
A list of donations that Bill Gates has made - stevenj
http://www.youhavetocit.com/2012/04/bill-gates-had-donated-over-36854000000.html
======
phaus
I'm really confused right now. Over half of that money 18.5 billion, was
donated to the "male circumcision consortium" so they can circumcise people in
Africa. Is that really such an important issue that it became the recipient of
one of the largest donations in the history of the world?

I'm certain that I must be missing something.

~~~
ari_elle
I am also astonished by that number, but circumcision certainly seems to be an
important way of fighting HIV.

 _"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of
heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."_ [1]

 _"Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows a decreased
risk of between 38 percent and 66 percent over two years"_ [2]

But Circumcision Rates in Africa are relatively high anyways, due to the
population's religious background.[3]

Quote of New York Times Article: [4]

 _"Among those are 14 studies that provide what the experts characterize as
“fair” evidence that circumcision in adulthood protects men from H.I.V.
transmission from a female partner, cutting infection rates by 40 to 60
percent. Three of the studies were large randomized controlled trials of the
kind considered the gold standard in medicine, but they were carried out in
Africa, where H.I.V. — the virus the causes AIDS — is spread primarily among
heterosexuals._ "

 _"Other studies have linked male circumcision to lower rates of infection
with human papillomavirus and herpes simplex Type 2._ "

 _" The procedure has long been recognized to lower urinary tract infections
early in life and reduce the incidence of penile cancer._ "

So i guess it just all adds up in a way.

That being said, the number of over 18 billion Dollars (according to the
article) being spent on this issue still astonishes me...

[1] <http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/>

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Sexually_transmit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Sexually_transmitted_diseases)

[3]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Global_M...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country_Level.png)

[4] [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-
circu...](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-
outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html)

~~~
dimitar
Is there a chance this is a case of correlation studies reported as causation
by the media?

I find it unconvincing that it might protect against HIV. Personal incredulity
and the endorsing of the WHO aside, how does that work?

~~~
rhplus
The general theory is that circumcision causes a change in the membrane and
"microbiomes" around that part of the penis.

I still struggle, however, to believe that a truly controlled study could ever
be conducted and I wonder if the money wouldn't be better spent just providing
condoms and sexual education to these at risk groups. We already know that
condoms are very, very good a reducing HIV transmission rates, plus they work
for both partners (circumcision studies only show reduced transmission _to_
men _from_ women), and also consistent use can reduce the risk of cervical
cancers, HPV and unwanted pregnancies. In a way, studies and campaigns that
focus on circumcision are unethical if they don't also provide access to this
highly effective device.

But going back to the studies, the problem I have understanding them is that
there is, as far as I'm aware, no way to perform a placebo circumcision. Any
adult who has a circumcision is surely likely alter his behavior or perhaps
take greater notice of the sexual education he received alongside the
circumcision. Or, perhaps he may have the superhero effect, thinking he can
have more unprotected sex? That's the part that makes it hard for me to
believe that studies are controlled. And for those studies that look only at
populations that perform infant circumcisions, it seems even more likely that
differences in cultural, religious or social norms of each population would
have just as much influence as the operation.

If anyone has details on how these studies control for confounding factors
like that, I'd be interested to hear.

~~~
muuh-gnu
> how these studies control for confounding factors like that

The answer is: they simply do not at all.

[1] <http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf>

[2] <http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html>

------
maxharris
What about a list of things Bill Gates did to build Microsoft, and the
positive results of those achievements? It's a huge list, and it's the one
that people should use to assess him morally.

For example, there is huge value in standardization: having one platform that
most people use at a given time saves a ton of porting effort. Same with the
backward compatibility: I know several people that still get a lot of value
from DOS applications. And look at the price of software over the last 30
years, adjusted for inflation. Microsoft helped bring those prices down and
make these technologies more available to people.

------
polskibus
I have to veto that site's side scrolljacking. I can't view the main table
properly on my htc desire, scrolling right switches me to a different article!

------
zgohr
This means some major vaccine has been developed, and some major life
threatening illness cured, right? Am I right?

~~~
JoshuaDavid
That would be a qualified yes. As an example, the Gates Foundation has given a
bit over a billion dollars to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Malaria, and
Tuberculosis. Those three diseases are among the biggest causes of
(relatively) easily preventable deaths. In terms of vaccines, research is
being done to develop a vaccine for malaria (which causes about 1% of global
deaths), but vaccination may not prove to be the most effective means of
eradicating the disease. Things like antimalarial drugs and mosquito netting
may be more cost-effective, and so malaria rates have dropped dramatically
despite there not being a vaccine. There is a vaccine for Tuberculosis, but
it's definitely not cost-effective. AIDS is no longer a death sentence, though
no vaccine exists. So in terms of Malaria and AIDS, the foundation has been
reasonably successful (tuberculosis is proving to be a rather more difficult
problem).

So the Gates Foundation has contributed to improvements in health, though
again, the contribution is fairly limited (as one would expect when talking
about a fund with only $30 billion, which is a huge amount of money for an
individual but pretty much insignificant on a global scale).

~~~
InclinedPlane
Correction: no FDA approved HIV vaccine exists, yet. However, HIV vaccines do
exist and are in, or will soon be in, clinical trials. That doesn't
necessarily mean that they will be proven to be safe and effective, but it's
not unreasonable to imagine that one of the vaccines in the pipeline will
prove to be.

------
ExpiredLink
No donations to the victims of Microsoft Windows™?

------
Randgalt
What's more important is that he produced that much money. You can't give away
what you haven't produced.

~~~
PavlovsCat
How does one "produce" or "make" money? I was always under the impression it
basically just gets shifted around.. yeah, you first have to attract a lot of
mass before you can repel it again, but that ain't making mass.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Here's a radical idea: instead of passive-aggressively determing this does
"not add to the discussion" you might simply _try_ to answer the question.
After all, people (surely on here) say making money this and making money that
all day long; and while needed, pointing out how dumb that is will not ever be
"on-topic", so I attached the (trick) question to a comment that is sure to
remain at the bottom of the discussion. If it rubs you the wrong way it's
probably for a reason; good luck with that. I didn't imply Bill Gates never
produced any value, any such crap is solely in your head as well.

~~~
civilian
Creating wealth is not a zero-sum game. So your phrase: "I was always under
the impression it basically just gets shifted around" is wrong.

Basic economics, man.

The extension of this is that if you've accumulated great wealth (through the
market, rather than through dictatorship or government) then you have also
generated great wealth for your business customers or clients. But that wealth
will be more spread out.

~~~
PavlovsCat
_Creating wealth is not a zero-sum game._

That's great; "making money" however is, seeing how there is a fixed amount in
circulation.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
Every bank loan is new money in, at minimum, the form of an interest charge
(but more often on some or all of the principal too). The principal+interest
paid to the bank is more than the principal alone, even in the simplest case.
In either case, however, the bank has "made" money (but not wealth or value)
and devalued (inflated) the paper currency in circulation. (You, however, are
expected to make value with the capacity to transact that has been loaned to
you). In the case of almost everyone else however, I agree: people are largely
competing for the pre-existing numbers. But banks get to make them up, and
that function is independent of the printing of currency. The actual currency
is just printed as needed to facilitate trade, satisfying debts, and hopefully
the creation of wealth; hopefully the wealth created is enough to counter the
wealth removed, because otherwise there's lots of vacuums running around
sucking up value. Oddly, most modern countries accumulate interest-bearing
public debt (inflation _and_ interest), employing banks as lenders, instead of
just printing the money (currency) to spend on worthwhile projects and to
remove from circulation when they're done.

------
gcb0
irony list:

\- most of his donations are for universities. and when you go any university
lab all they have is Macs.

\- 15 Bi to his own foundation. (August 24, 1999, January 29, 2010)

~~~
mcintyre1994
I'm sure if you check out the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation [1][2], you'll
be satisfied that 15 billion counts as money well spent. It's not a fund for
him to spend on himself.

[1] <http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx> [2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation)

------
stox
Since 1997. Prior to that Bill donated zip, zero, nada to charitable causes. I
suspect that Melinda is the driving force behind this.

~~~
jliptzin
I suspect Bill is the type of person to focus intensely on one thing at a
time. Prior to 1997 his focus was Microsoft. After that, he rode its success
into his next endeavor, which is charity.

