7 ms·

The World’s Last Worm: A Dreaded Disease Nears Eradication

112 points by joeyespo 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
patdennis 14y ago
Also of note: Save the Guinea Worm Foundation. http://www.deadlysins.com/guineaworm/index.htm http://www.deadlysins.com/guineaworm/index.htm Took some Googling for me to verify that it's indeed a joke.
- pmiller2 14y ago
  Yeah, the only real hints that it was fake were the bits about people volunteering to be infected with them, and the part where the foundation doesn't take donations so they can remain non-partisan. But, in all seriousness, I think we should at least sequence this thing's genome before we purposely cause its extinction. Who knows if some enzyme it secretes might be valuable to modern medicine?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 14y ago
Interesting confluence of circumstances making this possible. For one thing, the worm can't survive in any form outside humans for any significant period of time; there's no dormant form that can lurk in the soil or water, and it apparently can't infect other animals. So if all humans were infection-free for 2-3 weeks (the longest its larvae can live in water supplies), it'd completely die out. And on top of that, it can infect humans through only one route, and that's a route that can be blocked with basic measures not requiring technological sophistication (e.g. filtering water through cloth), because it enters only via ingestion of macroscopic fleas that contain the larvae.
- JulianMorrison 14y ago
  In other words, basic sanitation would have wiped this life form out - its continued existence speaks of tens of thousands of years of unbroken poverty. And it is only being eradicated because of cleverly-invented measures that can be undertaken while still poor. Humanity, shame on you for leaving these people behind.
  - cageface 14y ago
    Or, if you want to try to be a little more positive, let's be happy that we have here another case of science lifting people out of misery.
    - JulianMorrison 14y ago
      No, it's particularly that kind of rah-rah I'm pointing out the hole in. Our well-resourced science and our well-resourced NGOs have allowed us to construct and communicate a solution to a disease of poverty that works without lifting them out of poverty. It's certainly a small improvement, but lionizing it uncritically amounts to justifying the status quo.
      - pyre 14y ago
        So you're saying that the only acceptable solution is to lift these people out of poverty? What about the people that are affected in the meantime? The end of poverty isn't something that's just waiting for someone to snap their fingers for it to come to a crashing halt. Also, depending on where you're talking about in the world, poverty is dependent on the local political situation. See North Korea for example. If I sent boatloads of supplies and money to North Korea, what are the chances that they were reach the common man (instead of going towards the military and ruling elite)?
  - kbutler 14y ago
    300 years ago, the richest people in the world didn't have what we consider basic sanitation today.
Kelliot 14y ago
Good news! Although am i the only one a little disappointed that this is only the 2nd we've wiped out in our long history?
- Pinckney 14y ago
  We also wiped out rinderpest. It was a cattle disease, but it means a lot from an agricultural perspective.
- jfb 14y ago
  It's illustrative to compare the number of parasitic species eliminated to that of non-parasitic species. It's a whole lot easier to knock the crap out of a passenger pigeon than A. aegypti, because the pigeon hasn't been under the selective pressure that the mosquito has.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    I'm not able to find any good information on it, but wouldn't there have been some host-specific parasites that went extinct along with their host? It's possible they're even uncatalogued ones, if (as seems likely) parasites that target species other than humans or commercially valuable livestock aren't as well documented as those that do target us and our animals. From that perspective, it's not very surprising that human-targeted parasites haven't been going extinct without substantial purposeful effort, because their host has been very successful at increasing and spreading its population. If you think of the human population as the relevant "environment" for those species, then the environment is in very good shape...
    - chubbard 14y ago
      "And humans, with their ability to thrive in basically any climactic zone, are the ultimate pest species." Oh I don't know cock roaches thrive really well in every zone too. And they carry countless diseases too, along with their redundant systems and all. Or how about rats? Also littered with pests themselves there isn't a place on this earth that hasn't been touched by rats.
ndefinite 14y ago
I knew someone who handed these straws out in Africa a few years back: http://www.gizmag.com/go/4418/ http://www.gizmag.com/go/4418/ They are simple and inexpensive but they perfectly filer out the larvae from untreated water. I'm sure he'd be super impressed to see how dramatically the numbers have fallen.
jamesaguilar 14y ago
It's interesting that no one cries out over the extinction of species that are harmful to us. Not that I mind; some extinctions are good. Reminds me of a passage from a science fiction novel I read a while back. "No ballads were written of this great battle; the official account was curt to the point of insult: "'Technologically Super-advanced and Aggressive Alien Species VI Engaged and Genocided.' "Alien Species II, III, IV and V had fought longer, more spectacular campaigns, but they were just as dead. ... "For humanity remained, as it had always been, a decisive and a ruthless species. The Government of the Solar Neighbourhood preached peace and liberty, and tolerance for all sentient creatures. But any alien that threatened the wellbeing of humanity would be eradicated, without a second thought. That was the way it always had been, and always would be." Palmer, Philip (2010-10-28). Version 43.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  Evolution means adaptability Sometimes it goes towards being good at fights, sometimes it goes towards being good at fleeing them. In this case, 'Technologically Super-advanced and Pacific Alien Species X left to their own devices'
- 2muchcoffeeman 14y ago
  Define harmful thought. I do not want poisonous snakes or tigers or great whites exterminated. I would even think twice about mosquitos. But this creepy worm thing I have no problem with.
  - Egregore 14y ago
    While I agree it's creepy, it would be possible in future to engineer these kind of ogranism, to work inside human bodies and cure them.
- kbutler 14y ago
  Sure they do - in fact, the US and Russia are not destroying the last of the smallpox "for the foreseeable future": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8267370/We-must-keep-smallpox-stocks-US-and-Russia-tells-World-Health-Organisation.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8267370/We-must... This results from an anthro-centric cost/benefit analysis, not just a "save the poor deadly organisms", but I expect the same would be true for just about any organism that human science can maintain, and attempts to destroy.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

112 points by joeyespo 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Also of note: Save the Guinea Worm Foundation. http://www.deadlysins.com/guineaworm/index.htm http://www.deadlysins.com/guineaworm/index.htm Took some Googling for me to verify that it's indeed a joke.

pmiller2 14y ago
Yeah, the only real hints that it was fake were the bits about people volunteering to be infected with them, and the part where the foundation doesn't take donations so they can remain non-partisan. But, in all seriousness, I think we should at least sequence this thing's genome before we purposely cause its extinction. Who knows if some enzyme it secretes might be valuable to modern medicine?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

_delirium 14y ago

Interesting confluence of circumstances making this possible. For one thing, the worm can't survive in any form outside humans for any significant period of time; there's no dormant form that can lurk in the soil or water, and it apparently can't infect other animals. So if all humans were infection-free for 2-3 weeks (the longest its larvae can live in water supplies), it'd completely die out. And on top of that, it can infect humans through only one route, and that's a route that can be blocked with basic measures not requiring technological sophistication (e.g. filtering water through cloth), because it enters only via ingestion of macroscopic fleas that contain the larvae.

JulianMorrison 14y ago
In other words, basic sanitation would have wiped this life form out - its continued existence speaks of tens of thousands of years of unbroken poverty. And it is only being eradicated because of cleverly-invented measures that can be undertaken while still poor. Humanity, shame on you for leaving these people behind.
- cageface 14y ago
  Or, if you want to try to be a little more positive, let's be happy that we have here another case of science lifting people out of misery.
  - JulianMorrison 14y ago
    No, it's particularly that kind of rah-rah I'm pointing out the hole in. Our well-resourced science and our well-resourced NGOs have allowed us to construct and communicate a solution to a disease of poverty that works without lifting them out of poverty. It's certainly a small improvement, but lionizing it uncritically amounts to justifying the status quo.
    - pyre 14y ago
      So you're saying that the only acceptable solution is to lift these people out of poverty? What about the people that are affected in the meantime? The end of poverty isn't something that's just waiting for someone to snap their fingers for it to come to a crashing halt. Also, depending on where you're talking about in the world, poverty is dependent on the local political situation. See North Korea for example. If I sent boatloads of supplies and money to North Korea, what are the chances that they were reach the common man (instead of going towards the military and ruling elite)?
- kbutler 14y ago
  300 years ago, the richest people in the world didn't have what we consider basic sanitation today.

Kelliot 14y ago

Good news! Although am i the only one a little disappointed that this is only the 2nd we've wiped out in our long history?

Pinckney 14y ago
We also wiped out rinderpest. It was a cattle disease, but it means a lot from an agricultural perspective.
jfb 14y ago
It's illustrative to compare the number of parasitic species eliminated to that of non-parasitic species. It's a whole lot easier to knock the crap out of a passenger pigeon than A. aegypti, because the pigeon hasn't been under the selective pressure that the mosquito has.
- _delirium 14y ago
  I'm not able to find any good information on it, but wouldn't there have been some host-specific parasites that went extinct along with their host? It's possible they're even uncatalogued ones, if (as seems likely) parasites that target species other than humans or commercially valuable livestock aren't as well documented as those that do target us and our animals. From that perspective, it's not very surprising that human-targeted parasites haven't been going extinct without substantial purposeful effort, because their host has been very successful at increasing and spreading its population. If you think of the human population as the relevant "environment" for those species, then the environment is in very good shape...
  - chubbard 14y ago
    "And humans, with their ability to thrive in basically any climactic zone, are the ultimate pest species." Oh I don't know cock roaches thrive really well in every zone too. And they carry countless diseases too, along with their redundant systems and all. Or how about rats? Also littered with pests themselves there isn't a place on this earth that hasn't been touched by rats.

ndefinite 14y ago

I knew someone who handed these straws out in Africa a few years back: http://www.gizmag.com/go/4418/ http://www.gizmag.com/go/4418/ They are simple and inexpensive but they perfectly filer out the larvae from untreated water. I'm sure he'd be super impressed to see how dramatically the numbers have fallen.

jamesaguilar 14y ago

It's interesting that no one cries out over the extinction of species that are harmful to us. Not that I mind; some extinctions are good. Reminds me of a passage from a science fiction novel I read a while back. "No ballads were written of this great battle; the official account was curt to the point of insult: "'Technologically Super-advanced and Aggressive Alien Species VI Engaged and Genocided.' "Alien Species II, III, IV and V had fought longer, more spectacular campaigns, but they were just as dead. ... "For humanity remained, as it had always been, a decisive and a ruthless species. The Government of the Solar Neighbourhood preached peace and liberty, and tolerance for all sentient creatures. But any alien that threatened the wellbeing of humanity would be eradicated, without a second thought. That was the way it always had been, and always would be." Palmer, Philip (2010-10-28). Version 43.

raverbashing 14y ago
Evolution means adaptability Sometimes it goes towards being good at fights, sometimes it goes towards being good at fleeing them. In this case, 'Technologically Super-advanced and Pacific Alien Species X left to their own devices'
2muchcoffeeman 14y ago
Define harmful thought. I do not want poisonous snakes or tigers or great whites exterminated. I would even think twice about mosquitos. But this creepy worm thing I have no problem with.
- Egregore 14y ago
  While I agree it's creepy, it would be possible in future to engineer these kind of ogranism, to work inside human bodies and cure them.
kbutler 14y ago
Sure they do - in fact, the US and Russia are not destroying the last of the smallpox "for the foreseeable future": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8267370/We-must-keep-smallpox-stocks-US-and-Russia-tells-World-Health-Organisation.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8267370/We-must... This results from an anthro-centric cost/benefit analysis, not just a "save the poor deadly organisms", but I expect the same would be true for just about any organism that human science can maintain, and attempts to destroy.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]