Tuesday, 22 July 2008
The Mosquito In The Room
*Note: This is not Mr. E's work, but that of Carpsio - please see update below before blowing a gasket
The Guardian (plus ça change!) reports that:
If you had a reflexive shudder at the very mention of that name, then the work of Rachel Carson - author of "A Silent Spring" - continues to weave its insidious magic on your psyche (it certainly cropped up in textbooks back when I were a lad). In it, the effects on bird numbers was put ahead of the lives of Africans in a chilling depiction of a world without birds. Picture the crawling mindset that puts the lives of African humans somewhere beneath that of pelicans! And yet these are the people for whom 'human rights' and 'self determination' are reflexive buzzwords for all that is light and good in the world.
But even when ferociously right-wing organisations such as the Sustainable Development Network, and frothing fascists like the World Health Organisation are practically pleading for the limited use of DDT to help combat the incalculable toll of suffering and death caused by malaria, such is the entrenched mindset of the "more money = better solution" within the whole UN/Guardian/BBC panoply that DDT isn't even mentioned.
The blood of millions is on their hands. Never forget it. And read some more.
Carpsio
UPDATE:
It appears that my reading sources may have been awry in this matter (or at the very least outdated). Clearly I'm no expert in the field of disease vector control and made a blunder in confusing DDT's ban for agricultural use, when it continues to be used in a limited way for disease control. This is what happens if you subscribe to the same old sources for your information, a lesson we all sometimes need to relearn - even if painfully and publicly! My apologies to Mr. E for propagating inaccuracies.
I recommend you to Spinwatch.org for a more accurate account of the DDT/Malaria story.
The Guardian (plus ça change!) reports that:
"The UN's Millennium Development Goal to halt and then reverse the increase in malaria by 2015 is unlikely to be met, according to a detailed scientific analysis of where international funding is spent."I think we're all agreed that the loss and misery of millions of lives, unsung and unnoticed, from a highly preventable disease is - in this century and with our scientific knowledge - blood-boiling stuff. But, it is little surprise to note the assumption of where the problem lies: "not enough money."
"The analysis found that the global spend on malaria prevention of around $1bn per year would need to increase by between 50% and 450% to achieve the goal. But the study also found that funding was not spread evenly, with some countries receiving far less per person at risk of the disease than others."Well yes, I'm sure more money would help fund more jeeps and blue helmets. But how about the fact that as recently as the 60s we had a working program that was eradicating malaria wholesale across Africa. Its name? DDT.
If you had a reflexive shudder at the very mention of that name, then the work of Rachel Carson - author of "A Silent Spring" - continues to weave its insidious magic on your psyche (it certainly cropped up in textbooks back when I were a lad). In it, the effects on bird numbers was put ahead of the lives of Africans in a chilling depiction of a world without birds. Picture the crawling mindset that puts the lives of African humans somewhere beneath that of pelicans! And yet these are the people for whom 'human rights' and 'self determination' are reflexive buzzwords for all that is light and good in the world.
But even when ferociously right-wing organisations such as the Sustainable Development Network, and frothing fascists like the World Health Organisation are practically pleading for the limited use of DDT to help combat the incalculable toll of suffering and death caused by malaria, such is the entrenched mindset of the "more money = better solution" within the whole UN/Guardian/BBC panoply that DDT isn't even mentioned.
The blood of millions is on their hands. Never forget it. And read some more.
Carpsio
UPDATE:
It appears that my reading sources may have been awry in this matter (or at the very least outdated). Clearly I'm no expert in the field of disease vector control and made a blunder in confusing DDT's ban for agricultural use, when it continues to be used in a limited way for disease control. This is what happens if you subscribe to the same old sources for your information, a lesson we all sometimes need to relearn - even if painfully and publicly! My apologies to Mr. E for propagating inaccuracies.
I recommend you to Spinwatch.org for a more accurate account of the DDT/Malaria story.
Comments:
<< Home
"they deny it" because it isn't true.
DDT has never been banned for malaria eradication, only as an agricultural pesticide; and the main thing which made it ineffective for malaria eradication was the widespread resistance caused by its mass agricultural use.
Even Roger Bate, who did a lot to originally push the smears, has abandoned these claims. Nobody, literally nobody, active in epidemiology accepts them - they're exclusively used by anti-green cranks to smear Carson.
Read this, including the links to material from people who radically disagree with John Quiggin on almost everything but now accept that this myth has been debunked.
(and please, Mr E, next time you go away can you bring in some people who do even ten fucking seconds of fact-checking before they post?)
DDT has never been banned for malaria eradication, only as an agricultural pesticide; and the main thing which made it ineffective for malaria eradication was the widespread resistance caused by its mass agricultural use.
Even Roger Bate, who did a lot to originally push the smears, has abandoned these claims. Nobody, literally nobody, active in epidemiology accepts them - they're exclusively used by anti-green cranks to smear Carson.
Read this, including the links to material from people who radically disagree with John Quiggin on almost everything but now accept that this myth has been debunked.
(and please, Mr E, next time you go away can you bring in some people who do even ten fucking seconds of fact-checking before they post?)
Good correction work [and sorry for the uber-rant, just after the entirely factually wrong post on maternity pay the other day I wasn't feeling all that charitable towards Mr E's guests...]
In the interests of balance, it's worth noting that Spinwatch are a bit lefty/environmentalistly leaning themselves, and probably exaggerate the extent to which negative effects of DDT on humans have been proven.
In the interests of balance, it's worth noting that Spinwatch are a bit lefty/environmentalistly leaning themselves, and probably exaggerate the extent to which negative effects of DDT on humans have been proven.
@johnb: not quite. Quiggin does write "Although there have undoubtedly been occasions when DDT’s bad reputation ...led to its being underused,..." which seems to me to be a mealy-mouthed admission that "environmentalists" had created such a scare - that bad reputation did't spring spontaneously into existence - and that people died as a result. That truth, it seems to me, is what lying liars try to suppress.
Post a Comment
<< Home
