This! In Argentina!!! Then maybe there IS hope yet…
An appropriate wealth tax for social equity / fair share. “To promote the general welfare” in the the preamble to the US constitution, as a fundamental purpose of the USA… astonishing how backward the USA actually has become… a broadly socially engineered de-development of ever-wider swaths of US society…
The article says they “hope to” generate $3.7B. Let’s see how effectively they are able to collect. They have to say this is a “unique and one-time” tax, still it sets precedent for next time an economic situation impacts as much as Covid-19. Which will be soon.
What could be more logical – than the ELECTRIC CAR … ???
The Covid Virus – like 75% of our viruses – is based in destruction of animal-habitat –
i.e., Capitalist exploitation which profits Elites/corporations.
EXPLOITATION by Capitalists of the entire planet – all of Nature – and even
other human beings oppressed and exploited by Capitalism hss created Global Warming –
Elite wars have created devastation and disease around the world –
Capitalism is based in doing evil – profits based in evil –
One of the easiest and first steps in combating POLLUTION – on which the virus travels –
is to ensure that every state in US begins to move on ELECTRIC CARS –
And why just throw away the gasoline-driven auto –
we must begin to RE-ENGINEER them to ELECTRIC –
**There should be signs everywhere right now – telling Americans and everyone else – **
that the world’s health is based in ending Capitalist exploitation –
and this is beyond this deadly virus – it includes the spread and escalation of cancers
now affecting 1 in every 3 Americans –
WHERE IS OUR OWN NEW ‘BIDEN’ GOVERNMENT MOVING TO PUT
THE ELECTRIC CAR ON OUR ROADS – ???
YES – in other words, since the Nixon “War on Cancer” they’ve done nothing but INCREASE
the rate of cancer in US.– though Yahoo doesn’t seem to want to make that clear – and does
that by using DEATH rate which they have reduced to some degree, evidently.
CDC - Expected New Cancer Cases and Deaths in 2020 (~https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/cancer_2020.htm)
Between 2010 and 2020, we expect the number of new cancer cases in the United States to go up about 24% in men to more than 1 million cases per year, and by **about 21% in women to more than 900,000 cases per year.**The kinds of cancer we expect to increase the most are— 1. Melanoma (the deadliest kind of skin cancer) in white men and women. 2. Prostate, kidney, liver, and bladder cancers in men. 3. Lung, breast, uterine, and thyroid cancers in women.Over the next decade, we expect cancer inciden…
See full list on cdc.gov
We are also seeing increases in cancers in young children –
Increase in childhood cancer
*Still, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) says there has been a significant increase in the overall rate of childhood cancers in recent decades – up 27% since 1975 in kids under age 19, according to data collected by the NCI’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
Childhood Cancer Rates Are Rising. Why?
THIS is just cancers – and yet …
We have a tremendous rate now of obesity among our population – gross obesity –
We have shockingly invasive treatments for clogged arteries – stents and angioplasty –
where simply eliminating animal/dairy eating – and increasing intake of fresh vegetables,
fresh fruits and greens – and use of Extra Virgin Olive Oil will unclog the arteries with
improvement fairly immediately.
Capitalism GAGS not only our health officials but common sense.
Immense increases in childhood Asthma, Allergies, Childhood arthritis, Juvenile Diabetes –
on and on –
The world has been turned upside down by Capitalism and its insanities –
This is interesting: Eugenics and Human Rights This history is not that far removed from today.
Thank you, but I got a bunch of ncbi articles –
and though I tried to quickly scan thru a few, it didn’t seem clear that I was
finding the Eugenics/Human Rights history you were pointing us to –
I’d always encourage anyone who posts a link that they feel is important to try to
give us some direction as to what’s interesting about it – a few of the details – and
a little easier trail to follow. If you do, I’ll try again to catch up –
Well it is a history of Eugenic vs Human Rights, it isn’t the account that most people understand as
say Nazi programs. It is far more wide spread (U.S. Canada, Britain, and Sweden and Latin America) than usually considered as well as the role it has played in public policy. Some of the institutions where it was practiced were closed as late as 2019. (not in the article but my information) I will try to fix the link.
It does shed some light on policy, poverty, and other issues. Racism is only a part of the issue.
I tried the link and it goes to google search, the top topic Eugenics and Human Rights
I don’t think anyone here can deal with a link to a search to a bunch of articles –
When you say, “it isn’t the account that most people understand as say Nazi program” –
you’re not explaining WHAT “account” it is about –
There are many interesting things happening with genetic searches – DNA –
when I come across it, I’ll stop to watch the genetic search by usually “prominent”
Americans – “Finding Your Roots” – Henry Louis Gates -
That gimmick I imagine draws in more people who then begin to understand the power
of the genetic search and how far back it can take us – to Africa – as the cradle of
humanity and a female – and more and more American families are using these DNA
searches to find our answers to their individual and family beginnings –
Criminal law and our prisons -- very reluctantly have now begun to acknowledge the
power of DNA search – in California they finally identified one of their most notorious
serial rapists/murderer. And that happened because a distant cousin had submitted DNA
to a gene search program which was at long last a way to trace the rapist as they had
AND, where they very well did acknowledge its power – they did everything to escape
using it – and one example is the immense numbers of cases of RAPES where there
is DNA evidence but where allegedly our States/cities have not had the funds to
run DNA tests – and so the rapists were left to roam free. Seemingly there are
warehouses of these cases with the DNA still existing.
Clearly, there is every attempt being made by Elites to suggest the poor are simply inferior
due to their DNA – easier to lock them up.
This also brings us to mental illnesses which seem to be increasing as STRESS
and pressures of joblessness build up – the virus, additionally –
The brain is the most fragile organ in the body – it is the first damaged –
However, I also think that too freely we have seen suggestions that this or that is
caused by DNA, when actually what the case seems to be is that SOMETHING has
done harm to DNA and not the other way around.
There was also a project going back 10-12 years ago in Boston to study genes/DNA –
and one of the outlying questions was whether we are hybrids – where hundreds of
thousands of years ago – and even currently – our DNA is being changed.
OK – if you can come up with a more specific article, I’ll be able to more quickly take a look
at it –
This is part of the article:
Origins of eugenics
Modern eugenics was rooted in the social darwinism of the late 19th century, with all its metaphors of fitness, competition, and rationalisations of inequality. Indeed, Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin and an accomplished scientist in his own right, coined the word eugenics. Galton promoted the ideal of improving the human race by getting rid of the “undesirables” and multiplying the “desirables.” Eugenics began to flourish after the rediscovery, in 1900, of Mendel’s theory that the biological make up of organisms is determined by certain factors, later identified with genes. The application of mendelism to human beings reinforced the idea that we are determined almost entirely by our “germ plasm.”
Eugenic doctrines were articulated by physicians, mental health professionals, and scientists—notably biologists who were pursuing the new discipline of genetics—and were widely popularised in books, lectures, and articles for the educated public of the day. Publications were bolstered by the research pouring out of institutes for the study of eugenics or “race biology.” These had been established in several countries, including Denmark, Sweden, Britain, and the United States. The experts raised the spectre of social degeneration, insisting that “feebleminded” people (the term then commonly applied to people believed to be mentally retarded) were responsible for a wide range of social problems and were proliferating at a rate that threatened social resources and stability. Feebleminded women were held to be driven by a heedless sexuality, the product of biologically grounded flaws in their moral character that led them to prostitution and producing illegitimate children. “Hereditarian” biology attributed poverty and criminality to bad genes rather than to flaws in the social corpus.
A drive for social improvement
Much of eugenics belonged to the wave of progressive social reform that swept through western Europe and North America during the early decades of the century. For progressives, eugenics was a branch of the drive for social improvement or perfection that many reformers of the day thought might be achieved through the deployment of science to good social ends. Eugenics, of course, also drew appreciable support from social conservatives, concerned to prevent the proliferation of lower income groups and save on the cost of caring for them. The progressives and the conservatives found common ground in attributing phenomena such as crime, slums, prostitution, and alcoholism primarily to biology and in believing that biology might be used to eliminate these discordances of modern, urban, industrial society.
Race was a minor subtext in Scandinavian and British eugenics, but it played a major part in the American and Canadian versions of the creed. North American eugenicists were particularly disturbed by the immigrants from eastern and southern Europe who had been flooding into their countries since the late 19th century. They considered these people not only racially different from but inferior to the Anglo-Saxon majority, partly because their representation among the criminals, prostitutes, slum dwellers, and feebleminded in many cities was disproportionately high. Anglo-American eugenicists fastened on British data indicating that half of each generation was produced by no more than a quarter of married people in the preceding generation, and that the prolific quarter was disproportionately located among the “dregs” of society. Eugenic reasoning in the United States had it that if deficiencies in immigrants were hereditary and eastern European immigrants out-reproduced natives of Anglo-Saxon stock, then inevitably the quality of the American population would decline.
Positive and negative eugenics
Eugenicists on both sides of the Atlantic argued for a two pronged programme that would increase the frequency of “socially good” genes in the population and decrease that of “bad genes.” One prong was positive eugenics, which meant manipulating human heredity or breeding, or both, to produce superior people; the other was negative eugenics, which meant improving the quality of the human race by eliminating or excluding biologically inferior people from the population.
In Britain between the wars, positive eugenic thinking led to proposals (unsuccessful ones) for family allowances that would be proportional to income. In the United States, it fostered “fitter family” competitions. These became a standard feature at a number of state fairs and were held in the “human stock” sections. At the 1924 Kansas Free Fair, winning families in the three categories—small, average, and large—were awarded a governor’s fitter family trophy. “Grade A” individuals received a medal that portrayed two diaphanously garbed parents, their arms outstretched toward their (presumably) eugenically meritorious infant. It is hard to know exactly what made these families and individuals stand out as fit, but the fact that all entrants had to take an IQ test and the Wasserman test for syphilis says something about the organisers’ views of necessary qualities.
Much more was urged for negative eugenics, notably the passage of eugenic sterilisation laws. By the late 1920s, sterilisation laws had been enacted in two dozen American states, largely in the middle Atlantic region, the Midwest, and California. By 1933, California had subjected more people to eugenic sterilisation than had all other states of the union combined. Similar measures were passed in Canada, in the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. Almost everywhere they were passed, however, the laws reached only as far as the inmates of state institutions for the mentally handicapped or mentally ill. People in private care or in the care of their families escaped them. Thus, the laws tended to discriminate against poorer people and minority groups. In California, for example, the sterilisation rates of blacks and foreign immigrants were twice as high as would be expected from their representation in the general population.
This is interesting because this intersects with individual rights and then opposition.
in 1900, of Mendel’s theory that the biological make up of organisms is determined by certain factors, later identified with genes. The application of mendelism to human beings reinforced the idea that we are determined almost entirely by our “germ plasm.”
Yes, a bird’s genes prevent it from going to buy a pizza –
and our genes prevent us from soaring into the skies – we have no wings.
And, now some are involved in trying to replace and/or remove genes – as a way to
get rid of “undesirables.”
Your second paragraph makes clear the need for “experts” and “Elites” at times to
disregard the failures of our governments/societies/elected officials – and the lack
of desire to actually respond to or aid other than the wealthy members of society …
and which would limit their profits. Perversion is often used by Elites to create actual
damage to our societies and harm to citizens … imo. Take a look at our SC right now.
Third paragraph ignores the reality that talent is arbitrary – not necessarily inherited –
and at times strikes wildly with Einstein’s and Tesla’s – which includes the theory that
we are hybrids still being re-engineered. Obviously, we are at times strengthened by
the diversity of our genes – and too often taken down by dishonest men running our
nations – governments – for their own financial profit.
Don’t know if YALE ever published their studies of students – maybe the results weren’t
as interesting as those at state fairs/“fitter families.”
If you take a look at New Yorker Mag – “It Runs in Families” – you see the power of the
brain and when under attack (destroying its chemical balances) that the reality of what its
eyes and ears and pain centers report can be distorted. And the longer that the imbalance
goes on, the worse the symptoms become. But – what our system of medicine does is
fail to look at the CAUSE of this chemical imbalance and harm to the brain – and doing
just enough research to be able to produce medications to improve the symptoms.
This is why we need MEDICARE4ALL – and this recent go around with Trump and the virus
also makes that clear where Trump’s interference with medical experts and their advice has
done such harm – to change the basis of our medical systems from ignoring causes and to
simply try to remove symptoms. We need to know CAUSE and that is also true of harm to
the brain. Also, right now we see that there are many parallels between Alzheimer’s and
Schizophrenia. We also see the tremendous damage to the brain in Autism, similarly.
I very much hope that posters and readers her are already familiar with what is presented in
that article – but not sure if they think the wider public may be that aware –
As for human rights - the most serious threats right now are those who refuse to use masks –
and rather than seeing it as a medical necessity they challenge it as a threat to their freedom.
One of the problems may simply be that the masks make it difficult to breathe – I had one
batch of them which I simply couldn’t use as I couldn’t breathe. Another batch was fine.
And now I’ve hit into a new batch which also presents problems again with breathing –
except that I found when I turned it upside down it was more bearable.
PS: Usually a night person, I’m finding right now that the approach to the Winter Solstice
is moving me into much earlier risings and earlier bed times — an interesting experience!!
Instead of trying to profit by undercutting what another State or nation sets
as normal labor rules and wages – we need our Governors to come together
for the good of labor/humanity and work together –
Of course, that’s always been obvious – but we are in dire straights right now –
and this must be done –
Very happily watched the resistance of some GOP Governors to the insane Trump –
Now they need to come together to bring Elites back under control – and the full
New Deal program is there to simply be re-established – including the original rules
governing Social Security … which did NOT include a SLUSH FUND to rob the program
and to make huge amounts of Social Security money available to Elites for their wars
and other corruption.
OUR STATES MUST BEGIN TO RE-INSTATE THOSE TAX RATES ON THE RICH –
AND WIPE OUT MONOPOLY WEALTH – AND MONOPOLY BUSINESS –
THEY OWE A HUGE DEBT TO THE PUBLIC FOR GLOBAL WARMING CREATED BY
CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION – BEYOND ESTIMATION – AND THEY MUST BEGIN TO
ENGAGE AT LEAST WITH FUNDING ACTIONS TO REPAIR THAT DAMAGE –
Interesting points. I can tell you much of this went on as well intended and like most things there is still more to it if you look. It connects a few more dots for me. And why when someone like Mitt Romney makes a statement about useless eaters to a group of supporters and remains in a position of authority it should be taken seriously.
I’m not sure why you think M4A would fix this? But I do disagree with that point.
This epidemic has brought into a lot of things into perspective. Yes, masks are an issue for sure. There are some new things coming out that might be more comfortable. No telling how long we will need to use them. I don’t have to use one all day or I would find that difficult. I have one I can wash, and others that are disposable. Hand sanitizer everywhere. Not sure if upside down is a good idea but still better than not wearing one.
I know what you mean, we are on lock down again and it does mess with the rhythm of things. I missed the lunar eclipse, I think last week. It is pretty cold here and makes for a good sleep.
I’m posting the rest of the article. It brings in the Supreme Court on this too.
Society before Individual rights: The sterilisation laws rode roughshod over private human rights, holding them subordinate to an allegedly greater public good. This reasoning figured explicitly in the US Supreme Court’s eight to one decision, in 1927, in the case of Buck versus Bell, which upheld Virginia’s eugenic sterilisation law. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority, averred: “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes… Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
In Alberta, the premier called sterilisation far more effective than segregation and, perhaps taking a leaf from Holmes’s book, insisted that “the argument of freedom or right of the individual can no longer hold good where the welfare of the state and society is concerned.”
Sterilisation rates climbed with the onset of the worldwide economic depression in 1929. In parts of Canada, in the deep south of the United States, and throughout Scandinavia, sterilisation acquired broad support. This was not primarily on eugenic grounds (though some hereditarian-minded mental health professionals continued to urge it for that purpose) but on economic ones. Sterilisation raised the prospect of reducing the cost of institutional care and of poor relief. Even geneticists who disparaged sterilisation as the remedy for degeneration held that sterilising mentally disabled people would yield a social benefit because it would prevent children being born to parents who could not care for them.
In Scandinavia, sterilisation was broadly endorsed by Social Democrats as part of the scientifically oriented planning of the new welfare state. Alva Myrdal spoke for her husband, Gunnar, and for numerous liberals like themselves when in 1941 she wrote, “In our day of highly accelerated social reforms the need for sterilization on social grounds gains new momentum. Generous social reforms may facilitate home-making and childbearing more than before among the groups of less desirable as well as more desirable parents. Such a trend demands some corresponding corrective.” such foundations among others, sterilisation programmes continued in several American states, in Alberta, and in Scandinavia well into the 1970s.
During the interwar years, however, eugenic doctrines were increasingly criticised on scientific grounds and for their class and racial bias. It was shown that many mental disabilities have nothing to do with genes; that those which do are not simple products of genetic make up; and that most human behaviours (including deviant ones) are shaped by environment at least as much as by biological heredity, if they are fashioned by genes at all. Science aside, eugenics became malodorous precisely because of its connection with Hitler’s regime, especially after the second world war, when its complicity in the Nazi death camps was revealed.
All along, many people on both sides of the Atlantic had ethical reservations about sterilisation and were squeamish about forcibly subjecting people to the knife. Attempts to authorise eugenic sterilisation in Britain had reached their high water mark in the debates over the Mental Deficiency Act in 1913. They failed not least because of powerful objections from civil libertarians insistent on defending individual human rights. More than a third of the American states declined to pass sterilisation laws, and so did the eastern provinces of Canada. Most of the American states which passed the laws declined to enforce them, and British Columbia’s law was enforced very little.
The opposition comprised coalitions that varied in composition. It came from mental health professionals who doubted the scientific underpinnings of eugenics and from civil libertarians, some of whom warned that compulsory sterilisation constituted “Hitlerisation.” Sterilisation was also vigorously resisted by Roman Catholics—partly because it was contrary to church doctrine and partly because many recent immigrants to the United States were Catholics and thus disproportionately placed in jeopardy of the knife. For many people before the second world war, individual human rights mattered far more than those sanctioned by the science, law, and perceived social needs of the era.
The revelations of the holocaust strengthened the moral objections to eugenics and sterilisation, and so did the increasing worldwide discussion of human rights, a foundation for which was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed in 1948. Since then, the movement for women’s rights and reproductive freedom has further transformed moral sensibilities about eugenics, so that we recoil at the majority’s ruling in Buck versus Bell. History at the least has taught us that concern for individual rights belongs at the heart of whatever stratagems we may devise for deploying our rapidly growing knowledge of human and medical genetics.
Last month a similar tax bill was tabled in Canada, where a wealth tax is supported by 76% of the population. It would have created a 1% tax on anyone worth more than $20 million. When put to a vote in parliament, it was defeated 27-292, with the biggest 3 parties all voting against it. I have no hope left, only rage.
Windfall tax laws have existed for decades to prevent excess profit (windfall).
They are to be assessed as ‘surcharges on the tax paid’ by oligarchs,
plutocrats and multinational companies raking in billions (trillions) in
excess profit during times of windfall opportunities such as pandemics
and even war.
In the intervening years a condition arose that voided the windfall tax
without being removed by congress. The tax was based on a surcharge
of the taxes paid. At the time it was expected taxes would actually be
paid if a company or individual made billions per year in profit…
I am sure readers of CD get the picture!
None of these proposals address the high probability of coming inflation. A tax on ‘millionaires’ ignores the problems caused to a retired couple living on Social Security in California, whose 2-bedroom home which cost $75,000 in 1980, now ‘valued’ at over a million who will be forced out of their home. That scenario will play out across America if inflation returns (which it eventually will) and everyone will be a 'millionaire'. I paid 30,000 for my home in1979 and now find it valued at 20-times that. If I sell, a comparable replacement (shock!) will cost just as much! Unless so-called wealth taxes consider the effects of inflation, they are simply disingenuous attempts to tax the middle class.
Sad to see Canadians have also lost control of their Parliament as we have our Congress. IMO there shouldn’t be billionaires anywhere in this world. I mostly blame this situation on the capitulation or outright sale of our media to the oligarchs. They (the media) have been selling this “anyone can be rich if you work hard enough” and “America is the greatest country in the world” crap for years now, it’s no wonder the majority of the population buy’s into it.
“America Is Not The Greatest Country In The World Anymore”
Sicke Solberg Platform
I don’t agree with the “Anymore” part, but it’s pretty reflective for coming our of Hollywood.
Whether Trump or Romney, given enough right wing propaganda people will
follow them – sadly –
What I said about MEDICARE4ALL was intended to push our medical systems
to look at cause – not just symptoms – which they do not do whether we are talking
about mental illness or cancer –
And further our system is based in “cures” not prevention –
I also think that MEDICARE4ALL – if more soundly based – would be more
effective in dealing with another Trump who was actually preventing health
experts from speaking directly to the public – and/or issuing instructions that
he didn’t approve it. All of which we’ve just seen.
This is a medical system that needs to be challenged on many fronts and in much
of its thinking.
Bodily integrity is covered by the Constitution, but like many of our rights can be
easily washed away. Despite how many times the NIH leadership has made clear
that outbreaks of measles has nothing whatsoever to do with those who are not
vaccinated, that myth continues to prevail each time there is a new outbreak.
IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM IMMUNITY BY VACCINATION, THEN YOU HAVE TO
NOT BLAME OTHERS WHEN THE IMMUNITY DOESN’T HOLD AND IS SHOWN
TO HAVE MANY SHORTCOMINGS AS VACCINES DO HAVE.
In regard to REPRODUCTION we see attacks on both sides – those who want to
prevent women from being allowed to make their own decisions re birth control and
RE STERILIZATION ….
WE HAVE JUST SEEN TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DOING SURGERY ON FEMALE
IMMIGRANTS – without any kind of informed consent and where obviously racism is involved –
At the same time we see the effort to force pregnancy on women here and internationally
by the Trump administration by denying them birth control and abortion for reasons of cheap labor and for reasons of increasing “white” populations.
And with the same kind of authoritarian effort, right now we see Trump Administration
trying to deny the VACCINE TO IRAN – !!
Most of this would be in violation of Nuremberg laws – and Trump continues to get
away with these insanities because power has for so long been with the the right wing –
We will not have sanity again, until power in the US returns to the left – liberals and
moderates. These acts do harm if not violence to others and should be effectively outlawed.
Vaccines, of course, would be another issue for challenge by a MEDICARE4ALL system,
let’s hope –
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has concerns about the Covid19 vaccine – dated about 6 months
ago. RFK, Jr. has challenged not all vaccination but on very strong basis has challenged
measles vaccine as causing Autism. For those who are not aware, please keep
in mind that his challenge was based in records and TEXT of recordings which came to members
of Congress via Freedom of Information and which were shared with RFK, Jr. and the basis of his
report: "Deadly Immunity."
These are new comments on Covid19 vaccine –
~truth11.com/2020/11/21/ robert - f - kennedy -jr-new…
Nov 21, 2020 · November 21, 2020 Robert F . Kennedy JrPrincipa Scientific I would like to draw your attention urgently to important issues related to the next Covid-19 vaccination . For the first time in the history of vaccination , the so-called last generation mRNA vaccines intervene directly in the genetic material of the patient and therefore alter the individual genetic…
This was a comment by Pfizer Chairman on Dateline report –
Pfizer chairman: We’re not sure if someone can transmit virus after vaccination
“I think this is something that needs to be examined. We are not certain about that right now with what we know,” Bourla responded.
THAT comment appears to refer to someone who was already carrying the virus –
not to shedding of the vaccine which could cause illness for someone else.
There are continuing challenges to the tests for the virus being used, as well –
And, imo, the testing period has been too short – a few years would suit me!!!
and I think RFK, Jr. raises that question and that there were no tests on animals –
Personally, my feeling is that I would not take a vaccine where Congress is still blocking
lawsuits against Big Pharma for their vaccines - Lift that blocking and I’d be more confident.
I think most people think M4A is some kind of cure for all the deficiencies in their healthcare, it is not. (That would be the AMA, NIH, or some of the professional organizations ) Unless it is improved a great deal, it really removes patient decision making and funds healthcare like it would a war. We are kind of in the middle of that process with PPP’s that Alex Azar chokes on when testifying to Congress.
It isn’t all bad.
I guess we have to decide what is most important for ourselves, learn to do a good risk/benefit analysis. For me, no one puts a needle in my arm unless they give me full information on what it is and why they want to do it. Because they are very bad at providing this information, I tell them in advance that I want to be a part of the decision. (except in an emergency) For vaccines, they still ask which is a good thing.
Reproduction has been so hijacked, I see it as one issue. There are 9 million people living in slums without adequate essentials for anything more than survival. So our societies and cultures have some
self evaluation to do.
I like RFK Jr. I read several very good articles and I’ve been double checking some of that information, which always brings up a lot of stuff. He has a good point. The take away for me is that these are “gain of function” vaccines that have emergency authorization for first time use on human beings. That alone should require people to look up a few things before deciding.
Unfortunately, the organizations you mention have been politicized – long time ago.
Same for the CDC and other agencies handling our vaccines.
Certainly as we look at the health care provided by other nations we see great improvement
over our own health care – so why wouldn’t that we true if we organized an MEDICARE4ALL
system here? Why would we do it well – it’s not like we’re inventing the wheel.
Actually, a MEDICARE4ALL SYSTEM based in PREVENTION would be educating patients –
not depriving them of decision making – BUT ADDING TO THEIR ABILITY TO DECIDE
WITH THEIR DOCTORS ON THEIR OWN CARE – AND TAKING CARE OF THEMSELVES.
We also don’t need any more “WARS” on anything – most of all in regard to health care –
We’ve seen how the “War on Cancer” has been used as a profit center – and where it has
actually EXPANDED CANCER EVEN FOR CHILDREN NOW …
Where we used to have towns and city communities filled with florists and theaters and
bookstores, we now have communities loaded with doctors and medical buildings – and banks.
That’s how much NEW ILLNESSES AND DISEASE has been created over the last decades
in the US.
Oh – they’ll give you the info on what’s in the vaccines – try to figure it out without help of
health organizations – believe it’s available right now. And likely a lot of TOXIC ingredients –
As I’ve said, JFK, Jr. is calling this vaccine “genetic engineering” …
Also looks like Pfizer’s drug is too fragile to be put out to the public and too fast – not
enough testing – and no testing on animals. Just the factor where it needs to be stored
under such frigid conditions suggests how fragile it is – and how much can go wrong.
We have similar feelings on vaccines – and RFK, Jr. made a great deal of sense in
“Deadly Immunity” which includes the TEXT of the records of the meeting which were
released to Congress under FOIA – quite hair raising. Obviously, one more scientist
who tried to be honest about the connection of the vaccine to Autism was bought off.
Was just watching a news program for a few minutes on MSNBC … and the female host
exclaims … I don’t understand this where we have this wonderful news of a new vaccine
being released and we aren’t celebrating! WHAT … this is an adult woman, a TV anchor
and it doesn’t occur to her that government needs watching? Even when she should be
so familiar with the harm and drive for profits that Big Pharma has been involved with???
By the way, for anyone interested RFK, Jr.'s “Deadly Immunity” I am quite sure is available
on the internet –
If not, you’ll find his book at the library which includes all of the records of the meeting –
a meeting which concerned … been a while since I’ve thought of the names … a scientist’s
experience making clear his study connected the measles vaccine to Autism.
The article could have pointed out that the US has imposed such taxes before. In both WWI and WWII the US imposed an “excess profits tax” on those who profited from the war. Well, we’re fighting a war against Covid-19 with a couple hundred thousand civilian casualties and thousands of troops (our essential workers). A company like Amazon is cleaning up at the expense of small retailers across the country, and Bezos has gained, what, 50 billion dollars. The fact that our “representatives” can’t raise such a tax under these conditions should help to open our eyes to exactly who they really represent.