Bill Gates and Vaccines

[SnakeTongue]

Billionaires do not waste money on donations...

Billionaires INVEST money on donation...

INVESTMENT DEMANDS RETURNS.

Now, ask yourself, what Bill Gates expect in return from his investments?

A whole tribe of health children from Africa going to live under his roof?

What would you expect in return when you are using your dollars to vaccinate people which you do not even know?

 

[dtugg]

He is getting nothing out of it besides knowing that he is saving countless lives.

And really, what the hell is one supposed to do with all that money, anyway. It is not like he can take it with him when he dies.

You are free to show any evidence that he is somehow profiting from giving away billions of dollars. You will, of course, do no such thing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Now, ask yourself, what Bill Gates expect in return from his investments?

A whole tribe of health children from Africa going to live under his roof?

Yes. He's like a geeky Madonna, buying in bulk.

 

[Ysidro]

If there isn't a name for "we shouldn't fix X because Y is more important" then there should be. It's not really the Perfect Solution Fallacy but it's similar.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

If there isn't a name for "we shouldn't fix X because Y is more important" then there should be. It's not really the Perfect Solution Fallacy but it's similar.

I say we just give up and sit on our hands until everyone is dead except for Donald Trump and his hair.

Maybe we could call it the Billy Joel-fallacy?

If there is a problem with agricultural solutions, then why isn't that discussed in its own thread and involving people who are actually involved instead of in a thread regarding a completely different issue and people who aren't involved in agriculture?

 

[Sledge]

Better yet, anyone disagreeing with the Gates' idea could email them explaining the problems with vaccination and outlining a better idea. As good a forum as this is, I'm not sure Bill Gates is reading anything here.

 

[Emet]

Maybe we could call it the Billy Joel-fallacy?

Video not available in the US.

 

[angrysoba]

I was doing a bit of shopping the other day in the high street when I suddenly heard this screeeeeeeeeech of car tyres. I turned around to see some guy who had been out shopping jumping into the street and pushing a little old lady out of the way of a speeding car.

I thought, "What a selfish bastard! I mean what was that guy doing there pushing old ladies out of the way of cars when he could be somewhere feeding the starving!"

I wonder if he was just doing it to look good.

 

[AvalonXQ]

What I'm really wondering is why people are arguing against Bill Gates on an internet forum, when the money they spend on internet service and the time they spend arguing could be spent feeding the hungry.

 

[Dr. Keith]

He is getting nothing out of it besides knowing that he is saving countless lives.

And really, what the hell is one supposed to do with all that money, anyway. It is not like he can take it with him when he dies.

You are free to show any evidence that he is somehow profiting from giving away billions of dollars. You will, of course, do no such thing.

I would also point out that the Gates family has a history of supporting heavy taxation of inheritance. I think it may be Bill's father who is most vocal on this topic, but the point is that they really do plan to spend or donate most of it during their lives. That is the point of the foundation.

 

[RationalVetMed]

How could money help with this? Are you suggesting Bill Gates buy out Nestle? $10b couldn't do that.

Well, I was being slightly disingenuous (a convoluted attempt at humour probably) and taking the lead from the little 'malnutrition/starvation' derail earlier. In the same way that sometimes malnutrition can be caused by over eating, many problems with breast feeding in the developing world were caused in the past (not sure about now) by companies like Nestles spending billions of dollars telling empoverished mothers that it was a good idea to stop breast feeding and use milk powder instead, i.e. spending too much money can be bad.

If I recal correctly independent people tried to address that problem by campaigning to promote breast feeding in the face of considerable opposition by the multinationals, obviously that required money. So I would say that yes, spending money in the correct way can help breastfeeding (although it would have been better if no money at all had been spent trying to stop people doing it in the first place).

Yuri

 

[roger]

Okay, first of all, the Bill Gates foundation is supporting agriculture.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agriculturaldevelopment/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/Pages/2009-agricultural-development-africa-asia.aspx
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annu...ow-bill-gates-innovations-in-agriculture.aspx
http://allafrica.com/stories/201102091101.html (in this one talks about how he pairs vaccinations with food programs to raise an entire area up - without going into the nitty gritty I'd say he overall not only agrees with !Kaggen, but is doing something about it, though I'm sure !Kaggen would find points of disagreement (I don't mean that in a perjorative way))

Second, the purpose in vaccination is not just to save the kids being vaccinated (though of course that is important). The main reason they are investing in this, rather than some other issue, is that the goal is eradication of the diseases. If they do this, the benefits are long lasting - that relatively small investment gets paid back year after year as thousands to millions do not die. It's kind of like fixing the foundation of your house before worrying about the significant plumbing problems you have. If populations are being decimated by extremely easily preventable diseases, it makes sense to address that before going on to more intractable problems, like agriculture.

 

[technoextreme]

One of those inconvenient posts everyone ignores

Well I didn't really ignore it. I chalked it up upon general ignorance on your part. What you are whining about is the fact that most Africans don't have access to medieval level technology.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Food for thought:

Pick sanitation over vaccination in Haiti

I have been investigating Haiti's water system since 2007 and strongly believe that the limited resources available to combat the country's cholera epidemic should be spent on sanitation and clean water, rather than on vaccination (Nature 469, 273–274; 2011). Otherwise, the local geology and ecology will allow cholera and other water-borne pathogens to persist.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7333/full/470175a.html

 

[Emet]

Food for thought:

Pick sanitation over vaccination in Haiti



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7333/full/470175a.html

Well, no not really. It's well established that vaccination is not effective for an acute outbreak of cholera, as has happened in Haiti:

There are two vaccines that give up to 90 percent protection against cholera – at least in the short term. But don't expect them to get widespread use to contain Haiti's current cholera epidemic.

Dr. Jon Andrus is deputy director of the Pan American Health Organization and a vaccination specialist. He explained why cholera vaccine isn't the answer to Haiti's problem at a Wednesday teleconference.
(...)
But with cholera, by the time the disease shows up, 80 percent of people are carrying it — but without any symptoms.

"The horse is out of the barn," Andrus says, "so you can't determine with any accuracy where that bacterium is circulating...You already have transmission outside your ring."

There are other reasons why cholera vaccination isn't recommended during an outbreak. It requires two doses in most people, and three in young children. Keeping track of who's been vaccinated and getting them back for a second and third dose presents enormous logistical problems and a lot of personnel. And even with all that effort, it still takes three weeks at the least for immunity to build in the body, Andrus says.

The effort to mount a crash vaccination campaign would also surely detract from other public health measures known to be effective, like educating people about hand-washing and handing out safe water, soap and oral rehydration. Such measures prevent infections and reduce fatality rates to around 1 percent.

"Measures to prevent and treat this disease are so effective…that we don't vaccinate our own staff on the ground or staff we're sending there," Andrus says

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...he-cholera-vaccine-isn-t-the-answer-for-haiti

 

[tyr_13]

I say we just give up and sit on our hands until everyone is dead except for Donald Trump and his hair.

Maybe we could call it the Billy Joel-fallacy?

If there is a problem with agricultural solutions, then why isn't that discussed in its own thread and involving people who are actually involved instead of in a thread regarding a completely different issue and people who aren't involved in agriculture?

It's informally called the the 'Michele Jordan' or 'Bill Gates' fallacy oddly enough.

Some New Logical Fallacies

 

[Travis]

I agree that Cholera is probably best battled with good sanitation.

And perhaps certain people should spend less time on the internet and more time in Africa teaching farmers better soil conservation techniques if that is what is so important to them.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I was thinking strawman again, but now I am thinking you just don't understand what I am saying.

Let me try again.

The issue I am interested in is saving lives.
Starvation is arguably a bigger killer in children than all diseases combined.
Solving starvation is what I think should receive the majority of any funding "to save lives".
I admit that Bill Gates can and does do what he likes with his money.
He is spending the vast majority of it on specifically vaccine research, which for sure does save lives. However if saving the most lives was the goal of his foundation then I think they should be spending most of their money on eliminating starvation.
You tell me I am wrong and Gates is right because vaccines save lives and
then assume I am anti-vax, because I am critical of the way they spend their money.
What is rational about that?

Firstly, what roger said:

Okay, first of all, the Bill Gates foundation is supporting agriculture.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agriculturaldevelopment/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/Pages/2009-agricultural-development-africa-asia.aspx
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annu...ow-bill-gates-innovations-in-agriculture.aspx
http://allafrica.com/stories/201102091101.html (in this one talks about how he pairs vaccinations with food programs to raise an entire area up - without going into the nitty gritty I'd say he overall not only agrees with !Kaggen, but is doing something about it, though I'm sure !Kaggen would find points of disagreement (I don't mean that in a perjorative way))

Second, the purpose in vaccination is not just to save the kids being vaccinated (though of course that is important). The main reason they are investing in this, rather than some other issue, is that the goal is eradication of the diseases. If they do this, the benefits are long lasting - that relatively small investment gets paid back year after year as thousands to millions do not die. It's kind of like fixing the foundation of your house before worrying about the significant plumbing problems you have. If populations are being decimated by extremely easily preventable diseases, it makes sense to address that before going on to more intractable problems, like agriculture.

And secondly, the Gates Foundation is working on many aspects of health and development, not just vaccines (and agriculture).

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/global-development/Pages/overview.aspx

Agricultural Development
Financial Services for the Poor
Water, Sanitation & Hygiene
Special Initiatives
* Libraries
* Urban Poverty
* Emergency Response
Policy and Advocacy

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/global-health/Pages/overview.aspx

Our work in infectious diseases focuses on developing ways to fight and prevent enteric and diarrheal diseases, HIV/AIDS, malaria, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and neglected and other infectious diseases.

We also work on integrated health solutions for family planning, nutrition, maternal, neonatal and child health, tobacco control and vaccine-preventable diseases.

 

[quadraginta]

Firstly, what roger said:



And secondly, the Gates Foundation is working on many aspects of health and development, not just vaccines (and agriculture).
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/global-development/Pages/overview.aspx



http://www.gatesfoundation.org/global-health/Pages/overview.aspx

!Kaggen didn't have any response to this idea when I last pointed it out, after he said,

Originally Posted by !Kaggen
<snip>

I admit that Bill Gates can and does do what he likes with his money.
He is spending the vast majority of it on specifically vaccine research, which for sure does save lives.

<snip>

and I asked if he could substantiate that claim.

Maybe you'll get a response.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Cheers, quadraginta.

Here's a breakdown of the 2009 spending:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annualreport/2009/Pages/grants-paid-summary.aspx

Only $117,079 was spent on vaccine delivery.


http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/foundation-fact-sheet.aspx

The foundation has granted $23.9 billion since 1994 (as at September 2010).
Adding the $10 billion donation towards vaccines makes a total of $33.9 billion in grants.

$10 billion is not "the vast majority" of the sum total.


Oops, I'm doing Kaggen's work for him.