Originally posted by DrKFWell lets hear the opposing views. What has he said that is wrong?
If you look at what he's written and the way he's written it, one can see the sleight of hand that could lead the credulous reader to believe there had ever been a world-wide, WHO-directed ban on the use of DDT to combat malaria. I can see - since it snugly fits your absurd world-view - why you lapped up the inference, how you were duped.
Rather than quoting ...[text shortened]... viously spent a little time doing and go do the tiniest bit of research in to opposing views?
Originally posted by whodeyThe EPA's ban has resulted in the deaths of millions of Americans? Come on. Weren't your suspicions raised when you read this stuff? Why did you take it upon yourself to make the accusations that you did against the W.H.O.?
Overall, the ban has resulted in the deaths of millions.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFDid you not read what I posted? I offerred to share the sources, would you like some? There is no question as to how many people have died from malaria after WHO stopped promoting the use of DDT, or do you disagree? If you even bothered to read what I posted, the author, as well as I, said that when DDT was banned in the US malaria had already been dealt with. It was result of a higher standard of living as well as previous DDT use. The main topic here is the 3rd world which both the author and myself has more or less stated.
The EPA's ban has resulted in the deaths of millions of Americans? Come on. Weren't your suspicions raised when you read this stuff? Why did you take it upon yourself to make the accusations that you did against the W.H.O.?
It's an interesting tactic: quoting an enormous screed of text, with footnotes, and asking us to do some sort of fact-check-cum-book review. Spambot at his worst rarely goes to more than two pages, and he just cuts'n'pastes. You seem desperate to me. Would an appropriate response just be a blizzard of URLs, or what?
Here's the slight of hand, though, to get you started: it's eliding the difference between the US ban and some pretend international ban. Go back. See how he does it. Think.
Originally posted by DrKFYou ask me to think when you refuse to address what I have posted?
It's an interesting tactic: quoting an enormous screed of text, with footnotes, and asking us to do some sort of fact-check-cum-book review. Spambot at his worst rarely goes to more than two pages, and he just cuts'n'pastes. You seem desperate to me. Would an appropriate response just be a blizzard of URLs, or what?
Here's the slight of hand, though, ...[text shortened]... between the US ban and some pretend international ban. Go back. See how he does it. Think.
Originally posted by whodeyThe way he systematically downplays the ghastly toxicity and other dangers of DDT, and indeed seems to argue that there are/were none, marks this piece of 'analysis' as unscientific and manipulative - and therefore apparently mere political invective.
Well lets hear the opposing views. What has he said that is wrong?
It's clearly not a balanced or honest view. DrFK has you down as credulous and gagging for poisonous things that colour in your poisonous world view.
I on the other hand am becoming increasingly convinced you are devious, deceitful - on top of being poisonous. And seeing how you could read all this stuff - and regurgitate it - and not have misgivings about its veracity or balance and how you "misquoted" it to make those grotesque, hysterical aspertions you cast on honest public servants and scientists - only reinforces my view and makes me think DrFK is being unduly charitable about you.
Originally posted by whodeyPots and kettles, whodey - there's a pretty big issue (you know the one - it came up a few pages back) that you have singularly, spectacularly, brazenly and persistently failed to address, despite prompting. And you have the brass neck to ask me to address something new? No shame, no dignity and no honour.
You ask me to think when you refuse to address what I have posted?
Originally posted by FMFTo date, I have heard no constructive critisism over the text in question other than to say that the dangers of DDT have not properly been addressed. I thought he did address these supposide dangers in the Court ruling by Sweeney that was disregarded entirely. In addition, one must weigh the cost benefit for the use of DDT. I thought he did a very good job addressing this issue. Of course, the two of you probably did not even bother reading what I posted. Instead, you just sit around attacking my character and mindlessly saying that this is right winged dribble so why even bother addressing it? It does grow tiresome.
The way he systematically downplays the ghastly toxicity and other dangers of DDT, and indeed seems to argue that there are/were none, marks this piece of 'analysis' as unscientific and manipulative - and therefore apparently mere political invective.
It's clearly not a balanced or honest view. DrFK has you down as credulous and gagging for poisonous things ...[text shortened]... sts - only reinforces my view and makes me think DrFK is being unduly charitable about you.
Sorry FMF, I realize you only recognize Al Jazeera as a credible information source but I have none regarding DDT for ya.