And in this interview, he grants that there was no chance for eradication of covid, and also that “young people don’t sick very often,” which makes one wonder about the reasons for the extended lockdowns, from which the poor suffered most. He has regrets but hey, who doesn’t?
His theme is the same as we are hearing all over the planet. Yes, it could have been done better but the people who did this to us have only learned from their errors and they will do better next time.
Even on vaccines, Bill is somehow sure that the next time, the vaccine will stop infection and spread, will be one dose, and probably won’t be an injection, as if these are points no one could have hope for in this round, and as if this is all just a matter of funding more R&D. Just like Windows Millennium Edition, it will get better.
Related:
Rumble: THE PLAN - WHO plans for 10 years of pandemics, from 2020 to 2030
Please let me know if this is behind a paywall:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1021577629748680000
From 2002, this article "says it all". It is all here.
I especially love this part:
"The foundation's investments in "Big Pharma" could spur controversy, given Mr. Gates' staunch support of strict intellectual-property protections for drugs in poor countries. Mr. Gates' stance on intellectual property is as important to Microsoft's software business as it is to drugmakers.
"The impression people have, because of the types of projects Gates has funded and because of his Microsoft background, is that he has an ax to grind on the intellectual-property front," says James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, who works with African officials to obtain low-cost drugs.
In my opinion, every mystery or inexplicable policy move over the last two or so years has an explanation in these simple (if not well-known) statements about Bill, intellectual property rights, and charity, philanthropy-style.
I have to say it: if Bill cared about the welfare of the world's suffering masses, he would never do anything to restrict, as one example India's, manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. He cares about maybe becoming the world's first trillionaire.
Yes, the article is behind a paywall.
DeleteBy David Bank and Rebecca BuckmanStaff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal
DeleteMay 17, 2002 12:01 am ET
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has purchased shares in nine big pharmaceutical companies valued at nearly $205 million -- an investment likely to attract attention more for its symbolism than its size.
The foundation, the nation's largest with an endowment of $24.2 billion from Microsoft Corp. MSFT 2.26%▲ Chairman Bill Gates and his wife, already is a major force in international health issues, contributing $555 million in 2000 alone to global health programs. The organization has emerged as a prominent voice in the debate over how to supply cheaper drugs for AIDS and other diseases to poor countries. At times, it has assumed the role of a broker between poor nations and drug companies.
Now, as an investor in Merck & Co., Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson and others, the Gates foundation has a financial interest in common with makers of AIDS drugs, diagnostic tools, vaccines and other drugs. The stock purchases are a new type of investment for the foundation: In the past it held primarily bonds and other nonequity investments.
Joe Cerrell, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Gates foundation, says the stock investments, reported this week in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, are independent of the foundation's programs. The stocks were chosen by Michael Larson, a money manager who has considerable discretion in selecting investments for the foundation and for Mr. Gates personally, through an entity called Cascade Investment LLC. Mr. Larson, through a spokesman, declined to comment about the rationale.
The foundation's investments in "Big Pharma" could spur controversy, given Mr. Gates' staunch support of strict intellectual-property protections for drugs in poor countries. Mr. Gates' stance on intellectual property is as important to Microsoft's software business as it is to drugmakers.
"The impression people have, because of the types of projects Gates has funded and because of his Microsoft background, is that he has an ax to grind on the intellectual-property front," says James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, who works with African officials to obtain low-cost drugs.
Poor countries have sometimes threatened to seize patents in order to produce affordable generic drugs for sick citizens, making the field of intellectual-property law a flash point between pharmaceutical companies and poor countries. At a meeting in Africa last year, Mr. Love says he was struck by fears of officials from Botswana and elsewhere that pressing for access to generic drugs could jeopardize their chances for contributions. "They thought it would alienate the Gates foundation and they thought that was a problem," Mr. Love says.
ReplyDeleteA report issued last year by the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, chaired by economist Jeffrey Sachs, made a strong defense of intellectual-property protection as critical to continued investment in drug research and development. The Gates foundation was a major sponsor of the commission.
Other people involved with the issue say medical progress in poor countries depends on incentives for drug makers, and the Gates foundation is balancing the tradeoffs responsibly. "For every major killer of the poor, we need better drugs, better diagnostics and better vaccines," says Richard Feachem, director of the Institute for Global Health at the University of California, San Francisco. "That means massive investments in research and development. Much of that has to come from Big Pharma and biotech companies."
The foundation's Mr. Cerrell dismisses as "speculative" the suggestion of conflict between financing drugs and investing in stocks. He adds that pharmaceutical makers "play an important part in meeting our goals of providing equity and access and lifesaving vaccines and other advances in medicine to those who need it most."
Managing the foundation's multiplying ties with the drug industry could get tricky. For example, through its funding for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, the foundation pays for purchases of vaccines from some of the same pharmaceutical makers in which it now owns shares.
Poor countries have sometimes threatened to seize patents in order to produce affordable generic drugs for sick citizens, making the field of intellectual-property law a flash point between pharmaceutical companies and poor countries. At a meeting in Africa last year, Mr. Love says he was struck by fears of officials from Botswana and elsewhere that pressing for access to generic drugs could jeopardize their chances for contributions. "They thought it would alienate the Gates foundation and they thought that was a problem," Mr. Love says.
ReplyDeleteA report issued last year by the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, chaired by economist Jeffrey Sachs, made a strong defense of intellectual-property protection as critical to continued investment in drug research and development. The Gates foundation was a major sponsor of the commission.
Other people involved with the issue say medical progress in poor countries depends on incentives for drug makers, and the Gates foundation is balancing the tradeoffs responsibly. "For every major killer of the poor, we need better drugs, better diagnostics and better vaccines," says Richard Feachem, director of the Institute for Global Health at the University of California, San Francisco. "That means massive investments in research and development. Much of that has to come from Big Pharma and biotech companies."
The foundation's Mr. Cerrell dismisses as "speculative" the suggestion of conflict between financing drugs and investing in stocks. He adds that pharmaceutical makers "play an important part in meeting our goals of providing equity and access and lifesaving vaccines and other advances in medicine to those who need it most."
Managing the foundation's multiplying ties with the drug industry could get tricky. For example, through its funding for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, the foundation pays for purchases of vaccines from some of the same pharmaceutical makers in which it now owns shares.
A Gates foundation representative sits on the 18-member board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which is expected to become a major buyer of drugs to fight those diseases. The foundation has pledged $100 million to the fund, which has so far collected $2.2 billion.
UC's Mr. Feachem, recently appointed to head the Geneva-based fund, argues that its massive buying power could create a strong "pull factor" spurring drug makers to develop inexpensive products. "For the industry, that would lead to the development of a high-volume, low-margin market, which could be a win for them as well," he says.
Mr. Gates has forged other ties with the industry. Last year, Microsoft named Raymond Gilmartin, chief executive of Merck, to its board. Mr. Gates worked with Mr. Gilmartin to launch the vaccine fund and also helped Merck with a program to supply discounted AIDS drugs in Botswana, where one in three people is infected with HIV.
The foundation's stock holdings include just two other stocks: Cox Communications Inc. and Waste Management Inc. The spokesman for Mr. Larson, the money manager, confirms that the drug investments represent a significant increase in the foundation's equity holdings, though they represent less than 1% of its total portfolio.