The Ugly Truth; Chemical Controversy

By Brian Hale

We have all come across, on a daily basis, certain chemicals that could be considered dangerous, whether we know it or not.

For those of us who grew up in the 70s or earlier, I am sure that you remember one particular substance that was used widely. It was later banned in 1972 because it was determined in 1962 to be one of the most dangerous applications ever approved and distributed by the U.S. Government.

Do you remember what it was called?

So what is DDT and where does it come from?

Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, commonly known as DDT, is a colorless, tasteless, and almost odorless crystalline chemical compound, an organochloride. Originally developed as an insecticide, it became infamous for its environmental impacts. DDT was first synthesized in 1874 by the Austrian chemist Othmar Zeidler.

What is it used for?

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) was developed as the first of the modern synthetic insecticides in the 1940s. It was initially used with great effect to combat malaria, typhus, and the other insect-borne human diseases among both military and civilian populations. It also was effective for insect control in crop and livestock production, institutions, homes, and gardens. DDT’s quick success as a pesticide and broad use in the United States and other countries led to the development of resistance by many insect pest species. 

Is it deadly dangerous?

DDT is deadly dangerous to insects, yes.

However, when used according to the manufacturer’s specifications, the organochlorine compounds were considered to be relatively safe, but the objection to their use stemmed from the fact that they are not degraded by natural biological processes and become a permanent part of the environment.

What about humans and other animals?

Since absorption from the gut is poor, the major portion of ingested DDT is excreted unchanged in the feces, with the remaining DDT excreted in the bile or stored in adipose tissue from which it is removed and gradually eliminated in the urine. DDT is metabolized by the liver, is fat soluble and therefore, its absorption through the skin is enhanced when present in an oil base solution or emulsion form. Absorption by the lung is rapid when DDT is present as an aerosol.

The Book That Started It All

In order to completely understand the issues associated with DDT, one must know how the chemical operates once applied to an organism. In short, DDT attacks the nervous system via the obstruction of natural nerve impulses, which can cause symptoms such as loss of coordination, convulsions, and vomiting in both animals and humans.⁶ However, before scientific research was released during the 1960s and the publication of Silent Spring, no one could have understood the full extent to which DDT affected the entire natural environment, including human life. This ignorance persisted until Rachel Carson helped bring these issues into the public

On the first page of the book widely credited with launching the environmental movement as well as bringing about the ban on DDT, Rachel Carson wrote: “Dedicated to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who said ‘Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the earth’.” She surely knew that he was
referring to atomic warfare, but she implied that he meant there were deadly hazards from chemicals such as DDT. Because I had already found a great many untruths in her book, I obtained a copy of Dr. Schweitzer’s autobiography, to see whether he even mentioned DDT. He wrote: “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.

DDT was no stranger to propaganda; for every one man killed in battle, malaria would kill eight, which gave the United States a stepping-stone from which to push its DDT agenda during the war. DDT was used largely due to its reasonable cost, demonstrated effectiveness, and persistence in killing insects.⁸ DDT was also used on the commercial and residential levels, by farmers on their crops, and in office buildings to control insect populations. The insecticide also proved to be relatively inexpensive to manufacture and stayed in the environment for a long time, effectively killing any insects that came within a certain range.

Were there official studies?

Between 1946 and 1950, cases of malaria fell from approximately 400,000 to practically none because of the use of DDT. DDT is still used today in parts of South America, Asia, and Africa with the aim of controlling malaria in places that may not be able to afford more expensive and potentially safer alternatives.⁹ As one can see, the early stages of DDT’s development showed much promise and cost-effectiveness when dealing with global diseases. Because of the ban on DDT in the United States in 1972, restrictions have been applied to its use; DDT can legally be produced in the United States but may only be sold to or used by foreign countries. Two of the major reasons behind the ban of DDT were the scientific evidence that exhibited buildup in the fatty tissues of wildlife while persisting in the natural environment and proved the existence of an evolutionary resistance that insects began to develop towards the chemical.

A Case Study in Scientific Fraud by Dr. Gordon Gregory supported our belief that the government has been using science to commit fraud on multiple fronts.

The chemical compound that has saved more human lives than any other in history, DDT, was banned by order of one man, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds, anti-androgenic properties, and prolonged environmental persistence are false or grossly
exaggerated. The worldwide effect of the U.S. ban has been millions of preventable deaths.

On May 15, 1975, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report claiming that people in the United States were ingesting 15 milligrams of DDT every day. In response to a letter stating that this was obviously untrue, an EPA official responded: “You are correct in stating that EPA’s DDT report erred on human dietary uptake. The correct figure should have been 15 per day, instead of 15 per day” (Laurence O’Neall, personal communication, Sept. 11, 1975). He stated that “We will make every effort to rectify the erroneous
figures with the news media.”

Indeed, the EPA did issue a correction stating that the actual number was a thousand times less than that given in their report. Human volunteers in Georgia ingested up to 35 milligrams daily, for nearly two years, and did not experience any difficulties then or later. Workers in the Montrose Chemical Company had 1,300 man-years of exposure, and there was never any case of cancer during 19 years of continuous exposure to about 17 mg/man/day. Concerns were sometimes raised about possible carcinogenic effects of DDT, but instead its metabolites were often found to be -carcinogenic, significantly reducing tumors in rats. DDT ingestion induces hepatic microsomal enzymes, which destroy carcinogenic aflatoxins and thereby inhibit tumors.

After an 80-day hearing in 1972 on the potential for carcinogenicity, the EPAconcluded that “DDTis not a carcinogenic hazard for man.” Nevertheless, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT two months later, stating that “DDT poses a carcinogenic risk” to humans. The primary evidence used
to support his assertion was two animal studies. The first was challenged because it was not replicated by other workers using similar dosages and because the findings might have resulted from food contaminated with aflatoxin. The second study, which used a nearly lethal dose, reported hepatomas in 32 percent of the
experimental group compared to 4 percent of the control group.

However, the tumors were not shown to be malignant, and the litters were not distributed randomly.
Many anti-DDT activists alleged that DDT was killing birds or causing them to produce thin-shelled eggs. Some extremists even wrote that because of DDT “birds dropped from the sky, dead.”

Others said that “birds were falling out of trees by the thousands.” No such tragedies actually occurred, not even to a few birds. It was easy to test such claims of toxicity by simply feeding known quantities of DDT to caged birds. Even extreme amounts of DDT in the food did not seriously poison birds.

Rachel Carson declared that “like the robin, another American bird, [the Bald Eagle] seems to be on the verge of extinction.” That same year Roger Tory Peterson, America’s greatest ornithologist, wrote that the robin was “the most abundant bird in North America.” There is no doubt as to which writer was correct!

What are the alternatives to DDT?

The alternatives to DDT is an array of equally dangerous and toxic chemicals that (currently) carry official approval. Approval does NOT MEAN they got it right. Time has PROVEN that over and over.

Other examples of Scientific Fraud

The most common examples of fraud in the United States appear to be environmental, including acid rain, ozone holes, carbon dioxide, ultraviolet radiation, global cooling, global warming, endangered species, and pesticides. This article primarily concerned DDT, but here are just a few others;

• C19
• HIV
• Van Allan Radiation Belts
• Marijuana
• Brain Dead
• UFOs / UAPs
• Statistical Impossibilities

Scientific Fraud has it’s tentacles in every aspect of our lives now. Buyer Beware.

What’s the bottom line?

Isn’t it always about the money?

DDT was affordable and readily available to just about anyone from the 40’s – 60’s. There was no big money involved. DDT was everywhere and it was very effective at saving lives.

Currently, no obvious efforts are being made to reduce the numbers of infective mosquito adults or larvae, and neither the WHO nor any of the dozens of recent malaria researchers have proposed plans to help save human lives by killing mosquitoes or their larvae. Such humane preventive endeavors have not even been
mentioned in in recent years! Instead, hundreds of millions of dollars are devoted to the search for vaccines, which might or might not be effective.

Vaccines? Here we go again!

At least two malaria vaccine researchers have been indicted. Dr. Miodrag Ristic received $3.28 million in grants, but developed nothing. In 1990 he was indicted on four counts and heavily fined, but not imprisoned. Dr.Wasim Siddiqui of the University of Hawaii, who had claimed that his vaccine was almost ready for clinical trials,
was accused by the U.S. Inspector General of “an apparent diversion and theft of funds, submission of false claims, and criminal conspiracy.” Siddiqui was arrested by Honolulu police, but that very day the Vaccine Research Office of AID awarded him another $1.65 million “to continue his research.” Hawaiian Senator Inouye then announced on live television that if Siddiqui was handed any more federal funds he personally would see to it that the University of Hawaii would never get another grant of federal research money. Siddiqui served six months of house detention, but the local newspapers reported that he was still receiving his salary of $92,340 a year, even though not teaching classes.

The malaria protections that were hoped to replace mosquito controls have simply been expensive fantasies.

With no better methods available, past mosquito control programs were terminated. From 1974 to 1977, the U.S. Export-Import Bank financed more than $3 billion of pesticides, saving millions of human lives.

Dozens of other countries, where massive numbers of malaria deaths continue to occur, also cannot receive financial aid unless they agree to control mosquitoes by using DDT.

Conclusion

The ban on DDT, founded on erroneous or fraudulent reports and imposed by one powerful bureaucrat, has caused millions of deaths, while sapping the strength and productivity of countless human beings in underdeveloped countries. It is time for an honest appraisal and for immediate deployment of the best currently available means to control insect-borne diseases. This means DDT.

Source : The Silent Decade: Why It Took Ten Years to Ban DDT in the United States – https://vtuhr.org/articles/10.21061/vtuhr.v1i0.5?fbclid=IwAR2BV4AlK3czqYw_6UVJuXo_Tv8wBKCa0KSxbem04-5oyklrG5nIndqkvsU

Source : DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud, J. Gordon Edwards, Ph.D.