04 November 2010
You believe DDT is good -- show us the evidence. Show us the population of mosquito which does not have the alleles that make them resistant and, ultimately, immune to DDT.
You believe malaria rises without DDT, but your belief ignores the fact that malaria was held down by pharmaceuticals and that the post-1976 rise in malaria was because of a failure of the pharmaceuticals, not due to a lack of DDT.
You believe poisoning the environment will kill parasites in humans?
Stick to the evidence, don't hold to silly beliefs without evidence, you could beat malaria -- as we did in the U.S. before DDT was ever known to work against insects.
If you wanted to beat malaria, you could. Shouting after dead women scientists isn't going to help.
You sound like a bible thumper
I do believe that Og is right.
Calm down and go and talk to your shrink.
It can be fixed without a lobotomy at this stage. But please do not delay.
Please bebember that Al Gore was VP before he got so bery sick.
GO SEE DA SHRINK, Pleease!!
In Uganda they are spraying the INSIDE of huts with DDT with very good results.
They use bery small quantities of DDT.
Not even enough DDT to kill of the shell of Ed's eggs, pity that.
Whenever I can get my hands on some DDT, (from India) or (Hong Kong) I use it to spray here in Sierra Leone and save lives.
It, DDT, is very hard to find these days.
I also use OLD OIL from our equipment to blot out some swamps, killing millions of Ed's "alleles" but saving a life or two, human of course.
So please ED, please come and see the death and then talk your KAK.
NO INTERNET INTELLECTUALS WERE HARMED OR KILLED BY THIS COMMENT, bUT wE can rECTIFY THAT ON REQUEST.
If you understood that, you'd not be calling for a lobotomy performed by DDT.
You actually have no clue about what DDT is, how it works, and how malaria spreads, do you?
We do, and it is clear that you do not. Ever been to Africa? Ever been around someone with Malaria? Ever have to take antibiotics every a day to ward it off? Thought not.
You probably "believe" in Global Warming as well, Ed.
Kees, give it up, Ed's uneducable. A Draadtrekker jerking off to pictures of the patron saint of dead children, Rachel Carson
Post some pictures, Ed. I miss Ndola.
Malaria's a parasite, not a bacterium. Why would you take antibiotics, especially prophylactically?
I don't see any sense in "believing" in what the evidence shows. The evidence is that DDT is not the magic bullet against malaria.
(Antibiotics, in a particular combination, can help ward off the second stage of infection -- but that's very new research, very much untested; if you were taking antibiotics to keep from getting malaria, no wonder you got it. I suppose living with such disinformation might make you prone to more.)
I've seen enough deaths from malaria, West Nile, hepatitis and other infectious diseases to know that ignorance is a poor tool to defend against the diseases.
It was ignorance that helped get us to this mess. Rachel Carson warned that overuse of DDT would rob malaria fighters of its use prematurely. WHO had to stop the campaign to eradicate Africa of malaria in 1965. How many millions have died since then, because of DDT abuse that cut short the eradication campaign?
If you fear the disease, why not learn about how to fight it long term, and fight it, instead of making bad quips about a noble woman who tried to save the kids?
That nails it. You don't have a fucking clue. I don't believe a fucking thing, I know. I know that- for instance- doxyxyclene is a common and accepted prophylaxis against malaria, and had I not taken it, I would now probably be dead, or have lost limbs. But hey, keep on "believing" the drivel you spout, and wallow in your ignorance.
LOL! What a hoot. THe malthusian Angel of Death a "noble woman".
Face it, fool, you're so fucking stupid i'm amazed you remember to breathe. but keep coming here and spouting your bullshit, because it keeps you out of the real world.
But then, I'm not the one who must tell fantastic lies about dead women to make a point.
Don't project your breathing difficulties or moral dilemmas. Carson was right, and you can't find any place she erred.
Shame on you.
(The name calling really is sort of a white flag, is it not?)
ALL insecticides used to combat insects are BAD in some way or another, it is how one applies them that makes the difference in whether an insect becomes resistant or not. That is scientific fact.
Using DDT inside homes is the proven way to use it in Africa and is saving countless lives where this method is followed.
Another thing... leave us Africans to sort out our health problems in our way please... you know NOTHING of the situation at grass roots as we say.
Oh, wait, I forget- you have no odea what a "Fact" is. Let me try to explain: A "Fact" is something that's true, no matter how much you dislike it. I know you never stumbled across one, but maybe someday you will. Spout that Silent Spring bullshit around Dallas and sooner or later someone will educate you in person.
"I am curious, though: You're actually claiming malaria is not caused by a parasite?"
No, you vacuous fool, I explained that antibiotics like Doxycyclene are taken as prophylaxis against malaria. I know you have almost no reading comprehension, but scroll up and read what I wrote. Here's a citation, and you can ask any infectious disease physician on earth who will tell you the same thing
When I call you a "conniving, lying anal orifice," that's a statement of fact. Carson was right, as you know.
Don't worry, though, you can no more insult me than a worm can insuilt a god. You're a moron, you're incapable of reason, and I'm just having a good time playing with you.
Like you, Carson didn't have any comprehension of the logical fallacies of cum hoc ergo propter hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc. She assembled a lot of "facts" that were on their face true, but bore no relation nwhatsoever to the issue, and relied utterly on trumped up emotional bullshit to convince utter retards- like yourself- that DDT was horrid. Studies since have proven it's effectiveness and safety, when used properly and in the correctp proportions. Other insecticides have proven dramatically less effective and are more expensive, otherwise they'd already be in use. Anyone who has been in Africa and seen this with their own eyes understands, and of course, you will not, being as you haven't a thought in your head that hasn't been placed there by Carson's festering ovipositor.
As I asked before, please cite one of those instances. Give the page number (the book is online).
Last time I asked, you replied with a string of insults. Got any data to back your case?
"Studies since have proven it's effectiveness and safety, when used properly and in the correctp proportions."
Cite those studies, please.
Obviously, you've never looked. Check out PubMed.
There are no studies to support your side -- not done by reputable scientists and passing the muster of peer-review.
it amuses me so someone could be so dense. I mean, I've heard of people this incapable of reason, but I never imagines there would be such a specimen in real life. You belong in a glass case in a museum of mopes.
Your challenge was to produce one error from the many you alleged were in Rachel Carson's book. You've found none.
Then your challenge was to produce a study supporting your claim that studies since 1962 show DDT to be safe, and the concerns overblown. You said "Google."
We know you can repeat baby talk, but that's not making a case.
Why can't you guys figure out how to do that?
And you call me "dense?"
you really don't have any idea, do you.
Golly, it must upset you as the world around you learns of Saint rachels ignorance. Eventually, when everyone but you figures it out, it will be very hard on you. But keep a happy thought, there are still adults who believe in the tooth fairy too, I'm sure.
By the way, you lack the intellect to challenge me to anything. And you always will.
Still can't find a single mistake, eh?
I may lack the intellect to challenge you. You lack the intellect to know when your anal regions have been kicked about your neck -- by a woman who died in 1964.
If you had the facts, you wouldn't need the insults, would you.
Havven't found any shit in the cesspool, either, but I know it's there. And I would dive into a cesspool before I read a word of that idiots drivel.
but keep on flapping your yap, little doggie. I've sent bunches of people here to laugh at your pathetic whining, and they've had a good chortle at your expense.
In Texas we deal with neuroinvasive West Nile virus and also, now, dengue fever, vectors being daytime mosquitoes.
Unfortunately, while we are encouraged to do the integrated mosquito management thingie, removing standing water, debris, etc., not EVERYONE DOES THAT. I would imagine in rural areas of Africa it might be difficult to engage in a rigorous course of emptying your flower pots and grills and such...which would necessitate spraying with something efficacious against the malaria-carrying mosquito. Pragmatism does occasionally save lives, duh.
We also have a spraying regimen for those areas, like storm drains and hot spots of suspect mosquitoes. Pot-emptying doesn't always cut it, ya know?
DDT was never proven dangerous when used properly. If you live in the south and are over 60, you were probably exposed to it, and you are in fact probably alive today because of it. Allowing a government agancy to legislate science is always stupid, but you can easily identify the morons among us by witnessing those who support this kind of nonsense.
You'd think that the fact that DDT eradicated the malaria vector in the US would faze him,
CDC says malaria was essentially eradicated from the U.S. by 1939, with only vestiges and mop-up operations left. That's important because DDT was discovered to be an effective pesticide in 1939, and was available for use against mosquitoes in the U.S. in 1949 -- ten years after malaria was beaten.
DDT spraying may have helped keep malaria from coming back, but DDT was not the source of the 40-year effort to eradicate malaria, nor the source of the winning touchdown.
. . . or the fact that no other product has ever been as effective, . . .
Except bednets. In tests and use in Africa over the last five years, bednets show they reduce malaria by 50% to 85%. DDT's best efforts give a 50% reduction.
Even better than DDT: Cure malaria in the humans. Don't forget that once malaria is cured in the humans, mosquitoes have no place to draw the disease from, to transmit. DDT was not intended as the answer for malaria -- WHO's "eradication" campaign was based on improving health care to eliminate the disease in humans.
We can't eliminate mosquitoes, nor even those species that carry malaria. The only hope for a long-term solution is to cure the disease in humans. It's more expensive, more time-dependent, and generally just tougher, but it's 100% effective. Ask the U.S.
. . . or the fact that thousands on thousands of scientists have questioned the validity of the ban . . .
A few scientists, and hundreds of cranks. Among malaria fighters, at least 90% of them understand DDT is no panacea, and support the Stockholm Convention.
Were this a democratic decision, you'd lose.
. . . or that millions of people's lives were saved by DDT and other millions died without it- all he can do is "SQUAWK!! PROVE IT!! PRETTY BIRD!!"
I rely on the evidence. National Academy of Science grossly overstated DDT's value in their 1970 analysis, and still concluded that it is more dangerous than beneficial. Since then, malaria deaths have been reduced by more than half.
I've offered several citations, to zero for Og. If the evidence were on his side, don't you think he'd trumpet it?
DDT was never proven dangerous when used properly.
Which was what Rachel Carson urged. You, Og, said she was wrong and a mass murderer. So, if you believe proper use is "mass murder," then you're a fool.
Of course, you don't have a clue what Rachel Carson really said. You steadfastly refuse to get any information. If ignorance were truly bliss, you'd be delerious.
Of course, you do appear delerious in your past three posts. Hmmmm.
If you live in the south and are over 60, you were probably exposed to it, and you are in fact probably alive today because of it. Allowing a government agancy to legislate science is always stupid, but you can easily identify the morons among us by witnessing those who support this kind of nonsense.
Morons support nonsense on all sides. The nonsense in this case is you, who condemn Rachel Carson while trumpeting the mosquito-fighting methods she championed.
You benefit from science, but you're too much the intentionally-ignorant fool to understand.
DDT is still dangerous. Bald eagles, brown pelicans, osprey and peregrine falcons in the Americas recovered only after DDT use was dramatically reduced, and years reduced the residual stores of DDT in the birds' fat. We now know Carson was right.
If only we had listened 48 years ago, millions of lives might have been saved. You won't listen even now. How many millions more have to die?
No matter how many times you type those lies, they will not be true. No matter how many times you "refute" the irrefutable using the feelgood pseudoscience yo ascribe to, the fact remains that you are wrong, and you haven't the capability for reason.
You can shout that bullshit here all you want, but we're adults, and we know the difference between your firmly held "beliefs" and the truth. If you could bring reason to the table, I'd have a discussion with you, but since you cannot, it would be like having a conversation about relativity with a dog.
yap, yap, little doggie, yap yap.
Links to this post: