I enjoyed an article regarding men hunting bears in the US which to me is a real horror. They treed the bear. One shot the bear which then fell on the other fellow. Killing him. Stupid stupid "sport". But at least the bear got something soft to land upon
It’s started… The USA is leaving the World Health Organisation. Not interested in all the work it’s done over the years to eradicate smallpox, polio, HIV, nah…. Boring!!!!! Bill and Melinda Gates - did they get invited to the inauguration I wonder?
Ah, now, actually I’m pleased about that. The WHO is an unelected organisation run largely by private money and vested interests, whilst allowing huge influence from China. It has recently tried to grab the power to mandate vaccine programmes and lockdowns across the globe. No organisation should have that power, IMV. Bill Gates has had a dinner with Trump. Like Zuckerberg, he sees how the land lies.
But it looks like, by leaving, the USA is going to give China even more of a foot in the door. According to the most recent figures, the Gates foundation is now number two in the world after Germany in terms of donations. To quote LBJ, (who probably falls foul of this forum’s regulations), would it not be better to stay in WHO than leave?
To my mind, if the WHO is not a wholly independent body, uninfluenced by big money and profiteering through medical interventions, then it is pretty worthless. As big money is its biggest influence, it is beyond saving. I’d disband it and start again.
If it wasn't for the WHO most 3rd. world vaccinations would not take place, so in my mind rather valuable.
If it wasn’t for the WHO, Bill Gates would not be profiting out of 3rd World vaccine programmes, and poor countries would be able to afford more food. Children may die of hunger, but, phew, at least they were vaccinated. As long as philanthrocapitalism is allowed to flourish, headed by Gates and his ilk, the poorest will pay a high price for what the richest deem they need. Vaccines are more profitable than food aid.
BUT, at the moment, the alternative isn’t there. No WHO, no vaccines. That is not something I find acceptable.
I'm not sure you can condemn all forms of philanthropy tho. If you take a philanthropist as someone who does something to benefit mankind, I'd say that many of us do that by a number of means ( giving money to worthy causes, volunteering, providing aid/offering help to those in need, etc. ) I had the impression that Bill Gates was an example of this when he first became obscenely wealthy. I do agree tho that once big business gets a hold, it's not so much benefitting mankind as enriching a few individuals. I think it's been known for a long time that some of the poorest countries do need endless "aid" because their leaders/govts are extremely corrupt and don't give a sh*t for their own people. How many world "leaders" can't afford to feed themselves, dress themselves, receive medical aid .........??? One item I heard recently referred to the increased rate at which the rich have become ever richer in the last couple of years. Not exactly encouraging for the rest of us.
Oh, Bill would find a way, @Nigel coad. Currently the WHO is simply his vehicle of choice. His foundation would likely step in. Vaccines yield $6 for every $1 invested, and, given population growth, the market is ever expanding. Talk up a few extra threats, making govs stockpile just in case, and, well, the sky is the limit. Excuse my cynicism. I have nothing against vaccines per se, but the sucking of resources out of society (via govs using tax-payer money) by billionaire investors is a particular issue where health and Big Pharma are concerned. Plus, in poorer countries, clean water and adequate nutrition would go a long way towards increasing population resistance to disease.
I do not condemn philanthropy, @Philippa, though I have huge issues with philanthrocapitalism, where the alleged philanthropy is actually a means to increase personal wealth. Plus, no one accumulates billions in the first place unless they exploit either human or natural resources (and often both). Pay proper wages, pay taxes without exploiting endless wheezes to avoid these, and you wouldn’t have billions to hand out. Plus philanthrocapitalism is a subversion of democracy. It allows an individual to decide what others need, rather than allowing elected govs to do this on behalf of citizens.
I'm not disagreeing as such @ViewAhead - exploitation in one form or another is rife thruout the world. Trouble is, elected govts often seem incapable of acting on behalf of their citizens and so there is always that gap for others to slip into and take advantage. Happens time and time again. Not just those in politics either - that Captain Tom fiasco - his family apparently siphoning off money from his charity ? People are so easily influenced by monetary gain even tho they have neither earned it, deserved it or need it. I've never understood the fantastic salaries/bonuses some people receive on an annual basis. What have they actually achieved ? What do they spend this money on ? You can surely only have so many estates, swimming pools, private jets, helicopters, yachts and so on. What the hell do you do with the rest of it ??? I don't pretend to know the answer, nor do I see any world leaders out there who are particularly interested in altering this state of affairs. Rant over ( for now anyway )
And Rachel Reeves is on her second trip to Davos right now, so we shouldn’t expect to see Labour policies attempting to rebalance wealth distribution any time soon.
Ah, Marina Hyde, guaranteed to make you laugh through the grimmest news So this is Trump’s ‘golden age’ – chaos, dysfunction and a coalition of creeps | Marina Hyde
