At long last, we're seeing light at the end of the tunnel vision on malaria
that we've deplored in the past.
The United Nations and its World Health Organization (WHO) have endorsed a
new (for the UN) policy of spraying the inside walls of homes with DDT
(indoor residual spraying) to repel and kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes.
On September 15 this year, Dr. Arata Kochi, Director of the World Health
Organization's Malaria Department spoke at the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C. In a press statement issued by the WHO, he said, "One of
the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of
the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most
effective is DDT."
He implored us to "Help save African babies as you are helping to save the
environment."
Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and
Malaria said, "The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports
this reassessment. Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the
number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven
to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT
presents no health risk when used properly."
Admiral R. Timothy Ziemer, Coordinator of the President's Malaria
Initiative, says "Because it is relatively inexpensive and very effective,
USAID supports the spraying of homes with insecticides as a part of a
balanced, comprehensive malaria prevention and treatment program."
Why did we stop using DDT in the first place? Once malaria was wiped out in
the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
administrator, William Ruckelshaus, banned the use of DDT in the US in 1972;
he did so against the advice of his own scientists and court judgments.
Ruckelshaus used political criteria, not medical or scientific ones, in
banning DDT.
Other US and foreign government officials followed his lead and prohibited
their governments and agencies from supplying or paying for DDT use in
other, poorer countries, despite the effectiveness of DDT in controlling
malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Some of these officials required people in
other countries to stop using DDT if they wanted funding, even for non-DDT
projects.
These decisions amounted to a malarial death sentence for tens of millions
of children, mostly in Africa. Malaria needlessly sickened hundreds of
millions of others.
Why this waste of human life and potential?
We believe there is a "total lack of a sense of proportion about where we
are in terms of the environment but also on non-environmental issues" in the
words of environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg.
Real world decisions usually involved trade-offs among several or multiple
possible benefits and risks. Comparing the possible risks of DDT (such as
eggshell thinning in carnivorous, flesh-eating raptors and theoretical
concerns about endocrine disruption in mammals) with the proven life-saving
anti-malaria effects is a no-brainer, except for some birdbrains who can't
get DDT off their minds.
The lack of proportion in analyzing DDT use is even worse than only looking
at the bad effects of penicillin. Some few people suffer an extreme allergic
reaction, anaphylaxis, and die when given penicillin. In addition, we might
worry about penicillin killing may innocent germs just living out their own
life cycles. Perhaps someday we'll see a "Ban Evil and Dangerous Penicillin,
And Now" movement. "Whoa!" you might say, "Don't forget about all the human
lives penicillin saves." Bingo. The anti-DDT brigades chose to ignore or at
least demean the lives saved by DDT.
Some DDT opponents even believe "the earth, untouched by human hands is the
ideal" and "Planet Earth could use another major human pandemic, and
pronto!" according to Dr. Jay Richards of the Acton Institute.
Recent African publications are full of DDT good news. The "New Vision," of
Uganda, features an article "New Form of DDT to Fight Malaria." In another
article, it notes malaria "kills 320 Ugandans everyday." In Zimbabwe, a
Herald headline reads "Anti-Malaria Drive Gets Boost" with new shipments of
DDT to combat malaria.
Some former opponents now endorse DDT for indoor residual spraying.
"Environmental Defense, which launched the anti-DDT campaign in the 1960s,
now endorses the indoor use of DDT for malaria control, as does the Sierra
Club and the Endangered Wildlife Trust" according to the WHO press
statement.
As physicians trained in science, we see a similar lack of proportion in the
global warming debates. The earth's climate has always fluctuated. Recent
scientific analyses suggest that changes in climate precede changes in
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in cycles totally beyond human
influence or control.
The proposals, including the Kyoto treaty, purporting to do something about
CO2 levels will actually accomplish very little, even according to the
proponents. The proposed measure will drastically reduce resources available
to improve health and living conditions, especially for the world's poor.
These reductions will dwarf any possible benefit from the current vain
attempts to control climate change. Because of this politically-induced
poverty, many people will needlessly suffer and die.
We hope the current professional (such as NASA scientist James Hansen) and
amateur (such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Sen. Olympia Snowe, and former Sen.
Al Gore) global warming worriers will soon find themselves floating away in
the same boat with DDT opponents.
We also hope it doesn't take another 35 years to clear the good name of
carbon dioxide, as it did with DDT. It's a matter of life and death.
Editor's Note: Robert J. Cihak wrote this week's column
