Sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up. I think my confusion comes from the fact that I was not responding to “DDT Fan” but, rather, to Sane Person 2. That said, I re-read your post and it is clear that you are not talking about me.

No I didn’t, paul. I thought it was clear that you were playing the role of “sane person 1”—your problem is just that you think the normal rules of civil discourse still apply in an environment where dishonest hackery is widespread.

The “sort of a jerk” jibe is very disappointing; really, I’m more of an asshole. Be that as it may, I have not supported you here because you seem to be doing just fine coming to grips with a very complicated subject—good on you for not allowing yourself to be seduced by the misleading rubbish cranked out by Lambert.

JQ,

Here’s an overview of my publicly stated position:

“In the ‘50s a massive anti-malaria program was undertaken. Scientists attached to the program realized from the start that DDT, the main weapon for attacking malaria-carrying mosquitoes, would quickly (less than a decade) become ineffective owing to targeted mosquitoes developing DDT resistance. Such a massive program was hugely expensive, and difficult to manage and implement. The effectiveness of the program was undermined by corner-cutting and mismanagement (as in Sri Lanka) and ultimately by funds shortages.

“Silent Spring was released in 1962. The book induced near anti-DDT hysteria and contributed to the formation of the organized environmental movement. It heavily influenced U.S. EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus’s unilateral decision to ban the non-public health use of DDT.

“The U.S. banning of DDT (it is banned for agricultural use and has not been used for public health measures) saw DDT fall out of favour—it is unreasonable to expect developing countries to use a chemical banned in the U.S. and unethical for organization such as the WHO and USAID to promote its use. DDT continued to be produced and used but the two biggest players in the anti-malaria effort made a determined effort to move to other insecticides and gradually shifted to non-spray strategies (bed nets, for example). Thus the de facto DDT ban was born.

“DDT is not a magic anti-malaria bullet. It is but one of the weapons in the fight against malaria. Did the de facto DDT ban cause millions of deaths? Possibly. Is Rachel Carson to blame for these deaths? No, the environmental movement, inspired by Silent Spring, is to blame. That said, the anti-malaria efforts mounted by the WHO and USAID are not the best managed public health programs. But here again, some of this apparent managerial confusion might result from perceived pressure to employ environmentally friendly anti-malaria measures.”

Where exactly—either above or in my numerous DDT posts—do I get it wrong?

“One of the stranger efforts of the political right over the last decade has been the effort to paint Rachel Carson as a mass murderer, on the basis of bogus claims conflating the US ban on non-public health uses of DDT with a non-existent ban on the use of DDT for indoor spraying against malarial mosquitoes. Starting from the lunatic fringe of the LaRouche movement and promoted primarily by current and retired hacks for the tobacco industry, this claim has become received wisdom throughout the US Republican party and its offshoots, and has deceived quite a few people, including writers for the NY Times.”

It sounds from where I am sitting like you are conflating some extreme and false statements made by propagandists (“Carsons book led to world-wide ban on all use of DDT, killing millions”) with any attempt to argue that environmental concerns limited, perhaps regrettably, the use of DDT in public health campaigns. That’s a classic straw man argument and, if you didn’t intend it, you can see it plainly all over this thread. It may be that many people mistakenly believe that there was a world-wide ban, misunderstand the significant role that emerging resistance played in all this, etc. Those are errors worth correcting. But to approach this discussion as if you had somehow “debunked” any attempt to talk about the role that environmental concerns played in health policy as “junk science” (Lambert’s words, admittedly) seems, frankly, disingenuous or, at the very least, misguided.

That sure sounds nice, but Lemuel actually called me a dishonest hack (see # 66). Now, you are suggesting that I somehow needed to earn the assumption of good faith from him by making some kind of loyalty oath at the outset of the discussion to the common goal of opposing bad people. I sort of think I did, but I also think that it is wrong to demand that of me as a condition of my being treated with basic respect.

And people weren’t just rude – I got plenty rude myself, when it came to it. My point is that they’re arguments were maddeningly devoid of substance and directed at insulting me as opposed to addressing anything that I actually said. If you want to encourage that, fine. Don’t expect much else but that.

I looked at JF Beck’s site. He seems like sort of a jerk. The fact that he “supports” me is, however, irrelevant.

Paul

Paul, I’m sorry if people were rude, but Lemuel Pitkin has it about right.

And you don’t need to go past this thread for evidence. The support you’re getting from JF Beck (check his site) is evidence that the whole DDT ban myth/Rachel Carson blood libel is a fraud, pushed by rightwingers who have managed to suck in some people of good will. Perhaps if you started by acknowledging that, it would be possible to have a sensible discussion of the best strategy to deal with malaria and what we can do to support it.

“But there is (or was) a widespread belief that a concerted eradication campaign (a al smallpox) would have been effective during the window period between DDT’s introduction and the development of immunity to the pesticide in the mosquito population, but that this was not attempted (at the same levels as the smallpox campaign) because of concerns about DDT’s impact on the environment.

Despite repeated requests you have not offered anything concrete in support of your claim. Your latest excuse is that it’s a secret and I’m not a fit person to share it with.

People have pointed to my posts on the topic because they find my arguments and evidence compelling. Rather than provide your own counter-arguments and evidence you just offer an ad hominem, dismissing it all as “blog posts written by non-experts with transparent ideological agendas”.

It’s possible that there is a mistake in my reasoning or that there is some evidence that I’ve missed. If so, I’d like to know about it. But I’m not going to be persuaded by evidence you keep secret from me and everyone else.

OK, sure.

“2. Unlike mosquito eradication, malaria eradication does not involve dumping tons of DDT in the environment, so environmental concerns were not an issue.”

This is a broad statement, and I’m not sure I agree. But OK.

“5. The ultimate reason for the end of the eradication efforts was that the program had been sold and funded as a short term thing.”

Even the sources that you quote do not fully support this, and it misses my point. As a purely logical matter, saying that something was not funded going forward or expanded while it was in progress just because it had only been funded initially in the short term is not a very compelling argument.

“6. Who? Names and cites, please.”

Tim, part of why I invited you to email me is that I envisioned having a more open discussion about my background. I’ve said a number of times that I do not want to make public representations about the work of people that I studied under. To be honest, though, I no longer believe that I can trust you with personal information.

Also, I think this thing of demanding authorities is pretty much a game. My reading is, to me, supported by the material you quote in the website that you yourself linked to. If I am wrong, please explain.

“7. In 1962 the eradication program was in full swing. For example, in 1964 Sri Lanka declared victory over malaria and suspended DDT spraying.”

I really, seriously, honestly do not see how this refutes what I said in that paragraph. Again, please explain if you like.

“Finally, I would have more sympathy for your complaints about folks here being mean to you if you weren’t so fond of ad hominem arguments.”

I’m not complaining about folks being mean to me, I’m complaining about them calling me a stupid, corporate shill and acting as if this refutes anything that I’m saying.

I’m also questioning people who simply link to your site, as if that in and of itself proves anything. I absolutely am not questioning your right to make an argument, simply because you have a computer science degree. I don’t. My point was that I should hardly be expected to blindly accept your statements as authoritative regarding what is accepted opinion in the field of public health or public health history. However, if you found that offensive, I’m sorry. I honestly did not intend to cause offense or deny your right to make an argument.

While I’m at it, I’ll apologize to bug girl. I was making a point about arguments from authority, not questioning her knowledge of bugs.

Tim, I honestly don’t understand the point of the arguments that you just made. I’m not being socratic, but I also honestly do not think that I am stupid. It looks to me as if you are picking away around the fringes of the framing statement that I made without addressing the substance of it. I honestly have an open mind on this, and I honestly am not convinced.

If I assume that you are referring only malaria eradication in comment 58 then we have:

1. WHO’s global malaria eradication project started in 1955.

2. Unlike mosquito eradication, malaria eradication does not involve dumping tons of DDT in the environment, so environmental concerns were not an issue.

5. The ultimate reason for the end of the eradication efforts was that the program had been sold and funded as a short term thing.

6. Who? Names and cites, please.

7. In 1962 the eradication program was in full swing. For example, in 1964 Sri Lanka declared victory over malaria and suspended DDT spraying.

Finally, I would have more sympathy for your complaints about folks here being mean to you if you weren’t so fond of ad hominem arguments.

I do understand the point that you are making, and I sympathize with the frustration that comes from having to argue with people who are paid to make outrageous, truth-defying statements in an effort to distract people from the real issues. I am, after all, a lawyer.

That said, respectfully, I disagree with this as a justification for the things that have been said here.

While you may privately suspect others of acting in bad faith, the posture of assumption of good faith at the outset of a discussion is, I believe, crucial – assuming that your goal is to convince other people that you are right. If you accuse people of bad faith right away, then you end up alienating someone who might have agreed with you. Perhaps more importantly, you may end up alienating people who already agree with you.

Similarly, the fact that people of ill will exist in the world does not justify your taking hardened positions, in which every blog post “demolishes” or “debunks” something, and then refusing meaningfully to discuss the substance of that position for fear that acknowledging any nuance will be used against you. I understand that impulse – again, I’m a lawyer. But I think it’s profoundly counterproductive.

However, I suspect that we need to just agree to disagree on this. Your point of view on this is widely held all around the internet, and I didn’t come here to argue about it. It just saddens me, actually.

Look, the problem here is that there are actual shills making arguments that are superficially similar to yours. It’s not your fault that AEI has poisoned the well of discourse on this issue, but it’s also not Lambert et al.’s fault that they are more interested in combating really harmful misinformation than giving every blog commenter the benefit of the doubt.

Me: Not sure about your argument, seems flawed to me. Let’s discuss.

You: You are a stupid shill for corporate interests.

Me: No I’m not.

You: Yes you are. And a hack.

Me: Why do you say that?

You: [cut and paste 1000 word quote from a book without even telling me where it came from]

Me: Why don’t you actually talk to me?

You: Because you clearly are part of a vast, international conspiracy to sell pesticides.

Me: ???

DDT Fan: Rachel Carson and environmentalists like her are directly responsible for tens of millions of deaths. if it weren’t for the ban on DDT they pushed through, malaria could have been eradicated.

Sane Person 1: “Tens of millions” sounds high to me, and I wouldn’t blame Carson personally. But DDT probably could have been used more effectively, and maybe environmental concerns were one reason it wasn’t. Let’s work together and see if we can answer these questions.

Sane Person 2: The whole thing is bullshit. The “Carson DDT ban” was invented out of whole cloth by paid propagandists at places like AEI and is spread by dishonest hacks like you.

The first response is more pleasant and courteous. The second, however, is correct.