Is The Gates Foundation Really Looking At New Ways To Tackle Big Health Problems When It's Hiring Pharma Execs?
from the doesn't-seem-right dept
The Gates Foundation has plenty of opportunities to do some amazing things with the size of its fund and the ability of Bill Gates, in particular, to command attention. And, yet, hearing that it's now hired a former Big Pharma exec to run its Global Health Program has to make you wonder if the Gates Foundation is focused on increasing health in the world... or increasing the health of big pharmaceutical companies, which have been struggling lately. One of the biggest problems with healthcare today is making the debate pharmaceutical-centric, rather than health centric. Yes, drugs are a part of a comprehensive healthcare plan, but, too often, policymakers and groups let pharma firms drive the debate, when they're an (extremely) biased party that has a long history of not doing what's best for everyone's health, but what's best for their own profits. And, to be clear, I have no issue with pharmaceutical firms looking to maximize profit. But I do have issues when they use unfair or questionable means to do so, when that can create serious harm and limited access to medicines. The Gates Foundation could have totally changed the debate. But, instead, it seems to be doing the opposite.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: healthcare, innovation, pharma
Companies: gates foundation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doubting the Gates foundations commitment to world health?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubting the Gates foundations commitment to world health?
Look at who he's funded all over Africa and there's been corruption behind every company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubting the Gates foundations commitment to world health?
In fact, the foundation may benefit from having an exec on board that can provide insite to pharma operations and can negotiate for reduced drug prices in humanitarian efforts.
To sum it up, I will most certainly be keeping a closer eye on the issue, but until I see something more concrete I don't think I can pass the same judgment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doubting the Gates foundations commitment to world health?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Doubting the Gates foundations commitment to world health?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubting the Gates foundations commitment to world health?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you considered perhaps that this guy has a rolodex that would kill most of us, that he has the contacts and the background to be able to work deals to get better drug prices, or to get "end of life" stock donated to the cause, or perhaps hundreds of other ways that he can reach out and bridge the gap from the foundation to the Pharma industry in order to get things done?
I also have to say that sticking a question mark at the end of your slam doesn't insulate you from your opinion. It sort of makes you look more like a chickenshit for not just coming out and saying what you think. Weasel words, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On Crackpots
Accepting that anybody who might fall under such a stereotype does a horrid disservice to all those who would question--are you the sort who doesn't question? I don't think so!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On Crackpots
If Mike thinks this is bad, he should just come out and say it. No "is it", no "perhaps"... have an opinion and express it.
What Mike does like this is put himself in a position of deniablity. We can't pin him to the opinion because he didn't state it, he "asked" it.
Don't you feel that is a little less than scrupulous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
Don't you feel that is a little less than scrupulous?
It's called being an oily FUD monger, isn't it?
See, I'm just asking a question. I'm not stating that Masnick is an oily FUD monger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
Well usually.
ps: don't knock the tinfoil hat until you have tried it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
I just think it's a little early to pass judgment on the guy or the foundation until we see what the true intentions are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
Sorry Marcus, what Mike is doing is couching his opinions in a way that they cannot be pinned on him. Weasel wording, playing on words, and couching statements as question is sort of tasteless. It gets you things like?
"Are the performances of Marcus Carab on stage prove that he is a talentless schmuck?"
Repeat it a few times, and you get:
http://www.google.ca/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=marcus+carab+talent less+schmuck
See how you can create "truth" with a question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
And uh, if someone is Googling "marcus carab talentless schmuck" it would seem they've already made up their minds. I'm not too concerned about them, sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
PS: If you search for just "talentless schmuck" you are on page 3 today, without any SEO or any attempts to boost it. Would you like to be the number 1 talentless schmuck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
Holy shit I can't wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
See when people see your post they also will see this comment LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
At least Mike posts with his name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On Crackpots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... don't you think it sneaky and sort of intellectually dishonest to post up an opinion, and the couch it as a question to avoid responsiblity for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, but Mike posts it, he earns the acknowledgement when he really punts it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you'd be a little more effective if you stopped with the name-calling and trivial, pointless argumentation and started actually addressing the points raised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cuz that's how he rolls.
Seriously, this post looks like something that would be written by a tin foil hatter.
It was
Have you considered perhaps that this guy has a rolodex that would kill most of us, that he has the contacts and the background to be able to work deals to get better drug prices, or to get "end of life" stock donated to the cause, or perhaps hundreds of other ways that he can reach out and bridge the gap from the foundation to the Pharma industry in order to get things done?
Obviously not. That wouldn't be consistent with the doctrine of conspiracy theory.
I also have to say that sticking a question mark at the end of your slam doesn't insulate you from your opinion. It sort of makes you look more like a chickenshit for not just coming out and saying what you think. Weasel words, IMHO.
Amen to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change It's Spots
Sure there are changes when money is spent, the only reason for poverty, starvation, disease in the first place is that there is no INTENTION to fix it and therefore no money spent. 10% of the US Military budget would in fact fix it all, but its all about priorities, and special interests.
Bill's fund is just a Tax Shelter for his money, but he has to appear to do something to qualify for the shelter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antitrust?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Or...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pharma companies - lets do what ever it takes to stop any other way for people to get needed medicines, forcing them to continue to buy only what we have produced!
both are lobbying hard, getting new laws put into place, extending old copyrights, inventing new copyrights to simply monopolize their failing business models.
so, apart from being different industries, the difference is what, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lets find ways to turn life threatening conditions into long term dependency on drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surprise!
this is nothing more than bill gates pretending to give back to the world while really just making new business partners to increase his wealth.
bill gates didnt change when he left microsoft. embrace, extend, extinguish. to the core.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gates Foundation is a con game
If you look at the Foundation's Web site, you'll see that all these "huge" donations to charities are spread out OVER TEN YEARS or more! The actual amount of money doled out in a given year is a minute fraction of the Foundation's assets.
In addition, given the assets of the Foundation, I recall the US government nearly removed its status as a charitable foundation because so LITTLE percentage of its assets were being expended on actual charitable work.
The Gates Foundation is a stock-laundering scam. Gates can't sell large amounts of his Microsoft stock all at once because of SEC rules on major corporate shareholders. So he creates a foundation - run by his father - that he can donate the stock to. Then the foundation uses the value of that stock to invest in other corporations Gates wants to influence.
It's a standard scam for the uber-rich, nothing more. While obviously a certain number of people and charities get some decent assistance, the "philanthropic" motivation is just a PR scam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gates Foundation is a con game
Gasp! I would never have guessed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, they are not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, they are not
And which root would i have to chew to get Duloxetine(Cymbalta)?
Will i find it in the bushes, or do i need to check in the forest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually
This was done by (gently and kindly) capturing hundreds of african children and chaining them to (attractive and colorful) conveyor belts in (lovely)warehouses and forcing them to make shoes until they died (happily) of malnutrition..but hey it wasn't malaria!!!!!
I can't name the company but they like the company of greek goddesses that proclaim victory.
Shill Game - try to guess which words the shoe company have inserted into the post above!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]