Originally posted by whodeyYour source - the only source you are quoting - claimed that the EPA's ban in America caused "the deaths of millions." Why don't you distance yourself from this charlatan text?
I was accused of saying that I had said that the banning of DDT had cost millions of American lives.
Originally posted by FMFIt is NOT the only source I quoted. In fact, I listed about 18 of them. I printed out two of them and would be glad to print out any more you would wish to see.
Your source - the only source you are quoting - claimed that the EPA's ban in America caused "the deaths of millions." Why don't you distance yourself from this charlatan text?
To demonize this source simply on the basis that they are right winged is unconscionable, although I realize you loathe this perspective. Perhaps it is just to much for you to even consider its validity. If so, feel free to cotinue the personal attacks.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe issue is this: you presented an argument, that the WHO banned the use of DDT leading to the deaths of millions from malaria, which turned out to be wholly untrue, and have yet to address that error in any meaningful way. You know you spread a falsehood, you know you were found out, and you have nothing to say for yourself or your conduct. On a point of personal integrity, you have fallen short of the mark. You know this.
Please tell me what the issuse is then?
You are incorrect to suggest that we have not critically engaged with the screed of text you have laboriously typed out: you have been directed to the fundamental sleight of hand that led you to your initial error in the first place. What was this 'ban' that led to millions of foreign deaths from malaria? There was none - there wan American ban, but how did that directly cause millions of deaths? That's what your man claims, and it is a trick and nothing more. Think about how he has done this to you.
I'm not sure what you want to happen here: we're arguing against a clever enough trick, but once one sees through it, the whole thing looks shaky. Are we supposed to respond to each and every statement he makes, even though the conclusion he draws is spurious in the extreme?
You're left with, at best, the following, using facts not twisted rhetoric: "the WHO's policy of approving but not actively promoting DDT is directly responsible for millions of deaths". Which is pretty lame, eh? Also, then, tell us at least these two things: what's the difference, specifically, between 'approving' and 'actively promoting'; and, how many countries continued to use DDT without 'direct promotion' by the WHO? Yes - that is up to you, if you want t make the rather less damning claim above.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIt is quite clearly a political and ideological document. And it's quite clearly the only one you've read - you obviously lied about looking elsewhere. I personally get my news from dozens of sources, including Al Jazeira and Fox.
Again, what is your beef about the FACTS in the book?
Where does your text discuss the health risks and environmental dangers of DDT?
It doesn't. It dismisses them out of hand. Your text is far right blog fodder. Not a serious document about DDT. And as for your theories about the W.H.O... well, as DrFK has said so tellingly, you have no honour or dignity left.
Originally posted by whodeyYou did not quote 18 sources. You quote one clearly biased secondary source - which earns itself no scientific respect, in and of itself - and you want us to trust that you have checked these 18 sources - and that your charlatan far right shock-author is to be trusted in the way he has manipulated them? Please. One only has to read the one-sided diatribe that you have quoted to start hearing alarm bells.
It is NOT the only source I quoted. In fact, I listed about 18 of them.
Originally posted by whodeyDo you simply not understand what FMF is saying? It's not that it's right-wing, it's that he posits that 'the ban' killed millions when there was no ban. The only ban he describes is the US ban, so he either means that ban caused millions of deaths or some other ban (which we know now did not exist) caused those millions of deaths.
It is NOT the only source I quoted. In fact, I listed about 18 of them. I printed out two of them and would be glad to print out any more you would wish to see.
To demonize this source simply on the basis that they are right winged is unconscionable, although I realize you loathe this perspective. Perhaps it is just to much for you to even consider its validity. If so, feel free to cotinue the personal attacks.
Originally posted by DrKFWhat humpty-dumpty world are you living in, where 'approve' means 'ban'?
Do you simply not understand what FMF is saying? It's not that it's right-wing, it's that he posits that 'the ban' killed millions when there was no ban. The only ban he describes is the US ban, so he either means that ban caused millions of deaths or some other ban (which we know now did not exist) caused those millions of deaths.
Up is down, the sky is green, grass is blue, you know what you're talking about and have critical faculties. What a funny old place that must be.
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFJust google Marjorie Mazel Hecht and ddt and you should find out what I am talking about.
What humpty-dumpty world are you living in, where 'approve' means 'ban'?
Up is down, the sky is green, grass is blue, you know what you're talking about and have critical faculties. What a funny old place that must be.
She writes, "As malaria continues to kill one child every 30 seconds in sub-Saharan Africa, and 500 people per day in Uganda alone, officials in the European Union have threatened to ban agriculture imports from Uganda if the country begins to spray the indoor walls of houses with DDT to combat the mosquito-borne disease. Indoor spraying with DDT to combat is by far the most effective prevention against malaria. Ironically, some of these EU officials might not be alive today, if their parents and grandparents, sodiers, civilians, had not been dusted with DDT to kill the lice that spread deadly typhus, during and after WW11. The pre-world war 11 generation was not so fortunate. Without the benefit of DDT, typhus killed 3 million people, and sickened 20-30 million more just after WW1. Malaria is Afica's biggest killer. 90% of the world's 1-2 million malaria deaths per year are in AFrica, and most of those are women and young children. Another 500 million people suffer a malaria attack every year, enduring suffering and debilitation. Yet, the major funders of antimalaria campaigns, such as the World Bank, spend nothing for DDT or pesticide spraying. (See accompaying op ed by Ugandan activist Fiona Kobusingye-Boynes). Until this year, (2006) the same was true for the US agency for International Development's anti-malaria program, the WHO ati-malaria program, and that of various other United Nations organizations. But after Congressional hearings in 2004 and 2005, and persistant lobbying from Africa Fighting Malaria, the Congress of Racial Equality, malaria scientists and others, in December 2005, the USAID reversed a 34 year old US policy of not funding any program involving DDT use or pesitcide spraying in AFrica. USAID spokesmen also insisted, in response to criticism, that the agency NEVER had any official ban against DDT use. This is not true. AFter the 1972 US ban on DDT, USAID policy was not to fund any developement projects using a pesticide that was banned in the US. In 1986, Secretary of State George Shultz reinforced this policy in a telegram to all embassies stating, "The US cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following, 1) lindane, 2) BHC, 3) DDT, or 4) dieldrin." AS entomologist and DDT champion J. Gordon Edwards noted in his article, "DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud", published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Fall 2004), "Millions of poor natives in tropical countries died as a result, from starvation or from malaria and othe insect transimitted diseases. The term 'genocide' is used in other contexts to describe such number of causulties. This was from Amir Attaran et al.. "The World Bank Financial and Statistical Accounts and Medical Malpractice in Malaria Treatment, " The Lancet April 25, 2005.
So would you say that cutting off needed funding of DDT does not equal a ban?
Originally posted by FMFIf you are not interested in digging in the dirt and exploring other perspectives than your own then feel free to continue to deride me without addressing the info I have provided.
You did not quote 18 sources. You quote one clearly biased secondary source - which earns itself no scientific respect, in and of itself - and you want us to trust that you have checked these 18 sources - and that your charlatan far right shock-author is to be trusted in the way he has manipulated them? Please. One only has to read the one-sided diatribe that you have quoted to start hearing alarm bells.
Originally posted by whodeyWe have dug in the dirt of your perspective and found it to be rotten lies which you have - and still are - spreading on this forum. How did the EPA ban kill millions of people? That claim comes from your source.
If you are not interested in digging in the dirt and exploring other perspectives than your own then feel free to continue to deride me without addressing the info I have provided.
Originally posted by FMFI have shown from my sources that without US funding the use of DDT came to abrupt hault as well as pressure from the EU for countries like Uganda not to use it in households or face eocomic sanctions. I have also given sources that discuss the numbers that die each year from malaria as well as the past effectiveness of DDT combating malaria. I have also shown the subsequent change in the US position in terms of funding DDT use in the 3rd world in 2006. It took them around 30 years to do the right thing, so I suppose it is better than nothing.
We have dug in the dirt of your perspective and found it to be rotten lies which you have - and still are - spreading on this forum. How did the EPA ban kill millions of people? That claim comes from your source.
2 edits
You really are a piece of work, whodey. FMF's right: I have been altogether too charitable. You told an untruth - this you now know to be a fact; whether you admit it here in public, as well as to yourself, is the mark of you. It's obvious what that mark shows: cowardice You've also been shown how you were duped by disingenuous rhetoric and agenda-driven insinuations. You've been called out on it, repeatedly, but refuse to acknowledge what has happened. For shame.
Instead, you (badly) copy-type from your original source, and ask us to debate that instead. When that fails, miserably, because your author is a liar and an ass, you try to show how 'approve' actually means 'ban'! It's all so much desperate, pathetic obfuscation and misdirection; the only way you seem capable of 'debating' now. For shame.
You have the gall to demand we look beyond our own, narrow sources, but what you have offered by way of challenge is a tissue of lies. Pray tell, what effort have you made to source alternative points of view? Precious little, I'll wger, so I'll add hypocrite to your list of flaws. For shame.
Well, unless and until you are prepared to address your previous behaviour, I see no reason to engage with whatever nonsense you come away with. Why not? For the simple reason that it is evident that you cannot carry out this discussion in good faith. As FMF says, any charity towards you is fast evaporating.
I see no reason to debate with liars, and that - a knowing liar, a fraud, a charlatan - is the only way I can assess you now, based on your behaviour and attitude.
Whodey the Liar is not worth the effort. For shame.
Originally posted by whodeyHow confident in your sources for this are you? Given past experience, why?
I have shown from my sources that without US funding the use of DDT came to abrupt hault as well as pressure from the EU for countries like Uganda not to use it in households or face eocomic sanctions. I have also given sources that discuss the numbers that die each year from malaria as well as the past effectiveness of DDT combating malaria. I have also sh ...[text shortened]... 06. It took them around 30 years to do the right thing, so I suppose it is better than nothing.
Unfortunately, I'm just about to go out, or I might be pushed in to showing how even some of the above is, simply, incorrect.
But even if I did that, we both know what you'd do - find a new source, change tack, pretend you have a leg to stand on, fail to acknowledge your errors. Carry on, carry on - it's like the great Mr Churchill said, isn't it?
Liar, hypocrite, coward.
Originally posted by DrKFSo you call the source of the issues at hand a liar and an arse, indcluding myself, and then dribble on that you have been too charitable to me? Then you say that you could offer other sources contradicting my own sources but say that I am not worth it?
How confident in your sources for this are you? Given past experience, why?
Unfortunately, I'm just about to go out, or I might be pushed in to showing how even some of the above is, simply, incorrect.
But even if I did that, we both know what you'd do - find a new source, change tack, pretend you have a leg to stand on, fail to acknowledge your errors. C ...[text shortened]... on, carry on - it's like the great Mr Churchill said, isn't it?
Liar, hypocrite, coward.
This is telling.