This isn’t Bill’s action, it’s Bill’s inaction. As per those articles, all he did was not support the waiver of patents, which ultimately wasn’t his decision anyway? He claimed that it would not significantly change production, or at least not quickly enough to matter.
It still seems shitty, but comparing to Elon? Who is actively cutting off the flow of medication that has already been manufactured and paid for - to dying children?
Allowing tuberculosis patients to lapse partway through treatment, thereby allowing drug resistant TB to skyrocket in impoverished communities and by extension the entite world?
Effectively guaranteeing a death sentence for infected children, who will experience a relapse of a horrifying but completely curable disease? Children who will not be able to afford the diagnostics and treatments for a second round because they are orders of magnitude more expensive for drug-resistant TB?
If you had read the article, you would know that he very actively pressured Oxford not to open license the vaccine, leveraging his $750 million donation to the university for vaccine research.
It claims that he bragged about doing so, and links to another article.
But that other article doesn’t support that claim with any evidence that he pressured them to keep their patent, that he bragged about it, or had any say in the final decision.
We went to Oxford and said, Hey, you’re doing brilliant work,” Bill Gates told reporters on June 3, a transcript shows. “But … you really need to team up.” The comments were first reported by Bloomberg.
AstraZeneca, one of the U.K.’s two major pharma companies, may have demanded an exclusive license in return for doing a deal, said Ken Shadlen, a professor at the London School of Economics and an authority on pharma patents—a theory supported by comments from CEO Soriot.
"We simply don’t know what’s in these deals,” he said. “The biopharma industry is applying old rules of commercial confidentiality in a situation that is unprecedented.”
The sentence after where it says that… You have ctrl f. Use it.
that other article doesn’t support that claim with any evidence that he pressured them to keep their patent, that he bragged about it, or had any say in the final decision.
Not sure what “evidence” you want… Bill Gates said it was true himself and did multiple interviews talking about it which are not hard to find. Every article I can find online says the same story - that Oxford initially planned to open license the vaccine and then Gates pressured them to change course.
It doesn’t quote him, though. It just links to an article. Of which I provided the only seemingly relevant quotes.
Does “we told them… you really need to team up.” count as bragging?
That’s the only relevant quote I can see, and it amounts to him getting them to partner with AstraZeneca. It’s hard to tell if the chicken comes before the egg - does AstraZeneca insist on patents, or does he?
Was it the only way to get a massive pharmaceutical partner like AstraZeneca to agree to a deal with Oxford? Or was it something he personally wanted?
Either way would appear the same - if he was directly involved in the deal, he’d be obligated to publically support it, patent restrictions and all.
The article is intentionally disingenous, as well. It claims:
Oxford sold the sole right of production to AstraZeneca, with no guarantee of low prices and an extraordinary opportunity for profit
Even though as you can see from - again - the same article it linked to before:
After Oxford announced the exclusive AstraZeneca deal, the company said it would sell vaccines at no profit—but only during the pandemic.
Which is - admittedly, temporarily - low prices and an extraordinarily reduced opportunity for profit. Especially given how significantly vaccination rate fell over time.
And:
Under its deal with AstraZeneca, Oxford will receive no royalties during the pandemic
There’s no such thing as a good billionaire, but there is such a thing as worse billionaires. It seems like Bill Gates spent $750 million to fund vaccine development - including 1.5 million that happened to go to pre-pandemic funding of the decade-old research that made the mRNA technology even possible - and over a billion dollars on support for the WHO.
It also seems like he encouraged Oxford to partner with a giant pharmaeceutical company. This lead to them deciding not to open-source their vaccine.
It is a terrible thing to do, but it is also tough to say if they could have ever managed the immediately required production without a giant pharmaceutical partner like AstraZeneca. The first months of mass vaccination were by far the most critical.
Compared to Musk? Who took medication that was already manufactured, already bought and paid for, already in warehouses and ships and planes ready to help impoverished communities?
Who bought an election and leveraged that to suddenly and illegally cut off international aid out of spite and greed, allowing drug-resistant TB to flourish?
Who has the most money out of fucking all of them and doesn’t spend a dime for anyone but himself?
This isn’t Bill’s action, it’s Bill’s inaction. As per those articles, all he did was not support the waiver of patents, which ultimately wasn’t his decision anyway? He claimed that it would not significantly change production, or at least not quickly enough to matter.
It still seems shitty, but comparing to Elon? Who is actively cutting off the flow of medication that has already been manufactured and paid for - to dying children?
Allowing tuberculosis patients to lapse partway through treatment, thereby allowing drug resistant TB to skyrocket in impoverished communities and by extension the entite world?
Effectively guaranteeing a death sentence for infected children, who will experience a relapse of a horrifying but completely curable disease? Children who will not be able to afford the diagnostics and treatments for a second round because they are orders of magnitude more expensive for drug-resistant TB?
If you had read the article, you would know that he very actively pressured Oxford not to open license the vaccine, leveraging his $750 million donation to the university for vaccine research.
Really? Show me where.
It claims that he bragged about doing so, and links to another article.
But that other article doesn’t support that claim with any evidence that he pressured them to keep their patent, that he bragged about it, or had any say in the final decision.
The sentence after where it says that… You have ctrl f. Use it.
Not sure what “evidence” you want… Bill Gates said it was true himself and did multiple interviews talking about it which are not hard to find. Every article I can find online says the same story - that Oxford initially planned to open license the vaccine and then Gates pressured them to change course.
It doesn’t quote him, though. It just links to an article. Of which I provided the only seemingly relevant quotes.
Does “we told them… you really need to team up.” count as bragging?
That’s the only relevant quote I can see, and it amounts to him getting them to partner with AstraZeneca. It’s hard to tell if the chicken comes before the egg - does AstraZeneca insist on patents, or does he?
Was it the only way to get a massive pharmaceutical partner like AstraZeneca to agree to a deal with Oxford? Or was it something he personally wanted?
Either way would appear the same - if he was directly involved in the deal, he’d be obligated to publically support it, patent restrictions and all.
The article is intentionally disingenous, as well. It claims:
Even though as you can see from - again - the same article it linked to before:
Which is - admittedly, temporarily - low prices and an extraordinarily reduced opportunity for profit. Especially given how significantly vaccination rate fell over time.
And:
There’s no such thing as a good billionaire, but there is such a thing as worse billionaires. It seems like Bill Gates spent $750 million to fund vaccine development - including 1.5 million that happened to go to pre-pandemic funding of the decade-old research that made the mRNA technology even possible - and over a billion dollars on support for the WHO.
It also seems like he encouraged Oxford to partner with a giant pharmaeceutical company. This lead to them deciding not to open-source their vaccine.
It is a terrible thing to do, but it is also tough to say if they could have ever managed the immediately required production without a giant pharmaceutical partner like AstraZeneca. The first months of mass vaccination were by far the most critical.
Compared to Musk? Who took medication that was already manufactured, already bought and paid for, already in warehouses and ships and planes ready to help impoverished communities?
Who bought an election and leveraged that to suddenly and illegally cut off international aid out of spite and greed, allowing drug-resistant TB to flourish?
Who has the most money out of fucking all of them and doesn’t spend a dime for anyone but himself?
That’s the worst billionaire.
I agree. The difference between the two is stark.