About Africa...

[lynx]

The immune system is also affected by prolonged exposure to DDT. Aids is now endemic in exactly the same places where widespread use of DDT has continued, and more or less over the same timescale. I wonder what the chances are that there is a link.

This is precisely the type of statement that a paranoid would go out and commission an investigation to prove "true".

It is commonly called a "conspiracy spore"; it has the nature of a virus, and propagation of such is responsible for entire generations of defective thought processes.

No, it is called correlation. Things rarely happen on their own, there is often some other factor which gets overlooked. It is common practise that when you can't find the cause for something that you look for something else which is happening at the same time, and check to see if the cause is the same.

Your alternative seems to be "stick your head in the sand, don't look, what you might find will only scare you".

Unfortunately, not looking properly has had some devastating consequences in the past, eg Thalidomide. The "excuse" there was that they didn't know about stereo chemistry. Who is to say that there isn't something else we don't know about. "Not looking" won't find it.

[manker]

The whole weight of her arguement for DTT is that it's NOT harmful

Originally Posted by the article
Nevertheless, contrary to expert testimony that DDT was not harmful to humans, animals or the environment

it may well be that she feels the benefits do outweigh the risks, but the point of my post is that she is willing to decide for others but is against others deciding for her when it comes to personal risk assessment.

she actively opposes any maditory medications for herself and other Americans, yet is fine with spraying this stuff on Africans

Vid, you're still missing my point. I think you're doing it on purpose, which is a little disappointing.

She says DDT should be used in Africa because she presumably thinks the benefits will outweigh the costs. This doesn't mean she has to qualify the statement by spraying her house with it when she has no need to.

I expect she also thinks that cancer patients should be treated with gamma radiation because the benefits outweigh the risks. Should she book herself in for a 2 month course of chemotherapy now, or do you think that would be a bit silly, like.

[bigboab]

Trying to get rid of mosquitos in Africa would be like painting the Forth Bridge. Only you would be required to complete the task quicker and more often. In other words virtually impossible.

The answer IMO is to treat the patient and find a better means of immunity.

[vidcc]

Vid, you're still missing my point. I think you're doing it on purpose, which is a little disappointing.

She says DDT should be used in Africa because she presumably thinks the benefits will outweigh the costs. This doesn't mean she has to qualify the statement by spraying her house with it when she has no need to.

I expect she also thinks that cancer patients should be treated with gamma radiation because the benefits outweigh the risks. Should she book herself in for a 2 month course of chemotherapy now, or do you think that would be a bit silly, like.

I am not missing your point at all. I posted again because you said she isn't saying DDT has no adverse effects.

I am also sticking with the "she should take the risk herself" stance because, and I repeat, she actively campaigns against ANY MANDATORY MEDICATION. She is against vaccination programmes for the USA. She feels this is government oppression and states that government should not be making choices for what "she or hers put into their bodies" because it is up to the individual to decide on the risk.
She is not in a malaria risk area but it is possible that she may be in a west nile risk area.

She is making a case that DDT is not harmful to humans...it has no side effects...there is no risk.

so I am not missing your point at all...I am disagreeing with it.

[manker]

Vid, you're still missing my point. I think you're doing it on purpose, which is a little disappointing.

She says DDT should be used in Africa because she presumably thinks the benefits will outweigh the costs. This doesn't mean she has to qualify the statement by spraying her house with it when she has no need to.

I expect she also thinks that cancer patients should be treated with gamma radiation because the benefits outweigh the risks. Should she book herself in for a 2 month course of chemotherapy now, or do you think that would be a bit silly, like.

I am not missing your point at all. I posted again because you said she isn't saying DDT has no adverse effects.

I am also sticking with the "she should take the risk herself" stance because, and I repeat, she actively campaigns against ANY MANDATORY MEDICATION. She is against vaccination programmes for the USA. She feels this is government oppression and states that government should not be making choices for what "she or hers put into their bodies" because it is up to the individual to decide on the risk.
She is not in a malaria risk area but it is possible that she may be in a west nile risk area.

She is making a case that DDT is not harmful to humans...it has no side effects...there is no risk.

so I am not missing your point at all...I am disagreeing with it.

You can repeat the stuff that doesn't detract what I'm saying all you like, but it's not a very effective debating technique.

She doesn't say that it doesn't have side effects. She said that no study has been able to prove that it does have side effects.

The two are entirely different.

I guess you think commentators should qualify their statements in the manner of John Gummer, else they're not valid.

That is patently ridiculous.

[vidcc]

Then you are missing what I am saying

[manker]

nvm

[manker]

Then you are missing what I am saying

I commented on your assertion that Ms. Schlafly should cover her family in DDT.

Which remains ridiculous.

[vidcc]

Then you are missing what I am saying

I commented on your assertion that Ms. Schlafly should cover her family in DDT.

Which remains ridiculous.

Where did I say she should cover her family with DTT?

If she believes it is a safe product ( and that is exactly what she is saying ) would she be prepared to use it as an insecticide in her own vegetable garden or home? is she prepared to campaign for it's use in the US market? Is she prepared to expose her family to the "non-risk", after all there is according to her "no evidence to prove it is unsafe"

[erictc]

Did DDT really wipe out Malaria in N. American and Europe?

...Brother Rat sees a profit motive behind the prospect of DDT use...

Isn't there always a profit motive behind everything that we
greedy humans do?