Originally posted by whodeyNo. I disagree. The policies in malaria affected countries that were put in place after the ban on DDT are what failed to save as many people from malaria as could have been saved. I disagree with you totally on this whole issue. Your OP, characterizing this as deliberate genocide by "Statists" is offensive. Boring. Creepy. And typical.
Very well, you don't think it was deliberate, but you do agree that it sent many millions to their graves. Am I correct in this assumption?
Originally posted by FMFAnd in the US, DDT played a SMALL role in the final elimination of malaria in Europe and North America, as malaria had already been eliminated from much of the developed world before the advent of DDT through a range of public health measures and generally increasing living statndards. Well that is great for the developed countries, but what of the "have nots"?
You didn't "reveal" this fact, Mr. Big Boots. It's been common knowledge for more than 7 years in the development/NGO world. The Indonesian government eradicated malaria on the entire island of Java (population 120,000,000) without the use of DDT in the 1980s and 1990s.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIn 1955, the WHO commenced a program to eradicate malaria worldwide, relying largely on DDT. The program was initially highly successful, eliminating the disease in Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the nothern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific. Do you deny this? Additionally, if DDT did not play such a role or is largely ineffective, why was it reintroduced by WHO? Why did they wait some 30 years later to use it again?
No. I disagree. The policies in malaria affected countries that were put in place after the ban on DDT are what failed to save as many people from malaria as could have been saved. I disagree with you totally on this whole issue. Your OP, characterizing this as deliberate genocide by "Statists" is offensive. Boring. Creepy. And typical.
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey. Listen. I do not subscribe to your unhinged conspiracy theories.
And in the US, DDT played a SMALL role in the final elimination of malaria in Europe and North America, as malaria had already been eliminated from much of the developed world before the advent of DDT through a range of public health measures and generally increasing living statndards. Well that is great for the developed countries, but what of the "have nots"?
Originally posted by whodeyYou almost invariably characterize or theorize that every belief or idea of your 'opponents' forms part of, or enables, some giant interlocking network of genocide, slavery, communist tyranny. This is offensive. When you're in this particular zone, your unoriginal ideas are not only risible and twisted but also profoundly insulting. Consequently, you get the same 'personal barrage' and the same degree of respect as you would get if you were peddling child porn or racism.
I would think to discredit me, you would discredit the facts yet you persist in this personal barrage.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFHey, I'm open to other points of view. Unfortunately, you have spent the vast amount of your time attacking me instead. I find this not only annoying, but counterproductive.
You almost invariably characterize or theorize that every belief or idea of your 'opponents' forms part of, or enables, some giant interlocking network of genocide, slavery, communist tyranny. This is offensive. When you're in this particular zone, your unoriginal ideas are not only risible and twisted but also profoundly insulting. Consequently, you get the sa e same degree of respect as you would get if you were peddling child porn or racism.
Originally posted by whodeyOn the contrary. In other words, I am not interested in second guessing your self-esteem issues and your paranoid compulsive mind map, your need to address these like a dry drunk on a forum, nor am I interested in entering into your conspiracy theory games. Where is joe beyser? He liked to play with you.
In other words, you have no answer.
Originally posted by whodeyI am inclined to "attack" racists and paedophiles too. People who don't agree with you are supporters of genocide blah blah blah, yeah, we get it whodey.
Hey, I'm open to other points of view. Unfortunately, you have spent the vast amount of your time attacking me instead. I find this not only annoying, but counterproductive.
Originally posted by FMFStill no answer as to why WHO changed the policy on DDT? Their policy to ban it for 30 years and then suddenly revive it is incoherent yet you take no interest as to why or even speculating as to why.
On the contrary. In other words, I am not interested in second guessing your self-esteem issues and your paranoid compulsive mind map, your need to address these like a dry drunk on a forum, nor am I interested in entering into your conspiracy theory games. Where is joe beyser? He liked to play with you.
Nice conversing with you FMF.
Originally posted by whodeyEven a cursory look at wikipedia suggests what the "facts" about DDT did not really allow them to look the other way. I have cobbled together a summary of what is known:
They knew the statistical facts as we do yet they turned their head the other way.
It's been demonstrated - albeit disputed to varying degrees - that DDT causes diabetes, developmental and reproductive toxicity, preterm birth and early weaning, that it has endocrine-disrupting properties, and also disrupts semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, duration of lactation and ability to breastfeed (which in turn is of course linked to unwanted pregnancies), that it causes miscarriages, premature birth and low birth weight, increases in infant deaths that are offset any benefit derived from its anti-malarial effects, that there's a link between in utero exposure and developmental neurotoxicity, decreased attention at infancy, decreased cognitive skills at 4 years of age, retarded psychomotor development, inreased difficulty in getting pregnant among daughters of highly exposed women may have more difficulty getting pregnant, that it affects thyroid hormone levels and may contribute to the incidence of cretinism etc. etc. etc.
In your eagerness to accuse the WHO of calculated genocide (on a scale comparable to Stalin and Mao, I notice), you seem to have filtered out any and all inconvenient information about DDT. Having discounted all this stuff about the effects of DDT on its victims, you then feign some sort of hysterical, exaggerated, ostentatious sympathy for the victims of Malaria.
To do such a thing makes you creepy in my book. Beyond lively debate. Beyond raising interesting issues. Sheer malice and dishonesty in the service of grinding your hateful axes. No offence intended.