Engineer Indur Goklany, a frequent contributor to WUWT and occasional commenter has more than a few things to say about commenter Ed Darrell’s views on Malaria posted on WUWT yesterday. There’s so much in fact, that I’ve dedicated a whole guest post to it. -Anthony
Guest Post by Indur Goklany
Ed Darrell has two sets of comments, one of which, I believe, is fundamentally flawed, and the other I would agree with, at the risk of being accused by Alexander Feht of being obsequious once again (See Alexander’s comment on September 11, 2010 at 11:28 am).
A. Ed Darrell on September 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm, responding to tarpon said:
In 1972, about two million people died from malaria, worldwide.
In 2008, about 880,000 people died from malaria, worldwide. That’s fewer than half the mortality the year the U.S. stopped DDT spraying on cotton.
If it’s cause-effect you were trying to establish, I think you missed.
RESPONSE: The flaws in Ed’s analysis are aplenty.
First, although the US banned DDT in 1972, its use continued in much of the rest of the world. [If I remember correctly, the Swedes had banned it earlier.] In fact, US production of DDT for developing country use continued into the mid-1980s. Also, it took a few years for US environmentalists to ensure that the US domestic ban was — in the best traditions of cultural imperialism and bearing the white man’s burden — exported to other countries [without their (informed) consent, mind you]. [Notably, the US ban was imposed only after malaria had been wiped out in the US for practical purposes. See Figure 13, here.] In addition, countries had stockpiles which they continued to use, and not all developed countries were initially on board with eliminating DDT use worldwide. Furthermore, by 2008 some developing countries that had stopped DDT use had resumed its use. So it is not meaningful to use either 1972 or 2008 as endpoints for developing global estimates for the efficacy (or lack of it) of DDT in dealing with malaria..
Second, while DDT is in many instances the cheapest and most cost-effective method of reducing malaria (where it works, because it doesn’t always work) the death and disease rates are also sensitive to other factors, none of which have remained stationary between 1972 and 2008. These factors include general health status, adequate food and nutrition, public health services, and so on. So, it makes little sense, without adequately accounting for these factors, to compare deaths for malaria (or death rates, which would be more correct) between 1972 and 2008 to say anything about the effectiveness of DDT.
Fortunately, though, we have results of some “policy experiments” which were undertaken inadvertently — undertaken, I note, without the consent of the subjects of these experiments, something that would not be allowed in any hospital in the US, I suspect. These “experiments” allow us to evaluate the benefit of DDT (or lack thereof). As noted here (pp. 7-8) in a paper published a decade ago by Africa Fighting Malaria, it was noted that:
“Given the higher costs and, possibly, the greater efficacy of DDT, it is not surprising that despite the theoretical availability of substitutes, malaria rebounded in many poor areas where (and when) DDT usage was discontinued (WHO 1999a; Roberts 1999, Roberts et al. 1997, Sharma 1996, Whelan 1992, Guarda et al. 1999, Bate 2000). For instance, malaria incidences in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dropped from 2.8 million in the 1940s to less than 20 in 1963 (WHO 1999a, Whelan 1992). DDT spraying was stopped in 1964, and by 1969 the number of cases had grown to 2.5 million. Similarly, malaria was nearly eradicated in India in the early 1960s, and its resurgence coincided with shortages in DDT (Sharma 1996). The population at high- to medium risk of contracting malaria in Colombia and Peru doubled between 1996 and 1997 (Roberts et al. 2000b). Malaria has also reappeared in several other areas where it had previously been suppressed, if not eradicated (e.g., Madagascar, Swaziland, the two Koreas, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan; Roberts et al. 2000b, and references therein). Similarly, Roberts et al. (1997) showed that Latin American countries (e.g., Ecuador, Belize, Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela) which had discontinued or decreased spraying of DDT inside homes saw malaria rates increase. Guarda et al. (1999) also note that in 1988, when DDT use was discontinued, there were no cases of Plasmodium falciparium reported in Loreto, Peru. The number of cases increased to 140 in 1991. By 1997, there were over 54,000 cases and 85 deaths (see, also, Goklany 2000c).
“But the best argument for indoor-spraying of DDT is that in many areas where malaria experienced a resurgence, reinstating DDT use once again led to declines in malaria cases. For example, Ecuador, which had previously seen its malaria rates rebound once DDT spraying had been reduced, saw those rates decline once again by 61 percent since 1993, when DDT use was increased again (Roberts et al. 1997). The same cycle occurred in Madagascar where the malaria epidemic of 1984-86, which occurred after the suspension of DDT use, killed 100,000 people. After two annual cycles of DDT spraying, malaria incidence declined 90 percent (Roberts et al. 2000b).”
Since then, we have results of the on-again and off-again policy with regard to DDT from KwaZulu-Natal Province in South Africa:
“DDT spraying in that area started in 1946. By 1974, Anopheles funestes, the mosquito species associated with year-round prevalence of malaria in that region, had been eradicated [see Figure below.]. In the 1991/1992 malaria season, the number of malaria cases was around 600 in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). However, in 1996, DDT was replaced by synthetic pyrethroids. In 1999 members of A. funestus were found in houses in KZN that had been sprayed. In 1999/2000, there were more than 40,000 cases in KZN. In 2000, DDT was brought back. By 2002, the number of cases had dropped to 3,500.” Source: Pre-edited version of Goklany (2007), pp.79-180.
See the Figure 1.
I have also provided additional references below, if one is interested in following up.
For a broader discussion, I recommend the chapter, “Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT,” in The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). A previous version of this chapter is available free at http://goklany.org/library/DDT%20and%20PP.PDF.
Figure 1: From Goklany (2007), based on R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
B. Ed Darrell on September 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm said, “We may not beat malaria by 2014, but it won’t be because the Gates Foundation is on the wrong path.”
RESPONSE: I agree. For a long time, malaria control was neglected. Even the World Health Organization would not recommend DDT use indoors. It was revived, and even became (almost) chic thanks to a number of very high profile individuals including George Bush and Bill Gates, as well as lesser known people such as Don Roberts, Amir Attaran, Roger Bate and Richard Tren (all associated with Africa Fighting Malaria) . I delude myself into thinking that I played a minor role in helping ensure that DDT did not get banned outright under the Stockholm Convention.
Whatever people may think of Bill Gates stance on global warming, there is little doubt that he exhibited substantial political courage in espousing malaria control with DDT. That’s essentially why I was/am disappointed by his posting that set me off on this blog.
Perhaps I should have titled my piece, “Et tu Bill Gates!”
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
D. R. Roberts, et al. “DDT, global strategies, and a malaria control crisis in South America,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (1997): 295-301 (1997).
D.R. Roberts, et al., “A Probability Model of Vector Behavior: Effects of DDT Repellency, Irritancy, and Toxicity in Malaria Control,” Journal of Vector Control 25 (2000): 48-61.
Karen I. Barnes et al., “Effect of Artemether Lumefantrine Policy and Improved Vector Control on Malaria Burden in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020330.
P. E. Duffy and T. K. Mutabingwa, “Rolling Back a Malaria Epidemic in South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020368.
R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
D. H. Roberts, “Policies to Stop/Prevent Indoor Residual Spraying for Malaria Control,” 54th Annual Meeting, ASTMH, Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
I.M. Goklany, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). Chapter 2 deals with malaria and DDT.
Ed Darrell has two sets of comments, one of which, I believe, is fundamentally flawed, and the other I would agree with, at the risk of being accused by Alexander Feht of being obsequious once again (See Alexander’s comment on September 11, 2010 at 11:28 am).
A. Ed Darrell on September 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm, responding to tarpon said:
In 1972, about two million people died from malaria, worldwide.
In 2008, about 880,000 people died from malaria, worldwide. That’s fewer than half the mortality the year the U.S. stopped DDT spraying on cotton.
If it’s cause-effect you were trying to establish, I think you missed.
RESPONSE: The flaws in Ed’s analysis are aplenty.
First, although the US banned DDT in 1972, its use continued in much of the rest of the world. [If I remember correctly, the Swedes had banned it earlier.] In fact, US production of DDT for developing country use continued into the mid-1980s. Also, it took a few years for US environmentalists to ensure that the US domestic ban was — in the best traditions of cultural imperialism and bearing the white man’s burden — exported to other countries [without their (informed) consent, mind you]. [Notably, the US ban was imposed only after malaria had been wiped out in the US for practical purposes. See Figure 13, here.] In addition, countries had stockpiles which they continued to use, and not all developed countries were initially on board with eliminating DDT use worldwide. Furthermore, by 2008 some developing countries that had stopped DDT use had resumed its use. So it is not meaningful to use either 1972 or 2008 as endpoints for developing global estimates for the efficacy (or lack of it) of DDT in dealing with malaria..
Second, while DDT is in many instances the cheapest and most cost-effective method of reducing malaria (where it works, because it doesn’t always work) the death and disease rates are also sensitive to other factors, none of which have remained stationary between 1972 and 2008. These factors include general health status, adequate food and nutrition, public health services, and so on. So, it makes little sense, without adequately accounting for these factors, to compare deaths for malaria (or death rates, which would be more correct) between 1972 and 2008 to say anything about the effectiveness of DDT.
Fortunately, though, we have results of some “policy experiments” which were undertaken inadvertently — undertaken, I note, without the consent of the subjects of these experiments, something that would not be allowed in any hospital in the US, I suspect. These “experiments” allow us to evaluate the benefit of DDT (or lack thereof). As noted here (pp. 7-8) in a paper published a decade ago by Africa Fighting Malaria, it was noted that:
“Given the higher costs and, possibly, the greater efficacy of DDT, it is not surprising that despite the theoretical availability of substitutes, malaria rebounded in many poor areas where (and when) DDT usage was discontinued (WHO 1999a; Roberts 1999, Roberts et al. 1997, Sharma 1996, Whelan 1992, Guarda et al. 1999, Bate 2000). For instance, malaria incidences in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dropped from 2.8 million in the 1940s to less than 20 in 1963 (WHO 1999a, Whelan 1992). DDT spraying was stopped in 1964, and by 1969 the number of cases had grown to 2.5 million. Similarly, malaria was nearly eradicated in India in the early 1960s, and its resurgence coincided with shortages in DDT (Sharma 1996). The population at high- to medium risk of contracting malaria in Colombia and Peru doubled between 1996 and 1997 (Roberts et al. 2000b). Malaria has also reappeared in several other areas where it had previously been suppressed, if not eradicated (e.g., Madagascar, Swaziland, the two Koreas, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan; Roberts et al. 2000b, and references therein). Similarly, Roberts et al. (1997) showed that Latin American countries (e.g., Ecuador, Belize, Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela) which had discontinued or decreased spraying of DDT inside homes saw malaria rates increase. Guarda et al. (1999) also note that in 1988, when DDT use was discontinued, there were no cases of Plasmodium falciparium reported in Loreto, Peru. The number of cases increased to 140 in 1991. By 1997, there were over 54,000 cases and 85 deaths (see, also, Goklany 2000c).
“But the best argument for indoor-spraying of DDT is that in many areas where malaria experienced a resurgence, reinstating DDT use once again led to declines in malaria cases. For example, Ecuador, which had previously seen its malaria rates rebound once DDT spraying had been reduced, saw those rates decline once again by 61 percent since 1993, when DDT use was increased again (Roberts et al. 1997). The same cycle occurred in Madagascar where the malaria epidemic of 1984-86, which occurred after the suspension of DDT use, killed 100,000 people. After two annual cycles of DDT spraying, malaria incidence declined 90 percent (Roberts et al. 2000b).”
Since then, we have results of the on-again and off-again policy with regard to DDT from KwaZulu-Natal Province in South Africa:
“DDT spraying in that area started in 1946. By 1974, Anopheles funestes, the mosquito species associated with year-round prevalence of malaria in that region, had been eradicated [see Figure below.]. In the 1991/1992 malaria season, the number of malaria cases was around 600 in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). However, in 1996, DDT was replaced by synthetic pyrethroids. In 1999 members of A. funestus were found in houses in KZN that had been sprayed. In 1999/2000, there were more than 40,000 cases in KZN. In 2000, DDT was brought back. By 2002, the number of cases had dropped to 3,500.” Source: Pre-edited version of Goklany (2007), pp.79-180.
See the Figure 1.
I have also provided additional references below, if one is interested in following up.
For a broader discussion, I recommend the chapter, “Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT,” in The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). A previous version of this chapter is available free at http://goklany.org/library/DDT%20and%20PP.PDF.
Figure 1: From Goklany (2007), based on R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
B. Ed Darrell on September 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm said, “We may not beat malaria by 2014, but it won’t be because the Gates Foundation is on the wrong path.”
RESPONSE: I agree. For a long time, malaria control was neglected. Even the World Health Organization would not recommend DDT use indoors. It was revived, and even became (almost) chic thanks to a number of very high profile individuals including George Bush and Bill Gates, as well as lesser known people such as Don Roberts, Amir Attaran, Roger Bate and Richard Tren (all associated with Africa Fighting Malaria) . I delude myself into thinking that I played a minor role in helping ensure that DDT did not get banned outright under the Stockholm Convention.
Whatever people may think of Bill Gates stance on global warming, there is little doubt that he exhibited substantial political courage in espousing malaria control with DDT. That’s essentially why I was/am disappointed by his posting that set me off on this blog.
Perhaps I should have titled my piece, “Et tu Bill Gates!”
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
D. R. Roberts, et al. “DDT, global strategies, and a malaria control crisis in South America,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (1997): 295-301 (1997).
D.R. Roberts, et al., “A Probability Model of Vector Behavior: Effects of DDT Repellency, Irritancy, and Toxicity in Malaria Control,” Journal of Vector Control 25 (2000): 48-61.
Karen I. Barnes et al., “Effect of Artemether Lumefantrine Policy and Improved Vector Control on Malaria Burden in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020330.
P. E. Duffy and T. K. Mutabingwa, “Rolling Back a Malaria Epidemic in South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020368.
R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
D. H. Roberts, “Policies to Stop/Prevent Indoor Residual Spraying for Malaria Control,” 54th Annual Meeting, ASTMH, Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
I.M. Goklany, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). Chapter 2 deals with malaria and DDT.
Sponsored IT training links:
Guaranteed 642-524 preparation with latest 640-553 dumps and HP0-S27 practice exam!
GM=The bailout guy! 🙂
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 14, 2010 at 12:02 pm
If you must complain about DDT, then promote Mother Nature’s way to control mosquitoes and thus malaria, and put up a bat house. Bats are voracious eaters of mosquitos, so more bats means less mosquitoes means less malaria thus less need for DDT. Show you’re willing to support a sustainable natural alternative and give some bats a new home.
Of course all bats are filthy disease-ridden rabies-carrying bloodsuckers, really just flying rats, so this is not done. Why Mother Nature ever allowed such vermin to evolve, ah, who knows. Best to eradicate them from anywhere humans live, to be safe. Think of the children!
One: I for one have built bat houses on my property and I used the instructions straight from my states conservation department.
Two, Malaria is not an issue in N. America. I just do not like mosquitoes and I try to use the natural solution first before resorting to chemicals.
And 3, your sarcasm is terrible, as is your reckoning of what we the skeptics at this site believe. Most of us just refuse to believe that there needs to be a solution to “over-population” because no case we have seen proves it is an issue that will lead to disaster as so claimed by the prophets of environmentalism.
We try to save human lives from those who would destroy them for no other reason then what those prophets say must be done. How does one figure out what an ideal population of the planet is? I say that the ideal population is whatever we want it to be. Anyone claiming life is not precious should lead by example. I will think of your beliefs the second you live by them.
Until then, my opinion of you is no higher then the scum on my shoes or the bat sh** in my backyard.
Hmm, I guess I have a little problem with a couple of the negative effects of DDT. If DDT kills everything, wiping out the ecosystem, and lasts for months or years, surely there can be no insects, fish, animals or birds presently existing in or near the Panama Canal after the hundreds of DDT applications during and after the Canal’s construction.
There are also areas in the United States, which also had extensive ongoing DDT applications until Malaria, was wiped out in those areas. Only then was it discontinued. For anyone who has been in, or near, the swamps of Florida, there is no doubt that the ecosystem recovers. I am sure there are examples in Europe, South America and Africa as well.
When there are uncertainties in the projected long-term destructive effects of something, go with observational data. That goes for DDT or AGW.
A lot of people here seem to be so angry about the pesticide not being used anymore and the deaths that could have been prevented with its use. What about unintended consequences, and the quiet Mad Cow Disease epidemic we heard so much about in the 80’s and 90’s. Most of you probably don’t realize that the real cause of this “epidemic” was do to the unintended consequence of pouring an organophosphate insecticide to the spine of cattle in the UK from the early 80’s to erradicate the warble fly, and the fact that it chelated the mineral copper from the brain of the cattle and replaced it with manganese and other minerals not meant for the prions in the brain of people and animals. This is not the only cause of of CJD, as it is caused by a metal imbalance and areas of the world due have natural mineral imbalances. I am not saying that DDT is harmful and definitely not saying that it is good, but I think that without an understanding of the reasons why it was pulled from the market, you should not be so sure of yourselves or angry. A lot of information that we are given in this world is spin and people that view this site know this very well, but it is sad that there are so many people ready to start using a chemical insecticide that was banned because of health concerns. I think that if you feel that strongly go ahead and spray yourself and your home, but leave me out of it, as we already get enough chemicals and toxins that are mandated by our government (flame retardents etc.). Hey and if you are so concerned about babies dying from malaria maybe you should think about crib death and maybe you should check out the link to your babies mattress. It has been found that New Zealand has all but eliminated crib death by “wrapping” mattresses to prevent the toxic gas that forms when flame retardents and a common household fungus mix in a thin layer above the mattress.
Alexander Feht says “it is nonsensical to talk about “natural ecosystems”.”
Your point about man having changed most of the natural ecosystems is well taken. This is the reason we have so many green fanatics.
What we should objecting to are the insane artificial ecosystems we create and attempt to sustain, such as golf courses, asphalt parking lots etc and how we have destroyed so many natural ecosystems (off-shore fisheries, natural forests having more than one kind of tree, unpolluted water systems etc).
I too live in the country on a property of 100 acres of mostly trees. Much of the property is covered in swamp. Some days I would love to spray DDT to get rid of the mosquitoes. But what would happen to the birds? What would happen to my water supply? Does DDT affect bee populations? Are there other unknown risks?
If I lived in a malarial area, I wouldn’t stop to think. Spray and take your chances. But to have a cavalier attitude about man’s ability to control ecosystems is irresponsible.
I love the enviros and other radicals who argue on the one hand that DDT eradicates all kinds of other insects and is too dangerous while also arguing that resistance is built up and the mosquitos make a comeback.
Are the mosquitos somehow special so that they can build up resistance and no other insects can??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
They also try to argue against DDT as if overuse is the standard when it is wasteful and supporters also are against overuse!!
From: Ben D. on September 14, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Ha ha ha ha! Thank you, that was the best laugh I had all day!
You seem to be unfamiliar with my usual writings and my frequently dry wry wit. I am far from one of those who consider overpopulation a problem. I am however well accustomed to those who proclaim “natural” is best, so long as it is their perception of “nature” which is not reality. You have those like GM who decry a human-centered viewpoint, yet are in no hurry to surrender their dominance and live in the wilderness as other animals do. People live their lives and raise their children in sterile environments with frequent cleaning and hand washing, and insist on natural organic foods grown without unnatural pesticides and fertilizers. Those that eat meat insist on natural free-range sources, and would never contemplate securing their own meat themselves as done by meat-eaters in nature as that would be unnatural cruelty against animals.
And bats are filthy creatures no decent person would tolerate around where people live, and decent people should agree DDT should be banned as a crime against Mother Nature.
I have found that practically all of those who most insist on having things be completely natural, are those who are in no way willing to completely live with nature.
Steve, believe me, I’ve seen insane, criminal pollution and environment destruction on enormous scale in the former USSR (while nobody made more noise about “environmental protection” and “industrial pollution in Western countries” than Kremlin Zombies).
In 1980s, when a person used to live in Russia would cross the border and find himself in a Western country, the first impression was how unbelievably clean and green was the landscape, compared with the all-pervasive dirt, run-down buildings, rust and gray color palette of what he left behind in worker’s paradise.
This cleanliness and lush green landscapes of the Western countries are due to the laws protecting private property, which in the end results in environmental protection. A possibility of taking a large industrial company to the court for damages caused to your property by heir industrial emissions is the most adequate and effective way to protect the environment.
Ideological “preventive” policies of the government are unnecessary and economically damaging, they turn the population against the environmental protection in principle, as it becomes an undesirable intrusion into individual people’s lives. Most of the environmental damage on this planet is caused not by private businesses or corporations (who look after their shareholders’ profits but would never intentionally alienate the same shareholders by any obvious environmentally unsound activity) — no, most of the damage to the environment is done by governments and , paradoxically, by the environmentalist academia and activists, who spread panic, support most irresponsible, unscientific government policies, destroy the education and the financial hopes of our children, and distort the reality to the extent that nobody understands the true situation any more.
Man is a part of nature, no less than a wasp or a beaver, and fixes nature to suit his need, as it is also done by wasps, beavers, and most other living organisms. Excluding man from his habitat under the pretext of “natural ecosystem” is homicidal in principle.
Bethany says:
September 14, 2010 at 1:14 pm
“Most of you probably don’t realize that the real cause of this “epidemic” was do to the unintended consequence of pouring an organophosphate insecticide to the spine of cattle in the UK from the early 80′s to erradicate the warble fly, and the fact that it chelated the mineral copper from the brain of the cattle and replaced it with manganese and other minerals not meant for the prions in the brain of people and animals. ”
‘Fraid I’m gonna have to ask for a reference for that. And please make it a recent one from a source other than a one-man organic farming crusader.
Maybe unfounded allegations against modern technology is one reason people here may seem a little angry.
I think the point of most of these comments, is that DDT needs to be used, and it needs to be used NOW, without hesitation. With the resurgence of bed bugs in New York City, and now Florida, as well as the cases of Dengue Fever showing up in the U.S….can we really afford to waste time on political policies, when the scientific facts have always been on our side?
Most of us KNOW this, but it is time to get this information to the masses. I went to a pre-screening for Dr. Rutledge’s new documentary(have you heard of him? If not, you SHOULD http://www.3billionandcounting.com) and it is displayed in such a beautiful manner, and it’s time that we let this picture paint the thousand words, instead of it lurking among the internet in a small group of people. The facts are there. The evidence of a continent being enslaved and kept in poverty by this disease are presented. The disgusting cover-ups of the EPA are exposed(did you know he is the only person with all 9312 pages of that DDT Hearing Records?).
We support lots of things in this country, and it’s time to support life and truth. If you, or anyone you know is in the NYC area, you MUST go see this film—-he even DRINKS DDT in the film, with lab results to prove it.
I could not quit thinking about it for DAYS.
It premieres at the Quad next week on September 17th. This film, unlike most things presented these days, EMPOWERS people, instead of scarring them to death like Rachel Carson did(for what, mind you). This is not about taking control back from the people, but reminding them that they have always had it.
Even if you DISAGREE, you should go see it. Why not, right?
Let’s support the 5+ years this man has put into uncovering the TRUE story of DDT.
The website for the film is posted above, and a link to the cinema in which it premieres is listed below.
I’ve never “promoted” any sort of thing in my life, but I can’t help but spread the word far and wide on this one—-and if you believe in the power of DDT and EMPOWERING people….you will too. It’s TIME.
See also the article in Canada Free Press by Paul Driessen written about this film.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27559
And Kudos to you on Ed Darrel. That man is a stooge for the EPA—- at best.
http://www.quadcinema.com/coming-soon/
@Alexander Feht.
I especially enjoyed..
“You, and only you, the green fanatics, the eco-nuts, undermined the reputation of environmental protection, embezzled uncounted public funds, distorted and faked experimental data, perverted the educational system, and made it impossible for any reasonable people to support green causes.”
I strongly agree that man cannot be excluded from the ecosystem as is often suggested (demanded) by the eco-nuts. The problem is the extent to which we attempt to reshape our environment with no regard for the effects our changes will bring, especially to those things we do not yet understand, or just clearly disregard.
I also think the following is worth repeating…
” most of the damage to the environment is done by governments and, paradoxically, by the environmentalist academia and activists, who spread panic, support most irresponsible, unscientific government policies, destroy the education and the financial hopes of our children, and distort the reality to the extent that nobody understands the true situation any more.”
But I thought the death worshiper stuff was a little over the top.
The general problem of AGW can be linked back to your point that reality is distorted to the extent that nobody understands the true situation any more.
It is essential that malaria be linked to rising CAGW temperatures (even though it is not) and greater death threats worldwide (even though deaths have been declining throughout the 20th century and rising sea levels and retreating glaciers and greater droughts and more flooding and ….
If malaria were not a urgent and rebounding threat, Penn State University’s disease lab could not have been able to generate 79 million in Mann-made federal taxpayer’s grant dollars just one month ago to study the (rising) relationship between CAGW Mann-made warming and malaria . And without those promised dollars, Penn State could not have justified their Mann-made whitewash of his ill-gotten gains and shoddy so-called research.
quote /
Pamela Gray says:
September 14, 2010 at 7:06 am
I don’t support the use of DDT because it is not specific to malaria carrying bugs. I like bugs and bug predators. In fact there are several species of bugs that I like better than some humans I know.
Wear protective lightweight clothing or use bug repellent during the day and sleep inside a net at night. Keep water barrels covered and don’t set up camp near ponds and lakes. Use bug traps.
/end quote
I suggest you go to the Valley of a Thousand Hills in KwaZulu-Natal and spend some time there working as one of the locals – with their level of money and without all your cosy comfortable western benefits.
What a
I have been in & out of Southern Africa since 1971. I can assure everyone and anyone that to the NORMAL population of Zambia/Rhodesia/Zimbabwe/South Africa/Lesotho/Swaziland/Botswana – DDT became UNAVAILABLE. Due to the USA’s environmental lobby EFFECTIVELY banning it (note I do not say the DID ban it; but their activities certainly resulted in DDT becoming unavailable).
An remember that anti-malarial tablets may cost $US30 or $40 for a months worth of tablets; so you spoilt western brats can easily afford it as well as the airfare – THE LOCALS CAN NOT AFFORD TO SPEND THEIR ENTIRE LIVES PAYING THAT SORT OF AMOUNT of $ – hell I even made the same decision not to bother paying for that protection as it was too damned expensive – and I wasn’t on 3rd world pay.
The bloody arrogance of some people is unbelievable – but then the CAGW crowd want 3rd world people to burn wood not electricity and the econuts banned DDT – crimes against humanity – like the paths to hell; are paved with good intentions – or else you start believing in conspiracy theories.
The best cure for all the econuts would be a year living in 3rd world conditions in a 3rd world country; see how much they enjoy that ! Hypocrites !
/end rant
GM:
You’ll have to excuse my specicentric viewpoint, but DDT is safe for HUMANS. Tell me how many dead people are an insect going for these days?
Now I’m curious.
Anthony, are you saying you were unaware of the claims of the people whose views you’ve promoted on your blog? Are you saying that you did not know Tren, Bate and others — who you allow to be cited as authorities in your feature posts — carry those views?
Are you saying you disapprove of those views?
Or are you saying that you’re merely the piano player, and you’re not responsible for the stuff you post on your blog?
If you disavow the claim that “Rachel Carson is a mass murderer,” and if you disavow the claim that DDT could save millions of lives if only those meany old environmentalists would let Idi Amin spray a little DDT, I’d be happy to acknowledge I got your views in error, for the want of a comma.
Are you taking down your advocacy of the repugnant views of Christopher Monckton? Are you rewriting the post by Mr. Goklany to eliminate the views of Tren, Bate and Roberts?
Or is this crocodile tears now that you’ve been caught?
REPLY: Ed, dancing around the question with irrelevant issues shows your inability to address a direct question. Typically, that is your MO though, like your “playing stupid” over your error on the Southern cross stars on the Australian logo. Either show EXACTLY where I’ve said the words you attribute to me, or you’ll not be posting here ever again, because I’ll put you on permanent ban. Putting words in my mouth is dishonest, I expect better of a teacher. – Anthony Watts
Ed Darrell, this is your last chance to come clean on the issue of putting words in my mouth that I never wrote or said.
Unless you state clearly, without qualifications, or ridiculous diversions about placements of commas,
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/anthony-watts-targets-millard-fillmores-bathtub-ends-up-getting-scrubbed/#comment-104966
that “Anthony did not say Rachel Carson is a mass murderer”, then your posting privileges here are forever revoked.
I’m done messing around. Either man up or get out.
– Anthony Watts
I live in Honiara, Solomon Islands. Half of my work crew are away on a regular basis with malaria, they can’t afford the medication, so they usually wait till it is nearly too late, then attend #9 Hospital for treatment. Average amount of time off for each episode is about 2 weeks.
Should I pay them more? hell yes, but I’m not the person that makes that decision unfortunately, Minimum wage here is SBD$4.50 per hour, about US$0.50c.
Living conditions in the capitol city of the Solomons are best described as poor, water supply is almost nonexistant, I was 15 months from april of 2009 till June 2010 without water to my house. Thankfully I have a rain water tank, which isn’t too bad once I filter the mosquito larvae out of the water.
Electricity is expensive, we have 3 diesel generators supplying Honiara, one of which is always being repaired, so supply can be erratic at the best of times.
All of my work crew from CEO and manager to work crew live in those quaint “oh look Charles a native bush house” housing, with no doors or windows, just openings. The temperature averages 30C all year, at present in the dry it is up in the mid 30’s, all of their children suffer bouts of malaria, child mortality is high, so people have more children to cover the losses, as the more help you have working the gardens the better fed you may be. They do not have electricity to their houses, nor a clean water supply due to the expense of both.
I have no answers to wiping out the mosquitos here, but I do believe it is a disease of poverty, and lack of political will that has let this remain at epidemic proportions here. DDT would be a great help though.
Bethany says: What about unintended consequences, and the quiet Mad Cow Disease epidemic we heard so much about in the 80′s and 90′s. Most of you probably don’t realize that the real cause of this “epidemic” was do to the unintended consequence of pouring an organophosphate insecticide to the spine of cattle in the UK from the early 80′s to erradicate the warble fly, and the fact that it chelated the mineral copper from the brain of the cattle and replaced it with manganese and other minerals not meant for the prions in the brain of people and animals.
Um, I think you have been hanging out with the wrong folks. Organophosphates, as the name encodes, contain carbon, hydrogen, phosphate (and sometimes the sporadic nitrogen). Not a lot of metals in that list…
But more importantly, we are not meant to have prions in our brains at all. A prion is a mis-folded form of a natural protein. One that causes damage AND can cause normal foldings to refold into the broken form (leading to a cascade failure and also making them ‘infective’).
Further, in a presentation held at a major drug company in Palo Alto I was privileged to hear first hand the research from the leading lights in the field. Turns out that CJD comes in two forms. One is genetic and based on the individual having a mis-coded protein that is prone to spontaneous refolding into the broken form. The other is infective and comes from exposure to a mis-folded dose in the body.
So where did the cows get Mad-Cow from? Scrapie. Sheep have a modest level of the disease in many herds. (Though there are programs to eradicate it). It was the decision to grind up animals dying of scrapie and add them to cattle feed that made the Mad Cow prions form. THEN started the feedback loop as ‘downer cattle’ were added to the feed mix…
It was breaking that feedback loop by going back to ‘vegetarian cows’ that ended the plague.
FWIW, a fascinating series of tests were done with feeding and with direct blood exposure between different species. As each species has a modest variation in the protein in question, they ‘fit’ each other to greater or lesser degrees. So some species can “give” CJD (or Mad Cow, or Mad Weasel or..) disease to others, and some can not. Critically, it looks like cows can give it to people, but most of the time sheep can not. Thus the scrapie had not been much of an issue… until we made Cannibal Cows…
Kuru is a disease related to CJD (and variant CJD from Mad Cow prions) that has been eradicated by the expedient of getting the tribes in question to stop honoring their dead by eating their brains.
But don’t worry, you can continue fretting about the issue. Similar prions have been identified in a variety of wild deer, elk, etc. and nobody knows how many species spread it from who to whom. (But I’d be careful about eating any wild meat from a critter that did not look well..) We can also enjoy knowing that pigs can get a similar disease and are usually slaughtered before they are old enough to show symptoms; but are still infective. So I’d personally advocate for not feeding pigs any animal products… Also, IIRC, they found similar prions in a variety of critters from mink to weasels including some fur farms where the whole population went down from feed made from ‘downer’ sheep and cows. Including in countries other than Great Britain.
So unless someone is running all around the world dumping pesticides on the spines of all those wild deer, elk, pigs, mink, weasels, etc. etc. and doing the same in fur farms and ranches all over the world AND treating the Kuru afflicted tribes in the same way AND doing the same to all the herds of sheep that still have scrapie, I think your thesis has a few “issues” to work through.
Oh, and you also have to explain all the lab tests where blood and meat were shown to be sufficient to transmit the disease to others of the same species (no pesticides involved) and why it only propagates between certain species, and … well, you get the idea. There are a LOT of lose ends for your thesis to patch up; while the ‘infective protein’ via ‘protein folding errors’ thesis is a fairly clean match to the data. And don’t forget those cases where their is a genetic heritable form of the disease with known coding errors and known folding ‘issues’…
(Yes, I was intensely curious about Mad Cow when it was an issue and kind of did an in-depth immersion into the science of the time… It is a fascinating disease. Since then I’ve not kept up, but the basics have not changed much. They have found a couple of other protein folding error diseases, so it’s now a whole class of illness.)
If you would like to see a case where brain metal ion levels DO have involvement, hit the following link. Though I ought to warn you, it’s not Aluminum pots and pans… it looks like another genetic issue leading to a somewhat broken protein…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/iron-zinc-and-alzheimers/
Alexander Feht says:
“My case, Anton, is this:
“If a man really thinks that the majority of human beings are ‘anthropocentrically brainwashed,’ and that man’s life is worth less than that of an insect, he is not worthy of any further conversation.
“We cannot interview and debate every inhabitant of every mental asylum.”
Putting aside the royal “We,” I believe you missed GM’s point, which was the audacity of your original statement: namely, “Most “natural ecosystems” are hostile to man, and man is the measure of all things. ”
Man is not the measure of all things, except, as GM says, to those who are man-centered. Earth was here long before humans, and will be here long after them. And Earth is only one inhabited planet among potentially billions of trillions of such planets. You sound like those residents of NYC who regard themselves as the pinnacles of human evolution. Everyone else knows their full of it, but they’re blissfully carry on.
I am not opposed to the safe usage of DDT; to not use it seems potentially more damaging. But, to use it indiscriminately to protect humans is not appropriate. Humans do not own the planet, they are not the center of the Universe, and as long as they pretend to be, they will continue to inflict unnecessary misery and suffering on billions of living sentient creatures who are not here to harm them.
It isn’t an either/or situation. Every issue does not require taking sides.
i think E.M. Smith has got it correct there on the mad cow/CJD info from everything i’ve ever heard or read on it….not sure where Bethany got her info but i found it odd that she managed to start off with a condescending
” Most of you probably don’t realize that the real cause of this….”
and then proceeds to rattle off a load of false statements….
RESPONSE to Ed Darrell on September 14, 2010 at 9:11 am .
ED: First, although the US banned DDT in 1972, its use continued in much of the rest of the world.
RESPONSE: First, DDT production indeed continued in other parts of the world, but with reduced US production (which had begun to phase down even before the ban), the lowered supplies would have increased prices, which would mean lower usage and, therefore, fewer lives saved. Second, the US ban reinforced the opprobrium attached to DDT because, believe it or not, many developing countries lacking human capital took many of their cues with respect to “science” and health from US practice. Third, the greens were very keen on ensuring that its aid agencies would not fund DDT use abroad – and aid agencies were happy to oblige.
Tina Rosenberg of the New York Times wrote in 2004,
She also notes that:
I guess it never occurred to these folks to ask Africans what they would want!
In other words, there was a de facto ban on DDT. Which is why, in 2006, both the USAID and the WHO made policy pronouncements supporting DDT spraying indoors for malaria control. See: DDT to Return as Weapon Against Malaria, Experts Say and W.H.O. Supports Wider Use of DDT vs. Malaria – New York Times
If there had been no de facto ban, it would have been unnecessary to issue these pronouncements.
Incidentally the WHO got a lot of grief from green groups. The Pesticide Action Network – UK complained:
Source: http://www.pan-uk.org/Info/DDT/comeback.html.
Note that EU diplomats actively tried to discourage the use oif DDT for indoor spraying. See the UNEP summary at http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs/2006May22.doc.
ED: Could you tell that to Anthony Watts, Paul Driessen, and all the other people who claim Rachel Carson was a mass murderer?
RESPONSE: While Carson was not a mass murderer, in my opinion, her book was indeed partly, if not substantially, instrumental in helping provide intellectual ammunition for policies that killed.
ED: DDT was left open to U.S. manufacture by the “ban,” also — which is why we have several DDT manufacturing plants designated as Superfund sites today.
RESPONSE: I suspect that any site that had ever manufactured DDT would be on the Superfund list, even if had ceased producing DDT as of the day of the ban.
ED: DDT has never been out of production, nor out of use against malaria.
RESPONSE: See above.
ED: Which means that the claim that DDT could have saved millions of lives is specious.
RESPONSE: See above responses.
ED: Now, if you could just convince your buddies Tren, Bate and Roberts to get their math right, and their history right, we could get on with fighting malaria, instead of bashing science and scientists.
RESPONSE: Don’t hide behind the bogus claim that science supports banning DDT for indoor spraying. No one is bashing science. In fact, there was no science behind the aid agencies pre-2006 decisions not to fund — or for WHO to not endorse — DDT use for indoor spraying. In any case, the decision on using DDT (or not) requires going beyond science. It also involves risk analysis. For such a risk analysis, see Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT.
Following is the conclusion from the above-mentioned risk analysis, which should answer some of the matters raised by a number of commentators:
Brendan H said:
For all pesticides, some organisms within a population will possess a natural resistance to the chemical, presumably as a result of genetic mutation. This allows them to survive the pesticide, and the destruction of the susceptible organisms enables the resistant ones to multiply freely without competition. In short order, you have developed a resistant strain.
______________________________________________________
Actually recent studies (released in 2010) have shown that resistance does not necessarily get passed on genetically. There are other factors at play. We have all heard about super bugs and antibiotic resistant bacteria. The “consensus” was that the “strong” resistant bacteria were passing along their genetic material and that they were growing in nubers. In fact, when examined carefully, it was found that the resistant bacteria were getting weaker and weaker because they were producing anti-gens that the other “normal” bacteria could use to survive the anti-biotics. The resistant “altruistic” bacteria actually ended up sacrificing themselves to protect the normal bacteria. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/20997
The conclusion was that the ability to pass on protection through “survival of the fittest” does not always apply. It is akin to a soldier falling on a grenade to save his brethren.
This study suggested that there is much going on in the environment that we have yet to understand and the whole idea of genetic mutations developing resistance to certain vectors needs to be reassessed.
There’s so much wrong with Indur’s post, but let’s start with him putting words in Bill Gates’ mouth: “Whatever people may think of Bill Gates stance on global warming, there is little doubt that he exhibited substantial political courage in espousing malaria control with DDT. ” Sorry, but nowhere in that 20 minute video does he “espouse” the use of DDT. Sure, he mentions that DDT and chloroquine “brought the death rate down” in the past (3:40), and later (5:45) he mentions that DDT and bed nets can cut deaths by over 50%, but that’s all he says about DDT, and nowhere does he boldly advocate increased use of DDT now. He also notes (~6:15) that “every tool [for combating malaria] has eventually become ineffective”. This would presumable include DDT.
Maybe Gates has indeed espoused DDT use somewhere, maybe he’s even funding it, but the link Indur provides to back this claim up doesn’t support him. He’s putting words in Gates’ mouth.
Speaking of bad citations: How about citing some folks from the mainstream rather than relying on the tired clique of right wing/free market pundits. The guys who’ve been pushing the DDT ban myth for years as part of a strategy to slander the environmental movement and make the world safe for free enterprise unbridled by environmental regulations. Guy affiliated with think tanks funded by oil companies and the Koch brothers. Indur quotes a passage from AFM which cites mostly researchers affiliated with AFM (Roberts, Bate), or the American Council on Science and Health (Whelan), or himself. Then he he quotes himself a bit, including work published by Cato. Then he mentions Don Roberts (again), Amir Attaran, Roger Bate (again) and Richard Tren –all guys affiliated with AFM. Finally, he tops it off with a section of “Additional References,” which includes mostly works by these same people. The problem is these guys all hail from a very narrow section of the ideological spectrum. Lot’s has been written on the history of malaria and the history of DDT, and there’s a lively policy debate going on right now about how best to address malaria. Indur seems to be acquainted with only an exceedingly narrow range of views on these topics. If he’s smarter than this, he doesn’t show it with this post.
Lastly he cites figure 13 of a 2009 EJSD paper to support the statement that “the US ban was imposed only after malaria had been wiped out in the US for practical purposes.” Fair enough, but that that same figure also indicates that by 1945, when DDT was introduced in the US, death rates from malaria had already been steadily declining. This is borne out more dramatically in CDC’s graph of US malaria morbidity and mortality here: http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/uscurves.html. So the implication that DDT was essential to our defeating malaria and then we callously banned it once we were malaria free is not supported by US malaria mortality trends.
In fact, to bring it back to the Gates video, he hints (3:50) at the real reason why malaria was eliminated from rich countries some 50 years ago but still plagues Africa and much of Asia: climate. Rich countries tend to be in temperate zones, and poor ones in tropical zones where the climate is more conducive to malaria. Sure DDT (along with chloroquine and other measures) played a role, but we had–and continue to have–a much easier time dealing with malaria simply because we’re in the temperate zone.
Anton,
Humans do own this planet (who else, harpies or fairies?), a man who is not man-centered is a man mentally ill (as any psychiatrist will tell you), and a man is a measure of all things for the simple reason that a man cannot imagine any measure that he cannot imagine.
Before preaching to people who respect facts and logic, check your facts and your logic.
Wayne Delbeke: “Actually recent studies (released in 2010) have shown that resistance does not necessarily get passed on genetically.”
Interesting research. I’m not competent to comment on the details of the science, but the take-home message for the layperson is that chemical resistance is a central factor in the science of pesticides, and of course in its practical application,