Look, I was
expecting that by now global health’s “All Stars” would be rolling over each
other to give their respective views on the Epstein fallout for Bill Gates and
his foundation. After all, usually they spend half the day “WHOsplaining”
whenever trouble hits that organization,
so you’d think they would reserve this sort of intellectual effort also for Gates
& his foundation “in time of need” : )
But no, so
far, it’s been rather quiet on the ‘High-Level’ front. Maybe too busy ‘re-imagining
global health’?
Others
(like Katri
Bertram, Jocalyn Clark
and most recently Tim Schwab) have discussed
some of the (global) health implications of the Epstein files in recent days,
with Schwab going furthest, “The
Epstein files should end Bill Gates's philanthropic career”. In his post, he
rightly distinguishes between the personal involvement of Bill and the (possible?)
institutional link of the Gates Foundation with Epstein.
I
personally wouldn’t go as far as Schwab, though. For now, I still give Gates
the benefit of the doubt, even if no doubt his former wife knows a thing or two
about some of the ‘muck’ around Bill in this case. But as the global health community is usually
so fond of ‘audits’ and ‘High-Level Commissions’, why on earth does the Gates Foundation Board (or other global health big shots) not advocate for an
independent investigation, zooming in on both aspects? Temporarily, Gates sh/could step down.
If he’s cleared by such an investigation, he can come back. If not, then Schwab will be proven right. But an independent investigation seems more than warranted in the current circumstances. I bet quite some Gates staff will agree. And either way, i agree with Schwab that the "entire field of elite philantropy is long due for a major overhaul".
So Suzman
et al: what takes you so long?
It’s what
they call a ‘no-brainer’ :)
