WHO wouldn’t want to save this child?
For right now, we’ll just leave that as a question.
The WHO summary document concerning its program to rollback the use of DDT states that,
Malaria is one of the greatest public health challenges facing the developing world. World Health Organization (WHO) data indicate that malaria causes over 1 million deaths per year, with
over 90% of those deaths occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. Malaria causes over 300 million cases of acute illness each year. Children account for over three-quarters of these cases, and malaria kills an African child every 30 seconds. Beyond the immediate disease burden, malaria incurs devastating costs on local economies, both direct costs of treatment and prevention and indirect costs of lost productivity. This burden is especially great in the tropical developing
world where malaria most often occurs.
So it sounds like you’d want an effective tool for combating a disease that kills a child every 30 seconds, right? The WHO document says that,
Spraying indoor surfaces with DDT has been highly effective in interrupting malarial transmission in many developing countries.
So why, then, does the WHO want to phase out DDT? The WHO says,
Because of its chemical stability, it is slowly metabolized, it accumulates in the environment through food chains and in tissues of exposed organisms and is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans.
So the WHO wants to phase-out the “highly effective” DDT because it is “potentially” harmful. But what does “potentially” harmful mean and does it offset a-dead-child-every-30-seconds?
Next, the WHO says,
DDT and its residues build up in the food chain, and it is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans, if not applied in accordance with WHO guidelines and recommendations.
So the WHO wants to phase-out DDT because some applicators don’t use it properly? Isn’t it worth ensuring that DDT is used properly (whatever that actually means) given that a child dies every 30 seconds from malaria?
The WHO continues,
Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides such as DDT, which became widely used in the 1940s, are slowly metabolized, accumulate in living tissue, and can affect the health of humans and wildlife. There is now considerable debate and increased suspicion regarding the ability of DDT and other pesticides to disrupt the endocrine systems of mammals.
Debate? Are you kidding me? Who is debating what? There seems to be no debate that a child dies every 30 seconds from malaria. How many children need to die while unknown people allegedly debate who-knows-what?
Finally, the WHO says,
New evidence is being published about links between low-level DDT exposure and adverse health effects, in particular related to childhood neurodevelopment, breast cancer in
women, male reproductive health (reduced sperm counts and quality) and to diabetes.
Even if these claims were true — and they’re not (see e.g., sperm count and breast cancer claims debunked) — since when does any of this outweigh the tragedy of a-dead-child-every-30-seconds?
So there’s no more question — the WHO wouldn’t want to save this child.
I agree! This is a MUST SEE FILM! Dr. Taylor does an excellent job of educating, yet not scaring the daylights out you! This documentary, 3 BILLION AND COUNTING, exposes the myths, lies, and coverups surrounding the baning of DDT by the EPA. Once you KNOW THE TRUTH, you can never not know it. Also checkout: http://www.3billionandcounting.com
DDT has gotten a seriously bad name….like a dog with a bad name, yet, having seen a preview of the new documentary called 3 Billion and Counting (in LA at a Q@A session), I question just why DDT is banned. Dr Taylor tracked down all 9312 pages of the scientific panel hearings from the early 1970s and guess what? The scientific evidence showed that DDT did not pose a threat to humans. So here we have a currently available, effective weapon for combating malaria and yet there is so much political interest in keeping it mothballed while millions are struck down. Why is that?
Amen to cbullitt’s comments.
The DDT ban, like countless other environmentalist-pushed measures, proves that the radical environmentalists are, at root, haters of everything human and of everything that makes human life possible and comfortable. They do not wish to “save the environment” — they wish to see billions of you die and billions more forced to suffer through a short life in unspeakable, grinding poverty, with little food, no comforts and no freedoms.
Yes, there are some sincere environmentalists — some of the younger environmentalists have been brainwashed by “green” propaganda and actually, sincerely believe that radical “green” measures are necessary to “save the planet”. But they are the minority. The radicals leading and pushing the movement are haters to the core — haters of all things human and of all things that support human life.
That Obama is willing to suck-up to these haters and advance their agenda simply proves that he is either stupendously stupid or stupendously evil or both.
May the radical environmentalists rot in hell, provided we can find a rung low enough for them.
As I have said before, the Green agenda REQUIRES several billion deaths. Third world poverty stricken victims are perfect–they’re too far away for their brainless liberal funders to see and feel guilty about.
I grew up in Kenya before DDT and after. I have had malaria many times – nasty experience particularly when the only treatment was quinine.
DDT did prove to be of considerable value when used in houses and huts. Saved many lives.
However, it and subsequent chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g. dieldrin) were grossly over used. For example in Western Uganda (Ankole) it was widely used to spray thoussands of square miles of tsetse bush. It did not work but the US AID considered it “an experiment”
I go along with every one of Milloy’s appened comments
I think it’s pretty obvious that the Green freaks have no concern for the people of Africa, whatsoever. Where do you think the idea for “carbon offsets” came through? Those are like a fat man over eating because he’s paying some kid in Africa to starve.
They don’t want them to have clean water, electricity or even a livable standard of life. These are people who are burning wood in open fires in their homes, breathing in the smoke, releasing carbons into the atmosphere and denuding forest land all so the Greenie can ride around in his overpriced, gas guzzling SUV to the next ecology rally.
They don’t care. They don’t have to.
So while the house burns we argue what color the firetruck should be. I wonder how the population control geeks feel about this? I often wonder not whom is in charge but if anyone is in charge.
I suggest that all read the DDT story at length and accept only written and documented evidence against it. This issue is 100% political and has been since “the ban.”
If you are enraged by this story then perhaps reading the history of DDT is not in your best interest, especially if you have high blood pressure. Check out the DDT story at
“Junk Science” if you dare.
Save the world, kill a child! Yep, why let the kid die from cancer when he’s 40 when you can kill him now before he hits one year. These people have painted themselves into a proverbial corner: they say environmental laws are for the children, but now the restriction of good, safe pesticides is killing children. They won’t figure this out, they’ll just tap dance. Idiots.
If that were a picture of a little white girl we would be using DDT as deodorant. Im sure there has had to be at least one little white girl that died from it. Find her picture and the WHO will be all over it along with a cavalcade of Hollywood’s best activists. We need Paris Hilton and Sean Penn on this!!!!
Well, that is the end result of believing that man is just another animal. When you evolved from goo over billions of years, just like every other living organism, why is it wrong to enact policies that will kill you off?
As we see here, your worldview really does make a difference.