Well, given the serious side effects of Malarone, if you stay 2 years in Africa, you probably don't want to pop it like M&N's.

A medical act is always a balance between the costs and the benefits of it.

Again, the CDC makes recommendations for that scenario as well; these are guidelines written by people who spend their entire lives studying and treating these diseases.

Imagine if someone who read a few articles about programming started to debate with you about the relative merits of direct SQL use vs. ORM--he might say "ORM c'est de la merde." I'm sure you would explain there are tradeoffs, it depends what you are trying to accomplish, etc. Experts in a field establish guidelines for a reason.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2018/advising-travel...

You keep saying that but you haven't read the document. Basically it says 'there are pros and cons' but we still recommend the drug. Very little explanation on to why, and on that consequences on long term use of the drug. There is basically zero study there on the consequences on what they advice, just educated guesses and they tell you "yeah do it but check with a doctor regularly". This is not science.

That's why there's a bibliography on the bottom. Review the source material they relied upon.

Not justifying conclusion, saying "check with experts" and giving away sources is not a proper medical recommendation.

It's like me writing a report to my client on "should you use an HTTP API", ending up with "probably yes but it depends so check with you local web dev" and sourcing O'Reilly books. It's political correct bullshit: as the expert, it's my job to not only give a strong actionable conclusion, but to justify the hell out of it.

Have you read the list of possible side effects of the drug ?

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/malarone-side-effects.html

This is a very active product.

If you advice somebody to take it PREVENTIVELY when you are healthy, not even mentioning on a long period of time, you better have a really compelling case.

Not just "meh, yeah do it".

>Review the source material they relied upon. //

Isn't the point of orgs like the CDC that individual citizens, who aren't experienced in the field, don't have to attempt to analyse the data for themselves; experienced people with expertise who are demonstrably not biased by commercial interests, should be giving you a simple result that anyone with a 11+ yo reading comprehension can follow and know they're doing what most experts would recommend.

If the advice differs from other country's health organisations, or from the WHO's then they should say why.

Having claimed to have gone to a tropical disease expert, what lead you to believe a link to info meant for broad consumption is more accurate?

Is there science to undermine the CDC’s positions? Sound possible. What’s the process for updating that site?

The government recommended flossing for years then retracted it recently when it turned out there was no science to back it up. Seems the industry had been peddling the notion and it got on a government document

Not saying this is the case with malaria but there’s history for it

The drug industry doesn’t make money when someone is cured. Again, no evidence for that, just history of “hmm maybe government information isn’t iron clad”