[macintux]

If anything, that would seem to make it even more significant. Treatments for people often have side-effects for the patient, and as we see with increasing resistance, side-effects for the population as a whole.

This is potentially a way to stop malaria permanently with few side effects.

[rriepe]

Are you disagreeing with something I said?

[macintux]

I’m disagreeing with the implication of your statement that it’s _less_ significant because it’s a treatment for mosquitos.

If that implication was not intended, then I have no idea what you were attempting to infer.

[rriepe]

He asked what he was missing and I pointed out that the headline was referring to malaria in mosquitoes, and not malaria in humans (as a human reading it might assume).

I wasn't making any point about overall impact. One is simply a much, much bigger news item than the other (It's "We can cure 400k people with malaria right now!" vs. "We've made a promising step in the overall fight against malaria" -- one has never happened and one happens monthly).

The BBC retained this ambiguity for clickbait reasons. I was just dispelling the ambiguity. If they added "in mosquitoes" to the headline this wouldn't have happened. But then we also wouldn't be commenting on it.

[bastawhiz]

> He asked what he was missing and I pointed out that the headline was referring to malaria in mosquitoes, and not malaria in humans

Yes, but mosquitos are a vector for malaria in humans. If mosquitos are infected (at scale) with the microbe and can be cured or made "immune" to malaria, it effectively stops the transmission of malaria to people. If the science checks out and infected male mosquitos are released into the environment in areas with high (human) malaria infection rates, it becomes extremely easy (fast, cost effective, simple) to prevent new malaria infections in people.

This general approach is already being used today, albeit with less success. See Google's "Debug" project:

https://debug.com/

Dismissing the importance of the findings here as "only treating malaria in mosquitos" ignores the much broader implications of the research here. The headline is not sensational, and the perceived ambiguity in the headline does not decrease the significance or potential importance of the discovery.

[rriepe]

It's extremely trashy to quote someone when they didn't actually say the thing you put in quotation marks. Bother someone else with your straw-man bullshit.

[robbrown451]

I don't see any indication that you were misquoted.

[JungleGymSam]

I understood what you meant. Somehow, other people are not.