Appalling: UN severely underestimates malaria deaths, says study

Has the World Health Organization been covering up genocide?

According to a new study in The Lancet, the WHO has underestimated malaria deaths in children (aged 5 and under) by 475% and total deaths by 89%.

As bemoaned in The Lancet‘s editorial:

This week we publish surprising and, on the face of it, disturbing findings. According to Christopher Murray and colleagues at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle, there were 1·24 million deaths (95% uncertainty interval 0·93–1·69 million) from malaria worldwide in 2010—around twice the figure of 655000 estimated by WHO for the same year. How should the malaria community interpret this finding? Before we answer that question, we need to look beneath the surface of this striking overall mortality figure.

First, annual malaria mortality peaked in 2004 at 1·82 million. Since then, there has been a 32% reduction in malaria deaths, driven mainly by “accelerated decreases” in sub-Saharan Africa. Second, although there has also been a substantial decrease in the number of deaths outside sub-Saharan Africa, adults now make up the major burden in these regions. In Asia and the Americas, the median proportion of deaths in those older than 15 years was 76% and 69%, respectively. Overall, the IHME data show that malaria deaths in 2010 in those aged 5 years and older were much higher than previously thought—524 000 deaths compared with 91000 as estimated by WHO. Third, malaria accounts for many more child deaths in sub-Saharan Africa than previously estimated—24% of total child deaths, compared with the 16% previously calculated for 2008. [Emphasis added]

Click for the Lancet study.

Click for the Lancet editorial.

19 thoughts on “Appalling: UN severely underestimates malaria deaths, says study”

  1. Partially true, the dose is only part of the story, you said a new man made chemical, if it is truly novel, will anything have a defense for it? If not then ANY dose may be lethal. Take Indians and alcohol, they did not have the enzymes necessary to break down ethanol thus one drink of alcohol made them drunk and many instantly became alcoholics. A better statement about toxicity is dose over time makes the toxin. If you walked through a room filled with CO2, breathing normally, you most likely would not be harmed. If you stay in the room, you’re going to die!

    True we do live in a chemical universe but “fortunately” all chemicals are not created equal. A micro gram of mercury or arsenic is a lot more dangerous than the same amount of sand. So the chemical type is much more important than the dose. If I have to bury a bug in it, it wouldn’t be a very good pesticide, would it?

  2. GreggM,
    This is like spitting in the wind, but we live in a chemical rich universe. Everything in the universe is made up of chemicals, including you. Just because man has been able to synthesize some of them is what is really immaterial. Synthetic chemicals aren’t pollution. Can they be pollution? Yes! Can naturally occurring chemicals be considered pollution? Yes! You really need to get this. It is the dose that makes the poison because of the impact it makes. That is true as to whether any chemical is a pollutant or not.

    As for providing proof of my statement; I will not bother for two reasons. That information is available at so many sources that if you really wanted to know the truth you would have already found it. Furthermore, no matter what I would post you would disregard it and I would have wasted a lot of time to appease and accomodate someone who cannot be appeased or accomodated.

  3. GreggM, ice-bergs have been breaking and growing for many times since our earth came into being some 4.6 billion years ago and if you also have noticed, while there was a long delay in winter-conditions in the northern hemisphere, we in the southern part have been experiencing much colder, than average summer-temperatures with large amounts of rain. Thus the word “global” warming is a myth. One of our own Greenies, Professor Tim Flannery who was appointed by our Prime Minister and who is paid Audlrs. 180,000 in tax-payers’ money to advise her on climate change, predicted over and over again for the last 5 years, that Australia by 2009 would be a total arid and barren place, with all the dams in the major cities totally empty. Well, since last year a number of states saw huge floods destroying their properties and crops as dams in Queensland overflowed and the same now is happening there and we in Sydney, New South Wales experienced the coldest days in our summer since 1916! That was what I try to show you, how charlatans come up with the most hare-brained ideas to gain financial benefits and power and there are too many gullible people, who will follow them slavishly. As for the issue of D.D.T. and “the end of its usefulness due to resistance”, why is it, that f.e. countries like Shri Lanka, South Africa, Ecuador etc. have resumed its use, because when they followed the ban, deaths of malaria increased hugely and now they have managed to bring it down by between 64 and 86 percent! I ask you again, why is that nobody has sued the companies that produced them in the U.S.? And if you attempt to find about proof of cancer caused by D.D.T. you can not find it anywhere on the Internet, while there are always plenty of statistics showing the number of sufferers/victims of HIV, AIDS, smoking, drugs, homicide, car-accidents, domestic accidents etc. etc. Thus, why not of D.D.T.? Because there are none! I hope, that you will ask the W.H.O. and the EPA for those statistics and let me know. About your swipe regarding the Aborigines. Firstly, I did not ask you the same about the treatment against the original indigenous Americans, but to me, if the British and Dutch explorers had not found and colonised this country (the Dutch founded Tasmania and named it so in honour of Abel Tasman), Australia would have definitely found another power to colonise it, like the Chinese or the Indonesians and surely, the Aborigines would have been treated much worse, than now. When Britain colonised it, the locals were living in the stone-age and while they receive huge hand-outs from the government and can study at any school and university, they simply have not the character to emulate those races, which had already rich histories, like the Europeans and the Chinese. We have some 138 different ethnic groups here and the majority are able to excel in all kinds of careers even while many arrive with nothing at all, but the percentage of Aborigines, who have managed over-average qualifications is still enormously low. I remember your own comic, Bill Cosby once lamenting about the lack of will-power among the black youths to emulate the white Americans. He said, that too many young males rather become rap-artists, then going for those “whitey’ jobs!
    And I know, that Michael Crichton is right about his swipe at the Greenies, because f.e. where he exposed some of those atoll island governments wanting to sue the U.S. government for causing sea-levels to rise with the help of corrupt green lawyers, he pointed out, that for more than 100 years, many locals had used explosives like hand-grenades and dynamite, to catch fish in the lagoons, destroying the coral-foundations in the process. That causes those islands to sink and not a rising sea-level, because living corals always adjust naturally. I know, that you will not believe this either, but please try to find a copy of a documentary titled: “Inside Job”, which exposes the true causes of the world financial troubles and were your current President is exposed as the worst charlatan in regards to cleaning up Wall Street. It was an eye-opener for me and I despaired, that those corrupt high-flyers get away with it all the time. The documentary is narrated by Matt Damon.

  4. OK, first whether the UN is corrupt or not is immaterial, every government in existence is corrupt at some level. I do not depend on the UN for most, if any, of my information, Milloy posted the original article. Second, I read “State of Fear” and it is a work of FICTION. He cherry picked every article and bit of of data to support his plot. He conveniently ignored any data contradicting his plot, wouldn’t be very good FICTION If he had! Third, you blame the charities for keeping these people in primitive conditions, ignoring the resource extractors who fatten their corrupt governments while giving NOTHING to the people! If you must blame someone for their condition, blame their own corrupt governments. How’d the Aussies do for their aborigines? On global warming, I read all the news I can and watch the Earth to see what it is actually doing. Did you hear about the two giant icebergs, one breaking off Greenland and the other breaking off Antarctica even as we debate? Two more bits of confirmation!

  5. GreggM, just ask the W.H.O. or the EPA, were their proven cases are, because it is them, who claim those facts and not me. They have to prove the facts, before they take proper decisions, but it is very clear to me, that it is just impossible to argue with people, who wear blinkers and do not have any experience in the facts. The whole of the U.N. is corrupt, as their aim is world-dominance through lies and corruption and their I.P.C.C. is one of their worst. There are too many so-called non-government institutions, including charities, who use money as black-mail in order to force the poor countries to follow their instructions to remain living in their current sub-standard lifestyle and not utilise their natural mineral resources, because otherwise they would withhold their money, which by the way, comes mostly from honest people’s donations. There are many books and articles written about the corrupt way the Greenies attempt to enforce their mantra onto the poor. One book written by Michael Crichton, titled : “State of Fear” explains how those “N.G.O.s” are accommodated in the best air-conditioned hotels, drive in SUVS (air-conditioned) and where the females are dressed in Armani suits, visit those poor villagers and tell them not to improve their life-styles. Another book, written by Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, titled: “Scared to death” lists a row of false claims by corrupt law-firms with the aid of paid-off “scientists, to recruit thousands of “victims” to sue various companies for billions of dollars . Dr. Lawrence Solomon, once a believer in AGW, realised belatedly, that he was wrong, because he found out that there were too many eminent Professors, who were skeptics and he decided to write a book, titled: “The Deniers” and he explained that he was sad about the enormous corruption among the doomsday “scientists”, especially when they were in the management of instutions like universities and weather-departments. Like Professor Emeritus Robert Tennekens, a Dutch professor in meteorology, who after a 10-year stint lecturing in the U.S. was asked to lead the Dutch meteorological department in the Bilt, Holland. After he found out about the corrupt way his staff was following the I.P.C.C.’s computer-modelling, he tried to stamp this habit out, but because too many of his staff and colleagues had powerful friends in the then Dutch government, he was sacked from his job. Professor Bellamy the British botanist also received the sack, when he decided to speak out against the AGW corruption on B.B.C. That is not science, that is corruption, when honest people dare to speak out for the truth and then get sacked from their job/career. I am very happy, that now the majority of scientists world-wide dare to speak up.
    Please visit and find out, how many of the U.S. scientists alone have listed their names to show their determination to save our world from charlatans. Also check out . Your own Supreme Court ruled in june of last year, that CO2 was a totally harmless gas, which is vital to life on earth and nobody has the right to punish it with a tax. But the charlatans, like Al Gore, Richard Branson, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others who are on the gravy-train, still ignore that fact.
    The simple fact about D.D.T. is: if there were any victims of D.D.T., that caused cancer in humans, there would have been millions of them suing the U.S. companies, would they not? Those greedy law-firms would have been salivating thinking of the huge profits they could make! Suing other people or companies is a very big thing especially in the U.S. and Britain. Please try and remove those blinkers you are wearing and grow up Gregg.

  6. You mean like your post? Where are your “facts” to rebut anything I’ve posted? As to all man made chemicals being pollution, if they are in fact new to the environment, what else are they? The chances of them being “good” for anything else alive are slim to none!

  7. You speak in such broad generalities, “not one case of cancer” from DDT, where are your facts? With all the toxins like cigarette smoke, chewing tobacco etc, it would be virtually impossible to sort out the effects of one cancer causing agent from another! One thing I do know is that insects were evolving resistance to DDT so quickly that it was quickly becoming useless due to its being over-used and never going away.
    When over 90% of the Earths glaciers are growing and there are no more melt rivers coming off Greenlands ice cap, then I’ll accept global warnings not real. If you will actually listen to data, then review all the facts about what is happening now, then let’s talk.

  8. I do wish the greenie fellow travelers would take a course in logic. Apparently they are incapable of understanding what logical fallacies are since they keep spewing them out. Let’s start with ‘red herring’ fallacies and work up from there.

    Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from subject of argument. Also let’s take this one. Irrelevant conclusion is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

    No one here said that pollution was good, and no one here said that clear air, land and water was bad. That is an irrelevant conclusion, and a red herring fallacy. As for the inference that all manmade chemicals are pollution is merely ignorance.

  9. People like GreggM blissfully ignore true facts, as he obviously is one of those doomsayers,
    who believes in AGW and all that “crap”. I myself and my wife, who are in our late 70’s have
    been treated with D.D.T. in the 1940’s and 1950’s to combat typhus caused by head- and body-
    lice and our homes, crops and every building were sprayed twice a year with that substance to
    rid those from mosquitoes, which bring malaria. Together with the many millions of Allied troops in the field and the hundreds of thousands of freed prisoners of war, we all survived without contracting
    one case of cancer, which Rachel Carson in her book titled “Silent Spring” of 1962 falsely claimed would be caused by the use of that fantastic insectiside. Since it came on the market in 1942, D.D.T. had saved approx. a 1/2 billion lives, until the lying U.S. EPA, under the chairmanship of Ruckelshaus, a billionaire philantropist/non-scientist and donor to a number of rabid environmental groups, like Greenpeace, W.W.F., the Audubon Society etc., managed to talk the then U.S. president to have D.D.T. totally banned from production and sale. The modern insecticides, like Endosulfan, have been proven to be too expensive and even toxic, while D.D.T. was easy to produce and very cheap, so that the poor people in the 3rd World countries could afford it and save lives. Last year I emailed Ms. Lisa Jackson of the EPA and questioned her, why she insists in the pursuit of genocide against those poor people. I received a very weak reply from one of her female managers, who explained, that the W.H.O. deems D.D.T. a “probable” cause of cancer in humans even though they have no proof of just one case of it. Thus “a probable cause” instead of a factual one, allows them to murder so many millions (approx. 58 million since the ban in 1972) with impunity. One does not always needs weapons to kill people. Just blocking the means of survival deliberately, will obtain the same result. I can not believe, that Mr. Obama, who has roots in Africa, willingly closes his eyes to this atrocity, instead of ordering Ms. Jackson to forget about the ban and repeal the act in Congress to save Africans. But there again, he is the same person, who so promised to clean up the corruption in Wall Street before he became President and take the perpetrators to court, but instead has surrounded himself with many of those same perpetrators and refuses to bring back the Glass/Stegal act, which President Franklin Roosevelt had brought into law in 1933 to save the ordinary Americans from the greedy and corrupt investment bankers. There are too many charlatans and doomsayers, who want to have the gullible masses follow their theory/ideology for their own financial benefits and unfortunately, even so-called “scientists”, “academics”, journalists and corrupt bureaucrats manage to bamboozle their followers. Look at the slavish followers of communism, who truly believed, what Marx and Lenin had promised and have aided and abetted in the mass-murder of (sofar) 110 million people. And for what purpose? Use common sense and not unproven theories and become fanatics. There is enough fanaticism in the world with Muslim terrorism spreading around the world and we do not need zealotry from the Green movement, who wish to control all our lives. If they wish to live like that, so be it, but they should not enforce their hare-brained ideas on the rest of us. Charlatans like Al Gore, Richard Branson, Ruckelshaus and many billionaires and multi-millionaire “greenies” leave enormous carbon foot-prints with their multiple mansions, SUVS, jet-planes (Branson owns the whole Virgin Blue fleet), tell us not to pollute the air, as they believe, that it is only them, who have the right to do so. And still there are too many slavish followers for them to get sucked in. Wind- and solar-power have been found to be excessively expensive and inefficient and more and more countries are now abandoning tax-payers’ funding, including Spain. Germany and Holland, because the consumers do not only have to contribute with their tax-money, but have to pay extra in electricity-prices, because those companies who have invested in the “green energy”, lose money on their investments and just pass on those losses.
    What brain-dead theories more are the Greenies coming up with next? The facts are that f.e. California has the highest rate of unemployment in the U.S. (10.3 percent), while North Dakota, that utilises their fossil fuels for energy, enjoy just 3.4 percent. It is the same here in Australia, where Tasmania, ruled by the Green Party, tops the unemployment rate, while Western Australia, with its rich mineral resources, the lowest. While Tasmania has ample fossil fuel deposits, it does not want to use it, but instead enjoy financial hand-outs from the richer states. I call that hypocrisy.

  10. For once we agree on something, models are just that and really rarely reflect reality. When over 90% of the worlds glaciers retreating, melt rivers flowing off Greenlands ice sheet, plants and animals around the world changing where they lived according to temperature changes, seventy some odd tornadoes in Alabama in January, I don’t need no stinking models!

  11. Wow! I’m so impressed by your concern for South Africans! Coming from the same side that advocates rounding up liberals and shooting them all, that says mercury and lead are health foods, that flaming tap water from fracking isn’t a problem, that finds war for oil acceptable, I find your blaming environmentalists more than a little hypocritical!

  12. The comments I keep seeing on this site completely support my contention- where are the bodies from India’s record pollution, where are the health effects from elevated mercury levels in babies?! There are continuous attacks on any effort to reduce pollution while total support for any man made chemical assault ie DDT, fungicides in orange juice and pthalates in canned foods. Evidently, any chemical produced or used by man is good, clean air and water and water, bad!

  13. One of the things that really tick me off is this canard from greenie fellow travelers when they throw out this logical fallacy. “Why would you care? You don’t care how many people die from pollution, why worry about malaria deaths?”

    This one statement easily fits the bill of three logical fallacies.
    1. Argumentum ad populum an appeal to the majority where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.
    2. An appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.
    3. Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.

    Let’s deal with reality. I defy anyone to show where those who stand up for DDT do not care about pollution or that we don’t care about people’s lives. The left and the greenies – same thing – have nothing to offer but lies, logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks. Without those clever distractions they wouldn’t be able to talk at all. DDT has saved more lives from more afflictions than any other discovery made by mankind and it doesn’t do any of the things claimed by the insane. We really do need to get that!

  14. The death toll is alarming even if you use the WTO numbers. The brutal fact is, those who die from malaria in undeveloped or developed nations are disposable. They have no political or financial power. Their deaths are from natural causes, after all. They are collateral damage in the war to Save the Planet. Worse yet, many believe such people constitute part of the ‘unacceptable burden’ of excess human population and that the Planet is better off without them.

  15. Deaths from malaria have always been appalling and unacceptably high – 5,000 young children dying each DAY, for example. However, I would be cautious about accepting these new figures as they are largely based on models and in recent years ‘scientific’ models have been hugely discredited.

    I may be wrong to discount modelling in this instance but this is what arrogant and lying climate change alarmists have achieved for the scientific community – we do not trust scientists and we do not trust models. Show us the data.

  16. Why would you care? You don’t care how many people die from pollution, why worry about malaria deaths?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.