We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

Thanks, I know very little about it and always assumed it was a virus.

>>doesn't simply erase his overall negative impacts upon society that runs easily into the trillions

>Any source on that?

Here's some:

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/...

http://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...?

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

--- (Some homework: Calculate an estimate of all the harm to all these businesses and, by proxy, consumers above)

http://lists.essential.org/1998/info-policy-notes/msg00047.h... (It goes way back)

http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html (It keeps going)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=304701 (download the PDF there)

--- Observe the many examples here:

http://thismatter.com/articles/microsoft.htm#tq1

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=241988 (download the PDF there)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=502822 (download the PDF there)

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0907/6205050a.html (FORBES mag)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_l...

--- History of Anticompetitive behavior and consumer harm:

http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ditcclp20082_en.pdf

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072487933/466... (a very enlightening read)

http://www.cptech.org/ms/harm.html

http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/part1.html

http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/table.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1016972/nvidia-blam...

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9901/11/microrise.idg/

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/your-loss-their-gain-32...

http://www.fool.com/cashking/1998/cashkingport981118.htm

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/21/61725...

http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/ca_sues_ms.html

--- Microsoft entered into anticompetitive and exclusionary agreements with OLSs and ISPs:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#vii

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The effects of anti-competitive business practices on developing countries and their development prospects:

http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ditcclp20082_en.pdf

The Gates Foundation investments include companies that worsen poverty in developing countries, pollute heavily and supports pharmaceutical companies that don’t sell into the developing world.

Also, he’s doing it wrong with malaria.

By pouring most contributions into the fight against such high-profile killers, Gates is diverting staff from basic care. This form of “brain drain”, pulls away trained staff from children and those suffering from other common killers.

The focus on a few diseases has shortchanged basic needs such as nutrition and transportation. Gates-funded vaccination programs have instructed caregivers to ignore – even discourage patients from discussing – ailments that the vaccinations cannot prevent.

The Gates Foundation harms global health by diverting resources from other important local health care services. The foundation diverts medical professionals from other parts of developing nations’ health care systems; the health care systems’ ability to provide care diminishes (except in the area the foundation funds) and the charities do more harm than good. (This has been backed up by several prominent investigations, please look it up)

The Gates Foundation is also undermining public education and exerts too much influence over public education policy without being accountable to voters or tax payers. The reforms include closing neighborhood schools in favor of privately run charter schools, forcing standardized tests which have been proven to harm education (just ask teachers, educational professionals, etc.).

What should we learn from this?

It’s better to have decentralized sources of charity coming from many sources instead of one collective source. Unfortunately, Gates helped to hinder and in many cases completely detroy entities that would have not only given vastly more to charity, but would have also done it in a far more diversified and effective manner.

It’s very ironic.

Bill Gate’s monopoly helped usher in an era of rampant malware for decades because of the lack of platform diversity.

http://cryptome.org/cyberinsecurity.htm

All of this above together cost average consumers and businesses worldwide in the trillions (many of whom were able to give less to charity because of this). Many businesses and consumers were rail-roaded into using subpar products and services via his unethical, anti-competitive, monopolistic business practices.

The sick irony: He’s now using those same ill-gotten profits (that hurts the world in the past, present and future with a lack of diversification) and is giving it to the developing world in an ironically non-diversified manner and hurting them as well.

As Bill Gates was with Microsoft, he’s too arrogant to look at the big picture externalities.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Typical question I get is to please source small businesses and individuals giving more to charity.

It's not terribly easy to find good sources because Google's search algorithms (which are written basically by editors, by the way) will give precedence to all the multiple, corporate media Public Relations that merely offers deceiving articles about the "Top 10 corporations who give to charity", etc.

For example, this corporatist Public Relations piece:

http://money.msn.com/investing/companies-giving-the-most-to-...

While you're there at that Public Relations piece above disguised as a news article, please read the informative first comment at the bottom about "how to lie with statistics” as well.

Here's the reality with vital externalities at play that a lot of the corporate media would like us all to ignore:

-- Corporate giving accounts for just 5% of the total giving in 2013.

Yes, you read that correctly, just FIVE PERCENT and that's not just an anomaly for 2013. It's always very low compared to everyone else. The vast amount of all charity is given by small businesses and (especially) lower income individuals. Not just a few huge corporations and some billionaires like Gates.

What corporations and billionaires like Bill Gates really do is spend a vast amount of money on Public Relations to advertise the fact that they give money to charity. It creates the public illusion that major corporations and people like Gates give the lion's share of money to charity when that's completely and utterly untrue. It's a classic example of manufacturing consent.

Of course, this information tends to give people cognitive dissonance since they've been basically indoctrinated via Public Relations to believe otherwise: http://i.imgur.com/MFdTOaq.jpg

But, here's the reality:

http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-gi...

And this here.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6S23Fn6...

Then, of course, there's this:

Why Don’t Corporations Give to Charity?

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/08/corp...

And finally, this:

Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>I rather enjoyed using his products.

So do I, (at least some of Microsoft's products, anyway) including the positive influence MS has had on other products created by other companies. As I said in my first post in this thread above, Gates has also provided a lot of good in the world with his efforts in business and charity, there's no denying that and he should be commended for it (as he already is quite vociferously all over the place). But, I'm not here to parrot his Public Relations that's already disseminated nearly everywhere online and offline. Just stab in any general direction if you want to know about what a great a guy he is. I'm here to talk about his net effect on society and I am therefore presenting the side of Gates that a lot of the corporate media (and otherwise) would like to forget and whitewash in the face of his Public Relations, power and control.

From poking around reading CDC and WHO websites on malaria RDTs, they stress that since RDTs have a higher limit of detection than blood microscopy tests (which are apparently the gold standard), and also can only detect 4 common strains of malaria (at least two strains are not covered by RDTs), then negative results should (when possible) be verified by a microscopy test either way.

Given your situation then, it doesn't actually make sense to use a RDT on you. Basically, if you have what the medical infrastructure and low enough rates of malaria, you may as we just do the microscopy test all the time to ensure that you do the right treatment.

In your specific case, if they were having troubles detecting the parasite in a microscopy test, then likely they would have trouble detecting it with RDTs as well given its high limit of detection.

I was thinking something similar. Addressing just the disease is fine and good, but the terrible sanitation and lack of medical access issues are still there. Are those who normally going to die of malaria now going to die of something else due to environmental and social economic conditions. I guess this is how progress works. You take out the big baddies first and work your way down. The smaller baddies might also have an easier and cheaper treatment plan.

>First, you don't understand what the sentence you quote means. For one, it doesn't mean "maybe".

When you said, "he may have played loose with the rules" I didn't take that to mean, "he played loose with the rules".

But, I misunderstood you and I apologize.

>if you read my message thinking I was worshiping him

I apologize if I misrepresented your opinion. However, I would hope that if you read back your glowing post in regards to Bill Gates one might get the impression you may not be aware of all the wrongs he did as CEO as well.

>you're greatly exaggerating the wrongs he did as CEO.

Can't say I agree with you there when one critically looks at the sources of evidence that supports my supposition:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8551072

>he isn't the second coming of the devil either.

No, he's not. Nor is he Hitler, etc. I apologize if within my short response to you I gave you the impression that I thought he was a spawn of Satan. I'm a bit more of a complex thinker than that, I think. But, I suppose I deserve that since I errantly implied you "worship" Gates. :D

Then again, I tend to get compared to Satan once I criticize Bill Gates in most forums, so I'll own it instead.

>Take a breath.

Thank you, I will. :)