Another political study about DDT

Healio reports a study on the indoor use of DDT has been submitted to The Lancet, which is one of England’s most prestigious peer-review medical journals. In a press release one of the researchers is quoted as saying:

“Our findings do not support any universal recommendation for indoor residual spraying as an addition to long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) across sub-Saharan Africa,” researcher Steve W. Lindsay, PhD, disease ecologist at Durham University, United Kingdom, said in a press release. “High bed net use is sufficient to protect people against malaria in areas that have low or moderate levels of malaria like The Gambia.”

The scientists seem to have overlooked South Africa which legalized usage of the pesticide. A news report run October of last year in The Sidney Morning Herald points out that malaria death rates in South Africa dropped significantly once the pesticide was utilized.

Amid controversy over the use of the chemical DDT, the report, delivered at a Pan African Malaria conference in Durban, says only 70 people died last year from the mosquito-borne disease compared with 460 deaths recorded in 2000. The number of people who caught malaria has come down to about a tenth of the cases recorded that same year.

As near as I can tell, the Lancet study has been submitted and not peer reviewed.

8 thoughts on “Another political study about DDT

    • Thank you for your reply. I realize that pesticides like DDT will not always be effective but people should be able to choose if they want to use them. Unfortunately, the environmentalists are looking to ban neonic pesticides in a similar way that they successfully got DDT banned.

      Like

      • People should not be able to use stuff that poisons my livestock, kills my fish, and kills the beneficial spiders, insects, birds and bats that eat the insects that damage my crops and carry diseases like malaria, dengue fever and West Nile virus. DDT is that bad.

        DDT is not the best choice for any use. There are 11 other alternatives available for Indoor Residual Spraying to fight malaria.

        When the case against a substance is so strong, and when there is no strong case in favor of the substance, rational bans like that the U.S. has on DDT are wise and good (DDT is banned from use on agricultural crops in the U.S., okay for fighting vector-spread diseases under close direction of public health agencies).

        No one ever suffered from a lack of DDT. We still have way too much of it.

        You say neonicotinoids might be banned because they kill the bees that make possible more than 35% of all agricultural crops?

        Is there any harm, or do you think you don’t need those farmers’ products?

        Like

      • The environmentalists want to ban neonic pesticides because they hate humans. One of the ways to attack the human population is via the food supply and a great way to undermine that is to lie about pesticides which makes crop cultivation harder. There are older pesticides that do infect the water and are hazardous to humans and they are not allowed for use. The FDA or USDA already reviews pesticides before they are even released. Pesticides are safe and the alternatives to DDT you speak of are very expensive which makes using them more difficult.

        Like

      • So you hate humans, and you want to end the agriculture that feeds them? How does your hating humans differ from the environmentalists’ hating humans? Both seem rather puffed up.

        What is the great benefit from neonicitontinoids that requires they be used despite the great damage they do? You didn’t get to the real question.

        Like

      • I don’t hate humans, the environmentalists do. The purpose of this website is to document and reveal the environmentalist movement’s holy war against mankind.

        Like

      • Environmentalism is all about saving humans, by the way. The planet will be fine without us. Some say it will be better.

        But if we don’t stop poisoning the planet, we run the risk of yeasts in a bottle of champagne: We will consume until our effluents kill us. Someone else will, perhaps, enjoy the champagne, then.

        Like

      • No it is not and this website will document how and why this is. A prime example is Greenpeace’s opposition to GMO’s which has resulted in thousands if not millions of people dying from starvation due to the group’s opposition to scientifically altered food and crop yields. This is the last message I will allow from you.

        Like

Comments are closed.