Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.
----------------------------------------------

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

BEST VIEWED IN LARGE FONT
Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

How to be super rich, virtuous, and foolish

Gates proves Buffett’s handover misguided with his first move

Billions down the same rathole, with no independent research in view

“This is as much of a win-win as I have seen for a long time”, said Charlie Rose three weeks ago, as he proudly hosted Bill and Melinda Gates and their new partner in charity, Warren Buffett, on his show.

In the aftermath of Buffett’s announcement that he would hand over $31 billion to the Gates Foundation, the whole world was smiling and laughing, it seemed, right along with these wonderfully generous and admirable people in their happy backslapping session. Everyone involved felt pleased, and virtuous, and comfortable, and relaxed, and jolly.

Well, though we more or less agreed in principle with this party spirit it seemed to us that there was one rather large black fly in the ointment, so to speak. That is, if there was anything misguided in the very conventional policies of disbursing funds at the Gates Foundation, wouldn’t this move double the error?

Now we have Gate’s first move after receiving Buffett’s largesse to add to his own giveaway, and it confirms our worst fears. Quite frankly, we now find the self-congratulatory laughter of the supine Rose and his new megarich buddies even more nauseating than it was at the time.

Wait a minute, you are saying, how could one possibly object to Buffett handing over $31 billion to make the Gates charity more than $60 billion, when it is all aimed at the world’s poor, sick and starving?

Because today (Thu Jul 20) Larry Altman informs us that Gates and Melinda have handed over $287 million for one of the most useless and silly boondoggles in the history of medicine, the search for an HIV∫AIDS vaccine.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded more than a quarter of a billion dollars on Wednesday to researchers in 19 countries to speed the lagging development of an H.I.V. vaccine.

The grants, totaling $287 million, are the largest private investment in making such a vaccine, the foundation said. They represent a significant shift in emphasis, to large-scale collaborative projects instead of small teams of researchers working independently.

The money will be given over five years to 16 scientific teams, including two New York groups. The scientists applied for the grants before Warren E. Buffett announced last month that he was giving $31 billion to the Gates Foundation.

Gates to Finance H.I.V. Vaccine Search (pA16)

(show)

The New York Times

Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

July 20, 2006

Gateses to Finance H.I.V. Vaccine Search

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN

SEATTLE, July 19 — The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded more than a quarter of a billion dollars on Wednesday to researchers in 19 countries to speed the lagging development of an H.I.V. vaccine.

The grants, totaling $287 million, are the largest private investment in making such a vaccine, the foundation said. They represent a significant shift in emphasis, to large-scale collaborative projects instead of small teams of researchers working independently.

The money will be given over five years to 16 scientific teams, including two New York groups. The scientists applied for the grants before Warren E. Buffett announced last month that he was giving $31 billion to the Gates Foundation.

The Gates Foundation has made development of an effective vaccine against H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, a major goal, and the new grants bring to $528 million the foundation’s investment for this purpose. By contrast, the National Institutes of Health has spent $3.4 billion since the 1980’s to develop a vaccine.

A vaccine to fight H.I.V., the human immunodeficiency virus, is the best hope to control the AIDS epidemic, health officials and experts say. But that hope has been frustrated again and again.

In 1984, Margaret M. Heckler, President Ronald Reagan’s health and human services secretary, and Dr. Robert Gallo, a discoverer of the virus, predicted an H.I.V. vaccine by 1986.

Although more than 30 experimental H.I.V. vaccines have been tested in people, only one has completed full-scale testing. That vaccine, Aidsvax, made by VaxGen, failed in a large trial that ended in 2003.

Until now, most H.I.V. vaccine research has been conducted by small independent teams. But the new grants are being structured to encourage the 165 scientists receiving them to join forces. The goal is to overcome major immunologic and other scientific hurdles that hinder development of such a vaccine.

The body can invoke two types of immune reactions to defend against dangerous infectious agents.

One way is to produce neutralizing antibodies, which are proteins that bind like a lock and key to areas on the infectious agent.

A second way, cellular immunity, is to produce T-cells that seek and destroy infected cells.

Most licensed vaccines work by stimulating the body to make neutralizing antibodies. But experimental H.I.V. vaccines have failed to produce such antibodies. The virus’s propensity to mutate and produce different genetic subtypes will require an effective vaccine to produce antibodies that can neutralize a wide range of strains.

The foundation said an effective vaccine might also have to stimulate T-cell production. Six grants will focus on ways to develop cellular immunity.

Five grants will go to identifying new techniques to develop novel vaccines that produce neutralizing antibodies.

The remaining five grants are for creating central laboratories and information analysis facilities so that all the grant recipients can openly share data and develop standardized ways to compare their findings. Lack of such standardized tools hampers H.I.V. vaccine research, the foundation said.

A team led by Susan Zolla-Pazner, an immunologist at New York University, will receive $8.4 million to investigate the use of a specific area of the outer coat of the virus, known as the V3 region. The aim will be to develop neutralizing antibodies that attack a broad range of H.I.V. strains.

Another team led by Dr. David Ho of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in Manhattan will receive $24.7 million to design experimental H.I.V. vaccines that bind to dendritic cells. These immune cells help strengthen production of antibodies and cellular immunity.

An expensive wild goose chase

That stricture is a fair description, because the best vaccination against HIV is clearly HIV itself. Inject someone with HIV, and the body will soon manufacture enough antibodies to reduce the multiplying viremia all the way back down to negligible levels.

That is why it is not a surprise that efforts to develop an HIV vaccine haven’t worked out too well, since anyone who is HIV positive has already been vaccinated against HIV.

Although more than 30 experimental H.I.V. vaccines have been tested in people, only one has completed full-scale testing. That vaccine, Aidsvax, made by VaxGen, failed in a large trial that ended in 2003.

(Apparently however our idea of using HIV as a vaccine against itself strikes even the leaders of HIV∫AIDS in whom we have so much confidence as so blatantly absurd that it might be a little risky to suggest themselves, so they haven’t yet done so. But we predict that in the future HIV will be somehow eased into this role, perhaps as a variation which is guaranteed not to cause AIDS, which should be easy to arrange, given that the evidence to date that any HIV does cause AIDS is still zero after all these years.

And after all, as we have noted earlier, HIV was in fact shown by Gallo in one of his four original papers prima facie to act against the onset of AIDS, since he found more of it in pre-AIDS patient blood than in blood from patients with AIDS. Apparently, the more HIV in one’s blood the less likely one was to get AIDS. Hmmm. Perhaps we should stop writing this column long enough to get over to the patent office ourselves.)

Anyhow this is why the HIV test is for antibodies, not for the virus. Anyone who tests positive for HIV is, as you know, testing positive only for HIV antibodies, of which he or she is undoubtedly full, and not for the virus, which if sought out by researchers will in the years pre-AIDS (if the immune system is functioning normally) be present in such negligible quantities that PCR has to be used to tease it from a blood sample. In other words, so negligible that a method has to be used powerful enough to detect a virus particle as hard to find as a pin in a wheat field.

Of course, this basic truth is veiled by the authorities in HIV∫AIDS at every turn. Closely inspect the Altman item and you will find the current diversionary tactic of suggesting that the body’s defenses could be boosted in a second way, by multiplying CD4 cells.

The body can invoke two types of immune reactions to defend against dangerous infectious agents.

One way is to produce neutralizing antibodies, which are proteins that bind like a lock and key to areas on the infectious agent.

A second way, cellular immunity, is to produce T-cells that seek and destroy infected cells.

Most licensed vaccines work by stimulating the body to make neutralizing antibodies. But experimental H.I.V. vaccines have failed to produce such antibodies. The virus’s propensity to mutate and produce different genetic subtypes will require an effective vaccine to produce antibodies that can neutralize a wide range of strains.

The foundation said an effective vaccine might also have to stimulate T-cell production. Six grants will focus on ways to develop cellular immunity.

Five grants will go to identifying new techniques to develop novel vaccines that produce neutralizing antibodies.

The remaining five grants are for creating central laboratories and information analysis facilities.

What all this seems to overlook is the fact that no one at the top of HIV∫AIDS except Anthony Fauci (and Bob Gallo, now known, since he publicly listed 56 mistaken objections to the Harper’s piece in March, for his lack of familiarity with the up-to-date science in his field) is saying any longer that HIV kills T cells either directly or through any auto immune route. How T cells are removed by HIV remains an unsolved mystery. Occam’s Razor (and a host of other data) suggests that HIV is not the cuplrit.

In fact, with dreary predictability and the usual neglect of the literature and of logic (not to mention plain common sense) a big slice of the funds will go to NYU for “developing neutralizing antibodies” and a bigger slice to the discredited Time Magazine cover hero of HIV∫AIDS, the charming David Ho, to “design experimental H.I.V. vaccines.”

A team led by Susan Zolla-Pazner, an immunologist at New York University, will receive $8.4 million to investigate the use of a specific area of the outer coat of the virus, known as the V3 region. The aim will be to develop neutralizing antibodies that attack a broad range of H.I.V. strains.

Another team led by Dr. David Ho of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in Manhattan will receive $24.7 million to design experimental H.I.V. vaccines that bind to dendritic cells. These immune cells help strengthen production of antibodies and cellular immunity.

In fact as noted, it is clear there is no sense in working towards a vaccine for HIV, even if it was a dangerous item in some mysterious and yet unfathomed way (no sign of it yet). The immune system already despatches it as well as any vaccine might. So it is hardly a surprise that the effort to date to find a vaccine has had no luck at all to date:

Although more than 30 experimental H.I.V. vaccines have been tested in people, only one has completed full-scale testing. That vaccine, Aidsvax, made by VaxGen, failed in a large trial that ended in 2003.

And indeed this is why the time estimated to bring the effort to develop a vaccine has stretched from two years (1984) to ten or twenty years, or (according to Gallo), “maybe never”.

Advisers from the priesthood

But has anyone troubled to inform Gates or Melinda of the relevant facts which explain why this is a wild goose chase and shouldn’t be funded? We can be sure that they haven’t. One reason is that the HIV∫AIDS specialist of their Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is none other than Helene Gayle, who joined in 2001 from 17 straight years running HIV∫AIDS matters at the CDC:

Gayle’s 17-year career at CDC began in the Epidemic Intelligence Service, and has spanned 10 different appointments. She counts among her successes at CDC the launch of a global AIDS program to develop prevention, care and infrastructure for HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis in 14 countries in Africa and Asia.

She sees her move to the Gates Foundation as coming at the right time: “This is a unique opportunity at a unique moment in the history of the global epidemic, where an organization that has made such an extraordinary commitment to global health can really make a huge difference in the response to the global HIV epidemic.” She adds, “I think I can further enhance the very strong foundation they already have in HIV.” Gayle’s role as Senior Advisor for HIV/AIDS will include “bringing more players to the table,” and promoting the battle against HIV/AIDS in both the public and private sectors.

Gates Foundation hires CDC AIDS boss, by Myrna Watanabe

The head of their Global Health Project is also unlikely to tell them anything new.Tadataka Yamada, M.D.comes straight from the big drug company, GlaxoSmithKline, where he was chairman of research and development and a member of the board of directors, positions he previously held at SmithKline Beecham.

We can be sure Dr Yamada is hardly going to introduce the idea that maybe he had led GlaxoSmithKline down the garden path and didn’t want to make the same mistake with Gates. Does a leopard change his spots? Not at that salary level. You don’t climb K-2 and then say at the top, Oh sorry, wrong mountain.

And how about their chief scientific advisor, none other than Dr Harold Varmus, Nobel winner for an achievement which even he seems to think of doubtful value, judging from his autobiographical three lectures at the New York Public Library.

Dr. Harold E. Varmus, president of the Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, said the foundation could fight some of the major preventable causes of death in poor countries: cigarettes, alcohol abuse and automobile injuries.

Dr. Varmus was the chief scientific adviser for the Grand Challenges in Global Health, a sort of contest in which Mr. Gates gave out $437 million to teams pursuing exotic goals like vaccines that can be inhaled or chemicals that can knock out mosquitoes’ sense of smell. He said his advisory committee particularly wished it could make grants for water purification and for chronic diseases like diabetes and cancer that have loomed larger in the poor world as people live longer.

Anyhow, the HIV∫AIDS crowd must be delighted as their hold on Gates money gets stronger by the year. It is just as Bill and Melinda promised on Charlie Rose. Their good luck would double. “We see it as doubling the impact on diseases we have been working on” said Melinda. “We’ve been making good progress and we think our impact can more than double” said Gates, looking fresh in a dark suit, a pale blue shirt and some sort of blue tie with dotted symbols.

Everything was in place, with the fight against HIV uppermost in Melinda and Bill’s minds. At the New York Public Library, both made this clear. What is evident is that the HIV∫AIDS crowd has scored a direct hit with their latest strategy of emphasizing that women are the ones most threatened around the world.

Her “fondest dream,” Mrs. Gates said, is an AIDS vaccine, something scientists have been pursuing since the 1980’s and which she admitted could take an additional 20 years. A stopgap measure, she said, could be a microbicide: an undetectable protective gel that women could insert before sex.

And on Rose, Melinda talked of the need to expand the supply of antiretrovirals to the poor world and Gates confidently listed the top disease priorities for children around the world as “AIDS, TB, Malaria.”

Meanwhile, anyone familiar with the true state of internal science politics these days, not just in HIV∫AIDS where the censorship of review is most blatant, can only find the whole performance of this unimaginative, wildly powerful trio depressing. But at least the Gates have some excuse for it, since they probably have had little exposure to the research academy or to reformist views in their lives other than the unsuccessful prosecution of Microsoft as a robber baron monopoly, which all users of PCs must have joined in mentally as they struggled with their operating systems before the era of XP.

Buffett on the other hand has surely little excuse for his cheerful handoff of so much potential science and social funding to a close friend in total blindness to the need for alternative views in research driven by paradigm politics. If there is anyone who should realize the value of a second opinion in any arena where the true facts are not on the front page it is Warren Buffett, who has made his fortune betting against the market and winning.

But he doesn’t have the appetite for listening to too many conflicting opinions, it is clear.

Bill Gates was a quicker study on new topics, like medicine, that he would have to master, Mr. Buffett said, and added: “I wouldn’t want to listen to as many people with as many different opinions as they do.”

This way Bill and Melinda can do the unpleasant job of divining the truth amid the cacophony, Buffett is saying – but isn’t this an admission that there are always competing demands and views and if Buffett had captained his own charity ship he might have escaped the establishment wisdom that seems to grip the Gates’s to the exclusion of any other?

He really isn’t interested in the work at all. As he told Rose,

They can use me as a sounding board. Anytime I can be of help, fine. But I won’t get involved in their investments. I’ve seen what they are interested in. They are a couple of outstanding minds, and passionate.

Clearly there was no hope of getting to Buffett and changing his mind short of a plane crash, he made all too clear. “When I decide something, that is it.” Only if they go down in a plane he will take a fresh look, he said. “These are two extraordinarily talented people applying themselves big time to the problems of the world.”

One can only marvel at the ability of riches to make anyone they bless absolutely confident they know best, without them or anyone else ever considering that their advisors may be wholly one sided purveyors of conventional wisdom, when they are drawn exclusively from the usual club membership in top official and professional positions in a field, as Gates’ are.

This seems to be true even though both megarich men made a bow in the direction of fallibility:

Later in the exchange, which was in front of 200 philanthropy executives, scientists, students and a few reporters, Mr. Gates got in his own reflection on the partnership. “It’s scary,” he said. “If I make a mistake with my own money, it isn’t as big as making a mistake with Warren’s money.”

To which Mr. Buffett replied: “I won’t grade you more often than daily.”

Somehow we don’t think this is an invitation to get in touch and present a different view of HIV∫AIDS, though.

The disgrace of funding tyranny

It seems to us that one of the greatest scandals in science today is the lack of alternative funding even for remarkably qualified and credentialed paradigm challengers such as Peter Duesberg, whose leadership in cancer research is in danger of collapse month by month for lack of basic funding in an era when the Wall Street Journal counts six million millionaires.

How come so many of these potential patrons ignore his predicament that still only one now remains, the remarkable Bob Leppo of San Franscisco? A Stanford educated investor and start up angel, Leppo supports Duesberg for several reasons, none of which hinge on him making up his own mind on the vexed question of whether HIV∫AIDS makes any scientific sense. Leppo is a sturdy libertarian, and strongly objects to the censorship, ostracism and funding strangulation which have redounded onto Duesberg for his independent view. He also believes in Duesberg personally not only as a very fine scientist but also as an idealist with old school values, where science, scholarship and public spirit come before surrender to falsehood for personal gain.

It seems possible that such values may not be as widely appreciated even among Leppo’s peers as one might think. Duesberg’s patron has introduced Duesberg to several gatherings of his fellow investors over the years, many of whom were quite capable of responding to the social injustice and potential loss of valuable scientific research that the ongoing crisis in Duesberg’s professional career represents.

Amazingly enough, none have responded, and Leppo is at a loss to explain why, since the meetings were otherwise a success. They each have their own reasons, he has concluded. He recently has offered on the Web to match dollar for dollar any assistance people want to offer Duesberg, however, and there has been one taker at the $25,000 level. That represents one quarter of Duesberg’s minimum lab costs each year.

We conclude that this is the effect of the media and meeting blackout of Duesberg’s professional review of the paradigm imposed by Anthony Fauci of NIAID and colleagues. Censorship in the media has a very powerful effect in an era where it is hard to get any topic attended to, although one that means life or death for many survives it better than most. But the rich know as little about science as any other group of outsiders, and depend as much on friends, hearsay and credentials. Censorship probably veils the truth from them very effectively, prejudicing them even if they meet Duesberg in person recommended by a peer.

As you can see, there is much in this side by side comparison of Bill, Melinda and Warren’s $60 billion moneypile, and the blocking of what may be society’s path to the cure of cancer for the need of a mere $100,000, to disgust the thoughtful reader. We won’t even go into the financial pressures imposed on independent journalists who flout the NIH censorship, which can only be survived by those who find some other way of making a living.

Warren Buffett had the chance to do something to change the picture overnight, and free scientists and journalists from this tyranny. None of his advisors had the intelligence or the understanding to advise him correctly, it appears. So much for the prospects of private funding to rescue the situation in this and other fields. Science as banana republic continues undisturbed.

(show)

June 27, 2006

Buffett’s Billions Will Aid Fight Against Disease

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. and RICK LYMAN

Warren E. Buffett’s $31 billion gift to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will help the foundation pursue its longstanding goal of curing the globe’s most fatal diseases, Mr. Gates said yesterday, along with improving American education.

The foundation hopes to use the enormous gift, among other things, to find a vaccine for AIDS, Mrs. Gates said. And Mr. Gates went further, saying that while he might be “overly optimistic,” he believed there was a real shot at finding cures for the 20 leading fatal diseases, as well as ensuring that every American has a chance at a decent education.

“Can that happen in our lifetime?” Mr. Gates said, sitting next to Mr. Buffett at the New York Public Library, where the gift was formally announced after news of it broke on Sunday. “I’ll be optimistic and say, Absolutely.”

But Mr. Gates acknowledged that spending the money effectively would be difficult. The scientific tasks the foundation has set for itself in fields like malaria and tuberculosis take time as well as money, because they require years of laboratory work followed by years of clinical trials, sometimes ending fruitlessly. Improving American education — once better ideas have been found — can take just as long.

“It’s incredibly difficult to give this much money away well,” said Jean Strouse, a biographer who has compiled an oral history project on the Gates Foundation. “And giving it away to people who can use it well, especially in places where poverty is so overwhelming, where there’s not much real infrastructure.”

Both Mr. Buffett, who will join the foundation’s leadership, and the Gateses acknowledged as much.

“In the last few months we have begun to really talk about and try to come up with a plan for that,” Mrs. Gates said.

They must, for instance, improve their dialogue with the governments of poor nations to make sure that vaccines get down to the people who need them.

Mr. Buffett, for his part, said he saw no need to tinker with the foundation’s essential goal: improving the lot of poor people elsewhere in the world without regard to their color, religion or other differences.

Describing his own way of choosing companies to invest in, Mr. Buffett, one of history’s most successful investors, said, “I’ve learned to adapt to other managers” and then jokingly compared the process to picking a spouse. “It’s not a good idea to marry one expecting them to change,” he said.

Mrs. Gates was a Microsoft executive when she married Mr. Gates when he was 38 and she was 29. Upon hearing Mr. Buffett’s remark, Mr. Gates leaned back on his stool with a big sheepish grin as his wife glanced knowingly at him.

Then Mr. Buffett said, “I’m happy with the ones I’m marrying here.”

Later in the exchange, which was in front of 200 philanthropy executives, scientists, students and a few reporters, Mr. Gates got in his own reflection on the partnership. “It’s scary,” he said. “If I make a mistake with my own money, it isn’t as big as making a mistake with Warren’s money.”

To which Mr. Buffett replied: “I won’t grade you more often than daily.”

Mr. Buffett is giving away about 85 percent of his fortune, most of it to the Gates foundation. The gift, representing the current value of 10 million Class B shares of Berkshire Hathaway, the insurance conglomerate he formed nearly 50 years ago, will nearly double the wealth of the Gates Foundation, which was already the world’s biggest, at almost $30 billion. The stock will be transferred to the foundation in increments over many years; the first transfer will be half a million shares this year, worth about $1.5 billion.

Although the money will not change the foundation’s larger goals, Mrs. Gates mentioned yesterday that it had been moving quietly for the last 18 months into microlending, which is the granting of small loans to poor people so they can start small businesses. A microloan of less than $50 might finance, for example, the purchase of a loom or a set of bicycle repair tools.

Though he is also leaving billions to separate foundations for his children, Mr. Buffett said he felt he was “not cut out” to be a philanthropist like the Gateses and preferred to remain at the helm of his company.

“They’ll spend more time and energy on it,” he said. “I’m having so much fun doing what I do, and I think they’ll be more able to accept any mistakes they made than I would if I made them.”

Bill Gates was a quicker study on new topics, like medicine, that he would have to master, Mr. Buffett said, and added: “I wouldn’t want to listen to as many people with as many different opinions as they do.”

Rather than spend every cent on fruitlessly trying to rebuild broken health care systems, the Gates Foundation follows a pattern of spending generously to chase solutions like a malaria vaccine. It also buys supplies, like vaccines or mosquito nets, but then tries to get rich countries to match its donations and poor countries to get organized well enough to distribute the goods.

Similarly, in education, it creates model schools that public school systems can use as examples, rather than spending endlessly to pay the expenses of every impoverished American school district.

Her “fondest dream,” Mrs. Gates said, is an AIDS vaccine, something scientists have been pursuing since the 1980’s and which she admitted could take an additional 20 years. A stopgap measure, she said, could be a microbicide: an undetectable protective gel that women could insert before sex.

Mr. Gates said he wanted to use improved global health as a base upon which to build what he called “the virtuous cycle” of longer lifetimes, jobs, markets, infrastructure, tax bases and all the other steps that lift poor countries out of poverty.

Dr. Richard Klausner, a former director of the National Cancer Institute and the Gates Foundation’s former head of global health, said that besides microlending he also would not be surprised if the foundation followed the Rockefeller Foundation’s example in seeking higher-yield, drought-resistant seeds for poor farmers.

Dr. Harold E. Varmus, president of the Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, said the foundation could fight some of the major preventable causes of death in poor countries: cigarettes, alcohol abuse and automobile injuries.

Dr. Varmus was the chief scientific adviser for the Grand Challenges in Global Health, a sort of contest in which Mr. Gates gave out $437 million to teams pursuing exotic goals like vaccines that can be inhaled or chemicals that can knock out mosquitoes’ sense of smell. He said his advisory committee particularly wished it could make grants for water purification and for chronic diseases like diabetes and cancer that have loomed larger in the poor world as people live longer.

Asked if a richer Gates Foundation could divert scientists from other fields, Dr. Varmus said he was “more concerned with using the scientific horsepower we’ve already developed.”

Noting that the National Institutes of Health give out $28 billion a year — ten times as much as even the enriched Gates Foundation will — he said its inflation-adjusted budget has been shrinking.

Some aid recipients also worry that the Gates-Buffett fortune will let other donors, including the American government, feel that they can back away from public health. That would be disastrous for the world’s poor, they said, since the foundation is only one stream in a vast river. If anyone does back away, Dr. Klausner said “it’s because they were looking for an excuse, not because there’s no need.”

Diana Aviv, president of Independent Sector, a nonpartisan coalition that represents charities and foundations, said she expected the Buffett money to give the Gates Foundation more power.

“They haven’t served multiple programs,” Ms. Aviv said. “They’ve been much more generous in a few. This gives them leveraging opportunities.”

Mr. Buffett said yesterday that he was a student of the same philanthropists that Mr. Gates modeled himself on: the oilman John D. Rockefeller; the steel magnate Andrew Carnegie; Irene Diamond, the widow of the real estate developer Aaron Diamond; and Joan Kroc, the widow of Ray Kroc, who founded McDonald’s.

Mr. Buffett is also famous for loving efficiency. He runs a company with 200,000 employees from an Omaha headquarters with fewer than 20 employees. The Gates Foundation, in Seattle, has about 300.

Mr. Buffett was scathing yesterday in describing his feelings about estate taxes, which the Bush administration is trying to kill. The ability of rich men to pass on “dynastic wealth” to their grandchildren is offensive to the American tradition of meritocracy, he said.

He gets particularly upset at his country club, he said, hearing members complain about welfare mothers getting food stamps “while they are trying to leave their children a more-than-lifetime-supply of food stamps and are substituting a trust officer for a welfare officer.”

To widespread applause, he smiled and asked: “Is there anyone I forgot to insult?”

(hide)

26 Responses to “How to be super rich, virtuous, and foolish”

  1. Truthseeker Says:

    Any bright ideas as to how this situation can be turned around are very welcome.

  2. Martin Kessler Says:

    It can’t because science is now a religion. Any emotionally involved biological science like stem cells research, evolution, HIV/AIDS, mental illness (bad/unwanted behavior)seem to take on a “life” of its own and dispassionate (about science politics) scientists like Duesberg get disparaged because the victims are being blamed.

    By the way does HIV really exist? Has it been isolated? By whom? I’d like to see the electron photomicrographs of pure (retro)virus isloate. Has Eleopolis and the Perth group been proven wrong? Of course in real science there is controversy (like in theoretical physics). I know that Duesberg claimed the missing virus prize but but I am skeptical.

  3. Dan Says:

    From what you’re telling us, it sounds like Mr. Gates is surrounded by people who are deeply invested with keeping the paradigm in place. People, who are in my estimation not concerned with altruism or compassion. At some point, we’ve got to quit being “nice”. We’ve got to put a halt to our own political correctness on this issue and state the obvious. The paradigm kills. The paradigm promoters-some through misguided ignorance, others through greed and status-seeking are killing people. Truthseeker, as far as developing a vaccine, might you share Dr. Bialy’s concern that they may claim “victory” sometime in the future, thereby pulling the wool over our eyes again, and literally getting away with murder?

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    As intimated in the post, Dan, we agree with Dr B (don’t we always?) if he is saying that the only way out is for Our Leader (in this case Anthony ‘Born in Brooklyn’ Fauci, the best dressed man in HIV∫AIDS) to declare victory in some form which makes everything right all along but renders HIV harmless, and we have no doubt at all that this will happen. The question is, how? One answer is pretty clear. A “successful” vaccine, which is easily done by simply choosing some variant of HIV, artificial or real, and declaring it harmless and a brilliant discovery which can be applied by giving it to the everyone in the world who can afford it, thus vaccinating everyone at great expense to render the entire world HIV positive, and recognizing HIV positivity in its new form, HIV antibodies with negligible virus, as the harmless condition it has been all along in the old form, HIV antibodies with negligible virus. Either that or admit that this is an example of the madness of crowds, and that even medical and scientific authorities who occupy high position and who are extremely poised and well dressed can be subject to this syndrome, or else it is a conscious evasion of review for personal and commercial profit, either of which is too incredible to contemplate, even in a world where bits and pieces are still falling off the shuttle ten years after the Challenger blew up.That is, until Gallo, Fauci, Baltimore and the rest of the scientific Mafia that rules HIV∫AIDS and prevents public discussion except on the Web of how the incredible science can be reconciled with reality, die. For as Max Planck once complained, the difficulty of overturning an entrenched paradigm may be great, but we can be sure that “science advances – funeral by funeral”.

  5. Michael Says:

    Somehow, someway, somewhere, there absolutely has got to be a way for one or some of us, to meet up with Buffett or the Gates, and get a discussion going with them. I am not talking about beating them, berating them, nor setting out to try changing their minds of pre-existing beliefs, just a discussion that presents that Duesberg and the many as yet unheard voices of dissent, have a high degree of plausibility, and that if they are truly interested in solving a problem, perhaps all reasonable viewpoints, especially those heretofore uninvestigated, should be investigated and with at least equal enthusiasm and funding as the currently held paradigm. I would believe that at least one of the three should most definitely be open to the discussion, and be able to gain enough support from at least one of the other two to accomplish this. I truly believe these guys are not complete fools, and I don’t think that any one of them has vested interest or need of keeping a false paradigm going, that I am aware of, although I could be wrong.

    People with money are well aware that there are always lots of people out to take it from them. They are generally very sceptical minded folks. They are just as aware that there are lots of rats attracted to getting whatever they can. I think Buffett would probably be the best candidate to get an audience with. And one of us has got to be able somehow to do this.

    I absolutely believe we can do this, instead of simply gripe about it. We are a fairly intelligent bunch of mensches, and when we set our minds to doing something, we accomplish some miracles. We have to absolutely believe in ourselves and believe in our goals. And we are going to have to be diplomatic about the situation when we do approach them. Attacking the mainstream and those who support it, has brought us no turncoats nor traitors to the HIV=AIDS paradigm in the past.

  6. Michael Says:

    Another good option might be for someone to contact Mbeki himself, to encourage him to seek correspondence with Buffett or the Gates. There is absolutely no reason they would turn HIM away. He could be our black saviour and saviour to all of his people, as they are more threatened in number, than the gay community. Anybody have a line on how to contact Mbeki? How about Rasnik? Mathias? Duesberg? Don’t we know anybody that could accomplish this key and fairly simple feat of contacting Mbeki?

    Hopefully we can get our minds off the problems long enough to look at some basic solutions?

  7. Michael Says:

    Or, we could just have another 25 year long gripefest and continue our anger management sessions. Doesn’t that sound like fun? This HIV biz has kept us all entertained for at least that long.

  8. Dan Says:

    Michael,

    I think you’re painting pictures with very broad strokes.

    I agree that we should be trying to find solutions. I engage in that activity every day and have brainstorming sessions with others that often end on very upbeat notes.

    I’m also realistic about what we’re up against. I get frustrated, and do vent that frustration.

    I’m glad that you’re brainstorming on this post. Just what Truthseeker was asking for. I’m interested in what can be done as well, although for the reasons Truthseeker has noted (the people who surround Gates on this issue), I think we may be butting our heads against a wall and need to look elsewhere for solutions.

    I wouldn’t count on Mbeki being able to help. I’ve been surprised at what a crackpot the media have portrayed him as. That’s a significant handicap to overcome before even being able to hopefully discuss the matter with the Gates’ or Buffett.

    I’m open to suggestions and brainstorming sessions, but they need to take into account the players involved and the politics.

  9. Michael David Says:

    TS,

    “….we agree with Dr B (don’t we always?) if he is saying that the only way out is for Our Leader (in this case Anthony ‘Born in Brooklyn’ Fauci, the best dressed man in HIV∫AIDS) to declare victory in some form which makes everything right all along but renders HIV harmless, and we have no doubt at all that this will happen. The question is, how? One answer is pretty clear. A “successful” vaccine,…”

    Simple q. Did you or did you not read this (in one of the numerous forms it has been on the web for well over one year)? Dan obviously did.

  10. Michael David Says:

    TS,

    Sorry for the inexact url. this is the direct link to the piece that has been hither and yon on the web for over a year and which Dan has obviously read.

  11. David Crowe Says:

    I like the new symbol joining “HIV” and “AIDS”. I read it as “HIV integrates AIDS”, which is certainly what the AID$ illuminati have been trying to do. For several years they have been reporting ‘cases’ of HIV/AIDS even though this is meaningless. But then so is reporting AIDS Deaths when it turns out that they’re “Deaths in AIDS Cases” (i.e. includes traffic accidents), that the numbers might be seriously incomplete, and that they might have been adjusted for delays in reporting (meaning that pretty much any number is compatible with the report).

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    Simple q. Did you or did you not read this

    Yes, but it is not the point we are making here. Expanding testing to find more of the million that are HIV positive in this country is not the same idea as whether there is a vaccine coming up to ensure that everyone is positive, is it? Of course they are trying to expand testing, just as any business tries to find its market. The vaccine as HIV itself is the interesting idea to discuss.

    I truly believe these guys are not complete fools, and I don’t think that any one of them has vested interest or need of keeping a false paradigm going, that I am aware of, although I could be wrong.

    Warren Buffett is going to be hard to get to if we cannot even spell his name :-). Yes, he is surrounded by a phalanx of people whose duty is to keep away all crackpots and other supplicants peddling causes he is not interested in, and he seems to endorse this filter as a general principle in handing over most of his money to Gates.

    Clearly the approach has to be more imaginative. One ideal solution might be to find an HIV positive being treated that he knows. Given the principle of degrees of separation, there must be one within reach of both us and him, even if not in his actual family. Trouble is if the candidate is intelligent he will be reading this blog, and if he is not, he won’t be any good anyway. If he is, he is hereby asked to get in touch.

    In our humble opinion, and not to get anybody’s knickers in a twist, it would be ideal to find someone who is in Warren’s family, who is not gay, who is a member of a respectable midtown club of some kind, who is in the investment world or government, who has nothing to do with the world of HIV∫AIDS apart from his positivity, and who is an American citizen from a mid-Western state of about 50 or 60, and married for thirty years and faithful to his wife and to his church. Female might be even better, preferably youngish and attractive, to bring out Warren’s avuncular side. Problem is the only one we know is editor of POZ magazine, and unlikely to be trainable.

    We shall make enquiries. But you can already see how hard this might be.

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    Sorry for the inexact url – this is the direct link

    Yes, we read it before, very good. However, we have to say the idea of HIV being a successful vaccine in its own right has been obvious from the very beginning, and the absurdity of a hunt for another vaccine has been pretty stark as a consequence.

    What your Positive Paranoia piece lacks, just like ours, is a public justification for the step we envisage, which is for the government to make everyone positive. They will always have to explain why the two positivities differ, the HIV leading to AIDS one, and the new one blocking HIV leading to AIDS. How will they do that? Just by glossing over it? This doesn’t seem possible.

    No, we believe that even the HIV∫AIDS bandwagon will have to just go on “developing” vaccines forever, rather than risk success exposing the inherent absurdity. And indeed, why should they? $750 million from Gates thus far and plenty more to come. Why, they only have 135 scientists involved. Why not 1000?

  14. SA Says:

    It seems to me that it might benefit everyone to look at the Gates Foundation’s Global Health Initiative, of which very little funding is devoted to an HIV Vaccine, and much more is slated for improved water purification systems and irrigation and farming in Africa and Asia (two things I think that Dr. Duesberg would approve of heartily). Things are not always so black and white as we would like to paint them.

  15. SA Says:

    Not to mention their major initiatives against Tuberculosis and Malaria. It seems to me that Michael’s and TS’s ideas about presenting the dissident case to the Gates Foundaiton is a much more productive plan than simply writing off the now most powerful philanthropic organization the world has ever known.

  16. Michael David Says:

    Are you absolutely certain you are not JP Moore, TS?

    In exact url it was becasue right here at it’s tippy top is the direct link to the previous Rockwell piece it refrred.

    I suppose the fact that it was on all three most popular categories for a day (over 6000 independent views, not to count email multiplications through the web), and that Dan read it without any problem at all doesn’t mean anything to you.

    Why should it Sr. Liverwort with perfect “attention”* and no “slap dash”, reactive internet addict?

    SA: You are a beacon of sanity and straight thinking.

    *the editor I now see paid a bit of retroactive “attention”. Well done Jeeves.

  17. Truthseeker Says:

    In exact url it was becasue right here at it’s tippy top is the direct lionk to the previous Rockwell piece it refrred.

    Slap dash? Point proved.

    SA, what is your point exactly? The Gates HIV∫AIDS spending is the point at issue. Who do you suggest should be contacted?

    Or perhaps the good doc, who counts you a beacon of straight thinking, can say? Or was that too a slap dash rating?

  18. SA Says:

    What I’m suggesting, TS, is that you find out a little bit about how the Gates Foundation operates before you rake it over the coals. They have “investment managers” rather than program officers for instance. If they don’t get a return on their “investment” they fund something different. The business model they bring into philanthropy guarantees that everything they fund has to help — if it doesn’t, they pull out. So I’d suggest that it is the vaccine researchers who are in very deep trouble now. If after 20 years thay have not been able to produce something that people feels helps, then their chances of doing so now are slim, and this little bit of money (in comparison to their enormous spending on the Global Health Initiative) will likely be lost when they fail again. Bill Gates isn’t an idiot and he’s no one’s fool. He didn’t get to this place without being smart and discerning. Why not give him and his Global Health Initiative a chance, or are you too jaded to believe that someone like Bill Gates, might, through his own investigations, see the problems hunting down a vaccine for “HIV.”

    And thanks Dr. D, no one has called me a beacon of sanity before.

  19. SA Says:

    The other important thing to consider, TS, is that Gates is very focused on Tuburculosis in and of itself — meaning to him, it is not simply an AIDS-defining condition, or may not be viewed that way as all. You must try to read between the lines just a little bit. And this forum may have someone on the inside at the Gates Foundation shortly — and that certainly would be helpful. More details forthcoming if and when it’s suitable.

  20. Truthseeker Says:

    What I’m suggesting, TS, is that you find out a little bit about how the Gates Foundation operates before you rake it over the coals. They have “investment managers” rather than program officers for instance. If they don’t get a return on their “investment” they fund something different. The business model they bring into philanthropy guarantees that everything they fund has to help — if it doesn’t, they pull out. So I’d suggest that it is the vaccine researchers who are in very deep trouble now. If after 20 years thay have not been able to produce something that people feels helps, then their chances of doing so now are slim,

    OK, SA, glad to have you aboard, since God knows sanity is in short supply in this world. But excuse a little skepticism about what you say. We do welcome your positive, constructive and analytical attitude, which is also in short supply these days, apart from all the distinguished commentators here, needless to say. We just hope it is not the optimism of political naivete, which has been the beginning square for so many idealists in science, ourselves included.

    Hmmm.. let’s see now. The Gates Foundation operates in a way that we shouldn’t rake over the coals until we find out the specifics. OK. But what are the specifics? That it has “investment managers” rather than program officers, and they judge by results? So we should think that the Ford Foundation doesn’t look to see what the effects of its grants are? And we are to think that “investment managers” are politically wise to the misinformation now ruling the world in this arena? That they would be alert enough to welcome credentialed input from anti-paradigm thinkers, who base what they say on the full mainstream literature, and whose heavily peer-reviewed contributions to that literature at the highest level is exemplary in quality, as intelligent enquirers can see for themselves if they read it?

    OK, sounds good, if this is the case we are happy to hear it. But so far according to the New York Times the Gates Foundation has disbursed $750 million in the other direction, including this week’s quarter billion, and employs as its top overseers in HIV∫AIDS at least three people who wouldn’t be caught dead even mentioning the paradigm challenge, except quietly one on one with no one else listening, and who are about as likely to countenance a serious examination of its complete rejection of all they have lived by for 26 years, as Bill Gates is to entertain notions that he should convert all PCs to OSX.

    Of course, being a large institution and humans being what they are it is entirely likely that more than one person in the Foundation might know better, and penetrate the wall of censorship erected by Anthony Fauci by going to the Web to read this explanatory blog from one end to the other, and then all the pro and con sites and pages listed bottom right, and get the message that science is not run by Declaration, and that HIV∫AIDS is unmoored from its own scientific literature, and half of that is unmoored from science, and that Thabo Mbeki may be the only thinking politican in the field, and that Peter Duesberg is a scientist on a higher plane than Robert “Wanna buy a virus?” Gallo and Anthony “Hero of AIDS” Fauci, and that Harvey Bialy is no fool, either, and nor is Celia Farber or the editors of Harpers, and that the absurdities of the paradigm are obvious to thousands of unbiased outsiders – but if they do, what will they do with it?

    Only if the “results’ flowing in are cause for alarm will they be empowered to even raise the topic. And have they yet? Almost certainly not, because the results are produced by the existing not very tamper proof machine, which consistently reports glowing results even as they contradict the scientific record. Anything bad is the result of HIV, anything good is the result of using the precribed medications, and the side effects and even deaths are ignored. This is an efficient machine for NOT reporting the bad results.

    Let us try to persuade you of that, SA, if nothing else. This is the big Enron of Science, with very sharp accounting practices, and it will only admit backruptucy when it implodes, which thanks to the NIAID and now the help of the Gates Foundation and the earnest and trusting Bill and Melinda – have you any evidence to the contrary? – will not be doing that any time soon.

    We support and assist all quiet investigations by individuals within the system in the Foundation or out of it, but the first thing we would say to them is, “you can deal with us in strictest confidence – and you should.” Anyone who contacts us through the email here (middle right) can be assured of that.

    What we really need, come to think of it, ideally, is someone’s son or daughter to insist that one of the top people – their father – pay attention. How old are the Gates children again? Even ten year olds might see through this modern version of the Emperor’s New Clothes, we like to think.

  21. Noreen Martin Says:

    We all are in agreement that we have to get the other side’s attention. We the People, the HIV+ and the AIDS, are the best weapon that we have! The problem is that we are spread all over the world and need to find a way to unite either in person or by some other means to get their attention! I am considering a calendar with such people on each month and their respective story or a book about how they maintain their health. If anyone out there is interested, please let me know. I plan to send a calendar to all our representatives in this country with a letter. Any suggestions?

  22. Truthseeker Says:

    We have the other side’s attention, Noreen, thanks to a lot of persevering people, including your own sterling efforts, not to mention Dr B’s clever needling of the mendacious. What we now need is for someone with money to step forward before the last of the ammunition is used. Surprisingly, in view of recent successes, this looks likely to happen on several fronts – that the ammunition will run out.

    Modern politics runs on money, or the message doesn’t get through. This is essentially how the NIAID censorship has prevailed for twenty years. The Web is making a difference, but still money is needed, even if the books are written and articles published. That is why the failure of Gates and Buffett is so important.

  23. Robert Houston Says:

    Thank you, Truthseeker, for your excellent article on the misappropriation of philanthropic billions down the same useless ratholes. As you pointed out, Bill Gates has shown with his first move that he’s just a foolish patsy for former government officials and is undeserving of Warren Buffett’s naive trust. The new $287 million for AIDS vaccine research rewards an NIH-promoted boondoggle that has produced nothing but abject failure in 20 years.That record of failure was predicted from the start by Prof. Peter Duesberg. In his 1987 paper in Cancer Research (47:1199-1220), he wrote: “It is concluded that AIDS virus is not sufficient to cause AIDS… Since nearly all virus carriers have antiviral immunity including neutralizing antibody (225-227), vaccination is not likely to benefit virus carriers with or without AIDS.” The nearly 20 years that have passed since those words were written have shown Duesberg’s prediction to be correct and Robert Gallo’s early prediction of an effective vaccine in two years to be completely fallacious.More recently, the distinguished virologist Abraham Karpas of Cambridge University pointed out, “The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected individuals remain well for years” (Biol. Rev. 79:911-933, 2004).For decades the HIV$AIDS establishment has tried to discount the efficacy of the body’s antibody response to HIV, falsely claiming that it was “non-neutralizing.” Yet studies since 1985 have shown repeatedly that the antibodies of HIV-positive patients are highly effective at neutralizing their own strains of virus (termed autologous virus). This is why it’s so difficult to find any active HIV in HIV antibody-positive individuals. A recent study confirms the effectiveness of the body’s own antibody response: “We report here that in most patients, potent neutralizing antibody responses are generated early after infection, at first to the autologous infecting HIV variant and then to subsequent variants” (D. Richman et al. Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection. Proc Nat Acad Sci 100:4144-49, 2003).So who needs an HIV vaccine? HIV-positive individuals are already naturally and effectively vaccinated against this harmless, irrelevant virus.

  24. HankBarnes Says:

    Buried in the Washington Post today:”In explaining why the foundation has not invested in delivering lifesaving antiretroviral drugs for AIDS, for example, Melinda Gates said that only governments have enough money to provide such costly treatments.”Hmmm. Somewhat interesting, no? 1. I love the fact that Gates is not investing in these hideous toxic drugs.2. I point out the stupidity of the journalist who attached the word “lifesaving” to said drugs for no good journalistic reason.3. I note that Madame Gates may be a bit more craftier than originally thought.Treating the AIDS-defining diseases (tuberculosis, pneumonia, diarrhea) would be a good thing.And, clean water and nutritious food to bolster the immune system would be much better than these ridiculous antivirals.My thoughts.HankBarnes

  25. Dan Says:

    I like your observations, Hank.Is Mrs. Gates crafty, intuitive, or just staying away from the “lifesaving” antiretroviral issue?

  26. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks Michael for the newsclip that shows Gates met with Mbeki recently. And thanks Hank for your find in the Washington Post, suggesting Melinda may be less enthusiastic about ARVs. Posting on this now.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 147 access attempts in the last 7 days.