Posted on 09/27/2006 4:31:12 PM PDT by wagglebee
Sept. 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In his August 16, 2006 LifeSiteNews.com Special Report, Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide, John Jalsevac exposed what may have been the worst crime of the 20th century, exceeding perhaps even the many millions of deaths caused by the Nazi’s or the horrific mass killings of Stalin or Mao Tse Tung.
The current cause celebre of AIDS has caused nowhere near the perhaps 80 million deaths that have resulted so far in large part from the 30 year ban on the use of DDT to prevent malaria.
Finally, recent news is that, despite still intense objections by environmental extremists, controlled indoor spraying of DDT is finally again being incorporated into the malaria control programs of such agencies as USAID and the World Health Organization (WHO).
In her article, Winning the War on Malaria, Ugandan Fiona Kobusingyer-Boynesin relates that “Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, and hundreds of doctors, disease experts, religious leaders and human rights advocates signed a declaration, demanding that substantial money be spent on Artemisinin (ACT) drugs, insecticide-treated bednets and indoor spraying with DDT.” Their pleas, and those of others, have finally produced results.
Kobusingyer-Boynesin states that DDT has proven to be by far the best weapon against malaria. She reports it can reduce malaria by 75% in some areas and together with the use of new ACT drugs, South Africa, following a spraying and ACT drug program, has reduced its malaria rates by 95% in the past three years.
So, the huge questions is why was DDT banned for the past 30 years when the ban so obviously led to many millions of deaths and horrible suffering for up to a billion other mostly poor, third-world citizens? How can environmentalists, being aware of the overwhelming evidence that DDT spraying could have prevented most of that suffering still so cruelly oppose rescinding the genocidal ban of the past 30 years?
In his article, Call for DDT Opponents to be Held Accountable for Millions of Preventable Malaria Deaths, Steven Milloy reveals that the ban was based on what he calls junk science, or in other words, scientific argument with little or no validity.
He begins by stating that “Rachel Carson kicked-off DDT hysteria with her pseudo-scientific 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson materially misrepresented DDT science in order to advance her anti-pesticide agenda.” Milloy then takes to task the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, WHO and especially “then-Environmental Protection Agency administrator William Ruckelshaus who actually banned DDT after ignoring an EPA administrative law judge's ruling that there was no evidence indicating that DDT posed any sort of threat to human health or the environment.”
Milloy calls for accountability for the massive death and suffering. He states, “Much of this human catastrophe was preventable, so why did it happen? Who is responsible? Should the individuals and activist groups who caused the DDT ban be held accountable in some way?”
What Milloy does not answer in his current essay, however, deliberate junk science aside, is why have the environments have been so extremely insistent that DDT be banned regardless of the resulting catastrophic suffering and loss of life? That answer, carefully researched, is explained in John Jalsevac's 2005 Special Report.
The Report notes “one of the most revealing quotations related to the issue at hand is another by Charles Wurster, who was reported to have said in 1971, after it was pointed out to him by a reporter that the widespread usage of the pesticide DDT saved lives: “So what? People are the main cause of our problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them…”’
And that brings us to the likely real reason for the devastation – an ingrained, obstinate and deadly eugenics and population control mentality among many of the leading environmentalists and world elites. A mentality that considers preserving a rain forest or a group of gorillas or a species of insect above protecting the lives of poor, third world humans. Nothing else seems to explain the cold-hearted opposition to DDT and there is plenty of evidence to support such a conclusion as junkscience.com has also related in previous articles.
**See today’s LifeSiteNews Special Report by Steven Milloy
Call for DDT Opponents to be Held Accountable for Millions of Preventable Malaria Deaths
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/060927a.html
**See the 2005 LifeSiteNews Special Report by John Jalsevac
Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/050816a.html
See also
Winning Africa’s War on Malaria
by Fiona Kobusingye-Boynes
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=239...
Typical of the left.
With Liberals all that matters is Intent, Not reality or results. As long as you have good intent then they will over look the consequences of those decisions. It's like dealing with a bunch of Jr. High scholl kids.
Off with their heads!!!
80,000,000 dead is likely a conservative number.
Add the millions of Africans who have starved to death because of crop infestations that could have been prevented had not the West imposed a hysterical worldwide ban on the use of DDT.
The dead are at your feet, hippies. How does it feel to have been so wrong?
Charles Wurster, Rachel Carlson (sp), Get going! Please lead by example! Two greenies checked off the planet is a good start!
have you known any hippies to take responsibility for their actions?
"The dead are at your feet, hippies. How does it feel to have been so wrong?"
Well, judging how they ignore the 100 million+ killed by communism, I'd imagine they'll sleep just fine tonight.
In this case there were no good intentions to fail. The intention all along was to kill as many people as possible under the cover of saving the environment. These jet-setting socialists live in luxury and go around the world telling everyone how to live. They consider it a failure if there is a child in a third-world country somewhere who is not starving to death.
Ping
How do the DDT proponants explain the comeback of the birds of prey, who supposedly had concentrations of DDT in their blood levels being concentrated, by being meat-eaters, and their eggs so thin-shelled they could not hatch out?
What I'm asking is, how exactly do you challenge the empirical evidence that birds of prey have made a significant comeback since DDT was banned? Is is something else that brought them back from the brink of extinction?
We stopped hunting them.
Basically, the premise (the low levels of DDT in the enviroment caused thin egg shells) is false.
see this DDT FAQ, egg shells
Rachel Carson is responsible for the greatest genocide in the history of the world.
The lefty enviromentalist wackos don't care if the DDT ban causes a bunch of "brown people" to die. In fact, they rather fancy that outcome.
A great man.
30 years later is their any scientific proof that DDT caused Bald Eagles eggs to become too soft for their mothers to hatch them?
61. Egg shell deficiencies were attributed to DDT and DDE by U.S. Fish and Wildlife researchers even though the birds had been placed on low-calcium diets. (see also 60. Calcium deficiency is associated with thinner shells.)
63. DDT was blamed for egg shell thinning even though a known egg shell thinner (dieldrin) was also added to the diet.
Can anyone begin to imagine what the outcome would be if a conservative group could be shown (thru its deliberate policies) to have caused the same result?
There would be trials from the Hague to the UN; riots in the streets; at least a dozen Congressional Commissions and Inquiries; 3 or 4 Special Prosecutors; daily and nightly news programs, etc., ad nauseum.
Yet, other than here and maybe a couple of other conservative sites, we haven't and won't hear a peep about this from any MSM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.