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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.