It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DDT - Bed Bugs/Malaria/De-Population/Follow the money!

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Bed Bugs & DDT

THE TRUTH UNCOVERED

I am sure all of the diligent folks here at ATS have noticed or at least heard about the recent Bed Bug infestation in New York City.
Howard Stern has been shouting about bed bugs for years, and bringing back DDT. Because of his reputation, his gripes and groans have gone mostly unheard.

Howard recently had George Takei (From the original Star Trek) as his official announcer. George was detailing his recent battle with Bed Bugs in his NY home.
Howard then told the audience that Sirius’s corporate headquarters had to bring in bed bug dogs to sniff out a bed bug infestation in the Sirius building. They then had to take all of the necessary steps to rid the offices of bed bugs.

George Takei had told the staff about his battle with bed bugs. Howard then called the company that owns the sniffing dogs. While they were on air the company came in to check the studio and George for bed bugs. While in studio, the company spokesman said that their business has increased 500% in the last 5 years. Howard then took a call from a man that has been studying DDT and has produced a documentary on DDT, and the real reasons behind the ban on it.

Dr. Rutledge is the Dr. that drank DDT to prove that this chemical is safe.
Dr. Rutledge discusses his new documentary 3 Billion and Counting.



For those that don’t know, DDT was one of the first steps our EPA took to assert control over private companies. The hearing was a farce! They data was flawed! The money trail is tainted and the death toll is high!



• DDT was banned by an EPA administrator who ignored the decision of his own administrative law judge.

• Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."
[Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

• Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus' aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT.
[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 Ruckelshaus' "Opinion and Order on DDT."


It is painfully obvious that there was some external pressure for this ban.

Most of us have heard all of the horror stories and rumors about DDT and what it does to our environment. I have done some extensive research and found that 99% of the environmental effects, that they claim are caused by DDT, are false!


CANCER


DDT was alleged to be a liver carcinogen in the documentaries “Silent Spring” and a breast carcinogen in “Our Stolen Future”.


Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates."

[J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1999;125(3-4):219-25]


There wasn't any disagreement about any lethalness to humans however because the government never claimed there were any deaths, and there wasn't, not a single one. In summation the article concluded the 'political' reason for banning DDT was because it was 'saving too many third-world lives'... an utterly shocking observation.

There are several other studies that show this cancer connection to be 100% false.

They said at the time, that DDT was harming the bird population... False!!!



#

In congressional testimony, Charles Wurster, a biologist for the Environmental Defense Fund, noted the abundance of birds during the DDT years, referring to "increasing numbers of pheasants, quail, doves, turkeys and other game species."

[Wurster, C.F. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969]

#

The Audubon Society's annual bird census in 1960 reported that at least 26 kinds of birds became more numerous during 1941 - 1960.

[See Anon. 1942. The 42nd annual Christmas bird census." Audubon Magazine 44;1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942), and Cruicjshank, AD (editor) 1961. The 61st annual Christmas bird census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2); 84-300]

#

Statistical analysis of the Audubon data bore out the perceived increases.

[White-Stevens, R. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

#

The white-tailed kite, a raptor, was "in very real danger of complete extirpation in the U.S." in 1935, but "by the 1960's, a very great population increase and range expansion had become apparent in California and the breeding range had extended through the Central American countries."

[Eisenmann, E. 1971. Range expansion and population increase of the White-tailed kite. American Birds 25(3):529-535]

#

Great increases inmost kinds of hawks during the DDT years were reported by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association (Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania).

[Taylor, JW. Summaries of Hawk Mountain migrations of raptors, 1934 to 1970. In Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association Newsletters]

#

National forest studies from Wisconsin and Michigan reported an increase in nesting osprey productivity from 11 young in 1965 to 74 young in 1970.

[U.S. Forest Service, Milwaukee. 1970. Annual report on osprey status in national forests in Wisconsin and Michigan]






EGG SHELL THINNING
DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells.



Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.

[Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning] .")



Bald eagles
DDT was blamed for the decline in the bald eagle population.



After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.

[Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]



With all of these studies concluding that DDT was safe for the environment, how could the EPA ban such an effective insecticide? Why would they ban such an effective insecticide?

There are several theories as to why they would ban it. I truly believe that a good way to the bottom of a conspiracy is to “Follow The Money”

I think the environmentalists just gave TPTB, always catering to the giant chemical companies, a great excuse. DDT was the cheapest pesticide! Sales of the more expensive pesticides were slow. Need I say more?


"When U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief William Ruckelshaus was about to announce his decision to ban DDT in June 1972, he confided to a friend, "There is no scientific basis for banning this chemical --- this is a political decision."" The 'friend' was never identified however. In a commentary the magazine concluded (page 56): "The EPA and environmentalists must be held accountable for their crime: There was not a single human death from DDT usage; there have been untold thousands of deaths and millions of disease-stricken persons as a result of the DDT banning."


So….. Was it done to help the Giant Chemical companies make money?? Or… Was it done for depopulation?

I have come to the conclusion with 100% certainty that this ban was unnecessary and done for very evil reasons. I just haven’t figured out the exact reason.

This is where I need your help. I feel that ATS is comprised of some of the sharpest minds on our planet. There are groups out there fighting to lift the ban on DDT. I am sure they could use some extra voices and some support!

It is estimated, that in 5 years, millions of lives could be saved by lifting the ban.


With all of the evidence proving that DDT does not harm the environment as they thought it did, you must ask yourself, why would it still be banned? Why?

edit on 12/8/2010 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Very nice thread.

Thanks for all the information.

I was not aware of this.

But it doesn't really surprise me.

Anything they ban, is good for us or neutral.

Anything not banned, is dangerous and deadly...?

Just seems that is how everything works in opposite/backwards land. (Earth)

I am going to watch some of the videos you linked now. I hope to find a video of this scientist drinking the DDT, that would be nuts.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
This is a bit of a shock to me as well, I can't believe this has been going on and sneaking beneath us
I would hope for a change.. but who knows how soon that will come.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Bones_
 


What shocked me was ... Not 1 death ever attributed to DDT

Everything that I had heard made it sound like such a devastating chemical. This Dr. drank something like 300k milliliters and is fine and well. No third eye - Or cancer!

I dont know the exact # .. but the 300k was much much higher than the average human would encounter on a daily basis.

I was curious as to how he was able to get the DDT to do the test. Apparently there is 1 company left in India that still manufacturers it.

Also - a good tid bit.. The US Govt. threatened sanctions and or embargo's on any country that did not persue this ban on DDT right along with us.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I had a dream about Agent Orange last night, but I don't think that has anything to do with DDT. Forgive my ignorance, (can't watch the vid) but, what is in DDT, exactly? I'm at work so I kinda skimmed through the links, but, just a question, how is DDT made? Can DDT harm groundwater or soil? I know they pushed it in the 50s.

I don't know what to believe anymore.
edit on 8-12-2010 by leira7 because: and they even made prohibition sound bad... ah, those politico-business men.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by leira7
 


The only negative they can come up with is, "it is persistent in the soil with a 'half-life' of about 75 years."



Production Methods

The original method of DDT synthesis involves reacting one mol of chloral with two mols of chlorobenzene in the presence of sulfuric acid. Although different condensing agents can be used, practically all other processes are modifications of the original method.




edit on 12/8/2010 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Very nice work! Star & Flag.

It dovetails nicely with another thread here on ATS about why "hippies" are bad.

these people (the hippie fascists in the EPA) know that to ban the stuff would cause deaths, and that it was a perfectly safe pesticide. they needed to wield their newfound bureaucratic cryptofascist power, and the ban of DDT was the result.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Agent Orange is a herbicide, that kills plants.

DDT is a pesticide that kills insects.

They are related imo. They are both chemical weapons that we humans have used in our battle against nature, lol.

And did you know that you probably have Agent Blue at your house? It's used in everyday weed killer formulas. But it started out as a weapon in Vietnam to deny rice for the Viet Cong soldiers.

links

So, let me see if I get this right.

DDT somehow is pretty safe, yet has all of the poo thrown on it, and accused of virtually everything.

But Agent Blue is very dangerous, and can easily pollute groundwater because it is applied on the ground (to kill weeds). Yet no one even knows about Agent Blue and it's chemical weapon history, nor is it blamed for anything at all.

Yep, that sounds like my home planet Earth all right. Totally backwards.

edit on 8-12-2010 by muzzleflash because: correction



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
This is just proof that big business(banks) run our life. Just imagine all of the great ideas and products that have been quashed because of big businness.
DDT has such a bad wrap that I doubt it will ever be brought back into mainstream. If some scientist is willing to drink the stuff, he has my vote. I will never look at it the same way as before.
edit on 8-12-2010 by liejunkie01 because: bog, I meant big business



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


With our population increasing at such an enormous rate... The bed bug problem is going to get out of hand.... As of right now... DDT is the only efficient way to control them. I see a push starting to get the ban lifted...

Banning DDT is equivalent to banning penicillin!



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


Your 100% right.. Its all the damn hippies fault! period! Uneducated fools were used as mouth pieces for big business.
To damn stupid to know better or to see themselves being used. They probably had rallies - Drove across the US to protest DDT, without one clue as to the real truths about it.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The more I look into this...I am quickly realizing that, this ban would have never been allowed in 2010.
There is ZERO credible evidence to prove the negative environmental effects that they claimed DDT had.

I am leaning toward depopulation. But, until I am certain, I can't rule out money.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
You blame the hippies generation and that does have credence.

It is well known and mostly declassified about how the Government infiltrated the highest ranks of membership in countless counter-culture type organizations through the years.

We know they exert far more control in these "movements" than most people realize as a result of their successful infiltrations and misdirection schemes.

Corporations are involved too.

This goes on today still, and you can see the signs of infiltration and misdirection when reviewing the politics of many large organizations worldwide. Agendas abound.

This is why I refuse to join any groups or organizations. I am a free person and will make my own path.

And after more consideration and reviewing the data available, I will agree with you that DDT is far safer than it has been claimed to be.

I draw a parallel with this subject of DDT vilification with that of the food crisis debates.

People always scream about HFCS or MSG. These are merely distractions in my opinion.

After reviewing the lists of food additives, you will realize that MSG and HFCS are the safest additives out there in general. There are dozens upon dozens of other additives that NO ONE EVER MENTIONS, that have far more suspicious chemical natures than MSG or HFCS. It's smoke and mirrors, a distraction from the real dangers within our foods.

Basically we will spend 10 years fighting against MSG and HFCS additives, meanwhile the real danger chemicals go ignored and untouched. So we are screwed anyway.

Spend a little bit of time reading this link and it's follow-up links. It will reveal the reality of what is going on. How we the "public" are being directed towards attacking specific things while ignoring countless other dangerous chemicals.
food additives list

DDT is apparently the same way. It's pretty safe but we focus on it primarily. Meanwhile tons and tons of totally dangerous chemicals surround us and we remain ignorant of this fact.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


We were just talking about DDT at work the other day and I found your info very informative. I think it is just more big Pharma bail out. Look at all the money we spend on stuff like westnile virus and lime diesise. DDT is cheaper than the medicines to stop you from dieing. Plus if they don't use it in the third world there is no need to send as much food aid.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
There are several groups and several scientists that are pushing for DDT to be reintroduced into use... I am going to look up and link to those petitions. If anyone can find some of their own, link them here..

DDT is NOT bad.. DDT was banned for money! period!!!!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
This thread on DDT is very interesting to say the least. However, there are some inexactitudes. DDT was used for a long time after the ban in Africa and Mosquitoes were found to be DDT resistant. Bedbugs also built up a resistance to DDT in the 1940/1950s but it is unclear if that resistance is still present.

Now what is encouraging is that, despite resistance, mosquitoes are repelled by the presence of DDT when sprayed on walls in a room and the use of it is SUPPORTED by WHO as a way to prevent mozzies biting in the first place.


Today, indoor DDT spraying to control malaria in Africa is supported by the World Health Organization; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and the United States Agency for International Development.


Eradicating Malaria is biologically impossible so where we need to invest in more more research in treating the afflicted with more efficacy. There has been breakthroughs but we are not there yet..

For those who are interested in gaining a little more insight.

Malaria treated with Sweet Wormwood

www.nytimes.com...

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
sounds like the same reasoning that is keeping the secrets of cold fusion a secret....but in all honesty, any kind of chemical probably has some kind of ill effect on humans and animals...i don't think DDT was an angel drug that only did good things and would not cause any damage at all to humans or animals...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by punctual
 


Ok, source something saying it has negative effects on humans or animals.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by punctual
 

Ok, source something saying it has negative effects on humans or animals.



DDT as a Cause of Cat Deaths

Bigart concedes that some cats were killed after huts were sprayed with DDT, but also states that experts believe the explosion in the rat population was more likely due to a combination of favorable factors such as moisture, climate, availability of food “and, chiefly, the Government’s failure to insure adequate supplies of rat poison.”

Similar to the events in Vietnam, there are several other renditions of the cat story from other locales. The situation of this sort that arose closest to the probable site of a cat drop was briefly described in an annual report on conditions in North Borneo (Colony of North Borneo 1959) in which the author remarks: “Field rats were a greater menace than usual, partly as a result of antimalarial spraying which accidentally killed many cats”. This report does not specifically state which insecticide was used but does mention that zinc phoshide was used to kill the rats. Another story of this sort describes a situation in which it was conjectured that insecticide spraying caused the death of cats in Bolivia. This was determined during an investigation of an outbreak of Bolivian hemorrhagic fever (a rodent-borne disease) that was “due to invasion of houses by rodents” (Johnson 1965; Garcia et al. 1979). Furthermore, in a text on malaria, Robert Desowitz, mentioned that cats died in villages in Thailand after homes were sprayed with DDT resulting in an increase in the rat population (Desowitz 1991). Desowitz further commented that there were “numerous reports of village cats dying within one week after malaria-control teams sprayed DDT onto household walls”.

Cat deaths as a result of DDT spraying were also reported in Oaxaca, Mexico (Anonymous 1977) where the exterminators were called los matagatos, “the cat killers”, because “the cats lick the DDT residue off their paws and die of a disease of the nervous system”. Furthermore, Michael Colbourne (1962), who worked for the WHO during the 1950’s, conceded that malaria eradication campaigns in the western Pacific caused the death of some “domestic animals”, although he states, “such killings can be reduced, but not wholly prevented, by adequate precautions.” This remark was one of the few made by a WHO representative on the unintentional deaths of cats via indoor residual spraying of DDT during the height of the eradication program. In 1969, Anthony Brown of the WHO prepared an address to members of a convention on the biological impacts of pesticides in the environment during which he stated, “DDT as applied has not caused any side-effects among domestic animals.” Despite this claim, only several years later, Brown conceded that there were undocumented cases of cats dying from contact with DDT in Bolivia and Sabah “because of their habit of continually cleaning themselves by licking.

These sources confirm that cats died as a result of DDT spraying during malaria eradication programs. However, evidence points to the cause of cat deaths as being related to their propensity for licking their fur and that this trait provided a means for ingesting a lethal dose of DDT obtained directly from contact with the DDT residue clinging to sprayed floors and walls.



Nonmalarial infant deaths and DDT use for malaria control.

Although dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) is being banned worldwide, countries in sub-Saharan Africa have sought exemptions for malaria control. Few studies show illness in children from the use of DDT, and the possibility of risks to them from DDT use has been minimized. However, plausible if inconclusive studies associate DDT with more preterm births and shorter duration of lactation, which raise the possibility that DDT does indeed have such toxicity. Assuming that these associations are causal, we estimated the increase in infant deaths that might result from DDT spraying. The estimated increases are of the same order of magnitude as the decreases from effective malaria control. Unintended consequences of DDT use need to be part of the discussion of modern vector control policy.



DDT and breast cancer in young women

Women exposed to relatively high levels of DDT prior to mid-adolescence are 5 times more likely to develop breast cancer later in life than women with lower exposures. But exposure after adolescence does not increase risk.

This conclusion comes from a prospective study of young women's blood that was collected between 1959 and 1967 and stored by freezing, combined with an analysis of their current medical records. The median time to diagnosis of breast cancer after the sample was taken of 17 years.

Many US women who were heavily exposed to DDT in childhood have not yet reached the age of 50. According to the scientists who conducted the study, "the public health significance of DDT exposure in early life may be large.




top topics



 
8

log in

join