Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Health experts eradicating malaria by re-labeling DDT as a contraceptive

"Keep DDT legal and affordable" protest in San Francisco


(Dissociated Press) Disease-control experts are using a new strategy that promises to finally eradicate malaria from the earth. Early results are very promising, with drops in malaria infection and death rates in many nations of the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

Dr. Fred Brimble, director of the Malaria Eradication Project, is very hopeful:

"For forty years we've been at an impasse. Environmental groups fought us at every turn. Everytime we'd reduce malaria death rates in an impoverished country by spraying DDT and other highly effective pesticides-- the same pesticides we used to eradicate malaria in Western countries-- environmental pressure groups would descend like hyenas." Brimble noted, clearly exasperated. "They blocked our eradication programs, demanding that we abandon effective pesticides and work for "green alternatives" that only killed more people"
"But in Africa and a host of other poor areas of the world, we noticed that population control zealots-- basically the same tree-huggers who were working day and night to ban DDT-- were passing out contraceptives by the metric ton."
Brimble sighed.

"As honest scientists, we knew that no credible study had ever connected even a single human death to DDT-- despite fifty years of use and exposure of a couple billion people and the widespread spraying of millions of tons of the insecticide that has saved five hundred million lives. On the other hand, contraceptives have caused thousands of well-documented deaths, mostly from thromboembolism in young women. And unlike DDT, contraceptives are actually carcinogens, known to cause breast and cervical cancer. Yet greenies fight ferociously to ban DDT, and distribute contraceptives using shovels"
Dr. Brimble smiled.
"But then it dawned on us. If environmentalists thought the DDT was a contraceptive, they'd have an orgasm (pardon the pun). Think of it: they could spray babies away! No more "Ya gotta take this pill, even though you don't speak English and think that I'm trying to exterminate your family" or "If you don' take this, it'll will cost us more to sterilize you, you illiterate Third World breeder".
So we worked with the World Health Organization, hired some of the greenie scientists who do the usual environmental junk science, and got DDT re-classified. Heck, if enviro-loons can classify something that doesn't cause cancer as a carcinogen, then we can classify something that doesn't contracept as a contraceptive. I guess that if a truck full of DDT runs over you, you're pretty well contracepted!"
Brimble laughed quietly.
We call it "The Spray". We've used ad campaigns that work very well--
"DDT Makes Womyn Free!"
"Spray Today... Unless You're Gay!"
"DDT for Carnal Glee"
Heck, we even had greenies and population control loons protesting in San Francisco demanding that the Catholic Church pay for DDT. Sandra Fluke even testified before Congress again that she needs 1000 gallons of DDT per year, and she needs Obamacare to pay for it! Funding for DDT-as-contraceptive-- "The Spray!"-- is pouring in!"
Dr. Brimble said that as a result of the reclassification of DDT, malaria deaths around the world are plummeting.
"We've harnessed a half-century of frenetic green genocide. Green wack-a-loons have snuffed hundreds of millions of human lives. Why not enlist them to knock out a few mosquitos? Just call anything that actually helps humanity a "contraceptive" and over-population loons are on it like ants on a dropped fudgesickle. And of course DDT does eliminate "pests", just not the human kind, but the environazis are none the smarter. As long as greenies think that spraying DDT all over Africa is making fewer Africans, they're on board! If it weren't so sick, it'd be funny."
Brimble noted that it's not hard to keep the environmentalists enthused about the DDT-contraception project:
"Just last week I gave a presentation to the Sierra Club. I said that spraying over swamps and wetlands in Ghana was very effective, and that the population of pernicious disease-bearing pests were reduced by 89%. They burst into applause.
Then I realized that they thought I meant Africans."

7 comments:

  1. The DDT obsession continues…

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea. I don't know when greenies will ever let it go...

      Delete
  2. Michael,

    Actually, DDT is a contraceptive. The 'Scientific American' article from several years ago you cited a few threads back (you know, the one you apparently just read no further than the title) noted that chronic exposure to DDT in spraying of internal walls results in a reduced sperm count in exposed males.

    So, with your irrational aversion to birth control, you should be insisting that DDT spraying should be banned immediately. Instead of waiting for the international review to assess whether it should be phased out by 2020, provided there are adequate substitutes. I suspect that there won't be, and use post-2020 will continue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. DDT is a contraceptive the same way cervical and ovarian cancer are contraceptives. Shame on you for this hoax. It's not humorous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I mean shame on Egnor for the main hoax. Of course, bachfiend's hoax isn't any better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's satire Ed, not a hoax.

      It's only a hoax if you're gullible.

      What do you think about the war on DDT?

      Delete
    2. Ed,

      DDT is a (male) contraceptive. The Scientific American article from 2009 that Michael linked to several threads ago indicates that a 2007 study showed that chronic exposure to DDT used in internal spraying of walls resulted in reduced sperm counts. That's the aim of male contraception.

      I found it ironic that Michael in one of his very unfunny threads attempts to 'mislabel' DDT as a contraceptive, when it actually is. And then goes into faux outrage at the article's title 'Should DDT be used to combat malaria?', without reading the article itself, or even the subtitle.

      I found the article quite balanced. The title 'Should DDT be used to combat malaria?', invites the reader to give an answer.

      My answer is 'Yes, provided no better method is found'. I don't think that there's a better method, so I think DDT should be continued to be used. There's no war on DDT. There is a campaign to phase it out, if better methods are available, which I don't think will happen.

      Delete