Deworming debunked

Insect control will definitely improve children's health, but it is said to have broader benefits. Nigel Hawkes discovered that the evidence behind these claims is often ambiguous.

At first glance, there seems to be no doubt the treatment of intestinal parasites of children in poor countries. In India, Africa, or other popular areas, will you use a small amount of cheap expense to provide some bargains for someone?

However, the obvious advantage is that there are possibilities that many well-intentioned individuals and institutions are exaggerating. Antiparasitic is known as a panacea: an easy, inexpensive and effective way to promote growth, improve the power of the brain and improve the education and employment prospects of millions of children

It has many supporters. At the 2008 Davos Economic Summit, Sherry Blair, former Prime Minister Tony Blair's wife, pursued a group pretending to be a worm, pretending to be a representative of children. Tony is obviously not moving: "Every time I mention this topic to my husband," Shelly was confident in Time magazine, he seemed very painful and ran out of the room "

If you count international organizations that support not only development but also health exercises, you will soon runaway: World Bank, World Health Organization, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institutes of Health Hospital, Copenhagen Consensus, Poverty Control Innovation, Effective Global Operation Center, Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Control Laboratory, and of course Deworm the World. Of course, the list of such long impressive supporters MUST know that it is really useful?

Do not read if you read the latest revision of the Cochrane Review of the topic published by the Liverpool Tropical School Team this July

In the past few years, support for worm removal continues to increase. Charity group evaluator GiveWell advises donors to donate to Deworm the World and Schistosomiasis initiatives based on the strength of evidence from large scale disinfection programs. However, the first serious problem of evidence was revealed in 2012. At that time, Cochrane Collaboration, a group systematically reviewing the evidence for research testing established a review that scarcely found evidence to support massive worm elimination. "Our interpretation of these data suggests that evidence based on the consistent benefits of nutrition, hemoglobin, school or school performance is not enough to know whether this is a reliable message, so it is not sufficient for modern worm disinfection programs Author who proves that rationality can be misleading

More than 150 million children are treated with antiparasitic drugs as part of NGO's evidence-action "World Save the World" campaign. This is a small portion of the 2 billion people infected with soil-borne worms (also known as parasites). It is extremely important for large-scale insect reproductive programs in countries like Kenya and India to contribute to improving health, education, and income. A new report published with reanalyzed articles said that the majority of evidence suggests that large scale parasites are ineffective. On the other hand, some independent observers opposed the new report omitting important research and the author reached a wrong conclusion.

Parasites cause human diseases. Large scale defecation and complementary measures can treat infected individuals, reduce the burden on community level, and prevent new infections. If we accept these premises this epistemological argument about the nature of the evidence converts to a way to optimize the management of these neglected tropical diseases and to identify the specific in many health needs of poor communities Prioritize the practical task of management intervention.

Previous studies show that in addition to treating infectious diseases the insect reproductive program can treat people infected with parasites and that it can bring a lot of benefits in developing countries. Researchers claim insect repellent can improve overall nutrition, enrollment rate, academic performance, anemia, even long-term income levels. But Cochrane research calculated that extra income is being exaggerated. Large public health debate continued, some headlines, particularly the Guardian, stimulated the idea of ​​many people that the disinfection program is no longer worth the money for public health. This is a scientific discussion and news report on all topics on this topic. Or can you use public health resources like HIV / AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria prevention better in other places?