Living in an age and a location, where Aids is more a problem than Malaria, it is of course hard to see that some want DDT for themselves. Despite many tests, DDT is a hell of a chemical that might not directly injure people in short-period of application, but still is nasty (not only the smell). It is like high-grade paint and spray utility.
However, there is a major difference between the two major diseases of this century, the already erradicated believed malaria and the hyped AIDS. There are many projects underway to contain AIDS epidemies (if such a thing exists), but there are less projects and less propaganda on the way for malaria.
On the one side, we have malaria, a disease that has been erradicated through-out the industrialized world, on the other side we have AIDS, an illness that is not in itself deadly, but weakness the body immune system.
But there is one significicant difference between AIDS and Malaria. The former is caused by neglect of safety measures, while the second is caused by a fly that can be destroyed by human scientific means. The first is caused by the individuum that wants to have unprotected sex by his own decision. The second is caused by a community who doesn't want people to evolve and science to thrive, by environmentalist and protectionist politicians.
I see no epidemic danger in the first one, but I see a threat in the latter one.
More Infos, here: