Bill Gates Fights To End Malaria

[Felix]

Here's the link

The fact that all these kids are dying, over 2,000 a day. That's terrible. If it was happening in rich countries, we'd act," said the software billionaire — who has acted by pledging $258.3 million recently for the development of new drugs, a vaccine and better protection against mosquitos.

If he only knew the truth about DDT ...

[gags]

Yes, last I heard the death toll that resulted from the banning of DDT stands around 50 million human beings. Hitler, Mao and Stalin would be proud.

[Hakarmaskannar]

Anyone got his email address?

I'll send him some links

[Felix]

Anyone got his email address?

I'll send him some links

Hm. Actually this is an interesting and important question. Here are many lives at stake.

The only way for evil to win is that good men do nothing.

I'm not talking about reaching Bill Gates. I'm talking about reaching people. I thought about a viral email campaign. This would be a good thing to do. Talking on this forum won't help. If the harmlessness of DDT is true, and I think it is, then this must be an important issue. Besides, I don't have to do much. I just need to stop the ban. If anyone wants to help me developing a strategy, just PM me. All help is welcome.

Can someone post some links with references and maybe a book as reference? I'd like to read more on this subject. Chemistry on how DDT works etc. is welcome, too. Thanks.

[softwareNerd]

... DDT ....

The "Junk Science" web site might be a good place to look.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Yes, last I heard the death toll that resulted from the banning of DDT stands around 50 million human beings. Hitler, Mao and Stalin would be proud.

The assumption that all of these lives could have been saved using DDT is just false. The assumption here is that insects do not develop resistance to DDT. In fact, insects began developing resistance very quickly after DDT was first used. The first DDT-resistant mosquitoes were noted in India as early at 1959. The genetic mechanisms of resistance are now very well understood and can be found by googling or searching in a biological sciences database, such as Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, at your local university library.

It is an unfortunate fact that malaria has been impossible to eradicate due to 1) resistance of insects to DDT and 2) resistance of the malarial protozoan to the drugs used to treat it. Part of the lack of success in eradicating any disease is the lack of a multi-pronged and aggressive approach, making the mistake of relying on one factor only for control, which was unfortunately done in this case back in the 60s, relying on DDT as some sort of "wonder insecticide". Imagine trying to eradicate staph infections by using penicillin. 80% of staph strains these days are resistant to penicillin because of its widespread and indiscriminant use. In most places where DDT was used in the past, this type of resistance is now widespread. There are still pockets of areas where DDT resistance has not developed among Anopheles. Only in these areas would it even be worthwhile to bother spraying. Even the Malaria Foundation International does not advise the widespread or singular use of DDT anymore, for this reason. it can also create cross-resistance to other insecticides!

DDT becomes ineffective very quickly now because DDT-resistance genes passed down from mosquitoes of the 50s and 60s still exist at low frequency in the population. As far as I know, there are at least two loci for resistance, and neither have fitness disadvantages. So, when a population is now sprayed, a strong force of selection in favor of the resistant mosquitoes is immediately created, since those genotypes have remained in the population over time. This why WHO advocates the use of DDT only for indoor spraying, not for agricultural use, and it was its indiscriminant use in agriculture to control crop pests which has lead to such a strong selection pressure for resistance.

DDT is only banned in the US and other developed countries for agricultural purposes. There are still many countries where DDT is still used to control mosquitoes, but is not allowed for agriculture. This is analagous to the situation where doctors refuse to prescribe antibiotics if you don't have a bacterial infection! If we don't have malarial mosquitoes, let's save the DDT for the really important use so we don't create resistant strains as fast!

This is an area of research where much misinformation abounds and emotions run high. There have been literally thousands of primary research articles on DDT in the past few decades. The information is dense and difficult to wade through. It is highly technical and one cannot possibly hope to be adequately informed on this issue without in-depth research or relying on a trusted source.

Bill Gates is investing millions of dollars into this line of work, which is probably biotechnological and undoubtedly the smartest way to combat this disease. Genetic engineering has been the latest approach. While I don't doubt that DDT still should play a role in malarial eradication, especially in very poor countries or where pockets of resistance does not exist in mosquito populations, the fact is that it will never be the entire answer now and never could have been in the first place, for solely biological reasons. To invest any serious amount of money or energy in this strategy as the main mechanism for fighting malaria would be silly. It would be much better to invest $$ in developing another cheap insecticide and/or malarial drug. Both could be used in concert in a massive and aggressive strategy to eliminate the disease altogether.

Useful website for what World Health Organization thinks about the use of DDT:

http://www.who.int/malaria/docs/ecr20_annex1.htm

Useful website about a potentially far more effective use of money in using the MOSQUITO to control the protozoan parasite:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1588449,00.html

While I am not aware of any conclusive studies that link DDT to cancer, I believe that there is some evidence that DDT causes neurological problems and may cause birth defects. Again, this is a very broad area of research, with many different sources of funding, thus making the differentiation of fact from fiction difficult. In any case the harmfulness or harmlessness of DDT in a health sense is really pointless to discuss.

Edited November 7, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[DavidOdden]

If he only knew the truth about DDT ...

I have to agree that the DDT issue is a red herring. IMO the number 1 cause of malaria is the failure to exclude mosquitos in the hours when the bastards (bugs) are most active. Mosquito nets and screens are both mandatory and virtually nonexistent; failing that (or, in addition to that), mosquito repellent is almost entirely unknown in malaria-endemic areas. Second is the failure to actively attack their breeding spots with any bug killers. The third is the lack of effective non-toxic oral prophylaxis (you cannot take any of the existing antimalarials for your entire life, unless you have a supply of free replacement livers). Now, a separate issue is that malaria deaths could also be reduced if there were competent medical treatment (though as I recall, the (American) secretary of the US ambassador to Tanzania died of cerebral malaria, so sometimes the toast lands butter-side down). The point is that using DDT could help, but it's not a cure. The ultimate and long-term solution lies in getting a grip on the falciparum and vivax genomes. BTW, to bring in a political point, "malaria" is an Italian word and yet malaria is not endemic in Italy. It has something to do with civilization.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Right, David. And if a total lack of regulation on DDT usage existed, we could expect indiscriminant use leading to even more resistance in mosquito populations. Thus, if it had never been banned for ag. use, we wouldn't even be discussing it as a viable way of fighting malaria today. It would have been abandoned long ago.

[Felix]

I did some research on this and as far as I have learned, DDT has not really been completely banned. It has been abandoned. It would have been strange indeed if this had been the case, which is why I wanted to be sure before starting out to make a fool of myself. I am not so sure anymore this DDT ban story is really accurate. It sounds more like a conspiracy theory.

One thing I have learned here is that if good research preceded political action, most of it would be

abandoned very quickly.

(Mod's note: Removed quote of immediately preceding post)

Edited November 8, 2005 by softwareNerd

[gnargtharst]

Liriodendron said: "...if a total lack of regulation on DDT usage existed, we could expect indiscriminant use leading to even more resistance in mosquito populations."

I don't see why this is taken for granted here. Plenty of things are unregulated, without necessarily resulting in indiscriminate use.

Further, ignoring that point, there is no justification whatsoever of "regulation" of DDT. Producing, selling, or using DDT does not involve the initiation of force against anyone.

"...Thus, if it had never been banned for ag. use, we wouldn't even be discussing it as a viable way of fighting malaria today. It would have been abandoned long ago."

There's a sort of collectivist premise here, that saving lives should only be done as one side of a calculation involving how conveneient it will be to save future lives. DDT use was discontinued, malaria increased, and mosquitos remained non-resistant. Is this a good thing?

(Btw, I'm not conceding the point about mosquito resistance in the first place; I remain skeptical about that. Not dismissive, just skeptical.)

[DavidOdden]

I did some research on this and as far as I have learned, DDT has not really been completely banned. It has been abandoned.

Indeed. It's hard to get solid data, but DDT was only recently banned in South Africa, and is banned in Tanzania, but AFAIK it is not generally banned in Africa. I am totally opposed to the ban on DDT, but at the same time do not advocate using it as a general panacea, on strictly practical grounds.

One thing I have learned here is that if good research preceded political action, most of it would be abandoned very quickly.

That's certainly true of most kinds of political action taken by governments, these days. However, they do engage in good research in one area, having to do with getting re-elected.

[Inspector]

Liro:

...so you're saying that mosquitos are resistant now anyway, despite the ban?

Even if that were true, it doesn't change the fact that if there was no ban, there would have been more dead mosquitos and more live human beings. If the resistance factor is true, then it would change the number of dead humans caused by the ban, but it wouldn't change that there were millions of them. Even if DDT would have become ineffective anyway in a few years, we're still talking several million people per year.

And, of course, the ban had NOTHING to do with the resistance factor, and EVERYTHING to do with environmentalist scare tactics and pseudo-science.

[DavidOdden]

Even if that were true, it doesn't change the fact that if there was no ban, there would have been more dead mosquitoes and more live human beings. If the resistance factor is true, then it would change the number of dead humans caused by the ban, but it wouldn't change that there were millions of them. Even if DDT would have become ineffective anyway in a few years, we're still talking several million people per year.

These estimates vary considerably. In the Junk Science DDT faq, they mention (point 6) 500 million deaths averted in 2 decades (impressive!) but then (point 6) mention 2.7 million annual deaths. Quick math tells me that some of this is naff science. The fact is that about 90% of the malaria cases and malaria deaths are in sub-Saharan Africa. The other fact is that the western ban on DDT is irrelevant: what really matters is that no African nation produces DDT, and their economies are such utter disasters that they cannot afford to import DDT. (Pyrethroids are more widely used because they are locally grown, hence cheaper). DDT is used (legally) in Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Africa (they experimented with a ban), Sudan, Kenya, Swaziland, Mozambique, Namibia, Guinea and Madagascar (got no data on the rest of Africa, typical). In other words, the western ban on DDT was basically irrelevant, since it isn't the ban that stops DDT usage in Africa, it is basic economics -- yet another example of the train-wreck that modern Afro-socialist economics is.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Liriodendron said: "...if a total lack of regulation on DDT usage existed, we could expect indiscriminant use leading to even more resistance in mosquito populations."

I don't see why this is taken for granted here. Plenty of things are unregulated, without necessarily resulting in indiscriminate use.

Further, ignoring that point, there is no justification whatsoever of "regulation" of DDT. Producing, selling, or using DDT does not involve the initiation of force against anyone.

"...Thus, if it had never been banned for ag. use, we wouldn't even be discussing it as a viable way of fighting malaria today. It would have been abandoned long ago."

There's a sort of collectivist premise here, that saving lives should only be done as one side of a calculation involving how conveneient it will be to save future lives. DDT use was discontinued, malaria increased, and mosquitos remained non-resistant. Is this a good thing?

(Btw, I'm not conceding the point about mosquito resistance in the first place; I remain skeptical about that. Not dismissive, just skeptical.)

There's no "collectivist premise." I'm not suggesting regulation is the answer. What I am suggesting is that a total lack of regulation wouldn't have resulted in the wonder scenario being painted. All I'm saying is that you can't eat your cake and have it, too.

Here's what I meant by indiscriminate: not discriminating between use to control mosquitoes only vs. agricultural use. More exposure, more opportunities for resistance. The same situation occurs today in this country - the indiscriminant use (not able to discriminate between a proper use of the drug vs. an improper use) of antibiotics by some stupid people that can't bother to educate themselves, think beyond the immediate, or even CARE about the issue, generating resistant bacterial strains which may affect the rest of us. That is, people that insist that their doctors prescribe an antibiotic, even though the doctor knows better. You can't make people accept facts. Crappy situation, but in a free society, no way around it that I see.

Edited November 8, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[gnargtharst]

Fair enough, Liriodendron. I suspected your meaning was something along those lines, but wasn't entirely clear to me.

But, would a DDT-resistant strain of mosquito really have been a big problem compared with the alternative? We wouldv'e reached 2005 without being able to use DDT -- which is where we are anyway -- only there would have been numerous millions of malaria deaths avoided.

There's been discussion about how DDT is not a "cure-all", but for the many millions who died when malaria skyrocketed after DDT was banned, "cure-all" is exactly what DDT would have been. Malaria was very close to being eliminated throughout huge swaths of its range.

(And I use the word "banned" on purpose -- to ban a product at its point of production, the US, is to effectively ban it most other places, especially those that depend on the supply through charitable or other price-sensitive or liability-sensitive avenues).

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Now we're getting into details I don't know about. David? Help? DDT is still used, so it's coming from somewhere. My understanding is that it's banned for ag. use in the US, but not for medical emergencies. In any case, it's being produced somewhere since it's still being used.... But I don't know where! my guess is it is being produced in some western country.

i'm also not sure the skyrocketing malarial cases weren't due ot resistance to DDT and not the ban OR both. DDT has been abandoned in so many places for use against malaria anyway. See, the resistance genes don't need time to evolve now, since they're already present in the populations of mosquitoes. They just need to sweep to near fixation by the application of DDT. This doesn't take much time. A few months in areas that are resistant.

David, do we know of any tropical countries where DDT is needed where it is banned for use against malaria, specifically? Banned for indoor use? I'm not even sure this is the case.

Anyway, gnargtharst, I don't think any of us could find more information than David has presented without a lot of time and effort .... aaaargh. Which is why these topics are frustrating. Sorting fact from fiction becomes very difficult.

(Mod note: Removed quote of immediately preceding post)

Edited November 8, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Felix]

As far as I know it's produced in China.

[DavidOdden]

DDT is still used, so it's coming from somewhere.

Grump. The stinkin' browser crashed as I was checking the facts, just before I crossed the last t. Well, China, and also Mexico and India are producers.

i'm also not sure the skyrocketing malarial cases weren't due ot resistance to DDT and not the ban OR both.

I don't know the historical facts, so I don't know that malaria rates are really skyrocketing. It's quite possible that there has been a skyrocketing in reporting rates. The rate has gone up in South Africa 5-fold, which may be because the country is generally going to hell in a handbasket and not specifically because of the variable DDT policy. However, I've seen claims that the rate in KwaZulu has plummeted, now that they use DDT again, so that would be really clear evidence of the value of DDT for malaria control (at least in South Africa). That would be the ultimate cruel scientific experiment: let a few thousand people die, to see if it matters whether DDT is used against mosquitos.

The past 20 years have also seen malaria-conducive acts by many Africans. People often move into the capital city in hopes of a better life, but they have no skills, tools, or land to work, so they often end up in these craphole swamps in the city, places which reasonable people would shun like the plague (because, you can get the plague there). These place are rife with malaria both because they are swampy, and because the high density of humans is extremely attractive to mosquitos. That factor would have to be controlled in figuring out the relationship between DDT use and malaria rates.

David, do we know of any tropical countries where DDT is needed where it is banned for use against malaria, specifically? Banned for indoor use? I'm not even sure this is the case.

It is only banned in a few countries, and in Africa it is generally (legally) usable generally. Agricultural use seems to be the first to be banned, and application rates for agriculture are very high compared to its use for disease control. Home use (spray it on the walls) is the most important use of DDT. I would predict that Ag use might be banned but mosquito control and indoor use is allowed -- I thought I saw an example, but I can't locate it now. Uganda?

A further note: the data on DDT resistance is up to 20 years out of date. A. culicifacies is highly resistant to DDT (article) in India, but it is effective against A. funestus in Southern Africa. There are 9 species of mosquito in South Africa which are malaria vectors. Data on resistance to DDT in the main African vector, A. gambiae, dates from 1976 in Benin, Cameroon, CAR and Nigeria al the way up to the hyper-current data from Tanzania, Togo and Mali from 1986.

[Inspector]

Anyway, gnargtharst, I don't think any of us could find more information than David has presented without a lot of time and effort .... aaaargh. Which is why these topics are frustrating. Sorting fact from fiction becomes very difficult.

I may be able to dig up the statistics that form the basis for the position that the ban is to blame for X million deaths. I know the form of the statistic is that the number of deaths was going down every year by X million, until the year of the ban, when they instantly returned to pre-invention-of-DDT levels. (which was at least double-digit millions more deaths)

If this was caused by adaptation and not the ban, it would be an amazing coincidence.

[Inspector]

Walter Williams uses statistics on this issue, but I can't find the original article with the sources he uses.

Here's a reprint of it: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams100902.asp

And a related article:

http://www.capmag.com//article.asp?ID=4105

And here's a few more on related subjects, just for the heck of it:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1047

http://www.capmag.com//article.asp?ID=3185

http://www.capmag.com//article.asp?ID=3182

http://www.capmag.com//article.asp?ID=4283

http://www.capmag.com//article.asp?ID=4272

http://www.capmag.com//article.asp?ID=4139

Edited November 9, 2005 by Inspector

[softwareNerd]

This is not central to the issue, but whether the use of DDT changed because of a "ban" or because of some other reason is not central to the science of the issue. If people were using DDT all those years and it was not resulting in better health and less deaths then the science was bad.

[slave]

If he only knew the truth about DDT ...

If we only knew the truth about malaria.

If you have never heard of G6PD, you may want to read up on it. It is an x-linked genetic disorder which result in only having one enzyme in the blood. Since there is only one enzyme, as opposed to the normal two, the malaria virus is not capable of living in a persons blood with this disorder. They can get malaria 50 times and the virus will meet the same end. It is not 100% certain you can not get it, but the deficiency in humans stills exists because those with it live longer and produce more off spring than those without it - or the deficiency would not exist any longer.

One third of the Thai population has G6PD. If anyone has ever been there, they may have noticed it without understanding it. You can not buy aspirin easily in Thailand because it is an oxidant which will kill the only remaining enzyme in the blood. If that happens, you begin to kill your red blood cells. When you kill too many red blood cells, your livers efficiency slows down and you start to get into life threatening trouble. Then your eyes go jaundice which is the other noticeable thing about Thai males. Since Thai do not pay much attention to what they shouldn't eat, they usually have jaundice in their eyes from eating the wrong food.

Since it is the most common human enzyme deficiency IN THE WORLD, I have serious reservations about 2000 people a day dying. Since it is an x-linked disorder (it follows the x chromosone) and the article mentions nothing about different rates of death in the males versus the females. Since it doesn't mention the different rates of death and is making the issue someone else's problem other those being killed, something seems bogus. I would like to find the deaths reported by sex to see what the difference is. If that difference looked reasonable, I might trust it.

I think it is the malaria group trying to get the money before the bird flu group gets it.

[gnargtharst]

A good source for science/junk-science controversy (including quite a lot of data about DDT) is this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047128485...=books&v=glance

"Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns", edited by Jay H Lehr.

(This, supported by various sources over years, is my source for a lot of science/environmental comments I make. I am a science enthusiast, but not a professional in any science field. My knowledge used to be more thorough on these issues; I enjoy the overview, but have no pressing need for more detailed knowledge at this time.)

This is a pretty expensive book, as textbooks tend to be. If anyone is interested in borrowing it from me and would be willing to pay postage, let me know.

[Felix]

One of the main problem I see here is finding unbiased sources. And that's hard. Scientists don't start out to prove the harm of DDT or to debunk that claim. Sorry, that's not science. Science investigates the issue. Anyone even mentioning 'proof' or 'debunking' shows a political agenda as far as I see it. It's the old problem Winston Churchill put so wonderfully:

I only trust the statistics I have manipulated myself.

Seriously. All I do is sit in front of my computer screen and read other people's opinions about this. That's hardly beneficial. What I needed instead would be my own research on the scientific base of the issue. Unfortunately I have practically no knowledge of chemistry or biology, which makes this quite hard. I don't attack something or believe something just because someone said it. I take back my bold statement about DDT. I have no real knowledge about the issue. Knowledge would have to be based on extensive knowledge in both biology and chemistry as well as lots of specialized knowledge about DDT, DDE, their effects etc.

In the end, you're alone with your own mind and your own observations as the only things you can trust.

Edited November 9, 2005 by Felix

[softwareNerd]

...This is a pretty expensive book, ...

Not exactly on topic, but I want to point out that Amazon's used-book prices are not always the lowest. For instance, this particular book is $150 new and $60 used on Amazon. The place to cross-check used-book prices is used.addall.com. This book is currently available for less than $10 plus shipping.