Zuckerberg: can my $3bn clear the world of diseases
Discussion
el stovey said:
SystemParanoia said:
WTF[snip]
This deserves its own thread.
( the hypersonic shockwaves may be a little destructive to anything it passes over though
)Edited by SystemParanoia on Thursday 22 September 09:57
Jonesy23 said:
Getting lucky with a web site and having a wedge of cash doesn't make you a great thinker. Though Zuck is hardly unique in this.
His covered over mic and webcam while working on his own network, which is looked after by his own network & security staff, is telling in this 
el stovey said:
SystemParanoia said:
WTF
This deserves its own thread.
The difference between Musk and Gates and Zuckerberg is that Musk has managed to keep away from too much female influence.
Landlord said:
Given a single pharma company's profits (GSK) for a single year equate to more than triple his pledge for the whole decade, I'd suggest that it's an optimistic aim.
Good on them for trying though. Can't do any harm.
You could argue that the last thing pharma companies is want is an end to disease.Good on them for trying though. Can't do any harm.
steveT350C said:
Microsoft aiming to crack cancer code using artificial intelligence.....
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/20/microsoft-wants-...
They can't even fix their own software, so I'm not holding out much hope that they'll cure cancer.https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/20/microsoft-wants-...
FredClogs said:
The difference between Musk and Gates and Zuckerberg is that Musk has managed to keep away from too much female influence.
I think Elon Musk got all of his female influence out of the way in one go, and it only cost him about £5m:http://www.moviereviewworld.com/movie-review/eiff-...
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/culture/film/eif...
http://www.cine-vue.com/2015/06/edinburgh-2015-sco...
http://www.theskinny.co.uk/festivals/edinburgh-fes...
http://www.tvbomb.co.uk/review/scottish-mussel/
It's one of the worst set of reviews I've seen, and it's still not been released. This must be what caused the second divorce.
It could work for one disease, but not all illness:
Take Polio:
"....In 2007, the Gates Foundation gave The Rotary Foundation a $100 million challenge grant for polio eradication, and in 2009, increased it to $355 million. Rotary agreed to raise $200 million in matching funds by 30 June 2012, but Rotarians in fact raised $228.7 million toward the challenge. Rotary’s advocacy efforts have played a role in decisions by donor governments to contribute more than $7.2 billion to the effort..."
So possibly $8bn spent. And that was **just** vaccination. Not Researech. But it worked:
Today, there are only two countries that have never stopped transmission of the wild poliovirus: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Less than 75 polio cases were confirmed worldwide in 2015, which is a reduction of more than 99.9 percent since the 1980s, when the world saw about 1,000 cases per day.
Take Polio:
"....In 2007, the Gates Foundation gave The Rotary Foundation a $100 million challenge grant for polio eradication, and in 2009, increased it to $355 million. Rotary agreed to raise $200 million in matching funds by 30 June 2012, but Rotarians in fact raised $228.7 million toward the challenge. Rotary’s advocacy efforts have played a role in decisions by donor governments to contribute more than $7.2 billion to the effort..."
So possibly $8bn spent. And that was **just** vaccination. Not Researech. But it worked:
Today, there are only two countries that have never stopped transmission of the wild poliovirus: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Less than 75 polio cases were confirmed worldwide in 2015, which is a reduction of more than 99.9 percent since the 1980s, when the world saw about 1,000 cases per day.
williamp said:
It could work for one disease, but not all illness:
Take Polio:
"....In 2007, the Gates Foundation gave The Rotary Foundation a $100 million challenge grant for polio eradication, and in 2009, increased it to $355 million. Rotary agreed to raise $200 million in matching funds by 30 June 2012, but Rotarians in fact raised $228.7 million toward the challenge. Rotary’s advocacy efforts have played a role in decisions by donor governments to contribute more than $7.2 billion to the effort..."
So possibly $8bn spent. And that was **just** vaccination. Not Researech. But it worked:
Today, there are only two countries that have never stopped transmission of the wild poliovirus: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Less than 75 polio cases were confirmed worldwide in 2015, which is a reduction of more than 99.9 percent since the 1980s, when the world saw about 1,000 cases per day.
It was already 98/99% eradicated by 2007. The final hurdle to most things is politics, not money, anyway.Take Polio:
"....In 2007, the Gates Foundation gave The Rotary Foundation a $100 million challenge grant for polio eradication, and in 2009, increased it to $355 million. Rotary agreed to raise $200 million in matching funds by 30 June 2012, but Rotarians in fact raised $228.7 million toward the challenge. Rotary’s advocacy efforts have played a role in decisions by donor governments to contribute more than $7.2 billion to the effort..."
So possibly $8bn spent. And that was **just** vaccination. Not Researech. But it worked:
Today, there are only two countries that have never stopped transmission of the wild poliovirus: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Less than 75 polio cases were confirmed worldwide in 2015, which is a reduction of more than 99.9 percent since the 1980s, when the world saw about 1,000 cases per day.
Given most people's reaction you'd think he just curled one out on your coffee table!
Firstly three billion is a significant sum spent exclusively on early research. It is around what the UK spends annually on scientific research.
Big pharma will spend more on R&D but the majority of that is spent on the D end with trials being particularly expensive.
Assuming this is remotely successful it will stimulate government and private finding in much greater volumes.
Secondly "cure all disease" is just a target to simulate visionary research. Similar to Sweden's vision zero (no road deaths by 2020, set in 1997), they could have estimated how much they could reduce road accidents based on historical progress.
However no road deaths by 2020 is just the right side of impossible to capture the imagination. They won't reach it but by 2030 I expect Sweden will probably have negligible road deaths.
Firstly three billion is a significant sum spent exclusively on early research. It is around what the UK spends annually on scientific research.
Big pharma will spend more on R&D but the majority of that is spent on the D end with trials being particularly expensive.
Assuming this is remotely successful it will stimulate government and private finding in much greater volumes.
Secondly "cure all disease" is just a target to simulate visionary research. Similar to Sweden's vision zero (no road deaths by 2020, set in 1997), they could have estimated how much they could reduce road accidents based on historical progress.
However no road deaths by 2020 is just the right side of impossible to capture the imagination. They won't reach it but by 2030 I expect Sweden will probably have negligible road deaths.
FredClogs said:
Why on earth would you want to do that? As if creating face book wasn't bad enough now he wants everyone to live forever?
Get it up ya.
Not read it, but surely he doesn't want everyone to live forever?Get it up ya.
Becoming disease free for a lifetime doesn't prevent you dying ...eventually. Does it?
JagLover said:
Landlord said:
Given a single pharma company's profits (GSK) for a single year equate to more than triple his pledge for the whole decade, I'd suggest that it's an optimistic aim.
Good on them for trying though. Can't do any harm.
Drug companies research spending is heavily focused on where they achieve a return on their investment. Which is the rich world and more specifically the USA.Good on them for trying though. Can't do any harm.
$3 billion is actually a significant sum of money if targeted at diseases that afflict developing companies.
Its also about 3% of the NHS budget for one year.
If we could cure all deseases for that sort of pocket change then we would have.
JagLover said:
Landlord said:
Given a single pharma company's profits (GSK) for a single year equate to more than triple his pledge for the whole decade, I'd suggest that it's an optimistic aim.
Good on them for trying though. Can't do any harm.
Drug companies research spending is heavily focused on where they achieve a return on their investment. Which is the rich world and more specifically the USA.Good on them for trying though. Can't do any harm.
$3 billion is actually a significant sum of money if targeted at diseases that afflict developing companies.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff