malaria in Africa

[Dan M]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: brin-l-bounces at mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-bounces at mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of Martin Lewis
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:48 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: malaria in Africa
> 
> On 2/18/08, Dan M <dsummersminet at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > > > So, let me give you a very concise argument:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia)
> that
> > > the
> > > > EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop
> the
> > > > spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria.
> > >
> > >  Do you have a source?
> >
> > Yes, I gave it.
> 
>  Surely you can see why that is a very poor source.
> 
> > If you want more research, I can do it within the next week.  But after
> > being chastised by Charlie  for going on and on and on....I did an
> > experiment....I quoted a source I have known to be a good one and
> posted.
> 
>  You really thought that posting hearsay from your daughter was a good
> way of validating an argument that you have made misleading comments
> about many times in the past?

Which misleading comments were those?  IIRC, I was told by Charlie that DDT
was stopped because it lost its effectiveness.  The data from South Africa
clearly showed that isn't true....I know data patterns....and the pattern
for that is an initial drop in the disease followed by a rise as DDT
resistant mosquitoes become a larger part of the population.  The data
screams that DDT works....but I am tearing my hair out trying to explain
data patterns.

Your are right, this evidence is not admissible in a court of law.  And, I'm
sure similar data on Uganda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100901
255.html

is meaningless to you, well because they didn't actually say the folks of
Uganda couldn't use DDT....its just a coincidence that they couldn't sell to
Europe if they could because of a non-existent health risk.

I'm guessing that, no matter what data I provide, how long I work at
providing it, there is no possible way you will not regard my arguments on
DDT as bogus. Facts exist though,

1) Hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, die each year from
Malaria

2)  House spraying with DDT has a recent, multi-year record of reducing
these deaths _significantly_ in South Africa

3) It is so much cheaper than other techniques.

4) There are multiple websites that attest to the EU's veiled threats
against the use of DDT in Africa

http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=92
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19127

http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1180.html

"While the EU fully acknowledges the urgent need to control malaria in
Uganda, we are concerned about the impact the use of DDT might have on the
country's exports of food products to the EU," the European Commission's
Uganda delegation said last year.

I presume you argue that this is not a threat at all, because it is not
explicitly stated as a threat.  I a court of law, I bet you'd win.  But, I
do not think courts of law are really a good measure of facts or truth.  

Do you argue that diplomats do not couch threats in terms like these?

I guess what bothers me is the overwhelming burden of proof I see when I
argue against what is PC and the virtual lack of proof needed for arguing
what is PC.  If I try to provide the proof, I'm verbose and engaged in bad
faith discussing.  If not, I'm just reporting hear-say.

Let me ask a question I'm guessing you and Charlie find meaningless.  If
millions are dying from malaria, and there is a cheap treatment that has
been proven, in the last few years, as well as in the past to cut that death
rate enormously....as the international funding to prevent that disease
doesn't pour most of the money into the most effective technique, doesn't
that indicate that there is something that is considered more important than
saving those people's lives? 

My guess is that you will require the type of evidence that would convict
someone beyond a reasonable doubt.  


Dan M.