Greens re-boot African genocide: WHO reverses on DDT

May 23, 2009

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria. So much for that. Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease. The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world’s poor will suffer as a result.

The U.N. now plans to advocate for drastic reductions in the use of DDT, which kills or repels the mosquitoes that spread malaria. The aim “is to achieve a 30% cut in the application of DDT worldwide by 2014 and its total phase-out by the early 2020s, if not sooner,” said WHO and the U.N. Environment Program in a statement on May 6…

“Sadly, WHO’s about-face has nothing to do with science or health and everything to do with bending to the will of well-placed environmentalists,” says Roger Bate of Africa Fighting Malaria. “Bed net manufacturers and sellers of less-effective insecticides also don’t benefit when DDT is employed and therefore oppose it, often behind the scenes.”

The 14th century witnessed the “Black Death.” We’ll witness “Green Death.”

62 Responses to “Greens re-boot African genocide: WHO reverses on DDT”

  1. marjehecht Says:

    GENOCIDE IS THE NAME OF THE ANTI-DDT CAMPAIGN
    Behind the campaign to ban DDT 40 years ago, and today, is population control–genocide. Great Britain’s Prince Philip (and his fellow royal Prince Bernhard, now deceased) who founded and directed the World Wildlife Fund, has stated on many occasions that he wants to get rid of at least 4 billion people. And as Lord Bertrand Russell prescribed, culling the human race can usefully be done by war and disease. Today’s green groups, whether or not all their minions are aware of this, are carrying out Prince Philip’s wishes.

    To set the record straight: Dr. Gordon Edwards, an entomologist, was a traditional conservationist who eagerly read Rachel Carson’s book when it first appeared. As he describes it, he was upset to find errors in her reporting when he went to check the original studies she was citing. You can read what he wrote at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html .

    Edwards wrote several excellent articles for 21st Century Science & Technology, and for its predecessor, Fusion magazine, both associated with Lyndon LaRouche. You can read some of them here.
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/DDT.html

    You can also read there the summary statement of the Environmental Protection Agency hearing examiner Edmund Sweeney, after he presided over seven months of scientific hearings on DDT and ruled on the basis of the evidence (available in 9,000 transcribed pages) that DDT should not be banned.

    The anti-DDT Malthusians are fond of saying that DDT was not banned worldwide. But in effect it was banned after 1972, because the U.S. State Department and other nations’ NGOs refused aid to any developing country program that used DDT. This changed in 2006 with the WHO turnaround on its ban on DDT, (which the Malthusian faction is now trying to reverse).

    DDT is not a magic bullet, but it remains a most effective tool in the battle against malaria. DDT, unlike other pesticides, not only kills mosquitoes but is also a repellent–Mosquitoes stay away from houses whose inside walls have been sprayed with DDT. Even DDT-resistant mosquitoes are repelled. You can read entomologist Don Roberts’ articles and interview to find out more about this. It was Roberts’ work that established DDT’s excito-repellent effect.

    We have the needed science and technology to rid the world of malaria and other killer diseases. We need the political will to do it. This will require a huge infrastructure development program for Africa and other regions, with advanced transportation grids, nuclear power, desalination for irrigation, water projects, public health systems, education, etc. The LaRouche movement has developed such programs in detail over the last decades, with the object of raising the living standards worldwide, and enabling the world to have the benefit of the creative contributions of every individual on Earth.

    One child now dies every 30 seconds in Africa from the preventable disease of malaria. The question is, how many of you are willing to take on the political mission of backing a full-scale development program for Africa–instead of spending time, like the “bathtub blogger” Ed Darrell self-righteously supporting Prince Philip’s genocidal intention?

  2. bigshotcaller Says:

    ‘The demon DDT, a non-herbal, non-traditional, Western invention, was used to great effect to wipe out malaria in the West, until it was banned on environmental grounds in 1972, despite court hearings which found it to be harmless. The ban was inspired by Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, yet Carson’s science has been found wanting many times in recent decades. It took until 2005 for the World Health Organisation to admit to DDT’s harmlessness. Meanwhile, most countries adhered to the Western-generated ban for fear of donors withdrawing funding, and fear of trade sanctions (threatened by the EU) against agricultural exports. Countries which ignored the ban and continued to produce and use DDT, such as India and China, largely contained their malaria problem. Today, however, DDT is used in fewer than 20 of the 109 malarial countries, and the parasite is flourishing, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    As Hamsa Galoa says in the WORLDwrite film, in those countries where DDT has been widely used, both now and in the past, ‘no one has ever died from [contact with DDT]’; however ‘millions continue to die from malaria’ in countries where no DDT is sprayed. There has never been a shred of evidence that DDT is harmful in any way, except, of course, to pests.’

    DDT is not harmful except for ‘clowns’

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      . . .it [DDT} was banned on environmental grounds in 1972, despite court hearings which found it to be harmless. The ban was inspired by Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, yet Carson’s science has been found wanting many times in recent decades.

      1. No court hearing has ever found DDT harmless. In fact, it was federal courts which ordered EPA to do the review of the pesticide label, since in court it was established that DDT is incredibly harmful. DDT manufacturers appealed EPA’s decision, and suffered such crushing defeats in federal court they didn’t bother to appeal further, partly for fear of having the manufacture of the stuff banned, some say.

      2. Not one piece of Carson’s science has ever been found wanting. When the President’s Science Advisory Council was tasked by President Kennedy to investigate her book, they reported in May 1963 that every piece of the science she cited was accurate — but, they said, she did not strike enough urgency; DDT and other pesticides were more of a danger than Carson let on.

      Do you disagree? Cite for us the science claim she made, and the research that rebuts it. BE specific as you can as to page number in the book.

      Here’s a rundown of toxic effects of DDT in humans and animals, from the CDC:
      http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.pdf

  3. iamincredulous Says:

    Loons tend to take over every well-intentioned movement. I remember when Right to Life was a respected and fairly successful moderate/liberal/progressive cause (it started in an ACLU office in New York City) having nothing to do with any religion, but in the late 1970s, Jerry Falwell jumped on the bandwagon and immediately sent it off a cliff.

    I used to be involved in PETA, but then it went haywire, too.

    Power is truly corrupting. At present, the Left is drunk with its new power, and abusing it in ways unimaginable to most Americans even five years ago. What goes around comes around, and those doing the damage will inevitably have to suffer the consequences. The Right is now paying for all the wrong it did over the past eight years.

    I want a clean planet, but I don’t want politicians telling me what to eat, or not eat, to achieve it. These fools are the lowest on the evolutionary ladder, and hardly in a position to advise or lecture on anything. Nor do I want mobs of deranged, drugged 20-Somethings screaming at me because I opened a bottle of CocaCola and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. When they clean up their own act–including their own polluted bodies–they may have a little more credibility, but I doubt it. The fact that they join mobs, imitate one another, and spout scripts penned by someone else suggests to me that they are nothing more than robots incapable of independent thought.

    But, such conformity and rote-learning is evident on both sides of the political spectrum. For those of us in the middle who can see out of our left AND right eyes, and in three dimensions, neither Left nor Right is logical.

  4. bigshotcaller Says:

    Worldbytes has released this filmed report to challenge to Western campaigners organising World Malaria Day commemorations. The report criticises campaigners fixation with bed nets. As one African volunteer Helder Da Costa says: Its the Wests ban on DDT that has killed people and is killing people. Telling the truth would be a start and boat loads of DDT not bed nets would make a huge impact.

    Part1

    Part2

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      As one African volunteer Helder Da Costa says: Its the Wests ban on DDT that has killed people and is killing people.

      What ban is that? Who banned what? How is it enforced?

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      Bednets have proven to reduce malaria by 50% to 85%. Why are these people railing against an effective solution to the problem?

      Do these people seriously think that Africa can poison their way to health, when no other nation ever has?

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      Some of these people appear to be incredibly ill-informed. DDT doesn’t kill the malaria parasite. It only treats one vector in one part of the parasites’ life cycle.

      Mueller toured consuming DDT? That’s a bizarre claim. Gordon Edwards did — but Mueller? Got a citation for that?

      DDT harmless? There is no study that indicates that’s true for humans. DDT is regularly used as a poison in suicides in India. The toxicity studies cite several human deaths from DDT. It’s not powerfully acutely toxic to humans, but no study claims it is safe for humans. It is listed as a probable human carcinogen by every cancer-fighting agency on Earth — are these people calling the American Cancer Society liars?

      DDT has been available for use freely in Africa for decades. Where it was used heavily, use was stopped when it stopped being effective. Is there some pixie dust that makes it work again?

  5. michaelwsmith Says:

    The decision to use DDT or not, or to use mosquito netting or not, or to use them together, etc. properly belongs to the individual — because the individual’s life belongs to him or her — it does not belong to the U.N. or to “society” or to “the greens” or to busybodies like “Ed Darrel”, all of whom are power-lusting, anti-human, anti-civilization, envy-eaten haters of man. They do not wish to save the environment — they wish to destroy your life.

    The only real question is whether the “greens” will succeed in their desperate quest to see the west commit economic suicide and suffer mass death and impoverishment. They drool at the prospect of billions of human lives being snuffed out and billions more damned to living in grinding, disgusting poverty.

    May they all rot in hell — provided anyone can find a rung low enough for them.

  6. yonason Says:

    When they start to be bitten, and soon apparently, the Lefties will be the first to whine about this…
    http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10186278

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      DDT is ineffective against bed bugs. Are you urging that we use an ineffective tool to allow them to spread?

      I didn’t realize there was a lobby for bed bugs — are you on their payroll?

      • yonason Says:

        You lied about Bush being against DDT, and now you deny the efficay of DDT on bed-bugs?http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/21203/Bedbug_Outbreak_Hits_All_50_States_Thanks_to_DDT_Ban.html

        Bed bugs are multiplying, and the clowns you tell us are gonna solve the problem haven’t, and won’t, because they can’t. They are clowns, as are you. So, if bed bugs are getting to be an epidemic, you are telling us not to do what works best and to allow the problem to continue to worsen, who is REALLY “on their payroll?”

        Ok, there are plenty of references I and others have given, vs the few pathetic propaganda references supplied by eddie. Let the readers decide, I’ve wasted enough time on him.

      • yonason Says:

        ??? Why didn’t that link work???

        Let me see if this works, then.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        Heartland Institute is about 60 years behind on most science. 60 years ago bedbugs were susceptible to DDT.

        Don’t take my word for it. Call your local exterminator. Or, if you’re convinced you’re right, go get some bed bugs, turn them loose in your bedroom, and spray them down with DDT. I dare you.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        Here’s a rundown of DDT issues; look about 2/3s of the way down in the post to see the link to the letter Environmental Defense sent to Bush’s USAID in 2004 urging Bush to get off the dime and approve spending U.S. dollars for DDT in Africa.

        If you’re really interested, check out Sen. Tom Coburn’s continuing rant on DDT in hearings in the Senate. As late as March of 2008 the Bush folk were still refusing Coburn’s requests to explain why they wouldn’t allow U.S. money to be spent on DDT.

        I may make an error from time to time, but I don’t intentionally mislead anyone.

        By the way, if you read the piece I wrote on Jay Ambrose’s errors, you may want to remember that he never did provide any documentation to rebut anything I said, and I suspect he never could.

  7. jforce93 Says:

    personally, I think that we should look for a safer, more effective solution to malaria, whether it be killing mosquitoes (a safer insecticide) or in the form of a vaccine. A vaccine would be great. it would save so many lives. But until that better solution is discovered, we should use DDT, but regulate its use, because it is not safe around people in excess.

    • yonason Says:

      But DDT is safe, at least as used for mosquito control…
      REGISTRATION REQUIRED, BUT IT’S FREE

      See also here.

      …and probably for a lot more, though caution is always prudent when using any pesticide. Still, few if any are safer than DDT, but it’s good that you see a need for using DDT until such a “safer” compound is found. It probably won’t be, but I don’t mind looking as long as resources aren’t needlessly allocated to that which can be better used elsewhere.

  8. iamincredulous Says:

    Why can’t DDT be used in conjunction with other insecticides till an effective combination is achieved? For that matter, why can’t misquito nets be incorporated into a comprehensive program?

    All Greens are not fanatics, nor do all Greens believe in Al Gore’s AGW doomsday predictions, or even in AGW itself. Yes, banning DDT in the absence of a safer alternative may have been ignorant, but so were many of the people spreading it around. That’s why there are strict application labels on insecticides. Labels don’t do any good, however, if the exterminator can’t read them.

    It’s important, however, to divorce ones political and/or economic interests from the facts. Many “green” alternatives to various insecticides are themselves poisonous, especially to animals. Citrus oils, for instance, are poisonous to dogs and cats, though “green” companies routinely use them in animal flea-control products. Tea tree (Melaleuca) oil is also poisonous to pets, yet heavily used in pet products, and all of these oils are used extensively in cleaning products marketed as good for the environment and safer for children and pets. Carbon dioxide credits, etc. are part of a money-making scam, not a humane transformative movement. And DDT manufacturers also have a vested interest in pushing THEIR products.

    Silent Spring may have had its faults, but at the time it was published, nobody gave a flip about the environment, and had it not been published, what would we have for a world today? We don’t have to choose among this poison or that disease, or that misquito net, or the end of the world. Everything in Nature requires a balanced approach, so why not try one here for a change?

    • iamincredulous Says:

      Forgive my mosquito misspelling. I don’t know where that came from.

    • yonason Says:

      “”

      True, but none of the sane ones is in a position of power. It’s all the nut-jobs who are in control, and their followers are mindlessly following in lock step.

      You want someone who cares about the environment? Start here…
      http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
      …and stop sending money to SierraClub, AudobonSociety, GreenPeace, and any other Leftist front group.

      • yonason Says:

        oops, what I was addressing, “iam..” was your quote…
        “All Greens are not fanatics, nor do all Greens believe in Al Gore’s AGW doomsday predictions”

        I knew I should have proofed it before sending.

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      DDT can be used in conjunction with other pesticides — and in fact, it would be completely worthless if used any other way. That is what integrated pest management and IRS is all about.

      One of the more salient questions here is, if Environmental Defense, WHO and African nations can agree on using DDT in IRS, what the hell is the Wall Street Journal calling for? The only thing beyond current use would be abuse of DDT, which would completely scuttle efforts to fight malaria.

      One needs to understand that the WHO position of DDT use is the position urged by Rachel Carson in 1962. The recent announcement of phase out is what scientists have determined is necessary, after Carson, because of the additional human health effects discovered since then, and the decreasing effectiveness of DDT.

      Why in hell does Steven Milloy urge use of DDT beyond what is safe, as it become increasingly expensive and decreasingly effective? Why does he hate Africa and its people so much? Why does the WSJ hate Africa?

  9. Ed Darrell Says:

    Why it pays to understand mosquitoes:

    Nets are great when sleeping. Does this goon anticipate everyone walking around with mozzie nets draped over their bodies?

    The mosquitoes that spread malaria bite mostly in the evening, and another group bites between bedtime and just after midnight. Bednets protect against most bites. That’s progress.

    Of course, whining about DDT doesn’t protect anyone, anywhere, anytime. But it’s easier.

  10. nothingtocareabout Says:

    Ed Darrell, you are coming up with a lot of “facts” who matches that want you want it to be, but without much truth in it. You say ” While we desperately need solutions to malaria ” shows that you admit it´s a “desperate” problem who needs be taking care of while at the same time you claim there allready are better and more safe means to fight malaria other than DDT. What you say just doesn´t make sense. How can it be a “desperate problem” if indeed there allready are better and more safe means to use? Such a statement makes you unthrustworthy. Now you want me to do a lot of investigations myself! Well, as I have followed the debate of late I can follow you only so far that a scientist recently spoke of weak signs “beginning” to emerge that in some places resistance to DDT might have occurred. Well,that might very well be the case, but again, that´s also the same as saying that DDT obviously still works fine in other places…. And finally, that WHO themselves recommended using DDT again doesn´t actually back up your spectacular statements in this thread, never mind they now start to back off from that recommendation because of decisions which is clearly made from obvious green business related tactical reasoning in accordance with what is to be expected from a socialist corrupted U.N. Ed Darrell, just looking at a few facts from the actual real world put up against your own confused writings makes you look more and more like a troll, which hardly is worthy of spending further time on.

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      How can it be a “desperate problem” if indeed there allready are better and more safe means to use?

      Easy. People shake their heads, say “if only those stupid greenies would let us use DDT,” and move on.

      Are you serious about fighting malaria? How about sending $50 to Nothing But Nets today. That will save five lives over the next five years, and maybe more.

      What in the hell does crying in your beer about DDT being deadly do for anyone? Nothing.

      Solutions only count when they are applied.


  11. [...] enough, Green Hell blog picks it up repeating the old canard about how a day without DDT is like a day of genocide. You can’t [...]

  12. yonason Says:

    YES, IT IS ABOUT POWER…
    http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/DDT
    “Statements made by Charles Wurster, the chief scientist [PROPAGANDIST] for the Environmental Defense Fund, the organization chiefly behind the move to ban DDT, support the view that it was important for the EPA and environmentalists to succeed in banning DDT, so that their success would afford them greater powers to act in other areas. Wurster is quoted in the Seattle Times of October 5, 1969, as saying: “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT.” (Tren & Bate, 2004).”

    ALSO…
    “Current use for disease control require only a small fraction of the amounts used previously and is much less likely to cause environmental problems.”

    And that is assuming DDT really does cause any environmental problems. But no, can’t take a chance on loosing control, so millions must die to protect the Left’s dominance. To the Left, human live has always been cheep.


  13. [...] Greens re-boot African genocide: WHO reverses on DDT From today’s Wall Street Journal: In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health [...] [...]

  14. nothingtocareabout Says:

    To Ed Darrell, your very posts are a complete dismissal of the historic and scientific proof of the effectiveness of DDT in fighting malaria. By defending Rachel Carson preposterous book,Silent Spring,you are at the same time indirectly but openly defending the killing of innocent poor defenceless children in the name of your green god. Ed Darrell, it is not I who are misunderstanding your message. You are the one who sends a very clear message imbedded in green hypocrisy of the worst kind.

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      I invite you to study the issues, and provide the facts. This unholy campaign against Rachel Carson is not worthy of concerned people, not worthy of Americans, not worthy of Christians. The historic evidence shows that DDT in WHO’s campaign helped a lot — but that the abuse of DDT by commercial interests, especially in agriculture, frustrated WHO’s efforts. WHO knew that there was only a small window to use DDT to knock down mosquitoes for six months or a year and in that time eradicate malaria by treating infected humans, so that when the mosquito population came roaring back, there would be no malaria for the mosquitoes to get, to spread. DDT offered an opportunity, but that opportunity fled in the middle 1960s. If you think that the intent was to kill mosquitoes, you fail to understand mosquitoes, the life cycle of the malaria parasites, evolution, and the public health community. It was a brave effort, but it failed.

      If you think DDT was Tinkerbell’s pixie dust, I can see why you might want to bring it back. But it was not pixie dust. It was, and is, deadly poison.

      WHO abandoned the campaign in the middle 1960s when the mosquitoes became resistant and immune to DDT. The alleles that confer that immunity to mosquitoes is now present in every mosquito on Earth. DDT cannot work the miracle you erroneously attribute to it in the past, and especially it cannot work that miracle in the future.

      So, calling for more DDT is calling for using a deadly poison that will have very little effect on malaria. Today, it costs about $12.00 to treat a hut with DDT for indoor residual spraying (IRS). That treatment needs to be repeated at six month intervals. In many areas, DDT simply doesn’t work and much of the expense is in capturing and analyzing the mosquitoes to see whether they are susceptible at all to DDT. If DDT doesn’t work, public health officials have a few other pesticides to use instead. Some of them are more effective than DDT, always.

      Where DDT was used in Uganda last year, malaria decreased as much as 25%. The miracle drops of the 1960s do not happen in the 21st century.

      Contrast that with bednets. Bednets cost between $5.00 and $10.00, and typically last about five years. $2.00 a year for bednets, $24.00 a year for DDT.

      In use in several different nations in Africa over the past two years, bednets have decreased malaria between 50% and 85%. (Check the Gates Foundation projects.)

      DDT is now, perhaps ironically, the more expensive, less-effective solution.

      To fight malaria, we need pharmaceuticals that work, a system to deliver them at appropriate times, diagnosis that can tell us which pharmaceuticals to use, projects to drain breeding areas around homes, and ways to prevent mosquitoes from biting. DDT can play a small role in preventing bites. No nation has ever beaten malaria with poisons alone, especially not DDT.

      So, we need a large, concentrated effort that works on several fronts.

      To do less guarantees that children will continue to die.

      You advocate the path of doing less, then you advocate letting children die.

      Ironically, all the experts in the field now agree that integrated pest management offers the best hope for managing the mosquitoes. That is what Rachel Carson urged in her book, Silent Spring, in 1962.

      Don’t talk to me about hypocrisy when you don’t have the facts, and when the program you advocate will not work.

      I’ll thank you to stop referring to my God as if you had any knowledge of my religious beliefs, or anyone else’s. Stick to the facts.

      If you want to save children, we have common ground. If you wish only to insult Rachel Carson, a great scientist who is dead, you are in error, and you will face great opposition from people who wish to fight malaria instead of merely spread calumny.

      • artkint Says:

        Hmm. Dont know where Ed Darrell lives but it sure aint Africa. Nets are great when sleeping. Does this goon anticipate everyone walking around with mozzie nets draped over their bodies? May work in Saudi Arabia but not in Africa. Meanwhile, the equivalent of 2 jumbo jets of people die every day whilst these do-gooding (or is it do-badding) greenies protect the Planet – maybe they’re on Mars in which case apologies.

    • yonason Says:

      Ed Darrell is as wrong as they get..
      “Birds Vs. Human Deaths
      Page 99. Carson vividly describes the death of a bird that she thought may have been poisoned by a pesticide, but nowhere in the book does she describes the deaths of any of the people who were dying of malaria, yellow fever, plague, sleeping sickness, or other diseases that are transmitted by insects. Her propaganda in Silent Spring contributed greatly to the banning of insecticides that were capable of preventing human deaths. Carson shares the responsibility for literally millions of deaths among the poor people in underdeveloped nations. Dr. William Bowers, head of the Entomology Department at the University of Arizona, said in 1986 that DDT is the most significant discovery of all time, and ‘in malaria control alone it saved almost 3 billion lives’.”

      More of Carson’s falsehoods are debunked here.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        The book isn’t about the clinical signs of malaria. The death of birds she describes on page 99 is accurate, and has never been refuted.

        On page 270 she describes malaria outbreaks and how they are made more severe by resistance to pesticides. Carson demonstrates great concern about human health, for diseases more than malaria. On page 268 she describes infant deaths in Egypt driven up because mosquitoes and flies both became resistant to DDT. She then catalogues a series of diseases where the fight had gone to the insects and the diseases because of abuse of DDT: Flies in Tennessee, a typhus epidemic in Spain in 1948, increases in lice infestations in Korea in 1950 and 1951 when DDT was applied. Lice infestations increased in other areas with DDT, too — Japan, refugee camps in Syria, Jordan and Egypt. By 1957 lice were resistant to DDT in nearly two dozen countries. Malaria-carrying mosquitoes in Greece arose by 1949, and treating with DDT simply allowed them to spread (Jonathan Weiner noted in his 1994 Pulitzer Prize winning book that these mosquitoes had developed alleles that allow them to digest DDT). DDT stopped working against malaria-carrying mosquitoes in various places in West Africa, the Middle East, Central America, Indonesia and Eastern Europe (Carson, p. 269).

        Carson documents the human toll from yellow fever in Trinidad in the 1950s — DDT resistance surprised health workers there in 1954. DDT resistance allowed the spread of malaria in Greece, Liberia and Nigeria. Diarrheal disease in Georgia (the country) flared up because of DDT resistance; acute conjunctivitis in Egypt roared back after one year of control by DDT.

        The National Academy of Sciences noted that DDT is surely some sort of mirecle compound in 1980. They carefully documented its successes. But in that document, NAS called for an end to DDT use, because its dangers far outweigh the benefits. When the benefits stop because of insect resistance and immunity, it’s time to face facts.

        Rachel Carson called for carefully controlled, integrated pest management. That is what works in Africa today, and that is the only way DDT could be used safely, all experts agree.

        Rachel Carson is way ahead of y’all on fighting disease and how to do it. It’s shameful that you advocate her methods while impugning her reputation. No way to treat a lady, especially a lady trying to save kids from malaria, yellow fever, conjunctivitis, and deadly diarrheal disease.

        Again you refer to the Lyndon Larouche publication. That’s not a credible, reliable, nor honorable, source.

  15. tarpon Says:

    You make huge mistake if you try rational arguments with liberals. They crave power and anyway they can get it is fine with them. Malaria keeps the whole of Africa under the greens jack boot.

    Arguments given by greens, from Obama onward, are aimed at ignorant people who subscribe to ‘as seen on TV’ science.

    Something needs to be done to counter this, it is sentencing millions yearly to unnecessary death and disease.

    This professor took on the book Silent Spring and documented the lies … http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

    None of this would be possible if the media were not so one sided.

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      This professor took on the book Silent Spring. . .

      But his work on this issue is tainted. That’s why he could only get the anti-American bizarro Lyndon Larouche to publish that crap. It’s crap, and no one else would touch it.

      But don’t take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. I’ve provided links to show you on some of the allegations Gordon Edwards made — I invite you to check them all out for yourself, and get back to us if you can confirm anything he said — I’ve found nothing to be as he stated.

      Start here, with a post that explains how Dr. Edwards got the bird research exactly wrong. Don’t rely on studies that get stuff exactly the opposite of what the research says.

      • yonason Says:

        Rachel Carson was an ignorant propagandist, and has bee shown to be wrong many times. But still the Left use her idiotic nonsense to force their controls on the world, with the result that millions die needlessly. DDT didn’t cause eagle eggs to thin,
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55843,00.html
        http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=209
        and is about one of the most effective and benign pesticides to ever be produced.
        http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

      • yonason Says:

        TAINTED WORK?

        “DDT: A Case Study In Scientific Fraud
        Environment
        Environment > Pesticides and DDT
        Email a Friend
        Written By: J. Gordon Edwards
        Published In: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
        Publication date: 10/01/2004
        Publisher: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.

        looks like Ed Darrell is the Laruouchian propagandist.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        Rachel Carson was an ignorant propagandist, and has bee shown to be wrong many times. But still the Left use her idiotic nonsense to force their controls on the world, with the result that millions die needlessly. DDT didn’t cause eagle eggs to thin,

        Two Milloys, one Milloy clone to back the case?

        Yonason, none of those sources can cite a study to back the claim. Anyone who read the material on America’s symbol, the bald eagle, being taken off the endangered species list, read about the many case studies that showed DDT was the agent that thinned the eggshells of the eagles, and in other ways killed the young ones. Recovery of these birds was possible only because of the ban on DDT in the U.S., which caused DDT levels residual in the birds to decline over years.

        See the real science:

        Science 1 May 1970:
        Vol. 168. no. 3931, pp. 594 – 596
        DOI: 10.1126/science.168.3931.594

        DDT-Induced Inhibition of Avian Shell Gland Carbonic Anhydrase: A Mechanism for Thin Eggshells
        Joel Bitman 1, Helene C. Cecil 1, and George F. Fries 1

        1 Animal Husbandry Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland 20705

        The shell-forming glands of Japanese quail fed p,p’-DDT or p,p’-DDE had carbonic anhydrase activity 16 to 19 percent lower than shell glands of quail on a diet free of pesticides.

        and here

        http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1518881&blobtype=pdf
        Environ Health Perspect. 1995 October; 103(Suppl 7): 165–171.

        Reproductive effects in birds exposed to pesticides and industrial chemicals.
        D M Fry

        Abstract
        Environmental contamination by agricultural chemicals and industrial waste disposal results in adverse effects on reproduction of exposed birds. The diversity of pollutants results in physiological effects at several levels, including direct effects on breeding adults as well as developmental effects on embryos. The effects on embryos include mortality or reduced hatchability, failure of chicks to thrive (wasting syndrome), and teratological effects producing skeletal abnormalities and impaired differentiation of the reproductive and nervous systems through mechanisms of hormonal mimicking of estrogens. The range of chemical effects on adult birds covers acute mortality, sublethal stress, reduced fertility, suppression of egg formation, eggshell thinning, and impaired incubation and chick rearing behaviors. The types of pollutants shown to cause reproductive effects include organochlorine pesticides and industrial pollutants, organophosphate pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and in a fewer number of reports, herbicides, and fungicides. o,p’-DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and mixtures of organochlorines have been identified as environmental estrogens affecting populations of gulls breeding in polluted “hot spots” in southern California, the Great Lakes, and Puget Sound. Estrogenic organochlorines represent an important class of toxicants to birds because differentiation of the avian reproductive system is estrogen dependent.

        My search at Google Scholar turned up 755 articles on DDT causing eggshell thinning, and not a single one to the contrary.

        Where in science are you getting your studies?

  16. 2commoncents Says:

    For the Greens, it is all about control: If they were really for saving the planet and DDT is as bad as they say it is, they would want DDT used because it would create vast areas void of people excreting deadly C02

  17. nothingtocareabout Says:

    I think it´s rather fantastic to read that Ed Darrell openly admit that he is for killing innnocent children. That´s the moral and consequences of green thinking in a nutshell. WOW!

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      I think it´s rather fantastic to read that Ed Darrell openly admit that he is for killing innnocent children. That´s the moral and consequences of green thinking in a nutshell.

      Then you’re not thinking. DDT poisoning, perhaps? That’s not what I said. It’s the contrary of what I said.

      Do you understand all things to be the opposite of what is said? No wonder you might think DDT to be a wonder drug.

  18. bear865 Says:

    The original ban was based on false evidence published in Silent Spring by Rachel Carsens.

    That’s cow poop. There is no false evidence in Silent Spring. Shame on you for perpetrating that old hoax.

    REPLY: Wanna bet?

    The REPLY is mine. Yet this poster posts another message that seems to lament the murder of millions in Africa by lack of control of malaria (that is, use of DDT). I think his brains may be a little scrambled. REAL science (if there is any left in the world) has never supported Carlson (see, e.g., Ray, “Trashing the Planet”) and it never will.

    Oh well. This is my final comment on this subject. PHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      Yeah, I’ll bet.

      You cite the finding listed in Silent Spring that you claim is false. You’ll not be able to cite any study that backs your claim, but I’ll show the studies that back her claims.

      Standing offer. Not even Steven Milloy has taken me up on this offer. He can’t cite any claim in the book that is false, either.

  19. bear865 Says:

    The original ban was based on false evidence published in Silent Spring by Rachel Carsens.

    That’s cow poop. There is no false evidence in Silent Spring. Shame on you for perpetrating that old hoax.

    REPLY: Wanna bet?

  20. Ed Darrell Says:

    The original ban was based on false evidence published in Silent Spring by Rachel Carsens.

    That’s cow poop. There is no false evidence in Silent Spring. Shame on you for perpetrating that old hoax.

    • yonason Says:

      Ed Darrell is WRONG!

      as was Rachel Carson.

      see also here… (where it appears eddy is spewing heavily, as well)

      And, as on Cao’s blog it was pointed out, Dr. Edwards paper was published (as I also said above) by the Association Of American Physicians and Surgeons, NOT Larouche, who only posted it on his blog after it was publshed.

      One idiot posts a copy of an author’s work, and another idiot uses that flimsy association to try to discredit the author. Typical Leftist behavior.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        It’s astounding to me that malaria deniers keep finding the same three hoary old wrong sources. Notice that Caos only finds the Gordon Edwards stuff. You know, Edwards has been dead for years. His claims for DDT were wrong 20 years ago, and 30 years ago, and completely unsupported by any research, they’re still wrong.

        The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a tiny political group, known among scientists and medical practitioners for its advocacy of quack medicine, including seriously health damaging errors on leprosy in its publications. (These crank science views are shared and promoted by the Larouche group.)

        Quack medicine, crank science: That’s what supports heavier use of DDT, instead of actually fighting malaria.

      • yonason Says:

        eddie, below, blames us for not “actually fighting malaria?” Hey, your clowns have been in charge, and what have they done? 10′s of millions dead, and if you count their unborn children and grandchildren, that’s many 10′s of millions more, going into the 100′s of millions after several generations. Why haven’t they been “actually fighting malaria” instead of condemning millions to suffering and death? The resuslts are in. Their ability to fight malaria with “alternatives” has FAILED miserably.

        Give it up, eddie, you are DEAD wrong

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        Bush was not my clown. He was an anti-environmentalist clown (your word). His refusal to allow DDT to be used cannot honestly be blamed on environmental activists.

        But then, I gather you’re not concerned about either malaria or honesty.

      • yonason Says:

        eddie’s getting desperate, and his stooopid slip is showing. He claims Bush refused to allow DDT to be used? News to me.

        “[DDT's]…use to combat malaria was endorsed in 2006 by the World Health Organization (WHO) and by officials in the President’s Malaria Initiative, a program led by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which was launched by former President George W. Bush in 2005″
        (from the following greeenieee propaganda rag…)
        http://www.scientistlive.com/European-Food-Scientist/Food_Safety/Unprecedented_use_of_DDT_concerns_experts/22272/

        Bush has done some stooopid things, but that doesn’t appear to be one of ‘em. So, the clown’s back in your court.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        If you have evidence Bush spent money to buy DDT, let us know. Sen. Coburn would like to know, too.

        Endorsing a fight against malaria with a press release is flashy, but it’s not money. Show us the money.

      • yonason Says:

        I’ll show you nearly 90 million dead from not using DDT and not doing anyting else that worked, you despicable little cretan.

      • yonason Says:

        “Show me the money”

        “President George W. Bush announced his President’s Malaria Initiative, a five-year, 1.2-billion-dollar plan to reduce malaria-caused mortality by 50 percent in 14 sub-Saharan African countries. The initiative, which is administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has earmarked 20 million dollars for IRS programmes in 2007, up from only one million dollars last year.

        “Under the leadership of President Bush,” the U.S. has begun to support indoor spraying for malaria control in Africa, including programmes using DDT,” said Senator Tom Coburn (Republican of Oklahoma), who hailed WHO’s decision to endorse the use of DDT as “bold” and “revolutionary”.”
        http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34746

        So, summing up, the detestable freak, Drivvell, has lied about Bush, judges, and Carson’s lies, just to name a few. It’s one thing to misinterpret the facts, it’s someting else entirely to make them up and/or lie about them.

  21. Ed Darrell Says:

    The damage done to policy by Roger Bates has caused the deaths of millions of children. While we desperately need solutions to malaria, he keeps discouraging and misleading activities that could save children by his constant call to poison the hell out of Africa with DDT.

    If he had a conscience, his hands would be raw from the scrubbing.

  22. libertybel Says:

    The damage done by the Greens is far-reaching and not limited to Africa. Consider that the current failure to drill for our own oil, and restrictions on the use of coal, as well as one rationale for the bogus cap-and-trade tax are all the result of their narrow-minded fanaticism. The nonsensical global warming theme can be, and is, used to justify all manner of mischief.

    But none of this would be possible without the collusion of corrupt, venal politicians. And these politicians reflect what has become of the American electorate. The liberals hijacked education, and we’ve become a nation of ignorant, timid, politically correct wusses. Maybe it’s time for a change, as Thomas Jefferson suggested.

  23. bear865 Says:

    There is a weird (but frightening) program on the “History Channel” here in the USA, a series called “Life After People”. Only humanity is gone. No other life form has been eradicated. There are also certain other signs and symbols that tell me what I have always believed. Except for a “self-elected” few I call the Luciferian Synarchy, humanity is to be eradicated from the planet. They would start with the blacks of Africa, because these people consider them the lowest form of scum on earth. It was them who kept the slave trade going to poison the USA with it and hopefully destroy the USA thereby. If not for Lincoln, they would have. All the FASCISM you now see running wild in the world is their doing. This especially includes ECO-FASCISM. Environmentalism is a “know nothing” FASCIST movement. The do-gooders who are enthralled by it are LENINIST USEFUL IDIOTS (AND YES, LENIN WAS A FASCIST; JUST BECAUSE HE WAS “RED” DOES NOT MEAN HE WAS NOT A FASCIST!).
    This could turn out to be, if not stopped, FAR WORSE (“SWINE FLU?”) than anyone can possibly imagine. BUT AFRICA IS MARKED FOR GENOCIDE. DO NOT DOUBT IT! And the next comes WHO? There WILL be a “NEXT”!

  24. revelingame Says:

    The original ban was based on false evidence published in Silent Spring by Rachel Carsens.

    One would suppose that even the most corrupt or stupid politician or bureaucrat would by now have understood that the long-lasting qualities of DDT is an advantage, not a cause for its prohibition.

    It’s all symptomatic of the way the Greens dictate and control our lives.

  25. welder4 Says:

    The UN as an organization has failed on so many fronts it should be closed battened down and never resurrected again. It is always politics ahead of health and happiness with these clowns, no money in it for them then it has to go. The UN could not run successful lemonade stand in the middle of the desert if the lemons were free and the water donated to them oops the sugar also. .

  26. nigelf Says:

    There must be a campaign put in place to counter this genocide. The African media simply must get on board and expose this to all it’s readers/viewers for what it really is and what it means to the average African and who is responsible.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers

%d bloggers like this: