A report by BBC citing a Lancet article says may be not:
Efforts to eradicate malaria in some countries may be counter-productive, an international team of researchers suggest.
In the Lancet, they suggest some countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, may be better pursing a policy of controlling the disease.
They also criticise the World Health Organization (WHO) for not providing adequate direction.
But a WHO spokesman said beating malaria must remain the ultimate goal.
I will try to locate the Lancet article and post more on this later.
On a related news, Dideir Drogba has just been diagnosed with malaria:
Story from The Independent here.
In a classic malaria case, it took weeks (and even possibly months) to detect what a "mystery virus" Drogba had contacted. Who would have thought a Premier League player living the highest standards of life in London would contact malaria? Now that I've learned form the same article that Drogba will be able to receive treatments for 48 hours to keep him fit enough to play in the next game, I personally think this is a blessing in disguise. This will further raise the awareness of the brutal disease worldwide. It will also give Drogba, already a figure known for his humanitarian work especially in his country of Ivory Coast, a strong personal drive to push the cause even further.
I've got to say that the man has an immense strength: he played almost a full game just two days before the announcement of the diagnosis, even though the symptoms of malaria had already kicked in at least a month ago. According to the Independent, he "has been suffering from headaches and high temperatures off and on for the past month." He also played in at least two other games in the past two weeks alone.
More to come on malaria soon...
