Nick Hudson of PANDA – ‘Look very carefully at what else is being censored’

by

This week, Facebook ended its ban on posts asserting that Covid-19 was man-made or manufactured. The stunning policy reversal came as evidence is rapidly surfacing that the origin of Covid-19 may, in fact, be the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Facebook’s ban is one of the many examples of censorship that have taken place concerning Covid-19 over the last 18 months. PANDA, Pandemics ~ Data & Analysis, – and its co-founder Nick Hudson – have unapologetically spoken out against senseless lockdown regulations – and been censored as a result. Nick Hudson joined the BizNews Power Hour to talk about these latest findings. An insightful discussion ensued between Hudson, BizNews founder Alec Hogg and Counterpoint value fund manager Piet Viljoen. – Nadya Swart

Nick Hudson on his journey with PANDA:

Well, I must say it’s been a very stimulating year. I didn’t at the time expect that it would take this kind of trajectory. But to answer your first question of why; it was very much the same reason – we were alarmed at the madness that was going on in the media and noticing an enormous gap between the actual data that was emerging early – I’m talking now about March of last year – and what the media was saying.

The media was seeing an Ebola, we were seeing a severe seasonal flu. And that alarmism rolled into these draconian lockdowns, which have been completely ineffective, hugely costly, enormous amounts of collateral damage and all sorts of malarkey, as I like to call it. The ridiculous concept of cloth-mark wearing. The idea that this virus was something novel to which we were all susceptible and that nobody was immune, and that, you know, unless we locked down and wore our masks – we were all going to die and we had to lock down and wear our masks until a vaccine arrived.

And we thought that all of this was nonsense and that a fairly small, manageable problem that would have been adequately addressed with the existing pandemic guidelines was turned into an enormous problem when those guidelines were thrown out in the space of about two weeks.

On the changing narrative around Covid-19:

Well, it’s an amazingly polarised world that we started with a year ago before this arrived, and then what happened is there was a concerted effort to drive fear by public health officials. And now – I mean, the last three weeks have been absolutely, absolutely sensational. I’m feeling very chipper at the moment because I can see this narrative coming apart very rapidly. It’s unraveling at a rate. And one of the things that was not reported on widely in the news in South Africa was that advisers – behavioral scientists to the Sage organisation in the UK (that’s the sort of corollary of our Mac in South Africa) – came out saying that they thought that the methods that had been adopted by Sage to deliberately manipulate the population and drive a narrative of fear were unethical. 

They’ve stepped out of the organisation and criticised what the organisation has been doing. And so now we have, I wouldn’t say the first proof – because there’s plenty of proof that this has been going on, their behavioral scientists all over the place. We’ve got them on our Mac. In Germany, a document was leaked where they were actually talking about what they needed to do to undermine the cognitive faculties of the population in order to get them to adopt a more fearful position. So, you know, we’ve had evidence of this for a long time, but this was now an admission from within that couldn’t be ignored. And it was indeed picked up in mainstream media in the UK – but not repeated in the rest of the world, which I find quite disturbing.

On the evidence now building that Covid-19 was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology:

Yeah, we [PANDA] felt for a long time that there was a fairly high probability that there was a lab origin but decided to stay away from the topic. We were going after the hard issue of lockdown, which we thought was basically a crime against humanity, and we wanted to see that ended. The origin was irrelevant in terms of the policy response, so we stayed away from it. But amongst the scientists inside PANDA, this has been a hotly debated topic.

And so we are very familiar with the features of the virus that would lead people to consider a lab origin and have found it very alarming the extent to which any suggestion that a lab origin was possible was censored on social media. And so what’s happened now is that Facebook has come out and said they will no longer remove posts that suggest the lab origin. And this is amazing. 

It’s not just the actual virological or genetic thinking that gives rise to this, there’s an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting that there was work done in what’s called a gain of function project to consider how SARS could be modified. Now to the listener, that may sound horrific – like somebody is trying to design the ultimate killer virus. It’s generally not that extreme what they’re trying to do when they perform gain of function work. But this was funded after being pushed out of the United States under the Obama administration – funded by US taxpayer money – and the funding all pointed towards the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

So it’s the combination of the genetic and virological features and the circumstantial evidence and then some very suspicious behaviour as well. When the World Health Organisation succumbed to pressure to investigate this issue, they put together a task team – but they appointed as head of that task team the one man who everybody had been pointing at as a potential source of concern. A person who was involved himself in gain of function research. And we thought that was very strange, almost an admission of two things; that they knew that there was some truth to the story and that they wanted to appoint the guy who was most strongly incentivised to cover it up – which was doubly strange because it was such an obvious move from our perspective. But yet again, never reported in the mainstream media and all suggestions of this nature or many suggestions of this nature removed from social media platforms. 

On the dangers of censorship:

I appeared on your show a couple of weeks ago to discuss the removal of the BizNews video; The Ugly Truth about the Covid-19 lockdowns, which at that stage had received half a million views in just a few days. And I said to you that among those half million viewers, not one of them raised any factual objections to what was in the presentation. I said to you, this is the pattern of it, their sense of the things that are true. There’s this crazy junior academic called Eric Feigl-Ding, who for the last year has spouted absolute drivel from morning till night, everything wrong on Twitter and he has never been censored or chastised. Just false material all the time – never censored.

But it’s the guys who get removed that you have to look at very carefully. What were they saying that got everybody so upset? And indeed, the people who were raising the question of lab origin were rapidly deplatformed from across the board; numerous social media sites. So we’ve been aware of the features of the virus itself that would suggest a lab origin – and there are several of them. 

Nick Hudson on what brought about his need to question everything:

It’s interesting you ask that question because I actually asked it on one of the PANDA discussion boards. I was just curious as to what had caused everybody else in the PANDA membership to get to this point of asking the questions. In my case, I moved around a lot. I went to eight different schools in the space of 10 years. And so, what happens when you go through that kind of process is different authorities tell you different things – and straight away that makes you skeptical of authority.

So there was my particular story. But the interesting thing was all the PANDA members had different ways of getting there. Some of them had just had run-ins with authorities who were clearly wrong and, you know, suffered early on in life in that regard. So the story is different for everybody. What I think we should all be doing right now is look very carefully at what else is being censored.

Read Also:

Visited 7,778 times, 4 visit(s) today

BizNews