MSF draw attention to fundamental flaws in Gates' vaccine plan

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/docto...-+Blog+Posts%29

This is self explanatory. It is also a good reason to oppose involving very rich people, however well meaning, in things they don't understand.

Well, although I agree with the sentiment of your post, I think that the Gates Foundation is trying hard to make a difference. Unfortunately, while their heart may be in the right place (and this is a speculation - we don't really know if the Gates are being that empathic or just searching for another way to be remembered), the direction they are taking probably should have been re-evaluated.

First of all, most rich people, including celebrities, are surrounded by yes-men. This is a primary reason why the wealthy get what they want, and also why it seems so easy for them to get into trouble. Through intermediaries, the focus of the rich being in the public eye is diminished, such that the yes-men may seem reassuring that they [the rich] are able to follow their own goals, selfish or not. Obtaining illegal sex or drugs are often done via these yes-men. I can easily see another scenario.

Mr. Gates "I want my Foundation to focus on vaccines. Do you think, with enough money, we could end a debilitating disease?"

Yes Man "Of course, sir."

Gates "What disease should we focus on?"

Yes Man "I understand that polio could be stopped. It is a debilitating disease."

Gates "Make that happen."

Yes Man "Right away, sir."

Notice that there is no dialogue about alternative strategies to vaccine deployment. Now, being that Mr. Gates is a smart man, I actually believe he may have had some research analysis before making such a move. The article states that improper statistics may be the cause of the misleading direction the Gates Foundation has taken. It may also be that polio stricken regions of Africa may be more accessible than measles stricken regions, and since the Gates Foundation may have limited resources in terms of deployment, they chose to go for the lesser of the evils. As for new vaccines, neither tuberculosis nor malaria have very effective vaccines. The vaccine used for tuberculosis, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin, has such a variable efficacy that it is not even approved in the United States. I believe this may be due to immunological genetic differences which vary geographically. Malaria has no vaccine at all. The Gates Foundation has committed money to helping vaccine efforts for both of these diseases. These two diseases are big killers in the world, and having vaccines to them would be enormous boons to the population at large.

Now, back to the original topic: Should the wealthy be involved in setting policy, through foundations, lobbyists, or charitable donations?

As you may have already guessed, my biased American opinion is that people will do things selfishly, and will already be doing things that benefit themselves the most, so why not try to ensure that it is done in an informed manner (aka "correctly") than prohibit them from doing it. The wealthy have more assets to assign to these tasks, so it behooves us to encourage open dialogue between organizations so that similar missions can be delegated in a better fashion. Preventative health care, such as education, vaccination, and regular health examinations have very small short-term benefits, so it is difficult to get funding for agencies that focus on those tasks. It is no wonder that private companies, such as the Gates Foundation, have opted for strategies that will also generate income, especially when global health priorities are being ideologically pursued by politicians (there is an article in the Huffington Post entitled "Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing Nations" about this - I am having trouble linking it here.) [_Mod edit_ Sorry for the inconvenience. Here is the link: www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/g..._n_1544399.html _Vninect]

I certainly don't know what the best method may be for global health care, but I personally would be more in favor of open dialogue and collaboration between governments, institutes, and private companies instead of the "us-against-them" mentality some of them have adopted.

Edited by Vninect - 14/11/2012, 03:26

First: you can't link here till you have 5 posts and there does not seem to be anything we can do about that. But if you put it in as text I can probably convert to a link: Vninect certainly can. Hope that helps

As you will also appreciate, from my point of view private companies should have nothing at all to do with health care. Nor do I agree that people will do things selfishly, as an a priori assumption. Therein lies an enormous gulf and I doubt it can be bridged.

I agree that the wealthy have more assets and that is increasingly true because of the policies we have pursued for the last many years. I am opposed to that, for both ideological and practical reasons. I think it is nothing less than criminal that wealth should be concentrated in the way it is. It does not even benefit the rich, for they have no idea what to do with their money. If you are correct, they do not even trouble to find out; and I suspect that is because they are too ignorant to understand that they are ignorant. I take your point that that is at least partly explained by yes men: and that just makes me despise them the more. It is contemptible to surround yourself with folk who flatter you and do not give honest responses. They are not entirely to blame. They swim in the same water we do: and that water is poisoned by various unspoken theories of homo superior.

As to the problem of small short term benefits: indeed. It is a part of that same complex of utterly damaging assumptions that we should look for quick and dramatic returns for the efforts we make.

I am truly sickened by the whole plutocratic approach to the world. I can no longer even try to find compromise, because it is like reasoning with a man-eating stone. That is not human nature, the way I see it: it is a choice these people make. They could make others. And so could we

Further to this: it is reported today that Microsoft also uses transfer of profits across national borders to reduce its tax liability. Using Microsoft's own figures Richard Murphy estimates that they avoid $4.68 billion and that represents 3.5% of the world aid budget. So much for cooperation.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2012/12...rld-aid-budget/