Talk:Malaria/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

comma needed

there is a comma needed in this sentence:Although co-infection with HIV and malaria does cause increased mortality, this is less of a problem than with HIV/tuberculosis co-infection, due to the two diseases usually attacking different age-ranges, with malaria being most common in the young and active ( comma needed here) tuberculosis most common in the old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.11.4.144 (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Who said that falciparum will not infect the liver?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.12.143 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

---

A MORE PRECISE MALARIA MAP FROM WHO (World Health Organization) http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_Malaria_ITHRiskMap.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csunsay (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Malaria In Europe???

please change that false maps, they are totally wrong, it's showed malaria in spain, france, italt, greece, and also in turkey, it's FALSE INFORMATION! Who did it is mad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.210.157 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. There is no malaria in Turkey. I know for sure. Ask at least millions of Europeans visiting Turkey. This map is inaccurate and ought to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csunsay (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Imported cases are fairly frequent in Europe, but transmission also occurs, but rarely. See PMID 11737834 and PMID 17953101 for some cases. However, as per PMID 2699278 I don't think these areas should really be counted and they are coloured green on the map, which as the key shows, indicates no endemic malaria. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

---This is a false information, in the map is written "distribution of Malaria", in Europe there isn't Malaria, if i'm French and i go on travel in Congo and become sick of yellow fever, when i come back at home, this is not mean that in my country there is the presence of that illness!!!! the map show also only some areas of europe, south france, south italy, it's totally false, it's a terroristic information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daygum (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

On the map (here) the yellow areas have malaria, the green ones do not. On the map (here) the same non-endemic areas are colored grey. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

i have read some comments of people worried to come in Europe, after they watched that map!!! it's really absurd! comment added by Daygum (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Which map (map 1) or (map 2)? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

the comment was in this map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malaria_distribution.jpg , but i think that someone has erased the comment added by Daygum (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That map is used in the article on sickle cell disease, not this article. I'd guess it shows the historical distribution, rather than the modern-day distribution. I'll leave a note on that article's talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sickle Cell Anemia

The section explaining this has too much specialized language for me. Can this be explained more? I somehow got the idea that people with the sickle cell genetic trait as a recessive gene could still function mostly normally, but had a high resistance to the disease. Is this true? Jokem (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that response explained nothing... Jokem (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he was responding, just advertising something no one is buying. The short version answer to your question is that the sickle-cell trait isn't "dominant and recessive" but a a blend of the two genes. If gene A (normal hemoglobin) gives normal blood function, and gene B (sickle-cell) gives protection against malaria, those with AA have no protection against malaria and those with BB have abnormal blood function, but those with AB get "the best of both worlds." SDY (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.213.4 (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, this is what I thought the answer was. The 'Dominant' and 'Recessive' terms are probably a nit, but thanks. What I understand the way it works is, the two different genes, together, give an 'abnormal' blood chemistry mechanism which is not

a health risk, but works in a way which malaria cannot thrive. Jokem (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Malaria as a cause of poverty?

Malaria certainly contributes to trapping people in poverty, but poverty is a result of complex social systems, not disease processes. I've removed the "...is a cause of poverty" in the first paragraph. Glacialfury (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Malaria is a crippling disease that prevents people from working. No work, no money, poverty. I've restored the claim and cited it, though I'm surprised it was actually challenged. SDY (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the original removal. Citing malaria as a cause of poverty is a politically loaded statement and against Wiki neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti dan (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The World Health Organization explicitly agrees with the statement, and I think they're pretty authoritative. WP:NPOV does not mean "no point of view" and if there is a consensus out in the real world that "takes sides," it's acceptable to have that reflected in the article. If you can identify reliable sources that show that there is some actual disagreement, they should be added in proportion to their WP:WEIGHT. SDY (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Of the citations in this article related to this issue most, if not all acknowledge that the causal relationship is somewhat contentious. While it seems "obvious" that malaria could cause poverty, many if not all of the countries with high malaria also exhibit high levels of internal strife and warfare. I'm uncomfortable with the statement as is. Anti dan (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

They probably also have hign levels of all sorts of other things too. How about just attributing the statement to the World Health Organization in the meantime then for wp:v ? From our perspective WHO is surely a reliable source on this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there are other factors at work, and no one is claiming that it is the cause of poverty, just a cause of poverty. The World Bank uses the phrase that malaria impairs economic growth and while it doesn't make the explicit link, it would be a stretch to say that they disagree. The Millennium Development Goals explicitly include malaria (among other diseases) as part of actions taken to combat poverty. I'm concerned that people are getting lost in the semantics of "cause of poverty" meaning "this is the only reason they're poor" (poverty is almost never a problem with a single cause). Perhaps the article could be changed to contributes to poverty" rather than "cause of poverty so that people don't get lost in the semantics, but saying that anyone "claims" this is the case makes it sound like there's doubt, and there's about as much doubt in this as there is in evolution or the earth being round. SDY (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"contributes to poverty", good idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty uncontentious statement in the field. The most authoritative source I can find on is is a review in Nature entitled "The economic and social burden of malaria" (PMID 1183295} Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Prevention to include

Another method of preventing malaria is infecting the parasistes with a certain common disease also sometimes found in Fruit flies. Can't remember name of disease dough, look up and add to article.

Thanks, 81.246.154.35 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it mosquito control through male-killing bacteria that you're thinking of? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

mispelling

under the life cyle of the diesase, after the two phases, in one paragraph it says: "once in the live,..." and i think it should say:"Once in the liver,..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00:24, 11 January 2009 (talk • contribs) FireAndYce

Yes, it should. Now fixed, thank you. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

This page is could be fixed if it wasn't protected!

Somebody should add results of Australian research that suggests Asprin could possibly make things worse for patients.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.231.88 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section in Antimalarial_drug#Contra-indicated_drugs. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unclear Date

"A year later, Carlos Finlay, a Cuban doctor treating patients with yellow fever in Havana, provided strong evidence that mosquitoes were transmitting disease to and from humans." A year after what? It is not clear when this was; it seems to potentially indicate either 1881 or 1908. Can some one who knows the answer indicate this date? It would be greatly appreciated. CrussianObadagus (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

See Carlos Finlay : He was the first to theorize, in 1881, that a mosquito was a carrier, now known as a disease vector, of the organism causing yellow fever: a mosquito that bites a victim of the disease could then bite a healthy person and spread the disease. A year later Finlay identified a mosquito of the genus Aedes as the organism transmitting yellow fever. His theory was followed by the recommendation to control the mosquito population as a way to control the spread of the disease. Ernst Hempelmann (talk) 11 March 2009.

Cut the slam on homeopathy

"Of interesting historical note is the observation by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century that over-dosing of quinine leads to a symptomatic state very similar to that of malaria itself. This lead [sic] Hahnemann to develop the Law of Similars, and the subsequent pseudo-medical system of Homeopathy."

The term "pseudo-medical" is incorrect, prejudicial, unnecessarily inflammatory and just plain ignorant.

An article on malaria in Wikipedia is not the place to start a war over the validity of homeopathy. The stupidity of such a remark makes the rest of the article suspect. Homeopathy is a form of legal medical treatment the world over. If it was fake, fraud or "pseudo" it would not be on the shelves, sold in stores, taught in medical schools and used by a growing number of MD's, because it would have been stopped by the same authorities that so rigorously protect the public against consumer and health fraud. If you wish to argue with this and show your ignorance of the subject, take it up somewhere else. To imply that it is fraudulent is derogatory to the many professionals who have studied and devoted their lives to it, and it is just as derogatory to those who have claimed that it helped them.

The remedies used in homeopathic medicine are regulated in the U.S. by the FDA under HPUS guidelines, some of which are administered by prescription only. If you got a gripe with homeopathy, take it up with the FDA or the courts, but until you have the legal support to call it "pseudo," drop the defamation of it here or be prepared to list and confront all the links to online studies and the workers who made them from Harvard, Penn State, Stanford, the University of Arizona and many more reporting in peer reviewed journals on the positive physical, biological, biochemical and clinical evidence that supports the use of it to treat humans, animals and even plants.

It can be clearly seen in a review of the literature that if a homeopathic remedy is a placebo, it is a darn good one. See Witt, for example, "Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients." Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Baur R, Willich SN. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, D-10098 Berlin, Germany http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16266440 . This is just one study of many that support every word that has been written here.

Simply change the statement to read "This led Hahnemann to develop the Law of Similars and the system of Homeopathy" and all will be well regarding homeopathy in the Wikipedia article on malaria.

John Benneth (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

hello john. you seem to misunderstand some things. wikipedia doesn't call anything pseudo-this-or-that. everything should be verifiable i.e. comply with wp:v and come from reliable sources. it's those reliable sources that make the statements that wikipedia cites. if you find an unsupported statement that does not comply with wp:v you are allowed and even encouraged to remove it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Done (though I've described homeopathy as "alternative medicine"). In future, please feel free to be bold and make the change yourself. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 08:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We could probably just say "homeopathy." No need to get into how it's classified here, we have a whole article on it that gets into the nuances. SDY (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

True. It just felt like it needed an extra word or two. --PLUMBAGO 18:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Links and this article

This article has a lot of external links. I'd like to cut them back drastically to one link for WHO's site on the disease and a couple examples of major ventures to intervene, such as MMV. Many of these links are blogs and other sites that are dubious under WP:ELNO. SDY (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Malaria in temperate climates

Malaria was until recently still common in parts in the Netherlands too (temperate climate). The mosquito was Anopheles antroparvus and was endemic in northern holland and zeeland. a expedition army of the english btw also got the disease when they disembarked at the island of Walcheren in holland (in 1809). 4000 soldiers were killed of 10000 infected. Please introduce section on temperate climate malaria (btw malaria was also common in parts in italy, ...)

This might be better addressed in the History of malaria article, and it is touched on there. The CDC in the US just published a surveillance report on malaria in the US. I think it's pretty much ignored in this article because of WP:UNDUE-it isn't a big deal (now) in the places mentioned, but it is a catastrophe in so many other parts of the world. SDY (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Malaria map

Perhaps the malaria map may be updated with new data (new malaria map). The new map is from the Malaria Atlas Project and can be gotten from http://www.map.ox.ac.uk/data/ This map is superior as it marks all regions and distincts in regions which are partly infected and completely. This gives a better starting point for international organisations to show them where they should start their projects (which are partly infected regions)

ya mum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.131.209 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

P. knowlesi

"Plasmodium knowlesi" can be intralinked.--Tossh_eng (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Artemisia annua

144.32.126.11 (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Reference 89 quotes the research project at the University of York as "predicting yield increases of up to 1000%". This is not the case. Could this sentence be changed to "Research at the University of York is using the latest genetic techniques to accelerate traditional plant breeding and create new, non GM varieties of Artemisia annua with increased artemisinin yields."

I just deleted it, on a global scale that isn't a particularly important factoid. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

mass drug administration

can you kindly link the malaria page to mass drug administration? It may be appropriate to add a paragraph/link to the antimalarial treatment/drugs and/or to antimalarial prophylaxis? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseidlein (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 June 2009

dont know how to use this but there has been a recent study into preventing malaria by improving the immune system of Mosquitos, which already stop 99% of the parasite, if we could release a mosquito with a 100% immunity to re-populate. it is possible we could beat it

Possibly a "Host Response" section could be added.

i think that the article needs a section that clearly outlines the bodies response. possibly it could be called "Host Response" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.119.235 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Requires human host?

In the section, "Mosquito vectors and the Plasmodium life cycle", it is not made clear whether the Plasmodium species that infect humans, in fact require infection of humans in order to complete their life cycles, or whether other mammals or birds are also important hosts for these species. --71.162.90.31 (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Prophylactic drugs may encourage the development of partial immunity.

"The use of prophylactic drugs where malaria-bearing mosquitoes are present may encourage the development of partial immunity.[54]"

It is not clear from this phrase and its context within the article whether the humans can develop partial immunity to the plasmodium or if the plasmodium can develop partial immunity to the prophylactic drugs. If someone has access to the original source (or to a different source), please confirm and rephrase. --nunocordeiro (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bite?

There is continual reference to being bitten by mosquitos throughout the article. Do not mosquitos not sting their prey? GoufR (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No they stick a thin mouthpiece like a tiny hypodermic needle into you and suck out a few microlitres of your blood. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sting" usually means that they do it to cause pain and drive you off. "Bite" implies they're feeding, which is what they're doing. The less you feel it, the better. SDY (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, great stuff. Thanks. Oh well, asking is learning :) GoufR (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mosquito symbiosis / biological 'warfare'

Taking a quick look at the symptoms, it strikes me that hemolysis may directly benefit the mosquito upon the next feeding, or the next-feeding mosquitos, and the fever and altered odor of the infected individual will make them that much easier to locate and attack. I suspect there is way more co-evolution connection here than in most diseases that are merely transmitted along by a parasite. Has anyone done any research into this connection that can be added to the article?Zaphraud (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Treatment

Baird JK (2009). "Resistance to therapies for infection by Plasmodium vivax". Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 22 (3): 508–34. The gravity of the threat posed by vivax malaria to public health has been poorly appreciated. The widely held misperception of Plasmodium vivax as being relatively infrequent, benign, and easily treated explains its nearly complete neglect across the range of biological and clinical research. Recent evidence suggests a far higher and more-severe disease burden imposed by increasingly drug-resistant parasites. The two frontline therapies against vivax malaria, chloroquine and primaquine, may be failing. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

PMID 19597012. doi 10.1128/CMR.00008-09

24.60.190.107 (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure but we just describe the usual methods here for malaria treatment albeit the fact that there are new strategies out there to combat the illness once an individual is infected. I therefore included an interesting new piece of research out of Hamburg Germany that uses a clever approach via synthetic pyridoxyl-amino acid adducts. What we currently have on this page does not reflect the ongoing research to find new malaria drugs. This is very much needed since Plasmodium strains can develop resistance very quickly particularly in monotherapies. I mean you included a paragraph about herbal teas, which is just not recommended by physicians who treat malaria. To the contrary, treatment with low level artemisinin regimens (such as in herbal teas) just support the development of drug-resistant strains. Herbal teas are not the drug of choice for severe illnesses. And I just don't believe medicine-sans-frontiere is supporting herbal teas against severe malaria (by the way, I love herbal teas and they help me a lot against my cold).Osterluzei (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Have created a section on research. Please remember to use review articles perWP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 23:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much Doc James. Yes, I did not know where to place my entry. And to create a new section "Research" seems excellent so that other contributors could add to it. I was just looking at other language entries for malaria on wikipedia (such as in German) and have seen research sections there as well. I am so grateful that you placed my expansion correctly. (Osterluzei (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

By the way, I needed to correct the spelling of "artenusate"; it is correctly "artesunate" for the water-soluble artemisinin, which is used particularly for parenteral dosage forms. I am still critical with regard to A.annua herbal teas, again because such applications do not supply consistent amounts of bioavailable artemisinin and could increase the chance that Plasmodium parasites will become resistant to it. I am not questioning that such herbal teas have some effect but the goal should be to supply effective drug treatment to those who need it. The artemisinins (with the exception of artelinic acid with a phenylacetic acid moiety) is somewhat challenging to assay with chromatographic methods because it does not have a chromophore that would allow for UV detection. So there are some purely technical challenges to analyze these constituents with conventional HPLC methods, particularly in plant material. It would be anyhow a great advantage to produce artemisinin with biotechnological methods, or to come up with synthetic analogs that have a similar mode of action (OZ-277 has disappointed though). As with other natural products that are discovered quasi at random from a library (including from ethnobotanical sources) and have not been designed with a specific mechanism in mind, we often don't know how they work. I mean, it is something that we cannot really discuss here and would involve a more focused and structured academic approach. There too, we see the limitations of what we can do here on wikipedia. I came to the conclusion personally, that I should rather focus my energy on activities that are not encyclopedic and seek new frontiers in academic research labs, and peer-reviewed publications. Osterluzei (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Although many are under development, the challenge of producing a widely available vaccine that provides a high level...

Before; "Although many are under development, the challenge of producing a widely available vaccine that provides a high level of protection for a sustained period is still to met[8]"

The grammar in this sentence needs to be sorted out:

After; "Although many vaccines are under development, the challenge of producing a widely available vaccine that provides a high level of protection for a sustained period is still to be met[8]."

The above sentence makes the sentence easier to understand and fixes the grammar.

Please can someone edit this into the page as I do not have a WikiPedia account and have no time to make one, Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by217.43.246.105 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetic resistance to malaria

The malaria article is already at the upper limit of length and I would suggest the bulk of the genetic resistance material in Malaria go into the new Genetic resistance to malaria page. I think this subject deserves a page on its own: it is a biological subject of fundamental importance with common elements that nevertheless cross a number of fields. The mechanisms by which sickle cell disease and thalassaemia (to include just two examples from many) protect against malaria have been subject to investigation for several decades and remain unclear in several key aspects. A summary can be provided on the malaria page Scientist2 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but that genetic resistance article is in a terrible shape at the moment.Tim Vickers (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem then that the best thing to do is try to take the relevant content of the themes covered in this section of the malaria article and move them into the genetic page, ensuring the article is referenced in the process. That will take some committed effort... Scientist2 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do have some good sub-articles to serve as a model, User:Hempelmann has created both Hemozoin‎ and History of malaria, which are well-formatted and referenced. I'll certainly try to help, but am a bit swamped with the various influenza articles at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Started to write the sub-article on Genetic resistance to malaria, if you can add more informations, please do. Hempelmann (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Error on syphilis section

I was reading the syphilis section of the malaria page, and it didn't make sense, then I realized it should have said, "kill the syphilis spirochetes" instead of "kill the malaria spirochetes. Can someone fix this? I am a new user and don't have access to make changes yet. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Saprus (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

done. thanks Sean.hoyland - talk10:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

About Plasmodium falciparum...

Isn't it a tropica? at least that's what my biology book says. —Preceding unsigned comment added byCalvin Limuel (talk •contribs) 21:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of DDT, oil, draining breeding areas

There is no balance or mention of the biological implications of draining or poisoning wetlands, and the effects upon the plethora of species which inhabit these areas, not to mention upon humans who rely on clean drinking water and a functioning, clean ecosystem. —Precedingunsigned comment added by128.12.130.158 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapid testing

The paragraph "Rapid antigen tests" seems to be a commercial for a product manufactured by TCS Biosciences. ----

Have removed the names and left 'commercial tests are available ...'Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Rapid antigen tests" and "Field tests" are basically addressing the same subject (immuno-dipsticks for field use) so I'm going to put them together as "Antigen tests" if that's all right? The wording in the "Rapid antigen tests" section is really vague and IMHO kind of useless. Xenobiologista (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

malaria

how fast does malaria spread in a child's body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by64.135.201.179 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

CDC FAQ page has moved

{{editsemiprotected}} Footnote #87 points to "If I get malaria, will I have it for the rest of my life?" at a CDC FAQ page. This page's URL has moved to http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.htmlMattsbrown82 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Algebraist 15:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pathogenesis: liver period

Where is the citation for the time period " the sporozoites infect hepatocytes, multiplying asexually and asymptomatically for a period of 6–15 days."?Shatimmei (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the url for the ref to point at the full text and amended the period based on the source. Sean.hoyland - talk17:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to Malaria Journal?

This[2] mentions in passing that the successful open access (and Creative Commons-licensed) journal, Malaria Journal, has no Wikipedia page, but would benefit from one. Meanwhile, Malaria Journal probably merits being an External link for the main Malaria wikipedia article, I'd have thought - as a good open source of peer reviewed research relating to malaria. (Disclaimer: I am affiliated with the journal's publisher) —Precedingunsigned comment added by62.189.56.2 (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article

A sampling of publications addressing malaria and wars includes:

• Cantlie, N. (1950). "Health Discipline". U.S. Armed Forces Medical Journal. 1: 232–287.
• Fairley, N. H. (1946). "Researches on Paludrine (M. 4888)". Malaria. Tr. Roy. Soc. Trop. Med. & Hyg. 40 (2): 105–161.
• Hardenbergh, William A. (1955). "Control of Insects". In Medical Department, United States Army. Preventive Medicine in World War II. Volume II. Environmental Hygiene. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 179–232.
• Macculloch, John (1829). "Malaria; an Essay on the Production and Propagation of This Poison and on the Nature and Localities of the Places by Which It Is Produced: With an Enumeration of the Diseases caused by It, and of the Means of Preventing or Diminishing Them, Both at Home and in the Naval and Military Service". Philadelphia: Thomas Kite.
• MacDonald, A. G. (1928). "Prevention of Malaria." In History of the Great War Based on Official Documents. Medical Services, Hygiene of the War, edited by W. G. Macpherson, W. H, Horrocks, and W. W. 0. Beveridge. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, Vol. II, pp. 189–238.
• Medical Department, United States Army, Office Of Medical History (1963). "Communicable Diseases: Malaria". Preventive Medicine in World War II. Volume 5. Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General. URL:http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/Malaria/chapterI.htm.
• Melville, C. H. (1910). "The Prevention of Malaria in War". In The Prevention of Malaria by Ronald Ross. 2d edition. London: John Murray, pp. 577–599.
• Most, Harry (1963). "Clinical Trials of Antimalarial Drugs". In Medical Department, United States Army. Internal Medicine in World War II. Volume II. Infectious Diseases. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Pringle, John (1910). Observations on the Diseases of the Army. 4th edition. London: A. Millar.
• Russell, P. P. (1946). "Lessons in Malariology from World War II". American Journal of Tropical Medicine. 26: 5–13.

Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 10:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Map

The map (Malaria geographic distribution 2003.png) in this article is wrong, French Guiana is yellow, but mainland France is not. It should probably be replaced by a newer map anyway. Bgagaga (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean. How is it wrong ? Malaria is endemic in French Guiana and it isn't endemic in France (see[3] and here. Sean.hoyland - talk06:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

French Guiana is just as much part of France as Île-de-France, so the whole France should be yellow. The article says "Countries in green are free of indigenous cases of malaria in all areas.", and the legend in the picture says (for yellow) "In most of these countries, malaria risk is limited to certain areas.", so it both should and can be yellow. Bgagaga (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well that isn't how the reliable sources do it so it isn't how we do it. Sean.hoyland - talk08:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I question their reliability if they don't consider French Guiana a part of France.Bgagaga (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a map of the geographical distribution binned at the level of what theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention call a "country". You are right though about the map probably needing updating. There are numerous mismatchs with the source. You can challenge the reliability of the CDC at WP:RSN. :) Sean.hoyland - talk08:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Plasmodium knowlesi

It should be included in the article here. It is abundant in human and the main plasmodium and cause for malaria in some areas. It threatens tourist areas, too, f.e. by intra-indonesian work migrants. This way it is of interest for all readers about malaria. Horst Emscher (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

source 100

Nobody ever checks footnotes, and the few who do usually only bother verifying that the source was written by someone who seems important and says the same thing.

An assertion that the Chinese have written records of malaria-like symptoms from 2700 b.c. should ideally be referenced by a link to a copy of those records. Failing that, it should at least link to something about those records.

Instead the assertion links to a medical research article about a different disease which includes the assertion as a vague, passing reference. The medical article itself provides no citations for the assertion, so it's a dead end, unless you believe medical researchers know about Chinese archaeology and can be trusted to have seen those texts themselves.

Wikipedia is full of these bogus sourcings. If you can find it on the internet, wikipedia will accept it as a source.75.170.66.230 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SOFIXIT. Sean.hoyland - talk02:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio

Article: [4] Malaria may also explain part of Africa's lagging demographic transition. A 2007 study found that child mortality (as proxied by infant mortality) was by far the most important factor for explaining total fertility rates.

Source:[5]Africa's Lagging Demographic Transition .... Results show that child mortality (proxied by infant mortality) is by far the most important factor among those explaining aggregate total fertility rates, followed by farm productivity.

Mathsci (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The text is already somewhat paraphrased and changed (certainly not a direct copy) but I can change it more if you like.Miradre (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a paraphrase at all. You use the same sentence structure and wording, omitting a few words. Please work out an alternative version using your own words. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I changed many words and also the structure in response. But I can change it even more if you prefer.Miradre (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Do the mosquitoes "get sick" too?

Are the mosquitoes in any way hurt by hosting the malaria? Does it kill them too? Or is it even beneficial to them maybe? Please add! --77.189.64.130 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A very good question. It is difficult to assess the effect on the mosquitoes. Even in endemic areas only 1-2% of them carry these parasites normally. The mortality for mosquitoes is considerable with relatively few of them surviving over a week. In theory it would be possible to measure this effect with by releasing a number of malaria infected mosquitoes and then estimating their survival with a capture-recapture method (or something similar) and comparing this with uninfected controls. The ethics of releasing large numbers of malaria infected mosquitoes seem a bit dubious to most of us so I don't think this experiment will ever be done. It is possible to test the effect of infection in laboratory models but how realistic this is is debatable.

The general consensus is that malaria infection is highly unlikely to be helpful to the mosquito. This is based upon several factors. The first that that parasites rarely if ever enhance the survival of their hosts. The second is the fact that the mosquito generates an immune response to being infected - the brown bodies first seen by Ross. Chronic infection tends to decrease survival in any animal or plant that it has been examined in. Thirdly the sporozoites tend to block the mosquitoes mouth parts making it more difficult for it to feed. This tends to lead to multiple inoculations by the infected mosquito as it tries to feed and an increased mortality for the mosquito as the host detects it and tries to kill it. This blockage does have the advantage to the parasite of increasing the chance of the mosquito biting more than one host as its feeding may be interrupted. So overall we are pretty sure that infection of the mosquito isnt good for it but at the moment we are unable to quantify this accurately.DrMicro (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

guillain barre following malariaé

I got malaria, (malarie type) on the begginning of May 2011 in Angola. I started drugs on monday; thursday, friday anda monday I got big headaches. Doctors give me drugs to stop it, and send mr to Neurology. After several medical exxaminations the conclusion ws some problems on my neck. On june I travel to Portugal and I went to the doctor that told that I got Guillain Barré. I made the tests and it was confirmed as the malaria was still on. This is not commom; I was told. After 3 monthes I ´m still dealing with guillain barré. — Precedingunsigned comment added by87.103.57.107 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Future rewrites, and generation of more changes

I want to get this article back to good status (or even FA?). I have read the comments here and done some minor editing, and have come to a conclusion that the length just needs to be cut. I see similar proposals above for certain sections, and I will try to respect the decisions of those authors as well as preserve the content (i.e. move it to new articles, and make those articles decent, when necessary). I don't want to just cut content for the sake of cutting content, so the creation of new articles will be of high priority. I am merely posting all of these for suggestions and comments. Micah Manary (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that diagnosis of malaria, malaria history, prevention of malaria and malaria in society and culture all deserve their own articles (though society and culture is very tentative, and I mostly do not want to lose the content about malaria and war that another author is very passionate about). They are all taking a lot of space with detailed arguments and are not suitable for a general article on malaria. I will rewrite those sections to be summaries of their respective articles, as I have done for diagnosis already (though this needs to be expanded). Micah Manary(talk) 19:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Since the mid-2000s"

I'm not sure what "since the mid-2000s" means. We haven't yet arrived there. The mid-1900s are the decade of the 1950s. The mis-18th century is approximately 1750-1760.

"...variety of antimalarial medications are available. Severe malaria is treated with intravenous or intramuscular quinine or, since the mid-2000s, the artemisinin derivative artesunate..." — Precedingunsigned comment added by ObadiahKatz(talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I had just changed a weird time reference "in teh past 5 years), to a more general one, but help phrasing would be good. Also, if anyone has the source, the actual year would be good. Since I didn't have anything except that vague reference, I kept it vague, and obviously I intended for it to mean the middle or 2000-2010 (similar to mid 1950s means around 1955). Edit (signed it). Micah Manary (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Path/GlaxoSmithKline Vaccine

The new results from PATH and GSK are impressive and need to be in the introduction. The sources are highly reliable. --Zeamays (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Experimental results do not belong in the lead. At most, it belongs in the research section, where I have moved it. Let's see what others think, but a NEJM article might be enough notability for a mention in the research section. Yobol (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Yobol. Exciting yes. Looking forwards to the final publication and proper reviews by the WHO etc... Doc James (talk · contribs· email) 21:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it deserves being in the lead, but will defer for now. Doc James requires a standard that will excessively delay significant new research from Wikipedia. I certainly differ with that when it comes to references from reliable sources, which I have supplied. I note that the article also has a Prevention:Vaccinationsubsection, which is entirely research. Maybe the article needs additional rational reorganization. --Zeamays (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Medical articles are held to a very high standard when it comes to reliable sources. Phase 3 trials are primary sources: new research, not interpreted by a reliable secondary source. The Washington Post has no standing in medical articles: mainstream coverage of medical topics is unrepentant garbage that tries to sell any event as major in order to sell the wonderbread. The concept of a vaccine for malaria isn't new, and one encouraging study does not mean that widespread vaccination campaigns are imminent. 50% protection is also pretty weak for a vaccine, even with 100% vaccination rates you'd still see a lot of cases (i.e. no herd immunity, noeradication campaign based on vaccination, etc...). It's way too early to start trumpeting this as a major breakthrough. It's a step in the right direction, certainly, and another tool in the fight, but not a defining moment in the history of malaria. SDY (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia project not the news one. Wikinews gets featured on the main page of Wikipedia and this vaccine with a properly piece at Wikinews could make it their. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. That's SDY and Do James personal interpretation of Phase 3, and in this case there has been a peer-reviewed pub in a very reliable journal, New England Journal of Medicine, one of those listed in the link cited by SDY. Their personal standard is impractical and certainly not in agreement with Wikipedia standards. I never used the exaggerated, prejudicial language like, "defining moment", or "to sell wonderbread" and "unrepentant garbage" which are demeaning phrases. Those are SDY's exact words. I also note that SDY wants to introduce his personal judgment and knowledge regarding vaccine efficacy, herd immunity and vaccination campaigns (seeWikipedia:Original research to see why this is wrong.) Use of this inappropriate language indicates a strong prejudice that may prevent SDY from seeing the merits of including this information. In my final edit, WaPo was referenced only regarding the sources of support for the research team and the costs of this research, material for which WaPo is technically qualified to report. Wikipedia includes much material that is in the breaking new category, and rightfully so. As a living encyclopedia, the Wiki manifestation is subject to constant re-writing, a never-ending way to get closer and closer to the end result. I stand by my edit version. Two editors are not a consensus. Read WP:Consensus,"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus." In this case a larger community has never seen this discussion, which has taken place over a very short period of time, roughly 6 hours, and in any case my rebuttal was being written when this proposed consensus was uploaded. --Zeamays (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And the WP:Consensus is against your version. You probably should reviewWP:MEDRS again. Yobol (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I took the time to re-read WP:MEDRS and WP:Consensus this evening, but fail to see your position vindicated. I also quoted from WP:Consensus. Maybe Yobol need a refresher? --Zeamays (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to disagree, and follow the other avenues in thedispute resolution process if you have further concerns. It is clear to me that preliminary studies do not belong the lead of the article, and do not plan to beat my head up against this wall any further. Yobol (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yobol1, apparently you missed my earlier, clearly-written statement that I would not push the point about the vaccine work being in the lead,"I think it deserves being in the lead, but will defer for now." My defense is to keep it in the article under the Research heading. --Zeamays (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We do have an article section on vaccines, too, which is probably a better location for this information. As for WP:MEDRS, It's not about the the source, it's about the type of content (new research vs. review articles). New research, especially stuff that gets covered in the popular press, is usually more hype than hope. This vaccine is not a miracle weapon in the fight against malaria, permethrin treated nets are probably still more cost-effective (assuming people use them to ward off mosquitoes instead of for fishing). I suppose this would have been worse if the ACT's had been the "latest and greatest" item, we'd probably be accused of anti-Chinese bias if we didn't center the article around that treatment. SDY (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

SDY, my addition is a factual summary of a research advance by a respected group. I saw nothing in WP:MEDRS to require only moldy lore. The point of that policy seems to be to avoid incorporation into Wikipedia of the sort of conflicting correlative studies and poorly-founded claims that have given topics like nutrition research a bad name. Your choice of language here indicates you read something into my edit that wasn't there: "miracle weapon", "defining moment", or "to sell wonderbread" and "unrepentant garbage" which are demeaning phrases. I just reported the facts. I'm sorry if you read something more into them, but I can't help that. The fact is that the reader should be aware of more recent vaccine research that wasn't in the article before I added this information. --Zeamays (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that there was only a 35% decrease in severe malaria.[6] Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 13:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) There's a question of WP:DUE weight, and honestly, it doesn't look like this is really big news. Sure, the trial is new, but that doesn't change the weight it gets in the article. The reason we cast aspersions at anything reported in the popular press as "big news" is exactly because of the sorts of misrepresentations you're talking about. Representing this vaccine as a really really big deal is equally misrepresenting the facts - it works, and it might be part of future malaria prevention efforts, but vaccines in general have serious problems (q.v. the polio eradication attempts with cultural resistance, cold chain issues, etc...), and there are far cheaper tools available, which matters a lot when $4 for ACT's is far too expensive. If I'm demeaning it by not bowing in wonder and awe at its presence, that's intentional. There's a lot of work to do yet before this is even a viable option in the fight against malaria. SDY (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

SDY, please stop reading into my edit all kinds of extreme views that weren't there. "Representing this vaccine as a really really big deal is equally misrepresenting the facts....bowing in wonder and awe..." I think you're the one who is consistently mis-representing with overly prejudicial language and your personal views of vaccine alternativees. There is more work to do in every field of science. Get a life. This study was pubished in a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal, NEJM. As I said before WaPO is a reference for the identity of the funding sources, which is within their area of reliability. --Zeamays (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm stating reasons why a new vaccine study should not be in the lead, and might not even be worth including in the article yet. Yes, I'm doing it with some colorful language, and I'm sorry that you're taking that personally. That the study was published in NEJM does not change that it is aprimary source that has to be interpreted by a reliable secondary source, which I've not seen referenced (said interpretation probably hasn't happened yet). If you read the BBC's coverage, what I'm saying about the outcome mirrors some of the comments in their "Burden" section, so it's not like I'm way out in left field and just making things up. As far as policy goes, though, you might want to read WP:NPA, as some of your comments have been... unhelpful. SDY (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, SDY, I looked at your cite, and I think you might give it a read, given your aggressive, prejudicial language, which doesn't need repeating. I didn't cite BBC. I cited WaPo for its coverage of the financial support, and I cited NEJM for the peer-reviewed scientific information. --Zeamays (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC) As requested, I have added a review article concerning attributes of this vaccine. --Zeamays (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not the kind of review article we're talking about (that it's five months old and appears to be written by one of the people developing the vaccine are clues). It looks like it's summarizing data from earlier (probably phase 2) studies. I'm a little concerned about WP:NPOV in the article, since even the additional article you cited concedes in the abstract "Further research to optimize and improve vaccine efficacy is ongoing." I see that you left that statement out. We should not be misleading our readers into thinking this is a major advance until we get confirmation from real secondary sources that it is a major advance. SDY (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your addition to the referenced text is fine, but what it states is fairly obvious, given that the trial is not over. The text still needs some word-smithing.--Zeamays (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Prevention".

When I worked for the corporation and had to travel to Papua New Guinea several times, company policy was along the lines that "the best way to not get malaria is to use insect repellent (DEET) as frequently as necessary to avoid getting bitten in the first place". It was sound advice then (25 years ago) and is surely sound advice now. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)