The record for the highest claimed death toll for the fictional DDT ban remains at 3 BILLION AND COUNTING, but Pajamas Media is up there with a claim that the number is "hundreds of millions, if not more". This is completely impossible, since its several times the total death toll from malaria. It's in a Pajamas Media podcast by four bloggers who call themselves the "Sanity Squad". I wanted to quote them in my response, so I made my own podcast:
(It's about five minutes, and you can download it if the embedded player above does not work.)
The 3 BILLION AND COUNTING folks eventually allowed that the number wasn't that big. Not so the Sanity Squad. I asked Siggy, the blogger who made the claim (uncontradicted by the others), to provide some supporting evidence. Hijinks ensued. My favourite responses from him were:
In any event, since you have repeatedly shown yourself to be an idiot, allow me to thank you for acting as a poster boy for the insignificant voices that purport to speak for the scientific unwashed masses.
You really are like an ape in a tuxedo. You can sing, you can dance and you might even be able to use a knife and fork- but in the end, the only one who believes the tuxedo camouflages the truth, is the ape.
Some of the other psych bloggers and myself are taking bets on how long you will insist on making an ass of yourself.
I find it fascinating that your 'problem' is with me and not the deaths of over a hundred million due to bad science.
Dear Pajamas Media, stay classy.
since malaria was prevalent in north america at one time and DDT has been banned for decades now, how is it we've managed to be malaria free?
these people are utter morons, i dont know why you bother to engage them. DDT isnt banned in the countries with malaria, and mosquitos becoming immune to it i suppose has no place in their world along with all sorts of other inconvenient facts contrary to their "conservative" ideology.
Interesting.
Why didn't you note your own misstatements or your own misrepresentations? Why not acknowledge that the hundred million claim was made by a renowned UNC professor and the chairman of the Malaria Foundation International Chairman?
In any even, thank you for posting this. My post regarding your assertions will be made that much more interesting.
By the way, inasmuch as you see fit to question the Sanity Squad, what exactly are your medical credentials? What exactly are your scienctific bona fides? Where exactly did you do your clinical work? Do you believe that any of your credentials are comparable?
Are there any other assertions in my post that you would care to challenge?
Why not acknowledge that the hundred million claim was made by a renowned UNC professor and the chairman of the Malaria Foundation International Chairman?
It was? That claim is mentioned in the Frontpage piece you cite, but it isn't attributed to Desowitz (or anyone else, ofr that matter.
I know that you posted about the 3 BILLION AND COUNTING site a while back, but this was the first I'd seen it. It's so funny! And they evidently didn't admit that the number wasn't that big after all, because I just clicked through to it and their counter still obligingly starts at 3 billion each time.
As for Pajamas Media, let's see: I have to teach my six-year-old multiplication at some time so maybe I can practise by explaining it to them:
1. The CDC quotes WHO as saying that the total worldwide deaths from malaria, of people of all ages, are at least one million per year. Let's say two milion.
2. Pajamas Media said they are counting since the sixties -- who knows why, since Silent Spring came out in 1962 and the U.S. agricultural use ban was in 1972. Time travel? But let's give them a full 50 years, since that's an easier math problem.
3. Let's assume that all malaria deaths over the last fifty years would have been prevented by the use of DDT (which was actually being used -- but this is a multiplication problem, so let's assume a fantasy alternate world in which it wasn't being used, and in which it would be 100% effective).
4. What is 2 times 50? You can do it ... that's right ... 100! Good job! That comes to 100 million, including every possible expansionary factor including alternate worlds and time travel.
5. Is that "hundreds of millions, if not more"? No, it's not.
Tim previously demonstrated that a six year old (or was it an eight year old) could beat Tim Blair and crew in chemistry. I think mine will soon be able to take on Pajamas Media in math skills.
The CDC sites 800,000 children under 5 years of age, per year- and that's just children under 5.
It is interesting to note that you have a problem with the numbers- not with the deaths.
I remarked "I find it fascinating that your 'problem' is with me and not the deaths of over a hundred million due to bad science.
You make it sound as if I were the problem. It is fascinating in which direction your outrage is focused. You attempt to justify the ban on DDT and make no effort to even pretend to care about the results of that bad science.
The truth is, I would have had a hell of a of of respect for you had you said, "We were wrong on DDT. We overreacted and we didn't have all the evidence we needed. We went too far."
I do wonder what it is about African victims of malaria that makes them so disposable in your world- that even now, you won't admit there has been a problem and make an effort to fix the problem."
In fact, the post and podcast both referred to 'junk science' and not just Rachel Carson and malaria as the cause of those deaths. Blair continues to misrepresent that.
I suppose you would argue that the Holocaust never occurred because historians could not agree on a absolute number of deaths.
Ah, the art and science of the great lie. Good title for a post, I think.
Ah, it's so hard to type while simultaneously spitting the dummy, isn't it?
Look, a new troll. It appears to be resistant to reality/arithmetic. I think it's a keeper.
Maybe if we feed it, it will stay and provide countless hour of amusement.
Tim, post a picture of a bridge so the troll will feel more at home.
Nice podcast, Lambert. But I would argue against stating affirmatively that the ban against agricultural uses for DDT actually saved lives. We really have no proof of that.
It would be more honest to say something like...."if anything, the ban against agricultural uses of DDT has probably saved lives since...."
Inserting "probably" or "potentially" is more honest. The arguments on the other side are so stupid that there's no need to overstep when you knock them down.
Clearly, your low estimate has failed to allow for the possibility that a person may die of malaria several times over.
"You really are like an ape in a tuxedo. You can sing, you can dance and you might even be able to use a knife and fork- but in the end, the only one who believes the tuxedo camouflages the truth, is the ape."
I take it this means they don't believe in evolution either.
Clearly, your low estimate has failed to allow for the possibility that a person may die of malaria several times over.'
Not unlike what has happened to the Zombies making the "hundreds of millions have died due to the DDT ban" claim.
Every time the DDT Zombies die and come back, their number increases by a factor of ten.
At the current rate of inflation, pretty soon, they will be claiming more have died from the DDT ban than the total number of humans who have ever lived on the earth.
I think they must be including the children the dead never had. You see, each of those people that died would have had between 10-30 children. Would that fix the math?
The original sigmund, carl and alfred weren't teeny wingnuts who'd learned what they knew about "science" from the Med Revue, but other than for that these clowns f'in rule.
Moderatly amusing.
The logic is impecable:
Proposition:
"Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring and credited with founding the modern environmentalist movement is given a free pass on the 'junk science' that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions- because 'she meant well.'"
Structure:
1. Rachel Carson's science was flawed and based on ideology;
2. Rachel Carson's "junk" science resulted in the "the removal of DDT";
3. The "removal of DDT" has "resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions";
Implication:
Rachel Carson and environmentalists are responsible for "the deaths of hundreds of millions".
Never mind the fact that all three points in the structure of the argument a false premises (as have been pointed out on this blog and in pretty much all malariology literature, bug girl links to some ), we have this offered in support:
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2007/05/butherheart_w.html
An opinion piece, published in a newspaper (note newspaper ~= scientific literature), written by a non-expert with no scientific background, that cites no relevant literature. The CDC site he links to makes no judgement, scientific or otherwise, about why malaria has increased.
Then we have the front page article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9169
The article only cites 2 "experts" who claim that Rachel Carson's actions resulted in DDT, Dr. Harold M. Koenig, who is a fellow of the Annapolis Center (which, by the by, has a very anti-environment outlook, as is funded by Exxon http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4870)
Koenig does not justify his claims in the article. He does not cite one relevant study.
The other "expert" cited is Bangladeshi economist Nizam Ahmad. Ahmad is a member of the Free-Market advocacy group Liberal Bangla. He has no scientific qualifications (http://207.234.135.244/newwwwroot/nizama/www//Curriculum%20Vitae.htm), and, like Koenig, does not cite any reference for his claims. Both their organisations could be described as prescribing to an ideology.
This is true of the author of the FrontPage article as well.
I tell this to people all the time. You need to justify your statements. The articles profered as "proof" fall into the same trap as SC&A. They just say stuff, without justification. As such, their references are poor.
The only scientific agencies cited, such as the CDC state only facts on the number of maleria deaths. They do not make judgement calls on the nature of the pandemic, although they do in this study:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol4no4/brogdon.htm
Which states that: "Insecticide resistance has been a problem in all insect groups that serve as vectors of emerging diseases"
And mentions the resistance that vectors have developed to DDT as an example.
The CDC does not support their claims. The folks over at SC&A really need to learn that just 'cause you say something, doesn't mean that it is so. You need to justifty your claims.
I weep for the Zombie victims of malaria.
Perhaps the CEI could put up a site; each page representing another Zombie who never had the chance to eat somebody's brain thanks to Zombie-hating environmentalists.
Chris C -- nice work. You'd think one thing that graduates should learn is the important of proper referencing. Sadly, many actually seem to think that sprinkling their comments and posts with links to their alternative universe suffices.
The quality of the links matters. A link to the CEI or Heritage or any of those other think tank research generators simply doesn't stack up to a link to a paper in an established peer-reviewed journal.
I vote we get the "DDT is harmless. Rachel Carson killed 3 billion" people and the "DDT causes polio" people locked in a room together.
Perhaps the resulting annihilation could be used as a source of alternative energy.
"In any even, ... what exactly are your medical credentials? What exactly are your scienctific bona fides? "
Yes, Tim, what are your scienctific bona fides?
I think Marion Delgado had the last and best word on Rachel Carson, death's best friend. While there is a place for debunking, the fact is that doing so grants the wingnuts legitimacy. There is an argument to be had over the history and current best use of DDT for malaria prevention. However, the claim that Rachel Carson is responsible for any deaths from malaria is simple, organized agit prop, and should be met with derision. As Michael Berube put it such claims deserve only:
Perhaps the "DDT ban killed billions" folks are not referring to people at all, but instead to the number of mosquitoes who have died from the DDT ban -- due to insecticides that replaced DDT.
Rachel Carson and the DDT ban have killed:
people at last count.
I WIN!!!
"Some of the other psych bloggers and myself are taking bets on how long you will insist on making an ass of yourself." -- Hinkinks
"psycho blogger"?
Better, run, run, run, run, run away.
"Why not acknowledge that the hundred million claim was made by a renowned UNC professor and the chairman of the Malaria Foundation International Chairman?"
Read the article again. Dershowitz makes no such claim.
Read the article again.
How can he read it again when he apparently hasn't read it yet? :)
One viewpoint I have here is that science and scientists just don't get much respect these days. Bug Girl (and May Berenbaum) have discussed the science behind Integrated Pest Management. I humbly suggest that these people read Bug Girl's piece on resistance and internalize it. The psych bloggers do not grasp the science here. They're at a 3rd-grade level of "kill it." It's pathetic. It's the same, simplistic mindset that sells "anti-bacterial" soap. The world is not so simple. DDT is not a silver bullet. To think it that it is a silver bullet, and to expound this view, is simple-minded, unscientific, and wrong in many ways.
Tim, I noticed that his meltdown occurred as a response to your June 13th, 2007, 11:45 am post in which you knocked down his silly arguments. I am amazed how often the (few) peer-review papers cited by the "junk science" crowd fail to support the arguments they try to make. Do they really expect that scientist types don't know how to read a scientific paper?
'The psych bloggers do not grasp the science here. They're at a 3rd-grade level of "kill it." '
Given that it works so well in international relations, how could it fail in disease management?
And more: The Sanctity Squad tell us:
"As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."
[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]"
(as do the usual 15,000 verbatim parrot rightwing web pages)
Of course, as with the other such quotes we have seen from people who actually spend their lives saving lives and are quoted as bloodthirsty maniacs by rightwingnuts, chasing down the original, primary source reveals that Desowitz says
"He also said IN EFFECT, on behalf of AID, "better dead than alive and riotously reproducing". (emphasis mine)
Quelle surprise. Is it that they don't grasp the concept of primary sources; are too lazy to chase down primary sources; don't care about being embarrassed in front of the entire world time after time after time; don't care much about being proved wrong; still don't realize that primary sources will counter the assertions of the lie factories they quote; know too well that primary sources will counter the assertions of the lie factories they quote; what? I confess, I just can't wrap my mind around the concept of slavishly loudly repeating stuff you are told by somebody with a track record of making you look like a gullible fool.
Of course, they will now defend the doctored quote as though it were, in fact, accurate, and the deleted words make no change. Watch.
On the subject of podcasting Tim you don't seem to have quite the same froth at the mouth persona that the mentals exhibit - this will likely hurt sales. For greater chances of success you might like to tone down the mellifluence a little, go for more rant (you could imagine trying to put the appropriate voice to something like Andrew Bolt's written ravings - channel Bolt).
Or not.
You all mock the Sanity Squad for their supposed innumeracy but di any of you stop to think that they might be broadcasting through time from the year 2345? (By which time, at their claimed rate of 800,000 deaths per year 300 million people will have died from malaria.)
Huh, did you smart guys?
I would remind you that extreme hyperbole in the assault against Rachel Carsonism is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of links from Instapundit is no virtue!
Why don't they just read the papers they cite?
In the meantime, does anyone know whether Congress ever passed that resolution to name the Pennsylvania post office after Carson?
The majority of deaths from malaria occur in children under 5. It is not normally a fatal disease among adults.
Hence, the total number of malaria deaths per year is not enough to add up to "100s of millions" since the 1960s or 1970s. In fact it's nowhere close.
Of course you'd have to know something about malaria to know any of that. But given that malaria is obviously not your concern, it's understandable that you're ignorant about it.