The death toll is mounting.

Dr. Rutledge calls into The Howard Stern Show

Advertisements

14 responses

  1. Rutledge Taylor is a quack on DDT. Shame on him.

    December 9, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    • xmfclick

      Ed Darrell is a failed lawyer and “educator” (read “ecotard propagandist”) who has a personal vendetta against Dr Taylor. He *has* no shame, spreading lies and smears around the Internet.

      December 9, 2010 at 8:53 pm

  2. Pingback: Ducking the quacks on DDT « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub

  3. Pingback: Ducking the quacks on DDT « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub

  4. Dr Susan Dornan

    Witholding an effective, safe, insecticide, DDT, in order to allow people to die from malaria, is inhuman. So, I’m with Doctor Taylor on this one – get informed, bring back DDT.

    December 9, 2010 at 11:33 pm

  5. TrudyS

    Ed Darrell has an obsession with denial. Without any proof of DDT being “bad” (that is replicable and documented) he calls Dr. Taylor a “quack”… Bring on the “proof” that can contradict the research presented in 3 Billion and Counting, and let’s see what you’ve got, Ed. Name-calling is immature.

    December 10, 2010 at 1:13 am

  6. Proof of DDT’s harms? The National Academy of Science said in 1970 that DDT was one of the most beneficial chemicals ever devised — but its harms so far outweigh its benefits that it must be expunged from our pesticide arsenal. Taylor cites the first part of NAS’s claim, but dishonestly fails to mention the second part.

    Proof? Rutledge Taylor has the cranks in Lyndon Larouche’s cult on his side, and every tobacco propagandist on Earth — but check the medical journals. Do a search on PubMed, and count the DDT articles.

    The great malaria fighters have all the DDT they need, and they use it where it can do good — but we don’t need more.

    Ironically, we’re making progress against malaria today with integrated vector management, the methods Rachel Carson urged in 1962. Had we listened to Rachel Carson then, how many could we have saved?

    Rutledge Taylor claims the ban on spraying DDT on cotton in Texas in 1972, caused the cessation of spraying DDT in Africa in 1965.

    Can’t he read a calendar? Can’t he read a map?

    December 11, 2010 at 3:03 am

  7. Answer1

    For the record, Hearing Examiner, Edmund Sweeney, in summing up the Conclusions of Law based on the Findings of Fact concluded in 1972:

    DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.
    DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man.
    The uses of DDT under the registrations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.

    The above is taken from pages 93 and 94 of the Examiner’s report. Extracts are available here for you dear reader to get informed:
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/ddt_hearing.pdf

    January 2, 2011 at 1:41 am

  8. It’s very important to understand that DDT was NOT banned for its carcinogenicity, but for the damage it does to wildlife and ecosystems.

    Consequently, THESE findings by Sweeney may be more important than others:

    20. DDT can have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish and estuarine organisms when directly applied to the water.

    21. DDT is used as a rodenticide. [DDT was used to kill bats in homes and office buildings; this was so effective that, coupled with accidental dosing of bats from their eating insects carrying DDT, it actually threatened to wipe out some species of bat in the southwest U.S.]

    22. DDT can have an adverse effect on beneficial animals.

    23. DDT is concentrated in organisms and can be transferred through food chains.

    So, Sweeney found that DDT was, indeed, harmful to wildlife, and that the harms concentrate (that is, they multiply) as the stuff proceeds up through the food chain.

    Let us urge Dear Reader to get informed using the EPA official record, and not the magazine of the politically radical and factually footloose Lyndon Larouche as Answer 1 suggests (“21st Century Science and Tech” is a Larouche organ).

    And then check the records of the two trial courts who ruled, prior to the hearings, that on the basis of the science presented, DDT is an uncontrollable poison, and therefore illegal to use in any capacity under U.S. law (Ruckelshaus preserved use of DDT against malaria in the U.S., and greatly increased the supply of DDT to other nations fighting malaria).

    Then, for good measure, check the records of the two appellate courts who both ruled, in summary judgment, that EPA’s ban on spraying DDT on cotton was scientifically valid and legally viable.

    Then — again, just for the record — let the record note that since then, DDT has been discovered to be an endocrine disruptor in all animals, a scrambler of sex organs in fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds, and probably mammals — an expediter of breast cancer (as an estrogen mimic), a substance that causes female birds to form inadequate eggshells in the eggs they lay, and even a poison to plants.

    None of the great malaria fighting organizations on Earth is asking for more DDT. WHO put out a press release in 2005 reiterating their policy of using DDT where appropriate — which means, where the local populations of mosquitoes are not yet immune, and the proper controls of the program can be made. But in 2009 WHO announced that DDT was useful in fewer and fewer places, and so WHO will look for substitutes first. The Gates Foundation does not ask for more DDT.

    NAS performed a study of needs for fighting malaria in 2004 — more DDT was not called for — nor was any DDT called for. Nature spent an entire issue on fighting malaria in 2009 — not one call for more DDT.

    Were DDT not a deadly toxin, it would be absolutely useless as a malaria fighter, ever. Were DDT essential to fight malaria, we would expect African nations to be clamoring for it, and they don’t. Were DDT as effective as Rutledge Taylor claims, India’s using more DDT than the rest of the world combined should have purchased India freedom from malaria. But malaria rolls on in India, and DDT becomes even less effective.

    There is no claim made in Taylor’s movie that I have been able to verify as accurate. Taylor wages an unholy and vicious campaign against Rachel Carson, a good and righteous scientist. Carson was right.

    Taylor makes crass and false charges against Bill Ruckelshaus, too – Ruckelshaus the hero of the “Saturday Night Massacre.”

    I sure hope Taylor is getting big bucks from DDT interests to do this, because that’s the only moral out for him. I’d hate to think he could be so cruel, vicious, and wrong, and do it gratuitously.

    January 6, 2011 at 5:28 am

  9. Warnings about DDT in 1946? Yep. See here:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/annals-of-ddt-1946-warning-of-the-dangers-of-ddt/

    January 6, 2011 at 1:51 pm

  10. @Darrell: “DDT interests” — Oh come on, Darrell, you can do better than that. “Disingenuous” doesn’t suit you, it makes you look stupid. WHAT “DDT interests”? You know perfectly well that DDT is long out of patent and there’s no profit in it (which is one reason why no chemical company is interested in making it). There *are* no “DDT interests”. Whatever Dr Taylor’s reasons for making his film, they certainly weren’t because anyone was paying him to do so. You haven’t seen the film yet you critique it, and you fling random personal accusations around. You are an asshole.

    January 7, 2011 at 4:59 am

  11. Dear xfmclick,

    You’re right, “disingenuous” doesn’t fit. “Accurate, historic, scientifically correct” — choose one or more.

    DDT was never in patent for these purposes. There were 34 DDT manufacturing companies represented in the 1971 hearings. Your patent argument is patently false.

    Here, check the decision by Judge Bazelon in which he ordered EPA to conduct the study of DDT and the label:
    http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/439/439.F2d.584.23813_1.html

    I regret that Taylor is not getting paid to be disinformative. That means he’s just being nasty and wrong for the sake of being nasty and wrong. What a shame.

    Now that we’ve dealt with insults, did you have anything of substance to say?

    January 7, 2011 at 5:06 am

  12. Susan Smith

    is Rutledge’s official title Rutledge DO ? I checked the california official website http://opsc.org/ to see if he was listed, and he is not. What is his CURRENT licensing?

    February 20, 2011 at 10:26 pm

  13. Susan,

    That is not the official website. That is a group that physician/DO may or may not choose to join. By joining they pay fees and in turn there is “recommendations” by sites such as these, although yes, it sort of *looks* official(much like Ed Darrel’s ramblings). It has nothing to do with who is licensed.

    The official place to check license is listed below.

    http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.ActionQuery

    Dr. Rutledge is currently licensed as D.O/MD cert. in the state of California and Nevada.

    February 21, 2011 at 5:51 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s