Steve Forbes writes:
There is a simple, time-proven way to virtually eradicate malaria: the judicious use of DDT. Extremist environmentalists have cowed health officials into never even considering the use of DDT. We are not talking about the large-scale, indiscriminate spraying of the stuff that was all too common in the years immediately following World War II. What we are talking about is spraying this insecticide in small amounts--harmless to humans--on the interior walls of houses.
And most important, this procedure works. Several years ago South Africa suffered a devastating outbreak of malaria, and despite the screams of uninformed environmentalists and browbeaten international health officials, the country went back to using this method. Result: Within some 18 months malaria outbreaks were reduced by 80%.
It's no surprise that the EU has threatened sanctions against Uganda, which is considering doing what South Africa did. But it's quite another thing for the U.S. Agency for International Development to be dragging its heels on advocating the vigorous use of DDT to combat malaria. USAID's deadly dilatoriness is an atrocity.
Let's see how he did at DDT Ban Myth bingo:
Five boxes, but he didn't get four in a row.
"It's no surprise that the EU has threatened sanctions against Uganda, which is considering doing what South Africa did."
I.e.: "We all know that, unlike we enlightened Americans, Europeans have no regard for human life, particularly other races, and would in fact enjoy seeing millions of
Africans die."
The interesting point is when does Tim's megaphone become as loud as Steve's.
I apologise in advance for coming in late and not being up to speed with your argument. I have clicked on the # links you helpfully provided and after reading thse I find these myths are not as clear cut as you present.
USAID only provides qualified support for DDT.
DDT might only be a component in the eradication of malaria but that is no excuse to discourage its use? DDT is not the only chemical to which mosquitoes will become resistant?
The EU will threaten trade sanctions if it thinks DDT is used in agriculture. I would think if DDT is cheap and available then it will almost certainly be used for agriculture, I don't think peoples health should be put at risk through fear of European trade sanctions.
I agree the 95% may not be due to the reintroduction of DDT but I fail to see how people replastering their walls is any excuse for lack of education. Surely we would not abandon condoms because people don't use them properly?
I must also say I find this subject not one that should be the subject of such undergraduate humour, from any quadrant of politics.
The answer to the scourge of malaria is self evident; it is only a large contributor to infant mortality in Marxist Kleptocracies.
Forester
Forester, yes the horrendous death toll from malaria isn't funny.
But ignorant views like those espoused by you and Forbes are killing people. And people will pay more attention to my corrections if I wrap them in a little humour.
In all honesty, I think you have to give Forbes the point for
"The article proposes DDT spraying where the mosquitoes are resistant to DDT"
Still no Bingo, though.
I would think if DDT is cheap and available then it will almost certainly be used for agriculture
this is precisely why DDT should never be made "cheap and available"; it should always and everywhere be restricted in its use to the anti-malaria authorities.
"I apologise in advance for coming in late and not being up to speed with your argument. I have clicked on the # links you helpfully provided and after reading thse I find these myths are not as clear cut as you present."
I'll take the liberty of answering your question, then the fun can really begin.
"USAID only provides qualified support for DDT."
What does that mean? They only support it where they feel it is beneficial? If your argument is that they don't support it because of overly sensitive environmental or political concerns where it would do good, then what is the difference with the cases where they do support it?
"November 15, 2005
USAID isn't against using DDT in worldwide malaria battle
From Kent R. Hill, assistant administrator, Bureau of Global Health,
U.S. Agency for International Development:
Paul Driessen's opinion article titled "USAID Could Stop This Epidemic" (Nov. 2) misrepresents the U.S. Agency for International Development's support for indoor residual spraying to control malaria, as well as the United States government's position on the use of DDT internationally. USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted." http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/LetterstotheEdit…
"Contrary to popular belief, USAID does not "ban" the use of DDT in its malaria control programs. From a purely technical point of view in terms of effective methods of addressing malaria, USAID and others have not seen DDT as a high priority component of malaria programs for practical reasons. In many cases, indoor residual spraying of DDT, or any other insecticide, is not cost-effective and is very difficult to maintain. In most countries in Africa where USAID provides support to malaria control programs, it has been judged more cost-effective and
appropriate to put US government funds into preventing malaria through insecticide-treated nets, which are every bit as effective in preventing malaria and more feasible in countries that do not have existing, strong indoor spraying programs." http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/id/malaria/news/afrmal_ddt…
Are you asserting that this approach is misguided, or that they are fibbing about it?
"DDT might only be a component in the eradication of malaria but that is no excuse to discourage its use?"
The use of DDT is only "discouraged" for agricultural use. There are no restraints on the use of DDT for any disease eradication purpose, other than it be used "responsibly" and that the WHO be notified afterwards.
"DDT is not the only chemical to which mosquitoes will become resistant?"
Yes, therefore...?
"The EU will threaten trade sanctions if it thinks DDT is used in agriculture. I would think if DDT is cheap and available then it will almost certainly be used for agriculture, I don't think peoples health should be put at risk through fear of European trade sanctions."
I don't follow your logic; are you suggesting that DDT intended for malaria purposes will end up used for agriculture and that preventing that would harm people's health? Well, for one thing, the amount of DDT used to spray one cotton plantation was enough to supply the entire country with malarial prevention. This gross overuse is where resistance came from, not the comparatively tiny amounts used for disease. So whatever amount might get diverted from disease fighting to agriculture is not a significant problem, even if nearly all of it was diverted.
"I agree the 95% may not be due to the reintroduction of DDT but I fail to see how people replastering their walls is any excuse for lack of education. Surely we would not abandon condoms because people don't use them properly?"
Lost me on that one.
"I must also say I find this subject not one that should be the subject of such undergraduate humour, from any quadrant of politics."
I would think that if it was that serious, you would be even more alarmed at an actual push to divert sparse anti-malaria funding to an ineffective treatment for political reasons; and how alarmed must you be about this:
"Climate change linked to rise in malaria, asthma",
Timothy Gardner,
Reuters UK, November 2, 2005,
Climate change may promote the spread of deadly diseases like malaria and asthma in both rich and poor countries by increasing the range of parasitic insects and whipping up dust from storms, a new report says.
As climates warm, malaria is becoming more common in the traditionally cool mountains of Africa, Asia and Latin America where 10 percent of the world's people live, said Dr. Paul Epstein, the lead author of "Climate Change Futures." ...
The answer to the scourge of malaria is self evident; it is only a large contributor to infant mortality in Marxist Kleptocracies.
Forester