Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Donates $258 Million to Fight Malaria
klubar writes to tell us that Bill Gates has donated approximately $258 million to fight malaria. From the article: "Malaria research accounts for about one-third of 1 percent of the total amount of money spent on medical research and development, even though it accounts for 3 percent of all the productive years of life lost to diseases, according to a report released Sunday." Gates was quoted saying "The report confirms what has been clear, and that is that the world isn't investing nearly enough in malaria R&D."
Agreed. Gates is right, it seems like malaria is almost overlooked even in the media with all the focus on AIDS, cancer, killer bees, avian flu, anthrax threats, SARS, etc...
This isn't the only donation the foundation has made. According to wikipedia the foundation donates about $1 Billion a year. That's a hefty amount even for the rich Bill Gates.
That would be a valid criticism if the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wasn't already giving incredible amounts to charity. Their endowment is around 28 billion dollars and they give over 1 billion dollars to charity every year. I guess that's more than a mere pittance by my reckoning.
At least according to this article. The current vaccine has to be given each year. Some of the money is also earmarked towards treating malaria, which should help in the interim.
Ugh no.
m iles_archive.html#107570569615970184 . In short, the myth of agricultural bans on DDT preventing the public health use of DDT is demonstrably false.
See: http://kenethmiles.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_keneth
--I hate people when they're not polite -"Psycho Killer", Talking Heads
...more than $1bn to fight cancer
You can find the main article here.
I have never been a fan of Bill Gates, the technologist. I don't harbor the opinion that Bill has made a great contribution to technology. Indeed, I blame Mr Gates for the absurdly bad PC user interface that we all have to put up with--and I don't just mean the Windows interface--I also mean the Apple interface and the two (for-chrissake-make-up-your-mind) Linux interfaces.
By doing little more than slavishly follow innovations introduced by Apple and occasionally coming up with original bad ideas, Microsoft has put no competitive pressure on Apple at all to provide a truly usable PC interface. (When it needed to produce a brilliant interface, as per the iPod, Apple was up to the task). With Linux, it's worse. GUI innovation amongst the Linux desktop crowd has been so invisible that one wonders whether Open Source naturally evolves according to the principles of unintelligent design. It's all a mess.
I have more respect for Bill Gates as a businessman. Admittedly Microsoft's power grew out of a monopoly situation, but Bill Gates was intelligent and focused in establishing that monopoly and outmaneuvered a swathe of competitors. It's difficult to fault it, although it's also easy to conclude that it has not been good for the IT industry.
But never mind, there is an area of activity where, in my view, Bill Gates deserves genuine respect. A current article in the New Yorker provides a detailed account of Bill (and Malinda) Gates' philanthropic activities. Most impressively, Bill Gates is (unarguably) doing more for world health than the WHO itself. The simple fact is that the Bill and Malinda charity provides much more finance to specific world health initiatives than the WHO does--and it is managed (by Bill himself) as if it were a competitive business. It sets targets, invests and reviews progress. According to the New Yorker, at the moment Bill is doing what he can to combat Malaria--which is more deadly to world health than AIDS. The article is worth reading. Not just for what it reveals about Bill Gates but also what it reveals about the health problems the world faces.
Detractors of Bill Gates may well maintain that with his particular pile of dollars it is easy to be philanthropic. Indeed with one tenth of his dollar pile it would also be easy. And indeed there are a few individuals that have such piles, but I don't know of any (with the possible exception of George Soros) that actively engages in the kind of activity that Bill Gates does. Hats off, I think.
"There have been credible reports dating back several years that Exxon Mobil Corporation, along with its predecessor companies, Mobil Oil Corporation and Mobil Oil Indonesia (collectively "Exxon Mobil"), hired military units of the Indonesian national army to provide "security" for their gas extraction and liquification project in Aceh, Indonesia. Members of these military units regularly have perpetrated ongoing and severe human rights abuses against local villagers, including murder, rape, torture, destruction of property and other acts of terror."
A statement from April Johnson's attorneys -- Lopez, Hodes Restaino, Milman & Skikos -- contends that "Halliburton/KBR deployed its civilian truck drivers into a hostile active war zone despite knowledge from intelligence sources that there existed a substantial certainty the civilian drivers, moving in U.S. military vehicles, would be ambushed by Iraqi insurgents and killed or seriously injured."
Sorry I can't provide you with a numerical estimate.
Check the history of the Gates Foundation re AIDS. He has funded research that the goverments were unwilling to touch. Overlooked issues is what the foundation seems most interested in.
Keep surfing -- there's a link in the comments section of that blog to an FAQ on DDT that's more convincing, better documented, and entirely in favor of the original poster's thesis.
Based on the available information, I'm going to have to assume that Rachel Carson's critics are closer to the truth.
Of course, nowadays, no responsible corporation would think of advocating the use of DDT... because the patents on it have expired.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Because he thinks money can buy Philanthropy. We hear one man rich from the efforts of the little workmen; why not hear a story of thousands of honestly rich men gifting because it was always among their choices when funds were available and not a last-ditch tax break? Despite the Officers sitting in the Microsoft seat, let's not forget about the little pall-bearers holding the Microsoft casquette under-neath it all. Who works for Microsoft, and who is claiming the ability to gift?
Hhe spreads FDA jurisdiction onto other continents! How would you like to have a foreign jurisdiction and law imposed upon you, that claims that food is a drug because it can prevent disease, or "monitor" health products and unlawfully diverts funds to the scrutiny of products beyond the scope of its charter? Bill Gates isn't even donating, but granting; as a grantor, the trust is revocable. Does anyone remember when FDA tried to re-classify Vitamin C as a "drug" as defined by FDA? It's a power grab to divert constructs of remedy with ministers of cures and drugs. I have a moldy Orange full of Vitamin C and Penecillium; I have some sun-dried Goji berries containing 15 of the 21 or such known proteins that even animal flesh has 5 or 6; remedy. FDA says drug and cure, yet everyone else says remedy.
They advertise their generosity and philactories on every news stand, and overshadow the generosity of common people that do more with what less they can give and don't ward it over eachother. If Bill Gates wanted to actually help people, he'd go drop his donation off somewhere and then walk away; but instead he is getting fiduciary capacity to where the funds may be spent and on what treatments, bringing all the pharmaceutical monopolies beyond the tidemark and plaguing other countries with the beaurocratic nightmare that Americans and citizens of the United States could never keep at bay on thin anti-trust accord.
without prejudice
You've just got a hole in your head if you think Gates is doing this to make money from "Big Pharma". Lets assume (contrary to fact, which you can verify by a quick trip to the SEC, which will tell you major shareholders of publicly traded companies) that Bill Gates owns 10% of the entirety of the pharmaceutical industry. Lot, stock, and barrel, a dime out of every dollar of profit goes to him. Lets further assume, contrary to fact, that Big Pharma just makes money. And lets assume, contrary to fact, that these grants are actually going 100% to purchase drugs , e.g., do R&D on environmentally friendly pesticides (See here). All of this means that Bill Gates gets back a dime on every dollar he spends. Wow, thats how you become worth $80 billion or whatever it is -- you farm out a couple hundred million a year and get back a couple ten million -- but don't worry, you can make up the difference on volume.
Incidentally, you can see the Foundation's holdings at the SEC. Its a fairly standard portfolio heavy on the blue chips, including a lot of medical stock -- but not enough to either make a drop in the bucket next to either these folks' market capitalizations or Bill Gates' personal wealth (the vast majority of which, by the way, is MSFT stock).
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Malaria vaccine possible within six years
11:18 31 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Shaoni Bhattacharya
A malaria vaccine could be available within 6 years if new trials of the most promising candidate prove successful, say experts.
Malaria vaccine research received a $107.6 million injection of funds on Monday, part of a $258.3 million donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the study of malaria and its treatment.
The cash boost will accelerate the development of an effective vaccine, says Melinda Moree, director of the Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI). The anticipated date for a vaccine could be as early as 2011. At one point what the world considered to be fairly unattainable is actually coming along quite rapidly, she told reporters. It is absolutely possible to make a vaccine against malaria."
MVI will work with GlaxoSmithKline on the most promising vaccine candidate yet, called RTS,S, which, in trial in Mozambique, cut the rate of severe malaria in children aged 1 to 4 by 58%. This was the first time that a malaria vaccine candidate had shown protection against severe disease in children.
The new series of planned trials will examine whether the vaccine is safe and effective when given to infants alongside other childhood vaccines. Research will then proceed to a phase III trial to permit licensing. The trials, to be conducted in locations across Africa, will have about 17,000 subjects.
more at the url above.
Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
The World (a PRI program) mentioned this in part of a larger story on malaria in Africa (WMA file, fittingly enough). The ultimate point was that as much as Bill is being generous in his giving, he largely has wanted to see it go toward technological improvements rather than simple things that work now (eg sleeping mats spayed down with repellent).
It's a good listen overall, though.
First up Malaria is a "Tropical" disease, ie: found in the tropics, Australia has the strictest quarantine of any Nation, NZ and the Antartic are too cold.
Second, Malaria is an "orphan" disease, ie: Drug companies do not see a future profit so they put little effort into research.
Third, "evil" people sometimes do great deeds. As for "pushing & conjoling" have you ever noticed that is how most "leaders" operate?
Fourth, this is exactly the kind of philanthropy that US capitialism has always touted but has rarely experienced.
Last, Bill & Co have an impressive record of helping people who are largely forgotten by the rest of the world. No he did not start MS in an attempt to wipe out Malaria, but because of MS success as a publicly traded company, Bill now has the oportunity to do so.
Projection: The fact that you can only see a self serving conspiracy on the part of MS says alot more about you than it does about Bill.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I believe the Borg icon relates to the embrace and extend villainy his company has perpetrated on the world. I would claim many trillions of dollars have been lost due to Microsoft's abusive monopoly, which is enabled by their closed formats and embrace and extend tactics. Instead of Microsoft hoarding the wealth, the world could be sharing, cooperating, and growing.
Google gets this. They are making information available to the world, which is enriching us all.
Bill Gates III started giving to charity because he was widely criticized for not doing so, not for any humanitarian reasons.
My issue with the icon is that the Borg are not hypocritical.
Please. He is donating money to Africa to fight a disease that affects the poor in a massively disproportionate numbers. If he wanted to make money for Microsoft, there are five other continents far more worthy of sucking up to. Hell, make that six. Antarctic researches might need an OS to run their laptops. Africa is massively impoverished, has a massively impoverished population, and rampant piracy. The level of government corruption is completely off of the chart in most Africa nations. When you can't run get a vaguely functioning non-corrupt bureaucracy going, it is laughable to think that you can get people in the bureaucracy to start paying their licensing fee for their OS.
In other words, this is philanthropy, pure and simple. The most Gates has to gain out of this is a better name in general for himself. Even then, if Gates really was looking to make a better name for himself in the US, malaria falls roughly on the bottom of the list. Try and remember that Gates is still human. If you had a few billion dollars sitting around, would you only give it away for nefarious and evil purposes, or would a warm tingly feeling in your gut be enough?
The widespread use of DDT had all but wiped out malaria some three decades ago. Then someone named Rachel Carson wrote a fictional book called "Silent Spring" about how DDT was harming birds. The book was fictional, literally. But the irrational so-called "envoronmentalists" of the world took it as a call to action and successfully pressured the government to ban DDT. Now millions die needlessly in Africa as a result of their irrationality.
Wow.
Just, wow man. This is the most ignorant, uninformed post I think I've ever read on Slashdot. Well done!
Here's a Debunking for you - you could have found it yourself with a quick Google.
A simple bit of research would show that something much more interesing happened - a low level contingent of the mosquito population is resistant to DDT and DDT sprayings kill off the rest. The resistant portion reproduce and you're back to a full population again, except this time they're all resistant, rendering the DDT useless.
I know I'm being pedantic here, but Malaria is not caused by a virus, but by a protozoon (single-cell life form with a nucleus) called Plasmodium (usually P. falciparum). The Wikipedia entry on Malaria has more information.
Then again, when people talk about computer viruses they usually mean worms...
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
You say "publicity" like it's a *bad* thing. No one suffering from malaria cares at all why Bill made the donation, or whether Bill is rewarded in some way. Altruism as a motivation doesn't matter - at all. Anything that causes more donations is a *good* thing. Period.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It also publicizes the cause he donated to, which can benefit from being attached to the world's largest billionaire.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Did you bother to read the BBC link presented? I know you didn't, so here is the word from the BBC science editor when he researched the issue:
DDT is widely regarded as a threat to human health - a potent poison and a carcinogen. But the scientific evidence presents a rather different picture.
Professor Len Ritter, from Guelph University, is executive director of the Canadian Network of Toxicology Centres, which compiled a major report on DDT and related substances for the United Nations.
"I hate to say conclusively yes or no because these matters are always subject to interpretation; but I would say on the totality of the weight of the evidence, I could not conclude that DDT poses a significant risk of cancer," he told Earth Files.
Professor Ritter's report came to a similar conclusion regarding the other suggested harmful effects of DDT - as a disrupter of the human immune system, of hormone levels, as a cause of birth defects.
On whether DDT is acutely poisonous to humans, the eminent British scientist Kenneth Mellanby writes in his book The DDT Story: "I myself, when lecturing about DDT during the years immediately after World War II, frequently consumed a substantial pinch of DDT, to the consternation of the audience, but with no apparent harm to myself, either then or during the next 40 years."
In the west, though, DDT continues to be seen as a pariah chemical.
So apparently the BBC Science editor, and UN experts on toxicology are also idiots. And those Africans are stupid too, for wanting to prevent 1 of 4 children dying by using a chemical that according to the worst projections might give 1 in 100 people cancer (those numbers are disputed by nearly all scientist, but even assuming the enviornmental worst case sceniaros DDT isn't that bad).