Tuesday, March 4, 2014
It's dangerous to go alone! Take this!
I was reading Gelani's post about malaria killing 660,000 people (91% in Africa), and the use of nets to block the main cause of the disease, mosquitoes. I completely agree with this organisation, but I think they could also send some money into actually curing the Malaria, as that would have long-term help. A cure was discovered in 1942, but a high level of toxicity was discovered. For this reason, the cure (DDT) was abandoned. Another issue with a cure is that the disease could change, much like how the flu does. Do you think there should be more focus on nets or a cure?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey that about my paper. I think they should be more focused on the nets because some of the country that have been hit by malaria but they can barley pay for treatment so why would they try to buy some cure that may not work on everyone. I do agree with you that some money should go into curing malaria but some people would not pay a dime just because they think it not affecting them and just don't bother trying to help. So instead of trying to get people to pay for the cure they should just try to get people to donate to "Nothing But Nets". I'am not saying there is no chance of there being a cure but why start something while we have some thing great like "Nothing But Nets" that actually save's lives and something African family trust. If you had the choice of making a cure or just keep faith in "Nothing But Nets" what would you do?
ReplyDelete