the past 2 years been in vain, or could omicron be the beginning of the end of coven? joining me now from carlisle to discuss the potential impacts of this new mutation is dr. john campbell. john, thanks so much for coming on your hero to millions of people as you know, full well despite this modesty that you want to always exhibit on the videos, you know, if people haven't seen the videos on your youtube channel, they've got to seize millions and millions of people all around the world. in fact, that's why i'm gonna ask you, why do you think your videos are 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 v h s tapes and we used to send them to various places on the world. then we went on to our on to d, v d 's and used to send those around and we d materialized online and you and it's just like pay taken off after the, on the call. no, not going to go after the call. the 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 know, the regional acts as well. usually we have patrick, valence. we have a bridge, private school educated people in the mail. and they, you know, you're using all sorts of data from internationally, peer reviewed papers and so on and giving us and allowing the dns 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 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 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 in, you know, about your area of specialism. i'd be lost to minutes just to 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 to 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 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 me there's a lot more new ones to a lot of this kind of stuff and a lot more qualification so that you chew media is great because you can take that amount of time if people stay and watch the channel that longer will watch that video. watch the video for that period of time. ok, again, i don't have any specials, but there's less nuance lesson you. it's about 2 particular things. i'll get on to the food supplement in the 2nd highest, particularly, and specifically, and in a sense what you just said there could be used as a reason why there is a degree of vaccine hesitancy. if 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 offered the british government, your services, about training, about vaccination, on your phone, your videos. do you believe that? so cool that you've access maybe spreading misinformation based on some studies that show heart 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 nations. just extend what that is. yeah, absolutely. so with the a d, no virus vector vaccines, we noticed that people were getting this blood clot problem. the oxford astrazeneca vaccine, for example, in the young and johnson and johnson vaccine. and they were getting blood clots in veins, another condition called combo site to pania, whether there was a lack of platelets or lack of plotting in the blood, combined with crossing in the wrong places. and then after some of the m r n a vaccines, the pfizer in the madonna, for example, people noticed there was some cases of ha, inflammation, my car. i was just going to say that and 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 deltoid muscle that 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 on years and what you do is this is find a bigger than the actual nato, but that you stick that into the muscle. you can do that fairly quickly. that's pretty painless. now, about 15 years ago, the world health organization said we don't need to write 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 book vessel. 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 if there was blood in there, if you action a blood vessel, you will get blood coming out then you know not to inject it. used to 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 an advice for vaccination children. and that seems to have been extrapolated into vaccination adults, which are different. and of course, with a new viral with the new sauce providers to vaccines. there are different types of vaccine. so they're either they a dino vibe, respect to vaccine, which of these virus size particles in them. all the m, r and 8 vaccines also have virus size particles in them. so they are micro particular vaccines. and if these particles get into the bloodstream, as i understand this science that the body is going to recognize that as being viable particles, amounts and inflammatory reaction, as if that rival particles and not to could be what's causing the, the information. so all we need to do is tell people to inject, draw back before they school and then inject you want to sit there in the muscle. but 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, in denmark is, denmark is doing our alpha already got the vaccination in 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, well, i'm courtney gland 8th. that's right. but now again, you'd have less paces of perry car, i just unless cases of thumb bosis on both sides to pena. in my view, and you would massively enhance the vaccine program. technically what you should do if you do have blood, then you should take it out and basically took it away and get a new one. and 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 them a child. so it depends, it depends. if you're really short to vaccines, you might think that most policies would say you check it out and get, and you know, all money. i give you the wrong place. money's 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 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 schools. 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, the profits of big pharma with a 1000 dollars a 2nd at the moment. no one makes 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 vitamin supplements, but there's actually 2 exceptions to that. the 1st one is victim indeed, because we make victim indeed 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, 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 were originally in the middle east and in africa, we had dark color skin, but there was lots of sunshine. so again, it's darker color, skin 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 a human date. and yet we're not getting the sun. so we're short of this victim. and now it's actually more of a co hormone release turned into a hormone in the body. and this victim indeed, receptors in all of the immune south as in virtually, but probably in virtually all the 1000, the body that the vitamin d 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 between d supplements in when it's a author winter, it actually recommends the darkest people in the u. k. take the committee, supplements all the year round, but the dos de 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 a short shorts and you know, in a nice sunny day, you're probably going to make about 20000 units of it's in date. whereas the government is recommending taking $400.00 units a day, the doses are very, very small. so we're just not getting this fits in. and the other one that people can be short of is between k 2, because that comes from grass fermentation is it needs to be taken with the k o l. a. i mean people to watch your videos about it when you talk about this. but i mean, they, you know, as you say, the say i was on going underground today. i got to get on to, on the ground. and, you know, going guns really, i'm most disturbingly. i mean, usually very calm. i mean, as you say, billions are going to be infected by i'm a grown up most alarming the you were quoted. tim spec to saying pcr tests have a failure rate of 60 percent to factor because you said there any 30 to 40 percent effective w joe is saying an accuracy of existing molecular test to be uncompromised by a good people to being told to take test left right, and center where they need to travel with, they need to go to jobs with it. and, and this you have to do with this as gene drop out. i don't want to do much drug with them. yeah, that's right. so p c r test, often nominally sensitive if there's any virus 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 genes. if you, if you positive for the, for the, on the combat, you know, the test positive to 2 genes. so this s gene dropout is being used as a proxy for, for the ami con variance. now as well as that, of course we are doing full genome testing for the on the combat. and so we know that this is collaborated. but what tim spectrum is saying is not same as any problem with the test them. in fact, a cli 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 grams or manufacturers of the p c. r test on picking up the the only. com barrier. that's what he said lateral flow very quickly. and the actual flow will, i will only show positive. it's a if you have a fairly high bible 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. i just after the break neither socialism nor capitalism cutting the mustard. we explored a new economy for better world would look like with a co creator of participator economics. all this more coming up about 2 of going undergrowth. what is the national mood? i suppose it depends on what kind of media you consume to say the nation is divided in highly partisan is an understatement. this is certainly what the national media wants us to think. what are we really so divided on what really matters when i was showing wrong when i just don't know any world is yet to shape out disdain because of the applicant and engagement, it was betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. ah, welcome back 32 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 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 metastasize around the world. her legacy would be continued by successive tory liberal and labor politicians, and this christmas, $4000000.00 u. k. children will be in poverty while to night. 40000000 in the usa cannot eat without food stamps. so as lennon said, what is to be done? joining me now from boston is the one who thinks he has the answer. economists, 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 to do justice to the complexities are an arguments in, in the book, but right of the brad, the top performer, greek finance minister says or marks, famously vague about what follows revolution after capitalism? tell me about a new economy for a better world and how you are, 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, you're against warrior against 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 said 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 gotta start. why the box in the communist manifesto and so, and chose not to deal with what comes off to it 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 weird b b, we'd be delving into a realm in 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 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 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 a deposit, but his maitreya economics participate tree and idea is the in the book. what is the key difference between the owning a shirt that i'm wearing now, and a mobile phone, and the 2 percent? who own the companies? which and dominion as you describe it, interfering with self management. well, you owning your shirt is a result of, in any economy you having an income, a claim on social product. and one of the things you want as a sure and your privately own it. nothing wrong with that. but jeff bezos owning amazon is a different matter that's owning means of production. it's only work places and 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 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, 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 in the, in the liberals. but obviously a question that 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 level 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, that amazon stalin 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 some inefficiency, 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 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's because critics just can't hold in their head. the idea that what 40000000 in your country, on food stamps here, malnourished nutrition, has tripled in hospital admission. they called in their heads at the same time as ideas of refraining 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 actually just thinking of scholars let alone the actual oligarchs 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 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 of bally levers of power to make decisions, to set 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 up 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 in her that you can change the job structure. but you can then 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 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 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 about what would happen in a change society. what would happen in the economy that was classless, that was the participatory economy, which we haven't gone into any of the, you know, 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 fragment 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 i 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, the scientists, the, 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 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'll have innovation, but innovation of a different sort. michael alba, thank you. thank you for having me. that's after 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. jill. and can you touch my social media? let us know what you think of participatory economic yeah, go stuck here. no, i just thought you all need to move or recording. not when his yes but i she and i was better. we video don't. michelle kraus, of pretty much be with the, with the last, if you can sure the coordinates with the blue, your skin don't ever for the smile on the coin and to coordinate a little less than the cost. and then you should begin with just stick with the boise like you to form the actually damage plane. he does candidly speaking a going away from the left or more than, as we said, that the gamma out believe was like when you want to talk somebody yesterday. and that jim, you could waste figured out those. they might not that issue with the long term with ah, the child lost by his parents during august. chaotic, us withdraw enough gum. it's done. we have been fund ortiz, speaks to the family that took the boy in and joins the search for his parents. suddenly i saw his baby on the ground crying in pain. it was too hot, the baby was just wearing a shirt, so it was difficult for me to leave him. that incredible story. also in the u. k. video emerges of key members of forest johnson's team. joking about a party and joining street last christmas. but seeing as it supposedly took place amidst last year's cobra, lockdown fewer finding it restriction and start to again ramp up around the world in the face of the new all me kron variant. we hear from the world health organization, special envoy about.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Denmark , United Kingdom , Argentina , China , Boston , Massachusetts , South Africa , Greece , London , City Of , Britain , Greek , British , John Campbell , Michael Alba , Michelle Kraus , Michael Albert , Jeff Bezos , Margaret Thatcher Asa , Ronald Reagan ,