Linkey

I will write my ideas. "A cured patient is a lost client" (c). The second point is that modern medicine lacks a holistic approach to health: when a patient comes with a problem, it's solved, but then another problem arises (for a doctor of a different specialization), then another, and so on—so doctors unconsciously help each other make money.

Accuhealth Technologies LLCAmerica’s Silent Epidemic: The Alarming Rise of Chronic D...Explore how chronic diseases are reshaping U.S. healthcare and how RPM, telehealth, and prevention offer a path forward. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/03/combating-americas-chronic-disease-epidemic.html https://www.factcheck.org/2024/08/rfk-jr-s-exaggerations-on-chronic-disease-in-children/ I can write here some of my ideas ideas on the reasons of this problem, but my ideas can be considered as "pseudoscientific" and "speculative".

I have a very simple idea, good at least for sci-fi novels. Currently there is a battle in the world between autocracies and Western democracies. According to MWI, some time later there will be two universes - in the first the dictators will finally win, in the second the democracies will win. But in the first universe, maybe in 22nd century, the humanity will perish in a big nuclear war; and in more prosperous second universe, in far future (maybe 2500 AD), humanity will establish the Time Patrol. The Patrol will affect the past via Mermin-Peres game (quantum pseudo-telepathy), and it will reduce the amplitude of the state |Dictators_win>. This means for us, that the probability that people like Putin will win is almost zero (according to Born rule). I have a question: would these speculations be the same, if we switch from MWI to TSVF interpretation?

The authoritarianism is the situation when people in a country can't vote for some changes they want, for example increasing of equality in the country, or e.g. prohibition of the abundance of transgender athletes in big sports. Sorry for my last example, I understand that you don't like this theme (since you support the Left), but I can use this for illustraion of my views. When the people in Poland voted for PiS, they demanded exactly this, but they were unable to achive what they voted for, because in 2023 the PiS party was replaced by a coalition of Left parties. I want to repeat my point that the Polish people voted in 2023 for parties other than PiS not because they stopped wanting these changes, but because PiS made some bad laws in other subjects. If during the rule of PiS some referendum in Poland was performed, the new parties would be unable to cancel the decision of the Polish people. But in most Western countries, the ruling elite understands that such referendums can threat its power, so the referendums are not performed. I see exactly the same situation in Russia: Putin states that since the Russians have voted for him on last President elections, this means that the Russians "support all things he does", but in fact of course they don't support such things as blocking of youtube or messengers. When the Russians voted for Putin, they voted for "stability", not for this.

As mentioned above, the authoritarianism in Western countries is mostly based on package voting, where each choice the voters have has both some good and bad decisions, and they can't separate them to vote for each point independently. For example, a frightening scenario of the near future is as follows: Trump dies or gets a dementia or becomes impeached by the US parliament, and the Americans choose a president of e.g. these two candidates - J. D. Vance vs Kamala Harris. A half of Americans will vote for Harris because they do not want the abortions to be prohibited, and another half will vote for Vance because they do not want transgenders in big sport. Possibly the choice will be even worse, because both candidates will not talk about cryptocurrencies (this will mean that they plan to forbid them), and they will promise to de-anonymise Meta and X (because people talk too much about politics in the social networks). Both choices will be terrible, and I am sure that the best vote in such situation will be NOTC, or, more exactly, spoiling the ballot. The best thing Trump can do now, to prevent such a scenario, is the initiation of some all-US referendum with 4 proposals (each point will be voted separately): 1) Ending of "gender diversity"; 2) Full legalization of abortions; 3) Legalization of cryptocurrencties; 4) Some declaration that the social network have all rights to make their users anonymous.

Ok, I have more arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Switzerland

Before 2022, Europe bought the oil from Russia, and China from Saudi Arabia. After 2022 this reversed - Europe is buying the oil from SA, China from Russia. If Gemany bought less oil from SA, SA would sell its oil to China, so the China would stop buying the oil from Putin and this would stop the Putin's war. Ukraine is fighting for freedom (maybe even for all humanity), and supporting the Putin's war is really a crime. And if the goverment of Germany conscieously ignores the will of Germans, this is evidently not the freedom.

https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-is-right-to-reject-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-says-iea-chief-fatih-birol/ For me, this was rather not mistake but a crime: the closure of atomic stations has lead to an increase of oil consumption and buying the oil in Germany, and in fact this means that Germany is now funding the Putin's war in Ukraine (exchange with Saudi Arabia). And it is very possible that the decision to close the stations was payed by the Putin's lobby (as an example, Gerhard Schröder has been working in Russia for a long time). Clean Energy WireTwo thirds of Germans against shutting down last nuclear...dpa / Clean Energy Wire About two thirds of Germans are against the country’s imminent shutdown of the remaining three nuclear power plants, a survey by opinion research institute YouGov

I have already written, that Europe is close to USSR: it has more equality, but less freedom. There is indeed often some correlation between the authoritarianism and the equality: for example, in China there is a large middle class now. Maybe the explanation is that since China is a hightly authoritarian country, its rulers are not afraid of the middle class (while in the Western world the middle class could overthrow the ruling elites, because it has more civil rights).

https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf So these 1% welthiest are the "nobles", while maybe the FED bankers are "monarchs".

Very simple – the real rulers of the USA and the Western world in general (financial elite) do not allow smart and honest people to start a serious political career, because a smart politician can become a threat/competitor for these rulers. So only bad candidates can participate in elections, and so the voters do not have a good choice. I have two questions relating last US presidential elections: 1) Am I right that the US mass media like CNN and Fox News supported Disantis instead of Trump, stating that Disantis is “a young and smart Trump”, “let it be the Trumpism without Trump”, “the approval rating of Disantis is increasing while the rating of Trump is decreasing”? 2) I saw the presidential debates between the candidates; Haley said there that Putin is a murderer. Disantis always said that he plans to stop supporting Ukraine. Logically this means that Haley must had hated Disantis, but instead they rather were “friends against Trump”. Am I right?

So you believe that the Americans had good choices - previously Biden, then Harris - and they showed themselves stupid since they voted not for Harris but for Trump?

Again: a common situation is when candidate A promises something ugly regarding question 1, but something good regarding question 2. Candidate B promises something good regarding question 1, but something ugly regarding question 2. So the voters do not have choice. For example, some candidates promise to supress gays, while others promise to supress homophobes; and when these candidates change each other, nothing changes, because both parties are rather spoilers serving the financial elite. This is clealy seen in case of USA and Poland.

I suppose, the members of this forum hate such politicians as AfD, Le Pen, DiSantis? I understand their reasoning.

The problem is that the choice of candidates is only among people approved by the elite. And often, if some candidate declares something good, at the same time he declares some ... on other subject, so the voters don't have a possibility for vote for a candidate which is really good for them. I hope you understand my logic for the case of e.g. AfD in Germany.