Malaria vaccine
- Thread starter Phantasmal
- Start date
{Thirty years ago, on June 14, l972, the Environmental Protection Agency's first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, rebuffed the advice of his scientific advisors and announced a ban on virtually all domestic uses of the pesticide DDT. This was done despite the fact that DDT had earlier been hailed as a "miracle" chemical that repelled and killed mosquitoes that carry malaria, a disease that can be fatal to humans.
Ruckelshaus (who later worked with the Environmental Defense Fund, the very activist organization that had urged the ban)cited health concerns in defending his decision. He reported that DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichlorethane) killed many beneficial insects, birds, and aquatic animals — not just malarial mosquitoes — and that it "presents a carcinogenic risk" toh umans, based on laboratory studies showing increased cancer risk in mice fed extremely high doses.
The scientific community was outspoken in opposing such a ban, noting that there was no evidence that DDT posed a hazard to human health. Yet the ban still took effect.Now, thirty years later, it is vividly apparent that DDT was not hazardous to human health and that the banning of its domestic use led to its diminished production in the United States — and less availability of DDT for the developing world.The results were disastrous: at least 1-2 million people continue to die from malaria each year, 30-60 million or more lives needlessly lost since the ban took effect. This is especially tragic since there was hope of eradicating the disease altogether when DDT was first introduced and its potential was recognized.}
Let’s see it.
They are utterly useless. The COVID viruses are polymorphic by nature. Sequencing exact RNA match is futile - you would need a so-called "booster" about every 30 minutes to keep the signatures up to date.
mRNA sequencers are not vaccines and don't work like vaccines. The clot shot is a complete failure.
Utter bullshit. Nothing supports the claims that the sequencers do anything of the sort. And remember - far more people with the shot die of the Wuhan Designer Virus® than those who don't have the shot.
He's repeating myths spread by his party and big pharma - insofar as there is a distinction between the two.
Now that would be 53 years ago. So somehow, in the last 53 years we have kept malaria from killing Americans, without DDT. And for decades before DDT was used as a pesticide, we kept malaria from killing Americans.
There must be some technique that we use, that does not involve DDT, which is close to 100% successful against malaria. Given that at best DDT is 50% effective against malaria, we should continue using the 100% effective strategy, right?
There are indeed more eagles today than in 1972 when they banned DDT. Your issue may be that correlation does not equal causation, and at that time the link to DDT and the reproductive failure in birds was not proven, the ban was not solely for this purpose. The ban of DDT was largely because of the effect on human health as it would build up in the fatty tissues of animals that we ate, then build up in our fatty tissues. Later we learned that DDE (a byproduct of DDT) was causing decalcification in bird of prey populations, it caused the thinning of their egg shells and reproductive failure. (Somewhere around 1978 was when they figured that out).
Do you believe it’s coincidence that soon after the vaccines were released Covid spread and deaths dropped drastically?
It could be coincidence, but it’s not just eagle that have rebounded. Here in Florida we now have ibis and flamingos. 30 years ago, I had never seen either in the wild, now I see them in the wild on a daily basis.
I believe that the virus itself mutated into less virulent forms and that correlation did not prove causation. It may be that the vaccine caused the disease to be "less" in some folks, but others with the vaccine suffered still.
That the disease spread continued regardless of the vaccine was clear, and the messaging was often exaggerated in the nature of the protections you received from the vaccine and the dangers were dismissed out of hand. If it was as safe as they stated the companies making the vaccine would never have needed the protections from lawsuits they were given.
That is a reasonable. I did get Covid twice, once before the vaccine and once after. My experience, anecdotally was much less severe after the vaccine.
My Trump loving father-in-law died of Covid despite taking Ivermectin and another of the MAGA miracle cures.
I don't know if DDT was the cause of the flamingoes, etc. DDE, which was a byproduct of DDT (created as prey animals digested the flora, and stored in fatty tissues) caused decalcification in birds of prey. It's possible it did the same thing for flamingos, but it would have been more direct.
Eagles had problems reproducing because DDE, and the decalcification it caused, affected the shells of their eggs causing thinning of the shells and reproductive failure. With flamingos it would likely be more direct. DDT sprayed got into the food they ate, DDE built up in their fatty tissues and eggs were thin...
Makes sense, I really have enjoyed seeing flamingos in the wild over the last few years. Very often there are ibis in my front yard, looking for grubs or worms.
So for 53 years, DDT has been banned, and still no huge malaria outbreak. And for several decades before DDT was banned we had defeated malaria.
There is clearly no correlation between DDT and defeating malaria. Without correlation, there can be no causation.
Now if we decide to allow puddles of water to form in our cities, and thereby spread malaria laden mosquitoes... Then we might start to need DDT and a malaria vaccine to try to reduce the deaths from malaria. My question is why would we want to let this get to that point?
This would be incorrect, there is a much higher rate in places where the parasite lives as they do not spray with a insecticide as effective as DDT. There is direct correlation with the number of cases in areas where the disease is prevalent, after use of DDT ended. The pyrethroid insecticides they use in place of DDT are insecticides to which the mosquitoes that carry the parasite had built up a resistance.
While in the US the mosquito type that carries the malaria parasite are not largely found (recently there were some found in the US, but they haven't been here for a while), DDT use killed off that type of mosquito, thus eradicating the disease in the US in the 1940s and 50s. This type of mosquito was eradicated here before they banned DDT in 1972.
We have not used DDT around DC in 53 years, and yet no one is dying from malaria. Italy does not have a problem with malaria, even without DDT. Singapore, famous for its extreme malaria, has no malaria, and no DDT.
The fact remains, once you are spraying insecticide, you have already lost the battle. With an extremely good insecticide, like DDT, extremely well sprayed, you might be able to reduce the malaria deaths by 50%. If you keep the mosquitoes that spread malaria from even existing, you will reduce the deaths by 100%. DDT is failure.
Given the low levels of malaria resistance in modern western populations, if we move to depend on DDT, we can expect millions of deaths throughout the Southeast. DDT is failure.
I have been to the Southeast many times in the last 53 years. I have yet to see this explosion in malaria deaths you speak of. I have been to Italy, and malaria has not regained a foothold there after DDT. I know a lot of people who have been to Singapore...
The point is that DDT did not win the war against malaria, it is a failure.
It used to be. DDT did not magically make it go away. Keeping water from pooling at certain times of the year did.
It was mostly eradicated before the 1940's, and DDT.
And before the introduction of DDT.
This ignores that even further back than 53 years ago we used DDT to eradicate the mosquito that carries that parasite.
Yet, this ignores how effective it was. We haven't had a case until very recently. The mosquitoes have begun to spread into the US again, but for a bit over 50 years we had effectively eradicated the disease here by using the insecticide.
I am not saying we should use DDT. Only that its use eradicated the disease in the places where it was used from its inception.
I would not say it "won the war" against malaria, only that it was effective and eradicated the disease in the US for decades. Personally I prefer more interesting methods like introducing genetically altered mosquitoes into the species that cause them to create sterile offspring.
Emerging Mosquito Control Technologies | US EPA
Information on emerging technologies for managing control.
www.epa.gov
You mentioned the eradication of malaria in the Panama Canal area that happened in 1903... DDT was first used as an insecticide in 1939. We could add the elimination of malaria that happened around the turn of the century in the Southeast... Again, decades before DDT. Not to mention the extreme reduction the Roman's did by draining swamps... THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE DDT!!!
DDT is used to kill mature mosquitoes. It is somewhat effective, but not effective enough to eliminate anything.
50% is OK... But it would mean a sudden explosion of malaria in the Southeast, among people who have never been exposed to malaria. If we switch to DDT to try to reduce malaria, then we are looking at millions of deaths while we get more resistance to malaria.
If we could get the third world to drain puddles, it would do the same thing. East and Southeast Asia have done this very successfully. It really does not take that much technology.
I did not mention that.