There is no need to use harmful chemicals to control diseases

Recently during a discussion on climate change, someone who is a skeptic of AGW ( man-made climate change)  said these words :
"If an asymmetric response to AGW causes significant economic and cultural upheaval the death toll could easily be greater than that caused by a few centimeters of ocean level rise. Consider what happened with DDT prohibition. Because DDT was thought to cause egg shell softening in some birds its use as a pesticide was abandoned. As a result millions died of malaria. A disease that could have been controlled if the mosquito vector had been eliminated. One must weigh the cost and decide on the properties of "humanitarianism". The greatest polluter nations are unlikely to respond to any call for a reduction in their use of energy. As a result nations that have significantly reduced pollution will be called upon to cut their contribution even more with typically damaging results to their quality of life. "

And some people agreed with him and 'liked' the comment.

And my reply to him and other skeptics and deniers:
Mr. X and others who support these types of arguments, I would like to tell you this:
The argument that """ Consider what happened with DDT prohibition. Because DDT was thought to cause egg shell softening in some birds its use as a pesticide was abandoned. As a result millions died of malaria. A disease that could have been controlled if the mosquito vector had been eliminated. One must weigh the cost and decide on the properties of "humanitarianism".""" is really scary to hear from science writers and communicators.

There are other eco-friendly ways to control mosquitoes. Here we are using some fish which consume lots of mosquito larvae ( Biological control). We use mosquito nets. All these are harmless natural ways of controlling malaria. There is no need to use DDT or any harmful chemical to control malaria or any other disease propagated by mosquitoes. I think people who produce DDT are spreading misinformation as they go out of jobs and lose money if people stop using their products. When there are safe alternate methods, why should we choose the harmful ways? Think about this.

Please don't use 'humanitarian' when you describe your ways. We have more humanitarian and ethical ways to show. Science writers should use caution when describing such things.
Here is another one: Eco-friendly cement from old toilets?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Eco-friendly-cement...
Cement factory people would go mad at us now.
For every problem there would be both good and bad solutions. It depends on the people who choose them. Don't choose the bad ones and justify them using good words. Because we can provide best solutions here.

Now please stop this self-poisoning.

And I got only silence as reply!