Sanity Returning? Brazil Successfully Used DDT to End Zika Virus in Past

[Will science win out over the DDT ban that keeps billions suffering from mosquito-borne diseases worldwide? Maybe, because the beautiful people in the “First World” are becoming affected. More about the eugenic angle in a subsequent comment.]

by Dr. Susan Berry, 7 May 2016

The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) says that during the 1950s and 1960s, Brazil successfully eliminated the mosquito carrying the Zika virus through the use of DDT.

Dr. Anthony Fauci explained at a news conference that Brazil was able to stop the spread of Zika through “a very aggressive attempt” to eradicate the Aedes aegypti mosquito that carries the virus.

According to CNSNews, Fauci said:

Now, years ago in the fifties and the sixties, Brazil itself made a very aggressive attempt to eliminate the Aedes aegypti mosquito. They did it successfully but they did it in a way that would be almost non-feasible today—very heavy use of DDT, very aggressive use going into homes, essentially, spraying in homes, cleaning up areas, things that I think the general public would not be amenable to accepting.

So, it can be done. But historically it was done in a way that might not be acceptable now.

Fauci, however, added, “The mosquito that is the predominant mosquito that spreads Zika is called Aedes aegypti,” which “is a very difficult mosquito to control and eliminate.”

“It will require a very aggressive, concerted effort,” he warned. “Their ability to exist and stay in places that are difficult to eliminate; mosquitoes, for example, they like to stay indoors as well as outdoors, which make the spraying, the outdoor spraying, ineffective for those mosquitoes.”

Fauci further explained:

What one would have to do is raise public awareness, have cooperation at the community level to get people as best as they possibly can where they can to eliminate and diminish standing water of any type, as well as to push and to try to utilize environmentally friendly larvicides and insecticides.

“Having said all of that,” he continued, “it’s still going to be very, very difficult to do.”

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told Breitbart News recently that, if Zika is such a true scare, the government should wipe the virus out completely by lifting the ban on DDT.

“DDT was the most effective public health weapon of all time,” she explained, adding:

The ban on DDT was basically the decision of one man, William Ruckelshaus [the first head of the EPA], going against a mountain of evidence on safety and enormous health benefits. It was said that, “If they can ban DDT, they can ban anything.” And that’s how the EPA power grab started. Millions of African babies have died and are still dying of malaria because if it.

“Substitute pesticides are far more toxic and expensive,” Orient adds. “People are advised to use insect repellents such as DEET — which is absorbed through the skin, and safety in pregnancy is not established.”

Pioneer Energy president, Dr. Robert Zubrin, recently echoed the same idea at National Review: “The most effective pesticide is DDT. If the Zika catastrophe is to be prevented in time, we need to use it.”

Orient further wrote at Heartland Institute about the Zika “scare”:

CDC is in high gear, with politically correct advice on Zika. Meanwhile, cases of dengue in Mexico have topped 10,000. Dengue is caused by a related but far more serious virus, carried by the same Aedes aegypti mosquito. And 78,000 people in Africa die every year of another relative, yellow fever. The vector was coming under good control decades ago, but is re-emerging now. Asking “why” should be the main response to Zika.

Instead the advice seems to be: “Don’t travel, don’t have a baby, don’t let a mosquito bite you, stop climate change” – and give the authorities billions of dollars for a crash vaccine development program.

While Orient says Zika – like German measles or rubella – can cause microcephaly, she asserts, “MOST microcephaly is NOT caused by Zika. About 7 of 10,000 babies born in the U.S. have microcephaly – no thanks to Zika. Most (more than 90 percent) of the Brazilian babies recently confirmed to have microcephaly tested negative for Zika.”

…Planned Parenthood – and its colleagues in the fetal tissue business – for their own agenda, have latched onto the message that Zika is an urgent crisis.

“Zika has made a long-standing public health crisis impossible to ignore and demonstrates the critical need of government support for sexual and reproductive health care,” Chloe Cooney, director of global advocacy for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said. “The ability to decide if and when to have children is basic health care, but it’s a basic human right as well, and yet it’s not realized for so many women across the region, which this outbreak is making so crystal clear.”

A special House panel investigating the fetal tissue practices of Planned Parenthood is also scrutinizing StemExpress, the primary biomedical company that has engaged with the abortion business in the transfer of the body parts of aborted babies. The Washington Post reports that StemExpress named Zika as one of the reasons why it requires fetal tissue procurement.

Get AQ Email Updates

One comment on “Sanity Returning? Brazil Successfully Used DDT to End Zika Virus in Past

  1. DDT ban linked to population control

    DDT saved American troops in WWII, saved millions of lives worldwide — and this was a BAD thing?
    [A long article, some excerpts below]

    August 11, 2013 by Larry Bell

    Slightly more than four decades ago, the U.S. banned the use of the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichlororethane (thankfully, DDT, for short) which must certainly qualify as the most controversial synthetic chemical ever devised by humankind. There can be no doubt that DDT use has prevented deaths of many millions of the world’s most vulnerable residents from malaria and other insect-borne diseases. Nor can there be any real question that long-term bans on its use in the most desperate nations have resulted in deaths of far many more. Publicity campaigns against its use premised upon toxicity to wildlife and humans, whether true or not, have been enormously effective.

    While many of the arguments against DDT are based upon dubious quasi-scientific claims, there are also studies that raise certain legitimate concerns warranting further investigation. Accordingly, a great need exists for truly objective research which avoids persistent political and ideological influences. In addition to comprehensive analyses of human and bio-system risks, benefits and necessary controls, consequences of delayed interventions must also be assessed. The more than 30,000 annual cases of avoidable Lyme disease in the U.S. are but one example.

    To better appreciate the past and present-day significance of this remarkable chemical compound, let’s flash back to a time soon after its properties were first “put into action” nearly seven decades ago. Robert Zubrin discusses this history in his excellent new book, Merchants of Despair.

    The Other Secret Weapon of WWII

    A New War: DDT Becomes the Enemy

    Not everyone, however, was happy about all of these achievements. One such person was Club of Rome co-founder Alexander King. In 1990 he expressed why: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced for civilian use. In Guyana, within two years it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.”

    Powerful counter-forces against the use of DDT can be traced to the birth of a new “environmental movement”. An early salvo of the attack on DDT came from Aldous Huxley, who became famous for his 1932 book, Brave New World. Huxley’s subsequent Brave New World Revisited (1958) warns that the danger to civilization posed by Third World overpopulation would lead to communist revolution, attacking DDT as an important contributor: “We go to a tropical island…and with the aid of DDT we stamp out malaria, and in two or three years, save hundreds of thousands of lives.”

    Huxley continued that: “This is obviously good, But the hundreds of thousands of human beings thus saved, and the millions whom they beget and bring to birth, cannot be adequately clothed, housed, educated or fed out of the island’s available resources. Quick death by malaria has been abolished; but life made miserable by undernourishment and over-crowding is now the rule, and death by outright starvation threatens ever greater numbers.”


    Political Science and Its Deadly Consequences

    Summarizing all relevant research up to 2002, the U.S. Government Agency for Toxic Substances and Registry (ATSDR) reported that “there is no clear evidence that exposure to DDT/DDE causes cancer in humans.” Still, responding to public panic and political pressure aroused in good measure by Carson’s book, governments of several developing countries ended their DDT-based anti-malaria programs. Her claims are also clearly credited with a prohibition against DDT use in the U.S. since 1972, and a similar ban in Europe.

    These widespread actions to prohibit DDT use occurred after the U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a 1970 report stated: “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It has contributed to the great increase in agricultural productivity, while sparing countless humanity from a host of diseases, most notably, perhaps, scrub typhus, and malaria. Indeed, it is estimated that, in little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable.”

    NAS also concluded: “Abandonment of this valuable insecticide should be undertaken only at such time and in such places as it is evident that prospective gain to humanity exceeds the consequent losses. At this writing, all available substitutes for DDT are both more expensive per crop-year and decidedly more hazardous.”

    Disregarding the NAS, the U.S. DDT prohibition was issued in a decision by then newly formed EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus …

    As Dr. Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s global Malaria Programme, said: “We must take a position based on the science and the data. One of our 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.”

    And what about here in America? Should those pesky mosquitoes and more than 30,000 annual cases of Lyme disease be tolerated if they are avoidable through selective and carefully monitored indoor and outdoor spraying of high infestation locations? Under what conditions might that be a safe thing to do? And if serious, responsible, unbiased research is required to make those decisions, shouldn’t we all be itching to have that begin?

Leave a Reply