Jump to content

Talk:Malaria/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4


map updating needed

Map is from 2009. Sri Lanka is malaria free zone since 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.193.240 (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Insecticide in the lead

This was added "spraying insecticides (which was found to have its own health hazards)". Not all insecticides are associated with health hazards though some are. This is a complicated issue that cannot be presented as simply as this and should IMO be dealt with in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

War

The section only considers the effects of malaria on soldiers. It does not consider the effects of conflict on the malaria e.g. on the incidence of the disease.

Conflicts often impinge drastically on economies, societies and environments. They will therefore often have deleterious effects on health programmes and other factors which have restraining effects on diseases.

The effects of malaria in wartime on 'innocent" civilians is potentially far greater than the impacts on military endeavours and military personnel. As such the subject ought to be given serious consideration in this section. It most certainly should not be ignored completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kombo the mzungu (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

War

The section only considers the effects of malaria on soldiers. It does not consider the effects of conflict on the malaria e.g. on the incidence of the disease.

Conflicts often impinge drastically on economies, societies and environments. They will therefore often have deleterious effects on health programmes and other factors which have restraining effects on diseases.

The effects of malaria in wartime on 'innocent" civilians is potentially far greater than the impacts on military endeavours and military personnel. As such the subject ought to be given serious consideration in this section. It most certainly should not be ignored completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kombo the mzungu (talk • contribs) 12:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2016

Link on footnote #72 is broken. It should be http://www.cochrane.org/CD005434/INFECTN_electronic-mosquito-repellents-for-preventing-mosquito-bites-and-malaria-infection Patternmann (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Done - thank you for catching that. — soupvector (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Economic effects

In the lead it states that "Malaria is commonly associated with poverty and has a major negative effect on economic development. In Africa, it is estimated to result in losses of US$12 billion a year due to increased healthcare costs, lost ability to work, and negative effects on tourism.

I think this is misleading. I doubt the reports account in for the fact that it also keeps population growth in check. It's tragic, but I thus assume malaria also has some positive economic/environmental benefits. The best way off course to ãvoid needing these positive effects would be to both eradicate the disease, but also implement better (well, any) population growth control mechanisms, to avoid the population in the tropics and subtropics to increase exponentially and destroy the few forests/biodiversity we have left on this planet in the process. Another method would be unrestricted migration towards western countries (where there's less biodiversity/forests), but that might be controversial for many.

For the malaria eradication: there are 2 links in this article referencing the genetic modification of mosquitoes (species therof able to carry malaria). These are http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5591/13 and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6887/full/417452a.html I'm wondering though whether these papers detail the GM method in which a gene drive (CRISPR method) is used. See http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drive-mosquitoes-engineered-to-fight-malaria-1.18858 and http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v34/n1/full/nbt.3439.html

KVDP (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your proposition about economic "benefits" of early death due to malaria sounds more like conjecture than science, but if you have reliable sources please provide them. — soupvector (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
For the GM modification of mosquitoes; it seems that besides GM approaches on making the mosquitoes unable to transmit the disease at all, there also seems to be research going on on how to make them prefer to sting animals over humans. See
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006303 and http://researchnews.plos.org/2016/09/15/malaria-transmitting-mosquitoes-with-genetic-anomalies-may-prefer-cattle-to-humans/ and https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/mosquito-preference-human-versus-animal-biting-has-genetic-basis/

KVDP (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Number of species of Plasmodium that infect humans is outdated.

This page lists five species of Plasmodium parasites that cause malaria in humans, but P. ovale has been split into two species, P. ovale curtisi and P. ovale wallikeri. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24478466. --Krabbykabby (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That 2014 review is clearly about two subspecies of P. ovale - a split has been known since at least 2010. As a study focused on those subspecies still noted (in 2015), "Humans can be infected with five malaria parasite species: Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae, P. knowlesi, and P. ovale." (See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4295880/ ) Thus, experts continue to refer to five species. Can you point to a high-quality source that states there are six species? — soupvector (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The review I cited above, this commentary https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2856714/, and this additional review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27480365 all refer to them as distinct species based on the fact that they cannot recombine and that phylogenetically, they are farther away from each other than other pairs of Plasmodium species. At the very least, the article should be updated to include them and note that there is debate over whether they are subspecies or two truly different species.Krabbykabby (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

With reference to this correspondence, the first author of the paper in which P. ovale was split into P. ovale curtisi and P. ovale wallikeri considers that there are six (6) "species"; and that publication also stated so. The authors concerned were/are not taxonomists, however, and the new names that were introduced are unfortunately (erroneously) subspecific taxa. Nomenclaturally, there are thus five (5) species. So some contemporary authors now talk about six species and others about five species. Last I heard, there were plans afoot to try and figure out how to fix things, i.e. "unconfuse" the situation; which would have to happen in a way that is compatible with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. To achieve this is not (will not be) a straightforward matter. Names can only be changed in accordance with the rules. One complication is that they can become "legally" invalid if things are not done correctly.IdleMan (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Under subheading War

"Malaria was the most important health hazard encountered by U.S. troops in the South Pacific during World War II, where about 500,000 men were infected.[170] According to Joseph Patrick Byrne, "Sixty thousand American soldiers died of malaria during the African and South Pacific campaigns." Sad comment.

Dear Editor: Please consider changing the above sentence as it sounds extremely sad, it really comes across as extremely sad as there is nothing important about a disease, rather the said remedy is further the more important consideration, further there is nothing important about a sad illness such as malaria. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.1.102 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed the word "important" to "significant". I might be misunderstanding what you want. Could you please write the sentence that you wish to see? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

UK guidelines for treatment

Updated doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2016.02.001 JFW | T@lk 14:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Word choice

"Feeling tired" is not directly synonymous with "malaise." In the general definition, either "feeling tired" should link to "fatigue" rather than "malaise" or the symptom list should include both malaise and fatigue. 24.198.77.26 (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead section as per MoS

I'm wondering if anyone else finds the lead of this article to be a bit too long. MOS:LEAD indicates that the lead should grab the reader from the beginning. Oddly enough, buried in comments of the orticle, are all the places where sections and subsections should go. It would be simple enough to create these sections.  — Myk Streja talk to me 23:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As per MOS:LEAD, "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs." It seems to fit the bill. PriceDL (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Also as per MOS:LEAD, "The lead section [...] of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph." A summary in four large paragraphs doesn't fit the spirit of MoS.  — Myk Streja talk to me 14:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
4 paragraphs is fairly common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

artesunate/sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine

Doc James Why was this reference removed? Is it just me? — Myk Streja [citation needed] 18:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01115439 is not a suitable source.
Plus we say "artemisinins plus sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine" already so I do not understand your change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It's a clinical study sponsored by Oxford University and reported by Clinical.gov. What would be a suitable source? What you quoted about the ACT was not stated explicitly in the article, but it is certainly implied. However, the specific drug AS+SP is not mentioned while several others are. I can see that sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine is mentioned, but the specific artesunate+sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine is not. Is it really that far off base? Is there a reason that particular compound shouldn't be mentioned? — Myk Streja [citation needed] 20:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
We do not tend to use primary sources.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: I'm only asking to be certain I understand, I'm not trying to be a wise guy: The only problem you have with the entry is that the source is a primary source. If I found a more reliable source, the entry would be good?
How about this one: Malaria Journal  — Myk Streja [citation needed] 23:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Two problems, 1) the content was already there in the lead 2) the source was not very good.  — Myk Streja [citation needed] 13:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
That is also a primary source. If you use pubmed you can limit your searches to review articles. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I went to pubmed and it offered me an article from clinicaltrials.gov. I give up, have it your way. — Myk Streja [citation needed] 13:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

All medical articles contain a box to help people find good refs. For example [1]. The bigger issue is that the content duplicated already present content.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Malaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Other

There's also the possibility to use designed strands of RNA (called morpholino oligomers) to strike directly at P. falciparum, where the punch can have the greatest effect: the parasite’s gene expression[1][2]

There's also the possibility of using the vectored immunoprophylaxis technique. With this approach, genetically transduced host cells would be allowed to assemble and secrete antibodies that neutralize the infectivity of the malaria parasite and prevent disease.[3][4]

Can these be mentioned in the article ? KVDP (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Targeting protein translation, RNA splicing, and degradation by morpholino-based conjugates in Plasmodium falciparum.
  2. ^ Use of morpholino oligomers
  3. ^ Gene-therapy for malaria prevention.
  4. ^ Gene-therapy for malaria prevention

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Malaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

/RBMInfosheet_10.pdf to http://www.rollbackmalaria.org/cmc_upload/0/000/015/363/RBMInfosheet_10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

proper syntax in articles?

In the opening graph, a sentence lists the symptoms of malaria as "fever, feeling tired, vomiting, and headaches." Proper syntax would be "fever, fatigue, vomiting, and headaches." I have made this change and explained why from a grammatical standpoint, yet u|Doc James consistently reverts it. All of the other links in that sentence go to pages with those titles -- i.e. fever links to fever, vomiting to vomiting and headaches to headache. I see no reason why a grammatically preferable and, within the context of wikipedia, more accurate word would not be used here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMOinLA (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

perhaps my edit serves both needs. — soupvector (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way the ping of me did not work as you need the brackets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Map update

Does the map indicate its Malaria free on a large scale? Because North America is not Malaria-free.. as a matter of fact, my state of Alabama has had 5 cases of Malaria this year alone.[1]

The question is one of local transmission. If someone from Alabama catches malaria in Africa and brings it back, that is an African case not an Alabama case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/mosquito/

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

The introduction has the sentence "Despite a need, no effective vaccine exists, although efforts to develop one are ongoing." which is not accurate since 2015. It could state something like "Since 2015 there is an approved vaccine RTS,S that has limited efficacy.[1]".

Also the prevention chapter needs editing, because it states that there is no vaccine. "There is no vaccine for malaria." -> "There is a vaccine with limited efficacy (26-50%). [2]" Wanaryytel (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Those efforts, including bringing Mosquirix for use in areas around the globe, are ongoing, and have not reached a state where they may be described as "finished". Therefore, the statement that "efforts are ongoing" is accurate. Spintendo      22:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2015/07/news_detail_002376.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1
  2. ^ http://www.who.int/wer/2016/wer9104.pdf?ua=1

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2018

Hi,

I have prepared an vector version of the life cycle of the malaria parasite that I think is much informative than the current image.


So, I would like to change:

The life cycle of malaria parasites. A mosquito causes an infection by a bite. First, sporozoites enter the bloodstream, and migrate to the liver. They infect liver cells, where they multiply into merozoites, rupture the liver cells, and return to the bloodstream. The merozoites infect red blood cells, where they develop into ring forms, trophozoites and schizonts that in turn produce further merozoites. Sexual forms are also produced, which, if taken up by a mosquito, will infect the insect and continue the life cycle.

to

The life cycle of malaria parasites.A mosquito causes an infection by a bite (1). The sporozoites enter the bloodstream, and migrate to the liver. They infect liver cells, where they multiply into merozoites, rupture the liver cells, and return to the bloodstream (2). The merozoites infect red blood cells, where they develop into ring forms, trophozoites and schizonts that in turn produce further merozoites (3). Sexual forms (gametocytes) are also produced (4), which, if taken up by a mosquito with the blood(5), mature in the mosquito gut to gametes. The male and female gametes fuse (6) and form an ookinete—a fertilized, motile zygote able to cross the midgut wall as Oocyst. Oocyst develop new sporozoites that migrate to the insect's salivary glands (7), ready to infect a new vertebrate host.

Bbkkk (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — LeoFrank  Talk 18:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear LeoFrank:

I just want to change the image. If you enter in the editing format you will see my petition in a "change X to Y" format. Because they are images they don't appear with that format when you see them in the discussion section. The source for my image is the previous image (but mine is more informative and vectorial).

 Not done: @Bbkkk: Thanks for the clarification. For image change, I'd suggest you to discuss and establish a consensus with fellow editors and then re-open the edit request. — LeoFrank  Talk 17:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaria/Archive_4&oldid=976642497"