facebook friend away
Recent Comments
- Tabelacı on Rock Stars of Science, part deux: coming to a GQ near you
- Johnny RN/EMT on Administration: overdose antidote not good public health policy
- gingerest on Infectious disease epidemiology and zombies
- Atif (Mr Epidemiology) on Infectious disease epidemiology and zombies
- Eric Lofgren on Infectious disease epidemiology and zombies
- Alyson Kelvin on Infectious disease epidemiology and zombies
- Deborah on Scarlet fever--past and present
- afrika mangosu on MRSA in pork products: does the "antibiotic-free" label make a difference?
- david on Fecal transplants to cure Clostridium difficile infection
- medschneverends on Is the HPV vaccine "weak science?" (Hint: no)
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- April 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- May 2005
Infectious Disease Series
« Epidemiology highlighted in TIME magazine | Main | 30th Skeptics' circle »
Raising malaria awareness
Category: AIDS/HIV • Infectious disease • Malaria • Misc. • Various bacteria
Posted on: March 15, 2006 2:42 PM, by Tara C. Smith
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/2836
-
Dunk Malaria Day from My own small world
Apparently last Sunday was Dunk Malaria day. Obviously I’m late but better late than never, right? Actually below is everything a Biology University of Cambridge A-level student should know about Malaria. Malaria can be caused by a variety of t... Read More
Tracked on March 22, 2006 8:58 AM
Comments
Should we also all write blog-posts about malaria on that day, and add the links to the Fund in each post?
Posted by: coturnix | March 15, 2006 2:48 PM
Can't hurt. I'll actually be on a plane that day, but I'll see if I can get one written up and scheduled.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | March 15, 2006 2:50 PM
Is there a global fund to contribute to the victims of botched drug trials?
That'd certainly be a worthwhile cause, I could stand behind:)
Hank Barnes
Posted by: Hank Barnes | March 15, 2006 3:12 PM
No one is stopping you from sending your cash to them directly Hank, are they? Contact the hospital...send your checque.
Posted by: Dave S. | March 15, 2006 3:29 PM
"Is there a global fund to contribute to the victims of botched drug trials? That'd certainly be a worthwhile cause, I could stand behind:)"
Go for it, man. You could be in on the ground floor. Just don't mention anything regarding denial of Germ Theory.
He, he.
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | March 15, 2006 4:07 PM
Guitar Eddie,
Who denies the germ theory? Are you referring to moi?
Dave S,
Good idea! Maybe I will send a check. Better yet, mebbe I'll have my lawyer go down there and sue the crap outta those negligent a-holes!
But, at least scientifically, that makes 6 more people injured than the stupid bird flu some of you yahoos are jabbering about.
Barnes
Posted by: Hank Barnes | March 15, 2006 4:30 PM
Great ideas Hank. Please do send your checque. Make it a big one, and let us know when you've sent it off. You are to be commended for that. When you do it.
And also, please do fire up the lawyers, although I'm sure they're extremely busy what with releasing all those people who have been wrongfully put in prison for spreading around the completely harmless AIDS virus (and they can't spread it through sex anyhow).
How are those lawsuits going Hank?
Posted by: Dave S. | March 15, 2006 5:00 PM
Make it a big one, and let us know when you've sent it off. You are to be commended for that. When you do it.
Who's us, Kimo Sabe?
And also, please do fire up the lawyers,..
I already have -- see Vioxx lawsuit! $253 million is a lotta sheckels! Lotta SEC lawsuits to follow. I dunno if you know anything about stocks and bonds, but you oughta consider "selling short" some Merck stock.
. although I'm sure they're extremely busy what with releasing all those people who have been wrongfully put in prison for spreading around the completely harmless AIDS virus (and they can't spread it through sex anyhow).
Hmm. Haven't thought of that. As for spread of sex, though, we've already discuss Padian's finding of "no seroconversions." (Padian, pg 354.)
Posted by: Hank Barnes | March 15, 2006 5:33 PM
"Hmm. Haven't thought of that. As for spread of sex, though, we've already discuss Padian's finding of "no seroconversions." (Padian, pg 354.)"
And I think Tara showed that seroconversions were irrelevent, among other things.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | March 15, 2006 5:37 PM
And I think Tara showed that seroconversions were irrelevent, among other things.
Please confess, Eddie: Are you Tara's secret lover or just her overworked/underpaid T.A.?:)
Posted by: Hank Barnes | March 15, 2006 5:44 PM
mebbe I'll have my lawyer go down there and sue the crap outta those negligent a-holes!
I wonder if he'd have to bring his own wig?
"The health watchdog Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said it halted the trial of the drug, intended to treat immunological diseases such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and certain cancers."
I don't see how the death virus conspiracy cult would be automatically responsible for trying to find a cure for MS and rheumatism. Or do you oppose all drug development? Would you refuse all newer treatments for MS/arthritis/cancer because they were developed by means that you believe are unethical?
Posted by: windy | March 15, 2006 5:51 PM
Windy,
These are pretty good questions!
Or do you oppose all drug development?
No, just the drugs that kill or injure the patients.
Would you refuse all newer treatments for MS/arthritis/cancer because they were developed by means that you believe are unethical?
Newer treatments are inherently suspect, in my view. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Every day, we see in the papers some hyped up new drug, promising the moon, but delivering bupkes. Yes, I'm a capitalist, but the pressures to produce new drugs by Big Pharma, is frankly distorting the proud field of science. See Dr. Marcia Angel's book about the drug companies. She spent 20 years at NEJM, and documents all these shenanigans.
So, No, I don't refuse all treatments. But their Phase 1/2 studies should be done ethically, independent of any drug company influence, and interpreted fairly, without prejudice. And if they pass muster, they still should be prescribed cautiously, without all the lies and hype (and deaths).
Hank
p.s. Where is Tara, by the way?
Posted by: Hank Barnes | March 15, 2006 6:07 PM
Hank says:
I find that hard to believe. Surely someone in the AIDS dissenting community has thought of it and there must already be many lawsuits out there to release these innocent men (maybe women too, but I don't know of any).
Where are those lawsuits Hank? Don't you care that these innocent men are rotting in prisons for nothing???
By the way....how many drugs are there out there Hank that don't kill or injure people at least once in a while? Can you list some for us?
Posted by: Dave S. | March 15, 2006 6:20 PM
Surely someone in the AIDS dissenting community has thought of it and there must already be many lawsuits out there ...
Well, I ain't a member of the AIDS dissenting community, (whatever that is), but, Heck, I'd be more than willing to share the Padian paper with anyone!
Where are those lawsuits Hank?
Don't know. Do know about 1 famous lawsuit, where Montagnier sued the crap outta Gallo for stealing the virus, and infringing on the patent for the "HIV test", which remarkably doesn't even detect HIV!
Ugly letter from Luc to Bob right here!
By the way....how many drugs are there out there Hank that don't kill or injure people at least once in a while?
I dunno. How many blondes in Brentwood did O.J. not murder?:)
Posted by: Hank Barnes | March 15, 2006 6:46 PM
Your ducking and weaving has been noted Hank. Trying to distract me with irrelevant links and irreverant comments like Hippomenes distracted Atalanta with the golden apples is not working.
The race is over, and you lose.
Don't forget to send your checque. Unless that was just posturing on your part.
Posted by: Dave S. | March 15, 2006 6:54 PM
Trying to distract me with irrelevant links
Well, they're only irrelevant because you suffer from a severe case of scientific myopia -- that is, where a clueless lab rat, desperately clinging to some palty 30K/year gig, will not depart -- under penalty of severe ostracism -- from whatever prevailing dogma has been inculcated into his feeble, little brain.
Hey, lights years ago, I had high SAT's too -- but also in English:)
Barnes, Hank
Posted by: Hank Barnes | March 15, 2006 7:16 PM
I'll write something for malaria, probably focusing on how it likes to attack the immune system to the point of directly assassinating immune cells that notice it.
Posted by: Joseph O'Donnell | March 15, 2006 8:35 PM
Hank sez-
huh-
Hank also says....
At least this time he's not stating that a study which followed most of its subjects for less than two years is "ten years", or that it's participants "had a lotta sex" when
Ivan
Posted by: Ivan | March 15, 2006 8:40 PM
Or do you oppose all drug development?
-No, just the drugs that kill or injure the patients.
I guess that's the problem, that we don't know beforehand which ones are the good drugs :P
But back to the malaria issue: It's hard to believe that not so long ago, malaria was found here in Northern Europe almost up to the Arctic Circle. IIRC it didn't take so long to get rid of the parasite once quinine became available, because it could only survive over the winters in humans.
Posted by: windy | March 15, 2006 9:07 PM
Windy,
Some folks say that DDT, a pesticide that has fallen out of favor, is the solution to malaria (kills them skeeters). I'm open to that.
In Africa, malaria is a much greater problem than AIDS.
Hank
Posted by: Hank Barnes | March 15, 2006 11:46 PM
"Please confess, Eddie: Are you Tara's secret lover or just her overworked/underpaid T.A.?:)"
Neither. I'm just a old hippie with a great admiration for science and the people who do science. I know that there are millions of people in this world who've become disenchanted with the scientific method because it doesn't help them get in touch with their god, or because it never seems to give simple answers to question about the material universe. They are angry because science hasn't done them any philosphical favors. But it's the best we've got if you're takling about understanding nature and making our lives a little easier.
I have a dog in this race, man. I've been an asthmatic since age 3. And 10 years ago, I suffered a very serious episode of clinical depression. Advances in medications have literally saved my life. Were it not for these advances, I would've been dead in 1969. Instead, I just ended up in the hospital after a near fatal asthma attack and merely missed Woodstock.
Hence, if I seem unduly defferential towards Tara, it because I've experienced first hand the ways my life has improved due to the work people like her do. The simple truth is she knows what she's talking about while you and Mr. Bialy merely mine scientific literature to advance your socio-political agenda.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | March 16, 2006 7:20 AM
Barnes, Hank says:
No...they're irrelevant because they have nothing to do whatsoever with what I just wrote.
And wrongo Hank, departing from the "prevailing dogma" is where it's at in science. That's where Nobel prizes come from. The arguments that depart the most must be criticized the most. That's when you're supposed to stay the course and provide evidence for your side.
But unfortunately for you and others of your ilk, departing by using ill reasoned and deceptive argumentation, with no evidentiary support for your competing model, doesn't cut it. Real scientists don't simply whine about the other side Hank, they get off their asses and prove their case with evidence.
I could not care less what your SAT scores were Hank. I never took the test myself. I figured that since I wasn't going to get anything from you other than evasion, that I'd toss in a reference to the classics just to spice things up.
Posted by: Dave S. | March 16, 2006 8:41 AM
No, just the drugs that kill or injure the patients.
Which is why we test the drugs. On paid volunteers (£1,100 (about $2,000) a volunteer in this case). We don't know all the side effects before they happen - therefore we test them and sometimes something goes wrong. That's the purpose of testing and we don't have any other effective method of working this out.
(Of course it didn't help that one of the safety procedures was ignored in this case).
Posted by: Francis | March 16, 2006 10:04 AM
Thanks for the link and the donation!
Posted by: Tim Lambert | March 16, 2006 10:15 AM
Having spent a year in the African bush, I'm interested in malaria research. When I was in Tanzania in 94-5, the drug of choice was Larium. At the time I remember reading about a Chinese medicinal herb that showed promise against drug resistant strains of P. falciparum. It turns out that the herb became the basis for the drug artemisinin (sp?) - which has since become the treatment of choice.
Larium was nasty stuff. I ran into researchers who took it and became almost as sick as they would have gotten with malaria. I took chloroquine and tried not to get bit.
From what I've read, artemisinin has fewer side effects. Unfortunately, it's a $$$ issue.
My feeling is that malaria is beatable if you do the following:
1. Resume DDT spraying. DDT was the most effective pesticide ever used against mosquitos in Africa.
2. Support insecticidal bed netting programs. Everyone should be able to sleep under a net. They cost roughly $8/each and last a very long time.
3. Flood Africa with artemisinin/primaquine. The drug combo runs $1.35 per person, vs $.35 for chloroquine, and is much more effective.
Posted by: Scott Kirwin | March 16, 2006 10:16 AM
I agree with #2 and am not familiar enough with the ins and outs of the combo drugs to comment, but I disagree with your point #1. Despite the ban, DDT continued to be used in several areas in Africa, and many mosquitoes are now resistant to DDT (which is a main reason many places switched to other pesticides--DDT simply wasn't working any more. This is also a problem with some insecticide-coated bedding: it acts as a physical barrier, but the chemicals become less helpful over time). Other pesticides, though, have shown efficiency, especially when sprayed inside houses around sleeping areas. Unfortunately, just as many can't afford bed nets, they can't afford that kind of treatment either.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | March 16, 2006 10:33 AM
The new drug comes from sweet wormwood, Artemisia annua. I was surprised to hear it because I even had it in my garden. Unfortunately it probably can't be grown locally in Africa, only in temperate regions.
If artemisin takes off, perhaps absinthe will replace gin and tonic as 'the drink tourists think prevents malaria'?
Posted by: windy | March 16, 2006 10:59 AM
There is a concern that inconsistent use of artemisinin based treatments will lead to resistance to this new class of drugs. We'll then be back to square one.
The use of combo drugs is important in malaria for exactly the same reasons as for HIV cocktails. As Scott points out money is the limiting factor.
Posted by: Chris Noble | March 17, 2006 2:43 AM
Will we now have to start another global fund for the victims of the abortion pill?
Posted by: Hank Barnes | March 17, 2006 1:57 PM
I live at 55808 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?
Posted by: Mike Flacklestein | August 18, 2006 11:38 PM