Sunday, April 25, 2010

How bad science opened door for malaria


Since it was first observed 40 years ago, Earth Day has grown from a handful of campus rallies into a global celebration of the environment and has raised ecological awareness around the world.
Unfortunately, the politics surrounding Earth Day have also done long-term harm, damaging our ability to fight deadly diseases today.
Back in the 1940s, scientists realized that the chemical dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT, could stop epidemics of insect-borne diseases such as typhus. Its lifesaving potential was considered such a boon to mankind that the scientist who discovered it, Paul Mueller, won the Nobel Prize. The chemical would soon surpass all expectations in controlling malaria around the world and go on to save millions of lives.
It was so effective that it eradicated the disease entirely in Europe, the U.S. and some island nations such as Taiwan. In the West, Malaria was defeated as an endemic disease more than 50 years ago. Now, though, it's a re-emergent disease of the poor, ravaging populations in South America, Asia and across sub-Saharan Africa. Spread by mosquitoes, malaria kills almost 1 million people a year and inflicts suffering on hundreds of millions more. But it didn't have to be this way.
Early environmentalists made pesticides one of their chief bugaboos. Rachel Carson, who helped launch the modern environmental movement, was among them.
In her now-famous 1962 book Silent Spring, she argued that DDT, when sprayed on a Michigan campus to halt the spread of Dutch elm disease, would spread far and wide and harm robins' ability to reproduce.
Carson was no doubt well-intentioned, but it turns out that she was flat out wrong about the effects of DDT. It didn't spread the way she thought it did, and no studies have ever been able to show that environmental exposure to DDT — even in large quantities — harms human health. It is less dangerous to humans than any number of natural chemicals, including some vitamins and medicines that we consume without a second thought. And when used in small quantities in malaria control, DDT protects people from deadly mosquitoes.
The public-health benefits it confers far exceed any of the unproven, theoretical risks.
A disease's comeback
All this is now widely known. But environmentalists' early crusades against pesticides have since taken on a global momentum of their own. Carson's anti-pesticide stance was taken up by many ecologists and led to the decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban DDT. By then, malaria had been eradicated in the USA, but it was still a scourge across much of the world. Nevertheless, international aid donors and health organizations began to abandon DDT.
In 1997, just as poor countries were suffering from a global pandemic of dengue fever and re-emerging malaria, the World Health Organization's policy-setting body adopted a resolution calling on all countries to reduce the use of insecticides for disease control. DDT was specifically identified as one that should be phased out.
Just 10 years later, the European Union took up the campaign. And in January of 2009, the European Parliament approved new rules to ban certain chemicals used in common pesticides. The new regulations created a great deal of uncertainty, and the implications are still not fully clear.
The harm that could come out of this is very real. Reckless rulemaking scares away would-be producers, even before a ban goes into effect. As we know from DDT's history, with fewer manufacturers in the marketplace, prices go up, making the chemical harder and harder to obtain.
As a result of the EU process, over the past few years, around 75% of the pesticides used in farming in Europe have disappeared from the market.
Trade worries, too
Bans also have other unintended consequences. For instance, some developing countries have stopped using DDT not because it wouldn't work in malaria control, but for fear that their agricultural exports would not be allowed into Europe if tiny and inconsequential residues were found on produce.
Meanwhile, malaria continues its deadly scourge, with no realistic alternative to fighting it on the scale that DDT can achieve.
The lesson is that we wouldn't have the crisis we do today if we hadn't put feel-good politics ahead of solid science decades ago. Thursday, the citizens of more than 180 countries will celebrate their commitment to the environment on Earth Day. This year, let's commit to putting science first. The consequences of not doing so last a very long time.
Richard Tren is the director of Africa Fighting Malaria, and Donald Roberts is a retired entomologist and professor of tropical public health at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. They are the authors of The Excellent Powder: DDT's Political and Scientific History.

DDT to be used in malaria control

Indoor Residual Spraying

Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) is a highly effective method of malaria control recommended by the World Health Organization. Unfortunately it remains underutilized in sub-Saharan Africa, where, each year, malaria kills over a million people and drains the continent of US$12 billion. World Malaria Day 2008 focused on malaria across borders – some of the best cross-border malaria control programs rely heavily on IRS. Yet most donor agencies are loath to strengthen IRS programs in Africa, train medical entomologists to run them, and invest in new insecticides.

This World Malaria Day, AFM issued a Call to Action to support IRS. AFM created an interactive map to indicate which countries are conducting IRS (orange) along with the main financiers - the US President's Malaria Initiative, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the private sector and/or strong domestic government support. 
AFM summary reports by financier and country can be downloaded below.

In September 2006, Dr Arata Kochi, head of the World Health Organization’s Global Malaria Program, called for an expansion of IRS programs and for DDT to be used in malaria control . Currently, the only donor agency that has heeded this call and is investing substantial resources in IRS is the United States Agency for International Development through the President's Malaria Initiative. Few other donor agencies fund IRS and even the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, the largest financier of malaria control and treatment programs, funds only a handful of IRS programs. AFM compiled a series of reports on IRS for World Malaria Day 2008:

An AFM IRS Basics report demystifying IRS and discussing frequently asked questions.
A summary of the 2007 World Health Organization IRS report and the President’s Malaria Initiative FY08 IRS activities .
An analysis of Global Fund malaria grants to illustrate how many provided support for IRS.
An assessment of the private sector’s support for IRS and other malaria interventions.

AFM additionally created 46 country briefs on IRS activities detailing the successes and constraints of these programs.

Angola - Benin - Botswana - Burundi - Cape Verde - Chad - Djibouti - Equatorial Guinea - Eritrea - Ethiopia - Ghana - Kenya - Liberia - Madagascar - Malawi - Mali - Mauritania - Mauritius - Mozambique - Namibia - Rwanda - Sao Tome & Principe - Senegal - Somalia - South Africa - Sudan - Swaziland - Tanzania - Uganda - Zambia - Zanzibar - Zimbabwe

These countries are receiving Global Fund malaria control grants but have not requested support for IRS.

Burkina Faso - Cameroon - Central African Republic - Comoros - Cote d'Ivoire - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Gabon - Guinea - Guinea-Bissau - Niger - Nigeria - Sierra Leone - The Gambia - Togo

Learn more about DDT by watching this Flash Presentation , download our DDT FAQ , or visit our Frequently Asked Questions page where you can also learn more about insecticide resistance.

Check out AFM In Action and learn more about our work!

New book urges reversal of DDT ban to fight malaria

New book urges reversal of DDT ban to fight malaria

ABIDJAN
Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:32pm EDT
A child plays in the smoke during a fumigation exercise to rid the area of mosquitoes in Jakarta March 18, 2010. REUTERS/Beawiharta
ABIDJAN (Reuters) - Six years after the insect killer DDT was globally outlawed on grounds of environmental damage, two researchers say there are new reasons for doubting the chemical is harmful and are urging its use against malaria.
U.S.  |  Health  |  People  |  Green Business
In a book launched on Wednesday, Donald Roberts, professor of tropical medicine at the U.S. military's Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, and Richard Tren, head of lobby group Africa Fighting Malaria, argue that DDT is the only effective weapon against the deadly mosquito-borne parasite.
Environmental group Greenpeace defended the United Nations' aim of eventually eliminating DDT use worldwide and said evidence that it harms wildlife and human health was sound, even if not conclusive.
DDT's unprecedented power to kill insects won its inventor a Nobel prize in the 1940s and it was considered a wonder chemical until evidence emerged of its toxicity to wildlife and people, leading Western nations to ban it in the 1970s.
A treaty to forbid its use worldwide along with a dozen other industrial chemicals came into effect in 2004, but some countries like South Africa and Ethiopia still take advantage of tightly limited exemptions allowing indoor spraying.
Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloromethylmethane (DDT) has been blamed for birth defects in humans and threatening endangered birds such as the bald eagle by thinning their egg shells.
"There are an almost endless list of claims that DDT causes one kind of harm or another but ... with each claim, the evidence that the DDT is the cause is simply not there," Roberts told Reuters in a telephone interview.
NETS, INSECTICIDES
"The Excellent Powder" claims new evidence shows DDT is harmless because it is similar to organic chemicals found in nature that animal life can deal with.
The book also tackles the issue of resistance to the poison, saying DDT is a good repellent, not just killer, of mosquitoes.
Malaria kills roughly a million children a year, mostly in Africa, according to the World Health Organization.
In the tropical West African nation of Ivory Coast, malaria kills 176 children under five each day, the government's top malaria official, Dr Sam Koffi Moise, told Reuters.
"The challenge is to give access to better prevention. We need mosquito nets but also insecticides like DDT," he said.
Roberts and Tren's book examines a 2009 study linking DDT in South Africa to birth defects and argues the data doesn't support it.
"Millions of malaria deaths ... occurred during ... decades of environmental activism (against) DDT," the book concludes.
Tren, a free market lobbyist who has also criticized tobacco control, said bird species harmed by DDT were already under threat and that DDT was "a minor source of harm compared to the hunting, shooting, poisoning and land use changes."
Greenpeace scientist David Santillo told Reuters greens approved use of DDT where there was no alternative, but evidence of it accumulating in birds and polar bears was clear, and evidence of harm to humans worrying enough to urge caution.
"If we're to wait until we have absolute confirmation that (health problems are) a direct result of DDT exposure that's something we'll probably never have because you can't expose humans deliberately to DDT to measure the effect," he said
"There's a need to develop a broader range of malaria controls to break this reliance on DDT ... as a silver bullet."

Saturday, April 24, 2010

We Need DDT-Day!

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

We Need DDT-Day!

Here is some info on the Malaria situation.
As we see President Bush did more for Africa than probably any other President. Maybe that is why the Libs hate him. Their goal (Nazi Liberals) is to destroy most of the population. It appears Liberals have their sights set on killing or getting rid of as many African children as possible.

In 2000, African leaders vowed to reduce malaria deaths by 50% in ten years. Tomorrow marks the ninth anniversary of the vow, and though it hasn't been fulfilled, we are drawing very close to another marker of malaria's toll: 100 million dead from malaria since the Environmental Protection Agency's 1972 ban on DDT, the insecticide best suited to combat malarial mosquitoes.

For comparison, the total number of people killed by cigarette smoking in the twentieth century is thought to be about 60 million, total casualties from World War II perhaps as high as 70 million, and the total killed by Communist regimes about 100 million. Thus, anti-chemical greens (inspired by Rachel Carson's fear-mongering book Silent Spring) may already be humanity's most prolific killers -- and surely the most widely praised.

Africa Malaria Day was declared on April 25, 2000. President Bush noted Malaria Awareness Day on April 25, 2006. The World Health Organization decided in 2007 to begin marking World Malaria Day, with 2008 officially being the first and tomorrow the second -- with just one year to go before the original ten-year deadline is reached.

To make real progress in time for World Malaria Day 2010, instead of gauging progress by government spending or how many times Jimmy Carter praises bed nets, how about simply getting government out of the way and letting DDT (which, at worst, has been accused, likely incorrectly, of thinning some bird eggshells) do its lifesaving work around the world, as it did in once-malarial Europe and America for three decades before the ban? (I made this point back in 2002, in an ACSH piece cited this year in the New York Times bestseller Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin.)

By means such as bed nets and an impending malaria vaccine, we are making commendable strides in fighting malaria, but this is not a fight we should be waging with the most effective weapon needlessly kept beyond our reach. End the ban. Save millions of lives. Not a hard choice.

#####################################

Here is some great script from a Mark Levin interview on Hugh Hewitt. Mark Levin is extremely knowledgeable of the Liberals and the DDT ban.

And so…but what happened, obviously, is in the early 1960s with Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, which had more phony science and groups like the Sierra Club, in the end, it was banned in the United States, which means it was banned in most of the free world, which means since most of the free world produces it, Africa went without DDT. Southeast Asia went without DDT. And so the environmentalists succeeded in allowing the death of tens of millions, particularly of children in Africa and other parts of the world, because of their adherence to this. And my point in including that and other examples in the book is here we go again with this global warming, where they want to create a regressive situation not only in the United States, but who will be affected the most? The undeveloped third world where they want to have lights, where they want to have running water, where they want to have food, and they want to do all these things. But instead now, here we go again with now it’s global warming.

We Need DDT-Day

Uganda: DDT Will Eliminate Malaria

Richard Tren
23 April 2010

opinion
On World Malaria Day, marked on April 25 (Sunday), governments and activists will boast of millions of dollars spent on tackling the disease that still kills a child every 30 seconds somewhere in the world. But most of them are culpable of disarming our most effective weapon--insecticides such as DDT.
DDT slashed malaria infection and deaths across southern Africa. In South Africa, DDT brought malaria cases down from 1,177 in 1946 to just 61 by 1951 in Transvaal province alone. But in 1996 South Africa stopped using DDT and by 2000 malaria deaths had increased eight-fold. Infections rose from 5,000 to more than 60,000. In 2000, South Africa reintroduced DDT indoor residual spraying (tiny doses on walls and ceilings) and the number of malaria cases and deaths dropped by a remarkable 80 per cent.
The 1960s, however, saw the rise of the Western environmentalist movement, which vilified the use of insecticides such as DDT. This helped malaria rise again, in India as in South Africa, and even now, four decades later, insecticide use is threatened by environmentalist alarmism.
This lack of evidence, however, has not prevented Western governments and international organisations from legislating against or discouraging such insecticides. South Africa is big, relatively prosperous and does not depend on aid. Weaker countries have not been able to resist pressure from aid donors and international organisations to reject DDT.
This is not just an old, regrettable, story: it has dire consequences for the future.
Although DDT is highly effective, fighting malaria requires new weapons. Yet so successful has been the anti-insecticides campaign that there has been almost no investment in new insecticides that could be used against malaria. Meanwhile, governments, foundations and companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars over decades in the elusive search for a malaria vaccine. There is now only one maker of DDT.
Shamefully, tens of millions of dollars have also gone into the desperate, and fruitless, search to find some harm to humans from DDT.
Thwarting the use of insecticides that protect people from disease is unscientific, nonsensical and cruel. Defending children against a deadly, known risk should take precedence over precautionary ideology based only on unproven, theoretical risks.
America's USAID used to put pressure on some countries to reject DDT, like most donors. Now, USAID alone funds DDT use, so maybe there is hope. African governments must now stand up to the double standards of aid donors and activists who prevent the use of insecticides with fears of human harm and threats to trade.
Richard Tren is president of Africa Fighting Malaria and author (with Donald Roberts) of the book The Excellent Powder--DDT's Political and Scientific History, launched this week


April 24, 2009
Tomorrow Is World Malaria Day -- We Need DDT-Day

By Todd Seavey

In 2000, African leaders vowed to reduce malaria deaths by 50% in ten years.  Tomorrow marks the ninth anniversary of the vow, and though it hasn't been fulfilled, we are drawing very close to another marker of malaria's toll: 100 million dead from malaria since the Environmental Protection Agency's 1972 ban on DDT, the insecticide best suited to combat malarial mosquitoes.

For comparison, the total number of people killed by cigarette smoking in the twentieth century is thought to be about 60 million, total casualties from World War II perhaps as high as 70 million, and the total killed by Communist regimes about 100 million.  Thus, anti-chemical greens (inspired by Rachel Carson's fear-mongering book Silent Spring) may already be humanity's most prolific killers -- and surely the most widely praised.

Africa Malaria Day was declared on April 25, 2000.  President Bush noted Malaria Awareness Day on April 25, 2006.  The World Health Organization decided in 2007 to begin marking World Malaria Day, with 2008 officially being the first and tomorrow the second -- with just one year to go before the original ten-year deadline is reached.

To make real progress in time for World Malaria Day 2010, instead of gauging progress by government spending or how many times Jimmy Carter praises bed nets, how about simply getting government out of the way and letting DDT (which, at worst, has been accused, likely incorrectly, of  thinning some bird eggshells) do its lifesaving work around the world, as it did in once-malarial Europe and America for three decades before the ban?  (I made this point back in 2002, in an ACSH piece cited this year in the New York Times bestseller Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin.)

By means such as bed nets and an impending malaria vaccine, we are making commendable strides in fighting malaria, but this is not a fight we should be waging with the most effective weapon needlessly kept beyond our reach.  End the ban.  Save millions of lives.  Not a hard choice.


Todd Seavey is Director of Publications at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com) and will host a Debate at Lolita Bar at 8pm on Wednesday, May 6, on the question "Should Humans Radically Decrease Their Exploitation of Animals?"