Originally posted by whodeyI am trying to understand your "Statist" paranoia but it's just intellectually sterile, as far as I can see. How can you frame the "Statist" smear in this case (W.H.O.) without it also applying to half of what you are saying - making you a fumbling hypocrite etc.? You seem so tripping over yourself to land a punch, you simply haven't landed one. Do you ever feel cross with your "sources"?
What can I say, FMF seems to be suspicious of everyone except the statists it would seem.
Originally posted by whodeyThe only 'shame' is your inability to stick to facts; your flip-flopping; your intransigent inability to admit when you have overstated your case; your unwillingness to engage with alternative hypotheses; your seeming unwillingness to read any of the links pointing to DDT health and environmental risks; and, your pathetic delusion that quoting a fictionalised account of an entirely different matter inb a film counts, anywhere but in your fevered imagination, as a valid point to make.
My position is simple. I am for the average Joe whether it be in the US or Africa. So tell me, who is in control of the average Joe? Are they not statists? If it were not for the environmentalist movement initiated by Silent Spring, the surpression of DDT would never have reached the levels it has. Do I quesiton the powers that be? You betcha. I find t ...[text shortened]... 'm at it. No doubt, the powers that be should be trusted, not questioned as history indicates.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAgreed. Quite why you think a point I made first, and consistently has anything to do with your argument escapes me, though!
"DDT saves lives from malaria and if properly used causes very little environmental harm. This is because spraying very small amounts of DDT whthin the indoor walls of houses is both highly effective and poses a much lower environmental danger than spraying it on the agriculture."
As I have said before the change in practical policy on the part of the WHO and USAID around 2006 coincides - but not coincidentally - with the implementation of Copenhagen. IRS - always approved, but not always directly promoted - became a much more viable strategy (one well worth actively promoting) in a world where agricultural spraying was outlawed. Occam asks us not to complicate things, and this - much more than your muddied quasi-conspiracy bull - perfectly explains the change in policy towards DDT. Your refusal to engage with this explanation is telling.