It’s said malaria is a disease of poverty, and poor countries don’t have enough funds, doctors or medicines to treat the disease — or prevent it in the first place. True enough. But malaria is also, and much more so, a disease of callous, intransigent environmental extremism and wanton disregard for human life. A disease whose prevention is hampered, and actively thwarted, by pervasive opposition to mosquito-killing insecticides, and mosquito-repelling DDT.
Anti-pesticide activists say they support other interventions: education, “capacity building,” modern drugs and bednets. Indeed, international funding for malaria prevention and treatment has risen from perhaps $40 million in 1998 to almost $2 billion in 2010. Millions of women and children now sleep under insecticide-treated nets. Millions now get diagnosed quickly and receive decent care and medicines.
These anti-malaria programs “saved nearly 750,000 lives over the past ten years.” the World Health Organization enthusiastically asserts. “That represents an 18 percent reduction in child mortality, compared with 2000.” That’s wonderful news. But it’s not good enough.
We would never tolerate 18 percent as “good enough,” if American or European kids’ lives were at stake, or if a 70-90 percent reduction in disease, misery and death rates were possible. And it would be possible, if we could end the lies and obstructionism that restrict access to mosquito killers and repellants (SIC) that can dramatically reduce infection rates and the need to treat a quarter-billion cases of malaria every year.
But the lies and obstruction are prevalent, and effective. Here are just a few of the most egregious.
“Nets are just as good as insecticides.” Prevention should always be the first line of defense. That’s why we chlorinate drinking water and vaccinate people against measles, mumps, polio and flu. Insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) certainly help and should be used. But they are a supplement to, not a substitute for, larvacides, insecticides and DDT that kill mosquitoes and keep them away from people.
Bednets help if they’re used regularly and properly. They don’t help if they’re torn, people are working, there are only enough nets for a family’s small children and pregnant women, or it’s too hot to sleep under one. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) eliminates behavior as a consideration; it protects everyone in the house, 24 hours a day.
“Bednets are more cost-effective than indoor spraying.” This assertion is backed by several studies that anti-pesticide groups and ITN manufacturers allegedly financed. However, the studies compare bednets with IRS using pyrethroids like ICON, instead of DDT. Pyrethroids are far more expensive and must be applied more often than DDT, which raises IRS costs significantly. The studies also fail to include all the costs associated with manufacturing and distributing the nets. Independent analyses found that nets are actually four times more expensive than spraying the inside walls of homes with DDT.
Much more important, spraying DDT once or twice a year keeps 80 percent of mosquitoes from entering the home, irritates those that do enter, so they leave without biting, and kills any that land. No other chemical, at any price, has these repellency (SIC) and irritation features. DDT helps doctors treat more patients with often scarce ACT drugs and dramatically slash disease and death rates — often by 90 percent or more.
All ready now? Then repeat after me; DDT does not kill little birdies. Mosquito's DO kill little babies.
But if there is one thing liberals enjoy doing is killing babies. Anything that so engorges their god-complex is a thing they'll go to the mattresses over, and the mere thought of sickening 250 MILLION people a year...10 percent of whom will die or be rendered so debilitated they'd wish they had...is simply too thrilling to let go.
And know what? I couldn't give a rats ass if DDT DID soften egg shells. I happen to like babies lots more than birdies but that's just me.
No comments:
Post a Comment