Are they nuts?

[Mike J]

56 minutes ago, Explorer said:

What is wrong with "if Gates owns stock . . " ? It just a general statment meaning that anybody who owned pharma stock made money off the vaccines, I never said Gates made money, I think you are confusing me with someone else...

Your "if" statement then went on to claim that 10 individuals became new billionaires selling covid vaccine.

It is true you did not claim Gate made billions off of covid vaccine, that was Shady. 

I can help you and @Shady out if you like.  Turns out the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation does own stock in some of the major pharma companies.   AND I will post the source.  Give you guys some "real ammo".  See how that works? 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1021577629748680000

Spoiler

 

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has purchased shares in nine big pharmaceutical companies valued at nearly $205 million -- an investment likely to attract attention more for its symbolism than its size.

The foundation, the nation's largest with an endowment of $24.2 billion from Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates and his wife, already is a major force in international health issues, contributing $555 million in 2000 alone to global health programs. The organization has emerged as a prominent voice in the debate over how to supply cheaper drugs for AIDS and other diseases to poor countries. At times, it has assumed the role of a broker between poor nations and drug companies.

Now, as an investor in Merck & Co., Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson and others, the Gates foundation has a financial interest in common with makers of AIDS drugs, diagnostic tools, vaccines and other drugs. The stock purchases are a new type of investment for the foundation: In the past it held primarily bonds and other nonequity investments.

Joe Cerrell, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Gates foundation, says the stock investments, reported this week in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, are independent of the foundation's programs. The stocks were chosen by Michael Larson, a money manager who has considerable discretion in selecting investments for the foundation and for Mr. Gates personally, through an entity called Cascade Investment LLC. Mr. Larson, through a spokesman, declined to comment about the rationale.

The foundation's investments in "Big Pharma" could spur controversy, given Mr. Gates' staunch support of strict intellectual-property protections for drugs in poor countries. Mr. Gates' stance on intellectual property is as important to Microsoft's software business as it is to drugmakers.

"The impression people have, because of the types of projects Gates has funded and because of his Microsoft background, is that he has an ax to grind on the intellectual-property front," says James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, who works with African officials to obtain low-cost drugs.

Poor countries have sometimes threatened to seize patents in order to produce affordable generic drugs for sick citizens, making the field of intellectual-property law a flash point between pharmaceutical companies and poor countries. At a meeting in Africa last year, Mr. Love says he was struck by fears of officials from Botswana and elsewhere that pressing for access to generic drugs could jeopardize their chances for contributions. "They thought it would alienate the Gates foundation and they thought that was a problem," Mr. Love says.

A report issued last year by the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, chaired by economist Jeffrey Sachs, made a strong defense of intellectual-property protection as critical to continued investment in drug research and development. The Gates foundation was a major sponsor of the commission.

Other people involved with the issue say medical progress in poor countries depends on incentives for drug makers, and the Gates foundation is balancing the tradeoffs responsibly. "For every major killer of the poor, we need better drugs, better diagnostics and better vaccines," says Richard Feachem, director of the Institute for Global Health at the University of California, San Francisco. "That means massive investments in research and development. Much of that has to come from Big Pharma and biotech companies."

The foundation's Mr. Cerrell dismisses as "speculative" the suggestion of conflict between financing drugs and investing in stocks. He adds that pharmaceutical makers "play an important part in meeting our goals of providing equity and access and lifesaving vaccines and other advances in medicine to those who need it most."

Managing the foundation's multiplying ties with the drug industry could get tricky. For example, through its funding for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, the foundation pays for purchases of vaccines from some of the same pharmaceutical makers in which it now owns shares.

A Gates foundation representative sits on the 18-member board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which is expected to become a major buyer of drugs to fight those diseases. The foundation has pledged $100 million to the fund, which has so far collected $2.2 billion.

UC's Mr. Feachem, recently appointed to head the Geneva-based fund, argues that its massive buying power could create a strong "pull factor" spurring drug makers to develop inexpensive products. "For the industry, that would lead to the development of a high-volume, low-margin market, which could be a win for them as well," he says.

Mr. Gates has forged other ties with the industry. Last year, Microsoft named Raymond Gilmartin, chief executive of Merck, to its board. Mr. Gates worked with Mr. Gilmartin to launch the vaccine fund and also helped Merck with a program to supply discounted AIDS drugs in Botswana, where one in three people is infected with HIV.

The foundation's stock holdings include just two other stocks: Cox Communications Inc. and Waste Management Inc. The spokesman for Mr. Larson, the money manager, confirms that the drug investments represent a significant increase in the foundation's equity holdings, though they represent less than 1% of its total portfolio.

 

 

 

[Explorer]

4 minutes ago, Mike J said:

Your "if" statement then went on to claim that 10 individuals became new billionaires selling covid vaccine.

Here you go... CNN reporting... I have nothing against making money, actually while I am no Bill Gates I made ton of money investing in Moderna and other Biotech companies during the last year so I am the last one who is going to complain...

"Covid-19 vaccines have created at least nine new billionaires after shares in companies producing the shots soared.

Topping the list of new billionaires are Moderna (MRNA) CEO Stéphane Bancel and Ugur Sahin, the CEO of BioNTech (BNTX), which has produced a vaccine with Pfizer (PFE). Both CEOs are now worth around $4 billion, according to an analysis by the People's Vaccine Alliance, a campaign group that includes Oxfam, UNAIDS, Global Justice Now and Amnesty International.

Senior executives from China's CanSino Biologics and early investors in Moderna have also become billionaires on paper as shares skyrocketed, partly in expectation of profits earned from Covid vaccines, which also bode well for the companies' future prospects. The analysis was compiled using data from the Forbes Rich List."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/business/covid-vaccine-billionaires/index.html

Spoiler

 

Topping the list of new billionaires are Moderna (MRNA) CEO Stéphane Bancel and Ugur Sahin, the CEO of BioNTech (BNTX), which has produced a vaccine with Pfizer (PFE). Both CEOs are now worth around $4 billion, according to an analysis by the People's Vaccine Alliance, a campaign group that includes Oxfam, UNAIDS, Global Justice Now and Amnesty International.

Senior executives from China's CanSino Biologics and early investors in Moderna have also become billionaires on paper as shares skyrocketed, partly in expectation of profits earned from Covid vaccines, which also bode well for the companies' future prospects. The analysis was compiled using data from the Forbes Rich List.

 

 

[OnMyWay]

5 hours ago, robert k said:

With all the false positives, deaths not cases is the true metric.

Even so, we all know that in some countries, like the Philippines, Covid death counts are exaggerated due to financial incentives.

Edited June 8, 2021 by OnMyWay

[OnMyWay]

3 hours ago, Mike J said:

The headline says that covid "created 10 new billionaires".  Then is gives a current net worth which I am sure is an estimate.  But the main problem is that there is no source document to say where their wealth came from or how much, if any, their individual wealth may have increased based on covid vaccine.  

For me statements like these without source data are opinions at best, conspiracy theories at worst.

I'm not sure why you take issue with the billionaires comment.  There have been a lot of stories about this.

While personal net worth is an estimate, the value of stocks they hold, in the companies they run, is public information, required by the SEC in the U.S.  No conspiracy theories needed.  If foreign companies shares are traded in the U.S., same rules.  Not sure how it works for companies not traded in the U.S., but for most it would be similar.

Forbes has an article about 40 new billionaires who got rich fighting Covid.

Shortly after the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, markets collapsed and economies around the world plunged into recession. At the same time, hundreds of billionaires fell from the ranks of Forbes’ World’s Billionaires list, capturing a snapshot of the pandemic’s impact on the fortunes of the world’s wealthiest people.

One year later, things couldn’t be more different: a record 493 new billionaires joined the list this year, propelled by a red-hot stock market and unprecedented economic stimulus. Among those newcomers are at least 40 new entrants who draw their fortunes from companies involved in fighting Covid-19. Some, such as Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and BioNTech cofounder Uğur Şahin, have become household names thanks to the vaccines they helped develop. Others got rich making everything from personal protective equipment and diagnostic tests to antibody treatments and software that helps authorities schedule vaccination campaigns, which will be essential in reopening economies and returning to normal life.

The richest of these new billionaires is Li Jianquan, the president of Chinese medical products manufacturer Winner Medical, which ramped up production of masks and medical overalls to supply frontline workers across the globe. Winner Medical’s IPO on the Shenzhen stock exchange in September 2020 instantly made Jianquan, 64, a billionaire several times over thanks to his 68% stake in the company, worth $6.8 billion.

Some vaccine companies have been so successful that their rise over the last year has minted several new billionaires from the same company, including four apiece from Moderna and Tianjin-based CanSino Biologics, which saw its one-shot vaccine approved by Chinese regulators in February. And it’s not just the vaccine discoverers: companies that mass produce the vaccines and contract research firms that help firms run clinical trials have both reaped the rewards, creating new fortunes for people like Juan López-Belmonte López of Spanish pharma outfit Rovi and Karin Sartorius-Herbst and Ulrike Baro of German biopharma firm Sartorius AG.

Here are the 40 newcomers with ties to companies battling the Covid-19 pandemic; net worths are as of March 5, 2021.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-the-40-new-billionaires-who-got-rich-fighting-covid-19/?sh=771792b217e5

[Mike J]

18 minutes ago, OnMyWay said:

Even so, we all know that in some countries, like the Philippines, death counts are exaggerated due to financial incentives.

And some are reduced due to political reasons.  Many China has vastly under reported both cases and deaths.

[Mike J]

1 minute ago, OnMyWay said:

I'm not sure why you take issue with the billionaires comment. 

My issue is the posting of such statements without a source.  And I do sincerely thank you for providing a source in accordance with forum rules.   

[hk blues]

2 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

Even so, we all know that in some countries, like the Philippines, death counts are exaggerated due to financial incentives.

 

2 hours ago, Mike J said:

And some are reduced due to political reasons.  Many China has vastly under reported both cases and deaths.

Wait guys, are we saying people who died didn't, and people who didn't did?  

It will probably all balance out in total anyway.  

[OnMyWay]

23 minutes ago, hk blues said:

 

Wait guys, are we saying people who died didn't, and people who didn't did?  

It will probably all balance out in total anyway.  

Fixed my post!  

Even so, we all know that in some countries, like the Philippines, Covid death counts are exaggerated due to financial incentives.

In China's case, many including me think they just outright lie about the numbers.  They have the largest population and only 91 k cases.

 

[hk blues]

59 minutes ago, OnMyWay said:

Fixed my post!  

Even so, we all know that in some countries, like the Philippines, Covid death counts are exaggerated due to financial incentives.

In China's case, many including me think they just outright lie about the numbers.  They have the largest population and only 91 k cases.

 

My post was in jest, up to a point. 

That said, it's perhaps unreasonable to say China must be lying as they have the biggest population yet the smallest number of cases - we know Covid works in mysterious ways.  I think you're probably right though.  

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 minute ago, hk blues said:

it's perhaps unreasonable to say China must be lying as they have the biggest population yet the smallest number of cases

Throw the Chinese in the water.  If they float then they are lying.  If they drown then they are telling the truth.  Or just burn them in case they have done wrong.