Lena I do love you. One of the awful things about mass censorship is that it keeps us apart. It is on platforms such as this that we find each other and can give each other support. There were over 250,000 Facebook followers of a support group for people suffering from vaccine side effects. Facebook shut down this group. Facebook is…
Lena I do love you. One of the awful things about mass censorship is that it keeps us apart. It is on platforms such as this that we find each other and can give each other support. There were over 250,000 Facebook followers of a support group for people suffering from vaccine side effects. Facebook shut down this group. Facebook is now censoring anyone who claims that vaccines are unsafe and branding us as "dirty" a threat to public health--much as the Nazis scapegoated the Jews. The fear mongering makes everyone eager to find someone to blame. Check out https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/a-temple-of-this-earth
Just as Trump got people to blame undocumented immigrants for "stealing" jobs. Our economy has stolen so much from its workers. RIchard Wolff has recently written a book about the relationship of Covid and the economy: "The Sickness is the System." Our dysfunctional privatized health care system has caused people to bankrupt themselves in order to get medical care. Vaccine injuries can almost never be reimbursed.
" One of the awful things about mass censorship is that it keeps us apart." Facebook closed groups of those with vaccine-induced illness. One of them had 200,000 members. Beside being wholly unethical, that's *cruel*, too. Pure evil, to comply with the narrative.
I very much appreciate your situation, respect you for holding out in a place that shames you for making a personal choice. Hold that line for your health, Diana.
What I agree with in theory but would love public debate about is another point you bring up with the phrase "dysfunctional privatized health care system". I haven't read the book you refer to, but did a quick internet search. Wikipedia lists Richard D. Wolff, author of the book you mention, as an American Marxian economist. His Youtube channel states his as a 'well-known critic of contemporary capitalism and leading proponent of an alternative economic system based on Worker Self-Directed Enterprises."
At first I was asking this question: Is this phrase "dysfunctional privatized health care system" promoting socialist health care, or that the current state of private is dysfunctional alone? Unfortunately, I believe it's promoting socialism and marxism.
If you want to get more information about Dr. Wolff's views on the economy, he produced a recent YouTube video about worker shortages. His book, "The Sickness is the System," is available on Amazon. He is a Marxist. He believes that capitalism inevitably concentrates more and more wealth in the upper 1%, and that we are ruled by a wealthy oligarchy, since the politicians create policies/laws that benefit their donors instead of their voters. He would like workers to have more say in how their corporations are run. He is a proponent of "Worker Coops." See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwxhfJAy2Yg&list=TLPQMTYxMDIwMjGJM1DXN8P-HA&index=5
He believes vaccines are safe and effective. He doesn't fully understand why people would refuse vaccination, and just believes what the mass media claim--it's Republicans who resent any form of government as an infringement on their "freedom." He tries to argue against this viewpoint, because we accept many government restrictions that make our lives safer. I did post a comment to argue against this viewpoints. To me there is a big difference between wearing a seat belt--even wearing a mask--and accepting a vaccine that may alter my DNA or kill or disable me.
I posted this comment yesterday, and haven't received any feedback from it:
Some libertarians argue that vaccine mandates are interfering with "personal freedom." Prof. Wolff argues that vaccine mandates are the same as seat belt mandates, traffic rules, anti littering, vandalism, etc. We nearly all agree to accept certain limitations in return for a safer environment and for the good of our fellow citizens. I will argue that vaccine mandates are different. Vaccines do pose significant risks of severe illness, disability, and death (see below). They also do not prevent the transmission of Covid or result in herd immunity. So it's not clear that everyone should be mandated to take them for the good of the community. The vaccines do seem to reduce the severity of Covid symptoms--which, therefore, reduces the likelihood of hospitalization and death. But this protection seems to wane after 4 to 6 months--especially against new variants which are not suppressed by the vaccines, but continue to evolve since the vaccines only protect against the original variant. Meanwhile, vaccinated people still can transmit the virus to other people--both vaccinated and unvaccinated. So herd immunity is impossible against Covid--or any other coronavirus. For example, each year the flu virus evolves different variants. Each year new vaccines need to be developed and administered. Therefore, taking the vaccine won't end up helping the community very much even though it may help the individual. In a recent podcast where Joe Rogan interviewed Alex Berenson, I believe they estimated the risk of getting Covid as about 1 or 2% for a vaccinated person and 5% to 7% for an unvaccinated person. The risk of dying is even lower. I believe we have a 99.7% survival rate. The people who die are overwhelmingly the very old, frail, and those with preexisting conditions. In Israel where 78% of the population is fully vaccinated, the majority of hospitalized Covid cases are vaccinated. Another argument is that vaccines are safe so it should be OK to mandate them for everybody. But a year ago the CDC published a paper showing that adverse reactions are much higher than originally estimated. The VAERS system reports extremely high rates of severe adverse reactions such as Guillain-Barre, Bell's Palsy, anaphylaxis, myocarditis, heart attacks, strokes, blood clotting disorders, seizures, etc.--and even death. https://trialsitenews.com/proof-that-the-cdc-is-lying-to-the-world-about-covid-vaccine-safety/ Furthermore, the current vaccines only have Emergency Use Authorization and are rarely administered with informed consent that would fully notify people of the risks that they are undergoing if they get vaccinated. Shouldn't people be able to get a medical exemption? Yet most doctors are pressured to withhold such exemptions for fear of having their licenses suspended. So using a seat belt poses very little risk to one's health. But using a vaccine if one has an underlying medical condition such as blood clotting, autoimmune disorders, heart conditions, etc. could be very dangerous to one's health. I believe, therefore, that each individual should be free to make their own decision about whether the risk is worth the benefit.
Lena I do love you. One of the awful things about mass censorship is that it keeps us apart. It is on platforms such as this that we find each other and can give each other support. There were over 250,000 Facebook followers of a support group for people suffering from vaccine side effects. Facebook shut down this group. Facebook is now censoring anyone who claims that vaccines are unsafe and branding us as "dirty" a threat to public health--much as the Nazis scapegoated the Jews. The fear mongering makes everyone eager to find someone to blame. Check out https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/a-temple-of-this-earth
Just as Trump got people to blame undocumented immigrants for "stealing" jobs. Our economy has stolen so much from its workers. RIchard Wolff has recently written a book about the relationship of Covid and the economy: "The Sickness is the System." Our dysfunctional privatized health care system has caused people to bankrupt themselves in order to get medical care. Vaccine injuries can almost never be reimbursed.
" One of the awful things about mass censorship is that it keeps us apart." Facebook closed groups of those with vaccine-induced illness. One of them had 200,000 members. Beside being wholly unethical, that's *cruel*, too. Pure evil, to comply with the narrative.
I very much appreciate your situation, respect you for holding out in a place that shames you for making a personal choice. Hold that line for your health, Diana.
What I agree with in theory but would love public debate about is another point you bring up with the phrase "dysfunctional privatized health care system". I haven't read the book you refer to, but did a quick internet search. Wikipedia lists Richard D. Wolff, author of the book you mention, as an American Marxian economist. His Youtube channel states his as a 'well-known critic of contemporary capitalism and leading proponent of an alternative economic system based on Worker Self-Directed Enterprises."
At first I was asking this question: Is this phrase "dysfunctional privatized health care system" promoting socialist health care, or that the current state of private is dysfunctional alone? Unfortunately, I believe it's promoting socialism and marxism.
If you want to get more information about Dr. Wolff's views on the economy, he produced a recent YouTube video about worker shortages. His book, "The Sickness is the System," is available on Amazon. He is a Marxist. He believes that capitalism inevitably concentrates more and more wealth in the upper 1%, and that we are ruled by a wealthy oligarchy, since the politicians create policies/laws that benefit their donors instead of their voters. He would like workers to have more say in how their corporations are run. He is a proponent of "Worker Coops." See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwxhfJAy2Yg&list=TLPQMTYxMDIwMjGJM1DXN8P-HA&index=5
He believes vaccines are safe and effective. He doesn't fully understand why people would refuse vaccination, and just believes what the mass media claim--it's Republicans who resent any form of government as an infringement on their "freedom." He tries to argue against this viewpoint, because we accept many government restrictions that make our lives safer. I did post a comment to argue against this viewpoints. To me there is a big difference between wearing a seat belt--even wearing a mask--and accepting a vaccine that may alter my DNA or kill or disable me.
I posted this comment yesterday, and haven't received any feedback from it:
Some libertarians argue that vaccine mandates are interfering with "personal freedom." Prof. Wolff argues that vaccine mandates are the same as seat belt mandates, traffic rules, anti littering, vandalism, etc. We nearly all agree to accept certain limitations in return for a safer environment and for the good of our fellow citizens. I will argue that vaccine mandates are different. Vaccines do pose significant risks of severe illness, disability, and death (see below). They also do not prevent the transmission of Covid or result in herd immunity. So it's not clear that everyone should be mandated to take them for the good of the community. The vaccines do seem to reduce the severity of Covid symptoms--which, therefore, reduces the likelihood of hospitalization and death. But this protection seems to wane after 4 to 6 months--especially against new variants which are not suppressed by the vaccines, but continue to evolve since the vaccines only protect against the original variant. Meanwhile, vaccinated people still can transmit the virus to other people--both vaccinated and unvaccinated. So herd immunity is impossible against Covid--or any other coronavirus. For example, each year the flu virus evolves different variants. Each year new vaccines need to be developed and administered. Therefore, taking the vaccine won't end up helping the community very much even though it may help the individual. In a recent podcast where Joe Rogan interviewed Alex Berenson, I believe they estimated the risk of getting Covid as about 1 or 2% for a vaccinated person and 5% to 7% for an unvaccinated person. The risk of dying is even lower. I believe we have a 99.7% survival rate. The people who die are overwhelmingly the very old, frail, and those with preexisting conditions. In Israel where 78% of the population is fully vaccinated, the majority of hospitalized Covid cases are vaccinated. Another argument is that vaccines are safe so it should be OK to mandate them for everybody. But a year ago the CDC published a paper showing that adverse reactions are much higher than originally estimated. The VAERS system reports extremely high rates of severe adverse reactions such as Guillain-Barre, Bell's Palsy, anaphylaxis, myocarditis, heart attacks, strokes, blood clotting disorders, seizures, etc.--and even death. https://trialsitenews.com/proof-that-the-cdc-is-lying-to-the-world-about-covid-vaccine-safety/ Furthermore, the current vaccines only have Emergency Use Authorization and are rarely administered with informed consent that would fully notify people of the risks that they are undergoing if they get vaccinated. Shouldn't people be able to get a medical exemption? Yet most doctors are pressured to withhold such exemptions for fear of having their licenses suspended. So using a seat belt poses very little risk to one's health. But using a vaccine if one has an underlying medical condition such as blood clotting, autoimmune disorders, heart conditions, etc. could be very dangerous to one's health. I believe, therefore, that each individual should be free to make their own decision about whether the risk is worth the benefit.
Sure. Let’s have a Marxist have a little control over our lives and see how that works out. What could go wrong?