Thursday, March 24, 2005
When Politics Kills
No, this is not about the Terri Schiavo case; although the title could be applicable there too. That case is just too heart-rending and emotional for calm discussion now .
This post title refers to an older study ( malaria.pdf ) and its brief summary in a paper entitled : When Politics Kills: Malaria and the DDT Story . In both, author Roger Bate lays out the history of controlling and almost eliminating malaria worldwide, primarily by use of DDT, and then its subsequent rise to a major worldwide killer as a case of 'when politics kills' . His study is well-documented and provides a good assessment of the effectiveness of different treatment approaches to control malaria based on experiences in many parts of the world. It provides the context for my 10 March Post ( Malaria Worsens; Remedy Ignored ) and I should have referenced it there.
Bate did his study about 4 or 5 years ago and did not have the benefit of the very recent Oxford University research, cited in my post, showing malaria infection and death rates greatly higher than previously known. His paper was an important factor in the world decision to not ban DDT use outright at that time (2000). Still, one of his key points was that world political and financial pressures were forcing under-developed countries to avoidance of or to relatively ineffective applications of DDT , resulting in unnecessary deaths. That posture does not seem to have changed much given the continued emphasis on bednets and vaccines ( rather than careful and effective use of DDT).
This recent post from OxBlog adds detail on how "informal" pressure can force the avoidance of beneficial application of DDT as well as on its continued effectiveness. Meanwhile, the bias against DDT has resulted in a worldwide reduction in DDT production and production facilities and, it seems, a much higher than anticipated death toll.
This post title refers to an older study ( malaria.pdf ) and its brief summary in a paper entitled : When Politics Kills: Malaria and the DDT Story . In both, author Roger Bate lays out the history of controlling and almost eliminating malaria worldwide, primarily by use of DDT, and then its subsequent rise to a major worldwide killer as a case of 'when politics kills' . His study is well-documented and provides a good assessment of the effectiveness of different treatment approaches to control malaria based on experiences in many parts of the world. It provides the context for my 10 March Post ( Malaria Worsens; Remedy Ignored ) and I should have referenced it there.
Bate did his study about 4 or 5 years ago and did not have the benefit of the very recent Oxford University research, cited in my post, showing malaria infection and death rates greatly higher than previously known. His paper was an important factor in the world decision to not ban DDT use outright at that time (2000). Still, one of his key points was that world political and financial pressures were forcing under-developed countries to avoidance of or to relatively ineffective applications of DDT , resulting in unnecessary deaths. That posture does not seem to have changed much given the continued emphasis on bednets and vaccines ( rather than careful and effective use of DDT).
This recent post from OxBlog adds detail on how "informal" pressure can force the avoidance of beneficial application of DDT as well as on its continued effectiveness. Meanwhile, the bias against DDT has resulted in a worldwide reduction in DDT production and production facilities and, it seems, a much higher than anticipated death toll.
