I emailed Jim Humble asking if I could donate thru the GLN link (he said, yes), and I also asked why not work for the use of DDT in his fight against malaria since it was the factor of success before. His reply:
Quote:
Dear Gerry, that seems to be the general opinion, but it is a long way from the truth. Malaria now kills more people than ever before, and malaria has always killed more people than anything else. Nothing, including AIDS approaches the kill power of malaria. DDT helped, but it didn’t do the job, nor would it do the job now. However, there are a lot of political problems with DDT now days. At this time, MMS is the only thing that has a chance of doing the job.
Well, I was quite disappointed. I don't see why he would have the conclusion that DDT's success is a long way from the truth, and that it didn't do the job.
From The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science by Tom Bethell:
Quote:
pages 73-74:
After 1945, the US Public Health Service assumed responsibility for administering malaria eradication programs in eighteen countries, with the support of the State Department. When a program was introduced in Greece, for example, the annual number of malaria cases dropped from two million to 50,000 within three years.
By 1955, however, 10 percent of the world's population was still suffering malarial attacks, and it was estimated that every ten seconds someone died of the disease. malaria was contracted by 300 to 400 million persons every year, killing three to four million of them. India alone was losing 800,000 people a year. The World Health Organization (WHO) then announced a world-wide war on malaria in 1955, and the US Congress adopted the same policy in 1957.
As a result of the campaign, malaria was eradicated from all developed countries by 1967. Large areas of tropical Asia and Latin America were also freed from the scourge. In Ceylon, later called Sri Lanka, 2.8 million cases of malaria a year fell to seventeen. In India, the number of deaths became inconspicuous. But the eradication campaign was launched in only three countries of tropical Africa, since it was not considered feasible in poorer areas of the world.
....
page 80:
What seems so unfair -- perhaps the Congressional Black Caucus should take an interest -- is that DDT was used to eradicate malaria in developed countries and then banned before it could do the same thing in undeveloped countries. Africans became the victims; of lesser disasters are conspiracy theories born. In Novermber 2004, Roy Innis, the national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, sent a letter to President Bush. In included the following summary of the facts:
"The United States and Europe eradicated malaria after World
War II, using pesticides and other measures. But today, this
vicious killer still infects 300,000,000 people every year in
developing countries -- more than live in the entire United
States. It kills as many as 2,000,000 every year -- the popula-
tion of Houston, Texas: another father, mother, or child every
15 seconds. Nearly 90 percent of these victims are in sub-
Saharan Africa, and the vast majority are children and preg-
nant women. Since 1972, at least 50 million people have died
from malaria. Heaven alone knows how many might have
lived, if their countries had been able to control this mosquito-
borne disease."
....
Inset box, page 75:
Before It Was Politically Incorrect, They Said:
A Committee of the National Academy of Sciences said in 1970: "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable."
"The Life Sciences," National Academy of Sciences, NAS Press, Washington, DC, 1970
Seems like we're back to square one -- or never left it -- in places like Africa? And the only difference was DDT.
Well, Jim Humble was right about the politics, but he is not afraid to face the politics for MMS.
And I really cannot see the rationale of treating every malaria patient with MMS (or any other possible effective medicine) when as soon as they're bitten by a carrier mosquito (which could be within the next day in the tropics) they get it all over again.
In canine medicine, we have a similar problem, tick-borne blood parasites (Ehrlichia, Babesia and Hepatozoon). Ticks are quite common in the Philippines, but I don't think a veterinarian anywhere in the world will be treating these diseases without even attempting to control tick infestation.
Well, Gerry, perhaps when you see a child dying in front of your face and you know that the powers that be will not permit DDT then you are inclined to reach for the medicine that does work. MMS gives the people a way to survive regardless of the political oppression. Although it does not address the larger issue with malaria it does give people a chance. If every single life is worth living, is important, then Jim must proceed. He feels compelled to proceed. Instead of washing his hands of it and saying its hopeless, he proceeds. Instead of walking away and leaving thousands to die, he proceeds with what he can do.
Could this not force the DDT issue more into the mainlight also as time goes by? Powers that be will try to stop MMS, just as they have stopped DDT to these malaria ravaged nations. It could force everything to a head. This could get the whole world watching in a new way. Most people I know are totally unaware of the malaria issue and about all the people who die from it each year. They are surprised when I tell them.
Here in the US we have a plague of MRSA. The powers that be will only allow medicines that cause MRSA or other similar devastating disease. What is one to do? No one listens, no one seems to care. There are many things to be done to prevent and cure MRSA but no one seems interested in the political or medical arena, except freaks like me and a few others who have refused to die.
The powers that be are ruthless. I think that Jim understands this well. He knows MMS can work. It is what he can do. He cannot purchase, ship or supply DDT in any way shape or form so he does what he can do.
Jim's special focus is Malaria but he also wants MMS for the whole world to treat a wide variety of disease. He has literally put his life on the line to do so. It could be any day that a pharmaceutical company sends out a hit man to silence him as such powers have done in the past to great inventors and healers.
__________________
“God is the basis of life, life is the basis of energy, energy is the basis of matter.”... Carey Reams
Visit: www.HealthSalon.org
Jim's special focus is Malaria but he also wants MMS for the whole world to treat a wide variety of disease. He has literally put his life on the line to do so. It could be any day that a pharmaceutical company sends out a hit man to silence him as such powers have done in the past to great inventors and healers.
I appreciate what Jim is doing, and I realize he could be putting his life on the line. His copyright on his books even stipulate that if he disappears for six months or dies, then his books become public domain. Quite significant, I would say. I have even decided to regularly send my tithe to his work.
It's just that I can't help but see that his efforts will just all go to waste unless we incorporate effective mosquito control technics as well. The image that keeps coming to mind is that of putting water in a glass which has a hole big enough to allow water to leave as fast as it is poured in. We just have to plug that hole.
I've seen some programs (even promoted by Oprah?) that include donations of "medicated" (with what? I don't know) mosquito nets. But even such are a trickle, considering the mosquito populations in the tropics.
If we want to rid Africa and the world of malaria, then we should apply the exact same technics the got rid of malaria in the developed countries and other areas where malaria was successfully eliminated or put under control. And DDT was a big factor, if not THE factor.
Another quote from the book I mentioned:
Quote:
from inset box in page 79:
What Do Africa, Shakespeare, and Oliver Cromwell Have in Common?
Many people think of malaria as a "tropical disease," but that is a testament to its successful eradication in the developed world -- and to the efficacy of DDT. In the United States, there had been six or seven million cases of malaria every year in the 1930s. The disease was found as far north as Montreal. In England, Oliver Cromwell died of malaria, and Shakespeare referred to it (as "the ague") in several plays.
....
page 84-85, on "How to rescind the ban"
*But former surgeon general Harold Koenig pointed to the one development that surely will do the trick. "It is only a matter of time, a short time, before we see these [mosquito borne] diseases again in the regions between the tropics and the poles," he said.
If malaria returns to the United States, you can bet that DDT will return, too -- and quickly.
Will we wait for the latter to happen?
This brings to mind another canine condition, heartworms. As a student and a new graduate in the '70s, we were quite familiar with the condition. But at that time, the US hardly had any heartworm cases, except in certain regions near the southern coasts. Now, heartworm is widespread and possible throughout the US. Guess what? Heartworms are transmitted by mosquitoes.
Well, definitely Jim Humble has his own reasons. But for someone who recognized the effectivity of DMSO for strokes, the role of Coxsakie virus in circulatory problems, the validity of Dr. Rath's approach, and many more, I find it strange that he finds that DDT did not do the job.
Anyway... as I mentioned, I was just venting, and in the process, sharing what I've learned about these. Someone else may have to take up the cudgels for DDT (and there are such groups already), and Jim Humble may already have a lot in his hands.
All Things Considered, September 15, 2006 · The World Health Organization today announced a major policy change. It's actively backing the controversial pesticide DDT as a way to control malaria.
This is a chemical that has been studied and evaluated," Feldman says, "and over the years has been found to cause cancer, endocrine disruption, adversely affect the immune system and is very problematic from the standpoint that it is persistent." DDT collects "in fatty tissue and in the environment," he adds, and can also be passed on in breast milk.
__________________
Let Food Be Your Medicine And Medicine Be Your Food.(Hippocrates)
In 1971, the EPA carried out months of hearings to determine the risks and benefits of DDT. Nothing caused more concern than the rumor that it might cause cancer. DDT had been freely sprayed from the air, drifting in the wind while children played. The hearing examiner finally concluded that DDT was not a carcinogenic hazard to man. But in 1972, the EPA administrateor, William Ruckelshaus, banned the substance anyway on the grounds that DDT "posed a carcinogenic risk." (4)
Ruckelshaus cited experiments showing that DDT caused cancer in mice. But the evidence was murky, with dosages up to a thousand times higher than anything found in the human diet. In effect, researchers upped the dosages on the mice until they got the results they wanted. Some experiments had found no additional tumors in the animals. At least one experiment, with rats, showed DDT to be an anti-carcinogen. "Pretreatment of female Sprague-Dawley rats" with DDT "significantly reduces their subsequent liability to mammary tumor induction," it was reported. (Maybe one day the pharmaceutical companies will look into DDT's potential as an anti-cancer drug.)
As to cancer risk, the extrapolation from the effects of high doses in mice to low doses in humans was not warranted. Many experimetnal substances, administered in high doses in animals, have been shown to cause cancer -- salt, for example, and vitamin A. UC-Berkeley biochemist Bruce Ames has pointed out that rodent carcinogens are present in almost all fruits and vegetables, including apples, bananas, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, mushrooms and oranges. That doesn't mean they should be banned.
It was also claimed that DDT concentrations were cumulative: the chemical builds up in the environment without degrading, persists for decades in the oceans, and so on. One scientist made this claim in an article published in Science in 1964, not long after Silent Spring was published: after forests were sprayed in a certain location, the concentration of DDT in the soil built up to higher levels each year. Then it was revealed that the sampling site was beside the local forest airstrip and was heavily dosed with DDT by aircraft during the testing and calibration of spray equipment.
Shortly before he testified at the EPA hearings, the same scientist back tracked. He and his co-authors reported in Science that less than one-thirtieth of one year's production of DDT could still be found later, in a much more widespread search. "Most of the DDT produced has either been degraded to innocuousness or sequestered in places where it is not freely available to the biota," they concluded.
According to tests conducted by Dr.Philip Butler, director of one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's research laboratories, "92 percent of DDT and its metabolites disappear" from the environment after thirty-eight days. This data was presented at the EPA hearings. Even earlier, the director of the WHO had said that no symptoms from DDT "have been observed among the 130,000 spraymen" or the millions of inhabitants of sprayed houses.
The WHO, therefore, had "no grounds to abandon this chemical which has saved millioins of lives, the discontinuation of which would result in thousands of human deaths and millions of illnesses. It has served at least two billion people in the world without costing a single human life by poisoning from DDT," the WHO director added. Its discontinuation "would be a disaster to world health." That was in 1969.
One of the best publicized and most harmful claims about DDT was that it caused the eggshells of birds to be too thin. Birds returning to their nests would crush their own eggs! One researcher, J. Bitman, had demonstrated the thinning by feeding test birds some DDT but had also reduced the calcium level in the birds' diet. This did produce thinner shells. Bitman then redid the experiment, retaining the DDT but restoring the missing calcium. This time, the eggshells were of normal thickness.
"Unfortunately," J. Gordon Edwards wrote in a review of the general malfeasance surrounding DDT, "the editor of Science refused to publish the results of that later research. Editor Philip Abelson had already told Dr. Tomas Jukes of the University of California in Berkeley that Science would never publish anything that was not antagonistic toward DDT. Btiman therefore had to publish the results of his legitimate feeding experiments in an obscure specialty journal, and many readers of Science continued to believe that DDT could cause birds to lay thin-shelled eggs." (5)
The second article, setting the record straight, was published in Poultry Science.
Edwards, a professor of entomology at San Jose State University, was for many years a leading critic of the DDT ban. He testified in favor of the pesticide at the EPA hearings, and demonstrated his conviction that DDT was harmless by consuming a spoonful of it in front of students at the beginning of the academic year. He remained in good health, climbed mountains, and died in 2004 at the age of eighty-five.
EPA ban
In his conclusion, EPA hearing examiner Edmund Sweeney wrote: "DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife... The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for essential uses of DDT."
The decision was overruled by EPA administrator Ruckelshaus, who was intent on banning DDT. As an assistant attorney general, he had stated in 1970 that "DDT has an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation." Later, however, in a 1971 address to the Audubon Society, he said: "As a member of the Society, myself, I was highly suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions... because the best scientific evidence available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we in the EPA have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now suspend registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any time during the period of review."
In view of what would happen later on the African continent and elsewhere, it is significant that Ruckelshaus did not file an environmental impact statement on the anticipated effects of his ban. Such was the hysteria about pesticides and the supposed decline of the robin in our "silent spring" that disease and death in the Third World was not on anyone's mind.
Citation numbered 5 in above quote:
J. Gordon Edwards, "DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud," Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, v. 9, no 3, fall 2004, 83-88.
With the history from Bethell's book, I wonder where Feldman based his statement?
Gerry
Last edited by bifrost99; 11-04-2007 at 02:28 AM.
Reason: to correct typo errors
I do agree with you the DDT is essentially safe. They have been using it for many years in Mexico as a primary pesticide and it only recently got banned there following the NAFTA agreements.
I have seen films from back in the late 50's or early 60's where school children were dosed with it. Seems they would have all gotten cancer it there was any merit to it. They claim it to be the main reason of erradication of begbugs in homes and hotels and created quite a curb on head lice, both of which are starting to plague us again. One of my favorite Docs has been squawking about the merits of DDT for a very long time, that being Dr. Douglas.
Perhaps as Morgellons disease continues to spread it may bring back DDT. They will be trying everything!
I just got to think of this: resistance develops to most insecticides, and that includes DDT. Yet, malaria was cleared in areas where DDT was used, in spite of resistance developing (I don't know to what extent resistance developed).
Could it be that the chlorine in DDT cleared off the malaria organisms in mosquitoes even if the DDT no longer killed the mosquitoes, just as the chlorine in MMS kills malaria in humans?
Malaria and DDT
Linear Mode
