I have been bombarded with requests (some nicely worded, many not, but that's OK) for further information about the DDT scam that killed 25 million people, mostly children in Africa. Here are 3 works from journals and so forth that all say basically the same thing I did about the DDT scam However (hold on to your seats) each ends with a huge list of citations backing up the facts that are presented All the same stuff, fake science, EPA abuse of power and ignoring court findings, rampant deaths in Africa, etc.......REAL similar to the AGW scam that fortunately failed where this one succeeded. http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf http://www.aei.org/files/2011/01/21/2011-HPO-01-g.pdf So I'll sit back and wait for the replies saying it is all right wing propaganda, funded by EXXON, and so forth. But THIS TIME, they have to check every citation since they raised such a fuss about it the first time around.... Its all here, with references to the ORIGINAL sources.....Times Three Enjoy
From http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf Not referenced. I could find no confirmation of the statement. Prove it! From the WB web site: The World Bank and DDT - Use of in India So show me where a WB report of 2000 specifies that "that no DDT could be used. "
LOL......3 works all documenting fraud, scientific dishonesty, abuse of power, on, and on, and on....and you could only find 3 inconsistencies on relatively minor points??? What about the big picture?....... You are not working hard enough Manny......
3 works but none of them accepted scientific research papers or journals - in fact all three are publications from "think tanks" the first of which is well documented as receiving funding from the chemical and pharmaceutical companies. Even the BMJ has noted that it is not a reliable source http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1819.extract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health Although these papers have a bibliography of sorts they are not well referenced - at least not a level I would demand from a paper on the health effects of a substance. I will concentrate at the moment on your first "paper" A goof number of the papers are to questionable sources like "Heartland institute" a book written by the founder of the so called "journal" this is published in, a seminar talk and some that are so old they should have been admitted to a geriatric ward!! So what would I accept? The gold standard in health care studies is what is called "Evidence Based Medicine" and one of the best sites is one called the "Cochrane Collaboration" Let us compare the standards of the papers http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/userfiles/ccoch/file/CD006657.pdf Chalk and cheese eh?
Those idiotic myths you 'believe' in so strongly actually have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with some hidden economic agendas by the people who spread these myths. The only "DDT scam" is the one you're pushing. The use of DDT was never "banned" in Africa so nobody was "killed" from the lack of it. Your lies and misinformation about DDT were completely debunked here but you seem incapable of comprehending the facts even when they are pointed out to you. The Wikipedia article on DDT is packed with citations and references to actual scientific articles published in respectable peer reviewed science journals. The articles you cite here are not from "journals" as you claim and the supposed "huge list of citations backing up" your delusions is actually totally worthless crap that doesn't reference any actual supporting scientific evidence. The facts don't support your rightwingnut anti-environmental fantasies.
I guess we have different understanding of the words "inconsistencies" and "minor" because I do not understand how a misleading statement like "The World Bank extended $165 million dollars to Indias malaria sufferers, but specified that no DDT could be used. Madagascar suffered from a similar forced lack of mosquito control. Dozens of other countries, where massive numbers of malaria deaths continue to occur, also cannot receive financial aid unless they agree not to control mosquitoes by using DDT." is a "minor inconsistency". Such a misleading statement makes Edward's whole paper not credible. If I had worked harder, I would have been able to point to other "minor inconsistencies" in Edwards' work.
Manny, BB, Livefree.....the big picture is there, facts are facts, DDT was Banned on bogus science. The EPA ignored the information, they ignored the court findings, and the administrator ADMITTED it was all for political reasons..... .......documented, incontrovertible FACTS...............accept it , you will sleep better....... But this is America....if you prefer to ignore (due to religious reasons) you have the right to:
Yeah, it's just too bad that you are blind to the facts and choose to cling to debunked myths and lies. False. The use of DDT was restricted because of well researched and very sound science. Your sources are the only bogus thing here. False. The EPA used the best available scientific data and their decision has only been confirmed by later research. False. Another lie. The courts decided that the EPA had acted correctly in banning DDT. DDT From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (excerpts) DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the disease's resurgence as a result of resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by Plasmodium falciparum. The goal of eradication was abandoned in 1969, and attention was focused on controlling and treating the disease. Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation, but mostly because mosquitoes were developing resistance to DDT.[21] Efforts shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides and other interventions.[22][23] ...The EPA then held seven months of hearings in 19711972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced the cancellation of most uses of DDTan exemption allowed for public health uses under some conditions.[12] Immediately after the cancellation was announced, both EDF and the DDT manufacturers filed suit against the EPA, with the industry seeking to overturn the ban, and EDF seeking a comprehensive ban. The cases were consolidated, and in 1973 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA had acted properly in banning DDT.[12] Another lie and total BS. That did not happen in the real world, only in some rightwingnut fantasyland. No Fudd, you're spewing pure BS again. Your so-called "facts" aren't really facts at all, they are rightwingnut fantasies and propaganda without any basis in reality. You have presented no "documentation" whatsoever, just nutjob rants from clueless fools. No one with any brains or the ability to use google is going to fall for your lies and misinformation. ...remain ignorant, confused and bamboozled, as you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be, Fudd.
