No, it doesn't mean that at all. The authors in the paper you quote write about the possibility of iron sequestration due to arsenic and manganese contamination in the water during the second half of the study. They call for additional research.
But the fish apparently does not work. So why is the fish still regularly hailed in papers as well as being still manufactured and sold (to first-worlders, at $25 a piece)?
The $25 supports getting the fish to 3rd worlders at a low cost, http://www.luckyironfish.com. Far as I can tell the fish doesn't work if the water is contaminated with arsenic and/or manganese, so more research is needed.
As long as the fish doesn’t work (and further research is needed to find out how to fix it), why should people pay to have it shipped anywhere? I note that it doesn’t say anywhere on the page you linked to about how the fish doesn’t work in the long term – only page after page of endorsements and accolades (and offers to sell the fish, of course).
Short-term efficacy is not zero efficacy. If the fish works to alleviate anemia for three months, it seems worthwhile to continue distributing the fish and to rally support for further research.
Sure, this fish is probably getting too much hype for how effective it is, but isn't it better than nothing?
Part of a series of FP lectures using Haskell. I was impressed by Erik's love for the subject. See 27:35 to see how Haskell boils down function composition to its essence, compared to C#/Java.
