1020
Elon Musk is responsible for “killing the world’s poorest children,” says Bill Gates
(arstechnica.com)
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
1020 points (98.7% liked)
politics
23397 readers
3475 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Really? Show me where.
It claims that he bragged about doing so, and links to another article.
But that other article doesn't support that claim with any evidence that he pressured them to keep their patent, that he bragged about it, or had any say in the final decision.
The sentence after where it says that... You have ctrl f. Use it.
Not sure what "evidence" you want... Bill Gates said it was true himself and did multiple interviews talking about it which are not hard to find. Every article I can find online says the same story - that Oxford initially planned to open license the vaccine and then Gates pressured them to change course.
It doesn't quote him, though. It just links to an article. Of which I provided the only seemingly relevant quotes.
Does "we told them... you really need to team up." count as bragging?
That's the only relevant quote I can see, and it amounts to him getting them to partner with AstraZeneca. It's hard to tell if the chicken comes before the egg - does AstraZeneca insist on patents, or does he?
Was it the only way to get a massive pharmaceutical partner like AstraZeneca to agree to a deal with Oxford? Or was it something he personally wanted?
Either way would appear the same - if he was directly involved in the deal, he'd be obligated to publically support it, patent restrictions and all.
The article is intentionally disingenous, as well. It claims:
Even though as you can see from - again - the same article it linked to before:
Which is - admittedly, temporarily - low prices and an extraordinarily reduced opportunity for profit. Especially given how significantly vaccination rate fell over time.
And:
There's no such thing as a good billionaire, but there is such a thing as worse billionaires. It seems like Bill Gates spent $750 million to fund vaccine development - including 1.5 million that happened to go to pre-pandemic funding of the decade-old research that made the mRNA technology even possible - and over a billion dollars on support for the WHO.
It also seems like he encouraged Oxford to partner with a giant pharmaeceutical company. This lead to them deciding not to open-source their vaccine.
It is a terrible thing to do, but it is also tough to say if they could have ever managed the immediately required production without a giant pharmaceutical partner like AstraZeneca. The first months of mass vaccination were by far the most critical.
Compared to Musk? Who took medication that was already manufactured, already bought and paid for, already in warehouses and ships and planes ready to help impoverished communities?
Who bought an election and leveraged that to suddenly and illegally cut off international aid out of spite and greed, allowing drug-resistant TB to flourish?
Who has the most money out of fucking all of them and doesn't spend a dime for anyone but himself?
That's the worst billionaire.