Many people, when discussing Gates recently contracting an STD and asking Epstein for antibiotics, often subconsciously think: since he's the richest person, just spend money to settle it, right? For example, a few years ago, there were rumors about Bill Gates, and some said, if he really needed to use sensitive medication, wouldn't he need to go to a hospital in person and worry about leaks? This kind of thinking actually oversimplifies modern society. First of all, having money is important, but in modern countries, individuals rarely have a complete "retinue" like ancient aristocrats. What we rely on today is a highly specialized, institutionalized service system. Hospitals are essentially service industries. American doctors do have strict confidentiality obligations, but the issue isn't just on the doctor. Certain antibiotics, from diagnosis, prescription, dispensing, to record-keeping, often involve many steps and independent staff. For a highly public figure, achieving "completely unnoticed" is inherently very difficult. What's more complicated is that Gates' situation often involves violations of medication regulations (I highly suspect it’s Gonorrhea treatment). This makes it more complex. While individual doctors can uphold professional ethics, colluding with others to do something illegal and then expecting all involved to remain silent long-term and unconditionally is itself a highly difficult task. Once illegal operations are involved, the risks multiply exponentially. Some might say, just buy a hospital outright. In reality, it’s not that simple. The key isn’t "who owns it," but whether the people involved are independent modern individuals. In modern countries, most people are legally independent persons. Their confidentiality obligations mainly come from institutional and professional ethics, not personal dependencies. You can't simply threaten someone with "if you tell, I’ll kill you"—such logic doesn’t work in modern society. Because of this, even the wealthy in modern society, who can spend freely, tend to deliberately narrow the circle of "trusted insiders" involved in their private lives. Having hundreds of servants taking care of every aspect of life may seem reasonable in movies, but in reality, it sharply increases risks. This logic can be seen in many celebrity scandals. When Schwarzenegger’s private life was exposed, many first reactions were disbelief: so rich, so powerful, why was his partner his own nanny? But from another perspective, the more someone needs confidentiality, the smaller their circle of trusted contacts. There simply aren’t many people who can have long-term contact without attracting external attention. From this perspective, money doesn’t automatically solve everything. The way modern society operates means that privacy, confidentiality, and risk management are all high-cost, highly constrained "technical tasks." Understanding this, many seemingly "incomprehensible" things actually aren’t that strange.