DDT and United Nations

[cranston36]

What do you think of this?

Doctor Arata Kochi was the head of the World Health Organization to eradicate tuberculosis.
It is widely reported that erratic behavior and domineering influence caused many problems in the organization before he was forced out.
He is now in charge of the project to eradicate malaria in Africa and is insisting on using massive amounts of DDT to kill mosquitoes.
Some people say that because while he was there the number of TB cases fell is evidence that he did a good job.
They do not give any weight to the increased effectiveness of new drugs, the improved distribution network and education. These same supporters never acknowledge the increased involvement of those most at risk, improved infrastructures and general rise in lifestyle resulting in the drop in TB cases.
They also do not recognize the fact that as the organization he led broke up correct statistics were no longer kept.
On paper it looks like everything is going well but who can say because there doesn’t seem to be anyone keep accurate track of what happened or what is happening with TB.
In a terrifying move Doctor Arata Kochi has shown up as head of the Malaria project that is being sponsored by the World Health Organization.
He is forcefully advocating the increased use of DDT in third world countries. Even though other pesticides would be more appropriate to control the mosquito populations Doctor Arata Kochi is determined to use DDT.
DDT is a very dangerous chemical.
It will kill all insects and impact the entire food chain.
Fish, birds and animals will lose a major part of their diet.
People that need game to live will starve.
It causes cancer in humans.
It causes mothers to have premature births and to spontaneously abort babies.
It causes babies to be born with horrible birth defects. It is know as a mutagen. The word mutagen means ‘monster-maker’.
DDT is manufactured in India, Communist China and though it is not used in the United States it can be and is manufactured there for sale elsewhere. It is cheap to make and is a very profitable product.
India, Communist China and the United States are in favor of Doctor Arata Kochi’s idea regarding DDT. They support the World Health Organization in forcing the idea on poor nations to use DDT.
Malaria kills a great many people each year. A common number given is that 800,000 African children die from it each year.
Doctor Arata Kachi has been quoted as saying that he does not want to fail.
It seems he is willing to spray a chemical that kills insects, birds, animals and humans in order to fulfill his apparent destructive desire.
Many nations that are suffering from this scourge are also at war. They are using guns and ammunition that has been manufactured in Communist China, the United States, Russia and Europe. These wars are being fought over natural resources. The reason there is fighting over the natural resources is because Communist China, the United States, Russia and Europe are paying a lot of money to take the natural resources.
It has become impossible to hide the misery that these wars and this exploitation has caused.
There is a general hysteria to do something about it.
Stopping the sale of weapons from so-called rich nations to poor nations would alleviate much of the suffering. Paying honest prices for the natural resources that are being taken - like oil from Nigeria, gold from the Congo and other items - including fish and agricultural products - would also alleviate much of the suffering.
The local governments could then do more to ensure that the people are living in safe and clean environments.
Spraying DDT may bring short term relief but as was discovered in the United States and Italy it will bring long term misery.
The mosquitoes also will become resistant to the chemical.
They have already done so in many locations.
The mosquitoes that DDT is most effective against on an ongoing basis are not the ones that carry malaria. The ones that carry malaria in Sri Lanka have already obtained resistance. DDT is no longer used in Sri Lanka because the mosquitoes and other insects there have already mutated into forms that it will not effect.
DDT still attacks humans in Sri Lanka along with animals that live there - both domestic and wild.
Doctor Arata Kachi, from what I have read, acts in an erratic manner.
The United States has recently taken a stand against the United Nations and up to now has apparently resisted the activities of the World Health Organization. Now a man is in place who looks like he will destroy the reputation of the World Health Organization completely and possibly pollute large swaths of the earth.
The short term economic gain provided by spraying for DDT will cause a massive number of birth defects.
It is possible to eradicate mosquitoes using other chemicals.
The World Health Organization is giving unfair advantage to chemical companies that manufacture DDT and the DDT impregnated netting. Communist China and the United States stand to profit from this apparent rage of irresponsible behavior erupting from Doctor Arata Kachi.
Using DDT across Africa to try and eradicate malaria is like using the atomic bomb to eradicate cancer in Japan.
Anyone alive with cancer at the time of the explosion will die and cancer would be effectively wiped out - but 20 years down the line cancer from radiation will grow up and the people would be in the same state with a different disease.
If DDT is used to eradicate malaria across Africa without support of alternate chemicals and improved sanitation Doctor Arata Kachi’s solution may provide short term relief - but after he is dead and buried the monstrous results of his fevered activity will plague the world health community for decades and last for centuries.
The one thing more destructive than the mosquito in fighting malaria today is, in my opinion, Doctor Arata Kachi.
I hope you will think long and hard about allowing DDT to be used heavily in your nation without further studying the matter and doing everything you can to avoid it.
Look at a part of the ‘Policy Series’ at the World Health Organization.
See who funds it?
1. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
2. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
3. Unrestricted educational support from Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and Pfizer Inc.
Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer are international chemical companies specializing in agricultural chemicals and drugs.

+++++++++
ADDITIONAL
+++++++++

PFIZER AS SUGAR DADDY

Pfizer took over Pharmacia.
During the 2002 elections, Pfizer contributed $1.2 million to federal parties and candidates, more than two-thirds going to Republicans. Pharmacia contributed just under $1 million during 2001-02, mostly to Republicans.
Apparently an FDA medical officer was ordered to delete information on risks of antidepressant drugs.
The information to be concealed was in records being submitted to Congress. The FDA's Office of Chief Counsel urged him to delete the material.
Apparently they repeatedly prevented Mosholder from reporting his conclusions that the medications increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior among children.
Two FDA analyses have concluded that the drugs may double the risk of suicide among some children.
As far back as 1996, an FDA official had suggested an increased risk of suicide among children taking Zoloft.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) asked why the finding had not been followed up.
FDA officials stated that a letter sent at the time to Zoloft's manufacturer, Pfizer Inc., is no longer in the agency's files.
Joe Barton apparently received $10,000 dollars from Pfizer his 2004 campaign.
Pfizer has also showered cash on Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay and Senator Frist.
The FDA claims they were worried about frightening families away from buying the drugs. Many industry clinicians believe the drugs are effective.
Several studies have found that most of the drugs are no more effective than sugar pills.
The House Ethics Committee recently produced a 72-page report providing a "public admonishment" of both Representative DeLay of Texas and Representative Candice S. Miller of Michigan. (R-Mich.) concerning their improper behavior in pressuring Representative Nick Smith of Michigan to change his vote on the Medicare prescription drug benefit bill.

 

[Nuc]

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Sure the malarial mosquitos in Sri Lanka obtained resistance, but that's not the case in Africa. DDT is the most effective pesticide to keep mosquitos out of the homes of African people. The amount of DDT used currently is much less than when it caused problems in the 60's. You are overreacting. The scientists know much more about applying it now. DDT has bad PR, but it is the best answer to the problem in Africa. People are suffering needlessly now.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Sure the malarial mosquitos in Sri Lanka obtained resistance, but that's not the case in Africa. DDT is the most effective pesticide to keep mosquitos out of the homes of African people. The amount of DDT used currently is much less than when it caused problems in the 60's. You are overreacting. The scientists know much more about applying it now. DDT has bad PR, but it is the best answer to the problem in Africa. People are suffering needlessly now.

Cranston is a crackpot and a goober.

I honestly had no idea anyone used DDT anymore. It destroyed most of the birdlife around here during the 60s, as well as most of the horny toads.

 

[Hamiltonian]

DDT is actually a large part of what wiped out malaria from North America in the first place. I am still hesitant to use DDT across the whole continent of Africa, because I think it will adversely impact the ecosystems there. I'm not an environut, and I recognize that the article here presented blows things way out of proportion and fact. I'm still hesitant to use it though, especially with the PR campaigns that could be made against this sort of situation in the future if it results in more damage than projected. I think that quinine and nets are a much better way to try and prevent Malaria in Africa.

On the other hand, a bunch of people here eat Splenda which is like a cross between DDT and Agent Orange, and in fact I believe one of the intermediate forms in its synthesis is a chemical weapon. I stay away from that stuff too, no matter how many studies show that it's safe, so I'm just generally cautious when it comes to chemistry.

 

[Hobbit]

Cranston is a crackpot and a goober.

I honestly had no idea anyone used DDT anymore. It destroyed most of the birdlife around here during the 60s, as well as most of the horny toads.

Nobody does because of a book called 'Silent Spring' that talked about the death of all the birds in the world because of evil DDT. There was a legitamite concern during the 60s, as the judicious use of it was thinning bird eggs, but we were using way too much of it. As was found out, the ludicrous amount of DDT that was sprayed on a single public park every week (or even day in some places) was enough to protect all of New York City from mosquitos for 6 months. Despite the huge dosage, footage from that period shows people swarming around the trucks like they were spraying ice cream because it was so effective at fighting mosquitos, even eating food that had a layer of DDT on it when the truck went by during a picnic, yet the bird egg thing was the only thing that even happened (DDT is not toxic, nor is it carcinogenic). Even then, it's not the chemical, it's the dosage. The tiny amounts of DDT actually needed to fight mosquitos are no more harmful to birds than rain. Remember, everybody needs water, but six feet of it will kill you. It's the dosage. On a final note, the man defending DDT during the hearings leading up to its banning would often eat a tablespoon full right at the hearing to show that it was safe.

The truth is that millions, even billions, of taxpayer dollars go to Africa every year to fight malaria, as millions of people die every year from malaria. For a fraction of the cost, we could distribute DDT and save millions, but because of "Silent Spring," the plague of malaria still sweeps across Africa.

 

[Hobbit]

DDT is actually a large part of what wiped out malaria from North America in the first place. I am still hesitant to use DDT across the whole continent of Africa, because I think it will adversely impact the ecosystems there. I'm not an environut, and I recognize that the article here presented blows things way out of proportion and fact. I'm still hesitant to use it though, especially with the PR campaigns that could be made against this sort of situation in the future if it results in more damage than projected. I think that quinine and nets are a much better way to try and prevent Malaria in Africa.

On the other hand, a bunch of people here eat Splenda which is like a cross between DDT and Agent Orange, and in fact I believe one of the intermediate forms in its synthesis is a chemical weapon. I stay away from that stuff too, no matter how many studies show that it's safe, so I'm just generally cautious when it comes to chemistry.

Quinine is a costly treatment that helps lessen the blow after you've already got the disease. Nets are only useful if you actually have a bed, which most of the people we're trying to protect don't have.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Quinine is a costly treatment that helps lessen the blow after you've already got the disease. Nets are only useful if you actually have a bed, which most of the people we're trying to protect don't have.

I thought all you had to do to set up netting was have four sticks in the ground around you, and the last time I had checked the price of quinine was fairly cheap, and if it was taken you were basically guaranteed survival. I mean they put it in our tonic water, and Britain distributed it to many of their troops in the form of gin. It should not be more than around $50 per person when bought in bulk to cure those who have malaria. Netting is much cheaper anyways I believe, but the trick has always been getting people to use either the drugs or the netting.

If you wanted to be harsh and cheap enough to spray the continent with DDT you might just want to say "Let those with sickle cell survive malaria and we'll try to do what we can for the rest, just try to live in an area away from mosquitos like the moutains."

 

[Hobbit]

You don't have to spray the whole continent, just the entrances to people's houses, and that would cut malaria down to a trickle...for a hell of a lot cheaper than $50/person. Remember, $50 may not be much for us, but multiply that times the millions of people dieing each year, and you have a huge drain on the public coffers. Then there's the fact that what we're doing is obviously not working, whereas DDT worked like a charm on this continent.

 

[Hamiltonian]

You don't have to spray the whole continent, just the entrances to people's houses, and that would cut malaria down to a trickle...for a hell of a lot cheaper than $50/person. Remember, $50 may not be much for us, but multiply that times the millions of people dieing each year, and you have a huge drain on the public coffers. Then there's the fact that what we're doing is obviously not working, whereas DDT worked like a charm on this continent.

Yes, I also know that $50 seems a lot over there, and that DDT is cheaper. I see this not as a permanant solution, but a temporary one until GSK get's their malarial vaccine finished, which I would say should be done within 10-20 years at the most. That seems a short enough time away to make this a stopgap solution until that comes along, instead of using the DDT.

I didn't mean literarlly cover the whole continent with DDT, but just the wide spread application of having to use it, to protect people's houses, across the whole continent. Since I see us having a better long term solution coming down the pipes, I'm reluctant to spray DDT and use that as a potentially harmful long term solution.

 

[KarlMarx]

The yearly death toll due to malaria is now about 2 million. If those people died of AIDS, you'd hear every left wing advocacy group screaming for the Bush Administration to "do something about it".

On the other hand, African nations are being pressured into banning DDT by the West.

The ban on DDT costs nearly 2 million lives each year, but, because DDT is the thing the Left likes to hate, those lives don't mean anything to them. After all, ask any leftist, there are already too many people in the world, perhaps a couple of million deaths is a good thing....

The left's attitude reminds of this passage from "A Christmas Carol"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."

"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.

"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"

Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge returned his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.

 

[Hobbit]

Yes, I also know that $50 seems a lot over there, and that DDT is cheaper. I see this not as a permanant solution, but a temporary one until GSK get's their malarial vaccine finished, which I would say should be done within 10-20 years at the most. That seems a short enough time away to make this a stopgap solution until that comes along, instead of using the DDT.

I didn't mean literarlly cover the whole continent with DDT, but just the wide spread application of having to use it, to protect people's houses, across the whole continent. Since I see us having a better long term solution coming down the pipes, I'm reluctant to spray DDT and use that as a potentially harmful long term solution.

And in the meantime, 20-40 million people will die needlessly because of our phobia of DDT. Mosquito nets and quinine aren't working. DDT worked here. Let's use it.

 

[Nuc]

Who would've though DDT would be the issue that makes us all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" together?

 

[Hamiltonian]

Who would've though DDT would be the issue that makes us all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" together?

And who thought that it would have so many conservatives supporting the UN and that Kristolf guy from the NYT that seems to only write about Africa .

And in the meantime, 20-40 million people will die needlessly because of our phobia of DDT. Mosquito nets and quinine aren't working. DDT worked here. Let's use it.

DDT is one of those miracle cures that doesn't exist. Many problems don't have an easy solution, and this is one of them. DDT isn't that cheap considering all the people you're going to have to employ to spray it in all of these specific places. Nets are cheaper than DDT in terms of cost per person saved, and Also, it's not like DDT will prevent malaria overnight. It will take many years, if applied carefully, to help prevent malaria. It's not like as soon as the first DDT is sprayed 20 million people are saved. Mexico elminated malaria with relying on DDT.

Now not only is continent wide application of DDT a bad idea in terms of magnification, but I would bet that within two years of application, all surviving mosquitos would be resistant to DDT, and it wouldn't have done much to prevent malaria. I work on pathogen resistance and immunity, and at my work I've seen similar things happen just through random mutation to C. elegans (like flatworms), and the exact same mutation in mosquitos would provide them with DDT resistance and they would still be viable. There are resistant mosquitos already I believe. The same thing happened when the malarial parasite became drug resistant.

Also, while killing the transmission vector sounds like a good idea, killing all the mosquitos in Africa is bascially unfeasible. The real reason that malaria can ravage Africa is not because mosquitos, but because the countries have a low GDP/capita and horrible health care. I see the vaccine as a valid solution, because once you have it you don't need the healthcare. While people are still vulnerable to malaria, it will find a way to infect them.

 

[Gunny]

Nobody does because of a book called 'Silent Spring' that talked about the death of all the birds in the world because of evil DDT. There was a legitamite concern during the 60s, as the judicious use of it was thinning bird eggs, but we were using way too much of it. As was found out, the ludicrous amount of DDT that was sprayed on a single public park every week (or even day in some places) was enough to protect all of New York City from mosquitos for 6 months. Despite the huge dosage, footage from that period shows people swarming around the trucks like they were spraying ice cream because it was so effective at fighting mosquitos, even eating food that had a layer of DDT on it when the truck went by during a picnic, yet the bird egg thing was the only thing that even happened (DDT is not toxic, nor is it carcinogenic). Even then, it's not the chemical, it's the dosage. The tiny amounts of DDT actually needed to fight mosquitos are no more harmful to birds than rain. Remember, everybody needs water, but six feet of it will kill you. It's the dosage. On a final note, the man defending DDT during the hearings leading up to its banning would often eat a tablespoon full right at the hearing to show that it was safe.

The truth is that millions, even billions, of taxpayer dollars go to Africa every year to fight malaria, as millions of people die every year from malaria. For a fraction of the cost, we could distribute DDT and save millions, but because of "Silent Spring," the plague of malaria still sweeps across Africa.

I didn't really venture an opinion beyond what is documented fact that it did here. As I said, I wasn't even aware it was still used, and saw no real point in educating myself on the subject.

However, I AM educated enough to know that we wouldn't "save millions" using it. The millions would be just siphoned off to some other government bureaucracy.

 

[Hamiltonian]

I didn't really venture an opinion beyond what is documented fact that it did here. As I said, I wasn't even aware it was still used, and saw no real point in educating myself on the subject.

However, I AM educated enough to know that we wouldn't "save millions" using it. The millions would be just siphoned off to some other government bureaucracy.

He's talking about saving millions more people for the same price, not millions more dollars.

 

[Hobbit]

He's talking about saving millions more people for the same price, not millions more dollars.

Precisely. I have no delusions that I'd see any of that money, but if they're spending my money, I want them to do it right.

I also have no delusions that DDT will be the miracle cure to the malaria problem all across Africa, but look what it did here. When's the last time you heard of somebody catching malaria in North America? We could probably stop West Nile if we went back to it.

 

[Gunny]

He's talking about saving millions more people for the same price, not millions more dollars.

Well, in THAT case, they'd just figure out a different way to kill them.

 

[Annie]

More on malaria and DDT:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118160970924631993-lMyQjAxMDE3ODExMjYxMDI5Wj.html

Give Us DDT
By SAM ZARAMBA
June 12, 2007; Page A16

KAMPALA, Uganda -- Though Africa's sad experience with colonialism ended in the 1960s, a lethal vestige remains: malaria. It is the biggest killer of Ugandan and all African children. Yet it remains preventable and curable. Last week in Germany, G-8 leaders committed new resources to the fight against the mosquito-borne disease and promised to use every available tool.

Now they must honor this promise by supporting African independence in the realm of disease control. We must be able to use Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane -- DDT.

The United States and Europe eradicated malaria by 1960, largely with the use of DDT. At the time, Uganda tested the pesticide in the Kanungu district and reduced malaria by 98%. Despite this success, we lacked the resources to sustain the program. Rather than partner with us to improve our public health infrastructure, however, foreign donors blanched. They used Africa's lack of infrastructure to justify not investing in it.

...

The U.S. banned DDT in 1972, spurred on by environmentalist Rachel Carson's 1962 book "Silent Spring." Many countries in Europe and around the world followed suit. But after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented. Nothing else at any price does everything it can do. That is why the World Health Organization (WHO) has once again recommended using DDT wherever possible against malaria, alongside insecticidal nets and effective drugs.

We are trying to do precisely this. In addition to distributing nearly three million long-lasting insecticidal nets and 25 million doses of effective anti-malarial drugs, we will expand our indoor spraying operations to four more districts this year, where we will protect tens of thousands of Ugandans from malaria's deadly scourge. We are committed to storing, transporting and using DDT properly in these programs, in accord with Stockholm Convention, WHO, European Union and U.S. Agency for International Development guidelines. We are working with these organizations and to ensure support from our communities, and to ensure that our agricultural trade is not jeopardized.

...

Dr. Zaramba is director general of health services for the Republic of Uganda.

 

[Annie]

More on malaria and DDT:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118160970924631993-lMyQjAxMDE3ODExMjYxMDI5Wj.html

Tangentially related:

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...82312000&en=ed71c33b0f9a183e&ei=5070&emc=eta1

June 12, 2007, 12:43 am
Mother Nature’s Pesticides

By John Tierney

Tags: DDT, pesticides, Rachel Carson

When I posted on research by Bruce Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold showing that humans ingest a lot more natural pesticides than synthetic pesticides, I expected a sequel to the earlier denunciations from Rachel Carson’s admirers. (To answer their most frequent question: No, I am not accepting bribes from chemical companies.)

But I was pleasantly surprised by the latest round of comments. Yes, some readers did object, and some echoed Ms. Carson’s argument that the synthetic pesticides are more of a menace. But the debate was dominated by readers like Andrew, Dennis Mangan, Doc Individ and Btavshanjian. They concentrated on the chemistry of toxins instead of making generalizations about nature or corporations. And when you make a dispassionate comparison of natural versus synthetic pesticides, Mother Nature doesn’t come out so well.

Rachel Carson was naive to assume there were “few” natural carcinogens, and she was also naive to assume that evolution had made us “accustomed” to these chemicals. Dr. Ames and Dr. Gold explain why we never had a chance to get accustomed:

...

 

[Annie]

update and call for help. DDT shouldn't be abused, then neither should antibiotics:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200707160876.html

Malawi: Rescuing Children From Malaria


The Chronicle Newspaper (Lilongwe)

16 July 2007
Posted to the web 16 July 2007

Cedric Nkungula
Lilongwe

The country continues to lose many children in the under five period on daily basis due to rising cases of malaria.

This is but a danger not a joke to all the concerned stakeholders who have the welfare of children at heart.

At a time when countries are anxiously waiting for Artemisinin Combination Therapies (ACT), a new malaria drug yet to hit the market, government is on the other hand encouraging the use of Dichrolo Diphenil Trichroloethane (DDT) in the country to try minimise the figures of children that are dying from the disease, but there are divisions in the use of the chemical because some quarters blame DDT as being non bio-degradable and a source of pollution.

Tobacco bodies such as Tobacco Association of Malawi (TAMA) are against the use of DDT in wiping out malaria saying it would compromise with the quality and purity of the countries greatest forex earner, tobacco leaf.

Director of Preventive Health Services Dr. Habib Somanje defends government decision to use DDT to destroy malaria, arguing that it (DDT) shall only be used in indoor sprays.

Somanje observes that DDT can reduce malaria drastically as it sticks to walls for many weeks, thereby curbing malaria and saving the lives of children.

" Malaria contributes to highest deaths in children, its hard to attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), malarial control strategies such as use f ITN's have been devised. UN and bilateral partners call for malarial control strategies using ITNs and indoor chemical sprays," underlines Somanje....