Tom Fuller and Malaria – A Case Study of Denialism and the Backfire Effect

[I’m going to assume that most people who visit this blog are familiar with denialism and its hallmarks. If not, check out a good rundown from Denialism blog.]

Longtime readers are already familiar with Tom Fuller’s denialism on climate, e.g. here and here. Lately, Fuller has decided to throw his lot in with the DDT-holocaust lie.

The meme that anti-science environmentalist hysteria resulted in a ban on DDT use, resulting in millions of deaths from malaria, is fairly prevalent among the fringe American right wing but few places elsewhere. It’s championed by anti-regulatory front groups (e.g. CEI), climate denialists (e.g. Roy Spencer), and more recently rubbish journalist Fred Pearce.

It is of course demonstrably false. Make no mistake, there was indeed a resurgence of malaria after some decades of relative success in suppressing it. This resurgence had nothing to do with anti-science environmentalist hysteria. The reasons for it are not shrouded in mystery, but are rather mundane and (unfortunately for those looking to smear environmentalists) pretty much what a sane person would expect: financial problems, complacency, political instability, growing resistance, cost-benefit tradeoffs with alternatives due to scientific, economic, and practical concerns, and the like (Nájera et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2012).

This was pointed out to Fuller. But Fuller tends to think with his gut, so he was not about to let pesky little things like reality stand in the way of a good blood libel. So he attempts to marshal some “evidence” in support of Pearce’s use of the lie. His first attempt is to blame the 1972 domestic ban on DDT use in the US- that had explicit exemptions for public health needs such as disease vector control- for a decline in DDT use in Sri Lanka that began in 1964. This is, to put it mildly, rank idiocy. Its nonsensical nature is pointed out.

Unsteadied, Fuller spends the next few comments telling people like myself that we “suck”, we’re on acid, and that environmentalists are like skinheads.

You might think this invective is the dawning of a realization of defeat. But the human psyche is a funny thing. When someone is shown that their position is stupidly, laughably wrong, if the position is tied to their ideological beliefs, it will have some interesting effects. Rather than accept their wrongness, they will actually discount the the refuting evidence and reaffirm their position even more strongly (Nyhan and Reifler, 2010). So after the brief period of insults free of any actual arguments, Fuller goes casting about for something else that will justify the DDT-holocaust lie. And look what happens along the way:

Fuller starts out just trying to justify Pearce’s use of the word “arguably”, and says that, well “[t]here are a substantial number of people who sincerely believe” in the DDT-holocaust lie, so Pearce is okay [October 23rd, 2012 at 12:16 pm]. His attempts to defend Pearce are shown to be wrong and he goes looking for other ones. As he does, he becomes more and more invested in the idea not just that Pearce was okay to spread the lie because he said it was “arguably” true, but that it is in fact absolutely true [October 24th, 2012 at 4:45 pm; October 24th, 2012 at 4:52 pm], and then goes still further and claims Pearce was really understating (!) the case [October 24th, 2012 at 9:28 pm]:

If Pearce is guilty of anything, it appears to be understatement.

This is the backfire effect on full, magnificent display.

And of course, denialism is nothing if not predictable, so Fuller’s evidence included the following: citing a four year hiatus of DDT use in South Africa that actually had nothing to do with anti-science environmentalist hysteria related to Silent Spring and was, it should go without saying, not responsible for “millions of deaths” (Mnzava, 2001; Cliff et al., 2010). Claiming that a 1999 ban on DDT caused an increase in malaria infections in Malaysia- this is what the trend in malaria infection actually is:

Citing the science, economic, and logistics-based decisions of the World Health Organization as anti-science environmentalist hysteria. Copypasta’ing walls of text from Senate testimony-fudger and all-around innumerate DDT evangelist Donald Roberts. And claiming that DDT was “stopped several decades [before the year 2000 in Mozambique], because 80% of the country’s health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT” , despite DDT being the main method of malarial control until 1993. Claiming this, I should add, hours after it was pointed out as a falsehood in response to another commenter.

There is no admission of being wrong about any of things Fuller tossed out that were demonstrably false. There is no attempt made to maintain coherence of evidence or narrative (science and logistics are conflated with anti-science hysteria; the World Bank and WHO are conflated with hippies; the “millions of deaths” are supposed to have taken place in Africa in the 60s, then the 90s, then in the Americas; etc.). Causality is, several times, thrown completely out the window. And the sillier and more contradictory the claims grow, the more convinced Fuller becomes that the DDT-holocast lie is true.

All of this behavior will seem irrational and bizarre to many onlookers. And it is bizarre, if we were really talking about a person who was legitimately interested in looking at the reality of the situation. But of course, that’s not at all what’s taking place. What’s taking place is very classic behavior associated with motivated reasoning. It’s certainly not rational, but it is all too familiar. Though the topic is different, the dynamics are the same with respect to the denial of the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic climate change. Some people are just not going to be reachable by reality-based arguments. Taking a fact-based approach will actually cause some of them to be even more committed to their incorrect beliefs. Fortunately, though, the same social science that has illuminated this irrational behavior offers us some ways to bypass it. Hopefully I will have more to say on that later.

Note: In comments, Fuller says he was not defending Pearce’s use of “arguably”.

References

  • Cliff, J., S. Lewin, G. Woelk, B. Fernandes, A. Mariano, E. Sevene, K. Daniels, S. Matinhure, A. Oxman, and J. Lavis (2010), Policy development in malaria vector management in Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe, Health Policy Plan, 25(5), 372–383, doi:10.1093/heapol/czq008.
  • Cohen, J., D. Smith, C. Cotter, A. Ward, G. Yamey, O. Sabot, and B. Moonen (2012), Malaria resurgence: a systematic review and assessment of its causes, Malaria Journal, 11(1), 122, doi:10.1186/1475-2875-11-122.
  • Mnzava, A. E., B. L. Sharp, D. J. Mthembu, D. le Sueur, S. S. Dlamini, J. K. Gumede, and I. Kleinschmidt (2001), Malaria control–two years’ use of insecticide-treated bednets compared with insecticide house spraying in KwaZulu-Natal, S. Afr. Med. J., 91(11), 978–983.
  • Nájera, J. A., M. González-Silva, and P. L. Alonso (2011), Some Lessons for the Future from the Global Malaria Eradication Programme (1955–1969), PLoS Med, 8(1), e1000412, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000412.
  • Nyhan, B., and J. Reifler (2010), When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions, Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330, doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2.

28 responses to “Tom Fuller and Malaria – A Case Study of Denialism and the Backfire Effect

  1. Shall we continue with your prevarications? You write: “Fuller starts out just trying to justify Pearce’s use of the word “arguably”, and says that, well ”[t]here are a substantial number of people who sincerely believe” in the DDT-holocaust lie, so Pearce is okay [October 23rd, 2012 at 12:16 pm].”

    I did not at any point try to justify Pearce’s use of the word ‘arguably.’ Your link serves as evidence.

  2. To continue: You write, “This resurgence had nothing to do with anti-science environmentalist hysteria.”

    In Professor Donald Robert’s testimony to Congress he says “It is an irrefutable fact that for over two decades WHO, bilateral and multilateral donors, and other international agencies have been pressing countries to abandon indoor spray programs.” Given that he is employed by the sponsors of the study you cite above, I am willing to give him credence.

    • Given that he is employed by the sponsors of the study you cite above, I am willing to give him credence.

      You seem to be mistaking me for someone else. Donald Roberts is a propagandist who is either innumerate or deliberately misrepresents data. I wouldn’t cite any of his individual work unless it was vetted by a respected independent research group.

      It is an irrefutable fact that for over two decades WHO

      The World Health Organization makes its policy on anti-malarial efforts based on scientific, economic, logistical, and efficacy evidence amassed over decades of research in combating the disease. The idea that the WHO can be magically substituted for anti-science environmentalist hysteria is absurd on its face, Tom.

  3. Similarly, are you saying that Professor Roberts lied when he told Congress, “Government officials told me that they wanted to use DDT, because it still worked well in Vietnam, but Vietnam had long ago used most of its DDT stocks. The government had been trying to get DDT for several years. However international agencies and foreign donors refused to help the government make those purchases.”

  4. Are you saying that this statement is false? “The World Wildlife Fund Wednesday called for a global ban on the production and use of DDT by 2007

    • The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the EDF have publicly stated their acceptance for DDT use in combating malaria.

      The charge you are attempting to support is “blanket” environmentalist, antiscience opposition to DDT use in fighting malaria, causing “millions of deaths”. Your arguments are comical.

      • From the EDF website: “EDF, which filed the original lawsuit that led to the nationwide DDT ban signed June 14, 1972,…”

      • Jesus, Tom. Be less of a clown.

        Today, Environmental Defense recognizes the tremendous global public health burden of malaria, which is felt most keenly by developing countries. Environmental Defense supports the practical approach of the Stockholm convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS) which was agreed to by international negotiators in 2001 and which the U.S. has signed but not ratified. Once implemented in May, this treaty will allow indoor use of DDT for disease vector control programs only (disease vectors are insects and other invertebrates that spread diseases) when “locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives are not available.”

      • The nationwide ban that included exceptions for public health use, Tom.

  5. I’m certainly willing to continue after you respond to the above comments.

  6. “Donald Roberts is a propagandist who is either innumerate or deliberately misrepresents data.”

    Evidence?

  7. “…the “millions of deaths” are supposed to have taken place in Africa in the 60s, then the 90s…”

    Looking at this figure (http://cmr.asm.org/content/15/4/564/F5.expansion.html -
    Annual Malaria Deaths per 10,000 population in sub-Saharan Africa) we see 50% increase in mortality (from 11 people to 16) in the years 1970-1990. If this is not enough …

  8. Pingback: Making an honest hack out of Fred Pearce in five easy steps | The Way Things Break

  9. Fuller’s refusal to acknowledge and correct mistakes (despite being presented with facts that show his assertions to be demonstrably wrong) is a trademark of denialism and those who willingly engage in disinformation. Fuller ought to team up with Morano.

  10. Sorry Maple Leaf. Thingsbreak’s moderation policy makes it impossible for me to have a conversation here.

    • Tom is lying again. The only moderation he’s received is a deletion of a duplicate post and snipping his comments in reference to said deletion.

      Tom, you’re free to continue to beclown yourself to your heart’s content as long as you stay on topic.

      Meta comments about moderation and duplicate comments will continue to be subject to moderation.

  11. Please, please, please, don’t let me become like that when I get old.

  12. For me the images that should be inline aren’t appearing (firefox 16.0.2, osx). Example: the malaria trend chart for Indonesia; I can guess from the text that an image ought to appear after a colon — but there’s nothing displayed inline. Doing View Source reveals the URL so I can get it:
    ——–
    “this is what the trend in malaria infection actually is:

    Citing the science….”
    ——-

  13. (Same problem using Chrome)

  14. and … nevermind. The script precautions had to be relaxed.

  15. Pingback: Friendly Reminder: The DDT-Holocaust Hoax promoters don’t actually care about malaria deaths | The Way Things Break

  16. Pingback: Stilo ban on DDT: Treaty monitors allow DDT use to continue « Millard Fillmore's Bathtub

  17. [Insults are fine if made in the context of a substantive argument. Mindless invective is boring. -TB]

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