Rintrah Radagast, whose fantastic essays on Corona I regret to say I’ve only found recently, comments wisely on yesterday’s post: Whether SARS-COV-2 is a uniquely dangerous virus and whether or not lockdowns work to stop it from spreading are ultimately red herrings. The more important point is that it should not be the job of our government to stop viruses from spreading by rationing social interaction among healthy people. …
There should be no 'public health', period. No one should make their living on this, because the interests with actual public health are inherently mis-aligned. Case-in-point, per the RFK, Jr. book, Fauci was a newbie at NIAID in the late 1970's and there wasn't much going on. Cut to the emergence of HIV and he rode that hobby horse into the ground to get funding for NIAID, to the detriment of HIV patients. Money grubbing bureaucracies and actual health are never aligned to help the humans and all of these three to five letter agencies need to be abolished.
Absolutely correct. The only way we avoid getting dragged back into the whole nightmare, as they're already threatening to do in the West and as is observably happening again in China, is to reject the premise that 'non-pharmaceutical interventions' are a valid tactic in any situation.
The way that happens is through savage mockery, yes, but it will also require simple, sustained non-compliant civil disobedience. Refuse to wear the masks, refuse to stay inside, refuse to close your business, refuse to pay whatever fines they attempt to punish you with, refuse to do anything they either ask or demand. Two years after 'just two weeks' it should be abundantly clear that obedience only results in more demands for obedience.
It sounds nutters, but Covid has occasionally caused me to question whether a laser focus on the microscopic world is even a proper concern of medicine to the extent it has become. It’s like now that we know the buggers are there, we are destined to try and delve deeper and deeper into the secrets of this invisible kingdom with our ham-handed methods, all the while feeding the insane delusions of control and manipulation this inevitably fosters.
I don’t know. Wash your hands of course. Of course. But one wonders...in the end putting the virologists on the back burner as you propose is needed may really be a problem of spirit, of humility and knowing the proper place of things I guess. Those lessons come hard to humans.
A virus that was contagious and dangerous enough to warrant these measures, but mild enough to be stopped by these measures seems almost impossible to imagine. I'm all for basing our arguments on liberty, but for those that don't hold liberty in such high regard, just pragmatically how could they possibly think these policies would ever be a wise?
Please explain to me why we don't see anyone on our side championing or setting up blood analysis databases on these easily verifiable vaccine induced injuries.
Blood Clots. d-Dimer, CRP
Immune System D3, D4, D8
Compromise health projections could be made with scientific confidence.
Then you would not have to continue to BEG for interaction & Media attention.
Rintrah's covid essays are very good, but his Holy of Holies is "the climate crisis." He' s all on board with that one, going so far as to threaten to erase any comment that dares call into question that scam, as I recall. So...
--"Masks, lockdowns and finally vaccines have not behaved as promised, they have not ended the pandemic."
Not behaved as promised. But there was no reason to believe they would. All previous studies and experience demonstrated otherwise.
The logical fallacy of argument from authority was trotted out by so-called experts, who were merely politically appointed bureaucrats or elected politicians, pronouncing on affairs outside their authority or expertise in reaction to the mob's call to "do something." Then they poured it on with panic porn, coopting media with millions spent in advertising, and smearing or censoring any with clinical experience suggesting other than the govt line.
Instead of responding with protocols to protect the most vulnerable, most at risk--everyone was treated as vulnerable and at risk. In the US, Fauci, Birx, and Redfield all cut their teeth in the emergence of HIV/AIDS in the '80s where they perpetuated the same nonsense--all were equally at-risk, where testing, track and trace, and research for a vaccine were their primary response.
I believe the lockdown of healthy people began with the lie of asymptomatic spread. We foolishly believed the “experts” who ignored thousands of years of medical history. This would’ve been the first time in medical history than a respiratory virus was spread asymptomatically.
Apr 14, 2022·edited Apr 14, 2022Liked by eugyppius
i love the idea of heckling Neil Ferguson and Christian Drosten to their graves. can we add some names to that list? Fauci, Osterholm, Hotez, Offit, Daszek and the entire regular cast of TWIV? these people have no purpose in life unless we are in perpetual fear of invisible pathogens that only they have the supreme knowledge with which to protect us.
if you listen to TWIV for any length of time (2 1/2 years and counting) you see that what they want is for politicians to hand over the money and power with no restrictions or oversight. they want to explore every bat cave on earth and bring samples back to BSL4 labs in densely populated cities so that they can do serial passaging, genetic manipulation on humanized mice (GOF) to see how bad things could possibly get (one virologist said it was like compressing 2000 years of evolution before lunch break) and then make vaccines for all them them so that they can claim to save humanity and earn all the tax money we gave them.
if you don't agree with their plan for humanity, you can be deprived of your liberties and livelihood, packed away in some camp and forcibly inoculated.
we mere uneducated simple folk don't dare question and honestly lack the capacity to question their voodoo. we have only to submit and obey, secure in the knowledge that these noble scientists/gods are doing this for our own good.
my fear is that there are still plenty of people who are willing to go along with this in exchange for some false "safety" and a new "vaccine" every couple of weeks until there's not a functioning immune system left on earth
The very term "pandemic" was constructed to manipulate a frightened population. Though the term implies an interjurisdictional infection, all jurisdictions treated it differently, indicating its really just a cluster of epidemics. As we've seen, some governments managed it better than others.
Government leadership in emergencies is useful, but mismanagement is worse than no management, so it's important they get it right. The problem in this disaster hasn't been government management, but government mismanagement.
There will be a lot of lessons to be learned, but foremost should be that no emergency justifies overturning fundamental principles. As Ben Franklin wisely foresaw, it's way to easy to lose our liberty when we're frightened.
Apr 14, 2022·edited Apr 14, 2022Liked by eugyppius
The point made by Rintrah is misguided in at least one way. It sees the ultimate ground of political action as ethics, which is the same mistake everyone in political theory makes. Ethics won't stop anyone from doing anything. It's like saying taxation is theft. Maybe it is, but that's not going to stop taxation. A similar problem applies here: "you have no right" never trumps "were going to save lives" in public discourse.
Pragmatic considerations rule politics, ethics is gloss and fodder for political theory conferences. What needs to be done is to decouple the "we can do anything we put our minds to" ideology that comes (imo) from military successes, primarily in wwii. 'If we can mobilize all those people in short order to complete such a massive task, what can't we do! Especially with sCieNce!" Its this kind of retardation that drives interventionism at all levels of govt.
The only way to do the above (imo) is to convince people that epistemology matters, and that immature sciences aren't worth much and models are worth less. It works in first aid, e.g. a motorcyclist crashes, people want to help, tell them moving the rider may kill/paralyze him and they'll stop. Tell them they have no right to move him and they'll push you out of the way and begin to "help"
Apr 15, 2022·edited Apr 15, 2022Liked by eugyppius
We have a lot of protection already but we won't use it.
It requires a 'State of Emergency' to be declared before Emergency Powers can be adopted.
those States of Emergency should not be adopted easily, readily, lightly and it should not go unnoticed when they are.
But they are adopted that way and it does go unnoticed.
And no one makes any attempt to bring it to the public's notice.
It is interesting in this context to note that regarding Bushfires in Australia at least a 'State of Emergency' is habitually declared.
I don't know if this is entirely the same 'State' as that declared by these 'covid emergency' declarations but it seems to me it would.
In which case it should be legislated and made clear that there's a considerable difference and 'bushfire emergency' would carry it's own set of 'emergency powers' and commensurate legislative provisions.
And this nation or State wide declaration should be reserved, as I think is intended in the constitution, for only those desperate scenarios where all the existing protocols, provisions, resources et al, are clearly incapable of solving the situation.
This was clearly never the case in this covid thing, never, ever. For it never did such inordinate harm.
And existing protocols and procedures were never attempted.
That's from the word 'go', right in the beginning that was true. But by the time two years later it's not only true that States of Emergency were improper it is so glaringly obvious it staggers the imagination. Not only was there/is there no emergency there's not even a threat currently.
The problem is that the protocol has lost its meaning. It is now seen as merely the obvious and proper procedure. As with Fire so with Covid. When there's a big bushfire they declare almost as a reflex action.
Then they go about ordering people to leave their homes and such which often (in my opinion) is of questionable necessity and can lead to needless property loss and heartbreak. But they don't go running all around the State ordering everyone to wear masks, lockdown and such madness.
So the people are not aware these are the same thing.
They are 'schooled' to believe 'State of Emergency' is a sort of proper and normal and necessary and good response to dangerous situations.
So they don't look into it. They don't think to object.
In fact in the bushfire situation we can clearly see after all these decades that there's nothing unusual about it that normal procedures couldn't handle. It's not an emergency at all within the proper meaning of the word.
And it should stop being seen as such and these measures being seen as a 'normal' response.
That would be the beginning of protecting ourselves: simply returning to first principles - those principles that established what States of Emergency are and why they have to be (reluctantly) declared sometimes and how they should be used, monitored and ended as soon as possible.
It/they should be a big thing. 'Big'.
Considering it a trifle and a norm is to establish that giving someone the power to rule despotically over your whole State or Country IS a trifle and a norm.
And - do I need to say it - giving someone despotic power over you should not be 'a trifle' and it should not be 'the norm'.
But that's where we are at right now. In this country (Aus) at least.
Without a peep, a murmur, from all those we'd expect to watch over this kind of thing, warn and advise and fight against such misuse.
But we can do it ourselves. Bug our reps. And tell them. Constantly. And vote every single one out if they won't do as we wish. Very hard for us to do when we're in such a minority? Yes, maybe impossible, but in the threatening to do it, in the 'bugging' we might make many of these sinecured idiot/villains uncomfortable and fearful enough for their futures that things may begin to happen.
It's for sure that doing anything - 'anything' - is better than the current state where all we do is talk to each other in columns such as these.
It is absolutely true that "it should not be the job of our government to stop viruses from spreading by rationing social interaction among healthy people."
But most people here in Germany think this is exactly the job of the government.
One of the many lessons we learned from Corona is how willfully helpless so many people are, eager to put all their life into the hands of our benevolent government.
These people will not easily change. It can only happen with a slow wakeup. People realizing that the Corona policies were useless, and then little by little being willing to doubt everything of the official narrative.
It will be a slow process. It will take generations, and looking at the eagerness of the young people to follow all Corona orders, we will probably not be alive anymore when the change comes to fruition.
There should be no 'public health', period. No one should make their living on this, because the interests with actual public health are inherently mis-aligned. Case-in-point, per the RFK, Jr. book, Fauci was a newbie at NIAID in the late 1970's and there wasn't much going on. Cut to the emergence of HIV and he rode that hobby horse into the ground to get funding for NIAID, to the detriment of HIV patients. Money grubbing bureaucracies and actual health are never aligned to help the humans and all of these three to five letter agencies need to be abolished.
Absolutely correct. The only way we avoid getting dragged back into the whole nightmare, as they're already threatening to do in the West and as is observably happening again in China, is to reject the premise that 'non-pharmaceutical interventions' are a valid tactic in any situation.
The way that happens is through savage mockery, yes, but it will also require simple, sustained non-compliant civil disobedience. Refuse to wear the masks, refuse to stay inside, refuse to close your business, refuse to pay whatever fines they attempt to punish you with, refuse to do anything they either ask or demand. Two years after 'just two weeks' it should be abundantly clear that obedience only results in more demands for obedience.
It sounds nutters, but Covid has occasionally caused me to question whether a laser focus on the microscopic world is even a proper concern of medicine to the extent it has become. It’s like now that we know the buggers are there, we are destined to try and delve deeper and deeper into the secrets of this invisible kingdom with our ham-handed methods, all the while feeding the insane delusions of control and manipulation this inevitably fosters.
I don’t know. Wash your hands of course. Of course. But one wonders...in the end putting the virologists on the back burner as you propose is needed may really be a problem of spirit, of humility and knowing the proper place of things I guess. Those lessons come hard to humans.
Bravo. Spot on. "People like Neil Ferguson and Christian Drosten will be heckled all the way to their graves." Let them take Fauci with them.
A virus that was contagious and dangerous enough to warrant these measures, but mild enough to be stopped by these measures seems almost impossible to imagine. I'm all for basing our arguments on liberty, but for those that don't hold liberty in such high regard, just pragmatically how could they possibly think these policies would ever be a wise?
"Masks, lockdowns and finally vaccines have not behaved as promised, they have not ended the pandemic."
No, they've prolonged it.
Sir.
Please explain to me why we don't see anyone on our side championing or setting up blood analysis databases on these easily verifiable vaccine induced injuries.
Blood Clots. d-Dimer, CRP
Immune System D3, D4, D8
Compromise health projections could be made with scientific confidence.
Then you would not have to continue to BEG for interaction & Media attention.
WHY ??
Rintrah's covid essays are very good, but his Holy of Holies is "the climate crisis." He' s all on board with that one, going so far as to threaten to erase any comment that dares call into question that scam, as I recall. So...
--"Masks, lockdowns and finally vaccines have not behaved as promised, they have not ended the pandemic."
Not behaved as promised. But there was no reason to believe they would. All previous studies and experience demonstrated otherwise.
The logical fallacy of argument from authority was trotted out by so-called experts, who were merely politically appointed bureaucrats or elected politicians, pronouncing on affairs outside their authority or expertise in reaction to the mob's call to "do something." Then they poured it on with panic porn, coopting media with millions spent in advertising, and smearing or censoring any with clinical experience suggesting other than the govt line.
Instead of responding with protocols to protect the most vulnerable, most at risk--everyone was treated as vulnerable and at risk. In the US, Fauci, Birx, and Redfield all cut their teeth in the emergence of HIV/AIDS in the '80s where they perpetuated the same nonsense--all were equally at-risk, where testing, track and trace, and research for a vaccine were their primary response.
I believe the lockdown of healthy people began with the lie of asymptomatic spread. We foolishly believed the “experts” who ignored thousands of years of medical history. This would’ve been the first time in medical history than a respiratory virus was spread asymptomatically.
i love the idea of heckling Neil Ferguson and Christian Drosten to their graves. can we add some names to that list? Fauci, Osterholm, Hotez, Offit, Daszek and the entire regular cast of TWIV? these people have no purpose in life unless we are in perpetual fear of invisible pathogens that only they have the supreme knowledge with which to protect us.
if you listen to TWIV for any length of time (2 1/2 years and counting) you see that what they want is for politicians to hand over the money and power with no restrictions or oversight. they want to explore every bat cave on earth and bring samples back to BSL4 labs in densely populated cities so that they can do serial passaging, genetic manipulation on humanized mice (GOF) to see how bad things could possibly get (one virologist said it was like compressing 2000 years of evolution before lunch break) and then make vaccines for all them them so that they can claim to save humanity and earn all the tax money we gave them.
if you don't agree with their plan for humanity, you can be deprived of your liberties and livelihood, packed away in some camp and forcibly inoculated.
we mere uneducated simple folk don't dare question and honestly lack the capacity to question their voodoo. we have only to submit and obey, secure in the knowledge that these noble scientists/gods are doing this for our own good.
my fear is that there are still plenty of people who are willing to go along with this in exchange for some false "safety" and a new "vaccine" every couple of weeks until there's not a functioning immune system left on earth
Lest we forget lockdowns 101:
https://michaelpsenger.substack.com/p/no-true-scotsman-lockdown-as-social?r=ft46p&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The very term "pandemic" was constructed to manipulate a frightened population. Though the term implies an interjurisdictional infection, all jurisdictions treated it differently, indicating its really just a cluster of epidemics. As we've seen, some governments managed it better than others.
Government leadership in emergencies is useful, but mismanagement is worse than no management, so it's important they get it right. The problem in this disaster hasn't been government management, but government mismanagement.
There will be a lot of lessons to be learned, but foremost should be that no emergency justifies overturning fundamental principles. As Ben Franklin wisely foresaw, it's way to easy to lose our liberty when we're frightened.
The point made by Rintrah is misguided in at least one way. It sees the ultimate ground of political action as ethics, which is the same mistake everyone in political theory makes. Ethics won't stop anyone from doing anything. It's like saying taxation is theft. Maybe it is, but that's not going to stop taxation. A similar problem applies here: "you have no right" never trumps "were going to save lives" in public discourse.
Pragmatic considerations rule politics, ethics is gloss and fodder for political theory conferences. What needs to be done is to decouple the "we can do anything we put our minds to" ideology that comes (imo) from military successes, primarily in wwii. 'If we can mobilize all those people in short order to complete such a massive task, what can't we do! Especially with sCieNce!" Its this kind of retardation that drives interventionism at all levels of govt.
The only way to do the above (imo) is to convince people that epistemology matters, and that immature sciences aren't worth much and models are worth less. It works in first aid, e.g. a motorcyclist crashes, people want to help, tell them moving the rider may kill/paralyze him and they'll stop. Tell them they have no right to move him and they'll push you out of the way and begin to "help"
We have a lot of protection already but we won't use it.
It requires a 'State of Emergency' to be declared before Emergency Powers can be adopted.
those States of Emergency should not be adopted easily, readily, lightly and it should not go unnoticed when they are.
But they are adopted that way and it does go unnoticed.
And no one makes any attempt to bring it to the public's notice.
It is interesting in this context to note that regarding Bushfires in Australia at least a 'State of Emergency' is habitually declared.
I don't know if this is entirely the same 'State' as that declared by these 'covid emergency' declarations but it seems to me it would.
In which case it should be legislated and made clear that there's a considerable difference and 'bushfire emergency' would carry it's own set of 'emergency powers' and commensurate legislative provisions.
And this nation or State wide declaration should be reserved, as I think is intended in the constitution, for only those desperate scenarios where all the existing protocols, provisions, resources et al, are clearly incapable of solving the situation.
This was clearly never the case in this covid thing, never, ever. For it never did such inordinate harm.
And existing protocols and procedures were never attempted.
That's from the word 'go', right in the beginning that was true. But by the time two years later it's not only true that States of Emergency were improper it is so glaringly obvious it staggers the imagination. Not only was there/is there no emergency there's not even a threat currently.
The problem is that the protocol has lost its meaning. It is now seen as merely the obvious and proper procedure. As with Fire so with Covid. When there's a big bushfire they declare almost as a reflex action.
Then they go about ordering people to leave their homes and such which often (in my opinion) is of questionable necessity and can lead to needless property loss and heartbreak. But they don't go running all around the State ordering everyone to wear masks, lockdown and such madness.
So the people are not aware these are the same thing.
They are 'schooled' to believe 'State of Emergency' is a sort of proper and normal and necessary and good response to dangerous situations.
So they don't look into it. They don't think to object.
In fact in the bushfire situation we can clearly see after all these decades that there's nothing unusual about it that normal procedures couldn't handle. It's not an emergency at all within the proper meaning of the word.
And it should stop being seen as such and these measures being seen as a 'normal' response.
That would be the beginning of protecting ourselves: simply returning to first principles - those principles that established what States of Emergency are and why they have to be (reluctantly) declared sometimes and how they should be used, monitored and ended as soon as possible.
It/they should be a big thing. 'Big'.
Considering it a trifle and a norm is to establish that giving someone the power to rule despotically over your whole State or Country IS a trifle and a norm.
And - do I need to say it - giving someone despotic power over you should not be 'a trifle' and it should not be 'the norm'.
But that's where we are at right now. In this country (Aus) at least.
Without a peep, a murmur, from all those we'd expect to watch over this kind of thing, warn and advise and fight against such misuse.
But we can do it ourselves. Bug our reps. And tell them. Constantly. And vote every single one out if they won't do as we wish. Very hard for us to do when we're in such a minority? Yes, maybe impossible, but in the threatening to do it, in the 'bugging' we might make many of these sinecured idiot/villains uncomfortable and fearful enough for their futures that things may begin to happen.
It's for sure that doing anything - 'anything' - is better than the current state where all we do is talk to each other in columns such as these.
I agree with you.
It is absolutely true that "it should not be the job of our government to stop viruses from spreading by rationing social interaction among healthy people."
But most people here in Germany think this is exactly the job of the government.
One of the many lessons we learned from Corona is how willfully helpless so many people are, eager to put all their life into the hands of our benevolent government.
These people will not easily change. It can only happen with a slow wakeup. People realizing that the Corona policies were useless, and then little by little being willing to doubt everything of the official narrative.
It will be a slow process. It will take generations, and looking at the eagerness of the young people to follow all Corona orders, we will probably not be alive anymore when the change comes to fruition.