Is there any reason to believe that DDT would be more effective than what they are using now?
Great book I can recommend: The Really Inconvenient Truths: "Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You To Know About"
Informative and entertaining at the same time. One of those seven catastrophes is the banning of DDT. Just one part of it, the effect the ban had on the Elm population in the USA when Dutch Elm Disease got a foothold was stunning. (this is from memory...) DDT was the only thing that effectively combated the beetle. They had one guy working for a town who dusted his trees in a public park with DDT, and they didn't lose a tree for something like ten years. Then around 1968 or so (shortly before the ban) green activists in his town browbeat the elected officials, who then banned the use of DDT "to be ahead of the curve". He had to purchase far more expensive substitutes that didnt work, and he eventually ended up losing all the trees.
DDT was proven totally successful in eliminating mosquitoes from infested swamps during the construction of the Panama canal thus making that project possible. The Dept of Ag under LBJ banned the substance as a farm product in spite of significant and substantial findings in a court of law that there was no harm in the use of DDT and that, in fact, it had substantial benefits to the health and well being, especially of poor and rural people in the south.
DDT was banned to get the early environmentalists off LBJ’s back. These were the same people and organizations that sought the means through Planned Parenthood and the War on Poverty to destroy the black population in the US.
In spite of spurious, superficial claims DDT has never been scientifically demonstrated to be other than a boon to health and well being.