health

Why world's first malaria shot won't reach millions of children who need it

8 Comments
By Jennifer Rigby, Natalie Grover and Maggie Fick

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2022.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


8 Comments
Login to comment

Vaccines against parasites are terribly difficult to develop for two main reasons, one is that pathogens of the parasitic type have complicated life cycles and many mechanisms to avoid the immune response of the host, the other is that parasitic disease mostly affect developing countries (and some will say this is one of the causes those countries are still in development).

Mosquirix is a subpar vaccine when compared with the standard of those used against viral diseases, but it is still offers a huge advantage for the target population when compared with nothing at all. At this point the scarce money dedicated to fight malaria has to be prioritized to the cheapest measures that still have some effect, like nets and insecticide, but this should not be the case. With better funding people could be getting all the current tools and also vaccine, which would prevent thousands of deaths every year and would do wonders to increase the standard of life for the people affected.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

"This is a disease of the poor, so it's not been that appealing in terms of the market,"

And so it is another failure of the WHO agency.

That agency is supposed to be looking out for the healthcare in those poorer nations, but it took its eye off the ball again. Just like when it advised against wearing masks at the start of the Covid crisis, in contrast to medical expert advice.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

And so it is another failure of the WHO agency.

How so? obviously apart from the excuse for you to again spam the same completely unrelated link you keep trying to post to pretend the WHO and every other scientific institution were supposed to know the future?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

And so it is another failure of the WHO agency.

That agency is supposed to be looking out for the healthcare in those poorer nations, but it took its eye off the ball again. Just like when it advised against wearing masks at the start of the Covid crisis, in contrast to medical expert advice.

No, just an unwillingness of the rich not to look after the poor. This is nothing to do with WHO, despite your desire to tie them into your rightest agenda.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Ah_soToday  06:44 am JST

No, just an unwillingness of the rich not to look after the poor. This is nothing to do with WHO, despite your desire to tie them into your rightest agenda.

Yes, and the WHO is one of the the rich. You want to blame Bill Gates for what is happening in Africa??

https://www.who.int/about/funding/

How so? obviously apart from the excuse for you to again spam the same completely unrelated link you keep trying to post to pretend the WHO and every other scientific institution were supposed to know the future?

This is obvious. The WHO did not listen to global experts.

Anyone in Asia, medical experts and others, was well aware of the effectiveness of wearing masks at the start of the Covid crisis--to deny this is mere trolling.

https://www.science.org/content/article/would-everyone-wearing-face-masks-help-us-slow-pandemic

The WHO has consistently made grave mistakes in recent years related to that agency's handling of the Covid epidemic, the polio outbreak in Africa, and malaria in poorer nations.

"We should have had this vaccine a long time ago," said Alassane Dicko, professor of public health at the University of Science, Techniques and Technologies of Bamako in Mali, who has led some of the Mosquirix trials. "We have to do more."

The WHO took its eye off the ball, and the poor continue to suffer the effects of that agency's errors.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Yes, and the WHO is one of the the rich. 

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. The WHO is responsible for much of the support measures that are in place, your irrational position expecting one single organization to solve all the health problems of the world by itself is not an argument.

This is obvious. The WHO did not listen to global experts.

They are the global experts and the whole scientific community shared the same opinion, only evidence of benefit was found when dealing with symptomatic patients, you personally think differently but have failed to produce any evidence for benefits of masks on the general population before of the pandemic, which means you are mistaken.

Mask are completely unrelated to malaria and the malaria vaccine.

Anyone in Asia, medical experts and others, was well aware of the effectiveness of wearing masks at the start of the Covid crisis--to deny this is mere trolling.

And yet you repeatedly have failed to bring any reference that proves there is scientific evidence of benefit of mask use by asymptomatic people, unless you present that evidence this still means you are mistaken.

The WHO has consistently made grave mistakes in recent years related to that agency's handling of the Covid epidemic, the polio outbreak in Africa, and malaria in poorer nations.

No, it has not, that is just your irrational position pretending all problems should be magically solved or else the one medical authority that is doing the most for all of them is making "mistakes". That is still your own personal unproved position.

The WHO took its eye off the ball, and the poor continue to suffer the effects of that agency's errors.

Not forcing rich countries to donate money is not "taking its eye off the ball" that is just your own personal, arbitrary, irrational standard. The experts on the article clearly blame lack of spending from the countries with resources to do it, none says the WHO is responsible for this, or that any mistake has been made.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

After decades of work, the World Health Organization endorsed the first-ever malaria vaccine last year

This is big news because:

Mosquirix is not just the first approved vaccine for malaria; it is also the first developed for any parasitic disease.

The vaccine's effectiveness at preventing severe cases of malaria in children is relatively low, at around 30% in a large-scale clinical trial. 

This effectiveness might appear low at first glance to non-medical professionals but:

It is expected to prevent 5.4 million cases and 23,000 deaths in children younger than five each year.

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/488915-mosquirix-10-things-to-know-about-first-ever-approved-malaria-vaccine.html

Thankfully, global experts are advising to put the vaccine to use even though it did not not meet the WHO benchmark of 75 per cent efficacy.

Vaccines against parasites are terribly difficult to develop for two main reasons, one is that pathogens of the parasitic type have complicated life cycles and many mechanisms to avoid the immune response of the host, the other is that parasitic disease mostly affect developing countries (and some will say this is one of the causes those countries are still in development).

Not true. In fact, the difficulty comes from these two main reasons:

1. the necessity to identify (and produce) appropriate, protective antigens, 2. a lack of complete understanding of the types of immune responses needed for protection.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12455404/

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

This effectiveness might appear low at first glance to non-medical professionals but:

The article is written according to declarations of medical professionals which are the ones that say it is relatively low. Is your argument that the people interviewed are not experts? do you have evidence for this?

Not true. In fact, the difficulty comes from these two main reasons:

Those two reasons are included in the first reason you quote. Precisely because parasites life cycle make antigens only presented in a limited way is why they end up being not protective with the research not being able to elucidate why this is the case, nothing about what you quote says funding is as adequate as what is available to diseases that also affect the develped world.

So no, your sources do not deny at al the argument you quote,

On the other side

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03643-9

Jeffrey Bethony, a microbiologist at George Washington University in Washington DC, says this:

Why is it more difficult to develop a vaccine for parasites than for many viruses?

Parasites go through a series of life stages and occupy several different niches in the body. They’ve also developed clever mechanisms to evade the immune system.

So, what arguments do you have to say this well recognized expert is wrong? A 20 year old abstract is not exactly so, specially when it does not contradicts what he says.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites