Over here, on the other side of the pond, there's a "police power to protect the public health" which has been used to grant the governments, both state and federal, unlimited powers: "Infectious diseases are unique in that they tap into deep-seated human fears and threaten society itself, rather than just the well-being of individuals. This is not to denigrate the importance of chronic diseases and other preventive medicine concerns, but to recognize that infectious diseases are qualitatively different from other public health concerns, both psychologically and legally. Whatever the cumulative statistical threat to the health of the nation posed by chronic illness, the afflicted individuals pose no threat to others-they are not dangerous people. This is a key legal distinction. In the United States legal system, as well as those of most nations, the state has a special duty to protect its citizens from dangerous people, and special legal rights when it is doing so. In the United States, this power and duty to protect the health and safety of the general public is called the police power." https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/1999/07000/The_Role_of_the_Police_Power_in_21st_Century.8.aspx
What hasn't been realized up until the present is that this all-encompassing power can be used by corrupt governments to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It has been assumed that this power would be used for the good of the public, not to serve some unspoken, hidden agenda. But whenever unlimited and absolute power is handed to government, in this case an exception to Constitutional liberties for the purpose of protecting public health, there is always the possibility that this power can be abused. If there is no check on this power, then there is no check on the abuse or its duration. Courts assume that scientists and the medical profession have no ulterior motives, that they perform their duties impartially without regard to any benefit that might accrue to them, including their power over the people. And in any case, the courts do not have the scientific knowledge or expertise to evaluate claims, they must rely on the testimony of experts to come to their decisions. In the case of public health, the experts that the courts rely upon are the CDC and the FDA, and it is assumed that these agencies do honest work and that there are no conflicts of interest present.
We've found over the past two years or so that these assumptions have not been borne out, that officials from these agencies have been less than forthright about their actions and the data that they have collected, and have admitted that they have lied or attempted to deceive the public about certain material facts. If they did this in a court of law, testifying under oath, they'd be guilty of perjury. But given the social hysteria generated and sustained by social media and mass media, they've been allowed to get away with this by the very institutions charged with exercising a check on this power. And given the complex nature of the knowledge involved - which leaves those institutions with no other choice but to trust those charged with having that knowledge - it's a grant of unlimited and absolute power, and in a free society such grants of unlimited and absolute power must not be tolerated, because the risk of corruption and abuse is so great. "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely [without question]" - Lord Acton.
Thus this police power to protect the public health must be abolished, there must be no special exceptions to the unalienable and inherent rights set out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there must be no more "medical mandates" and no more government actions based on bodies which for various reasons, including specialized knowledge, have little or no accountability to the people over whom they would exercise power. The role of public health agencies must be as advisors only, and there must be nothing done with this advice which would contravene or deny essential liberties. Persuasion, not force, must be the rule from here on out, and that persuasion must depend on credibility and reputation and transparency as to data and analysis - not the whims and desires of officials. Reasonable people - the same reasonable people who are selected for juries to decide questions of life or death - must be depended upon to make the decisions which affect their health and the health of others. There must be no "public health exception" to the Bill of Rights.
Excellent essay and analogy. Drag science is desperately burlesque, but again, “Why?” I notice you (and I too) struggle with an answer. It actually undermines power by blowing up any possibility of future trust or credibility. I think the plain reason is a potent mix of power aphrodisiac with fear porn, primed by a look-at-me social media world. A perfect storm that banished consciousness altogether and replaced it with blind impulse and reaction along with guilty delights of playing hooky from life indefinitely (at least for those who could be keyboard warriors and work pantomimes from home and still get paid). Now we wake up after the bender and see the room trashed, the drag queen with her makeup smeared and her wig a scraggly mop on the floor, and we are beginning to wonder just exactly what we were thinking. Well, we weren’t thinking... or feeling... or caring or seeking knowledge. We secretly wanted an orgy of drama to overtake all the niggling uncertainty of necessary change, so we produced it on a mass scale with a trillions dollar budget, and we got the biggest flop and dangerous farce in the history of the world. Time for better heads and hearts to step forward and build a new earth on the ruins of the old as spirited dancers not ersatz cat walkers.
I believe Occam's Razor should be applied to the circumstances that led to the creation of WuhanFlu.
So, I think it is safe to say, Fauci/CDC funded Gain of Function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There was a leak that spread beyond control due to the nature of respiratory viruses. Darth Schwab did not unleash a virus with a <1% fatality rate as part of a conspiracy designed to dominate the entire planet.
However, those on the left, i.e., socialists, communists, have a long existing policy that has been used often, and that will continue to be used. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
As such, fear was intentionally stoked for the purpose of acquiring and exercising power. History demonstrates that fear will eventually recede and controls will be reduced, but not removed entirely.
And so now we wait for the next crisis, and wonder if enough people will ever be sufficiently outraged to rise up?
For at least here in the USA, the sole reason the Second Amendment was created was to ensure The People would have the means to resist and overthrow the tyrannical government the Founders knew would necessarily become.
Just thinking aloud here really, but doesn't your health stat agency tally all causes for death as reported? Meaning that if Potbelly Bill pops his clogs in an auto accident, it winds up in the data as both a car accident, massive internal bleeding, lung failure, heart failure, shock, and Covid (since Bill showed positive for virus/antibodies)?
That's how our stats agencies does it, with big honking words reminding you not to cnfuse number of causes of death reported with number of actual people dead.
We've had about 19 000 dead from/with Covid since the start, and there's never been any confusion on this. An octogenarian dying with the virus present would probably have thre-four other cause too, Covid just being the last straw. Not to mention that 80%+ of casualties have had one or more comorbidities on top of being old. Fat, respiratory stuff, immunodeficieny, diabetes, a couple of other things makes the infection go from a right bother to lethal.
Which is normal and virtually all medics have also said so - expcet the ones media anointed (or rather: annoynted).
I think we should blame the last 40 years participation trophy-culture reall, the tippy-toes musn't upset someone zeitgeist. Call someone fat? You're worse than Hitler! Tell someone their own filthy habits is what's making them susceptible to disease and injury? He-re-tic!
Do you know what it's called when someone is watching a movie over your shoulder?
There is no need to struggle on with finding a non-burlesque answer to the question of why. Why did the western world emasculate itself and then pretend to be a businessman in a suit and tie? That would be just as suitable a question.
The reason was based in the old adage of never let a good crisis go to waste, with the corollary, if it seems to be working, double down, stat!
The average person, the middle of the bell curve, were beginning to see the evil that slithered behind the curtains of government. That could not stand the light, and so the dark cloak of death, disease and division had to be thrown over the world as we knew it. Toto the little dog knew all along we were being manipulated.
It is long past time for us to shed this deception.
Aug 9, 2022·edited Aug 9, 2022Liked by Rudolph Rigger
One thing about the stats at the top Riggery. The graph states that on 5th Nov 2021, 80% of over 12's were double vaxxed. I know these are not your figures, but they are clearly bullshit, as i'm sure you would agree. I say this because the vast majority of, even blue pilled parents that I know were not going to get their over 12yo's vaxxed. I don't know whose arse they pulled that figure of.
One more thing, not to take away from yet another splendid article, but I would say that the spike in deaths could be attributed to hospital and nursing home protocols and the illegal, purely french labelling on the midazolam imported from France causing many carers and nurses to not notice that the midazolam they were using was 5 times stronger than that which they would have normally used and so caused them to give a dose that was equivalent to that used on death row.
My theory for the insane levels of fear porn was to build up demand for the forthcoming shots so that Pharma and vested interests (Gates, Fauci, et al) would profit handsomely.
Section 2: "The disease has had a larger impact on those most vulnerable (for example, those who already suffer from a medical condition) and those at older ages. Some of these deaths would have likely occurred over the duration of the year but have occurred earlier because of COVID-19. These deaths occurring earlier than expected could contribute to a period of deaths below the five-year average.”
Backs up the "co-morbidites were killing them anyway" and the "all they had in common was a medically meaningless positive test result" narratives.
How do the figures look when the initial 60 day from positive test rates are used as the 28 day limit was not the only time limit was it?
And on the (in)sanity of it all the CMO Chris Whitty said on the 21st July 2020 in the Parliamentary Health and Social Care Committee hearing:
“If you look at the R, and the behaviours, quite a lot of the change that led to the R going below one occurred well before, or to some extent before, the 23rd, when the full lockdown started.”
You can download it yourself on their website - set the start time at 10:58:00 and end time as 11:01 - their instructions are easy to follow.
This, in effect, means that “the virus” infection rate was dropping drastically BEFORE the incarceration of the population started and that the existing precautions - wash hands properly, coughing etiquette, stay at home if you feel ill - were effectively controlling the spread of “the virus”.
It also means that the peak of the infections occurred PRIOR to the population incarceration commenced and as the average time from catching “the virus” to death has been widely stated as 23 days with the peak numbers of deaths occurring approximately 10-14 days from commencement of the incarceration it means that the imprisonment of the population and destruction of the economy has had NO effect whatsoever.
So why continue with the farce for the next 2+ years worldwide with a few notable exceptions?
“Did UK's coronavirus crisis peak BEFORE lockdown? Research suggests darkest day of the outbreak was March 18 – five days before draconian measures were introduced”.
Why did the Daily mail not follow this up more rigorously?
Another fine contribution Sir. My thoughts on the why question are these. As is well known by now, the very same overlords and muppets who’ve set themselves up to rule over us plebs had been very busy with another of their drag queens, climate science, to hector and nudge us for many years already. Yet only a few idle hands and paid agitators took any notice, most real people being too busy making ends meet to give an actual fcuk.
Given the looming 2030 UN deadline to radically dehumanise the planet and consolidate centralised control of everything that all of our nations dear leaders have signed us up to, this must have been rather annoying. Time then to ramp up the fear with actual dead bodies leading to so much better compliance. Let’s have a quick practice run with event 201, then let loose with those gain of function viruses we’ve been developing in both respiratory and injectable form. The patent and the money trails stretch a long way back before 2019, a bit like the bbc small print. These tell the real story for everyone to see, should they choose to. Mission Impossible? Doesn’t seem like it.
I like your content and analysis. My foul, childishness tone, language filter keeps moving you to spam because you use "fuck" all the time. Can you raise the bar a little on the language? Otherwise, sorry, bye.
Over here, on the other side of the pond, there's a "police power to protect the public health" which has been used to grant the governments, both state and federal, unlimited powers: "Infectious diseases are unique in that they tap into deep-seated human fears and threaten society itself, rather than just the well-being of individuals. This is not to denigrate the importance of chronic diseases and other preventive medicine concerns, but to recognize that infectious diseases are qualitatively different from other public health concerns, both psychologically and legally. Whatever the cumulative statistical threat to the health of the nation posed by chronic illness, the afflicted individuals pose no threat to others-they are not dangerous people. This is a key legal distinction. In the United States legal system, as well as those of most nations, the state has a special duty to protect its citizens from dangerous people, and special legal rights when it is doing so. In the United States, this power and duty to protect the health and safety of the general public is called the police power." https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/1999/07000/The_Role_of_the_Police_Power_in_21st_Century.8.aspx
What hasn't been realized up until the present is that this all-encompassing power can be used by corrupt governments to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It has been assumed that this power would be used for the good of the public, not to serve some unspoken, hidden agenda. But whenever unlimited and absolute power is handed to government, in this case an exception to Constitutional liberties for the purpose of protecting public health, there is always the possibility that this power can be abused. If there is no check on this power, then there is no check on the abuse or its duration. Courts assume that scientists and the medical profession have no ulterior motives, that they perform their duties impartially without regard to any benefit that might accrue to them, including their power over the people. And in any case, the courts do not have the scientific knowledge or expertise to evaluate claims, they must rely on the testimony of experts to come to their decisions. In the case of public health, the experts that the courts rely upon are the CDC and the FDA, and it is assumed that these agencies do honest work and that there are no conflicts of interest present.
We've found over the past two years or so that these assumptions have not been borne out, that officials from these agencies have been less than forthright about their actions and the data that they have collected, and have admitted that they have lied or attempted to deceive the public about certain material facts. If they did this in a court of law, testifying under oath, they'd be guilty of perjury. But given the social hysteria generated and sustained by social media and mass media, they've been allowed to get away with this by the very institutions charged with exercising a check on this power. And given the complex nature of the knowledge involved - which leaves those institutions with no other choice but to trust those charged with having that knowledge - it's a grant of unlimited and absolute power, and in a free society such grants of unlimited and absolute power must not be tolerated, because the risk of corruption and abuse is so great. "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely [without question]" - Lord Acton.
Thus this police power to protect the public health must be abolished, there must be no special exceptions to the unalienable and inherent rights set out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there must be no more "medical mandates" and no more government actions based on bodies which for various reasons, including specialized knowledge, have little or no accountability to the people over whom they would exercise power. The role of public health agencies must be as advisors only, and there must be nothing done with this advice which would contravene or deny essential liberties. Persuasion, not force, must be the rule from here on out, and that persuasion must depend on credibility and reputation and transparency as to data and analysis - not the whims and desires of officials. Reasonable people - the same reasonable people who are selected for juries to decide questions of life or death - must be depended upon to make the decisions which affect their health and the health of others. There must be no "public health exception" to the Bill of Rights.
Thank you.
A Sage and Whitty (ahaha) explanation of the malicious idiocy from our glorious leaders and the mass stupidity of the proles.
Excellent essay and analogy. Drag science is desperately burlesque, but again, “Why?” I notice you (and I too) struggle with an answer. It actually undermines power by blowing up any possibility of future trust or credibility. I think the plain reason is a potent mix of power aphrodisiac with fear porn, primed by a look-at-me social media world. A perfect storm that banished consciousness altogether and replaced it with blind impulse and reaction along with guilty delights of playing hooky from life indefinitely (at least for those who could be keyboard warriors and work pantomimes from home and still get paid). Now we wake up after the bender and see the room trashed, the drag queen with her makeup smeared and her wig a scraggly mop on the floor, and we are beginning to wonder just exactly what we were thinking. Well, we weren’t thinking... or feeling... or caring or seeking knowledge. We secretly wanted an orgy of drama to overtake all the niggling uncertainty of necessary change, so we produced it on a mass scale with a trillions dollar budget, and we got the biggest flop and dangerous farce in the history of the world. Time for better heads and hearts to step forward and build a new earth on the ruins of the old as spirited dancers not ersatz cat walkers.
I believe Occam's Razor should be applied to the circumstances that led to the creation of WuhanFlu.
So, I think it is safe to say, Fauci/CDC funded Gain of Function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There was a leak that spread beyond control due to the nature of respiratory viruses. Darth Schwab did not unleash a virus with a <1% fatality rate as part of a conspiracy designed to dominate the entire planet.
However, those on the left, i.e., socialists, communists, have a long existing policy that has been used often, and that will continue to be used. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
As such, fear was intentionally stoked for the purpose of acquiring and exercising power. History demonstrates that fear will eventually recede and controls will be reduced, but not removed entirely.
And so now we wait for the next crisis, and wonder if enough people will ever be sufficiently outraged to rise up?
For at least here in the USA, the sole reason the Second Amendment was created was to ensure The People would have the means to resist and overthrow the tyrannical government the Founders knew would necessarily become.
Just thinking aloud here really, but doesn't your health stat agency tally all causes for death as reported? Meaning that if Potbelly Bill pops his clogs in an auto accident, it winds up in the data as both a car accident, massive internal bleeding, lung failure, heart failure, shock, and Covid (since Bill showed positive for virus/antibodies)?
That's how our stats agencies does it, with big honking words reminding you not to cnfuse number of causes of death reported with number of actual people dead.
We've had about 19 000 dead from/with Covid since the start, and there's never been any confusion on this. An octogenarian dying with the virus present would probably have thre-four other cause too, Covid just being the last straw. Not to mention that 80%+ of casualties have had one or more comorbidities on top of being old. Fat, respiratory stuff, immunodeficieny, diabetes, a couple of other things makes the infection go from a right bother to lethal.
Which is normal and virtually all medics have also said so - expcet the ones media anointed (or rather: annoynted).
I think we should blame the last 40 years participation trophy-culture reall, the tippy-toes musn't upset someone zeitgeist. Call someone fat? You're worse than Hitler! Tell someone their own filthy habits is what's making them susceptible to disease and injury? He-re-tic!
Do you know what it's called when someone is watching a movie over your shoulder?
Co-vid.
There is no need to struggle on with finding a non-burlesque answer to the question of why. Why did the western world emasculate itself and then pretend to be a businessman in a suit and tie? That would be just as suitable a question.
The reason was based in the old adage of never let a good crisis go to waste, with the corollary, if it seems to be working, double down, stat!
The average person, the middle of the bell curve, were beginning to see the evil that slithered behind the curtains of government. That could not stand the light, and so the dark cloak of death, disease and division had to be thrown over the world as we knew it. Toto the little dog knew all along we were being manipulated.
It is long past time for us to shed this deception.
One thing about the stats at the top Riggery. The graph states that on 5th Nov 2021, 80% of over 12's were double vaxxed. I know these are not your figures, but they are clearly bullshit, as i'm sure you would agree. I say this because the vast majority of, even blue pilled parents that I know were not going to get their over 12yo's vaxxed. I don't know whose arse they pulled that figure of.
One more thing, not to take away from yet another splendid article, but I would say that the spike in deaths could be attributed to hospital and nursing home protocols and the illegal, purely french labelling on the midazolam imported from France causing many carers and nurses to not notice that the midazolam they were using was 5 times stronger than that which they would have normally used and so caused them to give a dose that was equivalent to that used on death row.
genius. as always
My theory for the insane levels of fear porn was to build up demand for the forthcoming shots so that Pharma and vested interests (Gates, Fauci, et al) would profit handsomely.
In this ONS weekly death report and a few others posted just before and after this one https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending17july2020
Section 2: "The disease has had a larger impact on those most vulnerable (for example, those who already suffer from a medical condition) and those at older ages. Some of these deaths would have likely occurred over the duration of the year but have occurred earlier because of COVID-19. These deaths occurring earlier than expected could contribute to a period of deaths below the five-year average.”
Backs up the "co-morbidites were killing them anyway" and the "all they had in common was a medically meaningless positive test result" narratives.
How do the figures look when the initial 60 day from positive test rates are used as the 28 day limit was not the only time limit was it?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-uk-wide-methodology-agreed-to-record-covid-19-deaths
And on the (in)sanity of it all the CMO Chris Whitty said on the 21st July 2020 in the Parliamentary Health and Social Care Committee hearing:
“If you look at the R, and the behaviours, quite a lot of the change that led to the R going below one occurred well before, or to some extent before, the 23rd, when the full lockdown started.”
You can download it yourself on their website - set the start time at 10:58:00 and end time as 11:01 - their instructions are easy to follow.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4b2dfc60-0c0e-47fe-8b78-1db2f135a004
This, in effect, means that “the virus” infection rate was dropping drastically BEFORE the incarceration of the population started and that the existing precautions - wash hands properly, coughing etiquette, stay at home if you feel ill - were effectively controlling the spread of “the virus”.
It also means that the peak of the infections occurred PRIOR to the population incarceration commenced and as the average time from catching “the virus” to death has been widely stated as 23 days with the peak numbers of deaths occurring approximately 10-14 days from commencement of the incarceration it means that the imprisonment of the population and destruction of the economy has had NO effect whatsoever.
So why continue with the farce for the next 2+ years worldwide with a few notable exceptions?
I've just found this:
05th June 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391141/Did-UKs-coronavirus-crisis-peak-lockdown.html
“Did UK's coronavirus crisis peak BEFORE lockdown? Research suggests darkest day of the outbreak was March 18 – five days before draconian measures were introduced”.
Why did the Daily mail not follow this up more rigorously?
Another fine contribution Sir. My thoughts on the why question are these. As is well known by now, the very same overlords and muppets who’ve set themselves up to rule over us plebs had been very busy with another of their drag queens, climate science, to hector and nudge us for many years already. Yet only a few idle hands and paid agitators took any notice, most real people being too busy making ends meet to give an actual fcuk.
Given the looming 2030 UN deadline to radically dehumanise the planet and consolidate centralised control of everything that all of our nations dear leaders have signed us up to, this must have been rather annoying. Time then to ramp up the fear with actual dead bodies leading to so much better compliance. Let’s have a quick practice run with event 201, then let loose with those gain of function viruses we’ve been developing in both respiratory and injectable form. The patent and the money trails stretch a long way back before 2019, a bit like the bbc small print. These tell the real story for everyone to see, should they choose to. Mission Impossible? Doesn’t seem like it.
I like your content and analysis. My foul, childishness tone, language filter keeps moving you to spam because you use "fuck" all the time. Can you raise the bar a little on the language? Otherwise, sorry, bye.