I think I am missing the relevance here, or not getting your point, could you clarify please? Possible I'm missing the obvious reference.

As a side note, I find that articles arguments troubling for several reasons that appear to be glossed over, but in interest of not derailing onto a different comment, I'll wait for what aspect you are specifically referring to in this case.

I think he meant that when Japan gave that loan, they took a significant risk (loan could very well default) in order to help fight polio. Other countries did nothing. Yet now Japan looks like the bad guy.

Japan did something to stop polio when no one else would. And now because a billionaire did more as charity Japan looks like a monster for doing what no one else would at the time.

Would it have been better if Japan had done nothing and Bill gates committed the charity now? No, people would have died. So unless you are japanese my question to you would be what has your government done for polio irradication in Nigeria? Because I bet it's less than the Japanese government.

From that perspective, I can see what he meant. Fair enough.

The ethics of profiting off the act might need to be truncated off it though, that is a genuine moral discussion that has so many shades of grey I feel.