Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory

[Xzi]

It more closely resembles a Ponzi scheme.

And what's more capitalist than that? Grifters grifting other grifters is the American way.

The whole system hinges on the idea that a third-party, in this case your employer, picks your insurance plan and pays for it, and yet another third party actually pays the care provider, but only a fraction of the cost, so the provider has to jack up prices knowing that the remainder may as well never be paid anyway. At no point are you, the person receiving care, the actual customer, there’s a bunch of customers involved, but they’re not you, and it’s all done by government mandate. It’s a logistical nightmare. As an added bonus, all of this nonsense operates under the assumption that this is all magic money, and not just your money anyway that your employer shaved off of what would’ve been your wage anyway, because nobody knows math and money can simply spontaneously appear, rather than be an ingrained part of cost of employment.

Why do you think both parties were so opposed to Medicare-for-all? Lots of useless blood-sucking middlemen out there who make sure the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer.

 

[Xzi]

Now you can of course choose to believe what you want from that evidence but there's a reason the CDC isn't particularly reputable outside the US. The same can be said for FDA, whether the overall outcome is good or bad there's always a trail that should make people sceptical. The WHO basically are captured by China these days, as was evident by that famous Taiwan related interview.

Occam's razor. Either: Pfizer paid off 98% of every nation's scientists, health experts, and public health organizations to the extent that nobody is willing to speak a word about this conspiracy, or they did the same type of work they've always done in creating a fairly-effective vaccine against COVID, which in turn resulted in massive income. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Not to mention: Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are competitors to Pfizer. Either of them would jump at the chance to release that type of damaging information about their rival(s).

 

[subcon959]

Occam's razor. Either: Pfizer paid off 98% of every nation's scientists, health experts, and public health organizations to the extent that nobody is willing to speak a word about this conspiracy, or they did the same type of work they've always done in creating a fairly-effective vaccine against COVID, which in turn resulted in massive income. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Not to mention: Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are competitors to Pfizer. Either of them would jump at the chance to release that type of damaging information about their rival(s).

As I said, you're free to draw whatever conclusions help you sleep at night. My opinion is that they are all corrupt as fuck.

Edit: Btw I'm not saying it as a conspiracy.. I'm saying the whole system is setup that way and it's perfectly normal and they all do it. Just look at how lobbying works.

 

[Xzi]

As I said, you're free to draw whatever conclusions help you sleep at night. My opinion is that they are all corrupt as fuck.

But to what end? Money? Power? Big pharma already has both. Conspiracy without conclusion is simply paranoia.

 

[subcon959]

But to what end? Money? Power? Big pharma already has both. Conspiracy without conclusion is simply paranoia.

I didn't actually present any conspiracy, just a direct monetary connection from their own website.

 

[Xzi]

I didn't actually present any conspiracy, just a direct monetary connection from their own website.

You provided the opposite of that, documentation of the CDC's nonprofit status. "Partnership" with a given organization is not sufficient proof itself of malfeasance/bribery. You'd have to do a lot of investigative journalism to convince anyone of that, and odds are someone would've already beat you to it.

 

[subcon959]

You provided the opposite of that, documentation of the CDC's nonprofit status. "Partnership" with a given organization is not sufficient proof itself of malfeasance/bribery. You'd have to do a lot of investigative journalism to convince anyone of that, and odds are someone would've already beat you to it.

Again, I didn't mention bribery.. I'm saying it's corrupt.. you can just call it a conflict of interest if you want to make it sound more benign.. that the group that is in charge of recommending a drug is getting funding from the manufacturer of said drug. I chose to only quote the CDC itself because I knew any journalistic source wouldn't be accepted, but there are lots out there if you're interested.

 

[Xzi]

Again, I didn't mention bribery.. I'm saying it's corrupt.. you can just call it a conflict of interest if you want to make it sound more benign.. that the group that is in charge of recommending a drug is getting funding from the manufacturer of said drug. I chose to only quote the CDC itself because I knew any journalistic source wouldn't be accepted, but there are lots out there if you're interested.

The CDC never recommended any specific vaccine though, only that people get vaccinated in general. Your argument that they're corrupt would be a lot more convincing if you could at least point out when and where they gave that impression.

 

[subcon959]

The CDC never recommended any specific vaccine though, only that people get vaccinated in general. Your argument that they're corrupt would be a lot more convincing if you could at least point out when and where they gave that impression.

I was making a more general point about why I didn't trust them. The Pfizer example was just the one I already knew off the top of my head and I don't really care to go and do any homework to find more, but I did notice Merck on the list as I was scanning. It's possible that the foundations of the others have un-related names, but that's speculation.

Also, I thought it was well known that organisations like these always have a connected non-profit that takes "private donations". It's all part of the lobbying that is built into the system and why I don't care for left/right arguments about most things as the main problem is universal. Bring it all crashing down damnit.

 

[Xzi]

Also, I thought it was well known that organisations like these always have a connected non-profit that takes "private donations". It's all part of the lobbying that is built into the system and why I don't care for left/right arguments about most things as the main problem is universal. Bring it all crashing down damnit.

Nonprofit means they spend equally as much on operating costs as they take in. Therefore a nonprofit business model is far less susceptible to corruption than your bog-standard capitalist corporation, which will always find ways to funnel as much cash as possible to morally-bankrupt executives.

 

[tabzer]

Nonprofit means they spend equally as much on operating costs as they take in.

That's wrong. Double check that. Also, nonprofits aren't "less susceptible" to corruption.

 

[Foxi4]

And what's more capitalist than that? Grifters grifting other grifters is the American way.


Why do you think both parties were so opposed to Medicare-for-all? Lots of useless blood-sucking middlemen out there who make sure the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer.

Scams are not “capitalist”, scams are scams. As for opposition to Medicare, it’s been pretty clear throughout Obama’s presidency and the following years.

 

[Xzi]

That's wrong. Double check that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization

A nonprofit is subject to the non-distribution constraint: any revenues that exceed expenses must be committed to the organization's purpose, not taken by private parties. An array of organizations are nonprofit, including some political organizations, schools, business associations, churches, social clubs, and consumer cooperatives. Nonprofit entities may seek approval from governments to be tax-exempt, and some may also qualify to receive tax-deductible contributions, but an entity may incorporate as a nonprofit entity without securing tax-exempt status.

Every non-wiki site also says the same thing. You can't be a nonprofit without operating under that constraint.

Also, nonprofits aren't "less susceptible" to corruption.

The two most corrupting influences in society are money and power. Both your salary and your rank stay more or less consistent within a nonprofit from year to year. So yes, less susceptible compared to a traditional corporate capitalist business model by far.

 

[tabzer]

Every non-wiki site also says the same thing. You can't be a nonprofit without operating under that constraint.

Yes, but what you said does not equal what you quoted. Nonprofits can and do operate as piggybanks with many methods of siphoning off funds. A nonprofit doesn't stop capitalism from existing at its doorstep. It operates on it. In a "capitalistic" society, where there is corruption, a nonprofit is just another vector--not a safe space.

 

[Xzi]

Yes, but what you said does not equal what you quoted. Nonprofits can and do operate as piggybanks with many methods of siphoning off funds. A nonprofit doesn't stop capitalism from existing at its doorstep. It operates on supply and demand. In a capitalistic society, where there is corruption, a nonprofit is just another vector--not a safe space.

Supply and demand of what? The CDC does not sell products or insurance or anything else. Its purpose is public health and safety, meaning any excess funds must go toward furthering that purpose. In other words, they might setup or assist clinics in under-served areas of the country, they might hire speakers for school assemblies, or they might distribute free PPE such as masks and gloves. That's all assuming they don't take in just enough money to keep the lights on at their headquarters, of course, which has surely been the case at times.

I'm as jaded as anyone when it comes to capitalism, but I'm not just going to assume that every person and organization that operates in America is inherently corrupt. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and short of that, you aren't going to convince anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together.

 

[tabzer]

Supply and demand of what?

Of their "service" based on its constraints.

I'm not making any extraordinary claims. I'm just saying that you were wrong--which is perfectly ordinary. Handling that gracefully, however, was an extraordinary expectation.

 

[subcon959]

I honestly didn't realise that being sceptical of the CDC was controversial. Doesn't anyone remember how they helped push the flu vaccine even though their own data didn't support their claims? I seem to recall Fauci being involved in that too.

Here's an interesting article from 2018.. btw it's from a group that advocates for children's health - but is a non-profit so probably not corrupt..

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...ality-in-the-elderly-but-wheres-the-evidence/

 

[Xzi]

Of their "service" based on its constraints.

And how much "demand" do you wager there is for their services? Because from my perspective, it seems like most people forget the CDC exists entirely except when they're in need of conspiracy fodder/a political boogeyman.

I'm not making any extraordinary claims.

You're claiming that nonprofits, such as soup kitchens, are equally as susceptible to corruption as Exxon Mobil. That's a pretty extraordinary claim by any measure, bordering on paranoid delusion even.

I'm just saying that you were wrong

Ah yes, ever the contrarian just for contrarianism's sake. Gotta find a way to feel special somehow, I suppose.

 

[subcon959]

You're claiming that nonprofits, such as soup kitchens, are equally as susceptible to corruption as Exxon Mobil.

What's with the intellectual dishonesty? Are you really not able to distinguish between a soup kitchen and the non-profit wing of a multinational corporation?

 

[Xzi]

What's with the intellectual dishonesty? Are you really not able to distinguish between a soup kitchen and the non-profit wing of a multinational corporation?

He made the claim that any nonprofit is equally as susceptible to corruption as any capitalist for-profit corporation. That's demonstrably ridiculous in any number of ways, so I simply took advantage of that opening.

Here's an interesting article from 2018.. btw it's from a group that advocates for children's health - but is a non-profit so probably not corrupt..

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...ality-in-the-elderly-but-wheres-the-evidence/

Corruption I'm not sure about, but that site and its creator are known for spreading misinformation, as well as having an obvious political bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Health_Defense