The Post-Partisan Emporium

UBI: The Devils in the Details Sean Arthur Joyce The devil is always in the details, as the old saying goes. Most have probably forgotten now what that proverb means, but in essence, it’s a kind of  caveat emptor : If it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Don’t swallow the whole enchilada until you know  all  the ingredients. In my previous article, “To UBI or Not to UBI?” I discussed the Canadian proposal for a Universal Basic Income and the various reactions to UBIs from both socialist and capitalist sources. I also noted that a nearly three-year study on UBIs by the  University of British Columbia ,  Simon Fraser University  and the  University of Calgary  concluded that, “a basic income for all  is not the best way to address poverty and other social problems .” Instead, the  British Columbia Expert Panel on Basic Income  said, “governments should boost existing social support programs for vulnerable groups…”[1] The tri-university study[2] released an executive summary pref

The Evolution of the “No-Virus” Theory Julie Beal The no-virus theory was proposed by Stefan Lanka in the late 1990s, riding hot on the heels of his new-found fame as an AIDS dissident. Lanka, a marine biologist, first became interested in the HIV controversy after an Austrian professor called Fritz Pohl told him, “ the official version of HIV and AIDS did not ‘add up.'” After doing some independent research, Lanka decided it would be a good idea to deny the existence of  all  viruses, rather than just HIV. “ It became clear to me,”  he said, “that if I only criticised the postulate of a single virus and did not mention the rest, I was reinforcing the virus theory. And if I did not challenge the conceptual framework from which that theory springs, I was reinforcing it. (Translated from German, this quote is taken from an interview with Lanka in 2021.) In a 1998 interview with  Zenger’s magazine , Lanka explained that he had a series of realisations which led him to conclude the arg