Chapter 13

DDT & World Population Control

 

Malaria is not bad, unless you get it!

On June 1, 2003, the Senate was preparing to enact an international treaty that had been dubbed the POP’s (persistent organic pollutants) treaty. Thirty some years after DDT was banned in most of the world, the purpose this time was to ban all use of DDT in all countries. How noble? This is despite the millions of people who had already died as a direct result of the U.S. EPA's “no excuses” ban on the chemical. I would have asked: “What about the millions that are still being saved every year by unauthorized use of DDT?

What about them? Do they die now?”

It will be forty years on June 14, 2012 that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, disregarded the advice of his scientific advisors and for political reasons announced a ban on virtually all domestic uses of the pesticide DDT. This was done despite the fact that DDT had earlier been hailed as a "miracle" chemical that repelled and killed mosquitoes that carry malaria, a disease that can not only be fatal to humans, but is difficult to diagnose. The creator of DDT had received a Nobel Peace Prize.

Once bitten, the malaria parasite heads for the liver. It reproduces quickly before re-entering the bloodstream where it attacks the red blood cells. It can take from about one week to a year after being bitten for malaria to appear. Depending on where you are at the time, you live or die. About 2000 British hikers every year, who love to frequent malarial countries, come home very sick with Malaria. It takes weeks to get better. Nine of the 2000 die.  

You may know that a number of famous kings, emperors, popes, singers, and adventurers, either contracted malaria or died from Malaria. Al Jolson, Mahatma Gandhi, Genghis Khan, Pope Gregory V, and Davy Crockett are among those who have had serious bouts or died from malaria. At least eight US Presidents from George Washington to Lincoln, to Teddy Roosevelt to JFK were malaria victims in their lifetimes. When malaria does not kill a person, in many cases it weakens them severely, as was the case of Teddy Roosevelt’s who did not live much longer. This disease has no right to still be in existence. It is a killer, and it has gained strength during the EPA “reign of terror.”

Malaria, yellow fever, hemorrhagic fevers of all kinds had killed millions and millions of humans long before DDT came along. DDT is responsible for over a centillion infectious mosquitoes being eliminated. Yet, it has been outlawed in the US by our own EPA. Additionally, the US EPA supports efforts to ban the substance in all countries. Knowing the tactics of the EPA, you can bet they demand compliance regardless of the country. Think of all the deaths this has caused when no other effective treatment has replaced DDT!   

From the outset, the real scientific community was outspoken in their opposition to Ruckelshaus for imposing such a ban. Their hypothesis indicated that there was no evidence that DDT posed a hazard to human health. Yet the ban still took effect. The EPA takes no prisoners.

As expected, there has been a return of the long-gone diseases in the world. Simple diseases like malaria, which had effectively been wiped out, have come back with a vengeance. Years ago malaria had been eradicated by science. The scientific world had helped mankind. The EPA used junk science to push its secret agenda of world population control in the United States and through its surrogate agencies across the world. So, DDT, the miracle chemical that had been permitting people to live was banned from the globe. That’s how powerful the EPA is. That is just one reason why the EPA must be eliminated. The world would be better bringing back DDT and killing the EPA.

The case for bringing back DDT is strong but so is the EPA. Four hundred quadrillion or more nasty mosquitoes—perhaps even a centillion, had died but millions of people, who would have died in other times, lived substantially longer lives while DDT was available. Despite its miracle properties, the EPA and its dependent surrogates across the world successfully banned the mosquito / malaria killing pesticide from where it was needed the most. Since that fact is irrefutable, it comes with this fact; the EPA for years has been one of the principal agencies responsible for millions of deaths worldwide from malaria.

With DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) banned, in many mosquito-infested countries, there was no longer an effective way to control the disease carrying mosquitoes.  The EPA would not want to take the blame for unneeded deaths for political reasons, but they are to blame, nonetheless. Malaria has killed lots and lots and lots more people than DDT ever could have. The EPA and its politically motivated surrogates across the world need to be held responsible.

History and uses of DDT

There is much information on DDT on the Internet and in libraries across the world. This short introduction to DDT has some basis in a short introductory chemistry course from Duke University. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/pest1.html

The formulation for the compound known as DDT was first created by a German chemist, Othmar Zeidler in 1874. Zeidler was a putterer and very bright. He had made hundreds of chemical compounds before DDT but he had not documented any purpose for them, and so his notes offered no clue about a productive use for any of them. Over sixty years later, a Swiss scientist, Dr. Paul Müller, in 1939 followed Zeidler’s formulation and created his own DDT. From this, he discovered that it was very effective in killing insects. We might add, “to say the least.”

Almost ten years later, in 1948, Müller won the Nobel prize in medicine for this work.

In World War II, soldiers were literally being eaten alive by bugs such as bedbugs, fleas, body lice (cooties) that were known to carry the typhus disease (Rickettsia bacteria ). To combat the diseases, soldiers were dusted with Müller’s compound which was DDT. It was so effective as an insect killer that some who observed the landscape before and after nicknamed it the "atomic bomb" of pesticides. It is documented as saving the lives of thousands of soldiers in its first usage. For two weeks the soldiers were doused, and though they reported clouds of dust from the chemical compound, there are still no documented DDT deaths. However, as we have cited in this chapter, there had been lots of deaths from the pestilence caused by the bugs.

DDT later was used on farms in the US to control some common agricultural pests that would destroy crops in short order.

 

• various potato beetles
• coddling moth (which attacks apples)
• corn earworm
• cotton bollworm
• tobacco budworms

In addition to its use in farming, DDT was used extensively to control certain insects which carried other diseases such as encephalitis, hemorrhagic fever, malaria, yellow fever, and West Nile virus. These diseases are deadly to say the least. DDT as a weapon against the freight carrying bugs is even deadlier.

From the mid 1940’s to the 1970’s DDT was used extensively in the US and throughout the world. In the United States, at one point we were producing 220 million pounds of DDT a year. In other countries, where the major mosquito carried diseases had been infecting and killing many people, mostly children, DDT wiped out diseases such as malaria for many years.

In 1955, as an example of its effectiveness, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria worldwide, relying largely on DDT. The program was highly successful in many countries and death rates came down in some countries to zero.

Environmentalists began by trying to save human lives from the toxic effects of too many chemicals in the air. Over time, the emphasis changed so that their purpose became to save nature from their perception of its future decimation because of the footprint of human lives. That is a not so subtle change and it explains why people are not very happy with the EPA and other environmentalists who have gone “whacko.”

For example, “People are expendable to save nature,” is one of the major yet understandably quiet mantra’s of the EPA, whereas the agency itself was formed because people needed help from excessive contaminants in nature’s air.

The early EPA mantra was “Nature is expendable to save people.” Nature of course had no official spokesperson so the EPA took on that role and it has been arguing against regular human beings and the needs of humans, especially for light and heat, ever since. No sane person can permit an organization that cares nothing about humans to protect humans. It is ridiculous.

Back to the history lesson…  By the 1970s, the US began to get worried about DDT's environmental and health effects. The Environmental Protection Agency was formed in December, 1970 in the US by the Nixon administration to deal with pollution. With environmental activism becoming very big in the 1960’s, the elitist money people backed a notion called the Environment Defense Fund. This group won a huge victory in the US and the courts ordered the EPA to deregister DDT as a usable pesticide. Very shortly thereafter, in June 1972, the EPA cancelled all use of DDT on crops. For certain cases of disease control, the EPA allowed very limited use. Knowing one of their priorities is population control it is hard to trust them with the life of a house fly.

By the way, the EPA and other environmental groups love to use the courts rather than the rigid scientific method to prove their opinions. With the courts, all they need is a sympathetic judge and an attorney who is a good persuader. So, there is not always exact science behind EPA decisions and court orders. There is however, a lot of emotion and opinions.

DDT usage today – back to the present

While no longer manufactured or available in the US, DDT continues to be used in other parts of the world, wherever it is available. Despite its documented benefits and the lives it has saved and still could save, the world’s environmental agencies, championed by the EPA have substantially limited the supply and the use of DDT worldwide.

Spokesmen for the mosquito population and the Malaria Disease Propagation Agency (MDPA), when consulted were quite pleased with the DDT ban. There is speculation that for the interview, since the mosquitoes and the parasites are still learning English, EPA personnel had masqueraded as mosquitoes and parasites in order to make those statements appear to have been made by the affected organisms. Even the wicked will do anything to survive.

I hope you are getting my humor. The Trans Malarian Parasitic Orchestra in parasitic circles often plays in deadly spaces. For years it had labeled DDT as Malaria Enemy # 1. These bad guys, when unwrapped from their host mosquito, come from the protozoan parasite from the genus Plasmodium. If this were a total joke, I would tell you that Captain Kirk’s main man, Dr. McCoy, or “Bones,” using a special tricorder app, which could transvobulize the ship’s dilithium crystals into a hermeticsic mélange that could reinfect the infectious plasmodium parasite with neon micro lights along with a subdural implantation of the doofus buffooni virus.

This mélange and its effects have always proven to be deadly to creatures, from one cell in makeup to over five cells, but only in cases when the villains have originated from the planet Plasmodium, once occupied by the Kardashian sisters. As I hope you realize, in the last three paragraphs I jest for effect. Unfortunately the EPA work is no joking matter.

This all boils down to the fact, that when DDT was no longer available for purely political reasons, malaria came back with a vengeance. 

Over the last few years, many tropical countries began to thumb their noses at the environmentalists as the people in their countries were dying almost as quickly as the mosquitoes had been when whacked with DDT. So DDT, by popular demand is in use again in some brave countries that either do not depend on US foreign aid, or who have somehow gained waivers from the EPA. Its use is simply to control malaria and other major diseases to help the people. Its use is not intended to irritate the EPA but yet it does.

From the Duke site, they suggest we all check out this graph from Ceylon, which charts malaria over time. Note that during the 1960’s the disease was just about eradicated in Ceylon from DDT spraying, Note also that when DDT was no longer permitted, malaria made a big comeback. Who are these people that think they can play God with human beings?

We must consider that the battle over DDT use and non-use is like a religion. The environmentalists do not care how many lives are lost as long as the environment is safe for all life—even if the mosquitoes that are saved kill humans in the process.

The environmentalists would actually be mollified if the mosquitoes live and they die. The only thing similar to this death wish is the zealot who places a belt of explosives on his body. Try arguing cases about religion and that is why you will find so many zealots who want DDT to continue to be banned worldwide. After all, only people die.

Now, consider you wake up as the leader in a country in which the infection rate is overwhelming and people are sick all the time and many, mostly children are dying. How much do you care if the EPA tells you that you are not able to help stop the deaths of the many children in your country? What about your own children?

Suppose again that you have a cheap solution to the problem but the source of foreign aid if you cross them will stop you from getting the money to buy DDT? Will you use your own resources to find DDT anywhere you can and pay for it yourself?  Of course you will! Shame on the EPA for putting countries through that exercise, and that is why it must be gone.

The following DDT / malaria stories from some spots in Africa show the thinking of some brave African leaders:

The use of DDT for spraying the inside walls of houses, a proven way to quickly stop the rate of malaria incidence, has made a comeback in African nations. The EPA would rather families starve and to avoid getting malaria, they should use their food money to buy the pesticide soaked expensive netting they claim is safer for the environment than DDT. That would be OK maybe, if lives were secondary. Lives are now the primary motivator and saving them, especially the lives of children is a major priority for African leaders—not the EPA.

Saving lives now in Africa has priority over the fears and the lies of the environmentalists and the environmentalists are not happy about that. So much for population control, which had been that added benefit of the DDT ban—for the whackos.

Logic suggests that when children are taken out by malaria or yellow fever or some other painful death,  the earth and nature suffer even less than when an adult dies of malaria because the number of pollutants a human throws off into the atmosphere in a lifetime is much less when the lifetime is short.  With this logic, it is surprising the EPA lets any of us live. Maybe that is why Obama wants control of healthcare.

Let’s go to Uganda.  In Uganda, caring more about people than the EPA; the Minister of Health, Brigadier Jim Muhwezi, renewed house spraying in the most “malarious” areas. He had the approval of the Ugandan Cabinet.

Muhwezi had critics including the EPA surrogates, but he dismissed them all, saying  "How many people must die of malaria while these debates continue? If DDT can save lives, why not use it as we wait for the alternatives."

His words were reported in the Kampala newspaper, New Vision.

The program has been successful, and when Uganda’s story was originally written, the country of Mauritius was about to be declared malaria free because of its use of DDT.

Zambia is another example. From the time of the DDT ban, malaria incidence and deaths had been climbing. To address this, just as in Uganda, the Health Minister aggressively pursued the use of DDT to fight malaria. The theory came well tested after the great success Zambia had using DDT in the copper mining areas beginning in 2000. After just two years, there were no malaria deaths in the copper mining areas.

Zimbabwe is yet another example of leaders saying “environmentalists are killing our people.” Minister of Health David Parirenyatwa reintroduced DDT to save the children because, according to his words, it was, "cheap and more effective, with a longer residual killing power."  He is quoted in the  Bulawayo Chronicle in October 2003:

"So many people have died of malaria since January and we are doing our best to control it... DDT is very effective, because it sticks for a long time on the walls and kills a lot of mosquitoes with a single spray... South Africa and Swaziland are using it, and I don't see why we should not use it."

Why should DDT not be used until something can be made that is safer?

The US government has no business in environmental regulation for the states or for the rest of the world, especially when their scientific premise is wrong—dead wrong. In the US as we have said many times, there should be no federal regulations at all, since we have the individual states to do that work.  The tenth amendment of the Constitution demands that anything like an EPA should be run by the states.

The biggest stain on America is a government that has grown so large that it has in many ways turned against its own citizens. The EPA is an agent of such a government, and it spreads its wings into less powerful countries commanding, for the sake of population control, not environment protection, that children die of major diseases and the earlier the better.

Before we close this Chapter on DDT, let’s review the two big items that the EPA says will kill us while it advocates the deaths of little children to complete its sordid green agenda, which embraces world population control. Let’s answer these two questions though we have been discussing DDT for awhile already in this chapter.

What is DDT and what is the other major chemical that the EPA does not like?

DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, CCl3CH(C6H4Cl)2, a synthetic organic compound introduced in the 1940s and used as an insecticide.

CFC: Chlorofluorocarbon: a fluorocarbon with chlorine; formerly used as a refrigerant and as a propellant in aerosol cans.

We have already given a brief picture of the DDT issues but we will look at its ban in a little more detail as a sordid means of population control before we move to the next chapter. In the next chapter, we examine the CFC ban in detail so you can get a full picture of what the EPA really is, and why it cannot be trusted to act on our behalf even in a matter in which nobody has to die.

Whereas EPA apologists identify just these two EPA actions (DDT and CFC bans) as the defining items in the EPA’s legacy of greatness, I submit that the EPA response to the perceived issues with DDT and CFCs is exactly the reason why the EPA must go.

EPA apologists, thinking rational human beings will believe they cannot do without the nasty and corrupt EPA, ask how the banning of DDT and CFCs would have been managed in a world in which there was no EPA-devised national standard. To be honest, answering that presumption makes me feel like throwing up. Sorry! 

Of course they are referring to the assertion that the EPA should be eliminated. Then what would we do? Hah? Then what?

My answer is that if there were no ban on either of these products, life would be better and safer for all people, and more people would be living with less government harassment.

To help the EPA apologists remember that the people are tuned into their agenda, let’s go back and review some facts about malaria, add to the fact list, and then close out and go on to Chapter 11 The truth about CFCs.

A quick check of the facts shows that well over a million people continue to die worldwide each year because of the EPA supported ban on DDT and the rise of malaria and other such mosquito borne diseases.  And, just as sure as Global Warming, and the possibility of Al Gore donating all his money to charity are both big hoaxes, the DDT ban and in fact, the CFC ban are also big hoaxes perpetrated by an EPA agency gone wild.

There is also a sinister side to the EPA DDT ban that is difficult to swallow – population control. You may not believe it so we came here to explain why after we first examined where we are worldwide with DDT. Let’s review what Walter Williams has to say:

Dr. Walter Williams, writing for the Jewish World Review in July 2004, http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=68highlights the demagoguery and the ideological agenda of the EPA. Dr. Williams is an economist and he is a faculty member at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.  Like you, Dr. Williams is not a dummy!

His work rips big holes in any notion that this body uses real science for its conclusions. Millions have paid with their lives for the EPA’s idealism, and thirst for power. Instead of Americans and other world citizens leading miserable lives and even being killed off by bad regulations, let’s get together and kill the EPA! 

Williams writes:

“Ever since Rachel Carson's 1962 book "Silent Spring," environmental extremists have sought to ban all DDT use. Using phony studies from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental activist-controlled Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in 1972. The extremists convinced the nation that DDT was not only unsafe for humans but unsafe to birds and other creatures as well. Their arguments have since been scientifically refuted. “

Despite this, EPA zealots and apologists from around the world, armed with little to no supporting science, take on honest overtures to close down this killer agency. They use arguments that have long since been proven to be falsehoods, and pure lies. 

I have lifted a few more paragraphs from William’s piece to show the really sinister, downright sick rationale for the banning of DDT. When you read this you may find yourself muttering: “Maybe somebody did not like poor people. Maybe somebody did not like black people. Maybe somebody did not like the high birthrate in poor black countries, and just maybe somebody is actually using malaria as a form of population control.” Why? Because they are powerful enough; that they can do so.

Williams continues:

“While DDT saved crops, forests and livestock, it also saved humans. In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives during the time it was widely used. A scientific review board of the EPA showed that DDT is not harmful to the environment and showed it to be a beneficial substance that ‘should not be banned.’ According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children.

“In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today. More than 100,000 people died during malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s, following the suspension of DDT house spraying. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu-Natal province skyrocketed from 8,000 to 42,000. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Now that DDT is being used again, [shhhh!!!! – don’t tell Byron Moore] the number of deaths from malaria in the region has dropped from 340 in 2000 to none at the last reporting in February 2003.

“In South America, where malaria is endemic, malaria rates soared in countries that halted house spraying with DDT after 1993 -- Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. In Ecuador, DDT spraying was increased after 1993, and the malaria rate of infection was reduced by 60 percent. In a 2001 study published by the London-based Institute for Economic Affairs, "Malaria and the DDT Story," Richard Tren and Roger Bate say that "Malaria is a human tragedy," adding, "Over 1 million people, mostly children, die from the disease each year, and over 300 million fall sick."
 

--Temporary End of Williams quote---

The EPA should be disbanded for lots of reasons but none greater than the politically corrupt / correct ban on the pesticide known to help people live by wiping out many diseases. For example, check out this quote from The National Academy of Sciences made in 1970, just two years before the political murderers in the EPA imposed their will on the world.

"To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In only some two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable."  A reasonably prudent person would conclude that on balance, DDT is a very helpful product. So, why does the EPA think otherwise?  Answer – their mission is not to save lives.

Read more: http://www.yumasun.com/opinion/ddt-37645-malaria-year.html#ixzz1Yb9armZD

Williams Quote continues:

“The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it. Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:

‘My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.’

“Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,”

‘People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this [referring to malaria deaths] is as good a way as any.’

Let me translate. These people in the environmental community and the EPA have another agenda going on and saving human lives is not part of their agenda. It is called world population control and when DDT was banned, people began to die again and that was not an accident. It was a plan. And the EPA staff was able to smile.

The apologists / zealots will tell you that there are many other “safer” ways to solve the malaria problem. For example, there are these nets sprayed heavily with insecticide that offer protection. But, they cost a zillion dollars and in undeveloped countries that is enough for parents to make a decision as to whether their children die either of malaria or of starvation.

Moreover, requiring the netting as a way of life is like having the people in the undeveloped countries live their lives with a dog-like Elizabethan collar around them to prevent them from getting in trouble and ultimately getting killed by malaria. Forget about stickball or even dancing while wearing the insect net. No wonder people die.

DDT simply kills the perpetrator and the person defended by DDT gets to live a normal life.  No net boys or bubble boys are necessary when the country is armed with DDT.  Just spray a house with small amounts of DDT and it costs a measly $1.44 per year. For $1.44 nobody is going to die, and there is no net needed that offers protection to just one person at a time.  The net and other alternatives are five to 10 times more costly, making them effectively unaffordable in poor countries.

Poor countries often have leaders, who have a great understanding of the rest of the world, and that is why they are the leaders.  Unfortunately, the “greater than thou” rich country emissaries, such as those from the US-EPA that once used DDT themselves to eliminate the problem; threaten reprisals against poor countries if they use DDT.  Brave leaders find DDT rather than permitting their people to be killed by diseases as powerful as a biological population control WMD.

It seems to me that many black and brown people, more than white people are being affected by these major diseases due to the warm nature of their native climates. I think this is outrageous. I do not understand why black and brown religious groups, perhaps the Congressional Black Caucus, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Latino leaders in the US and elsewhere, government and non-government organizations, politicians and others who profess concern over the plight of poor people around the world do not join together to stop the killing of young children, who simply want to have fun. Children do not want to live under nets or in bubbles.

The fact is that most of those who die are black or brown children. These young people should be enabled to live long and productive lives. Nobody, including the EPA should be gunning for them. Somebody should step up and become a face to this huge problem.

A little investigation would tell them that because the killer mosquito a.k.a. the mosquito borne parasite cannot be killed by ordinary means, something extraordinary is necessary. Lots of washing and looking good in the mirror does not help.

Tell me it is not possible that what I would call mostly comfortable Americans, in the Hamptons, (who work for the EPA?) or perhaps EPA people who live in other comfortable places, while making a good buck for the EPA, have determined that poor people, especially those in other countries are expendable?

The EPA prescribed and promoted DDT bans, which created needless suffering and death. Was population control an expressed or implied goal of the EPA? The population control aficionados know that mosquito-borne malaria not only has devastating health effects but stifles economic growth as well, and thus more and more deaths can occur in poor countries and their populations can thus be controlled!

Amen, Dr. Williams!

I admit that the topic of population control is way beyond my pay grade. I am, however, very sympathetic to those needlessly killed when solutions are available.

Greg Baxter wrote what I see as a chilling article on population control and malaria for The Irish Medical Times. It is titled, Is malaria the solution to population control.  I do not endorse or not endorse any of what is in his article but it surely demonstrates the point I am making and it brings in the serious notion that population control is not a topic to be taken lightly regardless of your position on population control or the means of control.

You can see this line of thought at http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2010/04/is-malaria-the-solution-to-population-control.html

Those arguing for population control take the issue as seriously and perhaps even more seriously than I take the issue of interference by the EPA from keeping the world disease free.

This is one of those chilling excerpts from Baxter’s article:

“Neither famine nor disease control population growth anymore. Nor does war. Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at Yale University, Robert Wyman looked at nuclear war as a way to control population growth in a public lecture last year.

“ ‘The Hiroshima bomb killed 75,000 people, the Nagasaki bomb killed 25,000 people. That’s 100,000 people dead in two quick flashes,” he said. “But the population on earth grows by approximately 200,000 a day. What that means is that if we can imagine that some wars are going to balance births and deaths on earth, that means that every day you have to blow up two Nagasaki bombs and two Hiroshima bombs, killing that equivalent number of people, just to keep even.’ ”

“Prof Wyman argues that the eradication of malaria, as well as the development of family planning and economic stability, will decrease population growth in Africa – putting the emphasis on fertility, instead of mortality, as a solution. He points out that the demographic transition from high fertility and mortality to low, already completed in places like Europe, Tunisia and Japan, is still ongoing in much of Africa.”

There are two sides to every story. In my story, the EPA does not have the right to play God. Its value as a force in the pollution debate is diminished by its apparent leanings towards world population control. Nobody in my government, of which I am aware, gave the EPA such power.

Chapter Summary

Going back in summary, we have learned from the EPA proponents that the DDT and the CFC bans are two of the EPA’s actions that have supposedly made it a great agency. Obviously “decreases in the death rate” is not an EPA statistic that is measured or cared about or this legacy would have a big cross-out mark on it.

I am not suggesting that DDT and CFCs are the EPA’s only sins but the DDT story shows the EPA has been a non repenting killer of people. The economic impact of the major regulations against fossil fuels and other necessities of life demonstrate that the EPA is also a jobs killer. The CFC story, in which you can engage in detail in the next chapter, is pure corruption, and a marriage of government and industry that should warrant a quick divorce.

So, I had concluded even before I had given you any facts in this book that the EPA itself needs to be killed. It should not be credited with great acts for the well-being of mankind as zealots and apologists might slant the facts.  The EPA is a killer of men—with no apologies.

The EPA at best is a pack of liars interested in their own power and self preservation. They have no concern about a sane person’s perception of the greater good, especially for we the people!  The EPA is pro-nature, and thus, they are anti-people as they have concluded that nature—animals, vegetables, and minerals are more important than people.

Even though they do not use guns or knives, the EPA murders people, nonetheless. Sometimes they murder with WMDs (malaria, yellow fever, etc.) simply to suit their sordid agenda. Sometimes it is by denying the spirit of a farmer who can no longer work the land.

This agency cannot be trusted with our lives.

Tell the EPA it’s time to go!