https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373372/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373372/ I think trying to point to something "solved" is no

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373372/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373372/ I think trying to point to something "solved" is not the right approach. The goal of the foundation is to solve through research. While it's impossible to say that his funding of these goals will actually solve them, because the solution may come on a different grant from another source but where a scientist learned something from one of the scientists on a gates funded project. I feel that's a reasonable situation where complexity makes it impossible to directly attribute a solution to Mr. Gate. Instead I'd look at the social impact of someone in the 0.1% looking to the poorest in the world with empathy (whether genuine or not) and how that's changed how we look at philanthropy. Malaria is a bitch. It's one of the worst things about going to many countries out there and Dengue is even worse in many cases. While survivable as an adult, it is no joke, and the idea that solving this should be something we focus on even though people (for practical purposes) can't get malaria in the USA is awesome. Anecdotal evidence inbound => As someone who has prepared for an extended stay in South America, this was 100% the worst thing to focus on. I got Salmonella in Haiti and shit man that was rough. I can't even imagine Malaria. Anyway, back to the point. The fact that he's focusing on this is the important thing. Investigating results of his 50bn dollars would require it's own research with a ton of nuance and assumptions.