MORE DDT DECEPTIONS
Computer guy Tim Lambert has established himself as something of an authority on the use of DDT in the fight against malaria. His DDT Ban Myth Bingo is linked, for example, at Wikipedia's DDT page. Even though cleverly devised and valid in some of the points made, DDT Ban Myth Bingo is intentionally misleading, as are most of his DDT posts. Nothing Lambert writes about DDT should be accepted as correct.
Lambert revels in parading his "knowledge", especially when he can do so at the expense of those supporting the use of DDT. His attack on posts by Gary Becker and Richard Posner is a classic example of Lambert doing his "hey look how much smarter I am than these schmucks" routine -- Lambert could have simply said the esteemed gentlemen are wrong, preferring instead to title his post "Becker and Posner's ignorance about DDT". Lambert's post is, however, riddled with the usual deceptions.
With 11 links Lambert's post appears at first glance to be well researched and documented. It isn't. Two of the links are to Becker and Posner's posts, one is to Malaria Foundation International with the other eight to earlier deception-enhanced Lambert posts. (Lambert could have linked to outside sources but is inclined to self-reference -- not only is it self-promotional, it also makes it more difficult to detect his deceptions.)
Lambert writes in his Becker and Posner post: "And far from rejecting the use of DDT in that period, the WHO endorsed it." Anyone who takes the time to follow the link to his earlier post, and the futher links from there, will find nothing from WHO endorsing DDT use. The link to a Roll Back Malaria statement on the use of bed-nets and indoor residual spraying doesn't even mention DDT. The closest thing he offers to a WHO DDT endorsement is an Allen Schapira quote: "WHO has never given up in its efforts to ensure access to DDT where it is needed." Oddly, no examples of ensured access to DDT are provided.
Lambert writes: "DDT is not banned and WHO has always supported its use." The first link is to a another Lambert post, in turn linking to an online ad for DDT. The ad notes that the company has sold DDT to a number of countries over recent years but doesn't specify whether the DDT was sold before the advent of the POPs treaty and also doesn't specify the ultimate use -- legitimate or otherwise -- of the DDT. Anyway, Lambert's point is that DDT can't be banned if a company is offering it online. While it's better substantiation than Lambert usually offers, it's hardly proof there hasn't been an ongoing de facto DDT ban. (I probably get three or four emails a day trying to sell me prescription drugs I'm not legally entitled to. Buying some of these drugs wouldn't constitute proof the Australian government wants me to take them.)
The second link is to yet another Lambert post. It's the same one linked to regarding the Shapira quote. It does not support the claim that the WHO supports DDT use.
Lambert writes: "The World Bank already funds DDT spraying as does USAID." The first link is to, you guessed it, an earlier Lambert post that says: "The World Bank also funds DDT in India, Madagascar and the Solomon Islands." Yes, the World Bank does contribute to India's use of DDT. India is committed to DDT use and is something of a special case: it is one of the few countries still making DDT and would use DDT whether or not the World Bank offered its support. So, the World Bank, probably wanting to avoid a nasty spat, complete with claims of racial discrimination, came to the party. Regardless, I'll pay Lambert as getting it right on World Bank funding for India's DDT use.
DDT use is Madagascar and the Solomon Islands is another matter. The Madagascar link is to a World Bank document dated October 2000. It discusses DDT use noting: "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 Solomon Islands link no longer works but I know its thrust because I've posted on this before. The link says nothing whatever about DDT use after 1999. Thus, two out three items of Lambert's evidence do not support his contention that the World Bank funds general DDT use.
Lambert's USAID link is even iffier, offering as it does this as proof: "USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted." As of that writing USAID might well have been supportive of DDT spraying but had spent US$0 on DDT sparying programs, with its efforts heavily criticized by the Government Accountability Office.
Lambert writes: "The agricultural use of DDT in the US was banned in 1972. Use in public health was not. The Stockholm treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants permits the use of DDT against malaria. The ban on the agricultural use of DDT has undoubtedly saved lives by slowing the spread of resistance." He's correct in noting that, because DDT is still allowed to be used in the US in the event of a public health emergency, it isn't really banned. On the other hand, as far as I can determine, DDT has not been used in the US since its banning for agricultural use.
Lambert's first link in the paragraph above, to the Malaria Foundation International, is the rare unequivocally correct piece of evidence he offers. But the "saved lives" link is another very iffy one. It leads, of course, to another Lambert post, one dealing with a resurgence in malaria supposedly link to agricultural use of DDT. All well and good but if DDT has hardly been used for IRS, which since the late 1990s has been the case, and is preventing very few malaria infections, what good has it done to preserve DDT lethality? It might well be an important factor in the future but hasn't been a significant life saving factor as yet.
Lambert writes: "As already noted, DDT was not banned. The main causes of the resurgence of malaria was the evolution of resistance to DDT and anti-malaria drugs." Lambert's link is to an earlier post on DDT use in Sri Lanka. He makes the case for agricultural use of DDT causing a resurgence of malaria in Sri Lanka. Even if he is correct it is not appropriate to generalize, based solely on the Sr Lankan experience, that malaria has made a comeback due to agricultural use of DDT.
Finally, in response to this from Posner:
Really, it's pathetic that an academic writes the deliberately dishonest nonsense Lambert cranks out.
Note: Lambert finds my little critiques irksome so he bounces my links to his old blog, thus many of the links above aren't going to work. I suggest you open his Becker and Posner post in a new window and use that to access his older links.
This post is for Ken Miles, who says I'm a "dishonest" writer of "garbage".
Lambert revels in parading his "knowledge", especially when he can do so at the expense of those supporting the use of DDT. His attack on posts by Gary Becker and Richard Posner is a classic example of Lambert doing his "hey look how much smarter I am than these schmucks" routine -- Lambert could have simply said the esteemed gentlemen are wrong, preferring instead to title his post "Becker and Posner's ignorance about DDT". Lambert's post is, however, riddled with the usual deceptions.
With 11 links Lambert's post appears at first glance to be well researched and documented. It isn't. Two of the links are to Becker and Posner's posts, one is to Malaria Foundation International with the other eight to earlier deception-enhanced Lambert posts. (Lambert could have linked to outside sources but is inclined to self-reference -- not only is it self-promotional, it also makes it more difficult to detect his deceptions.)
Lambert writes in his Becker and Posner post: "And far from rejecting the use of DDT in that period, the WHO endorsed it." Anyone who takes the time to follow the link to his earlier post, and the futher links from there, will find nothing from WHO endorsing DDT use. The link to a Roll Back Malaria statement on the use of bed-nets and indoor residual spraying doesn't even mention DDT. The closest thing he offers to a WHO DDT endorsement is an Allen Schapira quote: "WHO has never given up in its efforts to ensure access to DDT where it is needed." Oddly, no examples of ensured access to DDT are provided.
Lambert writes: "DDT is not banned and WHO has always supported its use." The first link is to a another Lambert post, in turn linking to an online ad for DDT. The ad notes that the company has sold DDT to a number of countries over recent years but doesn't specify whether the DDT was sold before the advent of the POPs treaty and also doesn't specify the ultimate use -- legitimate or otherwise -- of the DDT. Anyway, Lambert's point is that DDT can't be banned if a company is offering it online. While it's better substantiation than Lambert usually offers, it's hardly proof there hasn't been an ongoing de facto DDT ban. (I probably get three or four emails a day trying to sell me prescription drugs I'm not legally entitled to. Buying some of these drugs wouldn't constitute proof the Australian government wants me to take them.)
The second link is to yet another Lambert post. It's the same one linked to regarding the Shapira quote. It does not support the claim that the WHO supports DDT use.
Lambert writes: "The World Bank already funds DDT spraying as does USAID." The first link is to, you guessed it, an earlier Lambert post that says: "The World Bank also funds DDT in India, Madagascar and the Solomon Islands." Yes, the World Bank does contribute to India's use of DDT. India is committed to DDT use and is something of a special case: it is one of the few countries still making DDT and would use DDT whether or not the World Bank offered its support. So, the World Bank, probably wanting to avoid a nasty spat, complete with claims of racial discrimination, came to the party. Regardless, I'll pay Lambert as getting it right on World Bank funding for India's DDT use.
DDT use is Madagascar and the Solomon Islands is another matter. The Madagascar link is to a World Bank document dated October 2000. It discusses DDT use noting: "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 Solomon Islands link no longer works but I know its thrust because I've posted on this before. The link says nothing whatever about DDT use after 1999. Thus, two out three items of Lambert's evidence do not support his contention that the World Bank funds general DDT use.
Lambert's USAID link is even iffier, offering as it does this as proof: "USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted." As of that writing USAID might well have been supportive of DDT spraying but had spent US$0 on DDT sparying programs, with its efforts heavily criticized by the Government Accountability Office.
Lambert writes: "The agricultural use of DDT in the US was banned in 1972. Use in public health was not. The Stockholm treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants permits the use of DDT against malaria. The ban on the agricultural use of DDT has undoubtedly saved lives by slowing the spread of resistance." He's correct in noting that, because DDT is still allowed to be used in the US in the event of a public health emergency, it isn't really banned. On the other hand, as far as I can determine, DDT has not been used in the US since its banning for agricultural use.
Lambert's first link in the paragraph above, to the Malaria Foundation International, is the rare unequivocally correct piece of evidence he offers. But the "saved lives" link is another very iffy one. It leads, of course, to another Lambert post, one dealing with a resurgence in malaria supposedly link to agricultural use of DDT. All well and good but if DDT has hardly been used for IRS, which since the late 1990s has been the case, and is preventing very few malaria infections, what good has it done to preserve DDT lethality? It might well be an important factor in the future but hasn't been a significant life saving factor as yet.
Lambert writes: "As already noted, DDT was not banned. The main causes of the resurgence of malaria was the evolution of resistance to DDT and anti-malaria drugs." Lambert's link is to an earlier post on DDT use in Sri Lanka. He makes the case for agricultural use of DDT causing a resurgence of malaria in Sri Lanka. Even if he is correct it is not appropriate to generalize, based solely on the Sr Lankan experience, that malaria has made a comeback due to agricultural use of DDT.
Finally, in response to this from Posner:
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001) bans DDT but with an exception for its use against malaria, and the puzzle is why the exception is so rarely invoked, South Africa being a notable exception. An even greater puzzle is why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is the world's largest foundation and has made the eradication of malaria a priority, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars searching for a vaccine against malaria but nothing (as far as I know) to encourage indoor spraying with DDT.Lambert writes:
Here's the solution to the puzzle: Gates is a smart guy and has studied the problem more carefully than Posner. They had a massive program that tried to eradicate malaria with DDT spraying in the 60s and it failed. DDT is a useful tool against malaria and it is being used for that, but it won't eradicate malaria. Gates is right to fund research into a vaccine and the development of new drugs and insecticides. (We desperately need new drugs and insecticides because the parasites and mosquitoes keep evolving resistance to the ones we have.)Lambert's being especially dishonest here; he knows Posner isn't talking about using DDT to eradicate malaria carrying mosquitoes: Posner's wants to know why more effort isn't being put into the use of DDT to eradicate malaria as a health problem.
Really, it's pathetic that an academic writes the deliberately dishonest nonsense Lambert cranks out.
Note: Lambert finds my little critiques irksome so he bounces my links to his old blog, thus many of the links above aren't going to work. I suggest you open his Becker and Posner post in a new window and use that to access his older links.
This post is for Ken Miles, who says I'm a "dishonest" writer of "garbage".
posted by J F Beck at 10:53 AM
10 Comments:
"Lambert writes: "As already noted, DDT was not banned. The main causes of the resurgence of malaria was the evolution of resistance to DDT and anti-malaria drugs." Lambert's link is to an earlier post on DDT use in Sri Lanka. He makes the case for agricultural use of DDT causing a resurgence of malaria in Sri Lanka. Even if he is correct it is not appropriate to generalize, based solely on the Sr Lankan experience, that DDT has made a comeback due to agricultural use of DDT."
I'd also note that the late 1900s in say S. Africa are such a different situation from the 1960s in Sri Lanka where the DDt quantities used would have been massively greater .
Unfortunately Mr Lambert's almost impervious to considering alternatives to his interpretation, and your persistance is necessary.
Currently at Deltoid they are interpreting the WHO reversal of policy as petty office politics.
Late 1990s that is!
"Lambert could have linked to outside sources but is inclined to self-reference -- not only is it self-promotional, it also makes it more difficult to detect his deceptions."
Funnily enough, this is the strategy Noam Chompsky uses. But as with Lambert, if you dig deep enough, you can discover that he is lying.
Lambert writes: "And far from rejecting the use of DDT in that period, the WHO endorsed it."
Then you write: "Anyone who takes the time to follow the link to his earlier post, and the futher links from there, will find nothing from WHO endorsing DDT use. The link to a Roll Back Malaria statement on the use of bed-nets and indoor residual spraying doesn't even mention DDT. The closest thing he offers to a WHO DDT endorsement is an Allen Schapira quote: "WHO has never given up in its efforts to ensure access to DDT where it is needed." Oddly, no examples of ensured access to DDT are provided."
Perhaps then you missed the published journal article, Should DDT continue to be recommended for malaria vector control?” by C. F. Curtis published in Medical and Vetinary Entomology (1994) 8, 107–112, which Lambert cites here:
http://timlambert.org/2005/10/curtis/
In that article the authors refer to a WHO report at this point: "W.H.O. (1984) recommended DDT as the insecticide of choice for such vectors."
If we had the time we could probably access this report by using the paper's bibliography.
Lambert appears to have committed a sin of citing his own work, a sin which you yourself commit as a comment on Lambert's blog (hypocrit). However, his work isn't peer reviewed, but he certainly has cited well researched peer reviewed material as the basis for the claim that the WHO endorsed the use of DDT. If the claim is correct then, why are you trying to muddy the waters and attack Lambert on this point?
Isn't your final point, concerning Posner's comments, nonsense? You don't equate eradication of malaria as a health problem with eradication of the malaria causing parasite carried in mosquitoes? Especially as Posner is talking about killing just the mosquitoes whereas the Gates Foundation focuses on finding a vaccine to fight the actual parasite. Seems like Posner is talking about eradication. DDT is a tool, not the be-all and end-all in the fight against malaria. Given the resistance of malaria carrying mosquitoes to DDT it will be impossible to use DDT as a method to eradicate the health problem, the parasite and all the mosquitoes.
I can see why Lambert finds you irksome, your criticisms are baseless and easily refutable, and it seems you've used some fairly cheap and dishonest tricks here.
The link in Lambert's Becker and Posner post claiming WHO endorsement of DDT leads here and finally to Lambert's Curtis post. Lambert frequently uses such multiple layers of self-referencing to, as you say, "muddy the water". Regardless, the Curtis post says, "W.H.O. (1984) recommended DDT as the insecticide of choice for such vectors." Curtis stating in 1994 that WHO recommended DDT as the insecticide of choice in 1984 is not an endorsement of DDT use in the context of a response to Becker's post. Becker was very specific in his post, referring to the period post 1998. On this basis you could perhaps accuse me of not elaborating sufficiently but, as I made no effert to mislead, you are incorrect in accusing me of dishonesty. Further, in the second of Lambert's links (above), he specifically says (in referring to the Curtis post) that DDT was the WHO's insecticide of choice in 1994 but the Curtis post says 1984. Is this a Lambert lie or a typo. I'm guessing the former.
My comments at Lambert's site contained links to three of my posts pointing out that he continually misleads. He usually blocks my comments so I didn't expect the comment to be posted in any event. (I seriously doubt he would have posted three huge comments but I'll try it next time around.)
My comment on Posner's position is my take on it as a layman. When I was a child polio was a huge problem and much feared. By the time I was in high school polio had been effectively eradicated. In any event, as the CDC notes, "Elimination of malaria in an area does not require the elimination of all Anophelesmosquitoes capable of transmitting the disease."
Have you maybe got anything to say about the other obvious Lambert deceptions I point out in this and other posts?
The curtis article was written in 1994, this is around the time that the WHO changed its policy on DDT spraying. The Curtis article was used in the informed debate that lead to that policy change. DDT was downgraded from the premier choice in the fight against malaria, this is not a ban.
The citation of the 1984 WHO report within Curtis 1994 is further proof that the WHO did endorse the use of DDT widespread spraying before this policy change.
Despite this apparent policy change, though, the WHO is still reccomending the use of DDT in the form of indoor residual spraying (IRS). I got this informatin by following more of Lambert's links. I followed the "WHO has always supported its use" link in the Becker and Posner post, and I arrived at a series of Lambert's articles all containing lots of information from differing sources connected to WHO all of which left me the impression that the WHO does not have a curret ban in place on DDT nb. this *is* the period Becker refers to. Of most interest was the link that lead me to the WHO's own website on Malaria control, I did a search on DDT and found an interesting PDF which explicitly endorsed the use of DDT in the IRS format. Check out this link and look at the third hit. The WHO seems to be endorsing DDT use in the period which Becker is talking about ie. 1998 - 2010.
In summary, the information I've used here was obtained simply by following Lambert's link ("WHO has always supported its use"). Again they are his posts, but I found enough information there which was from an external source for me to be convinced of the link's validity.
I apologise for accusing you of dishonesty, perhaps you've made a genuine mistake. I do feel you've been very quick to dismiss Lambert's link as rubbish. I'll admit the information wasn't presented in a user friendly fashion, but it was there...eventually. Take the time to review what's in that link and the other information I've provided, it ought to show that Becker is being misleading.
I'm looking at the other posts now, so look out for some responses there.
If you can get comments to work -- I've been trying for the last 20 minutes -- please copy and paste the supposed endorsement and a link to it. That will save me having to hunt up the stuff you've already found. Thanks.
There's the link to all the compiled information about WHO and DDT:
http://timlambert.org/2005/02/ddt2/
Here's the WHO's own website on this (found under the FAQ on DDT link):
http://malaria.who.int/
This is now my own research. Do a search on the WHO website for DDT, that should take you to:
http://search.who.int/search?ie=utf8&client
=malaria&proxystylesheet=malaria&output=xml
_no_dtd&oe=utf8&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww
.who.int%2Fmalaria&q=DDT&x=0&y=0
Click on the third link there and you'll download a pdf from 2004 explaining how to use DDT IRS whilst adhering to the Stockholm Convention. Hopefully that's proof that the WHO is happy for people to use DDT in the IRS form.
That search unvovers other evidence too:
http://www.who.int/malaria/docs/ecr20_annex1.htm
As well, that first link takes you to an informative pdf on this subject. It seems to confirm that the chief opponents to DDT use in the IRS format are people concerned about the health impact, not the environmentalists - which was Lambert's chief criticism of Becker's comments here:
"The reason for the failure of this malaria war is mainly that in the name of environmentalism"
Environmeantalists were unhappy about the widespread use of DDT as a general pesticide for crops as it was this widespread use which lead to such high levels of DDT persisting in the environment. Something else entirely from the DDT/malaria debate.
Anonymous,
If you take a look through my Lambert-DDT posts -- http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=lambert+ddt+site%3Arwdb.blogspot.com&btnG=Google+Search&meta= -- you'll find that I've thoroughly debunked much of what he has posted on DDT. Nothing in your comment is new to me. Lambert's DDT2 post does not offer a WHO endorsement of DDT. The WHO link you provide (PDF, third item) is nowhere near an endorsement of DDT.
Point one from the linked 2004 WHO document: "DDT may be produced and used only for disease vector control and according to the recommendations and guidelines of the World Health Organization. DDT will be used when safe, effective and affordable alternatives are not locally available in a country."
Point six: "Countries using DDT will be supported and encouraged to strengthen their vector control programmes. The intention is to reduce and ultimately eliminate the use of DDT over time, by making such use unnecessary."
The final link you provide is to a 1995 WHO document that allows DDT use provided certain conditions are met.
The WHO "allowed" DDT use pre-Kochi but did not endorse its use. You can look all you want but you're not going to find the endorsement you seek. Neither you nor Lambert will find something that doesn't exist.
Last time I checked the definition of endorsement, it meant to approve or sanction.
Why would the WHO produce guidelines for DDT use if it wasn't happy with it's use, if it didn't sanction its use and if it didn't approve of its use in the fight against malaria?
That seems a bit convoluted to me.
Paul
Post a Comment
<< Home