The World Health Organization, and all the governments that have followed the advice of the WHO, have told everyone on the planet for the past year that…
1. Even asymptomatic people can spread the Sars-Cov-2 virus and they are the major driver of the epidemic of disease.
2. Quarantine of the healthy is essential to save lives and, in spite of its harmful consequences, a necessary sacrifice.
3. Wearing masks, both indoors and outdoors, is an essential measure in reducing the spread of the virus.
4. The PCR test is a valid and reliable way to test for infection by Sars-Cov-2.
5. There are no drug treatments or treatment protocols that can significantly reduce severe outcomes and fatalities.
6. Natural herd immunity, achieved when a significant percentage of the population has survived infection, is no longer a valid concept in epidemiology. In the case of Sars-Cov-2, we can achieve herd immunity only through vaccination.
7. Anybody who challenges this narrative is a lunatic, a menace, and a danger to society. Such people must be censored and silenced in order to save lives.
It’s a really, really good thing that all of these assertions are true because just imagine the implications if they were not—the criminal prosecutions of officials for hundreds of thousands of negligent deaths, the enormous financial compensations owed to all who lost their livelihoods, the discrediting of journalists, the murderous rage aimed at billionaire philanthropists, the consequences for political leaders and their parties. The cry for justice could lead to revolutions throughout the globe and uprisings of retribution against the perpetrators. So it’s a great, great relief that our trusted officials got it right. Heaven forbid that they might have got it all wrong.
I hope readers can sense the sarcasm. The evidence is accumulating that they actually did get it all wrong. Each of the above seven points are wrong according to the dissenting voices that have been rising since the early days of the pandemic, and now the number of such people is mounting rapidly. Massive street protests, not reported in the mass media, have occurred in world capitals. Several courts in Europe have declared lockdowns unconstitutional and ordered governments to end them. Social media platforms are becoming more strident and ridiculous in their attempts to silence the mounting dissent, but it spills out anyway. It will be difficult for the masses who went along with and promoted the deception to admit to their alleged “conspiracy theorists” that they were wrong, but the greater obstacle to getting the truth out is the liabilities and guilt of the people who propagated the lies in order to go along with a plan to transform education, health care and the economy in general, and to gain public acceptance of RNA manipulation biotechnology. They have too much to lose, and too much wrath to endure, to go down without a fight. They are doomed if they admit to their mistakes (or deeds), whether they acted with good intentions or with malice aforethought.
Nick Hudson, the founder of a group of professionals and scientists called PANDA (Pandemics Data and Analytics), summed up the case against the standard pandemic narrative in a half-hour speech he made in late March 2021. YouTube removed it within two days, but it can still be found on the PANDA website and elsewhere. The transcript of the speech follows.
It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway. Support of the counter-narrative does not make one a cold, insensitive brute with no regard for the pain and suffering of those who have been affected badly by the corona virus. The counter-narrative claims that the vulnerable could have been protected and treated better than they were, and the collateral damage to the rest of society could have been avoided.
Nick Hudson, Pandemics Data and Analytics (PANDA), March 2021. PANDA’s co-founder, Nick Hudson, was the keynote speaker at the March 2021 inaugural Biz News Investment Conference in South Africa.
Nick Hudson first came to our attention when PANDA began making some insights into the whole lockdown. He in many ways typifies what Biz News is about. We do not believe that our audience is stupid We believe our audience doesn’t have to be told what the truth is. We rather prefer providing a platform where alternate views can be presented and that our community can make up their own minds. So the intelligent lay person approach is to never underestimate the intelligence of your community. Never overestimate their knowledge. That’s what we work on, and that’s what we will continue doing in the future. Everyone that we admire is an independent and a free thinker. When you start with Herman Mashaba, Paul O’Sullivan, … and Nick and Charles Savage. And they’re all changing the world in their own way by thinking independently. And if you recall what Steve Jobs, the late Steve Jobs said, it was the pirates, and the misfits, and the oddballs who actually changed the world, not the people who are made from the cookie cutters. We believe that our community loves Biz News because of all of our community members are looking for something different, something alternative, something not just run-of-the-mill, and that is personified in our opening address this morning by Nick, the co-founder of PANDA, an investor, a private equity specialist. Nick Hudson.
Thank you, Alec. I really applaud you for taking that approach to journalism. It’s uncomfortably rare in the whole world at the moment. It is just a terrible state of affairs. PANDA started off as a conversation, really, a group of four friends—professionals, an economist, a doctor, a lawyer, and an actuary. What we shared was an observation that the data and the facts, the reality of coronavirus was far, far away from what the media and public health institutions were presenting to the world. And we saw in that problem the seeds of a great tragedy. After some months, we realized that our South African efforts needed to internationalize. This was not a local story, and it was not only about the science. Our advisory board now includes some of the leading lights in infectious diseases and epidemiology, a Nobel laureate, and the working team of PANDA now spans the globe and includes a great many scientists, most of whom have to be members of PANDA in a cryptic fashion. That’s how bad the censorship in this world has become.
We have believed from the get-go that it was wrong, on a number of levels, to close society down and that it has always been time to reopen society. And we also believe that the truth only prevails if plans are taken to bring it to light. Our world is gripped by fear, and that fear is very much the product of a false narrative. When I say it’s a false narrative, I’m telling you that every single element of this narrative is false.
The narrative says that there’s a deadly virus spreading across the planet, that nobody’s immune to it, and there’s no cure. Even asymptomatic people can spread it and they are the major driver of the epidemic of disease, and unless we lock down and wear our masks until vaccines arrive and everybody gets vaccinated, we’re all going to die. Anybody who challenges this narrative is a lunatic, a menace, a danger to society. Hence the suppression that Alec was talking about. But it is and always has been absolutely clear to us that no element of this narrative is justified in the face of reality.
The reality is that there is a virus. It is having a meaningful impact in some regions of the world. Very few people are susceptible to generating severe disease. There are several available treatments. Asymptomatic people, in a more sensible era known otherwise as healthy people, are not drivers of the epidemic. Lockdowns and mask mandates have been ruled out by pre-covid science, and for good reasons, never recommended. They’ve been tried. They have not worked, and they have caused great harm. Instead of protecting the vulnerable minority, we have hurt them. This [Image 1] is ground zero for the malarkey of covid. This statement is the greatest misrepresentation of all time, two sentences which, by themselves are true. It’s true that the case fatality rate [CFR] for covid at this time was about 3.4%, and it’s also true that the flu generally kills far fewer than 1%. In fact, most people would say 0.1 percent of those infected— not of the cases— but of the sick people who arrive at hospital. But by conflating these two separate points, CFR and IFR [Case Fatality Rate & Infection Fatality Rate], Tedros was effectively lying. And this man [John Ioannidis, Image 2], one of the greatest infectious disease specialists in the world, picked it up a few days later. He said that this statistic causes horror, and it is meaningless. And he was right. Five months later, the World health Organization had no option but to publish his paper which demonstrated the extent to which he was right, showing that the infection fatality rate for coronavirus was not 3.4% but 0.23%, and, more impressively, that for people under the age of 70, it was a mere 0.05%, which is to say negligible.
People are also astonished because the media has suppressed this fact that in March, through the first quarter of last year, none other than Anthony Fauci said that the consequences of covid may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza. He was right at the time, and has been right ever since, but for reasons that are something of a mystery, he’s been wrong in terms of what he has said ever since. The other effect that a flat mortality rate hides is this very impressive statistic that there’s a three-orders-of-magnitude [1,000 ×] difference between the infection fatality rate for young people and that for the elderly.
Further inflaming the fear is this false idea of a novel virus. The reality is that this coronavirus is a very close relative, not even a separate subspecies, a very close relative of the 2003 SARS virus. There are seven related coronaviruses known to cause disease in humans, probably many others, and four of them are in general circulation annually, pretty much annual global circulation, so the naming of this disease is terribly inconsistent. This is really “a rose by any other name”— it’s SARS, a variant of SARS. It’s not novel, but it enabled a further porky pie [a lie].
I could talk for a whole day on the things that are going wrong in this paragraph here [Image 3]. Maria Van Kerkhove, of the World Health Organization, says a majority of the world’s population is susceptible to infection, and that is the first of two key elements that lead to this idea that everyone is dangerous until proven healthy. But we could see as early as February-March that this was not the case. There was the dramatic tale of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, with a deadly virus on board, with the captain having to attempt a lockdown under conditions where lockdown was pretty much impossible. And what that ship showed us in that petri dish experiment, that should have been seen as a godsend, is that a minority of people got infected. A minority of those developed the disease, and a very small minority of those, confined to the over 65s, died. Only 12 people out of several thousand on board the ship died. So that told you very clearly that this universal susceptibility was nonsense.
Another thing that makes it very clear is this startling map showing the population fatality rates around the world [Image 4]. While you can see that in Europe and the Americas there has been an issue, in a vast region covering Africa, Southeast Asia and Oceania, the population fatality rate has been 100 per million, [=1/10,000] which is to say there almost isn’t an epidemic. To put it in context, in a typical year these countries would expect to see about 10,000 deaths per million from all causes, so the hundred per million represents just one percent of annual deaths and probably less than the number of people who annually die from influenza or pneumonia and respiratory diseases.
The wheel of published science turns very slowly, and it has caught up. There are now dozens of papers demonstrating the mechanisms, the detail, and the extent of this fact that there is significant pre-existing immunity from exposure to past viruses. And that brings me to the second element that enables this doctrine of everybody being a danger. That is the asymptomatic driver thesis. It rests on very shaky grounds. I was absolutely aghast to find out the poor quality of the science underpinning this idea.
One of the seminal papers involved one woman who reputedly infected 16 of her colleagues while asymptomatic, but a tiny little bit of investigation pulled out the reality that she was being treated for flu-like symptoms. And with that evaporates a substantial underpinning of the whole asymptomatic transmission story. We were quite pleased on the 8th of June when the World Health Organization acknowledged this. Maria Van Kerkhove again got up on stage and said the data showed that asymptomatic transmission of coronavirus is very rare, only to be deflated the next day when she was forced back onto stage to walk back her statement, saying, “There’s still much we don’t know and our models show us that…” and so on and so on. It’s utter, utter nonsense.
Again, Fauci knew this in the first quarter. He told the world that in the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. And again the literature catches up and we see that in the real-world data, asymptomatic transmission is not a driver.
Moving on to lockdowns: Where on earth does this story come from? This man Bruce Elwood will go down in history as a criminal of immense stature. He took a delegation to China, spent a few days there, and returned and said to the world that everybody should copy China’s response. There was no substantive reason for him to say that. The entire basis for saying this was the doctrine of universal susceptibility. It was clear that in China not everybody had died. Therefore, lockdown’s work. It is so silly.
Before covid, this is repeated wherever you look in any country’s pandemic respiratory virus guidelines, lockdowns are ruled out. They don’t call them lockdowns because the term didn’t exist. They talked about quarantining of the healthy. The measures that are reported to be ineffective, and that should never be attempted, include large-scale quarantines, border closures, school closures, mask mandates, social distancing—all of the stuff that we’re being forced to do. The effective measures are pretty much limited to isolation of the sick and hand washing—the stuff we’ve always done. Again, the literature catches up slowly, and this finding is coming thick and fast. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, in general, especially the draconian ones, do not have a statistical impact on epidemic trajectories, on cases or deaths, and you can even make the discernment that the most draconian interventions are pro-contagion. They actually inflame the spread.
Now we saw this in the data months and months ago in May last year. It was clear. What this chart [Image 5] shows you is that there is no relationship between the stringency of a country’s lockdown and the number of deaths per million in that country. That statistically is called a paint splat, and it means there’s no relationship. A relationship would look like that [Image 6]. It wasn’t only in that data that we could see this fact. We could also see it in the individual curves of countries. So on the left [Image 7] the UK and on the right Sweden, the UK having locked down in a draconian fashion, Sweden having famously never locked down. If you’ve heard otherwise, you’ve been misinformed. They have never locked down in Sweden, and a trained statistician would look at those bottom two charts and tell you straight away that there was no regime change. It’s not possible to detect the initiation or the suspension of lockdown in the UK. The statistical pattern is identical to that of Sweden. The disease follows a trajectory of linear decline in the rate of spread as the number of infectible or susceptible individuals gets consumed by the virus. Lockdown has no effect.
I don’t really like pairwise comparisons. They’re not scientifically sound, but when they show no difference, they have some validity. Here you have the North Dakota-South Dakota pairing [Image 8]. North Dakota locked down with business restrictions and mask mandates. South Dakota: none of the above, and the most that you can say about that curve is that South Dakota, the open society, had a flatter curve.
No country has been lied about more than Sweden. There were daily articles in The Guardian and The New York Times, and The Washington Post, and even The Financial Times, warning that if Sweden did not lock down, there would be a wall of death, murder, and mayhem, and the same modelers who put us into lockdown with their absolutely overblown forecasts predicted that if Sweden did not lock down, it would suffer a hundred thousand excess deaths by May of last year—nearly double the normal year’s death toll in the country. In the event, Sweden did not lock down. That orange bar is what they predicted. That blue bar is what actually happened [Image 9]. Sweden had a normal year of deaths, bang in line with the 10-year average, depending on how you do the calculation, how many years you average over. It’s somewhere between zero excess deaths and seven or eight thousand, not the hundred thousand that they were warned against. What they were warned against and what they got was a massive departure, and I bet you every single person sitting here walked into this room with the belief that there was something that had gone terribly wrong in Sweden because of its refusal to lock down. It’s a lie.
What isn’t a lie and what is very clear in the data is that lockdowns cause a great deal of harm. We have infant mortality. We have creeping poverty. We have starvation, joblessness. There have been gut-wrenching denials of service, failures to diagnose or even treat diseases which are far more impactful than coronavirus, and we are now dealing with a horrible specter, especially amongst the youth, of psychological disorders, with the incidence of self-harm and suicidal ideation expanding to levels that have never been seen before. One and a half billion children had their educations effectively terminated or at least severely disrupted. And that is even true for the few children of the wealthy who were able to attend classes online. And perhaps the hardest thing for me to swallow about all of this is that in undergraduate epidemiology it is a well-known finding that when you are confronted with a disease with a sharp age gradation, as you are with coronavirus, measures to generally suppress the spread of the disease have the effect reliably of shifting the disease burden onto the vulnerable who we should be protecting. They are expected to worsen and do worsen coronavirus mortality.
Closing up now with some stories on masks because if you think the story around lockdowns is a lunatic story, this one is extreme. Here in March we have the World Health Organization correctly telling everybody that there was no reason for the general public to be wearing surgical masks, let alone cloth ones. Three months later, there was an inexplicable about-turn, again at the hands of Dr. Tedros. I want you to note the date of that announcement. It is the 5th of June. It’s astonishing because on the same day the World Health Organization published this announcement that there is no direct evidence for the effectiveness of universal masking. The [American] CDC did a similar about-turn just a couple of weeks before. Its guidance had ruled out mask mandates, and it suddenly produced some extremely flaky science, including my favorite here. A study of two hairdressers in Missouri who were reputedly symptomatic and wore masks and didn’t infect their young and probably not susceptible customers. Absolute nonsense, and it contradicted the CDC’s simultaneous publication of a study of many years of the effectiveness of masking in the case of influenza in which there was no evidence to suggest that even surgical masks were effective with that virus.
Again, when you look at the data, we can compare the mask mandate states in orange with the non-masked mandate states in blue in America, and there’s no difference. Nothing! The story that this is protective of you or somebody else is probably a harmful story. What does Fauci do in response to this evidence that the things don’t work? Let’s wear two! What a joke!
Tom Jefferson, the famous epidemiologist, is correct. Sometimes you get the feeling that a whole industry was waiting for a pandemic to occur. The reason you get that feeling is there is one: Big Pharma. I love this woke Pope meme. It’s made up, OK, this is not fact, but it does communicate an important point that vaccines are being sold as a ticket to freedom by people who stand to make countless billions out of them, and we get to the extreme very quickly with GAVI, the conflicted vaccine alliance, telling us that nobody is safe unless everybody’s safe. How convenient that we now have a logic that tells us that we need to vaccinate 7.8 billion people for a disease that has a mean survival rate of 99.95% for people under the age of 70. The profiteering here is naked. It is transparent.
And so we have these sad situations of teenagers who are really not susceptible, lining up to get vaccinated in desperation to get their freedoms back. They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place, and we have this very dystopian, not new normal, but new abnormal. We have a PCR test that is not capable of diagnosing infectiousness or infectedness. It is wrong to call it a covid test. Covid is the disease, not the presence of a virus. Inflated death numbers. Media propaganda emerging from rampant disinformation by governments, not by PANDA. We have restrictions on movement and travel. We have these ridiculous arbitrary rules. Three days ago, Fauci said the evidence now shows that six feet can be reduced to three. Can you even begin to take a person like this seriously? We have the looming vaccine passport, the loss of personal liberties on an unprecedented level, and so on. And fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear of re-infection, fear of long covid, fear of resurgences and waves and mutations, and variants. It is just continuous and unnecessary, and it’s putting us into a very Orwellian dystopia with pictures that have never been seen in living memory in liberal democracies, pictures of violence, desperation and absurdity, absolute absurdity.
If you are not seeing at the moment that the very underpinnings of our civilization are under threat here, then I beg you to consider it. We have a choice. We’ve been pushed up against the precipice. Are we going to be pushed off, or are we going to push back? I’d like you to go and read the Great Barrington Declaration which advocates pretty much for what the guidelines said. What we knew before the world went mad—that we should pursue a doctrine of focused protection and get on with our lives. We have expanded that in a plain-English document called The Protocol for Reopening Society which you can download from our website.
Mandela was right. Courage is not the absence of fear. It’s OK to have been scared by this virus. Courage is the triumph over fear, and we all need to strive to accomplish it. It’s a hell of a task because it is true that men think in herds and go mad in herds, but they only recover their senses one by one. It’s a tough task ahead. In order to go back to normal, we need to mount an unprecedented awareness campaign to kill this harmful narrative, this deadly narrative of fear and malarkey. Then after that, we have to do some more work. It’s not enough simply to get rid of this fear. We need to look very carefully at what failed. What safeguards do we need to prevent this kind of situation from ever happening again? Thank you.
END OF TRANSCRIPT
Further reading: The never-ending story of lockdowns and vaccines – Dr Knut Wittkowski, March 31, 2021: “… if the vulnerable had been shielded and the virus had been allowed to be exposed, naturally acquired herd immunity would have been reached in around 6 weeks.”