Quote:
Yet even current AIDS spending swamps spending on malaria and tuberculosis, which together kill about twice as many people annually as does AIDS. Antiretroviral therapy for AIDS cures no one and while it costs relatively little in the Third World $300-$1,200 per year compared to North America, TB can be cured with $65 of medicine. Malaria in Africa and Asia can be prevented for a pittance by spraying DDT, yet environmental activists and the European Union have essentially blocked its use in those areas that need it most.
Alas for these victims, they dont have a politically correct disease. And for that they must die.
From www.fumento.com/disease/a...rence.html
I've looked at the "evidence" against DDT and am surpristed that it is still "banned" in any industrialized nation. Altho some mosquitos have become "immune" to DDT they still avoid it, and it lasts a very long time. Internal spraying of DDT could save a lot of lives in Africa.
While I'm at it, why is the European Union killing and blinding children by threatening trade sanctions against nations that would grow Golden Rice? www.goldenrice.org/
It sounds curel, but we could at least twice as many lives by spending the AIDS budget on proven technologies that prevent malaria, cure TB, and provide vitamin A.
But I don't want AIDS ignored (a cure would be nice), I want the industrialized world to support the spraying of DDT, the distribution of Golden Rice, and more funding for TB medications through the WHO.
Jimro
I'm all for engineered food for the poor and spending money by need instead of political clout, but I've heard too much against DDT. This is not a subject I have researched, since I didn't know there was even a DDT debate, and I don't really have time to do the research myself, but I think the burden of proof should be on the pro-DDT side because environmental risk, especially in a place with as much undeveloped land as Africa, is to be taken very seriously IMO, and yes that may include more seriously than human rights depending on the situation.
AIDs funding isn't just a case of political correctness IMO. People in rich countries see AIDs as a risk and can get behind a war on AIDs. I rarely hear much about TB because those diseases don't seem to be of particular concern to most of the public. Over here it's just a shot you have to take. So I'd guess that "raise money for TB" won't get the emotional reaction that "raise money for a disease that kills people in your own country" does.
I've dug a little further and found out something that might be a little unpopular on this forum, but it seems that our leadership has their priorities right on this, even if their isn't widespread support from the average American.
President Bush actually paid attention to Malaria in the form of the PMI, or Presidents Malaria Initiative. Also President Bush and Sec. State Rice have re-aligned USAID for to work for measurable results to work with the Congressional mandate for government transparancy and efficacy.
Before USAID could send a bunch of "educators" to teach people about malaria and how to avoid it. Now the money spent must be tied to a measurable reduction in disease, and the funds go more towards to insecticide treated nets and less towards "educators".
Also instead of trying to cover all of Africa at once, the PMI focuses instead on a country by country basis for logistical simplicity and effectiveness.
Also on December 6, 2006 the European Union gave Uganda the go ahead to use DDT. This is the most encouraging news I've read in a long time since Europe has more economic ties to Africa than the US.
For some good information on DDT, here is a good primer. www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
Jimro
