Bill Gates and Vaccines

[ThunderChunky]

I am now introducing Probiotics Technology, which is common in the Far East, into Africa to maximize the potential for re-cycling organic matter into fertilizers for food security.
I have started a pilot in my hometown where we re-cycle 16 tons a month of food waste from the local university into vegetable production. The results so far are beyond expectation and due to this we are getting requests from all over South Africa and Africa to implement the same systems. I therefore have invested all my savings to start a company and build a factory to produce these Probiotics on a large scale.

Considering adding glyphosate resistance into those probiotics, it would increase your market.

 

[!Kaggen]

Umm.

Look, it may not be the most judicious thing to link to your brother's (if that is who he is) RL bio in a public thread where you are taking a militantly anti-vax position. Especially considering his occupation.

Did you consult him first?

Just saying.

Sure this militant anti-vaxxer vaccinated his children because his an anti- vaxxer and repeatedly claimed vaccines save lives.

And

My brothers profile is on a public webpage of the William Dunn School of Pathology, but I need to ask permission from him for the public to see it.

Your arguments are so poor you certainly are not worth taking seriously. Take a leaf out of Roger's book and try at least be logical.

 

[Travis]

Good for you to make sure your own kids were vaccinated.

 

[!Kaggen]

I think it is important to note that I did not say they were more important - I was saying that they are more a current and immediate concern. At the moment they have several diseases "on the run" so to speak - with several more years of effort they have every chance of eradicating the diseases. Whereas, if we stop or reduce efforts, the diseases will have a chance for a comeback, and all previous work will be largely wasted (I say largely because of course the individuals that were vaccinated benefit from the vaccination - but the goal is not vaccination so much as eradication).

It's not a foregone conclusion that these diseases will be eradicated - the Gates foundation is fighting against local religious prejudices, for one thing. But it is reasonably possible, and would be a great result if achieved.

Let me try for an agricultural analogy. I'm sure it'll be off in some aspects because I am not in the field - grant me that. Suppose there was a blight that, with a few years work, could be eradicated. The blight has the possibility for some localized starvation if the towns do not have a lot of various crops, etc. And, we have the science to completely eradicated the blight, but it will take some money. Doesn't it make sense to attack this problem, now, while it is tamped down and amenable to eradication, even though we of course have longer term issues with sustainability, production yields, etc? Ignoring the blight will just let it get worse, and waste all of the effort made on it to date.

IOW, it makes sense to put money, sometimes a lot of money, towards a smaller problem if we can completely eliminate that problem. It's not a judgment that the longer term stuff is unimportant, or less important.

And things like polio are anything but 'small'. It used to be a devastating disease, and a global problem, with epidemics sweeping across countries. I assure you that you would not want yourself or anyone you know to have it. We have fought against it to the point that it exists only in small pockets. With a modest investment we can eradicate it. It's an extremely important goal - if we don't achieve it the disease will have the opportunity to grow, perhaps even mutate. We really need it gone, completely.

There are very few major problems in the world where a few billion dollars might be enough to change things for the rest of history. As you point out, the agriculture issues are many, and require a multitude of different approaches to really solve starvation. It's not just yields, it's not just technology, it's not just politics - it's all of that and more.

The Gates Foundation spent a lot of time thinking at the beginning, trying how best to invest money. There is no obvious answer. But they have taken the approach of 'best bang for the buck' - you could poor billions into, say, the Israeli/Palestine problem and not make a dent in it - it would be as if the money just evaporated. The Gates Foundation chooses to invest where they can make large differences in people's lives - getting rid of diseases, improving water sources for farms, that sort of thing, with the idea that if you reduce misery and get rid of things that keep people at the most impoverished levels, they will have the chance to live a meaningful life and start participating in improving their lot. If you are starving, or dying in a hospital, you can't help yourself. If many of your kids die, you will be procreating like mad, causing population explosions. You have to nip that stuff in the bud. On the back of that you can then usefully make the needed improvements to agriculture, infrastructure, etc. If you and your kids have polio, et. al., you ain't going to be able to put better farming practices into use - you'll just be laying on your bed, dying or sick.

Roger, I appreciate what you are saying and it is great to see you optimistic about the success of disease eradication by maximizing spending in the short term on vaccination. I am a bit less optimistic living here in Africa and feel that long term grass-roots approaches need to be prioritized. There is no short cut in Africa and many many great incentives have failed as they were not driven by locals from within the community and there was a lack of trust between the giver and recipient. Unfortunately vaccination like high input agriculture is by it's nature an outside intervention and will always therefore be regarded with superstition. Whilst working with agricultural techniques which encourage the use of local inputs and initiatives will and has made solid headway in building capacity in rural communities. Building on this food security with health programs including vaccination becomes much easier as the locals have then developed a trust in those bringing these outside interventions to them.
It is the healthy that are vaccinated and they often do not recognize the future potential benefits of the interventions. It is not as if they are sick and are getting anti-biotics which make them better. Therefore trust is essential and winning the locals trust through helping with food security may be the only solution to extensive vaccination efforts. Perhaps this is what is being realized by the Gates foundation and therefore they are now pursuing food security issues pro-actively to open up their vaccination program.

Noting your mention of religious hurdles it is a pity that we cannot find a vaccine for the religion of ancestor worship as this is a major cultural obstacle to any progress here in Africa. I would be most grateful for such a vaccine :-(.

 

[SnakeTongue]

(...) Perhaps this is what is being realized by the Gates foundation and therefore they are now pursuing food security issues pro-actively to open up their vaccination program.

Noting your mention of religious hurdles it is a pity that we cannot find a vaccine for the religion of ancestor worship as this is a major cultural obstacle to any progress here in Africa. I would be most grateful for such a vaccine :-(.

!Kaggen, I do not know where you was ten years ago, but I was in somewhere in Brazil and I remember to spot a headline in the newspapers affirming that Bill Gates had decide to spent his fortune TO ERADICATE the starvation in Africa on the next decade.

Now... Ten years later and people in Africa are still starving...

I am glad to know about your project in Africa and I wish good speed for your plans.