A few months ago, when the big announcement was made about the Warren Buffet billions going to Gates Foundation, there was a article posted somewhere that critiqued a predominantly "high-tech" approach to public health problems. The text pointed out that the significant improvements in general health in the early part of the 20th C were for many years attributed to various "miracle drugs", notably vaccines and antibiotics. Subsequently, it was determined that this "great leap forward" had in fact more to do with improved sanitation, hygiene, nutrition, and other "low-tech" factors. The gist of the piece, IIRC, was that capital-intensive, high-tech medicine was not necessarily the best way to tackle pressing public health problems, but it suits, for obvious reasons, the mindset of a person like Gates.
In the heat of the moment, I think Ravi have overstated the case by saying the one has nothing to do with the other, but I think the point he was getting at is a valid one.
--
Colin Brace
Amsterdam