Originally Posted by a_f_d

Like a lot of recent 'scientific research' this paper just re-hashes the content of earlier papers which probably did likewise.
It starts by acknowledging that there is no known mechanism for acquiring immunity then goes on to derive conclusions from 'hypothesised' mechanisms; this despite the fact that the quoted figures show the major variable to be age. It makes no attempt to consider other hypothetical causes (e.g. genetic susceptibility preferentially selected by significant (and probably unrecorded) early infant mortality; partial or non-recording of malaria cases in developing counties etc.)

Because most mosquitoes don't carry malaria, because they get mild symptoms because of genetic partial immunity (sickle cell anaemia for example confers partial immunity and is generally considered to be a preferentially selected gene in parts of Africa).


I don't know the statistics, is it known they showed more immunity than the general population?

I don't know if that is actually true and if it is true it doesn't show that they had, and lost immunity - most people in India (including long stay visitors) do not get malaria every few months which makes it very difficult to postulate a mechanism for this alleged 'six months out' effect.

That appears to show a strange and unexplained variation depending mostly on age, not exposure to infection.

AndyD 8-)₹

Originally Posted by Bipat

Hardly "pseudo-scientific twaddle" though is it?.

All scientific research has to go over previous results and obviously so much is unknown regarding Malaria and the lack of success by any one to come up with a vaccine etc.

Sickle cell anaemia is not a significant factor in India. (If you had to chose it would not be the gene for that!).

Obviously much is unknown about possible immunity but the experience over years, is that of those living in close contact with each other in endemic areas, millions do not suffer a serious attack of malaria while some in the same area do.

There is no means of measuring immunity, but the experience handed through families is that those returning to India after a long absence are more prone to get an attack. Six months is an arbitrary figure I have no idea if this is accurate.

Regarding doctors I don't know of any statistics; but knowledge of people in the medical profession, working in the 1950s, 60's in terrible conditions in Mumbai for example dealing with wards of people with cerebral malaria, very few themselves suffered.

(Immunity; I have read in other papers takes about 12 years? to develop, so loss would be gradual also (you could use this as a reason against the 2 months out rule)????? Worth a try

Originally Posted by johnny five

So, black really is white then?

Originally Posted by davidhendry

I caught malaria in the Gulf, forty or so, years ago. The medic advised prevention being better than cure, I should plan for a daily input of alcohol.
Never been bothered since, as I always take professional advice seriously.

It's THAT time again.

Davie.

Originally Posted by dreadsoc

Now that is an anti malaria approach I like the sound of Davie

Dread - x

Originally Posted by dauchery

I get ravaged by Mosquitos wherever I go, not happy to hear about high malaria in Goa

Originally Posted by msj5

Perhaps Goa isn`t quite the place for you!

Originally Posted by johnny five

Also on "Todays papers", but relevant here:

http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/mi...6331-31297835/

"Project manager Suresh, 36, from Bradford, said the Vintage Hospital had charged him £12,000 for the ten days Rajinder spent on its wards."

For a broken leg!

So much for cheap medical treatment (at much praised Vintage hospital in Panjim)

“He was a loving brother and son with everything to live for. I just want to get to the truth.”

Bat's hope in hell! The goan authorities wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit their bum...............