In comparing the incidence of malaria with levels of DDT used in Mexico between 1959 and 1993, these researchers presented data showing that:
High rates of malaria occurred consistently when DDT use was low; and
For example, in 1959 before DDT was used in Mexico, there were almost 140,000 case of malaria reported. By 1970, when 3 million houses were being sprayed annually, the number of annual cases of malaria had dropped to about 40,000.
By 1973, the number of cases of malaria had risen to more than 100,000 while the number of households sprayed decreased to about 1 million.
But by 1985, the number of cases of malaria had dropped to less than 10,000 when the number of households sprayed increased to almost 7 million.
Of course as DDT use declined again in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the number of cases of malaria again increased.
These researchers also discussed a possible link between DDT and breast cancer but presented absolutely NO supporting data. They even acknowledge that insufficient data exist to make such a link.
Excuse me, but exactly where's the public health problem? If DDT is SOOOO bad for people, why is there NOOOOO data showing this?
I guess the more interesting junk science-related question is, why would someone conclude that DDT is a public health problem and then present data that only contradicts this conclusion?
That's why they win the gold medal. Now, if you'd all stand while the Mexican national anthem is played....