Drug-Resistant Malaria Could Spread Fast, Expert Warns

Once again, we can thank Rachel Carson...

Good observation and GA rockbit. The removal of DDT from the environment has likely killed more people than many wars. Yes the ban saved a lot of birds. It has been a couple of generations since DDT has been banned. I wonder if it could be reintroduced to malaria prone areas on a temporary basis. I don't think it should be overdone but DDT or some derivative could be a good interim solution to allow the drugs to get better or the bugs to lose its adaption to the drugs.

The ban didn't even save many birds. The original study was flawed, intentionally, to produce the desired results. Similar to global warming studies, the 'vaccine-causes-autism' study and many others sponsored by the Flat Earth Society...

DDT was, and is a relatively harmless substance to most everything except insects. When I was a kid, we regularly dusted with it in the barns and such. After the twitching went away, I had no ill effects...

Very true. get your hands on a copy of Frank Beebe's "The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine" and you will see that there is no scientific connection to DDT and thinning egg shells in Eagles, Falcons or Brown Pelicans.

On the contrary, get your hands on some peer reviewed literature, and you will see that egg shell thinning is a well established effect of DDT, in recent literature confirmed experimentally in quails, and in hens. In wild birds such as the Goshawk, the ban on DDT has restored eggshell thickness to normal values of the pre-DDT era. As for the brown pelican and the kestrel, effects on shell thickness are also confirmed in the peer reviewed publications.

Who is Frank Boobe, anyway.

You are mistaken in the belief that DDT has been completely banned, or that the ban of DDT is the cause of deaths from malaria. In fact, DDT has continued to be used in malaria-prone areas, and is used inside dwellings in those areas.

See for example this review of health effects on human populations which have continued to be exposed to DDT and its breakdown product DDE for reasons of malaria control.

B*& SH#& Read this http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/07/malaria/finkel-text

Curing the disease is one thing, stopping the vector is much easier. Kill the mosquitos. DDT does that very effectively, and would save a lot of money.

I contracted malaria in S.E. asia in the early '70's. I suffered recurring bouts for 15 years... It seems to be gone now. If I hadn't been bitten by a mosquito, it would be a moot point, but I guess sleeping in the open in the jungle was probably not a good idea...

Thanks artsmith. I was not aware of use in these areas. Its a hell of a choice for these people. Malaria or some extended exposure to cancer potential. Perhaps mosquito nets are a partial answer. I am not sure if pharmaceutical companies are motivated $$ enough to solve the problem. We just don't have the same exposure to malaria as some counties do; although, there is a history of malaria among first settlers.

I do believe there is enough information on the effect on birds. The rise of the cormorant population on Lake Ontario is more than a coincidence to the DDT ban in that area. I am for limited use of these products where human life is endangered. You provide good insight as I have witnessed in other threads.

I agree, it's a hell of a choice to make, for the people at risk. Mosquito nets are a good thing I have no doubt about it. But they only protect when you are sleeping.

It's very bad news that there is artemisin-resistant malaria so quickly. Parasites have a unique profile, they affect the immune system differently than other pathogens, and they need some kind of custom approach that so far is lacking....