Bill Gates and Vaccines

!Kaggen said:
So you're in the camp that want a vaccine for starvation, as you're too patronizing to admit ignorance to having a solution to a really big problem that is not going to solved in a laboratory.
Click to expand...

What the **** are you talking about. Nobody thinks starvation is going to solved by vaccines. But, since we are able to think rationally, we recognize that solving the problems that vaccines can is a good thing even though people will still starve.
 
!Kaggen said:
So you're in the camp that want a vaccine for starvation, as you're too patronizing to admit ignorance to having a solution to a really big problem that is not going to solved in a laboratory.
Click to expand...

How strange!

Let's boil this one down to its basics.

!Kaggen, Bill Gates gives one billion dollars to fight disease with vaccines.

Is it:

a) A good thing?
b) A bad thing?
 
Wygram said:
Yeah, it's called investing.
Are you seriously trying to tell me people that are rich don't care about money and making more?

Al Gore who supposedly wants to stop greenhouse gases being released, just set up a company that will be making trillions off them.
Click to expand...

Trillions? Really? Is it too late to get in on this? :rolleyes:

!Kaggen said:
So you're in the camp that want a vaccine for starvation, as you're too patronizing to admit ignorance to having a solution to a really big problem that is not going to solved in a laboratory.
Click to expand...

Actually, genetically altered foods show great promise in assisting to relieve starvation. I believe there was a strain of rice with enhanced levels of vitamin D that, while banned in the U.S., is making huge differences in Africa.
 
!Kaggen said:
So you're in the camp that want a vaccine for starvation, as you're too patronizing to admit ignorance to having a solution to a really big problem that is not going to solved in a laboratory.
Click to expand...

Vaccines may help (indirectly) with starvation, by allowing communities to stabilize and develop by keeping kids healthy. I am not sure how much of this money is going towards vaccine research, but they seem to be emphasizing getting proven (and very cost effective) vaccines to the poor people of the world.
 
Starvation generally comes about because of shattered political governance.....or ruthlessly corrupt governance. I don't see how Gates could solve either one with any amount of money.
 
Wygram said:
If you have an article on antivaxxer nutjobs killing people by encouraging them to not get vaccines your welcome to share. If you also have one on people dying because they didn't get a vaccine you can share that as well.
Click to expand...
http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7500/1106.1.full
"The strain of poliovirus causing the new outbreaks originated in Kano province in northern Nigeria. In 2003 Kano was the focal point of a Nigerian Muslim boycott of polio vaccination, after local imams claimed that the vaccine was part of a US plot to spread AIDS or infertility in the Islamic world (BMJ 2004;328: 485).
Several Nigerian provinces blocked immunisation for months before finally accepting a vaccine manufactured in Indonesia. The boycott was followed by a large outbreak of polio in Nigeria and surrounding countries."

http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7455/1513.1.full
"Africa could be on the brink of a major poliomyelitis epidemic after a child in Sudan's crisis ridden Dafur region was found to have been paralysed by the disease last month, World Health Organization officials warned on Tuesday.
It was the first confirmed case of polio, which mainly affects children under the age of five, in the country for three years.
Sudan is the tenth African country in which the disease has reappeared since Nigeria's Islamic states suspended immunisation last August. WHO officials believe that the virus travelled from Nigeria across Chad to Sudan."

Vaccination is associated with a reduction in disease incidence and stopping vaccination is associated with a resurgence of that disease That's very convincing evidence, it's just a pity that many people had to contract polio to demonstrate it, psrticularly since we already knew what would happen based on the initial research.

Also -

http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7500/1106.1.fullhttp://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm
"Dramatic declines in morbidity have been reported for the nine vaccine-preventable diseases for which vaccination was universally recommended for use in children before 1990 (excluding hepatitis B, rotavirus, and varicella) (Table_2). Morbidity associated with smallpox and polio caused by wild-type viruses has declined 100% and nearly 100% for each of the other seven diseases."

Yuri
 
!Kaggen said:
So you're in the camp that want a vaccine for starvation, as you're too patronizing to admit ignorance to having a solution to a really big problem that is not going to solved in a laboratory.
Click to expand...
If a vaccine for HIV is ever discovered that would go a long way to improving agricultural production in countries where, at the moment, much of the work force is debilitated or dead as a result of AIDs..

Obviously though, starvation is a major problem in certain areas but that doesn't mean that vaccines don't work or that it is wrong to spend money on them.

Yuri
 
dtugg said:
What the **** are you talking about. Nobody thinks starvation is going to solved by vaccines. But, since we are able to think rationally, we recognize that solving the problems that vaccines can is a good thing even though people will still starve.
Click to expand...

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?
 
In other words, unless he can do everything, there's no point doing anything.

As has already been explained, vaccination can itself reduce the risk of famine by stopping epidemics ravaging rural farming communities. Also, how do you prevent starvation with money? See earlier posts on its causes.
 
Yuri Nalyssus said:
If a vaccine for HIV is ever discovered that would go a long way to improving agricultural production in countries where, at the moment, much of the work force is debilitated or dead as a result of AIDs..

Obviously though, starvation is a major problem in certain areas but that doesn't mean that vaccines don't work or that it is wrong to spend money on them.

Yuri
Click to expand...


Good point about the workfoce. In Africa the farmers are typically the woman and this new microbicide gel developed in South Africa looks promising.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/19/aids-breakthrough-gel-hel_n_651628.html
 
Ian Osborne said:
In other words, unless he can do everything, there's no point doing anything.
Click to expand...
Strawman

Ian Osborne said:
As has already been explained, vaccination can itself reduce the risk of famine by stopping epidemics ravaging rural
farming communities.
Click to expand...
And stopping starvation can help reduce the risk of death.

Ian Osborne said:
Also, how do you prevent starvation with money? See earlier posts on its causes.
Click to expand...

Invest in poor farmers is a good start.
 
Not even Bill Gates has the kind of money to end starvation. He could possibly feed the world for one day and then declare bankruptcy. The next day, the world continues to starve and Bill Gates can't help anyone anymore.

So the contention remains: Doing A is bad - even though it is in itself a good thing - because it means not doing B and in my opinion B is more worthwhile, even though it is far more complex, is less likely to have a succesful outcome and depends on political situations which can't be controlled. Yes. That sounds reasonable. I am totally convinced now. Just one thing: why the flaming hell doesn't Bill Gates stop aging? Aging kills 100% of its victims and as someone with a lot of money and a will to do something good with them, this and everything else that is wrong with the world is Bill Gates's responsibility.

DAMN YOU BILL! STOP AGING NOW! How many nanas and great grandmothers will have to die and leave grieving grand children and great grandchildren behind before you do anything! Where's my nan, Bill? Where is she? Screw you and your increadibly generous and completely voluntary altruistic work to prevent preventable diseases that kill!

Look at Donald Trump, Bill! Look at Alan Sugar! Look at the Axelsson-Johnssons of Sweden! These people UNDERSTAND that if they can't fix world hunger, it's better to do nothing! You could learn from them, Bill.
 
whatthebutlersaw said:
Not even Bill Gates has the kind of money to end starvation. He could possibly feed the world for one day and then declare bankruptcy. The next day, the world continues to starve and Bill Gates can't help anyone anymore.

So the contention remains: Doing A is bad - even though it is in itself a good thing - because it means not doing B and in my opinion B is more worthwhile, even though it is far more complex, is less likely to have a succesful outcome and depends on political situations which can't be controlled. Yes. That sounds reasonable. I am totally convinced now. Just one thing: why the flaming hell doesn't Bill Gates stop aging? Aging kills 100% of its victims and as someone with a lot of money and a will to do something good with them, this and everything else that is wrong with the world is Bill Gates's responsibility.

DAMN YOU BILL! STOP AGING NOW! How many nanas and great grandmothers will have to die and leave grieving grand children and great grandchildren behind before you do anything! Where's my nan, Bill? Where is she? Screw you and your increadibly generous and completely voluntary altruistic work to prevent preventable diseases that kill!

Look at Donald Trump, Bill! Look at Alan Sugar! Look at the Axelsson-Johnssons of Sweden! These people UNDERSTAND that if they can't fix world hunger, it's better to do nothing! You could learn from them, Bill.
Click to expand...

Strawman awards nomination.
 
!Kaggen said:
<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>
Click to expand...


Can you share the source of this assessment. From what I see in this article it isn't clear to me that the Foundation even spends the "vast majority" of its charitable contributions on health issues in general, much less specifically on vaccine research.

Certainly global health issues are a major target, but I believe you are mis-characterizing the situation. For example, the Foundation directed $1.5 billion towards minority scholarships in the U.S. That one contribution alone dwarfs the money contributed specifically toward vaccine research.
 
!Kaggen said:
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?
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence suggesting that spending more money on ending hunger and less on vaccines would save more lives?
 
!Kaggen said:
I guess the less glamorous methods don't appeal to Mr Gates sensibilities as they decentralize the responsibility, something all his money comes from avoiding
Click to expand...
You spew out all that on the basis of a guess? Tsk tsk.

Go sit in the corner and say 10 Hail Bills :D
 
!Kaggen said:
Strawman awards nomination.
Click to expand...

You asserting that it is a strawman does not make it so. That is not how Strawmen work. It is not a magic word that stops people from interpreting your words as they are written. You can only call strawman when people are putting words that you didn't actually write in your mouth. So far, you have asserted the same thing over and over again and it can only be interpreted one way. The way everyone you accuse of strawmanning have interpreted your actual words, as you wrote them.

If this is not what you are trying to say, then you need to find a way of saying whatever it is you are trying to say so that it doesn't say just this. Because at the moment, this is what you are saying. I'm sure everyone are willing to help you if you are unclear about the meaning of any words.

Do you have the ability to understand this? (I'm not being snarky. It could be that language issues are causing this.)

Because at the moment, this is what is happening:

!Kaggen: A!
Everyone else: Wtf, do you mean? A?
!Kaggen: Strawman, I didn't say A.
Everyone else: So what are you saying?
!Kaggen: A!
Everyone else: You are still saying A. Wtf do you mean by A?
!Kaggen: STRAWMAN I'M NOT SAYING A!
Everyone else: But it clearly says A in your posts. If not A, then what are you trying to say?
!Kaggen: A! A! A! A! A!
Everyone else: Dude, you're still saying A. Is A what you really mean?
!Kaggen: No, you idiots. I'm not saying A.
Everyone else: So what are you saying?
!Kaggen: A!
Everyone else: But then you ARE saying A?
!Kaggen: You and your strawmen. I'm not saying A.

Ad Nauseam.

Quite a few people have interpreted you in the same way. Could it be that you are not sure, yourself, what you are trying to say? The obscurely put is the obscurely thought, after all. Maybe you'd like to take some time and try to formulate what you are trying to say in such a way that does not in every way come off exactly the way everyone has been interpreting you?

Why don't you state what you ARE saying in clear and unambiguous language and maybe we can discuss from there. Because the way you are saying it now, leaves no room for any other interpretation than the one everyone has made. On account of your posts actually saying that.

That is not a strawman. You asserting strawman when people interpret your words as they are written, will come off as disingenuous until you actually try to explain yourself clearer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom