Beliefs that have been held for a lifetime die hard. When they are not justified, it doesn't matter that they were based on bad information, or even that they have been proven to be based on false premises. If we have believed them for years, we resist new information that would change those beliefs. Such was the case with the germ theory of disease. For generations, many people believed that disease was caused by sinful behavior, or by "night vapors", by the gods, or by witches. Thousands of people were unimpressed with the invention of the microscope and subsequent discoveries that bacteria and later, viruses, were the cause of common diseases. It was extremely difficult to convince society that childhood immunizations should be carried out in every community before youngsters entered school. Acceptance of the facts of modern medical knowledge was slow, and suspicion was very difficult to overcome. Today, most of the western world accepts the information that "germs" cause disease and that there are nearly foolproof ways to prevent the common ailments that once killed millions.

Enter the discovery of the substance, DDT, which is an extremely efficient pesticide that kills mosquitoes, lice, flies, and common crop pests. This substance was used for years to control insects that kill and sicken people and that destroy millions of acres of fruit and vegetables. It was found to be especially effective against those mosquitoes that carry malaria. However, although DDT was not found to be harmful to people, or to fish and wildlife, especially birds, it was banned in the US in 1972, and production was halted around the world. Now there is an effort to restore the use of this chemical pesticide in campaigns against malaria in southern Africa.

Anyone who doubts that DDT is a good thing shall visit junkscience.com, and read Steven Milloy's detailed history of the tactics of those who collaborated to ban the production and use of this substance. It appears possible that the world was cleverly hoodwinked into believing that DDT was responsible for a silent spring that never was a reality. For example, it has been shown that the pesticide is not correlated with cancer in people, nor with egg thinning and population depletion in birds, nor with increased mutation rates in any species. When used at the recommended doses it does not cause widespread resistance in mosquito populations, and it does not sicken people who are exposed to it or who ingest it when it is residual on foods. On the contrary, it is the most effective insecticide known to man and it could save millions of lives in countries where malaria kills people every day. The proper education about its use and especially, about use of DDT inside residences, would prevent mosquito-borne disease and death.

Those who were instrumental in the original DDT ban in the US were EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus, the National Audubon Society, and the Environmental Defense Fund, with which Ruckleshaus was affiliated and for which he was a fund raiser. A bright light has recently been shone on this information since the death in July of Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, an entomologist and professor at San Jose University. His research and testimony before the EPA administrative hearings in 1971 led to a ruling by an administrative law judge that DDT did not cause the problems claimed by those who wanted it banned. Steven Milloy, an associate of Dr. Edwards, has now entered all this information on his website, junkscience.com, for the world to consider. He includes one last quote, from the Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972: "After reversing the EPA hearing examiner's decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just "internal memos." Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckleshaus ' "Opinion and Order on DDT." The ban was based on Ruckleshaus' preference, not on scientific data, which he ordered suppressed. He apparently wished to enhance the power of the environmental movement to influence government policy. He succeeded, but not admirably.

We urge all who are concerned about the scourge of malaria, and the possibility that it may be controlled in southern Africa if DDT is reinstituted as a public health measure, to read these materials for themselves. It appears that a boon to mankind was banned by one whose power and disregard for human life made this possible.

Governments and policy makers on all levels shall carefully consider the evidence, and to make life and death decisions about malaria control based on the best available scientific knowledge. The time has come to correct a myth based on disregard for humanity.