that's why i'm going to ask you, why do you think you'll videos of that popular, what's wrong with the so called mainstream media coverage that they're not getting it from public service broadcasters or so why do they need to watch a expert in public health in nursing and so on to really understand what it means to their lives. i must say that's been a bit of a mystery to me. i shall i actually started making videos way back in the early ninety's on the h s. tapes. and we used to send them to various places on the world. then we went on to on to d, v d 's and used to send those around them. we de materialized online and youtube. and it's just like pay taken off after the omicron are not going to go after the company thing started it just the numbers great, greatly increase for some strange reason. i really don't know why it is. i think mainstream media awesome. what constrained in what they can say, i'm constrained as well. i have to qualify a lot of things, but i think the key thing is i try and give the evidence for everything. so obviously i end up with a few opinions of mine, but i try as far as possible to go back to the experts to go back to the papers and

just try and make it as evidence based as i can. so it's just my best interpretation of the evidence that's around that day. really. you don't think it's original acts as well. usually we have patrick, valence. we have a aux bridge. private school educated people in the mail and they, you huh. you're using all sorts of data from internationally, peer reviewed papers and so on and giving us and allowing the audience to figure it out to an extent what degrees of probability they should give to decisions they make about their own lives. yeah, i don't know how much oxygen is going to do with i think you need to be fairly clear but, but yeah, it's, i think, i think the mainstream media in my view actually underestimate the intelligence of the viewing public. it's not that people are intelligent as, as mainstream media often might seem to almost indicate it's just that they don't have particular expertise. nivi, we're starting to chat to way in, you know, about your area of might be lost of minutes. it's just a, you know,

if you can communicate, put in the low to concepts, put in the evidence, then people get it and people put $2.00 and $2.00 together. and then when the understand why some things important, much more likely to go with it. you know, you've got to carry people along with you, rather than just say, no, it's very much do do do as i do as i do not do, as i say. and these are my thought processes. these are what i'm pretty sure about . this is what i'm uncertain about this. i've no idea about being completely honest and up front about that. you know, when i don't know, i'll say, i don't know, i'm waiting for mo, data, we're waiting for more data. i think just trying to be as honest and open as possible with the people that are watching is, is the main thing. and of course you have more time on mainstream media. mainstream media is very sound bite. you know, you get like 30 seconds trunk and you know, to, to me there's a lot more new ones to a lot of this kind of stuff in a lot more qualification. so that you true media is great because you can take that amount of time if people stay and watch the channel that longer watch that video.

watch the video for that period of time. ok, again, i don't have any specials, but there's less new ones. lesson you into about 2 particular things i'll get on to the food supplement in the 2nd of august, particularly, and specifically, and in a sense what you just said there could be used as a reason of why there is a degree of vaccine hesitancy. people don't believe they're being trusted by journalists. obviously. just explain. i know what you often do in many of the videos and you have such experience. you've often the british government, your service is about training about vaccination, on your phone, your videos. do you believe it? so cool that you've access maybe spreading misinformation based on some studies that show hot problems because of vaccines because it's something that people are doing when giving the vaccinations. i know britain has got the military out now to nations and what that is. yeah, absolutely. so with the d, no virus vector vaccines, we noticed that people were getting this blood clock problem. the oxford is any

come back seen, for example, in the anson johnson and johnson back say. and they were getting blood clots in veins and then a condition called combo site to pania, whether there was a lack of platelets, a lack of coating in the blood, combined with crossing in the wrong places. and then after some of them may be, i'm not in a vaccine the pfizer in the mcdonough, for example. people know just there was some cases of ha inflammation. maya i was just going to say, i'm thank you for that is incredibly bad. we are talking about a very, very small number of cases, but the question is, what is causing this? now, there's quite a lot of research now that shows that this could be caused by giving these vaccines into a blood vessel instead of them giving them into the muscle. now that the vaccine is supposed to go into the dell toys muscle that now why would i have was when i was 18 years old on the account to get injections. and we've been teaching student this is this for the last 40 on years. and what you do is this is quite a bigger than the actual needle, but that you stick that into the muscle and you can do that fairly quickly. that's pretty painless. now, about 15 years ago,

the world health organization said didn't. you don't need to write the injections. now what we always did was we started it. now there's a possibility to the very tip of the needle that could just through pure bad luck end up in a good esl because of course in living muscle, you're going to have some blood vessels. so what we're always taught to do is just draw that back just a little bit. and then it was blood in there. if you action a book vessel, you'll get blood coming out then you know not to inject it. use a check to make sure you're not giving inadvertent inter vascular administration, but the world health organization for pediatric injections about 15 years ago. say, well, we don't need to do that. now, that's probably true for the vaccines that we're giving to children. but then this advice seems to be taken from the world health organization which was advice for vaccination children. and that seems to have been extrapolated into vaccinating adults, which are different. and of course, with a new viral with a new sauce providers to vaccines. they have a different type of vaccine. so they're either they a dino vibe,

respect to vaccine, which of these virus size particles in all the m r n 8 vaccines also have virus sized particles in them. so they are micro particular vaccines. and if these particles get into the bloodstream, like this, i understand this science then that the body is going to recognize that as being viable particles, amounts and inflammatory reaction as if that viable particles and not could be what's causing the inflammation. so all we need to do is tell people to inject, draw back before they screw up today, and then inject you want to say they're in the muscle. now this is fe happening very red, and she's probably only one in several 1000 injections. and this is happening, but it's a variable that it would be so easy to eliminate. so for example, the denmark is denmark is doing already. i already got the vaccination, central london, they wouldn't do that. i mean, what happens if there is blood? when you pull back, you'd have to throw the thing away and have a new injection back. well, well, i'm courtney winnie. that's right. bit. but now again,

you have less pages of every car that i just, unless cases of, from both just on both side to pena. in my view, and you would massively enhance the vaccine program. technically what you should do if you do hit blog, then you should take it out and basically took it away and get a new one. what you might do in a more challenge situation, if you got blood, you could just like withdraw the need a little bit and still and still injected because it's only the person's own blood, you know, actually going to be doing the job. so it depends. it depends, if you're really short to vaccines, you might do that, but most policies would say you check it out and get and you know, all money the money is getting in the wrong place. money is a big factor is as we know, and from the beginning your videos, your videos have often had a soft toy on the window sill and yeah, and a bottle or a jar label, vitamin d at no point. i mean, i have anecdotal evidence of any just consultants telling me the vitamin d is given in those bills. no point have i seen a government minister, a one of the top chief scientific medical offices talk about victim indeed. which

is compared to the profits of big pharma with a $1000.00 a 2nd at the moment. no one make much money of it. why? why have you got a jar, vitamin d on your window? so yeah, it's mindy is essentially free. so normally we don't advise victim in supplement spent. there's actually 2 exceptions to that. the 1st one is victim indeed because we make that human day from the sunshine. and if you look out my window, now, you wouldn't see a great deal of sunshine in the north of england. we don't get enough sunshine for at least 6 months of the year, probably nearly 8 months of the year because we're actually too far north. we just don't get enough sunshine to make them. it's mindy from our skin, and of course, human beings. we were originally in the middle east and in africa we had dark kind of skin, but lots of sunshine. so again, it's dark color skinned. people move further north, that's the reason we became white because we could make victim indeed more quickly . so it's so important if you think about it. the reason that people have white glove, why kind of skin is purely so they can make more of a to mon date,

and yet we're not getting the sense i was short of this fits and now it's actually more of a co hormone really it's turned into a hormone in the body and this victim in davis, f, as in all of the immune sadness in virtually good, probably, and virtually all the 1000, the body that the victim indeed needed to facilitate certain particular reactions. and for me, 6 months of the year in the u. k, we not getting enough of it. now the government actually does recommend that pale skinned people in the u. k. take vitamin d supplements in when it's a all through winter. it actually recommends the darkest skin people in the u. k. take the committee supplements all the year round. but the dos day recommending in my view is just way too small. so he went out in the sub and you take, you know, you're out in your shirt shorts and you know, in a nice sunny day, you're probably going to make about 20000 units of it's been day. whereas the government is recommending taking $400.00 units a day, the dose is a very, very small. so would just not getting this fits. and then the other one that people

can be short of is which to me k to because that comes from grasfer. mentation is, you don't have any needs to be taken with the k. well, i mean people who watch your videos about it when you talk about this, but i mean the, you know, as you say this, i find i was on going underground today. i going to get on to on the ground. and most disturbingly, i mean, usually very calm. i mean, as you say, billions are going to be infected by our mac. run list. alarmingly, you quoted tim spec to saying p c r tests have a failure rate of 60 percent factor because you said there are any 30 to 40 percent effective. adobe a joe is saying a accuracy of existing molecular tests to be as uncompromised by a group. people are being told to take test, left, right, and center with the need to travel with a need to go to jobs with. and, and this is to do with this as gene drop out. i don't want to do much jargon with on the chrome. yeah, that's right, so the p c r test are phenomenally sensitive. if there's any viral fragments there

of sauce promote a virus to the p c r test. we'll pick that up. so it is still 100 percent working. but what happened was that the, the p c r test is testing the 3 genes. and the s t that the p c r test for is not present in the army con variance. so if you've got the, if you got the delta vary your test policy for the 3 gigs. if you, if you're positive for the, for the on the con, there you know, the test positive, the 2 genes. so this s gene dropout is being used as a proxy for, for the army con variance. now as well as that, of course we are doing full genome testing for the on the con there. and so we know that this is collaborated. but what tim specter is saying is not same as any problem with the test than in practically is not the p. c. r tests are exquisitely sensitive. many people would say far too sensitive, they're giving false positives or showing positivity for a long time after someone's got got better. but what he's saying is that various

brands or manufacturers of the p, c r t s on picking up the the only con variant that that's what he said lateral flow, very quickly add in the lateral flow will only show positivity if you have a fairly high viral load it will not tell you whether it's delta or it will not tell you whether it's on the conduct oxygen campbell, thank you. just after the break. neither socialism nor capitalism cutting the mustard. we explore what a new economy for a better world would look like with the co creator of participatory economics. all of them all coming up in about 2 of going on the ground a. she and i didn't battery video don't. michelle kraus, of pretty much with can sure to coordinate a way to blow your skin boehme, e a

v g like you to form a . but what i want to talk to somebody yesterday, i wasn't sure we could waste figured out those. they might not spanish video yet along with i have often said transparency for the powerful receipt for the bell. this is about privacy or people care about is power. junior massages become a symbol of the battle for privacy. information is power. that's what's going on in the world issue, struggle with governments. corporations to want to keep information secret

and others who think democratic rights should be pushed forward. and people have a right to know what they're going to watch. how assange helped shift the conversation around transparency. come see what that battle has done to him. i feel like julie's life might be coming to. we are in a conflict situation with the largest, most powerful employer. in such a situation, it's remarkable to survive. is that it and you think you all know what they did in a valuable mapping by mid one i own i hate up my lap. and diana, that i man thought was not going to love an integral blackman mala,

but he didn't thought, no, well i'm happy to be a well, i mean a happy thought ation suburban antonia natal. i'm not in data. and welcome back sadie 2 years ago this month the world saw the official end of the so called cold war between capitalism and communism. some historian site margaret thatcher is a significant figure in helping to end the decades long conflict. the u. k. p. m was also infamous with ronald reagan for chicago school privatization that would metastasize around the world. her legacy would be continued by successive tory liberal and labor politicians in this christmas, $4000000.00 u. k. children will be in poverty while tonight, $40000000.00 in the usa cannot eat without food stamps. so as lennon said, what is to be done? joining me now from boston is someone who thinks he has the answer. economist

michael albert, author of the new book, no bosses, a new economy for a better world. michael, welcome to going under ground right at the top of the new book. and we come to have apps do justice to the complexities and arguments in, in the book. but right of the, at the top performer, greek finance minister says that marks famously vague about what follows revolution after capitalism. tell me about a new economy for a better world and how you, how you decided to write about what comes afterwards. well, i did the original work with robinson now friend of mine. it was back a long time ago and i think it emerged simply from people asking, what do you want? you know, we understand that you're against poverty or against warrior against racism against this, that the other thing. but what do you want? and at the time of the late sixties, early seventies, people weren't very good about answering that question. so we set about to try and

answer as best we could that question, at least regarding the economy. and that's where the participatory economics, i guess, got got it start. why do you box in the communist manifesto and so on, chose not to deal with what comes off to it's and the need to focus on the revolutionary vanguard i, i can only guess, but you know, some people feel that it's over stretching the bounds that we would be, we'd be delving into a realm in an area of the future. we're, we're not equipped to say much. i think they're wrong headed though, because of that opening that i said, which is that in fact people, people sincerely want to know whether or not you are headed towards something that's better or worse. and if it's better, is it enough better? now on the other hand, a blueprint is out of place for the reasons i just gave a blue for it is out of place because we don't know enough and

a lot will emerge from experience. so what no boss is, does the book is it tries to provide a scaffold, the key institutional commitments that are essential if, if a new economy is going to be really superior to capitalism and superior for that matter. 20th century socialism. we're getting into bus participating. yeah, economics participate tree and idea is the in the book. what is the key difference between me owning a shirt that i'm wearing now and a mobile phone and the 2 percent who own the companies which have dominion as you describe it, interfering with self management? well, you only, your shirt is a result of in any economy you having an income or a claim on social product. and one of the things you want is a shirt and you privately own and nothing wrong with that. and jeff bezos owning

amazon is a different matter that's owning a means of production. it's only work places and resources and means of communication and transportation to song and so forth. and having dominion over them, in the sense of deciding on their, on their use, determining how they will be employed and to what ends they will be employed, for instance, his profit. and there's a big difference. one is you being in position to control your life with a relevant amount of se, but the operations of amazon, or of any corporation are not properly handled by an owner, right? as compared to the workforce who are affected and the consumers who are affected, the whole society that's affected shouldn't be in the hands of a few. now he can dispense with the claims of social mobility in those ones that we

always hear from at the right in the, in the near liberals. but obviously a question that i know that you raise the idea of mrs. thatcher, the great to sky on of british politics again and again in the book. how do you address the key argument that there are inefficiencies in any type of work ownership model of work, a councils and so on when it comes to people owning democratically the means of production. there are details, but i suppose the general argument would be something like this. if we allow more people to participate in decision making, we will not be getting decisions from those who are best equipped. we will not have narrowed down the set of decision makers to the relative few really good decision makers. it obviously has nothing to do with reality for a host of reasons. one of which is to make a decision, you have to have information and those few at the top have biased information.

another reason is because those few at the top are not the best decision makers. they're rather the people who have monopolized decision making. but there's another issue here which is, let's suppose for the sake of discussion that a particular individual, jeff bezos at amazon style and for the economy as a whole. and there's very little difference on this score, right? it is a fantastic decision maker. there's still something to be said, a lot to be said about people not being subordinated to the will of others about people having a say over their own lives. that is a value in and of itself. so even if it were the case that participatory self management would reduce output that people want or would introduce them, inefficiencies, etc, etc. i still before it's like, look,

the argument is the same as the argument for democracy. the argument for democracy is that we shouldn't have, you know, donald trump rule everybody, or durham by rule everybody. we should have elections, people should be able to participate. do you think it has critics just con, hold in there had the idea that it was 40000000 in your country on food stamps here, malnourished nutrition has tripled a hospital admission. they can hold in their heads at the same time as ideas of rephrasing the economy. well, i think when people get up in the morning and look in the mirror, they like to see themselves as worthy and caring and positive human beings. and people have a remarkable capacity for rationalizing all kinds of choices and actions. and so i wow, i don't think that these os is unaware of unemployment. he probably tells himself

that he is the solution to unemployment. i was that he just thinking of scholars let alone the actual oligarchy of power. scholar ceiling, think it too. yeah. can i, can i get to your personal experience here of how once you do have some element of democratic decision making. the, what happens is a re emergence all of the old structures off to the initial enthusiasm. just describe how you talk about it in this book and talk about it. not being the product of some mythical human nature. right? it's in it, there are, there are examples of this. and in the book, i give one example, which is in argentina where people are roughly 20 years ago. there was a downturn, a significant downturn in the economy. many workplaces were taken over, but they weren't taken over and sort of a demonstration. they were taken over after the owner left and then managers and engineers and financial offices left also because they felt well without the owners

. this is hopeless. workers took over workers, instituted democracy. workers institute better pay arrangements and a workers council to make decisions. they found that after a time, in their words, all the old car came back and they felt that it was well. margaret thatcher you brought up earlier. they felt that it maybe it was human nature. maybe it was just the way it was had to big. but that's not the case. what happened was they retained the old division of labor, retains that 20 percent of the workforce in each of those plants right. had empower in situations and work. 80 percent followed orders and did rotan obedient tests. and as a result, the 20 percent solar rose above the 80 percent, because the circumstances gave them the confidence, the information, the knowledge, the connections with others. the access to bally levers of power to make decisions,

to send agendas and the 80 percent were left by their position and their, their condition disempowered. and by retaining the old division of labor, they subverted their inclination to participate, to have equitable incomes to, to, to reorganize things in the workplace, in a fair and just manner. instead, the 20 percent began to dominate. so did it happen? yes. was it human nature? no, it was that they didn't go quite far enough and why didn't they go quite far enough? well, when i asked them they, they sort of felt like, well, what else could you do? they felt that you had to have the person who did only managing stuff and you have to have the person who did only working on the assembly line or cleaning up and so on. ok, well, any incur that you could change the job structure,

but you can and you deal with with that in the book. i mean, finally, i mean obviously we're facing human species extinction pattern because of the great success of capitalism in so so many different ways. and we need innovation more than ever, maybe to save us. how do you cope with the question of stifling of innovation by virtue of to radical majorities, it under democratic control of the means of production? well, in the 1st place, we already have stifling innovation. a particular kind of innovation, we have pursuit of innovations which serve the interests of those at the top. we have stifling of innovations which serve the interest of those below and counter the interests of those about what would happen in a change society. what would happen in the economy with that was classes that was a participatory economy, which we haven't gone into any of the, you know,

mean features of but broadly speaking, instead of a small percentage or even 20 percent being concerned about what direction we should take. the population would be concerned about that. so the population would want innovations which reduce pregnant thing work, which reduce onerous work as compared to innovations which propel profits and subordinate workers. so they'll know bay and follow order. the 2nd thing is that there's no, there's no reason to think that the broad population wouldn't want, ah, a distribution of our assets, right? that includes an innovation that includes research into medical care, into pure science for that matter, into an innovative forms of music. and so on and so forth. population is perfectly

capable of wanting that dispersement. then the people doing it, the engineers or scientists, the musicians right, would have to do the actual work. that's true now. so instead of scientists having to appeal to congress and the president or a dictator or whoever. and so they asked the scientist, well, what will your work mean for our ability to project military power? what will your it mean for our ability to accrue profits instead of that, the scientist would have to answer questions from the public. what will your work mean for the well being of the population? what will you work mean for dealing with human curiosity, which we all have and so on and so forth. so you'll have innovation, but innovation of a different sort like allow that. thank you. thank you for having me. that's half

of the show will be back on saturday. 57. yes. in the day argentinian revolutionary . che guevara address the you and in new york, the head of his us back to assassination 967. until then can you talk to wireless social media? let us know what you think of participatory economic ah, no, when i would, so i just don't with to see he comes to africa and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. with

the south of headlines her annotate, joe biden, is accused by republicans of surrendering to vladimir putin by dropping russia punishments from a defense built. in the meantime, democrats of drafting what they're calling the mother of old sanction targeting moscow. and it all comes off of the president of russia and the united states held crisis talks ultimately triggered by tensions over ukraine. also in the program, we speak to an afghan family that found a loss taught low during august. us with a droll, when desperate parents would, is handing their kids to western soldiers and any bit to get them out of afghanistan. do it. and suddenly i saw this baby on the ground crying and paid. it was too hot. the baby was just wearing

a shirt so it was difficult for me to leave him that.