Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

GM mosquitos a 'quantum leap' towards tackling malaria


nuckin_futz

Recommended Posts

This is by far your most idiotic post, out of all the ones I've disagreed with to date. You, along with some other usually sensible posters, are insensitive to the plight of the majority of the world. What kind of disillusioned self righteousness does one need to have to see getting rid of malaria as a stepping stone for human greed and depravity? Can you imagine how insensitive it'd sound if someone said about cancerous diseases "Why bother trying to fix it? Why fund research? It's just a way of keeping your rich fat old asses in control in the first world anyway lel"?

Here, in a thread outlining what could possibly be a Nobel prize in physiology and medicine in the future with as much potential impact as Salk's polio vaccine, we have naive first world whiners using the same rhetoric they always use whenever "genetically modified" is a term that is part of the topic. Not only are most of you absolutely illiterate when it comes to understanding basic ecological principles, the pathology and transfer of malaria disease; most of you are too lazy to even google that stuff up before you write all these half assed half truths.

OP's poor choice of article is partly to blame but let me clear some stuff up before you go on chest thumping about some sacred ass "food chain".

1. ecology 101: when one niche (ecological role) is left empty, some other similar species takes up that same role in that geographical area

2. this proposal outlines modifying only the Anopheles subspecies capable of transferring malaria. There are about 460 subspecies in the world, and out of that only 30-40 transfer Plasmodium, These aren't evil scientists hell bent on annihilating every mosquito ever. Majority of these subspecies ecological niches can be readily filled by the other subspecies of Anopheles that are not capable of transferring malaria

3. Pre 1950's, majority of the Americas and Europe also suffered from malaria disease as well. Vector control (hm, I wonder what they are doing here) and better sanitation combined is why you are all grown men who have no idea what the hell this disease is. Yes, the Anopheles subspecies that transferred malaria here do not exist anymore. Did the world end because of that?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC126857/pdf/0033.pdf

Do your research before you open your mouth. Stupidity pisses me off.

Holy smokes, slow your roll. You have a lot of seriously whack assumptions here.

First, this ' you are insensitive to the plight of the majority of the world.' is a pretty massive leap in 'logic' from my post. I don't know who you are, nor do you know who am I or my history. I'm not about to go deep into this with you but I've been to, and lived in these kinds of places. I've had bugs like malaria (not malaria itself but others) and so I get it.

Second, I never said I'm against getting rid of malaria. I said playing god is a bad idea. I don't care if it's a mosquito or a sacred panda bear. My use of 'food chain' was more so in the context of screwing with nature.

Third, 'we have naive first world whiners using the same rhetoric they always use whenever "genetically modified" is a term that is part of the topic' I never said anything about GMO, again weird assumption.

Anyway, you seem to have some pent up something about this. But rather than sit back and call me an idiot because of a whole pile of assumptions based on my two sentences in this entire thread, why don't you ask for clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy smokes, slow your roll. You have a lot of seriously whack assumptions here.

First, this ' you are insensitive to the plight of the majority of the world.' is a pretty massive leap in 'logic' from my post. I don't know who you are, nor do you know who am I or my history. I'm not about to go deep into this with you but I've been to, and lived in these kinds of places. I've had bugs like malaria (not malaria itself but others) and so I get it.

Second, I never said I'm against getting rid of malaria. I said playing god is a bad idea. I don't care if it's a mosquito or a sacred panda bear. My use of 'food chain' was more so in the context of screwing with nature.

Third, 'we have naive first world whiners using the same rhetoric they always use whenever "genetically modified" is a term that is part of the topic' I never said anything about GMO, again weird assumption.

Anyway, you seem to have some pent up something about this. But rather than sit back and call me an idiot because of a whole pile of assumptions based on my two sentences in this entire thread, why don't you ask for clarification.

The drama I tells ya...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current North America is a living breathing prospering example of what happens when you kick a subspecies (that is otherwise indistinguishable from other subspecies of Anopheles) out of the habitat. What "unknown long term consequences" are you looking out for? "Vast"? Again, these subspecies for the most part are indistinguishable. You are using superlatives without understanding the ecological scope of this proposal.

At the end of the day, I am thankful people that will have the most say in this are those that have a better understanding of such consequences. They will begin a trial on an isolated island population, observe for a decade, and then move on to grander scales. This isn't something they just thought up on a whim and it won't be established on a whim

"Oh, but but this thing might have unknown long term consequences even if millions continue to die" is a remark often made by anti vaccers as well.

Let's just avoid the tinfoil hat vaccine angles nobody brought up, ok? ;)

There's a LOT of environmental and other problems in North America so I'm not sure you want to use it as an example of some shining beacon. It's been financially prosperous for a humans for a couple hundred years. Yup.

What effects annihilating a species of mosquito had on that is highly debatable. Pinning down what (if any) other effects annihilating them had is also completely up in the air as, one- there's really no way of knowing, and two- I doubt anyone has put much thought in to it. Especially as ecological preservation is a relatively new mindset.

Nobody claimed they thought anything up on a whim. I'm glad they're at least doing small scale trials in attempt to mitigate unintended consequences at least but it's still no guarantee. At least they seem willing to admit there could be some without just going full bore and shouting at everyone questioning them that they're stupid, disillusioned, self righteous idiots ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the only example I am using is the relevant and applicable one. The burden of proof is on you to bring up others that are very similar in technique, scope and goal.

if the criticism in this place came from a place of better understanding of not only the situation, but principles, then I assure you they'd be better regarded. I bring up anti vaccers because they are in that same place and bring up similar quality of criticism

Not necessarily. While it is off-topic, many people are skeptical of the safety of vaccines due to the extreme conflicts of interests that exist within that industry and the ones who profit are the same ones who promote and fund the studies. Not to mention the evil individuals such as Rockefeller run some of the companies that produce those vaccines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main concern would be the short-term loss of a food source for certain species of amphibians, birds, and arthropods that rely heavily on the targeted species until other mosquitoes could fill the niche. It probably wouldn't be a huge deal in areas subject to prominent dry seasons, where the animals there would already be accustomed to heavily fluctuating mosquito numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The negative would be overpopulation of humans especially in 3rd world countries like Africa. The mosquitoes I guess kind of control the human population and keep it in check. If this is successful, instead of 5 year old African children dying of Malaria, they would be dying of starvation and the African population would suddenly explode.

Eradicating smallpox did the trick already...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just avoid the tinfoil hat vaccine angles nobody brought up, ok? ;)

There's a LOT of environmental and other problems in North America so I'm not sure you want to use it as an example of some shining beacon. It's been financially prosperous for a humans for a couple hundred years. Yup.

What effects annihilating a species of mosquito had on that is highly debatable. Pinning down what (if any) other effects annihilating them had is also completely up in the air as, one- there's really no way of knowing, and two- I doubt anyone has put much thought in to it. Especially as ecological preservation is a relatively new mindset.

Getting rid of the Rocky Mountain locust is probably more of a reason for economic stability/prosperity in North America...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. While it is off-topic, many people are skeptical of the safety of vaccines due to the extreme conflicts of interests that exist within that industry and the ones who profit are the same ones who promote and fund the studies. Not to mention the evil individuals such as Rockefeller run some of the companies that produce those vaccines.

I have no problem with the scientific theory of vaccination.

I just want them to be fully open-source with no government-granted patent protection via intellectual property laws...and if there was a way to go around government-granted corporate limited-liability that alleviates responsibility too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the scientific theory of vaccination.

I just want them to be fully open-source with no government-granted patent protection via intellectual property laws...and if there was a way to go around government-granted corporate limited-liability that alleviates responsibility too...

I personally am fine with immunology and immunization to disease.

What I was referring to specifically is this:

Abstract

Conflicts of interest (COIs) cloud vaccine safety research. Sponsors of research have competing interests that may impede the objective study of vaccine side effects. Vaccine manufacturers, health officials, and medical journals may have financial and bureaucratic reasons for not wanting to acknowledge the risks of vaccines. Conversely, some advocacy groups may have legislative and financial reasons to sponsor research that finds risks in vaccines. Using the vaccine-autism debate as an illustration, this article details the conflicts of interest each of these groups faces, outlines the current state of vaccine safety research, and suggests remedies to address COIs. Minimizing COIs in vaccine safety research could reduce research bias and restore greater trust in the vaccine program.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22375842

Not to mention that one of the most famous and respected microbiologists and vaccinologists in the world; Maurice Hilleman, referred to vaccines as "the bargain basement technology for the 20th century".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

99% of all species to ever exists are extinct. no one will miss mosquitos but yet these same people who are concerned about Mossies going extinct would have no problem with humans going extinct. Go kill yourself already and speed up the process.

It is well known that nations that prosper eventually their populations do not grow or grow slowly. these poor nations just keep pumping out useless humans because they have nothing else to do. It could all be solved easily but that would mean taking out a lot of dictators and despots that control these countries. then everyone would be mad at the west for starting a war. So stfu and get on with your life or end it if you think humans are a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the scientific theory of vaccination.

I just want them to be fully open-source with no government-granted patent protection via intellectual property laws...and if there was a way to go around government-granted corporate limited-liability that alleviates responsibility too...

Who will fund the research?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These little buggers are an integral part of the food chain for countless species. Hmmm what happens when they are wiped out ? Any guesses.

Another subspecies will become more prominent and fill it's place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...