Latest news with #globalHealth
Gizmodo
06-07-2025
- Health
- Gizmodo
Elon Musk Deflects Bill Gates' Foreign Aid Alarm With Personal Swipe
The tech world's most consequential feud has flared up again. Elon Musk and Bill Gates, two men who have shaped the modern world, are locked in a bitter public dispute, this time over foreign aid cuts with life or death stakes. The conflict pits Musk, in his role spearheading a government efficiency initiative, against Gates, the world's most prominent philanthropist. A little over a month after Musk's departure from his role in the Trump administration, where he led efforts to slash federal spending, Gates took to X, Musk's own social network, to condemn the devastating impact of those cuts on global health. Drawing on new reports, Gates presented a grim tally of the human cost. 'A study in the Lancet recently looked at the cumulative impact of reductions in American aid. It found that, by 2040, 8 million more children will die before their fifth birthday,' Gates posted on July 3, linking to the medical journal's study. He followed up by highlighting the threat to HIV treatment programs. 'According to a @UNAIDS analysis, ending PEPFAR-supported programs for people living with HIV could result in an additional 4.2 million deaths by 2029,' Gates stated, providing a link to the report. Driving the point home, he warned that pulling vaccine funding would have catastrophic results. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, has helped immunize over 1.1 billion children since 2000. 'The U.S. announced that, after this year, it's pulling out all its money,' Gates wrote. 'If that happens, Gavi estimates that 75 million children will miss vaccinations over the next five years—and of those, 1.2 million children will die.' His conclusion was blunt: 'The facts are simple and devastating: Aid cuts have already cost lives, and the number of deaths will continue to rise.' Gates argued for a reversal, noting that global health is a tiny fraction of the federal budget. 'In 2023, the US spent less than one percent of the federal budget on lifesaving global health programs.' While Gates never mentioned Musk by name, the world's richest man felt targeted and seized on another user's post to launch a counterattack. The user blasted Gates, writing, 'Bro, you are worth $117 billion. If you really think aid cuts are costing lives, feel free to make up the difference.' Musk's reply was a single, cutting word: 'Exactly.' He then added a personal jab, dismissing Gates's philanthropic motives. 'The real reason Gates is unhappy is that HIS organization isn't getting billions in US taxpayer money anymore.' Exactly. The real reason Gates is unhappy is that HIS organization isn't getting billions in US taxpayer money anymore. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 6, 2025As of July 5, Musk's net worth is estimated at $361 billion by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, while Gates's fortune sits at $124 billion. The animosity between Musk and Gates is not new. It stems from a deep grudge Musk holds over Gates for shorting Tesla stock. Think of short selling as betting on failure. A short seller borrows shares of a stock, immediately sells them, and waits for the price to crash. If it does, they buy the shares back at the new, lower price, return them to the lender, and pocket the difference. It's a high risk move that infuriates founders like Musk, who see it as a direct attack on their company. Shorting is not illegal, but it's one of the most aggressive moves you can make in the market. Musk has never forgotten Gates's bet against his electric car company and brings it up frequently. 'Gates placed a massive bet on Tesla dying when our company was at one of its weakest moments several years ago,' Musk posted in September 2023. 'Such a big short position also drives the stock down for everyday investors.' He then added, 'To the best of my knowledge, Gates still has that massive bet against Tesla on the table. Someone should ask him if he does.' Just so that the public understands: Taking out a short position against Tesla, as Gates did, results in the highest return only if a company goes bankrupt! Gates placed a massive bet on Tesla dying when our company was at one of its weakest moments several years ago. Such a… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 11, 2023While Gates has acknowledged placing a short position on Tesla in the past, he has never publicly confirmed if the position is still active, leaving the door open for Musk to continue fueling the feud.
Al Arabiya
01-07-2025
- Health
- Al Arabiya
More than 14 million people could die from US foreign aid cuts: Study
More than 14 million of the world's most vulnerable people — a third of them small children — could die because of the Trump administration's dismantling of US foreign aid, research projected on Tuesday. The study in the prestigious Lancet journal was published as world and business leaders gather for a UN conference in Spain this week hoping to bolster the reeling aid sector. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) had provided over 40 percent of global humanitarian funding until Donald Trump returned to the White House in January. Two weeks later, Trump's then–close adviser — and world's richest man — Elon Musk boasted of having put the agency 'through the woodchipper.' The funding cuts 'risk abruptly halting — and even reversing — two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations,' warned study co-author Davide Rasella, a researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal). 'For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict,' he said in a statement. Looking back over data from 133 nations, the international team of researchers estimated that USAID funding had prevented 91 million deaths in developing countries between 2001 and 2021. They also used modeling to project how funding being slashed by 83 percent — the figure announced by the US government earlier this year — could affect death rates. The cuts could lead to more than 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030, the projections found. That number included over 4.5 million children under the age of five — or around 700,000 child deaths a year. For comparison, around 10 million soldiers are estimated to have been killed during World War I. Programs supported by USAID were linked to a 15 percent decrease in deaths from all causes, the researchers found. For children under five, the drop in deaths was twice as steep at 32 percent. USAID funding was found to be particularly effective at staving off preventable deaths from disease. There were 65 percent fewer deaths from HIV/AIDS in countries receiving a high level of support compared to those with little or no USAID funding, the study found. Deaths from malaria and neglected tropical diseases were similarly cut in half. After USAID was gutted, several other major donors — including Germany, the UK, and France — followed suit in announcing plans to slash their foreign aid budgets. These aid reductions, particularly in the European Union, could lead to 'even more additional deaths in the coming years,' study co-author Caterina Monti of ISGlobal said. But the grim projections for deaths were based on the current amount of pledged aid, so could rapidly come down if the situation changes, the researchers emphasized. Dozens of world leaders are meeting in the Spanish city of Seville this week for the biggest aid conference in a decade. The US, however, will not attend. 'Now is the time to scale up, not scale back,' Rasella said. Before its funding was slashed, USAID represented 0.3 percent of all US federal spending. 'US citizens contribute about 17 cents per day to USAID, around $64 per year,' said study co-author James Macinko of the University of California, Los Angeles. 'I think most people would support continued USAID funding if they knew just how effective such a small contribution can be to saving millions of lives.'
Arab News
01-07-2025
- Health
- Arab News
Over 14 million people could die from US foreign aid cuts: study
PARIS: More than 14 million of the world's most vulnerable people, a third of them small children, could die because of the Trump administration's dismantling of US foreign aid, a study in the Lancet journal projected Tuesday. 'For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict,' study co-author Davide Rasella, a researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, said in a statement.
News.com.au
30-06-2025
- Health
- News.com.au
Over 14 million people could die from US foreign aid cuts: study
More than 14 million of the world's most vulnerable people, a third of them small children, could die because of the Trump administration's dismantling of US foreign aid, research projected on Tuesday. The study in the prestigious Lancet journal was published as world and business leaders gather for a UN conference in Spain this week hoping to bolster the reeling aid sector. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) had provided over 40 percent of global humanitarian funding until Donald Trump returned to the White House in January. Two weeks later, Trump's then-close advisor -- and world's richest man -- Elon Musk boasted of having put the agency "through the woodchipper". The funding cuts "risk abruptly halting -- and even reversing -- two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations," warned study co-author Davide Rasella, a researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal). "For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," he said in a statement. Looking back over data from 133 nations, the international team of researchers estimated that USAID funding had prevented 91 million deaths in developing countries between 2001 and 2021. They also used modelling to project how funding being slashed by 83 percent -- the figure announced by the US government earlier this year -- could affect death rates. The cuts could lead to more than 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030, the projections found. That number included over 4.5 million children under the age of five -- or around 700,000 child deaths a year. For comparison, around 10 million soldiers are estimated to have been killed during World War I. Programmes supported by USAID were linked to a 15-percent decrease in deaths from all causes, the researchers found. For children under five, the drop in deaths was twice as steep at 32 percent. USAID funding was found to be particularly effective at staving off preventable deaths from disease. There were 65 percent fewer deaths from HIV/AIDS in countries receiving a high level of support compared to those with little or no USAID funding, the study found. Deaths from malaria and neglected tropical diseases were similarly cut in half. - 'Time to scale up' - After USAID was gutted, several other major donors including Germany, the UK and France followed suit in announcing plans to slash their foreign aid budgets. These aid reductions, particularly in the European Union, could lead to "even more additional deaths in the coming years," study co-author Caterina Monti of ISGlobal said. But the grim projections for deaths were based on the current amount of pledged aid, so could rapidly come down if the situation changes, the researchers emphasised. Dozens of world leaders are meeting in the Spanish city of Seville this week for the biggest aid conference in a decade. The US, however, will not attend. "Now is the time to scale up, not scale back," Rasella said. Before its funding was slashed, USAID represented 0.3 percent of all US federal spending. "US citizens contribute about 17 cents per day to USAID, around $64 per year," said study co-author James Macinko of the University of California, Los Angeles.
Yahoo
29-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
A million kids won't live to kindergarten because of this disastrous decision
The deadliest country in the world for young children is South Sudan — the United Nations estimates that about 1 in 10 children born there won't make it to their fifth birthday. But just a hundred years ago, that was true right here in the United States: Every community buried about a tenth of their children before they entered kindergarten. That was itself a huge improvement over 1900, when fully 25 percent of children in America didn't make it to age 5. Today, even in the poorest parts of the world, every child has a better chance than a child born in the richest parts of the world had a century ago. How did we do it? Primarily through vaccines, which account for about 40 percent of the global drop in infant mortality over the last 50 years, representing 150 million lives saved. Once babies get extremely sick, it's incredibly hard to get adequate care for them anywhere in the world, but we've largely prevented them from getting sick in the first place. Vaccines eradicated smallpox and dramatically reduced infant deaths from measles, tuberculosis, whooping cough, and tetanus. And vaccines not only make babies likelier to survive infancy but also make them healthier for the rest of their lives. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., unfortunately, disagrees. President Donald Trump's secretary of health and human services (HHS), a noted vaccine skeptic who reportedly does not really believe the scientific consensus that disease is caused by germs, recently announced the US will pull out of Gavi, an international alliance of governments and private funders (mainly the Gates Foundation) that works to ensure lifesaving vaccinations reach every child worldwide. His grounds? He thinks Gavi doesn't worry enough about vaccine safety (he does not seem to acknowledge any safety concerns associated with the alternative — dying horribly from measles or tuberculosis). The Trump administration had already slashed its contribution to Gavi as part of its gutting of lifesaving international aid programs earlier this year, leaving any US contributions in significant doubt. But if Kennedy's latest decision holds, it now appears that the US will contribute nothing to this crucial program. The US is one of many funders of Gavi, historically contributing about 13 percent of its overall budget. In 2022, we pledged $2.53 billion for work through 2030, a contribution that Gavi estimates was expected to save about 1.2 million lives by enabling wider reach with vaccine campaigns. That's an incredibly cost-effective way to save lives and ensure more children grow into healthy adults, and it's a cost-effective way to reduce the spread of diseases that will also affect us here in the US. Diseases don't stay safely overseas when we allow them to spread overseas. Measles is highly contagious, and worldwide vaccination helps keep American children safe, too. Tuberculosis is becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, which makes it harder and more expensive to treat, and widespread vaccination (so that people don't catch it in the first place) is the best tool to ensure dangerous new strains don't develop. It is genuinely hard to describe how angry I am about the casual endangerment of more than a million people because Kennedy apparently thinks measles vaccines are more dangerous than measles is. The American people should be furious about it, too. If other funders aren't able to cover the difference, an enormous number of children will pointlessly die because the US secretary of health and human services happens to be wildly wrong about how diseases work. But the blame won't end with him. It will also fall on everyone else in the Trump administration, and on the senators who approved his appointment in the first place even when his wildly wrong views were widely known, for not caring enough about children dying to have objected. Kennedy, it's worth noting, is not even a long-standing Trump loyalist. He's a kook who hitched his wagon to the Trump train a few months before the election. He doesn't have a huge constituency; it wouldn't have taken all that much political courage for senators to ask for someone else to lead HHS. A lot of his decisions are likely to kill people — from his decision to ban safe, tested food dyes and instead encourage the use of food dyes some people are severely allergic to because they're 'natural' to his courtship of American anti-vaxxers and his steps to undermine accurate guidance on American child vaccination. Trump could still easily override Kennedy on Gavi, if Trump cared about mass death. But if it holds, pulling out of Gavi is likely to be Kennedy's deadliest decision — at least so far. He reportedly may not believe that AIDS is caused by HIV, either, and he can surpass the death toll of this week's decision if he decides to act on that conviction by gutting our AIDS programs in the US and globally. But whether or not the Gavi withdrawal is the deadliest, it certainly stands out for its sheer idiocy. (The Gates Foundation is going to heroic lengths to close the funding gap, and individual donors matter, too: You can donate to Gavi here.) None of this should have been allowed to happen. Since Kennedy's confirmation vote in the Senate passed by a narrow margin with Mitch McConnell as the sole Republican opposing the nomination, every single other Republican senator had the opportunity to prevent it from happening — if they were willing to get yelled at momentarily for demanding that our health secretary understand how diseases work. I am glad the United States does not have the child mortality rates of South Sudan. I'm glad that even South Sudan does not have the child mortality rates of our world in 1900. I'm glad the United States participated in the worldwide eradication of smallpox, and I was glad that we paid our share toward Gavi until the Trump administration slashed funding earlier this year. I'm even glad that mass death is so far in our past that it's possible for someone to be as deluded about disease as Kennedy is. But I am very, very sick of seeing the greatest achievements of our civilization, and the futures of a million children, be ripped to shreds by some of the worst people in politics — not because they have any alternative vision but because they do not understand what they are doing.
