in the mail, and then you are, if 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 i'm going to do is 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 is just that they don't have particular expertise nivi. we're starting to try to weigh in, you know, about your area of specialism. i'd be lost to 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 english did 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 if i have no idea about and being completely honest and upfront 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. mystery media is very, sound bite. you know, you get like 30 seconds trunk and you know, 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 to media is great because you can take that amount of time if people stay and watch the channels out longer to 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, it's about 2 particular things i'll get on to the food supplement and the 2nd highest particularly and specifically, and in a sense what you just said that could be used as a reason of why there is

a degree of vaccine hesitancy. if people don't believe they're being trusted by journalists of use, me just explain. i know what you often do in many of the videos and you have such experience. even often the british government, your services, about training, about vaccination, on your phone, your videos. do you believe that that circle that you've access maybe spreading misinformation based on some studies that show hot problems because of vaccines because of something that people are doing when giving the vaccinations? i know britain has got the military out now to the nation, just what that is. yeah, absolutely. so with the a dino virus vector vaccines, we noticed that people were getting this blood clock problem, the oxford astrazeneca vaccine, for example, in the young and johnson and johnson vaccine. and they were getting blood clots in veins, in that condition called combo site to pania. whether there was a lack of platelets, a lack of crossing in the blood, combined with crossing in the wrong places. and then after some of the, in

a vaccine, the pfizer in the madonna for example, people notice there was some cases of ha, inflammation. my, okay. i was just going to say that in thank you for that is incredibly rare. 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 there. now, why would i have was when i was 18 years old, i learned how to get injections and we've been teaching student this is this for the last 40 years. and what you do is this is slightly bigger than the actual nato, 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 ask the rate the injections. now what we always did was we stuck it. now there's a possibility to the very tip of the needle that could just through pure bad luck end up in a blood vessel. because of course, in living muscle,

you're going to have some blood vessels. so what we're always told to do is just draw that back just a little bit. and then it was blood in there. if you action a book that so you 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 software and a virus to vaccines. there are different types of vaccine. so they're either they a dino vibe, respect 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 assigned to stan this science,

then the body is going to recognize that as being viable particles, amounts and inflammatory reaction, as if that rival particles and not could be what's causing the the information. so all we need to do is tell people to inject, draw back before they school today, and then inject one just there and there 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, or it has to go the vaccination in central london. they wouldn't do that. i mean, what happens if there is blood? when you pull back, you have to throw the thing away and have a new injection back. well, well, an 8th. that's right, but now again, you have less paces of very god i just, unless cases of thumb, 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 blood, then you should take it out and basically took it away and get a new one. and what you might, in, in a more challenged 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 in actually going to be during the much are. so it depends. it depends, if you're really sure to vaccines, you might do that, but most policies would say you check it out and get and you know, 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. andrea and a bottle or a jar labeled vitamin d at no point. i mean, i have anecdotal evidence of any chest consultants telling me the vitamin d is given in those pills. no point have i seen a government minister, a one of the top chief scientific medical offices talk about vitamin d, which is, compared to the profits of big pharma. what a $1000.00 a 2nd at the moment, nor make much money of it. why? why have you got a jar vitamin d on your window? so yeah, victim indeed is essentially free. so normally we don't advise vitamin supplements,

but there's actually 2 exceptions to that. the 1st one is victim indeed because we make vitamin d from the sunshine. and if you looked 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 near 8 months of the year because rustic to 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 colored skin, but it was lots of sunshine. so again, it's darker 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, white kind of skin is purely so they can make more of it to mon date. and yet we're not getting the sun. so we're short of this fits and now it's actually more of a co hormone release turned into a hormone in the body. and this victim in davis, f, as in all of the immune sadness in virtually, but probably inversely all sales in the body that the victim indeed is needed to

facilitate certain particular reactions and brittany, 6 months of the year and 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 sun 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 a mean date. whereas the government is recommending taking $400.00 units a day, the dose is a very, very small. so we're just not getting this victim. and the other one that people can be short of is mitchum k 2 because that comes from grasfer mentation. and he has to be taken with the k o l a. i mean people who watch your videos about it when you talk about this. but i mean, they, you know, as you say, this guy was on going underground today. i got to get on to on the ground and got

good on guns. and most disturbingly, i mean, usually very calm. i mean, as you say billions are going to be infected by on the ground. most alarmingly, you were quoted tim spec to st. p. c r. tests have a failure rate of 60 percent to factor because you said there are only 30 to 40 percent effect of the w h o is saying a accuracy of existing molecular tests depends on compromise. way for, you know, on the good people are being told to take test, left, right, and center when they need to travel with they need to go to jobs with and, and this has to do with this as gene drop out. i don't want to do much jargon with all micro. yeah, that's right. so the p c r tests are phenomenally sensitive. if there's any viral fragments there of sauce corona virus to the p c r test, we'll pick that up. so it is still a 100 percent working. but what happened was that the, the p c r test is testing the 3 genes. and the s g,

the p c r test for is not present in the, on the con variance. so if you've got the, if you got the delta vary your test policy for the 3 genes. if you, if you positive for the, for the, on the combat, you 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 saying is any problem with the test than in fact a cli is not the p. c. r tests are exquisitely sensitive. many people would say thought to sense that 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. com barrier. that's what he said, a lot to flow very quickly. lots of 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 i 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, participate your economics. all of them all coming up about to have going on the ground. i have often said transparency for the powerful privacy for the bell, this case about privacy, what people care about is power. julian assange has become a symbol of the battle. the privacy information is power. that's what's going on in the war issue. struggle with the government's corporation to want to keep information secret and others who the democratic rights should be pushed forward. and people have a right to know what their parents are doing. watch how assange helped shift the conversation around transparency. come see what that battle has done. to him,

i feel like children's life might be coming to an end. we are in a conflict situation with the largest, most powerful employer in such a situation. it's remarkable to survive. oh, when i was showing wrong, when i was just a to see how this thing becomes the advocate, an engagement, it was the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. ah, welcome back, said he, 2 years ago this month, the world saw the official end of the so called cold war between capitalism and

communism. some historian side to margaret thatcher as 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 metastasized around the world. the legacy would be continued by successive tory liberal and labor politicians. and this christmas, 4000000 u. k. children will be in poverty. while tonight, 40000000 in the usa cannot eat without food stamps. so as lennon said, what is to be done? joining me now from boston is i one who thinks he has the answer. economist michael albert, author of the new book, no boss is 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 perhaps do justice to the complexities and arguments in, in the book. but right of the, at the top performer, greek finance, where it says marks famously vague about what follows revolution up to 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 robin hood 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, you're against warrior james racism you're against this. that the other thing. but what do you want? and at the time on 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, god question, at least regarding the economy. and that's where a participatory economics i guess, got got it start why these are marks in the communist manifesto and so on. chose not to deal with what comes off to it's and the need focused on the revolutionary vanguard. i, i can only guess, but you know, some people feel that it's over stretching the bounds. that weird b. b,

we'd be delving into a realm and an area of the future we're, we're not equipped to to say, march. 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 toward something that is better or worse. and if it's better, is it enough better now? and the other hand, a blueprint is out of place for the reasons i just gave a blooper, desirable 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 buses. but as a patria 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 own, in 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 it. nothing wrong with that. and jeff bezos owning amazon is a different matter that's owning means of production. it's only work places, resources, and means of communication, and transportation is on 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 say, 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, it shouldn't be in the hands of a few. now we can dispense with the claims of social mobility in those ones that we always hear from the right and the and then the liberals. but obviously a question. i know that you raise the idea of mrs. thatcher, the great to sky on a 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 what 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, that 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've 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 a, you know, donald trump rule, everybody, or durham by real everybody. we should have elections, people should be able to participate. do you think it has? critics just can't hold in their head. the idea that what 40000000 in your country on food stamps here, malnourished malnutrition, has tripled a hospital admission. they called in their heads at the same time as ideas of

refraining the economy. what 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, while i don't think that bes o's 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 oligarchs of power. i mean scholar ceiling. think it too. yeah. 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 awfully 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 hopeless workers took over workers, instituted democracy. workers instituted better pay arrangements and 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. market battery brought up earlier. they felt that 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. they retained that 20 percent of the workforce in each of those

plants right. had empowering situations and work. 80 percent followed orders and did wrote in obedient tests. and as a result, the 20 percent sort of 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. this empowered 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 i mean, incur that you can change the job structure, but you can and you and you deal with with that in the book. i mean, finally, i mean obviously we're facing human species extinction. but because of the great success of capitalism and 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 tyrannical 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 above. what would happen in a change society? what would happen in the economy that was classes that was a participatory economy, which we haven't gone into any of the main 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 pragmatic 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 pa, elation wouldn't want i a distribution of our assets. right? that includes an innovation that includes research into medical care, into pure science for that matter, into our 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, the scientists, the to 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 mean for our ability to accrue prophets instead of that the scientists 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 will 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 addressed the you and in new york, the head of his you aspect, assassination? 900. 67. until then keep in touch, my social media. let us know what you think of participatory economic

the dynamism of the ecosystem of planet earth predictably is dying because there's too much pollution, whether it's landfill pollution, pollution or the river's pollution in the oceans. pollution in the air, chemical pollution permanent tamika, pollution, all the bio systems are dying. so humans effectively estimating mass, suicide, or species is becoming extinct. i have often said transparency for the powerful privacy for the bow, less bitter case about privacy. what people care about is power. junior massage has become a symbol of the battle for privacy. information is power. that's what's going on in the world. a huge struggle with the government's corporations to want to keep information secret and others who the democratic rights should be pushed forward.

and people have a right to know what their parents are to watch how assange helped shift the conversation around transparency. come see what the battle has done to him. i feel like julie's life might be coming to an end. we are in a conflict situation with the law just most powerful employer in such a situation. it's remarkable to survive. oh when i was just seemed wrong when i just don't know. i mean you have to figure out the name becomes the african and engagement. it was the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look so common ground. yeah . be just of she is a she is when i was better, we video don't. michelle kraus,

of pretty much free with the with can sure the coordinates with greater blue, your school a little less than the cost and then you should it was any other sure. here just a little more than as we for that the, you know, much doubtful. you will like with the launch a with

ah, the child lost by his parents had during august's kalak us withdrawn. afghanistan may have been found, or g speaks to the family that took the boy in and joins the search for the parents . do what he shall suddenly i saw his baby on the ground crying in pain. it was 2 homes and the baby was just wearing a shirt. it was difficult enough to relieve him of us treasury department threatens american journalists with hefty fines if they work for certain publications. one such journalists daniels are shared history with us us treasury towers. in norfolk database have an individual freelance journalist and i was microscopic but some of them are so frightened they're unwilling even to give interviews like this one. in the u. k. video emerges of team members.