"Malaria is equivalent to crashing seven Jumbo Jets filled with children every day!"

Million children per year. The deaths of children alone make this the most heinous act of technological genocide the world has ever known...”
Just how did the DDT hoax come about?
It all started with a tiny book called “Silent Spring”.
"Silent Spring", a book by Rachel Carson is the one that started it all. For all intents and purposes, the book demonized and even criminalized DDT in the worst terms possible. It painted Malaria's only answer as an emblem of horror and an environmental disaster.
It is Carson's work, which singly saw DDT being classified in the "Dirty Dozen" list. In this list are 12 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). These are chemicals considered as being harmful and are earmarked for worldwide ban. According to Carson DDT was a danger to the entire planet as it posed great threats to the environment. Birds, wildlife, and even humans were at risk as long as DDT was in use. Despite the fact that Carson was not a scientist, her work enjoyed "rave peer reviews" in all major media outlets. Incidentally, suppression is what greeted those who differed with her views.
Indeed behind Carson were powerful backers led by the World Wildlife Fund /World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), UNICEF, UNEP, WHO, World Bank and Greenpeace, not to mention the major drug conglomerates. But these did not deter alternative voices.
According to "Access to Energy" Carson's work is "a book filled with deliberate falsehoods and blatantly marketed unreasoning and unjustified fear." The newsletter further points out the glaring blunders contained in it:
“Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, the book that spearheaded the demonization of DDT, was dedicated to Albert Schweitzer, whom Carson quoted as saying 'Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.' This was falsely presented to Carson's readers as Albert Schweitzer's concern about DDT.
"The quotation in Silent Spring, however, was about Schweitzer's fear of nuclear weapons. Of Malaria Schweitzer actually said: 'How much labour and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us... but a ray of hope in the use of DDT, is now held out to us'." Other eminent authorities in the field share these remarks.
One of them stands out. Until his death a few years ago, Dr Edwards, Professor Emeritus at the San Jose State University had stuck out his neck for DDT. For the last three decades, Dr Edwards an entomologist had persistently denigrated Carson's work by subjecting all her claims on DDT to the scrutiny of science. "During the early 1960s, I worked for a month each summer studying high-altitude ecology in Grand Teton national Park, Wyoming. While I was there, the 'New Yorker' magazine carried a review of Rachel Carson's new book, Silent Spring. I read the review and thought it was great, because I was a dedicated ecologist and had little use for industry and construction projects. I bought a copy of the book and began reading it. I noticed that Miss Carson made a great many misleading statements, but I tried to overlook that because 'she was on our side'. Gradually, however, I realized that she was deliberately lying. I was really shocked! I began to understand why her original co-author, Edwin Diamond (Science Editor of Newsweek) had withdrawn from the relationship and criticized Silent Spring as 'an emotional, alarmist book seeking to cause Americans to mistakenly believe their world is being poisoned.'"
Reed Irvine writing the Weekly Column in the Accuracy In Media website also pours scorn on Carson's book:
"Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring did a great disservice by spreading the myth that DDT was killing off our songbirds. She was not a scientist. Her understanding of the facts was pathetically weak. DDT was not killing off the birds and banning it resulted in the deaths of millions of men women and children.
"Her book had such an emotional impact that William Ruckelshaus, the EPA administrator in the Nixon administration, completely disregarded the scientific evidence presented in a lengthy hearing and banned DDT for what he acknowledged were political reasons. Our own and many other governments have remained wedded to the myth that DDT is dangerous ever since."
On the eve of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 Dr Edwards and three other top medics namely Dr W. Hazeltine, a public health entomologist, Professor T.H. Jukes, a Biophysicist, University of California (Berkeley), and Dr E.G Remmers, addressed the Press in Washington's National Press Club, and made this statement:
"Twenty years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned the insecticide DDT, one of mankind's most life-saving discoveries. This decision brought to life the environmentalist movement, but was a death sentence for millions of people throughout the world: An estimated 100 million people die a year as the direct and indirect result of the banning of DDT and other pesticides. These are deaths from malaria, from other insect-home diseases, and from the results of reduced food crops.
"DDT was banned on the basis of disinformation, not evidence disinformation created by a handful of environmentalists who used the issue to build a multi-million-dollar environmentalist business.
"EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus admitted that the decision to ban DDT was made for political, not scientific reasons. In fact, after the EPA's seven-month hearing on DDT, the EPA hearing examiner ruled that DDT should not be banned, on the basis of the scientific evidence. In overruling this decision, Ruckelshaus began the pattern of environmental decisions made on the basis of "public perception," not scientific evidence.” They were commemorating the 20th anniversary of, the banning of DDT. Their pleas were censored.
After years of sidelining pro-DDT opinions, the New York Times came out of the closet late 2002 and published an editorial that called for the use of DDT in the fight against Malaria.
"The world is losing the war against malaria. Once considered near eradication, malaria today kills more than a million people a year in Africa alone. One reason is that wealthy nations have limited the use of one of the best weapons, a pesticide that once saved hundreds of millions of lives.
"DDT is one of the 12 persistent organic pollutants that an international treaty had scheduled for a global ban. But at the urging of medical specialists, the United Nations in 2000 rightly exempted DDT for use in malaria, saying that it should be banned only when a safe substitute is found."
Malaria ravaged, Taiwan, with over a million cases being reported. But when DDT was used the number of cases reported fell to 600! South Africa had the same scenario as Taiwan, until it banned DDT in 1996. The results; malaria cases shot up by 1000 per cent. They had no alternative but to revert back to DDT.
In the July 2000 issue of respected medical journal Lancet Dr. D. Roberts, S. Manguin and J. Mouchet in their paper "DDT House Spraying and Re-emerging Malaria" argue that DDT is still the best pesticide to kill the malaria bearing anopheles mosquito. In their argument they point out that malaria epidemic in such countries as Sri Lanka, Madagascar and Swaziland occur due to the ban on DDT. In buttressing their point, they examine the 1986-88 malaria epidemic in Madagascar, which claimed 100,000 lives. But after two cycles of DDT spraying the rate fell by 90 per cent. The trio concludes:
"DDT remains a remarkably effective tool that should still be used."
Okonski and Bate also join in supporting the usage of DDT.
"No study in the scientific literature has adequately shown any human health problem resulting from DDT. Therefore low-dose use of DDT indoors is unlikely to cause any significant harm to the environment or people.
In conclusion the Bate and Okonski flatly recommend;
"DDT use must be allowed to continue until it becomes redundant through technological advances. Developed nations (and their aid agencies and environmental groups) pressuring countries to abandon DDT for public health uses will kill thousands of people and cost millions of dollars. It's a mistake that does not need to be made."
                                                    END
EDITOR’S NOTE: “DDT is a highly emotive subject in East and Central Africa. The malaria fight is quite contentious. Big Pharma, political correctness and ‘junk science’ have all made their way into this debate. Why not you, the affected one. Have your say, by sending in your comments and views. ”