WHO recommends malaria vaccine that will be rolled out next year

Huge advancement produced by international efforts facilitated by the WHO and other organizations that have worked for decades into developing safe and effective vaccines against parasites, something that for long time eluded experts because of the many difficulties produced by the pathogens complicated life cycle, hopefully this second vaccine signals also the coming of other vaccines for diseases produced by parasites.

Vaccines against Dengue are also a huge success even if they are still being evaluated, climate change is expanding the risk of all arboviral diseases and are projected to become an important public health burden also in countries that until now have not had big outbreaks. It may not be long the day where vaccines against Dengue or Yellow Fever become used widely in Japan.

The WHO has a horrible record with malaria vaccines, which is why the Bill Gates Foundation is pulling funding from some of the WHO failing initiatives.

The WHO has a horrible record with malaria vaccines

The article is proof this claim is false, these malaria vaccines have been developed with full support from the WHO.

which is why the Bill Gates Foundation is pulling funding from some of the WHO failing initiatives

The fundation and the WHO collaborate in many different programs and initiatives, some become priorities after the diseases are better controlled, but there is absolutely no basis to say the Bill Gates Foundation consider anything the WHO does as a failure, in fact it has many grants comitted to the WHO activities.

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=world%20health%20organization

The article is proof this claim is false, these malaria vaccines have been developed with full support from the WHO.

Because the WHO is recommending something and it is written in an article, to you that is proof?

Okkkk.....

The fundation and the WHO collaborate in many different programs and initiatives, some become priorities after the diseases are better controlled, but there is absolutely no basis to say the Bill Gates Foundation consider anything the WHO does as a failure, in fact it has many grants comitted to the WHO activities.

Irrelevant because the reality is the Bill Gate Foundation is ceasing to fund certain WHO initiatives related to malaria vaccines, because of the poor performance.

Because the WHO is recommending something and it is written in an article, to you that is proof?

Who said the article was proof of anything?

Irrelevant because the reality is the Bill Gate Foundation is ceasing to fund certain WHO initiatives related to malaria vaccines, because of the poor performance

You keep making that claim, yet you could not bring any reference even after being called on it, that means you understand this is just something you want to push without having any source where the Foundation said the WHO had "poor performance" or were "a failure" as you claimed.

Who said the article was proof of anything?

You.

You keep making that claim, yet you could not bring any reference even after being called on it, 

The foundation that pulled funds is the reference,

The foundation that pulled funds is the reference,

So, no reference for the claim you made about the WHO efforts being "a failure"? that is a very roundabout way to retract that claim.

Who said the article was proof of anything?

You.

Again, the article proves that the vaccines are not a failure, and the WHO has been heavily involved and supporting their development, the article is not the proof of that involvement as you "mistakenly" interpreted from my comment but it is proof that this measure, supported by the WHO is not a failure as you said.

The experts agree something is wrong with the WHO approach.

The WHO Global Malaria Pro-gramme messaging is confusing and contradictory.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00175-1/fulltext

Hard pass

The experts agree something is wrong with the WHO approach

No, they don't, you understand the approach and the messaging are two very different things right? Improving the way the achievements are reported so it is easier to see how the goals have been achieved in no way means there is something wrong with the approach in general, it would be still just the reporting that has the problem.

No, they don't, you understand the approach and the messaging are two very different things right? Improving the way the achievements are reported so it is easier to see how the goals have been achieved in no way means there is something wrong with the approach in general, it would be still just the reporting that has the problem.

Again, according to the experts:

The WHO Global Malaria Pro-gramme messaging is confusing and contradictory.

Again, according to the experts:

The WHO Global Malaria Pro-gramme messaging is confusing and contradictory.

Yes, you already made it clear you confused the approach (which is right) with the messaging, repeating your quote do not correct the mistake, you are still pretending the way to report something is the same as all what is done.

That is still wrong.

Yes, you already made it clear you confused the approach (which is right) with the messaging, repeating your quote do not correct the mistake, you are still pretending the way to report something is the same as all what is done.

That is still wrong.

Again, according to the experts:

The WHO Global Malaria Pro-gramme messaging is confusing and contradictory.

You are confused and wrong.