WHO scum - politics over lives

  • Thread starter JorgeLobo
  • Start date
  • Tags
    politics
In summary, the World Health Organization initially endorsed the use of DDT to combat malaria in 2006, but later reverted to promoting less effective methods. This decision is seen as a victory for politics over public health, and will result in millions of the world's poor suffering. DDT is not a long-term solution for preventing malaria, and its overuse has led to the development of DDT-resistant mosquitoes. While DDT may have been effective in the past, its widespread use has also caused harm to the environment and human health. The WHO's decision to promote alternative methods is based on evidence and is aimed at protecting public health in the long term.
  • #1
JorgeLobo
83
0
In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria. So much for that. Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease. The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world's poor will suffer as a result.

story at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303288779048569.html
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Would I be correct in guessing that:
- WHO does not have the power to perform any action that actually prevents use of DDT,
- There is some evidence that other methods (such as mosquito-proofing) are more efficient at preventing deaths than DDT,
- DDT itself is not a long term solution and additional chemicals are already recommended by WHO and used,
- DDT has complex potential cascading ecological impacts for which the long term cost to humans risk exceeding the immediate benefit,
- and that WHO has a proven record of evidence-supported work for the good of public health and the poor?
If so then why the outraged scum-calling?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
DDT is, in some respects, a lot like certain antibiotics, excepting that it bioaccumulates, ends up thinning the egg shells of birds, and has been linked, in chronic and/or acute exposure, to various maladies in people. (Remembering that it bioaccumulates, many people of a certain age in the west have detectable quantities in the fatty tissues of their bodies).

When it was first introduced, it was a miracle chemical--able to wipe out NEARLY all mosquitoes, and able to nearly single-handedly wipe out malaria in some regions (from the Wikipedia article: 3 million annual cases of malaria in Sri Lanka to just 29):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt#Overall_effectiveness_of_DDT_against_malaria

But just like antibiotics they got overused, or used superfluously (come on, therapeutic doses of antibiotics, even on livestock, and antibiotic soap / lotion / tissues?) Plus that whole bioaccumulation thing (i.e. it builds up in animals, and throughout the ecosystem). Its strategic use (i.e. mass sprayings, supermarket availability, etc.) was responsible for destroying mosquito populations, and drastic disease reduction, and it was everywhere (in varying amounts). Unfortunately, DDT's great success was also it's biggest problem (and I think this dramatic success is also the reason why so many people are still enamoured of it).

Since mosquitoes usually lay several hundred eggs per pair, those few survivors quickly gave rise to DDT-resistant mosquito populations! WE (or maybe it was WHO), in effect, selected for DDT-resistant mosquitoes! And DDT's effectiveness dropped like a rock. In places (e.g. India) where they've continued strategic use of DDT, it's become completely ineffective (I hesitate to link to the Wikipedia article on such an important point, but the article does provide a link):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Mosquito_resistance_to_DDT

In order to keep on making use of DDT (in spite of its human effects, which are probably not as bad as getting malaria), it has to be used tactically--infrequent indoor spraying, impregnation in mosquito netting and bed clothing (despite being resistant, mosquitoes apparently will still stay away from it). Which is probably slower, more costly, and less dramatic (at least short-term) than, say, spraying it from planes and trucks. And I sure hope that its tactical use is what will result with this reversal (along with commensurate funding).

You might say WHO is scum for opposing DDT, but you can also vilify them for advocating (and using DDT) and causing DDT-resistant mosquitoes! (Who do you think launched those mass-DDT efforts in the 50s and 60s?) All-around anti-WHO weapon. Unless, like DDT, you use these too often, and people see you're using both sides of the same coin and develop a resistance to it. (This http://www.colbertnation.com/" moment brought to you by DEET)

EDIT: Strategic and tactical in the above post is applied in the same way as to nuclear weapons:
Strategic: 200 megaton "Tsar Bomba" fusion bomb
Tactical: 0.5 kiloton "Davey Crockett" nuclear artillery shell
 
Last edited by a moderator:

What does "WHO scum - politics over lives" refer to?

"WHO scum - politics over lives" is a phrase used to criticize the World Health Organization (WHO) for prioritizing political agendas over the well-being and lives of people around the world during global health crises.

What evidence supports the claim that WHO prioritizes politics over lives?

There have been several instances where WHO has been accused of putting political interests before public health concerns. For example, during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014, WHO delayed declaring it an international emergency in order to avoid damaging the affected countries' economies. Additionally, WHO has been criticized for not taking a stronger stance against China's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

How does prioritizing politics over lives impact global health?

When WHO prioritizes politics over lives, it can lead to delayed or inadequate responses to health crises, which can result in more deaths and the spread of diseases. It can also undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the organization in addressing global health issues.

What steps can be taken to prevent politics from influencing WHO's decisions?

One solution is to increase transparency and accountability within the organization. This could include implementing stricter guidelines for decision-making and ensuring that political interests do not override public health concerns. Another approach is to diversify the leadership and decision-making bodies within WHO to include a wider range of perspectives and expertise.

What is being done to address the issue of "WHO scum - politics over lives"?

Some governments and international organizations have called for reforms within WHO to address the issue of politics over lives. Additionally, there have been discussions about creating an independent oversight body to monitor and hold WHO accountable for its decisions. However, addressing this issue will require cooperation and commitment from all member states of the organization.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
15K
Back
Top