Well, was DDT banned for use for public health needs like fighting malaria? Cite the specific agency, the ruling, and the year?

The reason resistence to DDT occurs is because of constant exposure. Limiting DDT use to the inside of closed and screened houses prevents this constant exposure and thus the resistence.

However, well into the 80s, DDT was considered the only pesticide useful against cotton pests, so DDT use was used even after "banned" in the US until alternatives were available, and elsewhere until DDT just didn't work and the alternatives were cheaper.

Only then was it possible for DDT to be useful for public health.

But, DDT alone in not sufficient. DDT must be sprayed in all houses in the region, and this requires government mandates. And drugs must be given to all who get malaria. Only by cutting off the vector for transmitting it, and by killing off the source, the infected people regardless of how much money they have, can malaria be close to eradicated. It is impossible to kill off all the specific mosquitos, so the mosquitos must be given people free of malaria to bite if the succeed. Malaria erradication hasn't worked because no one has put together the command and control regime to do it.

But more important, the environmental damage to the environment was very clear in the 60s all over the world, and the connection between the damage and DDT was very clear, and DDT just wasn't that effective when used by the ton as was common then, so no justification existed for continuing to permit DDTs use as a general purpose pesticide.

Now, where is the fraud. Please provide the evidence that DDT did not cause harm - in fact the whole point of DDT was to kill stuff, so harm was intended, but what was required was very limited harm. And provide the evidence that withdrawing DDT as a general purpose pesticide killed anyone.

And don't cite articles written after 1970 to explain the the basis for decision making in 1970 and 1972, unless you have evidence that someone with a time machine took those results back in time. By the 90s, DDT was used in very few places on crops, so the vectors were no longer resistent to DDT, so the effectiveness inside houses today is much different than in the 50s and 60s.

And whether or not DDT is harmful to people based on research today is irrelevant to the decision making in 1970 - that was not the basis for the decision making then.

What I find ironic is the people who complain about the restriction on the use of DDT were never affected one way or the other by the EPA action if in the US or by the Stockholm Convention if outside the US. More cost effective alternatives were available long before 1972, and they had largely replaced DDT already.

On the other hand, the evidence of the harm caused by burning fossil fuels has been far clearer since the 50s, but every effort to limit the harm has been painfully fought with many lives lost to inaction. And the need to stop burning fossil fuels has been clear for well over half a century.

The current strategy of people like you seems to be to push the problem down the road until after you die, and stick you children with the pain of solving the problem you created and were too lazy or stupid to address. And you just keep making up stuff to deny the existance of any problem. You never provide any evidence that fossil fuels can be found and burned for the next thousand years, but merely make claims like "global warming, peak oil, are all just like the hoax that claimed DDT didn't cure malaria, so we can just keep on living like we always have, and if we can't find oil, then the liberals have moved it to where the terrorists live."

Really, if you are going to make up stuff, please be creative. Claim "JFK moved the oil from Texas to Cuba as part of a deal with the commies, and that's why Texas oil production is own so much - those damn commie liberals."