Tag: Malaria

Turning “What If” into “How Many”: The Rhetorical Alchemy of Climate Modeling

The article uses a recent Nature study on malaria in Africa as a case study to argue that climate impact research often transforms highly uncertain, scenario-based modeling into seemingly precise, alarmist predictions through selective emphasis and framing.

An elderly wizard holding a flask with green liquid while surrounded by scientific charts and graphs related to climate models and malaria, with stacks of documents and question marks in front.

The article uses a recent Nature study on malaria in Africa as a case study to argue that climate impact research often transforms highly uncertain, scenario-based modeling into seemingly precise, alarmist predictions through selective emphasis and framing.

Charles Rotter critiques a 2025 or early 2026 Nature paper titled something like “Projected impacts of climate change on malaria in Africa.”

He argues that climate-impact studies often perform a kind of “rhetorical alchemy”.

Such papers reveal more about the state of climate-impact modeling than about actual future malaria burdens.

It’s presented as an example of how uncertainty gets rhetorically transformed into urgency to support policy narratives.

Climate science communication often converts speculative chains into seemingly precise catastrophe forecasts, inflating perceived certainty and risks.

____________________________________________________________________________________

A businessman in a suit stands on a reflective surface, observing a burst of floating white papers against a cloudy backdrop.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Article titled 'Projected impacts of climate change on malaria in Africa' published in Nature on January 28, 2026, listing authors and access metrics.

A recent Nature paper, “Projected impacts of climate change on malaria in Africa,” provides a textbook example of how layered model uncertainty can be transformed—through careful framing—into quantified predictions that appear far more authoritative than the underlying evidence warrants.

The headline figures are stark: 123 million additional malaria cases and more than 500,000 additional deaths by mid-century, attributed to climate change.

These numbers are already circulating as if they describe a measurable future risk. A close reading of the paper itself tells a very different story.

Abstract

The implications of climate change for malaria eradication this century remain poorly resolved1,2.

Many studies focus on parasite and vector ecology in isolation, neglecting the interactions between climate, malaria control and the socioeconomic environment, including disruption from extreme weather3,4.

Here we integrate 25 years of African data on climate, malaria burden and control, socioeconomic factors, and extreme weather.

Using a geotemporal model linked to an ensemble of climate projections under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2-4.5 (SSP 2-4.5) scenario5, we estimate the future impact of climate change on malaria burden in Africa, including both ecological and disruptive effects.

Our findings indicate that climate change could lead to 123 million (projection range 49.5 million to 203 million) additional malaria cases and 532,000 (195,000–912,000) additional deaths in Africa between 2024 and 2050 under current control levels.

Contrary to the prevailing focus on ecological mechanisms, extreme weather events emerge as the primary driver of increased risk, accounting for 79% (50–94%) of additional cases and 93% (70–100%) of additional deaths.

Most increases stem from intensification in existing endemic areas rather than range expansion, with significant regional variation in impact.

These results highlight the urgent need for climate-resilient malaria control strategies and robust emergency response systems to safeguard progress towards malaria eradication.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10015-z

This is not a study that reports new empirical discoveries about malaria transmission. It is an exercise in scenario construction. Its results emerge from a long chain of assumptions, models, and parameter choices, each, possibly, defensible in isolation, but collectively producing an impression of precision that the authors’ own caveats do not support.

The paper opens by positioning itself as a corrective to earlier work, arguing that prior studies focused too narrowly on ecological mechanisms while neglecting social and infrastructural disruption. That framing sets the stage for what follows: a shift away from biology and toward modeled institutional fragility.

“Nearly all existing projections share a central limitation: although they explore climate effects in isolation, they do not adequately account for non-climate determinants of malaria trends.”

This sounds reasonable, but what replaces that “limitation” is not observation. It is an expanded modeling framework that incorporates still more uncertain components.

The foundation of the analysis is future climate. The authors rely on downscaled CMIP6 global climate model outputs under the SSP 2-4.5 scenario, described as a “middle of the road” pathway. These models are known to diverge substantially in regional precipitation and extreme weather projections across Africa. The paper attempts to address this by using ensembles, but ensembling disagreement does not eliminate uncertainty—it simply averages it.

“Between-GCM uncertainty and variability were accounted for using an ensemble of CMIP6 members…”

That sentence does a great deal of rhetorical work. “Accounted for” sounds reassuring, but an ensemble mean is not a validation. It is a compromise among conflicting model structures, all of which share common assumptions and biases.

Those climate projections are then downscaled to a 5×5 km grid and fed into mechanistic models that translate temperature, rainfall, and humidity into mosquito and parasite suitability indices. These models are highly nonlinear and sensitive to thresholds.

Small errors in climate inputs propagate into large swings in transmission suitability. This is a property of the models—but it is rarely emphasized when results are summarized.

The suitability indices are then used as predictors in a stacked statistical framework combining linear models, generalized additive models, boosted regression trees, and a Bayesian geostatistical smoother. The machinery is complicated, but it is also opaque. Even the authors acknowledge that the uncertainty behavior of such systems is poorly understood.

“There is currently limited precedent for fully characterizing uncertainty in stacked models, particularly when applied to spatially correlated data.”

That admission should fundamentally constrain how the outputs are interpreted. Instead, it is buried in the Discussion, far removed from the headline numbers.

Up to this point, the results are relatively modest. When ecological effects alone are considered, the authors find that climate-driven changes in malaria transmission are small and mixed—some regions increase, others decrease, and the continent-wide average effect is close to zero.

“We project that, considered in isolation, the ecologically driven impacts of climate change on malaria transmission would lead to minimal overall change in Africa by 2050…”

This result is rarely highlighted, because it does not support the sense of urgency implied by the paper’s title.

The dramatic figures emerge only when the authors introduce a second layer: disruption from extreme weather events. Floods and cyclones are modeled to damage housing, disrupt vector control, and reduce access to treatment. According to the paper, these disruptive effects dominate the outcome.

“Extreme weather events emerge as the primary driver of increased risk, accounting for 79%… of additional cases and 93%… of additional deaths.”

This is the pivotal move. The paper is no longer primarily about climate and malaria ecology. It is about assumed disruption to institutions and infrastructure, projected decades into the future.

Here the evidentiary basis becomes especially thin. The magnitude and duration of disruption are not derived from large datasets or controlled studies. They are assembled from a literature review of heterogeneous case studies and 34 expert interviews, then translated into parameters describing how much housing is damaged, how many clinics close, and how long recovery takes.

“The paucity of data necessitated a more heuristic approach to quantifying likely impacts.”

“Heuristic” is doing a lot of work here. These parameters are not measured. They are judged to be plausible. Because the data are sparse, the authors apply uncertainty ranges spanning 50% to 150% of their central values.

“A broad uncertainty range was considered appropriate because the scarcity of observational data precluded a more formal quantification…”

These heuristic disruption parameters are then applied continent-wide, month by month, under simulated future floods and cyclones generated by climate-driven storm models. At this point, the model is several layers removed from anything that could reasonably be called an observation.

Yet the final outputs are presented as cumulative totals of cases and deaths, with specific numbers and ranges.

A bar graph showing the cumulative change in clinical cases (in millions) from 2025 to 2045, categorized by disruptions in access to treatment, housing, and vector control, along with ecological factors like temperature suitability and larval habitat availability.
a, Projected continent-wide cumulative impact on cases by year, with decomposition showing distinct contributions of the different ecological and disruptive drivers of climate change impact. Grey bars denote projection range, where this is calculated as the 10th and 90th percentile of the model ensemble across all GCMs and disruption parameter ranges. b, Mapped cumulative impact on cases with colour scale reflecting degree of GCM ensemble consensus. Large water bodies, national parks with extremely low or zero population, and out-of-scope countries are masked in dark grey. All cumulative impacts are relative to 2022 case counts, aligned to national totals reported in the 2023 World Malaria Report50. Administrative boundaries were obtained fro
m the Malaria Atlas Project (https://data.malariaatlas.org)41, under a CC BY 3.0 licence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10015-z/figures/3

“Our findings indicate that climate change could lead to 123 million additional malaria cases and 532,000 additional deaths in Africa between 2024 and 2050…”

What is rarely emphasized is that these figures depend critically on assumptions that freeze nearly all non-climatic progress. Malaria control coverage, housing quality, healthcare infrastructure, and socioeconomic development are held constant at present-day levels—except when they are damaged by climate events.

“We deliberately hold constant present-day levels of transport and healthcare infrastructure, housing quality and malaria control…”

This is not a neutral assumption. Historically, malaria burden has declined primarily because of improvements in drugs, vector control, infrastructure, and economic development. By suppressing those trends while allowing disruption to accumulate, the model structurally biases results toward worsening outcomes.

The authors also acknowledge that their projections are not forecasts.

“Our projections allow exploration of climate change effects but are not intended as forecasts of future conditions.”

They go further, stating explicitly that the uncertainty ranges are not statistical.

“The projection ranges are not… formal statistical intervals, providing indicative measures of uncertainty rather than probabilistic statements.”

These are not minor footnotes. They directly contradict the way the results are likely to be interpreted by policymakers, journalists, and advocacy groups.

This is where the rhetorical sleight of hand becomes apparent.

Deep in the paper, uncertainty is emphasized, limitations are acknowledged, and projections are framed as exploratory. In the abstract, figures, and conclusions, those same exploratory outputs are converted into quantified impacts with an unmistakable air of urgency.

The issue is structural. When multi-layered scenario models produce precise numbers, those numbers take on a life of their own. Caveats fade. Assumptions harden into facts. What began as “what if” quietly becomes “this will.”

The paper does not demonstrate that climate change will cause hundreds of millions of additional malaria cases. It demonstrates how easily such numbers can be produced when uncertain climate projections, sensitive ecological models, heuristic disruption parameters, frozen socioeconomic baselines, and long- time horizons are combined in a single framework.

The appropriate way to read this study is not as a prediction, but as a thought experiment—one that is highly sensitive to its assumptions and explicit about its limitations, if one reads far enough. The problem is not what the authors say in the fine print. It is how far that fine print is removed from the numbers that will be remembered.

In the end, this paper tells us less about the future of malaria than about the current state of climate-related modeling. It shows how uncertainty can be multiplied, smoothed, and translated into apparent precision. It shows how scenarios can be mistaken for forecasts. And it shows how, once numbers are published in a journal like Nature, they are treated as evidence—even when the authors themselves say they are not.

That is the sleight of hand worth paying attention to.

An elderly wizard in a dark robe and pointed hat is pouring a potion from one flask to another, creating glowing question marks that rise from a bubbling cauldron. Behind him are charts and graphs on the walls, along with a globe and various laboratory equipment. A mosquito image labeled 'MALARIA' is also present.

Wrong, New York Times, Climate Change Isn’t Causing a Surge in  Mosquito-Borne Diseases

A recent article in the New York Times (NYT), “Cases of Mosquito-Borne Chikungunya Virus Are Surging Globally: What to Know,” claims climate change is causing the the spread of mosquito-borne diseases by expanding mosquitoes’ ranges. This is a scientifically unsubstantiated claim. The truth, grounded in actual data and entomological science, is that the spread of mosquitoes—and the viruses they sometimes carry—is closely tied to human activity, urbanization, and global transportation than to incremental changes in temperature and climate.

A close-up of a mosquito perched on a green leaf, surrounded by small white flowers and blurred greenery in the background.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

A person wearing protective gear sprays insecticide in an outdoor area, with a large 'WRONG' text overlay, referencing a New York Times article about mosquito-borne diseases and climate change.

A recent article in the New York Times (NYT), “Cases of Mosquito-Borne Chikungunya Virus Are Surging Globally: What to Know,” claims climate change is causing the the spread of mosquito-borne diseases by expanding mosquitoes’ ranges. This is a scientifically unsubstantiated claim. The truth, grounded in actual data and entomological science, is that the spread of mosquitoes—and the viruses they sometimes carry—is closely tied to human activity, urbanization, and global transportation than to incremental changes in temperature and climate.

“A mosquito-borne virus that can leave infected people debilitated for years is spreading to more regions of the world, as climate change creates new habitats for the insects that carry it,” writes the NYT. “Climate change is driving the spread of chikungunya-carrying mosquitoes.

“A warmer, wetter world provides more suitable habitat,” continues the NYT. “And extreme weather events can cause more breeding in floods—or displace people, who cluster in areas with poor water and sanitation supply,” the NYT says.

It sounds dramatic, but the evidence undercuts this simplistic narrative. Let’s look at the facts.

First, let’s dispense with the notion that mosquitoes are creatures of the tropics alone, kept in check only by the beneficent hand of a stable, cool, climate. Global average temperatures are not a limiting factor for mosquitoes, and the recent modest change in the global average temperatures hasn’t opened up new areas for colonization that weren’t amenable to mosquito habitation previously.

There are more than 3,500 species of mosquitoes, many of which are perfectly at home in cold climates. In fact, mosquitoes exist as far north as the Arctic Circle. As documented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, there are over 35 species of mosquitoes in Alaska alone, some of which are legendary for their size and abundance. The notorious Aedes communis mosquito is found well into northern Canada and Alaska, where summer temperatures remain cool. If climate were the limiting factor, Alaska would be a mosquito-free paradise. Instead, anyone who has camped there in June knows better.

Malaria carrying mosquitoes were endemic to North America and Europe, spreading the disease, until modern interventions, primarily the use of DDT, ended the domestic spread of the disease. The vast body of scientific literature detailed in Chapter Four of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, including studies from Africa, to England and Wales, to North and South America, to Thailand and beyond find no link between human climate change and the spread of malaria, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, and other vector-borne diseases.

Even the Aedes albopictus (“Asian tiger mosquito”) and Aedes aegypti—the supposed climate-driven villains in the NYT story—long ago adapted to temperate zones. The Aedes albopictus is found in parts of Europe, including southern Germany, Switzerland, and even Paris. Meanwhile, Aedes vexans, another common vector, is found from the subtropics to Scandinavia.

If warming were truly the driving factor, we would not see mosquitoes comfortably inhabiting places with chilly summers and freezing winters. Instead, mosquitoes survive cold months as eggs or larvae in frozen water, hatching out when temperatures rise above 50°F (10°C)—that huge seasonal temperature swing is far greater than any climate induced temperature  change.

The real reasons for the spread of mosquitoes and mosquito borne diseases are urbanization, infrastructure, transportation, pest-control measures (or lack thereof), and globalization.

Epidemiological and vector studies repeatedly show that mosquito range and the spread of mosquito-borne disease are closely tied to human movement and the expansion of urban areas. Mosquitoes, especially Aedes aegypti, thrive in cities where standing water collects in artificial containers—discarded tires, flowerpots, gutters, and neglected infrastructure such as seen below.

A cluttered area with discarded tires and a helmet, highlighting potential mosquito breeding sites due to standing water.
Old tire indicating breeding ground for mosquito

This urban mosquito is a product of globalization and poor city planning, not climate change.

In fact, Aedes albopictus—found across much of Europe and the U.S.—made its way from Asia in shipments of used tires and ornamental plants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) note that the spread of this species to new regions “was primarily through the international trade in used tires” by way of human commerce.

Even the World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes that increased travel and trade are responsible for the global spread of chikungunya and other arboviruses. As Climate Realism highlights in multiple articles, “the principal drivers of expanding mosquito range are not temperature or rainfall, but rather the global shipping industry, the proliferation of artificial water containers in urban environments, and ineffective public health measures.”

Furthermore, Climate at a Glance points out that “the resurgence of mosquito-borne diseases in recent decades has much more to do with reduced mosquito control efforts, population growth, and increased urbanization than with any small change in climate.”

The NYT, as with many other mainstream media outlets, defaults to climate change as the cause of any global health phenomenon, because it advances their preconceived belief such phenomena stem from human greenhouse gas emissions causing dangerous climate change. Rather than dig into the messy details of urban water management, the tire trade, the eradication of the powerful but safe insecticide DDT, and failing mosquito control programs, the NYT simply hoists the “warming climate” flag and moves on.

The NYT ignores the real culprits responsible for the expansion and in some cases resurgence of mosquito-borne diseases in Northern latitudes, the well-documented roles of: global transportation; international trade, especially in used tires; the discontinuation of effective chemical eradication efforts; and urbanization.

The facts are out there, free for the taking, if one cares to look. The NYT could have talked to any number of entomologists, epidemiologists, or even—heaven forbid—read the CDC or WHO reports, and they would have discovered that “climate change” is, at best, a minor player in this story.

History and science show mosquitoes and the diseases they spread will always find a way—regardless of the global thermometer reading. History also shows that direct eradication and prevention efforts can be effective in suppressing mosquitoes and the diseases they can spread. By contrast, attempting to halt the spread of mosquito-borne diseases indirectly, by suppressing fossil fuel use to cut carbon dioxide emissions in the vain hope this will control future temperatures, will do nothing to save lives today or in the future. If the NYT had made this point, it would have done a true public service to its readers.

Climate Change Is Not Spreading Dog Heartworm

One of the ubiquitous Climate Crisis narratives is that the slight warming of some climate regions is driving the spread of mosquito borne diseases.    This can easily be shown to be incorrect yet the peer-reviewed literature repeats (endlessly) that mosquito-borne diseases will spread, or have been spread, by climate change. 

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen

One of the ubiquitous Climate Crisis narratives is that the slight warming of some climate regions is driving the spread of mosquito borne diseases.    This can easily be shown to be incorrect yet the peer-reviewed literature repeats (endlessly) that mosquito-borne diseases will spread, or have been spread, by climate change. 

Malaria, the most famous of vector-borne diseases, for which the female Anopheles mosquito is the vector while humans are the reservoir, has been reappearing in the United States and Europe.  Climate Change or Global Warming has been blamed [and here and, from the WHO, here].  But history shows that both the United States and Europe were hotbeds of malaria in the past two centuries, even during the Little Ice Age,  when temperatures were lower.

[Curious Note:  The Climate Crisis wiki gatekeepers post false information about the LIA in the caption of the Hockey Stick graph.  The caption says “Global average temperatures show that the Little Ice Age was not a distinct planet-wide period but a regional phenomenon…”  But the reference given for that, from Ed Hawkins (long-standing climate crisis scientist and propagandist), states clearly “The often quoted Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are real phenomena, but small compared to the recent changes.”]

Here we can see, from Hong et al., that malaria was very widely spread in the United States in the 1850s.

The incidence of malaria in Europe was equally widespread, even up into World War I:  “In 1917, 70,000 cases of malaria were reported in the British forces alone.  After the war, malaria spreader-emerged among the civil population in malaria free areas like northern Germany, eastern England and Italy due to the return of soldiers to their homeland and to refugee movements.”  [ source:  NIH here ]. 

“Malaria was eradicated from Europe in the 1970s  through a combination of insecticide spraying, drug therapy and environmental engineering. Since then, it has been mostly imported into the continent by international travelers and immigrants from endemic regions.” [source]

In fact, “Although largely a tropical disease today, only a century ago the pathogen’s [malaria] range covered half the world’s land surface, including parts of the northern USA, southern Canada, Scandinavia and Siberia,” said lead author Megan Michel, a doctoral researcher at the Max Planck-Harvard Research Center…”.  [quote source, paper here] And a “century ago” is the cool time period against which we measure today’s so-called  “global warming”. 

There is an obvious knowledge disconnect here:  In the cooler past, malaria was found nearly everywhere except in the frozen steppes and high altitudes.  Now it is mostly confined to the tropics and sub-tropics.

Why is this? 

The mosquitoes that spread malaria from one malarial human to a well human are ubiquitous in nearly every area of the world.  Mosquito populations are suppressed in modern, wealthy countries through widespread spraying of insecticides and other vector control methods such as swamp draining and transmission of malaria prevented by the quarantine of people ill with malaria in hospitals where mosquitoes cannot bite them.  When vector control, mosquito spraying, is not done, or curtailed as many cities in the United States have learned, mosquito populations boom, and these diseases can reappear as humans traveling in other countries return carrying the disease.  [source]

Now, let see what the situation is with another mosquito-borne disease:

Dog  Heartworm

Your ever-present climate propaganda news outlet, Inside Climate News, says:  “Climate Change Is Helping Heartworm Spread to Pets in the Mountain West”.  Using the normative “narrative journalism” style, ICN goes on to say:

“Twenty years ago, when veterinarian Colleen Duncan arrived in Fort Collins, Colorado, there were no signs of heartworm in the region’s dogs and cats.

“We didn’t test for it,” said Duncan, a professor of veterinary medicine at Colorado State University. “We didn’t put our animals on prevention. We now will do it.”

“Colorado’s not alone in this shift. Across the West, veterinarians are seeing an increase in the mosquito-borne disease that can cause symptoms like coughing and decreased appetite in dogs and cats, and even lead to death in advanced cases.” 

“Infected pets can bring the disease with them when they move to new regions, where a lack of preventative treatment can contribute to an uptick in heartworm infections.”

So far, so good, I guess.  We will take Colleen Duncan at her word. 

But ICN’s journalist Tina Deines then shifts to:

“Vector-borne disease is the easiest, the least-disputed discussion of climate-associated diseases,” said Duncan, who studies the connection between climate change and animal health. 

“Climate change moves vectors into areas, geographic locations that they weren’t before,” she explained. “It allows them to survive longer periods of time. Typically, they show up earlier in the spring and they last later into the fall. Or even really winter.”

“We keep dogs on heartworm preventative year-round now,” she said.”

Now we find that Colleen Duncan is not just a vet, she is an academic vet “who studies the connection between climate change and animal health” about which “She is passionate”.

It is informative to note that the population of Fort Collins,  Colorado has doubled since 1990, from 89 thousand then to over 170 thousand today.

What’s the real deal here then?

Most of us, even though many of us are dog owners [but not passionate climate change vets], are not familiar with the basics of Dog Heartworm Disease.  The following quotes are from the American Heartworm Society:

“Heartworm disease is a serious and potentially fatal disease in pets in the United States and many other parts of the world. It is caused by foot-long worms (heartworms) that live in the heart, lungs and associated blood vessels of affected pets, causing severe lung disease, heart failure and damage to other organs in the body.”

“The dog is a natural host for heartworms, which means that heartworms that live inside the dog,  mature into adults, mate and produce offspring.”

“When a mosquito bites and takes a blood meal from an infected animal, it picks up these baby worms, which develop and mature into “infective stage” larvae over a period of 10 to 14 days. Then, when the infected mosquito bites another dog, cat, or susceptible wild animal, the infective larvae are deposited onto the surface of the animal’s skin and enter the new host through the mosquito’s bite wound.”

For Dog Heartworm, the mosquito is the vector and dogs are the host or reservoir.  If there were no dogs with existing heartworm infections, there would be no heartworm for the mosquitoes to spread to other dogs. 

This is similar to human malaria, which requires malarial humans for mosquitoes to bite in order to spread the disease.  When all the malarial humans are quarantined in mosquito-free hospitals, the chain is broken.   If no local dogs (rarely some cats, some ferrets, maybe) had heartworm infections, there would be no heartworm microfilaria for the mosquitoes to ingest, incubate, and pass on to other dogs.

Which specific mosquitoes spread Dog Heartworm?

Many species of mosquitoes are suspected of being vectors for dog heartworm, including Aedes, Anopheles, and Mansonia and Culex.These mosquito species are endemic to most/many areas of the United States (species dependent).   

All three of the species below are main vectors for serious human and animal diseases.

Mosquitoes are moved from area to area and into new areas by humans – not climate change, not global warming.  [ source:  The Push: Human Migration and Mosquito-Borne Disease ].  Mosquitoes hitchhike in luggage, air and sea freight, in and on over-the-road long distance trucks,  and on the decks of ships and boats. 

Urban mosquitoes, like  Aedes aegypti and Aedes Albopictus prefer urban environments, in which they find it easy to thrive:  “Aedes aegypti favors artificial containers found in residential areas like flowerpots, buckets, tarps, bird baths, and potholes as breeding sites. Aedes Albopictus can breed in a variety of natural and artificial containers such as tree holes, rock pools, tires, stormwater drains, and concrete slabs.”  [ source ]. 

Urbanization itself creates the preferred environment of vector mosquitoes that spread disease: “The main explanatory variables used to associate urbanisation with epidemiological/entomological outcomes were the following: human population density, urban growth, artificial geographical space, urban construction, and urban density.”  [source]

Which mosquitoes are urban and semi-urban species?

Aedes, Culex and Anopheles are usually considered prime urban and semi-urban species – which means that thrive in human built environments: the denser the humans, the better for the mosquitoes.   These are the same species that are prime suspects in Dog Heartworm transmission.

Bottom Lines:

0.  Malaria, dengue, dog heartworm and many other vector borne diseases all require three things for transmission:  a) a host with the disease causing organism – germ, virus, or parasite;  b) the presence of the vector such as specific species of mosquitoes or ticks; c) vectors require access to both disease carriers and new disease victims.  Absence of any of these stops the chain of infection.  

1.  Humans are responsible for the range expansion of mosquito species, providing urban and semi-urban environments with their warm, water-rich spaces and through physically transporting mosquitoes from area to area, country to country.

2.  Humans are responsible for the re-emergence of mosquito-as-vector diseases in developed countries, through human travelers carrying the disease returning from the developing world and the shipments goods from malaria areas. 

3.  Dog Heartworm has been spread by humans moving their heartworm infected animals to areas previously heartworm free and through introducing or re-introducing mosquito species that act as vectors and/or increasing populations of those mosquito vectors by the common features of urbanization. 

4.  The increase of dog heartworm found in Fort Collins, Colorado has been caused by import of dogs with heartworm (moving there with the human families), human movements (people and goods) transporting more mosquito species to the area and a doubling of human population with its increased urbanization, creating more of ideal urban and semi-urban environment for the mosquito vectors of heartworm.   

4.  Climate Change or Global Warming has no (or vanishingly minimal contribution) to the range changes of mosquito species and/or the spread of mosquito-vectored human and animal diseases.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

Dog Heartworm is a backdoor into the misinformation spread about mosquito and other insect vectored diseases.  Warming, mostly at night, has barely any effect on the ranges of mosquitoes and ticks.  Past ranges, when compared to present ranges, prove this.

Weather can and does have effects on mosquito populations such as when areas that are usually dry are subject to flooding.  Eggs that have been lying dormant hatch and in days go through larval stages and become (ravenous) mosquitoes.   When this happens in malaria, zika and dengue areas, the mosquitoes bite the local human disease carriers and spread the diseases.  And, yes, Weather is not Climate. 

Despite the apparent ease of debunking this climate crisis talking point,  there are literally hundreds of papers claiming to “prove” the false point or “predict” that “if not now, then in the future”.

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

Rolling Stone: President Trump Falsely Claims Global Warming is Good

But, but, devastating storms…

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

But, but, devastating storms…

TRUMP WANTS TO CONVINCE THE WORLD THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A GOOD THING

The president, who regularly attacks renewable energy, is apparently ready to argue that climate change would benefit humans

By THOR BENSON
MARCH 31, 2025

Windmills cause cancer. They’re killing birds and whales. Electric vehicles don’t work. Have you heard about the electric sharks? Climate change is a hoax. There are many things Donald Trump has said about climate change and renewable energy that are difficult to make sense of, but Trump’s newest line on climate change is both dumbfounding and truly dangerous: He is now determined to convince the world that climate change is a good thing.

Trump has certainly downplayed the effects of climate change in the past. He’s claimed rising sea levels will create more beachfront property, which would seem to be a misunderstanding of how land works. He’s talkedabout how people would actually be happy if it was a little warmer outside. Even Trump adviser Elon Musk, who runs an EV company, has downplayedthe threat of climate change in recent months. 

Now, Trump is aiming to use the power of the federal government to reframe climate change as something that will benefit humanity. 

…

“It’s so outrageous that no one except [Trump] would try to do this,” says Edward Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication. “In America, anyone is free to call devastating storms, floods, droughts, air pollution, killer heatwaves, and a growing threat of mosquito- and tick-borne diseases a good thing. But saying it doesn’t make it true.”

…Read more: 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-convince-world-climate-change-good-1235306675/

Here is what the IPCC has to say about extreme weather – from Chapter 11 of AR6, the latest official IPCC report.

Extreme Storms, Including Tropical Cyclones

The average and maximum rain rates associated with tropical cyclones (TCs), extratropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers across the globe, and severe convective storms in some regions, increase in a warming world (high confidence) . Available event attribution studies of observed strong TCs provide medium confidence for a human contribution to extreme TC rainfall. Peak TC rain rates increase with local warming at least at the rate of mean water vapour increase over oceans (about 7% per 1°C of warming) and in some cases exceeding this rate due to increased low-level moisture convergence caused by increases in TC wind intensity (medium confidence).  {11.7, 11.4, Box 11.1}

It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances2has increased over the past four decades. The average location where TCs reach their peak wind intensity has very likely migrated poleward in the western North Pacific Ocean since the 1940s, and TC translation speed has likely slowed over the conterminous USA since 1900. Evidence of similar trends in other regions is not robust. The global frequency of TC rapid intensification events has likely increased over the past four decades. None of these changes can be explained by natural variability alone (medium confidence).

The proportion of intense TCs, average peak TC wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense TCs will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming (high confidence). The total global frequency of TC formation will decrease or remain unchanged with increasing global warming (medium confidence). {11.7.1}

There is low confidence in past changes of maximum wind speeds and other measures of dynamical intensity of extratropical cyclones. Future wind speed changes are expected to be small, although poleward shifts in the storm tracks could lead to substantial changes in extreme wind speeds in some regions (medium confidence). There is low confidence in past trends in characteristics of severe convective storms, such as hail and severe winds, beyond an increase in precipitation rates. The frequency of spring severe convective storms is projected to increase in the USA, leading to a lengthening of the severe convective storm season (medium confidence); evidence in other regions is limited. {11.7.2, 11.7.3}.

Read more: 

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/

Before you get too concerned about all these “medium confidence” assertions, there is a lovely climategate email where scientists explain what they actually mean by “Medium confidence”. “Medium confidence” is a replacement for “inconclusive”.

Climategate Email 0967041809.txt

…

To: Thomas Stocker [redacted]

cc: [redacted]

Subject: Re: THC collapse

Hello all. I appreciate the improvement in the table from WG 1, particularly the inclusion of symmetrical confidence levels–but please get rid of the ridiculous “inconclusive” for the .34 to .66 subjective probability range. It will convey a completely differnt meaning to lay persons–read decisionmakers–since that probability range represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like “quite possible” is closer to popular lexicon, but inconclusive applies as well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be misinterpreted on the outside. I also appreciate the addition of increasing huricane intensities with warming moving out of the catch all less than .66 category it was in the SOD.

…

With the aid of this Climategate gobbledygook translation, we know that “medium confidence” in IPCC speak means “inconclusive”. Given the number of “medium confidence” claims in the IPCC quote above, I think we can reasonably conclude claims climate change is causing extreme weather are not supported by the evidence.

As for claims climate change will increase mosquito borne disease, this is such an absurdity I’m surprised scientists still have the effrontery to keep making this claim. Anyone who has ever visited the far North will have observed first hand that mosquitoes don’t need a tropical climate to thrive. Those far Northern mosquitoes are just as capable of carrying mosquito borne diseases like Malaria as their tropical cousins.

And of course, there is robust counter evidence to food scare narratives in the form of skyrocketing food crop yields.

Record Agricultural Yields Should Allay Climate Fear

The saddest part of this for me, as a kid I once thought Rolling Stone was a media group which stood for something.

I think it’s safe to say I no longer believe this – the Rolling Stone article I quoted in my opinion is an especially substandard piece of lazy journalism.

The Rolling Stone journalist made no evidence to research reasons why Trump might be right about global warming. The journalist made no attempt to research the history of diseases like Malaria, how mosquito borne diseases used to be the scourge Britain, and even far Northern countries like Sweden – definitely NOT a disease which needs a tropical climate to thrive. As a bonus, the journalist could have asked a few questions to the quoted scientists about why if global warming is so bad, agricultural yields are skyrocketing – and whether the scientists could put a date on when if ever they expect this to change.

Tax-Fueled Renewables

I’ve been wondering how the Europeans can possibly afford to pay for all of the public benefits as well as putting big money into all kinds of renewable schemes. Where are the megabucks for the renewables coming from?

KREFELD, GERMANY – APRIL 21: Workers prepare to pour ductile iron casting molten iron into a mould at the Siempelkamp Giesserei foundry on April 21, 2022 in Krefeld, Germany. The Siempelkamp foundry is one of many companies in Germany’s manufacturing sector that would be acutely affected by a halt of Russian energy imports, especially natural gas. The company, which makes parts including for applications in the renewable energies sector, is one of the few in Europe that can cast pieces up to 300 tons. A company spokesman said that a disruption to Germany’s natural gas supply would bring much of the foundry’s manufacturing ability to a halt. In addition Siempelkamp is already facing multifold price increases for its raw materials, including scrap iron, nickel, aluminum and other metals, due to the current EU sanctions against Russia. The German government is currently wrestling with how it can reduce Germany’s heavy dependence on Russian energy imports in the wake of Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine. (Photo by Sascha Schuermann/Getty Images)

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I’ve been wondering how the Europeans can possibly afford to pay for all of the public benefits as well as putting big money into all kinds of renewable schemes. Where are the megabucks for the renewables coming from?

Today I came across an interesting article entitled “The Death Of Europe” written by a Swede. In it he commented that in Sweden, “Average workers pay (a higher percentage of) taxes than you do if you make $400,000 here in the United States.”

I looked at that and said “Really?” That just didn’t seem possible.

So as is my habit, I went and got the information and to my great surprise …

… he’s right!

Makes me proud to be an American. Now we just gotta cut spending … and please, read the link above about how Europe died. Wise folks learn from the mistakes of other countries …

In any case, speaking of other countries (you like the segue?), on Tuesday I’m flying to Brisbane, Australia. One week on a farm north of there with old friends. Then on the 19th, from there to two weeks in Pacific Harbour in Fiji, lovely Fiji where I lived and worked for nine years. Hey, the waves aren’t going to surf themselves!

Then at the start of April it’s onward for a week in the Solomon Islands, where I lived and worked for eight years. Likely spend most of my time in Gizo, Western Province. Population of maybe 8,000, third largest city in the Solos … it’s a sleepy country.

And where is Gizo when it’s at home, you may ask? Here are the three stops on my bon voyage—Brisbane, Fiji, and Gizo in the Solomon Islands.

Solomons is malaria city. I had it four times. Zero stars would not recommend. Take the preventative medicine, sleep under the net, use mosquito repellent, hope for the best …

If you’re a climate scientist in one of those areas, whether amateur or professional, gimme a shout.

Then back home again. During my peregrinations I’ll likely post sporadically on my blog, “Skating Under The Ice“. And in the meantime, leave the weapons at the door, play fair, no eye gouging, and remember:

When you comment, please quote the exact words you’re referring to.

Best to each and to all,

w.

Claim: Global Warming is Spreading Malaria and Dengue to Europe

Famous British playwright William Shakespeare wrote about endemic Malaria in Britain in the 1500s. Malaria was the scourge of Scandinavia and Russia right up until the 20th century. But this has not stopped greens falsely claiming Malaria is a disease of warm climates.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Famous British playwright William Shakespeare wrote about endemic Malaria in Britain in the 1500s. Malaria was the scourge of Scandinavia and Russia right up until the 20th century. But this has not stopped greens falsely claiming Malaria is a disease of warm climates.

Mosquito-borne diseases spreading in Europe due to climate crisis, says expert

Illnesses such as dengue and malaria to reach unaffected parts of northern Europe, America, Asia and Australia, conference to hear

Helena Horton Environment reporter

Thu 25 Apr 2024 14.00 AEST

Mosquito-borne diseases are spreading across the globe, and particularly in Europe, due to climate breakdown, an expert has said.

The insects spread illnesses such as malaria and dengue fever, the prevalences of which have hugely increased over the past 80 years as global heating has given them the warmer, more humid conditions they thrive in.

Prof Rachel Lowe who leads the global health resilience group at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center in Spain, has warned that mosquito-borne disease outbreaks are set to spread across currently unaffected parts of northern Europe, Asia, North America and Australia over the next few decades.

…

“Global warming due to climate change means that the disease vectors that carry and spread malaria and dengue [fever] can find a home in more regions, with outbreaks occurring in areas where people are likely to be immunologically naive and public health systems unprepared,” Lowe said.

“The stark reality is that longer hot seasons will enlarge the seasonal window for the spread of mosquito-borne diseases and favour increasingly frequent outbreaks that are increasingly complex to deal with.”

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/25/mosquito-borne-diseases-spreading-in-europe-due-to-climate-crisis-says-expert

Studying Shakespeare is, or was until recently, a staple of British education. So why do people swallow the mistruth that Malaria is a tropical disease? Why doesn’t everyone know about Shakespeare’s references to Malaria?

The reason is back in Shakespeare’s day, they called Malaria something else. Shakespeare’s 16th century word for fevers like Malaria and Dengue was “Ague“.

From Open Source Shakespeare;

1Henry IV, Part I
[III, 1]		Hotspur (Henry Percy)1611Home without boots, and in foul weather too!
How ‘scapes he agues, in the devil’s name?
2Henry IV, Part I
[IV, 1]		Hotspur (Henry Percy)2337No more, no more: worse than the sun in March,
This praise doth nourish agues.
3Henry VIII
[I, 1]		Duke of Buckingham40An untimely ague
Stay’d me a prisoner in my chamber when
Those suns of glory, those two lights of men,
Met in the vale of Andren.
4Julius Caesar
[II, 2]		Caesar1093As that same ague which hath made you lean.
What is ‘t o’clock?
5King John
[III, 4]		Constance1455As dim and meagre as an ague‘s fit,
And so he’ll die; and, rising so again,
When I shall meet him in the court of heaven
I shall not know him: therefore never, never
Must I behold my pretty Arthur more.
6King Lear
[IV, 6]		Lear2706‘Tis a lie- I am not ague-proof.
7Macbeth
[V, 5]		Macbeth2353Hang out our banners on the outward walls;
The cry is still ‘They come:’ our castle’s strength
Will laugh a siege to scorn: here let them lie
Till famine and the ague eat them up:
Were they not forced with those that should be ours,
We might have met them dareful, beard to beard,
And beat them backward home.
[A cry of women within]
What is that noise?
8Merchant of Venice
[I, 1]		Salarino24My wind cooling my broth
Would blow me to an ague, when I thought
What harm a wind too great at sea might do.
9Richard II
[II, 1]		King Richard II799Presuming on an ague‘s privilege,
Darest with thy frozen admonition
Make pale our cheek, chasing the royal blood
With fury from his native residence.
Now, by my seat’s right royal majesty,
Wert thou not brother to great Edward’s son,
This tongue that runs so roundly in thy head
Should run thy head from thy unreverent shoulders.
10Richard II
[III, 2]		King Richard II1598This ague fit of fear is over-blown;
11Tempest
[II, 2]		Stephano1156This is some monster of the isle with four legs, who hath got, as I take it, an ague.
12Tempest
[II, 2]		Stephano1178If all the wine in my bottle will
recover him, I will help his ague. Come. Amen! I
will pour some in thy other mouth.
13Tempest
[II, 2]		Stephano1221how does thine ague?
14Timon of Athens
[IV, 3]		Timon1815Enough to make a whore forswear her trade,
And to make whores, a bawd. Hold up, you sluts,
Your aprons mountant: you are not oathable,
Although, I know, you ‘ll swear, terribly swear
Into strong shudders and to heavenly agues
The immortal gods that hear you,—spare your oaths, …
15Troilus and Cressida
[III, 3]		Patroclus2111O, then, beware;
Those wounds heal ill that men do give themselves:
Omission to do what is necessary
Seals a commission to a blank of danger;
And danger, like an ague, subtly taints
Even then when we sit idly in the sun.
16Venus and AdonisShakespeare761‘As burning fevers, agues pale and faint,
Life-poisoning pestilence and frenzies wood,
The marrow-eating sickness, whose attaint
Disorder breeds by heating of the blood:
Surfeits, imposthumes, grief, and damn’d despair,
Swear nature’s death for framing thee so fair.

Sixteen references in Shakespeare’s plays – Ague was an important factor in people’s lives in Britain in the 1500s.

Ague was a changer of battles, a metaphor for fear or a sign of divine punishment, a disease which caused a burning fever with shaking, pale skin (anaemia) and weight loss, a disease whose worst phases left people bedridden, a disease which was stronger during Spring, when mosquitoes become active: “the sun in March, This praise doth nourish agues“.

Ague was Malaria.

The point is Malaria infection was prevalent enough to be referenced sixteen times by Shakespeare, during the Little Ice Age, during the period frost fairs were held on the River Thames, which froze solid enough in winter for people to walk around on the ice. Malaria is not a tropical disease.

The American CDC also provides evidence that tropical weather is not the main driver of Malaria;

From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age

Paul Reiter
Author affiliation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Abstract

Present global temperatures are in a warming phase that began 200 to 300 years ago. Some climate models suggest that human activities may have exacerbated this phase by raising the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Discussions of the potential effects of the weather include predictions that malaria will emerge from the tropics and become established in Europe and North America. The complex ecology and transmission dynamics of the disease, as well as accounts of its early history, refute such predictions. Until the second half of the 20th century, malaria was endemic and widespread in many temperate regions, with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle. From 1564 to the 1730s—the coldest period of the Little Ice Age—malaria was an important cause of illness and death in several parts of England. Transmission began to decline only in the 19th century, when the present warming trend was well under way. The history of the disease in England underscores the role of factors other than temperature in malaria transmission.

…Read more: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/1/00-0101_article

Why is Malaria, or Ague, re-emerging in Europe?

Nobody knows for sure why Ague went away. Several factors such as widespread draining of swamps and more understanding of how to control mosquitoes helped. Even a shift to smaller households likely contributed.

One factor which could be driving the re-emergence of Ague in Europe and North America is the mass importation of people who are infected with Malaria. I’m not making any comment on the moral rights or wrongs of Europe and the USA’s generous asylum policies, but importing people who carry Malaria, without rigorous vetting and medical management of their condition, is a major public health risk.

The mosquitoes which can carry Malaria are very much still a presence in Europe, Britain and the United States, especially given green efforts over the last few years to eradicate the use of effective pesticides and to preserve or restore wetlands instead of draining the swamp.

Increase in imported malaria in the Netherlands in asylum seekers and VFR travellers

Malaria Journal volume 16, Article number: 60 (2017) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Malaria is a notifiable disease in the Netherlands, a non-endemic country. Imported malaria infections occur regularly among travellers, migrants and visitors. Surveillance data were analysed from 2008 to 2015. Trends in amounts of notifications among risk groups were analysed using Poisson regression. For asylum seekers, yearly incidence was calculated per region of origin, using national asylum request statistics as denominator data. For tourists, denominator data were used from travel statistics to estimate incidence per travel region up to 2012.

Results

A modest increase in overall imported malaria notifications occurred in 2008–2015 (from 222 in 2008 to 344 in 2015). Notably, in 2014 and 2015 sharp increases were seen in malaria among travellers visiting friends and relatives (VFR), and in asylum seekers. Of all Plasmodium falciparum infections, most (1254/1337; 93.8%) were imported from Africa; 1037/1337 (77.6%) were imported from Central and West Africa. Malaria in VFR was mostly caused by P. falciparum infection after visiting Ghana (22%) or Nigeria (19%). Malaria in asylum seekers was mostly caused by Plasmodium vivax infection from the Horn of Africa. The large number of notifications in asylum seekers resulted from both an increase in number of asylum seekers and a striking increase of malaria incidence in this group. Incidence of malaria in asylum seekers from the Horn of Africa ranged between 0.02 and 0.3% in 2008–2013, but rose to 1.6% in 2014 and 1.3% in 2015. In 2008–2012, incidence in tourists visiting Central and West Africa dropped markedly.

Conclusions

Imported malaria is on the rise again in the Netherlands, most notably since 2013. This is mostly due to immigration of asylum seekers from the Horn of Africa. The predominance of P. vivax infection among asylum seekers warrants vigilance in health workers when a migrant presents with fever, as relapses of this type of malaria can occur long after arrival in the Netherlands.Read more: https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-017-1711-5

I don’t want to overplay the risk. If a significant Malaria outbreak did occur in a modern country, it could be controlled by stepping up mosquito fogging programmes, mass spraying of pesticides in residential areas, and large scale treatment of known sources of mosquitoes. Centuries of experience dealing with Malaria have taught us how to combat it, simple low cost measures like spraying swamps with kerosene or other chemicals to kill mosquito larvae, and public vigilance and cleanup campaigns to eradicate stagnant water near residential homes, could all contribute to containing an outbreak.

We have a large body of knowledge from past successes, the product of centuries of desperate efforts to combat the scourge. But people who were infected before the outbreak was contained would have a rough time, especially if they were infected with one of the emerging drug resistant strains of Malaria which are increasingly prevalent in poor countries. And it is an open question whether today’s green obsessed politicians would act decisively, and authorise immediate large scale treatment of natural wetlands adjacent to the outbreak, or would dither and delay until mass outrage at the growing number of casualties forced them to act.

A Note to Legislators About What Ceding Power to the World Health Organisation Really Means

We are told that, in a world of multiplying health emergencies, it has become necessary to give up some independence in return for safety. It is a tribute to those backing this agenda through the World Health Organisation (WHO) that this message continues to gain traction. If humans are important, then we should also understand its flaws, and decide whether they matter.

From The Daily Sceptic

By DR DAVID BELL

We are told that, in a world of multiplying health emergencies, it has become necessary to give up some independence in return for safety. It is a tribute to those backing this agenda through the World Health Organisation (WHO) that this message continues to gain traction. If humans are important, then we should also understand its flaws, and decide whether they matter.

1. The World Health Organisation is not independent, and is significantly privately directed.

Early WHO funding was dominated by ‘assessed’ contributions from countries, based on their national income, and the WHO decided how to use this core funding to achieve greatest impact. Now, WHO funding is mainly ‘specified’, meaning that the funder may decide how and where the work will be done. The WHO has become a conduit through which a funder can implement programmes from which they stand to benefit. These funders are increasingly private entities; the second largest funder of the WHO is the foundation of a software entrepreneur and Pharma investor.

In ceding power to the WHO, a state will be ceding power to the funders of the WHO. They can then profit by imposing the increasingly centralised and commodity-based approach that the WHO is taking.

2. People in democracies cannot be subject to dictatorships.

The WHO rightly represents all countries. This means that member states run by military dictatorships or other non-democratic regimes have an equal say at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the WHO’s governing body.

In ceding power to the WHO, democratic States are therefore sharing decision-making power over the health of their own citizens with these non-democratic states, some of which will have geopolitical reasons to restrict the movement of a democratic state’s people and harm its economy. While equal say in policy may be appropriate for a purely advisory organisation, ceding actual power over citizens to such an organisation is obviously incompatible with democracy.

3. The WHO is not accountable to those it seeks to control.

Democratic states have systems through which those allowed to wield power over citizens wield it only at the citizens’ will, and are subject to independent courts for malfeasance or gross and harmful incompetence. This is necessary to address the corruption that always arises, as institutions are run by humans. Like other branches of the United Nations, the WHO is answerable to itself and the geo-politics of the WHA. Even the UN secretariat has limited influence as the WHO operates under its own constitution.

No one will be held accountable for the nearly quarter million children that UNICEF estimates were killed by policies that the WHO promoted in South Asia. None of the up to 10 million girls forced into child marriage by the WHO’s Covid policies will have any path for redress. Such lack of accountability may be acceptable if an institution is simply giving advice, but it is completely unacceptable for any institution that has powers to restrict, mandate or even censor a country’s citizens.

4. Centralisation through the WHO is poor policy by incompetent people.

Before the influx of private money, the WHO’s focus was high burden endemic infectious disease, such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. These are strongly associated with poverty, as are those arising from malnutrition and poor sanitation. Public health experience tells us that addressing such preventable or treatable diseases is the best way to lengthen lives and promote sustainable good health. They are most effectively addressed by people on the ground, with local knowledge of behaviour, culture and disease epidemiology. This involves empowering communities to manage their own health. The WHO once emphasised such decentralisation, advocating for the strengthening of primary care. It was consistent with the fight against fascism and colonialism within which the WHO arose.

Centralised approaches to health, in contrast, require communities and individuals to comply with dictats that ignore local heterogeneity and community priorities. Malaria is not an issue to Icelandic people, but it absolutely dwarfs Covid in Uganda. Both human rights and effective interventions require local knowledge and direction. The WHO pushed mass Covid vaccination onto sub-Saharan Africa for nearly two years through its most expensive program to date, while knowing a large majority of the population were already immune, half were under 20, and deaths from each of malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDs absolutely dwarfed COVID-19 mortality.

The WHO’s staff are rarely experts. Experience in the 2009 Swine flu and West African Ebola outbreaks demonstrated that. Many have spent decades sitting in an office with minimal experience in programme implementation or practical disease management. Country quotas and the nepotism associated with large international organisations mean that most countries will have far greater expertise within their borders than exists in a closeted bureaucracy in Geneva.

5. Real pandemics are not common, and are not becoming more common.

Pandemics due to respiratory viruses, as the WHO pointed out in 2019, are rare events. They have occurred about once per generation over the past 120 years. Since the advent of antibiotics (for primary or secondary infections), mortality has dropped dramatically. An increase in mortality recorded during COVID-19 was complicated by definitions (‘with’ versus ‘of’), the average age of death was over 75 and death was unusual in healthy people. The global infection mortality rate was not greatly different to influenza. Tuberculosis, malaria, HIV/AIDS and most other common infections kill at a much younger age, imparting a greater burden in life years lost.

In summary

It makes no sense to grant a foreign-based, unaccountable institution powers that contradict democratic norms and good public health policy. More so when this institution has limited expertise and a poor track record, is directed by private interests and influenced by authoritarian governments. This is obviously counter to what a government in a democracy is supposed to do.

This is not a matter of domestic political rivalries. However, the public relations departments of the prospective beneficiaries of this perpetual health emergency project would like us to believe it is. We are currently funding the dismantling of our own independence and ceding our human rights to a small group that stands to benefit from our impoverishment, financed from a war chest accrued through the pandemic just ended. We don’t have to. It is as straightforward to see through this as it should be to stop it. All that is needed is clarity, honesty and a little courage.

Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.