Gates Foundation: Africa as lab rat

[Hannah Bell]

You can hardly mention Bill Gates on this board without a rash of posters praising the Gates Foundation, how wonderful it is that Bill's giving away all his money to solve social problems.

First point:

Foundations, in most cases, are a way of keeping your money, not giving it away.


Second point:

The people who laud Gates' noble charity, for the most part, haven't looked too deeply into what exactly he's funding. Particularly in Africa, which has been the focus of Gates' international interests.

To take just one of his major grants in Africa:

Here's the way the Washington Post reported it: he's funding a new green revolution, which will find a "systematic, long-term solution to african hunger," by developing more robust & nutritious plant varieties.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201384.html

What does this mean in practice? It means GMOS. Africa will be THE testing ground for GMOs.

Here's a representative grant: 18.5 million.

http://www.gmoafrica.org/2005/07/bill-gates-donates-sh13b-to-biotech_02.html

The article praises Gates for involving Africans, implies the project is African-initiated, even, but when you go to the website of the grant recipient, "African Harvest," you find little information on the organization.

It's very new (2002), & the some pages on the site don't even have content. Most of the info is about how africans must be convinced they need gmo.

But there is info about the scientist/spokeswoman in the article, Dr. Florence Wambugu (a black woman, PR coup):

She is - Monsanto, & her whole career is US-affiliated, & in biotech. So there's a good chance that her organization is an astroturf front funded to further the interests of the pharmaceutical-agricultural-biotech corps Bill favors & invests in.

http://www.ahbfi.org/CV%20Brief-Florence%20.pdf


Gates' african ventures are, so far as i've researched it, mostly along these lines. He funds vaccines - but vaccinating undernourished children is a suspect business, because under those conditions, risks of side effects are higher; and in any case, all the diseases he's vaccinating against can be greatly mitigated with standard public health measures: clean water, good nutrition, sanitation, etc - none of which Bill funds.

In africa, measles is a killer, but it's mostly because children are often poor, ill-nourished, & ill-housed. Improving these basics substantially reduced deaths from childhood illnesses in the US well before there were vaccines.

He funds a LOT of clinical trials of new drugs, most for diseases that can also be controlled with standard public health measures, including clearing vectors.

If you've done research in a university setting, you've gone through human subject reviews, which came into being in the US because of terrible research abuses, right here at home.

But in africa, you can test new drugs - even on children - with much less oversight, on people less equipped to fight abuses than americans were. This is where a large chunk of Bill's "Health Initiative" is going.

Similarly with Bill's GMO initiative. Contrary to western propaganda, africa isn't a wasteland of depleted soil, it's one of the most fertile, untapped areas of the world, resource-rich. (Which is why the US, Europe, Israel & China are down there fighting proxy wars. Every trouble spot you read about in the news has this kind of big-power resource & strategic conflict underlying it.) nor is it vastly overpopulated. What it is is poor & vastly unequal, dependant, with large swathes effectively owned or controlled by foreigners, corporations & individuals.

Poor africans don't particularly need new crop varieties (particularly ones controlled by monsanto), they need access to land, irrigation, & an end to destructive, decade-long wars & corrupt rulers supported from overseas.

For all you folks who sincerely believe Bill Gates is a great humanitarian, please look beyond the feel-good PR. The projects he's funding are for the most part, not in the interests of poor africans, or people generally.

But they're very much in the interest of the pharma-ag-biotech matrix (& if you haven't kept up with corporate consolidation, the same interests own each sector, & their scientific establishments overlap; a definite control point of the global economy.)

[Hannah Bell]

1. 3 recs but no comments?

[bluesmail]

65. I just got home. Reading it I am reminded of a debate I had

with daughter. She defended Bill Gates for his 'humanitarian' contributions to the world. I responded, he's a monopolistic bully. Exploiting the Africans for whatever reason, money or profile, using humans as rats, is immoral.. He is another sociopath. Breeding baby sociopaths. I doubt that with all their wealth (the sociopaths) the cycle can be broken. I'm in a state of lifelessness. Great Post. :kick: I am bookmarking it.

[FarrenH]

2. Gates intentions strike me as sincere

I'm less inclined to take a conspiratorial view and more inclined to believe that he's funding some misguided initiatives (especially if he's funding proprietory GMO's). The distinction is important because if I'm right, the Gates foundation might shift its focus in response to convincing arguments that they're possibly doing harm.

[JackRiddler]

18. Why would his intentions matter? And who took a "conspiratorial" view?

The OP describes the Gates Foundation's activities. Motive is a different question and may not be as relevant.

[TZ]

27. conveniently ignoring the fact that the Gates foundation

has done more to research African diseases and TREAT them than ANY OTHER charitable foundation.
Nor has the OP done its research to see that most of the money from the foundation goes to non-profits like NIH/WHO and other government agencies that are working on infectious diseases. And a lot of the pharmas are DONATING meds/time/scientists to work on these projects.
But I forget, pharmas and biotechs couldn't possibly do anything helpful, right.
God people are stupid about biotech on this board.

[JackRiddler]

32. Calling everyone stupid is surely the way...

to convince them of your point.

I've followed many of your posts. In your view, when do pharmas and biotechs ever do anything wrong?

[Hannah Bell]

35. gates fdn hiring lawyers: & it's all about "intellectual property" & "product development"

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation seeks candidates for Associate General
Counsel.

Provide advice and counsel on a broad range of legal and
strategic issues critical to the Foundation’s strategic goals primarily
relating to its Global Health grant making activities.

Evaluate and assist in the negotiation of collaborative research agreements, manufacturing and supply arrangements, intellectual property licensing arrangements, transfer of technology rights, regulatory compliance, human subjects research activities, and international and inter-governmental agreements.


Major Activities:

Review and assist in preparation of grant agreements and
contracts, providing guidance in developing and implementing intellectual
property guidelines for grant agreements, contracts and grant making
practices.

Provide strategic advice on issues relating to collaborations
and public/private partnerships focused on bringing together multiple
institutions and pieces of intellectual property in a manner that will
anticipate appropriate pathways for product development and ensure
accessibility by people within developing countries.

Review and prepare inter-governmental and multilateral co-funding agreements, and provide strategic assistance in structuring novel funding arrangements and
mechanisms.

Provide guidance in developing and implementing human subject
research guidelines relating to grant and contract making practices.

Train and educate Foundation personnel regarding special laws applicable to
private foundations generally as well as issues that are unique to its
Global Health Program activities.

Keep current on new and emerging tax laws and policy developments impacting tax-exempt organizations generally and in particular, private foundations.

Qualifications: Juris Doctor and a minimum of 10 years experience in the
practice of law with expertise in intellectual property, business
negotiations (including collaborative agreements and licensing
arrangements) and regulatory compliance issues.

An undergraduate degree in life sciences or a related field in engineering is desirable.

Experience representing and providing expertise to bio-technology and pharmaceutical companies on intellectual property, product development, clinical trials and business transactional issues.

Having served as in-house counsel of a pharmaceutical company is a plus.

Demonstrated expertise in negotiations and efforts to establish large and diverse collaborative relationships and public/private partnerships involving intensive due diligence efforts and complex intellectual property issues.

History of effectively servicing highly skilled and demanding client base, establishing a role as an advisor and mentor on ground-breaking, emerging legal issues in a complex and evolving policy environment.

[anigbrowl]

80. Hiring a lawyer doesn't mean you're planning to subvert the law

Even if you are creating something with the express intent of putting in the public domain, it can still make legal sense to assert copyright or patent rights in order to prevent less scrupulous people from asserting ownership over it in order to monopolize commercial exploitation.

For example, if I come up with some great new therapy for (whatever), just publishing my medical breakthrough invites other companies to copy my method, make some insubstantial modification, and then patent the result and claim a monopoly. Patent courts tend to work on the basis that possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the first claimant usually gets what they ask for. Recall that courts are in the business of administering disputes, not pre-emptively increasing fairness.

So if my want my great new imaginary therapy to benefit all humanity, the smart thing to do is patent it and then freely license the patent, preventing anyone else from claiming a monopoly.

[Hannah Bell]

83. "Last year, the Gates Foundation hired former Monsanto VP Robert Robert Horsch

as senior program officer for Africa. Monsanto is the company that invented "biotechnology" and the patenting of life forms by corporations. This is the context for the "philanthropy" of the Gates and Rockerfeller Foundations, and their expressed concern for foisting a "Green Revolution" upon Africa"

http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2007/07062.html

[HamdenRice]

45. There is no reason for GMO crops in Africa. The model should be Ford Found'n's crop research

Back in the 60s, the major international foundations, including Ford, funded a series of crop research institutions -- the International Rice Research Institute (Philippines), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (Mexico), International Potato Centre (Peru) and others.

Each was based in an area where that crop was very important or indigenous. Each institute first went about the task of collecting and preserving the genetic diversity of indigenous crops ("land race" crops) of the major food plants of the world. They then engaged in hybridization experiments trying to improve yield, make the crops resistant to disease, and mix other useful attributes. One was as simple as breeding a shorter stalk rice for the Philippines, reducing the amount of the crop that bent over, spoiling the rice by letting it touch the paddy soil and water.

The institutes were all non-profits and made the crops available as a world heritage.

These institutes led to the so called green revolution -- without genetic engineering.

There is already so much genetic diversity among the major world food crops that genetic engineering is completely pointless -- except to provide a profit center to agro-pharma, and to privatize the world's plant genetic heritage.

[JackRiddler]

59. Thank you. I wonder whether anyone who objects will

respond with anything much above the level of name-calling.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. For Bill, may he constantly garden wherever he wishes

For Bill, I recommend the following.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387131/



Intelligent and moving political thriller that should be held right up there with "All The Presidents Men" and "The Killing Fields " as one of the best political thrillers ever made. Fernando Meirelles tops his last directional effort with a thriller that is moving, scary and down right forthright in it's views of big companies gone wrong and the horrors that they are willing to inflect on others for the sake of profit. Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes give career best performances in this film and that's a huge compliment considering the fact that they are good in almost everything they do, even in bad movies. Weisz is strong willed and obsessive and Fiennes is determine and endearing and both of them compliment each other with there destine to be award winning chemistry and acting chops. The director compliments both of them with a view of Africa that is rarely seen in film and a sense of reality that is only found in real life.

[mikehiggins]

4. Damn, you're right

the richest man in the world has some nerve trying to help people.

OF course Gates would beleive in a technological fix to these problems. Who do you think he is?

Problematical vaccinations? GMO foods?

Better for everyone that he just stay home and mind his own business, counting his money.

God forbid the Gates try to give back some of their billions. Better they should save it to pass on to their daughter like the Hiltons. ANd how did that work out, by the way?

[Hannah Bell]

6. drug trials on poor children?

he's not giving away his money. he's keeping it, employing his family, employing cronies & co-conspirators, & using it to direct public policy, politics & business in a big way.

rich people, in general, don't "give away" much.

[JackRiddler]

19. He didn't give his money away. He rolled it over into a foundation.

There's the first and most important common misrepresentation, right there.

Giving away his fortune would mean it now belonged to other people. But it is still under his control, as the endowment for his foundation.

The endowment of any large foundation consists of a diversified investment portfolio that is supposed to grow. There are restrictions, a foundation is barred from engaging in purely speculative activities. But owning shares in Halliburton or Monsanto would be no problem, those are considered blue chips.

Thus, the money has not been given away. It has been invested. The intent is for the investment to grow. Some of the annual return is awarded in the form of grants to applicants and in-house initiatives.

Start by being precise in your language, understanding may follow.

[Chulanowa]

30. There's better ways to help

Africans don't need genetic superfoods. Africans have African crops that work perfectly fine. Now perhaps your perception is the one generated by the media, that all those very, very brown people are too fucking stupid to grow an eggplant properly, and have been sitting on their skinny welfare asses for generations, just waiting for someone to send them a bag of wheat. Obviously this perception is a false one.

Again. Africans have African crops, that have been being grown in Africa by Africans, since the beginning of crop cultivation. These crops are optimal, and need to be encouraged. Frankenfoods research will not do this - the entire point of genetically modified food is to put farmers in debt to the patentholder company while obliterating the potential for recovery from using those crops - just take a look at how many of these crops have "timebomb" genes.

You want to help African farmers? Buy them equipment. Good, sturdy stuff, not these smoke belching deathtraps from the 30's we've been selling them. You want to help African farmers? Dig irrigation. Want to help African farmers? Provide housing. You want to help African farmers? Buy their fucking surplus.

And pharmaceuticals? While providing vaccines is nice, sure, there's a problem... a number of those diseases are caused by poverty and poor living conditions. Housing, sewer and septic systems, adequate nutrition, will ALL go much further towards preventing disease than pumping people full of vaccines and drugs will. As others have noted, Africa is a testing ground for "new" (read, experimental) treatments and vaccines, and are often tested at refugee camps - on an undernourished, stressed population living in crowded conditions.

If Bill Gates wants to help Africa, there's better ways than investing in companies he has stock in. Many better ways.

[northernlights]

5. I am no fan of Bill's

having suffered from his overhyped, underperforming software throughout my career, and his nasty business tactics that forced once-decent companies to throw out their own, well-designed, thought out and engineered software, and serve as beta-test sites for his shit.

My question always has been why he isn't investing here at home, where he bilked so many out of so many billions? There is plenty of poverty right here, and plenty of opportunities.

(I have the same question for Oprah. So nice for her to build her school in Africa. What about poor children right in her backyard?)

They got the best deal our society had to offer. Why not give back to those who paved their way?

[Hannah Bell]

7. because the intention isn't to "solve poverty." or "give back," or

any of those platitudes.

"investment," yes, but not in human development. in bill gates, inc.

[SoCalDem]

11. Yep.. "solving" poverty is not the goal..

Poor people lack money..they lack opportunity..they lack jobs.,

Other than that , they are like everyone else.. They just made an unfortunate choice when they picked out their parents..

Poverty is generational.. a few manage to break out and do succeed, but most poor people are children of poor people who were children of poor people..

Foundations & charities are fantastic ways to employ family members, hold parties & fund-raisers, get tax deductions, and feel good about oneself..

If people are helped along the way, it;s a good thing, but the percentage of help that actually gets to the poor people on the ground, is often minuscule..

Africans managed to feed themselves for millenia, yet once the "white man" showed up on their continent, they have had one struggle after another, and now are malnourished beggars.. what a co-ink-ee-dink.. :(

[TZ]

28. So curing/treating AIDS, malaria and TB is not a worthy goal.

Jeezus. I thought freepers were callous idiots.

[Hannah Bell]

31. He's not curing or treating anything. He's paying for drug research

using africans as guinea pigs.

TB: there's effective treatment already, 95% effective.

aids: One of the reasons it's supposedly more prevalent in africa is: poverty, which = poor nutrition, which = reduced immunity.

malaria: effective treatment already available.


Malaria used to be endemic in the US. It didn't disappear because of vaccination. It subsided through public health measures: clearing vectors, better housing, etc.

[JackRiddler]

36. Yes, it is a worthy goal.

Next strawman, please.

[Sanity Claws]

10. He is investing money at home

He has donated a lot of money to schools in the Seattle area and the University of Washington. I'm under the impression that a great deal of the donations domestically is for education.

[northernlights]

97. actually, the "education investments" everywhere

are about indoctrinating schoolchildren into Windows and whichever brand of PC.

I worked in high tech marketing for 20 years. The donations to schools come in the form of PCs and software, not cash. The goal absolutely and unabashedly was to indoctrinate future workers and managers with a particular brand of products so they would expect the same when they entered the working world.

Nothing more, nothing less. Those "donations" come out of marketing departments and absolutely are part of the long-term sales and marketing strategy.

[tblue37]

24. Oprah has explained why she is trying to help children in

Africa. She says she tried to do similar things here in the US, but the kids didn't want education. They wanted iPods.

[Deja Q]

90. Oprah? Everyone knows about Oprah...

The children in her backyard only want ipods, because she (with Boner or whatever his name is) had commercials hawking them and kids read into commercials...

So she ends up playing into a stereotype instead of fighting it.

:shrug:

[fasttense]

8. Why doesn't Gates just give us back our jobs?

Instead of pretending to be charitable? Why doesn't he hire American citizens instead of HB-1 visa workers? Why doesn't he bring back the jobs he sent to India? The man is a Milton Friedman idiot.

[OhioChick]

14. Because he's a greedy-ass SOB. n/t

[anigbrowl]

81. What if you advertise for jobs and not enough qualified people apply?

It's a sad fact that relatively low numbers of Americans pursue careers in engineering or software development compared to some other countries. Engineering isn't seen as very glamorous or a swift route to big bucks (the cost of a college education being a partial factor). Ask NASA, they are worried because the average of their workforce is high, being a government body they can't just hire whoever they want due to security considerations, and they are not able to find as many well-qualified graduates as they would like to replace future retirees.

It's easy to bash Gates, but take a look at Linux software development and notice how a majority of it takes place overseas. I'm against protectionism in general, so maybe I have a different perspective on it from you.

[Hannah Bell]

87. bullshit.

[OhioChick]

93. Shortage of qualified U.S. workers is a myth......not "fact"

Study: There Is No Shortage of U.S. Engineers


A new study argues that the offshoring of U.S. jobs is caused by cost savings and not a shortage of U.S. engineers or better education in China. However, the study warns that the United States is losing its global edge.

A commonly heard defense in the arguments that surround U.S. companies that offshore high-tech and engineering jobs is that the U.S. math and science education system is not producing a sufficient number of engineers to fill a corporations needs.

However, a new study from Duke University calls this argument bunk, stating that there is no shortage of engineers in the United States, and that offshoring is all about cost savings.

This report, entitled "Issues in Science and Technology" and published in the latest National Academy of Sciences magazine further explores the topic of engineering graduation rates of India, China and the United States, the subject of a 2005 Duke study.

In the report, concerns are raised that China is racing ahead of both the United States and India in its ability to perform basic research. It also asserts that the United States is risking losing its global edge by outsourcing critical R&D and India is falling behind by playing politics with education. Meanwhile, it considers China well-positioned for the future.

Dukes 2005 study corrected a long-heard myth about India and China graduating 12 times as many engineers as the United States, finding instead that the United States graduates a comparable number.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Careers/Study-There-Is-No-Shortage-of-US-Engineers/

There are many other studies out there that come up with the same results.

[northernlights]

95. bullshit

I knew plenty of engineers facing unemployment back when HP swallowed Compaq (and DEC), along with plenty of unemployed tech writers.

They simply don't want American engineers with years -- or a decade or two -- of experience.

They want fresh grads from 3rd world countries because in the short run they're cheaper.

Of course, in the long run who knows what they cost in terms of lack of experience not to mention effing up our entire society.

[malaise]

9. When the Europeans arrived in Africa

they saw so many healthy people that they couldn't resist kidnapping them and dragging them across oceans to enslave them. Africans managed to feed themselves rather well before the invaders arrived.

Nothing has changed - the rape, slaughter and looting of Africa and Africans parallels the the destruction of indigenous peoples of the world.

Not one of them gives a damn about Africa or Africans - fuck Bill Gates.

[GliderGuider]

12. When I first heard about the foundation I was impressed

When I started to learn about it my pleasure faded rapidly. I haven't yet decided whether Bill and Melinda are malevolent or merely ignorant, but no matter which attribute you decide on, their plans for a "New Green Revolution" in Africa are wrong-headed in the extreme, and perhaps even dangerous. It's simply more paternalist projection of power, in utter disregard for the continent's pre-existing knowledge, culture and capabilities.

While I am pessimistic in the extreme about Africa's food security in the near and medium term future (as I detail in this article), the path Gates is embarking on is unlikely to ameliorate that trajectory, while it will definitely enrich his cronies and preserve his own wealth.

A pox on his house.

[Hannah Bell]

13. malevolent.

[OhioChick]

15. Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation

Published January 7, 2007


Ebocha, Nigeria - Justice Eta, 14 months old, held out his tiny thumb.

An ink spot certified that he had been immunized against polio and measles, thanks to a vaccination drive supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

But polio is not the only threat Justice faces. Almost since birth, he has had respiratory trouble. His neighbors call it "the cough." People blame fumes and soot spewing from flames that tower 300 feet into the air over a nearby oil plant. It is owned by the Italian petroleum giant Eni, whose investors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Justice squirmed in his mother's arms. His face was beaded with sweat caused either by illness or by heat from the flames that illuminate Ebocha day and night. Ebocha means "city of lights."

The makeshift clinic at a church where Justice Eta was vaccinated and the flares spewing over Ebocha represent a head-on conflict for the Gates Foundation. In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,1211879.story

<snip> "In addition, The Times found the Gates Foundation endowment had major holdings in:

Companies ranked among the worst U.S. and Canadian polluters, including ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical Co. and Tyco International Ltd."

[madrchsod]

16. jimmy carter has done more for the children and their families

than bill gates will ever do with his "white mans burden" approach to solving the problems of the african countries.

[no limit]

17. This is insane. We already eat genetically altered food here in the states

and using it for crops is the only real solution to the hunger problem in Africa at this time.

You have not shown any research to prove how many people would die without those vaccines. You say most of these diseases can be controlled through regular public health measures. Are you really that dense? Do you not understand that there is no public health in Africa?

This kind of shit is absolutely insane. Gates is giving away a shit load of money to help people and everything I have seen shows that he has in fact helped many people. Then people like you come on here and argue that people should starve because you don't like genetically modified food (food we all already eat) and that they should die because you don't like the vaccines they are giving them. That is fucking sick, and if you are going to ride on your high horse you need get your ass to africa and come up with your own solution before you judge somebody elses.

[JackRiddler]

20. "using (GMO) for crops is the only real solution to the hunger problem in Africa at this time."

Please back up this assertion. What causes hunger in Africa, and what are the possible solutions? Why is GMO the only real solution? Thanks.

"you need get your ass to africa and come up with your own solution before you judge somebody elses."

Deal. Gates gives me one-half of his foundation's assets and then we conduct a controlled experiment to see whose strategies better help Africans; he can focus on GMO and pharmaceutical experiments, while my crew will concentrate on clean water and initiatives for self-sufficient economic development on the community level using models that hold the best promise for adoption elsewhere. Whoever comes up with the better strategies in practice after 10 years gets the rest of the assets to devote to the superior approach. Or would you prefer I went to Africa with ideas but no resources? I'm afraid they wouldn't have much use for me at all, but I know! I got it! Perhaps I can get a job with a Gates-funded initiative! Then I would earn the right to criticize the master, right?

:crazy:

[no limit]

21. What evidance do you need?

A quick google search will give you all the evidance you need.

You are wanting to deny food that you already eat to starving people in Africa. This is nothing rational behind that assertion on your part, period.

You are absolutely right, water is a big deal. Which is why the Gates foundation has provided over $1,200,000 within a 3 year period to find new, sustainable ways to make water, sanitation and hygiene services safer and more affordable (I am quoting here). In addition, if you have a better solution to the water problem make sure to send that solution to them, the Gates foundation gives out loans and grants for these types of solutions on a regular basis.

The simple fact is you are willing to piss all over the good deeds of a person because you don't like the business they were a part off. It's funny all the people willing to do this don't mention the fact that Warren Buffet is a huge contributor to this foundation. What you and others have done here at DU in this regard is a disgrace and I wish you would all stop.

[JackRiddler]

22. "A quick google search" leads to differing views on the value of GMO...

as a solution to hunger in Africa. I was wondering if you could defend an argument of your own.

Thanks.

[no limit]

23. That's quite a bit of hypocracy on your part

you latched on to one of my points out of several I made. You can do your own research on the benefits of GMO to combat hunger in developing countries, I have better things to do with my time today and that really doesn't have much to do with all the points I made. The point is that the argument you are making it completely unreasonable, based on what I said above. You sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling I can't hear you doesn't change this simple fact.

So enjoy your genetically engineered food while you deny it to starving people in Africa. Keep pissing all over someone's good deads because you don't like the company they created. I'm glad in the end there is someone out there that made billions in his life time willing to give some of it back, no amount of character assasination and down right lies on your part will change that.

[JackRiddler]

25. You didn't really make any points...

although you have dispensed a big bunch of unfounded assumptions relating to both the Gates foundation and me personally that I feel no pressing need to address. Except to note that if I am eating any GMO food, then only because there is no labeling requirement on such in the United States.

If you time to express a view here, then you have time at least to define it.

As a parting favor, to help you be taken more seriously in your future posts: evidence, hypocrisy. Although I like evi-dance, as in: dancing around the danger of understanding anything.

[no limit]

34. You can keep coming up with any excuse you wish as to why you eat that food

but the fact still remains you want to prevent starving people from getting this same food. nothing about this is assumption on my part, this is the entire basis of your OP.

[JackRiddler]

37. Yeah, that's me...

kicking a plate of steaming GMO food out of the hands of a starving person.

:eyes:

[no limit]

41. Instead of stupid snide remarks how about you simply admitt you are wrong and move on

Your OP said that the gates foundation is evil for providing GMO food to africa, food that you yourself eat.

In addition, you have not addressed anything in regards to my vaccines point. So please note that these stupid snide remarks don't make you look any smarter. If you are going to take a big dump on somebody's charity you need to at least be big enough to defend it when you are called on it.

[JackRiddler]

58. Please note.

1. I didn't write the OP.

2. You have no idea if I eat GMO food. Perhaps I don't either, given that this isn't labeled, but I guarantee you I wasn't eating any for the vast majority of my life and things were fine. As though that's relevant.

3. I didn't say anything about vaccines one way or another.

I'll leave you to keep beating your straw doll there.

[Hannah Bell]

39. no starving people are being fed. the money goes to research.

if gates wanted to feed starving people, he'd be doing it. he's doing agricultural & pharmaceutical research.

the main reason americans are eating gmo is corn, thanks to the archer daniels midland's welfare fund, which puts corn derivatives into half the products on the shelf: & yes, people have no way of telling what's gmo & what's not.

That's how you get people to consume things they don't want to: you just don't tell them.

[no limit]

42. That's fine, I am not defending that GMO food shouldn't be labelled

but the OP took a dump on the charity of another person based on the fact that GMO is bad, when the fact is he/she him/herself eats GMO food. Their point boils down to that it would be better for these people to starve than to get GMO food. I say let the people that are starving make that call.

[Hannah Bell]

44. they're not getting food. they're getting miles & miles of test gardens.

using african land & water.

[no limit]

46. What are you talking about?

If the food is grown somebody has to eat it. If you are saying that they grow this food and then destroy it for the hell of it I will need to see a source for this before I can understand it, it doesnt make any sense.

[Hannah Bell]

48. no, they do research on it. plant it, quantify growth & survival, do chemical analyses, etc.

it's not being grown to feed anyone. there's nothing but ordinary sorghum at the moment.

if the goal was to feed people, they'd just grow that. instead, they're going to grow test plots of sorghum modified in various ways, & study the results.

i went to an ag school, you take a strain, tweak it in 50 ways, plant, study, select the most promising tweaks, repeat.

[no limit]

49. If any such tweaking is taking place it must be to find a crop that will grow well in that enviromen

but like I said, before I can really comment I'd have to see a source for this. It really doesn't make any sense.

[Hannah Bell]

51. there are plenty of crops that grow just fine in africa.

the tweaks are to develop the genetic modifications they want.

i gave you a source. they're "developing" new strains, not planting already developed strains to feed people.

if they wanted to feed people, they'd just plant normal food. africa is vast & fertile.

plus, africans can grow their own food given access to land & minimal capital investment.

[no limit]

52. you didn't provide any sources

You provided your own opinion.

Golden rice is a huge help to fight vitamin a deficiency as I pointed to below. The argument you are trying to make is that they are growing all this food for research and then throwing it all away. This would be a case of being evil just for the sake of being evil, which is why I have a really hard time believing it.

[Hannah Bell]

54. i provided a source on the grant & its purposes.

i answered your "golden rice" post, but i'll answer it again:

people have vitamin deficiencies because they eat a limited diet, i.e. southern sharecroppers who couldn't afford much beyond corn & hogmeat got pellagra.

easily remedied by increasing dietary variety. there are millions of foods with vitamin a.

why spend millions developing special rice?

[HamdenRice]

47. As someone who has lived in Africa and worked on food security, I can say ...

you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. GMO foods are by no means needed in Africa -- or for that matter anywhere.

The causes of food insecurity in Africa have nothing to do with the lack of GMO food. Having read through this thread, I can see that you have no evidence to back up your claim anyway, and are just yanking nonsense our of your ass anyway.

[no limit]

50. Look up golden rice

then look at this map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vitamin_A_deficiency.PNG

and if you need an explaination to the type of problem this
is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A_deficiency

[Hannah Bell]

53. the reason YOU don't have a vitamin a deficiency isn't because

you eat high-tech rice, it's because you eat a variety of foods, like most healthy people do.

why do you think africans are different? They're deficient because they're too poor/landless to eat much BUT rice, just like poor whites in the US south who suffered pellagra from a steady diet of corn & fatback.

The solution is normal dietary variety, not freaking "golden" (for monsanto) rice.

[no limit]

55. Great, variety is all they need, do you have some kind of magic stick to make that happen?

You hit the nail on the head, most in africa are too poor to eat anything but rice. yes, one of the solutions to this problem would be to open a bigger diet to them. But we are talking about millions of people here, if it was as easy as just saying lets open up variety for them then it would have already be done.

While you sit here talking about how all they need is variety about half a million more children will die this year because they can't afford that variety when a solution is pretty much available today to save these half a million children. Which is why people like you arguing against reason here is so fucking disgusting (excuse my french).

[HamdenRice]

56. Hanah Bell has already answered your question, but I'll add this

If people are too poor to add plantains, banana, eggs, and other nutritious, various foods to their diets, why do you think they will be suddenly rich enough to afford GMO rice? And if the problem is a specific vitamin deficiency, why not market a vitamin pill that could be produced by local businesses, rather than a GMO plant that will transfer profits back to Monsanto and outside the country?

I honestly don't get how un-schooled in economics people are when they come up with these "miracle foods" as solutions to poverty problems.

We know how to solve the problems of poverty in Africa, and a lot of it has to do with our own policies -- setting up trade barriers to African farmers, dumping our subsidized produce on them and hence putting their farmers out of business, promoting war which is the biggest poverty producer of them all, and allowing corporations to bribe corrupt African leaders by not enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The problem of hunger in Africa will be solved by solving the problem of poverty, not by dumping on Africans some new miracle GMO crop, when locally produced crops are perfectly capable of solving the nutrition problem.

As Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen once wrote (I'm paraphrasing): famine is not the condition of there not being enough food; it is the problem of people being too poor to afford the food that is available. He showed that during every famine that has occurred since the Irish potato famine, there was enough food; the problem was people being too poor to buy it. The same is true with chronic malnutrition.

If people can't afford the abundant, diverse food crops already in African markets, why on earth do you think they'll be able to afford Monsanto's GMO rice?

[no limit]

61. You do realize that once you have a seed of something there isn't much cost associated with it?

I have no idea how anyone can make the argument that this would be expensive. It would cost exactly the same as regular rice. The people that own the intellectual property here allow this rice to be used for humanitarian purposes without any royalty fees. So this argument on your part is false.

You are absolutely right on the causes of poverty in africa. But none of that is going to be solved any time soon, you know this as well as I do. here we have a solution to help save half a million children each year and people like you are coming up with excuses not to.

[HamdenRice]

76. Wrong again. You do know about hybridization, right?

Most small scale West African farmers grow "country rice." That's a land race variety, which means they can save some of their their crop as seed and it will grow "true."

Seed purchased from agri-business is almost always first generation hybridized. That means it will not grow true if you save seed. Remember genetics? You will, for example, get 1/4 of one parent variety, 1/4 of the second parent variety and only 1/2 true. Hence, you have to buy the seed every year, which dramatically increases the cost to farmers. It also tends to wipe out land race varieties because the entire tradition of seed saving is lost. The farmer gets caught up in the cycle of borrowing at the beginning of the season to buy seed and paying off debt at harvest, if he is lucky. This is what is happening in India and causing an epidemic of farmer suicides by farmers newly caught in the cycle of agri-pharma induced debt.

[Hannah Bell]

57. they're going to die regardless, because gates is funding RESEARCH,

not food. I don't know how many ways to say it.

as for magic wands: bill gates has billions to spend. money/capital is a magic wand. he could build roads to transport crops, he could buy land for landless farmers, he could build irrigation systems, he could fund low-tech farm equipment & tools, he could develop regional markets, he could fund years of vitamin pills for the whole continent, since his wealth is nearly equal to ALL of AFRICA's. he could do plenty.

but he's funding gmo research to develop intellectual property apps for bill gate, using land & water that could be growing food for africans, by africans.

[no limit]

62. This research is for the good

I already showed you one example that would save half a million children each year. And he is not doing this for intellectual property, never has.

[Hannah Bell]

70. which is why he's hiring ip lawyers for his africa initiative.

cause it has nothing to do with intellectual property.

[no limit]

78. source?

[Hannah Bell]

79. ...

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation seeks candidates for Associate General
Counsel.

Provide advice and counsel on a broad range of legal and
strategic issues critical to the Foundation’s strategic goals primarily
relating to its Global Health grant making activities.

Evaluate and assist in the negotiation of collaborative research agreements, manufacturing and supply arrangements, intellectual property licensing arrangements, transfer of technology rights, regulatory compliance, human subjects research activities, and international and inter-governmental agreements.


Major Activities:

Review and assist in preparation of grant agreements and
contracts, providing guidance in developing and implementing intellectual
property guidelines for grant agreements, contracts and grant making
practices.

Provide strategic advice on issues relating to collaborations
and public/private partnerships focused on bringing together multiple
institutions and pieces of intellectual property in a manner that will
anticipate appropriate pathways for product development and ensure
accessibility by people within developing countries.

Review and prepare inter-governmental and multilateral co-funding agreements, and provide strategic assistance in structuring novel funding arrangements and
mechanisms.

Provide guidance in developing and implementing human subject
research guidelines relating to grant and contract making practices.

Train and educate Foundation personnel regarding special laws applicable to
private foundations generally as well as issues that are unique to its
Global Health Program activities.

Keep current on new and emerging tax laws and policy developments impacting tax-exempt organizations generally and in particular, private foundations.

Qualifications: Juris Doctor and a minimum of 10 years experience in the
practice of law with expertise in intellectual property, business
negotiations (including collaborative agreements and licensing
arrangements) and regulatory compliance issues.

An undergraduate degree in life sciences or a related field in engineering is desirable.

Experience representing and providing expertise to bio-technology and pharmaceutical companies on intellectual property, product development, clinical trials and business transactional issues.

Having served as in-house counsel of a pharmaceutical company is a plus.

Demonstrated expertise in negotiations and efforts to establish large and diverse collaborative relationships and public/private partnerships involving intensive due diligence efforts and complex intellectual property issues.

History of effectively servicing highly skilled and demanding client base, establishing a role as an advisor and mentor on ground-breaking, emerging legal issues in a complex and evolving policy environment.

[anigbrowl]

82. Hiring lawyers doesn't indicate anything by itself

See my reply upthread. there are plenty of reasons why you might wish to hire lawyers even if you are doing pro bono work.

[Hannah Bell]

85. Monsanto Vice President Joins the Gates Foundation

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3167.cfm


2nd monsanto hire

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3733.cfm

[JackRiddler]

92. Ouch! Well that doesn't mean anything either.

Testing GMOs in Africa, hiring intellectual property lawyers, a Monsanto executive on the Gates board... all means nothing. Gates is a humanitarian philanthropist, how could anyone think a capitalist might be directing his money in ways that benefit capitalist interests, the idea is the absurd product of jealousy.

:eyes:

[TZ]

26. So you want to tell me how funding research into developing

malaria vaccines, low cost/no cost malaria drugs, research on TB and AIDS is teh evul.
And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. YES I DO!!
I worked with NIH/Gates foundation money on clinical trials to find an effective malaria vaccine.
Malaria kills more children in the world than any other disease..and its constantly evolving so drugs become ineffective quickly. Gates money also buys mosquito netting and all sorts of anti-malarial simple solutions.
YOUR OP IS SIMPLE PARANOID BULLSHIT.
AIDS, Malaria, TB..the three biggest killers in the world.

[Hannah Bell]

29. clinical trials: testing unproven drugs on human subjects & salaries & support

for researchers: that's what the bulk of gates' health $ in africa goes for.


as for your mosquito nets: schoolkids have spent as more than gates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/us/02malaria.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin

"though most goes to vaccines and new drugs, part went to match the first 3 million raised by Nothing But Nets".


Here's the only non-pharma malaria project i get on google: $ to leeds university for mosquito net RESEARCH into new pesticides:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5987/is_200609/ai_n24181548

[JohnyCanuck]

33. The Brave New World of GM Science

The Brave New World of GM Science
by Mae-Wan Ho

In 1994, I met some of the most remarkable leaders in the Third World: Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher (Institute of Sustainable Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia), Martin Khor (Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia), and Vandana Shiva (Navdanya, New Delhi, India), who persuaded me to look into genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially GM crops, which they rightly saw as a special threat to small family farmers. The biotech industry was promising miracle GM crops that would boost yield to feed the world, improve nutrition, and clean up and protect the environment. Monsanto’s Flavr Savr tomato, the first GM crop, had just been commercialised, though it turned out to be a complete flop, and was withdrawn several years later..

The biotech industry’s aggressive campaign of disinformation and manipulation of science did nothing to obscure the signs that the dream would soon turn into nightmare; and I said so in my book first published in 1997/1998 <1> Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, which became an international bestseller, translated into many languages, and recently reprinted with an extended introduction to coincide with its translation into Indonesian. Everything predicted in that book has happened. It also explained why the science behind GM is obsolete; a story elaborated further in Living with the Fluid Genome <2> published in 2003.

SNIP

Thirty years of GMOs are more than enough

· No increase in yields; on the contrary GM soya decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soya <4>, and up to 100 percent failures of Bt cotton have been recorded in India <6>. New studies confirmed these findings. Research from the University of Kansas found a 10 percent yield drag for Roundup Ready soya <9> that required extra manganese applied to the soil to make up the yield deficit. A team of scientists from the USDA and the University of Georgia found growing GM cotton in the US could result in a drop in income by up to 40 percent <10, 11> (Transgenic Cotton Offers No Advantage, SiS 38)

· No reduction in pesticides use; on the contrary, USDA data showed that GM crops increase pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the United States <4>. New data paint an even grimmer picture: the use of glyphosate on major crops went up more than 15-fold between 1994 and 2005, along with increases in other herbicides <12> in order to cope with rising glyphosate resistant superweeds <6>. Roundup tolerant canola volunteers are top among the worries of Canadian farmers <13, 14> (Study Based on Farmers’ Experience Exposes Risks of GM Crops, SiS 38)

· Roundup herbicide is lethal to frogs and toxic to human placental and embryonic cells <6>. Roundup is used in more than 80 percent of all GM crops planted in the world

· GM crops harm wildlife, as revealed by UK’s farm scale evaluations <6>, and more recently in a study led by Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois in the United Stated, which found that wastes from Bt corn impaired the growth of a common aquatic insect <15, 16> (Bt Crops Threaten Aquatic Ecosystems, SiS 36)

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/banGMOsNow.php

“GM-Free Organic Agriculture to Feed the World”

International Panel of 400 Agricultural Scientists Call for Fundamental Change in Farming Practice.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

International panel dispels aggressive corporate propaganda

A fundamental change in farming practice is needed to counteract soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters. Genetically modified (GM) crops are highly controversial and will not play a substantial role in addressing the challenges of climate change, loss of biodiversity, hunger and poverty. Instead, small-scale farmers and agro-ecological methods are the way forward; with indigenous and local knowledge playing as important a role as formal science. Furthermore, the rush to grow crops for biofuels could exacerbate food shortages and price rises.

These are the conclusions to the most thorough examination of global agriculture, on a scale comparable to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. Its final report, The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), was formally launched at a plenary in Johannesburg, South Africa on 15 April 2008 <1-3> and simultaneously released in London, Washington, Delhi, Paris, Nairobi and a number of other cities around the world.

The IAASTD is a unique collaboration initiated by the World Bank in partnership with a multi-stakeholder group of organisations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environmental Programme, the World Health Organisation and representatives of governments, civil society, private sector and scientific institutions from around the world <2>. The actual report runs to 2 500 pages, and has taken more than 400 scientists 4 years to complete.

In one mighty stroke, it has swept aside years of corporate propaganda that served as a major diversion from urgent task of implementing sustainable food production for the world. As UK’s Daily Mail editorial commented <4>: “For years, biotech companies have answered critics by insisting genetically modified crops are essential to bringing down food prices and feeding the world's hungry. Well, now we know they’re not.” (my emphasis /GM)

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMFreeOrganicAgriculture.php

[JackRiddler]

38. Shhh!

Don't interfere with the views of actual scientists working on the problem independently in the field.

GMO is science, science is good, anyone who says otherwise supports starvation, QED.

BTW: Thanks!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

40. Sorry, you lost me with

"Dr. Florence Wambugu (a black woman, PR coup)"

Nice racist slam.

Is the "Dr." a fake? I think she earned it at a university (Bath, England)

Maybe she happens to be qualified. And, from the region.

Maybe not just a PR token.

[Hannah Bell]

43. I didn't say she didn't earn it. I'm sure she did.

But she's nevertheless a good "public face" for Gates' project. Female & african, not male & american.

Monsanto is mostly male & american; that's not the face being presented, & there's a reason.

but nice way to accuse me of racism.

[Egalitariat]

64. That "PR Coup" bullshit was about as racist as you can be

You don't get a free pass, and DU would never let that pass w/o calling it what it is if it came from the other side.

Consistency is a good thing if you're interested in credibility.

[Hannah Bell]

69. ok, whatever, i'm racist (& sexist, you didn't mention that) for noticing the PR face gates

slaps on his monsanto initiative, gates isn't racist for testing drugs on african kids. it's all about vocabulary, thank you very much for the lesson in modern politics.

[JackRiddler]

60. Please have a look at the posts here by Hamden Rice and Johnny Canuck...

There are doctors and scientists working on these problems in the field, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, who have very contrary views than those which inform the Gates F. activities.

[JackRiddler]

63. bump

[scarletwoman]

66. Excellent post! Thank you so much for saying this! Rec'd, of course!

"Lab rats" is the perfect way of describing the shit that's going on.

sw

[T.Ruth2power]

67. Great post Hannah

Yes, many liberals will gasp at the very thought that the hallowed Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation could in fact be doing the wicked work of Empire and in fact be the penultimate example of the insidious workings of the imperial system.

This outfit is in fact a despicable version of the capitalist missionary spreading the gospel of Western Development (which means economic stranglehold) across the globe.

You are easily one of the best posters on this board who examines the root of tree.

The idea of any of these philanthropic foundations helping Africa is a blatantly racist construct.

[T.Ruth2power]

68. The reality is...

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe.

Indeed, local leaders blame oil development for
fostering some of the very afflictions that the foundation combats.

...

The bright, sooty gas flares — which contain toxic byproducts such as benzene, mercury and chromium — lower immunity, Enyidah said, and make children such as Justice Eta more susceptible to polio and measles — the diseases that the Gates Foundation has helped to inoculate him against.

Investing for profit

AT the end of 2005, the Gates Foundation endowment stood at $35 billion, making it the largest in the world. Then in June 2006, Warren E. Buffett, the world's second-richest man after Bill Gates, pledged to add about $31 billion in installments from his personal fortune. Not counting tens of billions of dollars more that Gates himself has promised, the total is higher than the gross domestic products of 70% of the world's nations.

Like most philanthropies, the Gates Foundation gives away at least 5% of its worth every year,
to avoid paying most taxes.

In 2005, it granted nearly $1.4 billion. It awards grants mainly in support of global health initiatives, for efforts to improve public education in the United States, and for social welfare programs in the Pacific Northwest.

It invests the other 95% of its worth. This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates' personal fortune. Monica Harrington, a senior policy officer at the foundation, said the investment managers had : returns "that will allow for the continued funding of foundation programs and grant making." Bill and Melinda Gates require the managers to keep a highly diversified portfolio, but make no specific directives.

By comparing these investments with information from for-profit services that analyze corporate behavior for mutual funds, pension managers, government agencies and other foundations, The Times found that the
Gates Foundation has holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[JackRiddler]

71. 95 vs. 5

There's the nub of it. 5 percent a year is given away, though the idea is to get it back through return on investments of the other 95. The other 95 percent is invested in a "diversified portfolio" - which is to say, it follows whatever is believed to bring the highest and most secure return. Obviously without much idea of a responsible investment policy.

In October, 2006, our trustees created a two-entity structure. One entity, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (“the foundation” ), distributes money to grantees. The other, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Asset Trust (“the asset trust” ), manages the endowment assets. This structure enables us to separate our program work from the investment of our assets.

The asset trust holds the endowment, including the annual installments of Warren’s gift. The asset trust then funds the foundation. Bill and Melinda are the trustees for the asset trust, and the endowment continues to be managed, as it has been for more than 10 years, by a team of outside investment managers.

The foundation conducts all operations and grantmaking work, and it is the entity from which all grants are made. Bill, Melinda, and Warren are the trustees for the foundation. Warren has no involvement in the investment of the endowment through the asset trust, including decisions that might be made regarding Berkshire Hathaway Inc. stock.

Because Bill, Melinda, and Warren believe the right approach is to focus the foundation’s work in the 21st century, we will spend all of our resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths. In addition, Warren has stipulated that the proceeds from the Berkshire Hathaway shares he still owns at death are to be used for philanthropic purposes within 10 years after his estate has been settled. Learn more about how we are implementing Warren’s gift.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/aboutus/announcements/announce-061129.htm

I'll see if I can dig up financial reports later. Wonder if the endowment has gone down from the original total? For now keep that in mind, 95 percent is in the left box, i.e. the stock market and other investments chosen for the purpose of return...

(EDIT: To kill unwanted smilies. Sorry.)

[JackRiddler]

72. Financial Reports, Annual Statements...

I gotta go to bed. In the DU tradition of collaborative research, anyone want to start plowing through these things?

Annual Reports, 1998-2007
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/OurWork/AnnualReports/default.htm

Financials, 2002-2007
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/OurWork/Financials/default.htm

[Hannah Bell]

75. was there something specific you were looking for?

the 2007 annual report is VERY general; little information on specific projects, just kind of overview on project areas.

one project mentioned that sounded quick, widely beneficial, based on local resources & relatively low tech was flour fortification in ghana through the 4 national millers.

one that sounded idiotic was getting people into insurance programs, "even in the most remote villages". death insurance & health insurance. (btw, this is one of the areas bill's g-grandpa was involved in in seattle - officer of one of the first insurance corps there, & linked to ny financial interests. seems there's a "financialization" roadmap for developing areas...

there's the usual focus on women's "empowerment" = changing the traditional family structure; microfinance (another part of the financialization roadmap)...

and the typical annual report fancy language.

&, as usual, lots of "research". But no specific descriptions of grants awarded, which was what i was looking for.

[JackRiddler]

77. I'm most curious about the endowment side - the 95 percent.

Good morning, gotta go to work but since you ask (thank you!) while you're right to ask where the grants go and what their function is, for example with respect to future Gates interests in biotech, 95 percent of the total involved in the foundation at any time is in the endowment, i.e. the investment portfolio that is supposed to grow (whenever possible). Only 5 percent of the total in a year is supposed to go into that year's grants.

Their explicit goal is to keep the trust going for at least 50 years after the Gates die - 2090 is a good guess, and by then of course the people in charge then will probably have decided it should keep going another hundred years.

But right now:

1) What's in the portfolio? What stocks are owned? What other investments? Who's benefiting?

2) How has the endowment progressed since the founding? What is the total endowment now, as opposed to then? It seems likely to me that it has grown, even as 5 percent a year went into grants.

3) What if any taxes have been paid on return from the trust?

The financials may have that in there - hope to have a look by tomorrow myself.

[Vinnie From Indy]

73. The OP is full of shit!

The Gates Foundation has spent millions of dollars on simple things like fighting Malaria and vitamin deficiency. They have saved countless lives in Africa. The OP offers some pretty weak references and whole lot of innuendo and supposition.

I actually know the woman that ran the Gates Foundation for Bill Gates for years quite well and I can say quite confidently that she is not some evil person out for world domination or motivated by greed. Quite simply, the OP is bullshit!

[Hannah Bell]

74. Weak references?

Here's what I've linked so far:

1 news article (Wa Post) on his african biotech initiative generally

1 on a specific 18.5 million dollar grant

The website of the organization he gave the 18.5 mill to

1 NYT article on some kids who raised 3 million to buy mosquito nets for africans, with a passage that says gates spends most of his money in africa on clinical trials & vaccines, but he did match the kids 3 million for nets.

1 article on a grant he gave to leeds university to research better ways to impregnate mosquito nets with pesticides.


You, on the other hand, have offered your fictitious connection to "the woman who ran the Gates Foundation for Bill Gates for years". Hint: there is no such woman. The Gates family has always "run" their own foundation. They have employees, but THEY run it.

"Fighting malaria" = clinical trials for drugs
As for "vitamins," here's the kind of thing i get googling gates foundation, africa, vitamins:

Pages on biotech research to increase vitamin content in crops, & more research grants like this one to johns hopkins:

http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/fundraising/gifts/gates00.html

He's giving 20 million to an american university to study what vitamins african kids need.

This is absurd. I have an MS in nutrition. Human nutrient requirements are known, have been known for nearly 100 years, & there's nothing unique about africans.

He's giving $ to johns hopkins for his own reasons: to influence policy, establish connections. Nothing to do with helping africa.

[northernlights]

96. Doctors without borders...

...has already come up with a low cost, easy to implement, answer to malnutrition based on a mix of peanut butter, powdered milk and essential vitamins that quickly brings babies back from the brink of starvation. No need for genetically engineered rice. Just good nutrition and good farming practices.

As others have posted, there already exist solutions to the majority of problems Bill has given millions (of his many billions) to.

Face it, the Gates foundation is all about Bill. Just like Oprah's.

[brindis_desala]

84. Western colonization (see IRAQ) has never

really left Africa. The difference is, instead of European nations vying for its resources we have multinational corporations, harder to resist much less defy. Outside of a wholesale rejection of the neoliberal agenda I see no way through what looms as a worldwide crisis. Interestingly, not only are these businesses looking to experiment they are looking to appropriate the indigenous products as well.

Africa: AGRA, Bio-Piracy And Food As Social Justice
Fahamu (Oxford)
11 April 2008
http://allafrica.com/stories/200804110619.html

[BlooInBloo]

86. The history of human food production is the history of genetically modified foods.

Fucking Luddites.

[Hannah Bell]

88. luddites weren't against machines or science.

it very much depends who controls them. their protest was about the destruction of their livelihoods.

but the point of the op is: bg is "helping" bg, not poor africans.

[HamdenRice]

89. Wrong again

I used to be a consultant one of whose responsibilities was reviewing the efficacy of the plant genetic research of the 60s, 70s and 80s, and it was a completely different kind of gene manipulation.

See post 45.

[JackRiddler]

91. So you're saying you wouldn't have supported the working class resistance

of the British industrial revolution, who did what they could under atrocious working conditions to fight for their rights?

Are you saying you would have sided with the factory owners who were working them on the machines for 14-hour shifts, docking them a half-day's pay for being 15 minutes late, using child laborers, conducting speed-ups, etc.

Learn who the Luddites actually were before you pass around prejudices that are, well, Republican!

[LeftishBrit]

94. So undernourished children should be left to take their chances with serious diseases?

'vaccinating undernourished children is a suspect business, because under those conditions, risks of side effects are higher'

Well, under those conditions, risks of side effects of the DISEASES are higher!!!!!

Standard public health measures are important, but are these a reason for depriving children in developing countries of access to modern medicien? One can have both! And both together are much more effective than either one on its own. (And either on its own is better than nothing at all.)

[Hannah Bell]

98. a malnourished child that's vaccinated is still malnourished, &

liable to die of a hundred other diseases (including response to the vaccine). The biggest child-killer is simple diarrheal illnesses, not malaria, tb or measles. and those kill because of poor immunity due to poor nutrition.

They're POOR, that's the basic problem. Gates has more money than the GNPs of 1/2 of africa, & buffet more $ than the other 1/2, & that, in a nutshell, is THE problem.

Gates is pushing multinational pharma/ag/finance.