4 ms·
This article can’t seem to decide whether it’s discussing ivermectin - an old antiparasitic derived from the avermectin produced by streptomyces - or bacteria.
by arkades 7y ago
This article can’t seem to decide whether it’s discussing ivermectin - an old antiparasitic derived from the avermectin produced by streptomyces - or bacteria.
It vacillates between “ivermectin effective” and “bacteria killed parasite,” which are in no way equivalent. The latter suggests something like “strep killed plasmodium, so maybe we can find the compound used and use it for malaria.” The latter suggests, well, ivermectin is the compound.
God, science journalism from scientifically illiterate rehashes of press releases is always such garbage.
The actual trial they are discussing doesn’t address using bacteria at all. It is directly the question of “if we repeatedly give ivermectin (the drug) to a population, can we reduce malaria transmission?” ( https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32321-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... ) studied in 8 villages for 18 weeks during peak malaria season. With approx 75% participation, malaria incidence dropped around 20%.
Please let’s change the link to the Lancet article.
- andrewshadura 7y agoYeah, the summary (blood deadly to mosquitoes) seems completely unrelated to the rest of the article. I'm disappointed by the quality of this article.
- nneonneo 7y agoIt almost sounds as if the journalist believes Ivermectin _is_ a bacteria and a drug derived from it is killing malaria. Agreed that this smacks of sloppy science journalism.
- giarc 7y agoI think you are right. Here is a quote from the author, who is obviously talking about a bacterium killing plasmodium, of which ivermectin is not. “We have discovered [that the] bacterium is highly effective in killing plasmodium falciparum, the parasite that causes malaria, but our research is more focused on pregnant women and children as they are more vulnerable. We are getting very motivating leads,” Kariuki said. Perhaps the issue is that Kariuki is not a listed author on the Lancet paper, so perhaps he's just providing comment generally and not specifically?
- PaulHoule 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin Ivermeticin is commonly used in Veterinary medicine for cattle, horses, sheep, goats, dogs, etc. It is once in a while used to treat worms in people but is more common to use Pyrantel to treat human roundworm infections which are surprisingly common in developed countries. Thus it is a common drug and will not be crazy expensive. It seems expensive to me when I have to buy it for an animal bigger than me at first world prices, but it is cheap in developing countries.
- newsreview1 7y agoThis science journalism isn't all that bad, actually. The article is clearly about Ivermectin, and never mentions "bacteria killed parasite" - Additionally, Ivermectin and other avermectins are macrocyclic lactones and are derived from the bacterium Streptomyces avermitilis. So even if teh article mentions bacteria... it's still not wrong.
- minitech 7y agoIt’s the way the article mentions bacteria that’s wrong. The wording and capitalization really do imply that ivermectin is a species of bacteria.
- projektfu 7y agoA lot of the strangeness seems to be in quotes from Dr. Karikuri. Did the author of the article misquote him or are his statements that confused?