World

Can the world stop malaria with new vaccines?

Published

2 years ago

February 12, 2024

Can the world stop malaria with new vaccines?

After decades of research and trials, a groundbreaking malaria vaccine is being rolled out across West Africa in a major attempt to eliminate the disease which is the second-biggest cause of death of children on the continent.

On January 22, health workers in Cameroon began gathering babies and children below five years of age for the first doses of the RTS,S vaccine, which has been developed by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and PATH, a non-profit health organisation. The vaccine’s designation – RTS,S – refers to the genes of the parasite it was produced from.

Children in Burkina Faso will be next to receive the jab, starting this month. A second vaccine, R21, was approved by the World Health Organization (WHO) in December and is likely to be rolled out in a matter of months. This vaccine is already being used in some African countries, Ghana being the first to approve it last year.

These vaccines have been developed as part of a global push to stamp out malaria, a disease which can be deadly for children and pregnant women. Nearly all of the more than 200 million annual cases in the world occur in African countries.

Here’s all you need to know about the new malaria vaccines:

How do the vaccines work?

Although research for a malaria vaccine has been ongoing since the 1980s and trials started as far back as 2004, the RTS,S vaccine was recommended by the WHO in 2021 as part of a process towards certification. In July 2022, WHO officially approved the vaccine for use. It has a 75 percent efficacy rate.

Named Mosquirix, the vaccine is formulated to activate antibodies and target the infectious stage of Plasmodium falciparum, a malaria-causing parasite. This parasite is spread by the female anopheles mosquito when it bites.

In trials carried out between 2009 and 2011 across seven African countries, the RTS,S vaccine prevented infants from developing malaria for at least three years after the first vaccination. Over the four years, malaria cases among children immunised with the vaccine when they were aged between five and 17 months dropped by 39 percent. Among those immunised between six and 12 weeks after birth, malaria cases dropped by 27 percent.

In a pilot programme launched in Ghana, Malawi and Kenya in 2019, the WHO reported that the use of the vaccine had resulted in a 13 percent decline in the number of deaths from malaria among more than two million children monitored.

R21, or Matrix-M, is a second malaria vaccine that was approved by the WHO in December 2023. It was developed by Oxford University and manufactured by Serum Institute of India. In test trials, R21 showed an efficacy rate of 75 percent over 12 months. There are plans to roll out this jab in Africa alongside the RTS,S vaccine in mid-2024.

Wendy Prudhomme O’Meara, a professor at Duke University, told Al Jazeera the main drawback of the Oxford vaccine is that frequent boosters are required.

“Efficacy wanes within a year [and] this makes it very effective for seasonal protection but we hope that as we continue to build the R&D [research and development] pipeline for malaria, we can improve on this,” O’Meara said. “I think the malaria community understands that this is an important first step, but it is not the end of the road.”

Two vials of the Mosquirix vaccine inside a cold chamber in Nairobi, Kenya, October 2021 [Patrick Meinhardt/Getty Images]

How dangerous is malaria?

Severe malaria can cause complications such as organ failure and can result in death. It is the number two cause of toddler deaths in Africa after respiratory illnesses – nearly half a million children die from malaria in African countries every year.

The disease is especially deadly for children because they are less likely to have built up any immunity to it.

Pregnant women in their second and third trimesters are also particularly vulnerable to becoming infected with malaria because their immunity levels are reduced. People visiting high transmission areas from malaria-free zones are vulnerable too because they lack any built-up immunity that comes from living in endemic areas.

Millions of malaria cases are recorded every year around the world. In 2022 alone, some 249 million cases were recorded, with a death toll of 608,000 across 85 countries.

Nearly all – 94 percent – of these were in African countries.

Why are African countries so vulnerable to malaria?

A host of factors including weather patterns, poor sanitation and weak public healthcare systems contribute to the continent carrying nearly all of the world’s malaria burden.

In 2022, nearly all deaths from malaria worldwide were recorded on the continent. Four countries – Nigeria (27 percent), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (12 percent), Uganda (5 percent) and Mozambique (4 percent) – accounted for almost half of all cases.

Malaria thrives in the tropics, where climatic conditions allow the anopheles mosquito to successfully produce malaria parasites in its saliva, which it transmits to humans when it bites them. Waterlogged, damp places are the insect’s favourite breeding ground. During the rainy season, therefore, malaria transmission rates tend to be higher.

Some analysts describe malaria as “a disease of the poor”. Families living in mosquito-infested environments who cannot afford chemically treated mosquito nets or insecticides often bear the brunt of the disease. Treatments for the disease can be expensive. In Mozambique, a 2019 study found that one household will need to spend $3.46 for treatments for an uncomplicated case, but up to $81.08 for treatments for a severe case. The average household income in Mozambique is about $149 per month.

Even without vaccines, malaria could be eliminated if more attention is paid to reducing poverty structures and providing better living environments, O’Meara of Duke University said.

“Malaria was eliminated in the US before modern insecticide-treated nets, before DDT [insecticide] and certainly before artemisinin combination drugs or vaccines,” she said. “Malaria ecology in the US was of course much different than Africa, but still that was achieved by environmental management, bednets [untreated] and by reducing human-mosquito contact through better living conditions. Poor housing construction, open windows and eaves, open drainage systems and poor urban water management contribute significantly to the persistence of malaria.”

Countries in Asia, the Pacific and South America also experience malaria transmission, especially Papua New Guinea. Outside Africa, the disease is also spread by the female anopheles, but it carries Plasmodium vivax, another malaria parasite that can thrive in lower temperatures.

Which African countries have eliminated malaria?

So far, three African countries have successfully rid themselves of malaria: Mauritius (1973), Algeria (2019) and Cape Verde, which was certified malaria-free by the WHO last month after reporting zero transmissions for three consecutive years.

It took a huge effort. Cape Verde, for example, took decades to get the WHO certification. All 10 of its islands were affected by malaria in the 1950s. Using targeted insecticide spraying campaigns, the country reported itself malaria-free in 1967 and again in 1983, only to discover more malaria cases later.

Could malaria be wiped out worldwide?

Eliminating malaria everywhere in the world might be possible, but not with vaccines alone.

Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates, who commits billions of dollars to malaria research through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, predicts that malaria could be eradicated by 2040, based on elimination targets at the country level.

The new vaccines are a “momentous achievement” and will provide a huge boost to the global eradication push, but they will not be effective alone, says Krystal Birungi, an entomologist with Target Malaria, an organisation working on developing genetically modified mosquitoes to reduce malaria transmission.

“It is an important addition to the toolbox for the fight against malaria and will save many lives,” Birungi said. “That said, research has shown that no one tool is a silver bullet against malaria and it is still vitally essential to utilise the existing tools, like insecticide sprays, long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and antimalarial drugs, as well as to continue developing new tools like genetically modified mosquitoes and gene drive to fight malaria.”

Many countries already distribute insecticide nets, chemicals and preventive oral solutions in high-risk areas free of charge. However, there are monetary and logistical challenges to carrying out widespread, consistent spraying, with conflict and instability in several countries hindering those measures.

Furthermore, mosquito behaviour is changing. As the world continues to warn because of climate change, studies show that mosquitoes will gain more breeding environments, meaning there could be higher transmission rates for diseases like malaria.

Currently, African countries are trying to tackle the anopheles stephensi, an invasive species originally from South Asia that thrives in urban environments.

“Due to the vector being a mosquito that can fly and doesn’t respect boundaries, we need to achieve malaria elimination everywhere in order to ensure safety for all, even places where malaria has been declared eliminated,” Birungi added.

female anopheles mosquite — A feeding female anopheles funestus mosquito. The species is a known transmitter of malaria [James Gathany/CDC via AP]

What happens next with the vaccines?

Burkina Faso – which recorded nearly 12.5 million cases of malaria in 2022 – began its inoculation campaign on February 5, adding the RTS,S to other routine vaccines for children. Some 250,000 children are being immunised in an initial phase because of a limited number of doses.

Children from five months old are eligible for the scheduled four-dose treatment – or five doses for infants and children in high-risk areas.

Liberia, Niger and Sierra Leone will be next to deploy the jab later this year.

There is a very high demand for the vaccines, so supply is likely to fall far short. Only 18 million doses of the RTS,S vaccine are currently available to cover 12 countries through 2025, according to Gavi [full name, organisation, etc?]. It is unclear how many doses are needed or what the shortfall is, however, there are about 207 million children aged below four across the continent. In all, African countries will need some 40 to 60 million malaria doses annually by 2026.

The rollouts may also face social challenges. In the past, rumours that vaccines make women sterile have caused people to shun polio jabs in countries like Nigeria. Bringing the doses to rural and remote areas, as well as finding adequate electricity supply to store them at the required cool temperature, could also prove to be significant hurdles that will have to be overcome.

World

Netflix Says No to Warner Bros. After Price War, Beltway Concerns

Published

8 hours ago

February 26, 2026

Press Room

Netflix Says No to Warner Bros. After Price War, Beltway Concerns

And just like that, Netflix has bowed out of its pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery’s streaming and studio assets.

Late Thursday, the streaming colossus announced that it has decided against raising its $82.7 billion bid for a big chunk of the WBD properties, leaving Paramount Skydance with what amounts to the winning offer. Under Paramount’s latest revision to its original proposal, David Ellison’s media conglomerate will fork over some $111 billion for everything under the WBD tent, including the sports-heavy cable networks division.

Among the backers of Paramount’s $31 per share, all-cash bid are Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citi and Apollo, which are providing a $57.5 billion debt commitment, and Ellison’s father/Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who has guaranteed a $45.7 billion equity commitment.

In a statement issued by co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, Netflix noted that Paramount’s latest escalation made any further attempt to claim the WBD assets a bad bit of business. “The transaction we negotiated would have created shareholder value with a clear path to regulatory approval,” Sarandos and Peters wrote. “However, we’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount Skydance bid.”

Netflix went on to thank the WBD brass for “running a fair and rigorous process” before going on to characterize the assets as “a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price.”

Meanwhile, as part of its sweetened offer, Paramount will foot the bill for the $2.8 billion termination fee WBD now owes Netflix.

Netflix’s announcement arrived just hours after Sarandos met with White House staffers to discuss his company’s bid for the WBD assets. President Donald Trump was not on hand for the meeting.

Paramount’s updated offer all but guarantees that it will walk away with the WBD spoils. While shareholders must vote to approve the deal, the amount of cash in play and the absence of a viable alternative suggest that the transaction will get the green flag.

Upon closing, the Paramount deal will bring CBS Sports and Turner Sports under one roof, thereby creating a massive rights portfolio that includes the NFL, NHL, Major League Baseball, college football, the Masters, the UFC and March Madness.

Uniting the rights to the marquee men’s college hoops tourney would effectively close the circle on the partnership forged in 2010 by former CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus and ex-Turner Sports president David Levy. After McManus determined that CBS could no longer afford to go it alone with its coverage of March Madness, the two execs hashed out a 14-year, $10.8 billion rights deal that would see the Turner networks share the burden—and the spoils—with CBS.

Ten years ago, the two partners extended the deal through 2032, tacking on another eight years of Madness for an additional $8.8 billion.

Having been subjected to a Beltway cross-examination and at least one disapproving social media salvo by the president, Netflix may have come to the conclusion that the regulatory fix was in. Earlier this month, Sarandos was grilled by a Senate committee in an antitrust hearing that often teetered on the edge of the profoundly unserious. In one heated exchange, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked why “so much of Netflix content for children promotes a transgender ideology?”

Hawley began his line of questioning by inquiring into relevant matters (labor concerns, theatrical windows), before veering into the culture war lane near the end of his allotted time. He concluded by expressing his concern that Sarandos and Netflix “don’t share my values or those of many other American parents,” a vibes-based assessment which the framers of the Sherman Act neglected to consider 136 years ago when they were going about the business of outlawing monopolistic practices.

Later in the hearing, Eric Schmitt, the junior senator from the Show Me State, told Sarandos that Netflix was responsible for creating the “wokest content in the history of the world.” Again, this was an antitrust hearing, not a meeting of a network standards and practices division.

Ellison turned down an invitation to testify at the hearing.

Netflix’s decision to bow out of the running was made shortly after the WBD board determined that Paramount’s latest bid was the “superior” offer. Paramount’s strategy to usurp Netflix as the front runner was reinforced by an aggressive campaign to assure WBD shareholders that it has a far better shot at successfully negotiating any potential regulatory hurdles.

Misgivings about Netflix’s chances were further amplified last weekend when President Donald Trump made a dig at a Netflix board member.

Trump on Saturday took to Truth Social to demand that Netflix bounce Susan Rice from its board of directors “IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences.” A former Obama and Biden administration official, Rice poked the bear during a podcast appearance in which she insinuated that “it is not going to end well” for corporations and news organizations that “bent the knee” to Trump.

When asked by the BBC about Trump’s anti-Rice salvo, Sarandos tried to shrug the whole thing off, saying of the president, “He likes to do a lot of things on social media.” Sarandos went on to assert that the executive branch has no say in the matter, and while that may be accurate from a legal standpoint, the Netflix co-CEO may want to take a gander at the big pile of nothing that used to be the East Wing of the White House. Stranger things (sorry) have happened.

“This is a business deal. It’s not a political deal,” Sarandos said. “This deal is run by the Department of Justice in the U.S. and regulators throughout Europe and around the world.”

The day after Sarandos brushed off Trump’s remarks, Paramount upped its offer to WBD to $31 a share, to be paid in all cash. This marked the 10th revision of Paramount’s original bid and included billions in additional financial incentives. Just hours after WBD acknowledged receipt of the beefed-up proposal, Ellison, the chairman and CEO of Paramount, attended the State of the Union Address as a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

The Justice Department, which just two weeks ago dismissed Gail Slater, the head of its antitrust division, is said to be looking into Paramount’s proposal. Under federal law, antitrust enforcers are at liberty to scuttle any deal that poses a threat to fair and competitive business practices.

On Wednesday, House Democrats petitioned U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide a full accounting of why the DOJ ousted Slater, noting that her ejection has left a “leadership vacuum” at a time when “the antitrust division is handling historic cases.” Signed by Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House judiciary committee, and Jerry Nadler, a Democratic congressman from New York, the letter stated that Slater’s departure leaves the DOJ bereft of “any principled antitrust experts left to guard the antitrust division from [a] cascade of corruption.”

Hand-picked by Trump to lead the antitrust division, Slater was confirmed by the Senate last March by a 78-19 vote.

World

Tour guide arrested after drawing stick figure on 4,000-year-old pyramid

Published

9 hours ago

February 26, 2026

Press Room

Tour guide arrested after drawing stick figure on 4,000-year-old pyramid

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

An Egyptian tour guide was arrested after allegedly sketching a stick figure onto the side of the 4,000-year-old Pyramid of Unas while leading a group of tourists.

Video of the incident, which circulated widely on social media, shows the man leaning toward a lower section of the pyramid’s outer casing while tourists stand nearby listening. He is then seen attempting to wipe the markings away with his hand, though remnants remain visible in the footage.

In a post on X, Egypt’s Interior Ministry said the guide “damaged an antiquity by drawing on the outer casing of one of the pyramids” while explaining the site to tourists. Although the initial report mentioned the general Giza area.

The ministry said the investigation was launched after the video spread online, prompting an antiquities inspector to file a report with the Saqqara Tourism Police Station identifying the guide. Officials said the markings were later removed by specialists.

An Egyptian tour guide was arrested after allegedly sketching a stick figure on the 4,000-year-old Pyramid of Unas in Saqqara, officials said. (Egyptian Ministry of Interior)

Authorities apprehended the suspect, who confessed to the act during questioning, according to the ministry.

“Legal measures have been taken,” the ministry added, noting that specialists have since removed the markings.

Local media outlets, citing the Interior Ministry’s investigation, identified the site as the Pyramid of Unas in the Saqqara necropolis south of Giza.

VANDALS HIT YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK WITH GRAFFITI ON BOULDER, MORE

An Egyptian tour guide was arrested after allegedly sketching a stick figure on the 4,000-year-old Pyramid of Unas in Saqqara, officials said. (Egyptian Ministry of Interior)

B.C. for the Pharaoh Unas, is historically significant for containing the earliest Pyramid Texts. These religious inscriptions consist of more than 200 spells carved into the pyramid’s interior walls, forming what scholars consider the oldest known collection of funerary texts.

ARCHAEOLOGISTS FIND 1,600-YEAR-OLD CHURCHES AND MURAL OF JESUS IN EGYPTIAN DESERT SETTLEMENT

An Egyptian tour guide was arrested after allegedly sketching a stick figure on the 4,000-year-old Pyramid of Unas in Saqqara, officials said. (Egyptian Ministry of Interior)

The pyramid is located within the vast Saqqara necropolis, part of ancient Memphis – Egypt’s first capital and now a UNESCO World Heritage Site that contains a sprawling complex of tombs, temples and pyramids.

Egypt has increased enforcement and preservation efforts at archaeological sites in recent years as officials seek to protect ancient monuments that attract millions of visitors annually.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Under Egypt’s Antiquities Protection Law, damaging actions such as writing on or damaging archaeological sites can carry prison sentences and fines, with the exact penalties varying by offense.

Greg Wehner is a breaking news reporter for Fox News Digital.

Story tips and ideas can be sent to Greg.Wehner@Fox.com and on Twitter @GregWehner.

World

Italy calls for suspension of EU carbon market

Published

10 hours ago

February 26, 2026

Press Room

Italy calls for suspension of EU carbon market

Italy’s Industry minister Adolfo Urso urged the European Union to suspend its carbon market until the bloc presents a revised proposal due this summer, citing the hardship faced by European businesses because of high power and carbon costs.

The Emissions Trading System (ETS) is the bloc’s mechanism for making companies pay for their pollution, with the dual aim of reducing emissions and encouraging industry to invest in more sustainable alternatives.

In Europe, the ETS currently covers heavy industries, power plants as well as airlines and shipping. Additional sectors such as international aviation, landfills and incinerators will be included in the upcoming review by the European Commission.

But Urso said the ETS is to blame for Europe’s competitiveness problems because the bloc’s climate policy tool has a “perverse effect” and is preventing European companies from competing with China and the United States.

“We are all aware that the mechanism of the ETS, as it is currently drafted, is only a tax, a tariff on the energy-intensive companies that struggle to remain competitive,” Urso told reporters on the sidelines of a gathering of industry ministers in Brussels on Thursday. “It is necessary – we are all aware – to review it in a substantive way.”

“To do this properly, it is necessary to suspend the ETS mechanism while awaiting a reform that must necessarily be comprehensive,” Urso added.

Urso added: “If we are in the face of the collapse of the European chemical industry and the crisis of European ideology, we cannot wait for the time of negotiations within the European Union to find a solution.”

The Italian minister said that in the meantime, “we are looking for an effective organic solution,” adding that he will ask the European Commission to suspend the ETS.

Italy’s plea joins that of industry leaders who have recently asked the EU to urgently act to reduce energy and carbon costs. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has recently touted the same idea, driving down carbon market prices, only to backtrack on it a few days later.

Nordic business leaders back ETS

In a letter sent to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, a group of Nordic industry associations representing Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway urged the EU to maintain the ETS, highlighting its role as a key European advantage and as a source of certainty for investments in clean technologies.

They backed the ETS as a “market-based and technology-neutral policy instrument” that helps reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

“Reforming the system must be done carefully, because it has such a significant impact on the economy and competitiveness, in addition to the climate,” the Nordic leaders suggested.

The four industry associations argued that future prosperity in the EU is linked to the ETS since its revenues can bring about decisive investments in clean energy production, critical infrastructure, electrification, and ultimately the decarbonisation of industry.

“Efficient use of the EU’s own resources is central to achieving almost all the Union’s major strategic aims, and these efforts require reliable access to both public and private financing,” reads the letter dated 23 February and seen by Euronews.

Since its inception in 2005, the ETS has slashed emissions by 39%, with revenues exceeding €260 billion, according to the EU data.

Hindering technological innovation

Carlo Carraro, President Emeritus and Professor of Economics at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, criticised the Italian government’s stance on the ETS, saying the attack risks weakening a policy that has proven effective in reducing emissions in regulated sectors.

“Innovation and competitiveness are now inextricably linked to decarbonisation,” Carraro said. “Hindering the transition exposes businesses to increasing technological and financial risks and makes the country less competitive”.

Similar thoughts were voiced by Chiara di Mambro, Director of Strategy Italy and Europe at the environmental think tank ECCO.

“Suspending the ETS as proposed today or subsidising gas, as envisaged in the Government’s recent decree, would move Italy in the opposite direction (higher energy prices): weakening the price signal, increasing market uncertainty, and ultimately delaying the transition away from expensive fossil fuels,” di Mambro said.

Italy is already on track to overhaul its electricity market, which would strip carbon costs from power bills. Instead, Di Mambro suggests using fiscal revenues or dividends from energy companies to reduce the burden of levies on electricity bills.