DDT "EXPERT" DEBUNKING DELUXE

Australian computer scientist Tim Lambert, rather than address my most recent demolishings of his DDT misrepresentations (see here and here), instead attacks Apoorva Mandavilli's Nature Medicine article DDT Returns as "wrong" and "misleading". That an academic could produce such a transparently misleading load of nonsense is truly disgusting.

A bit of background before I examine the latest Lambert post. I have consistently contended that DDT has been subject to a de facto ban. Lambert has consistently maintained that there has been no such ban. He reacted to my persistence by repeatedly calling me a troll (to get around Lambert's petty link bouncing, copy and paste http://timlambert.org/2005/06/ddt9-2/#comment-7755 ):

Beck, you are a troll because you have repeatedly posted the same specious argument. DDT is not banned. Your intent is not to persuade but just to get attention. Go away.

It is typical of Lambert to attack dissenters rather than engage in civilized discussion. It's his blog and he can, of course, run it any way he wants. The thing is, in calling me a troll, and bouncing my links, he motivated me to take a really close look at his DDT posts. It didn't take long to work out that nearly the whole of his DDT output is intentionally misleading.

Okay, now that I've made it clear why I'm staying after Lambert on this, on with the dissection. In his latest post Lambert quotes from Mandavilli's article and then rebuts. So that I can't be accused of leaving anything out I'll treat nearly the whole of Lambert's post, dividing it into sections that I address individually. This will result in a rather long post.

Mandavilli:

After decades of being marginalized as a dangerous pesticide, DDT--short for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro ethane--is set to be reintroduced into countries that have tried, and failed, to win the fight against malaria.

On 2 May, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), arguably the most powerful donor agency in the world, endorsed the indoor spraying of DDT for malaria control.

Lambert:

This isn't a change in policy. In November last year USAID said

USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted.

But the DDT ban myth peddlers cannot be stopped by mere facts. Mandavilli:

USAID never banned DDT outright, for instance, but nor did it fund DDT's purchase--which amounts to the same thing. For that reason, the May announcement is widely seen as a change in policy even though the agency doesn't position it as such.

USAID can't win. If they say they support DDT use they're lying. If they fund its use then they changed their policy. Nothing they say or do can stop the DDT ban myth.

Lambert is wrong, USAID did change policy. It went from providing lip-service support without funding to endorsement with funding. That is indeed a policy change. Mandavilli never accused USAID of lying: Lambert threw that in as an emotive distracter.

Mandavilli:

The World Health Organization (WHO) is set to follow. In its new guidelines, a final version of which is expected to be released later this summer, the WHO is unequivocal in its recommendation of DDT for indoor residual spraying.

Lambert's rebuttal:

Of course, in the old guidelines the WHO was also unequivocal in its recommendation of DDT for indoor residual spraying. They state:

WHO recommends indoor residual spraying of DDT for malaria vector control.

Later in the article Mandavilli even mentions this fact:

The WHO recommends 12 insecticides including DDT--which is an organochlorine--six pyrethroids, three organophosphates and two carbamates.

But the DDT ban myth is immune to mere contradictions.

Lambert's claim that the WHO recommended DDT spraying is based on an excerpt from a WHO DDT FAQ brochure and not from any "old guidelines" as he misleadingly states. Here's the WHO DDT "recommendation" in context:

[Question] 4. How is DDT used for malaria vector control?

WHO recommends indoor residual spraying of DDT for malaria vector control.

The excerpt from the WHO DDT FAQ brochure is nothing more than a statement that, if DDT is to be used, it is recommended only for use in indoor residual spraying. It is not a recommendation that DDT be used. This has been pointed out to Lambert before but he refuses to acknowledge that a WHO policy recommendation for something as controversial as DDT use is hardly likely to be embedded in a FAQ brochure. He needs to support this almost-evidence with something much more substantial.

There is clearly nothing contradictory in what Mandavilli wrote. DDT is on the recommended list because it is approved for use: that is the whole point of the POPs treaty exemption. To date the WHO has not been supportive of DDT use. If it has, Lambert should be able to provide some evidence to support his claim.

Back to Lambert's post:

Mandavilli continues:

For these impoverished countries, the choice may seem clear: DDT is cheap and lasts longer than other pesticides, so it has to be sprayed less often. Most pesticides work by killing mosquitoes on contact, but DDT also repels them.

"DDT is the most effective chemical, the most effective insecticide in terms of malaria," says Arata Kochi, director of the WHO's Global Malaria Programme.

That's rather an oversimplification, according to the latest publication from ... WHO's Global Malaria Programme.

Lambert then presents a long excerpt from a WHO publication related to the Global Malaria Program. This is a Lambert distracter: he wants it to appear, incorrectly, that Mandavilli proposes that DDT should replace bed-nets or drugs in the fight against malaria. The WHO excerpt is therefore irrelevant because she makes no such suggestion.

Back to Lambert:

Mandavilli then goes in for the traditional Rachel-Carson-worse-than-Hitler gambit.

Between 1955 and 1969, the Global Malaria Eradication Campaign also relied heavily on DDT. In Europe, India, South America, Africa, wherever it was used widely, DDT cut malaria rates dramatically and saved millions of lives.

Then came Carson's Silent Spring-- credited with launching the environmental movement--which famously described DDT's horrific effects on the food chain, and the stark silence left behind by dying birds. The book was so effective that to this day, any mention of DDT instantly evokes images of bald eagles and thinning eggshells.

DDT soon became a symbol of Western governments' rash embrace of science. In the US and in Europe, environmental groups waged a successful campaign against the pesticide. Based largely on its effect on the environment--and on public opinion--the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1972 banned DDT. Norway and Sweden had begun the trend in 1970, and the UK signed on in 1986.

Environmental groups that still oppose DDT see its use in developing countries as a double standard. On the other hand, note champions of DDT, most of those groups are based in countries where malaria is only a distant memory.

"I think the whole push of the environmentalists like Rachel Carson and many others to eliminate all uses of DDT are, quite honestly, responsible for millions and millions and millions of human deaths," says Don Roberts, professor of tropical public health at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland.

This misrepresents Carson. She opposed the indiscriminate use of DDT and warned that overuse would cause insect resistance and make it useless. The restrictions on the agricultural use of DDT that she helped inspire have prevented the development of resistance and are the reason why it can still be used today in many places to fight malaria. In short, she prevented many deaths from malaria.

And who are these environmental groups that oppose DDT use? Neither Greenpeace nor the World Wildlife Fund oppose its use.

Mandavilli does not misrepresent Carson: she merely observes that Carson's book gave birth to the environmental movement which then attacked DDT. Hitler is not mentioned. Don Roberts, a malaria expert, should know what he's talking about.

Greenpeace may not organizationally oppose DDT use but some within Greenpeace certainly do:

Greenpeace scientists say they are still opposed to any easing of the restrictions on DDT.

Dr David Santillo from the Greenpeace research laboratories at the University of Exeter says that USAID's decision to fund the use of DDT is worrying.

"That certainly raises some quite substantial concerns and if there's substantial funding coming from the US to support that, then that does sound very much like a step in the wrong direction," he said.

Back to Lambert:

Mandavilli continues

Most African nations are heavily dependent on foreign aid and can ill afford to cross a line drawn by donor agencies.

The World Bank went one step further, making the ban of DDT a condition for loans.

Far from banning DDT, the World Bank funds DDT in Eritrea, India, Madagascar and the Solomon Islands.

The WHO supported the use of bednets dipped in insecticide over indoor spraying, even though malaria rates continued to increase.

Yes, they support bed net use because there is a mountain of evidence showing that bednets are effective. See the WHO report linked above. This sort of reporting is pernicious, because it misleads readers into thinking that bednets don't work.

"People are very emotional about DDT, even within the WHO," Kochi says, adding that much of the reaction to DDT was a response to political pressure.

Yeah, no kidding. The Rachel-Carson-worse-than-Hitler brigade want to exploit the issue to bash environmentalists. Hence the weird focus on DDT. You'd think that anti-malarial drugs, other insecticides and other means of vector control don't exist.

Lambert's getting really tricky here. For one thing, the link he provides isn't to any independent sources, it's to an early post. I won't bother checking whether India receives funding for its DDT program – India produces its own DDT and is determined to use it so I'll assume the World Bank grudgingly provides financial support. The link he provides for Madagascar notes, however:

In 1998, the World Bank and the government of Madagascar agreed to reduce the total surface areas for spraying and to progressively phase out DDT, replacing it with an environmentally friendly insecticide.

The report says nothing about DDT use in Madagascar after 2000. The Solomon Islands link is to a report on a study funded in part by the World Bank. As far as I can tell, World Bank funding for DDT use in the Solomon Islands is not discussed. There is no link to any source discussing the World Bank funding DDT use in Eritrea.

Lambert finishes off his post by damning Mandavilli with faint praise; you can read it at his blog if you want.


To put this in perspective there's this from the WHO:

WHO emphasizes the importance of assuring that DDT is used only for public health vector control and in accordance with WHO guidelines.

"WHO recommends that DDT should be used only for indoor residual spraying and every step must be taken to prevent DDT from being diverted to agricultural uses," says Dr Heymann. "Projections suggest that the amounts of DDT needed for malaria control are a very small fraction of what has been used in the past for agricultural purposes."

WHO is working with malaria-affected countries and other Roll Back Malaria partners to develop a systematic approach to reducing reliance on DDT while assuring that people continue to be protected from malaria.

WHO states that reducing reliance on DDT needs to be part of an overall strategy of strengthening malaria control.

Sort of makes Lambert look stupid, now doesn't it? There's no way he can back down from his position. If his posts had simply been wrong he could admit it. But, since his posts have been intentionally misleading, he's going to have to keep on posting the same old misleading crap. There is no way to get out of this gracefully.


Editing note: For the sake of economy the links in Lambert's post are omitted – you'll have to go to Lambert's blog to access them.

Update: The following comment went into moderation at Lambert's blog at 9:57 PM (AWST):

Mr Lambert,

The intentionally misleading content of your post is addressed here. Please feel free to tell me where I get it wrong.

Let's see how long it takes for the comment to be posted, if it makes it through at all. If Lambert's true to form the comment's a goner.

Update II: As of 3:30 PM (AWST) the following afternoon Lambert has still not posted my comment. Scienceblogs.com is obviously more concerned about maintaining itself as a "community of like-minded individuals" than it is about the site being a "forum for discussion" that will "change the way the world sees science".

Here's Lambert's hysterical response to being asked if he supports DDT use:

James, I believe that DDT should be used for IRS in rotation with other pesticides so as to prevent the development of resistance.

The trouble with this strategy is that every time you rotate DDT out the Africa Fighting Malaria crew will scream "EVIL BABY-KILLING CARSON WORSHIPPERS BANNED DDT!!!!!!!!!". And then when you rotate it back in Nature Medicine will publish a clueless article about DDT is coming back. Lather, rinse, repeat.

That comment isn't going to increase Scienceblogs.com's readers' understanding of science but it will convince anyone with any sense that Lambert's a fool – neither Africa Fighting Malaria nor Nature Medicine opposes the rotational IRS regimen Lambert advocates.