Well, maybe the doctors there (because eventually those doing the jobs are not sitting at a desk, they are on the field working their butts off, be them doctors, nurses for WHO, soldiers etc...for the army) just used whatever they had...

btw the same type of problem occurs with antibiotics to deal with infection as some infectious agents eventually become antibiotic-resistant.

"the same type of problem occurs with antibiotics to deal with infection as some infectious agents eventually become antibiotic-resistant. "

The reason for this has largely been because of over prescribing of anti-biotics by MD's. It's just a matter of time before the anti-biotic resistant super bugs arrive.

this has been a problem for years in France (not sure for the rest of Europe) where many doctors have over-prescribed AB (specially 70s and 80s)...
what about US and Canada?

It's a world wide problem in all developed countries, some countries probably more than others. Problem is, the super bugs will not respect international borders.

This situation does not reflect on the doctors in the field. They are doing thankless jobs I could never do. There is a place in heaven reserved for them.

This reflects on the bureaucrats at the UN. Their policies are as evil and deadly as the Hussein's of the world. The is a place in hell reserved for them.

The entire pourpose of the Global Fund is deliver drugs to poor countries that can't afford them. Forgive me if I don't take their pontifications on fast food any more seriously than they take the lives of African children.

"This situation does not reflect on the doctors in the field. "

Where do you get your information. Would like to know what cult you belong to.

The problem is over prescribing anti-biotics by MD's in developed countries, not the WHO is trying to do work in third world nations. Too many doctors will hand out anti-biotics for the common cold, etc knowing full well they are dealing with a virus which is unaffected by anti-biotics.

The other part of the problem is that often patients do not finish off the perscription but stop once they begin to feel better but before the bacteria is completely killed. The bacteria then can sometimes mutate into a resistant free strain. It's just a matter of time before some truly deadly drug resistant super bug appears and reeks havoc on the planet. Of course then you can blame it on the WHO or the liberals.

it seems to me that most drugs are ineffective for malaria...at the end of 2002, some scientists told that they may have eventually an effective treatment (vaccine actually) in 10 years or so.
Besides, not everyone agrees.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20021115/07/

I don't think you can use a drug still in second phase testing on a person (unless it's a cyclist :-))

seems also that some drugs seem to work fine in a very controlled environment, like western countries hospitals, but just fail in africa.

this is also interesting:

http://www.aaas.org/international/africa/malaria/ridley.html

apparently Novartis is precisely what WHO is using...

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2001/en/pr2001-26.html

The real cause is that DDT was banned before an effective substitute could be found to replace it. Prior to the DDT ban. malaria rates were declining. After the ban, they started going back up. How many human lives are worth the life of a bird?

Although I was generally aware of this WHO sponsored disaster, my information today comes from The Wall Street Journal which in turn has gotten much of this pass of the story from Lancet. I would quote the whole article, but it is a subscription site. Here is one small segment:

"According to the Lancet, the aid agencies have continued to recommend off-patent drugs chloroquine and SP, which once worked but began failing in the 1970s as the parasite developed resistance. The most effective malaria treatments available today are Artemesinin Combination Therapies (ACTs), patented drugs that not only clear parasites from the blood more quickly but also reduce the chances that drug resistance will develop."

I do not dispute the over prescribing of antibiotics problems. My reference to doctors in the field was very clearly in the context of those doctors who work in the field in Africa. Your cult reference was inappropriate and calls for an apology.

Many things are complicated in this world, but many more are very simple. There are effective treatments for malaria, but WHO didn't want to use them. They instead wanted to save a buck. The result is thousands of dead children in Africa. They did have the money for a fast food study though.

Yes Francois, I know a lot of those doctors work for Doctors without Borders, which is largely a French organization. God bless them.

I guess I don't understand the references. The first is about a new Canadian drug of questionable effectiveness. There is nothing new about questionably effective drugs. The second article specifically dismisses the treatments as ineffective that continue to be used under WHO supervision.

I know you can argue more persuasively than this Francois. It is no fun arguing with you unless you bring your A game. Time to step up.

Ok, my cult reference was a bit out of line, but what you claim is not what I read here:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/...ine/0398/malaria.htm

As I've understood malaria, and I'm sure no expert, the problems have been not only finding a drug that works but also one that is affordable. Also the drug resistant strains have been popping up faster than anticipated.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/...ine/0398/malaria.htm

Thanks for that reference Ceveloguy. Not only is the drug ineffective, but apparently we have known for six years right down to the chromosome level precisely why it is not effective.

WHO continues to use it anyway, in Africa at least. I doubt it is used if a patient arrives in Brussels with the disease.

Someone tell me I am missing something.

" The real cause is that DDT was banned before an effective substitute could be found to replace it. Prior to the DDT ban. malaria rates were declining. After the ban, they started going back up. How many human lives are worth the life of a bird?"

You took the words right outta my mouth (or you typed the words right off my fingers).

Millions have died needlessly since the DDT ban, because of some very short-sighted whacky environmentalist policy.
Even GOOD malaria medicine is a small Band-Aid(tm) for a huge gashing wound that never should have been gashed.
As that stoopid song (the one bagging on evil DDT) says, "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till it's gone..."
True.
b

---

"What's good for me ain't necessarily good for the weak-minded."

I'm no expert on this and I'll have to do a lot more research before I could carry this conversation further. But you can be sure WHO is not deliberately trying to kill African children and they are certainly trying to do the best they can with limited resources. Another ref.

http://www.who.int/...01/en/pr2001-26.html

both references say that most drugs are ineffective in non controlled environment.
then there is a 3rd link that you didn't talk about (see a few posts above) about the WHO and Novartis...
it has been the drug of use since 2001...
this is precisely the drug you mentioned in your first post.
So maybe they didn't do anything prior to this, but at least since the arrival of the new WHO chief, they have used the best known drug.

Anyhow, it seems that DDT is more of an issue...in any case, I am not a malaria expert...I will truly bring my A game when you want to debate the use of non-additive integrals in decision making processes :-)

I read the article, but it is a two year old press release. Apparently the policy was never put into effect. WHO continues to use 40 year old drugs. One would wonder why. I am guessing it has something to do with saving a buck.

If you ran WHO which is tasked with handling the never ending malaria disaster, would you use some of your funds to study fast food? Me neither.

No cerveloguy, WHO doesn't intend to kill African children, that is simply the result of their actions. In the liberal tradition, we need to judge people by their intentions, rather than their results. Hopefully the African parents agree.

I am really glad we have that fast food study though.

It will take me a few hours to get up to speed on non-additive integrals, but if you send me the link Francois, I will be happy to curl up with it.

I have always thought Roger Daltry had an evil look about him, though I can't say I hated the band. I'm really more of a Zeppelin fan.

Well, all the links I found suggest it was put into effect. unless you can give me a reference that suggests it is not the case...
apparently the reasons why there are still so many deaths are
1. DDT as some pointed out
2. the fact that even the best drug for malaria at this stage is not very effective in conditions like those encountered in Africa. (this fact was in one of the references btw)

For non-additive integrals, check:

http://rutcor.rutgers.edu/~amai/aimath04/

click online proceedings, paper n.3 AI-Math3 (actually 4th paper as it starts at 0)

"The real cause is that DDT was banned before an effective substitute"

That's very true, but DDT is a two edged sword that eventually gets into the food chain and effects more than just a few birds.

Here's an interesting article that supports your positon

http://www.abc.net.au/...t/stories/s22432.htm

Daltry evil? Yeah, I can see that. But his new show on the History Channel - Extreme History - is excellent.

I doubt this whole malaria thing would have happened if Keith Moon were still alive. He was the only morally upstanding one of the bunch.

They are a strange looking bunch. I do remember seeing 'Tommy' while in high school, I thought it was great. My favorite Who song is probably 'Bab O'Reilly' Spike Lee used it to great effect in the movie 'Summer of Sam' where the punk guy is playing it alone and maybe smashing his guitar if I remember correctly.

This sounds like a really interesting paper Francois, but being an Ivy League snob, I really can't lower myself to examining the Rutgers web site for intellectual stimulation.