Nick Hudson of PANDA – ‘Academics are essentially on the payroll of the Big Pharma brigade’

PANDAPandemics ~ Data & Analysis – has been under ever-increasing scrutiny since it boldly spoke out against senseless lockdown regulations in 2020. Notwithstanding severe criticism and dismissal, PANDA and the organisation’s co-founder, Nick Hudson, have forged ahead to challenge the official Covid-19 narrative. BizNews founder Alec Hogg caught up with Nick Hudson to discuss, amongst other things, the daily covid death toll in Sweden hitting zero and the implications for the rest of the world not having followed the same pre-existing pandemic guidelines. As always, Hudson provided profound insight into a narrative which he believes ‘is not actually built on science, but [rather] a kind of religious fervour – an institutional approach, rather than a process approach to determining what is and is not the case.’ This narrative, he says, is propagated by doctors and academics who are essentially on the payroll of the vaccine stakeholders and the Big Pharma brigade. – Nadya Swart

Nick Hudson on how PANDA has been expanding its footprint:

We have been particularly engaged in the last couple of weeks in assisting with the Question Everything Summit in London, which took place Saturday before last. PANDA presented on three of the panels of that long, full day session that entertained journalists and members of the public in London. And the Question Everything idea was to take a look at lockdowns as an assumption in the policy framework and to engage with them from all the angles. So we had a really great lineup of speakers from all over the world and the event was a huge success. We are in the process of clipping and summarising the sessions for, you know, more bite sized consumption. But overall, the audience loved it and we’ve had nothing but excellent feedback. 

On Sweden’s daily covid death toll hitting zero:

Look, from the beginning, we said that the reaction was disproportionate and itself deadly, and I think Sweden is now really showing how true that observation was. The less panicky a country’s reaction and the more consistent it was with preexisting pandemic respiratory virus guidelines, you know, the better the country did. It’s as simple as that. All of these measures, we believe, were measures that inflamed a panic.

And, you know, in the same way that when you’re doing a randomised control trial and some or other clinical investigation, you have to be extremely careful to control for the placebo effect – there’s also a thing called the nocebo effect, and that comes from fear. Tell somebody that they have a deadly virus and they’re going to have a worse course with it, you know? The messaging should have been that for healthy people under the age of 70, this thing presents like a cold or a flu – the mortality rate for them is extremely, extremely low, almost negligible – and that there was no need to be unduly concerned.

If you’re some 35 year old who comes down with covid, you’re not in mortal danger. There’s nothing to be jumpy about. The public health messaging was exactly the opposite and it drove a narrative of fear. And that narrative was deliberately driven, as we’re seeing now with the revelations from the internal meetings of the SAGE in the UK, the Koch Institute and others. You know, that for me is particularly disturbing.

So what’s happened there and it’s a very important story; in various countries people have launched Freedom of information access requests and uncovered the internal proceedings of those committees. And in those internal proceedings, you see the people discussing how, for example, they knew very well that masks didn’t work, but they thought it was important because it reminded people of the presence of a deadly virus and maintaining fear was part of their strategy. 

On the reason that pre-pandemic guidelines were abandoned in respect of the handling of Covid-19:

There was – happening in the background at various events organised by John Hopkins University, the Rockefeller Institute, the Gates Foundation – a completely separate conception of how pandemic responses should proceed. Whereas conventional public health policy and messaging has always taught that you want to reliably inform people so that they can make sensible decisions, you want to stop panic’s from happening, you want to be accurate in what you say about what is safe and what is dangerous and so on – the mindset of this other collective of people is exactly the opposite.

They basically regard the general populace as a bunch of sheep who are never going to do the right thing. You have to intimidate them and scare the living daylights out of them to get them to do what they perceive to be as important. And they perceived lockdowns as the kind of solution that was going to solve all these problems. As it turns out, they were completely wrong. And so what they’ve done is preach a narrative of fear mongering for more than 18 months – causing massive, widespread economic devastation. Their policy prescriptions have failed, have been known to have failed since as early as May last year [when] it was visible that lockdowns were not doing a single, solitary thing to help anybody. And yet they’ve persisted. They’re kind of in a trap now. They’re too far gone to admit the error in their ways, admit that the original guidelines were perfect – well, maybe not perfect, but at least in the right direction – and that this draconian, authoritarian CCP style story should never have been attempted anywhere, let alone in liberal democracies.

And the trajectory that this thing has taken is very serious. I mean, my contention is that it actually threatens the entire underpinnings of liberal democracy. People have said to me, ‘Oh, you’re speaking nonsense, and, you know, when this is all over – we’ll just go back to normal democratic processes.’ But I was first told that in April last year and I haven’t seen any sign of it so I do not believe that that is the case. 

On whether it would be better if President Ramaphosa had never been advised by Bill Gates:

100%. I mean, Gates has had an outsized influence throughout this. If you look at the number of institutions who are fundamentally unable to depart from his dictums in South Africa, it’s exhaustive. You’re talking about every university, all of our public health institutions. If there’s a scientist in one of those institutions who disagrees with the Gates narrative, they are unable to say so. They say so at the peril of loss of career, livelihood and income. 

On the reason that Bill Gates and his narrative are so powerful:

It doesn’t take much when you’re the wealthiest man in the world. You know, he’s funded these organisations – all of them – with an amount of money that they can’t really afford to lose. And that’s all publicly available information. It’s not some wild eyed conspiracy theory. We’ve actually got a colleague who’s built a webpage to help analyse the Gates Foundation’s contributions – globally – to various public health institutions on a country by country basis. So you can go and look on this little widget and see what’s going on; how the SAMRC is funded, WITS university to the tune of a massive amount of money. And these institutions all depend on this cash as well as upon grant funding from all of the Big Pharma companies.

So Glenda Gray, for example, [is] linked to grant funding from Big Pharma. So we have, you know, all of these academics being essentially on the payroll of the vaccine stakeholder and Big Pharma brigade. And therefore, you cannot trust them, any of them, to come up with objective scientific advice. And they simply adhere to, what we have shown to be, a completely false narrative from top to bottom about this disease. And that’s playing out right now. 

On the robustness of natural immunity:

The one article that we published recently in your pages just laid out the comprehensive evidence for the robustness and durability and breadth of natural immunity, which is to say immunity arising in a person who’s recovered from the coronavirus. There is no scientific basis for taking the risk of vaccinating a recovered person. They have perfectly good immunity. And yet, whenever you speak to one of these controlled scientists, they will tell you that you need to get a needle in every arm. They want to vaccinate 80% of the population.

Well, this makes no sense. We have probably around half of the population who have recovered from this disease and are in no need of vaccination. And then probably half of the remaining who are in an age group and risk category where the disease presents absolutely no risk. And so, that leaves you in this ridiculous situation where they’re trying to force vaccination on everybody on the pretext that somehow this would reduce the risk to the other people who have been vaccinated. So it’s very weird, because you would think that if the vaccination works, then as an unvaccinated person, you couldn’t care less whether somebody else has been vaccinated. And if it doesn’t work, then what’s the rush?

So, you know, there’s no set of circumstances in which it makes sense that vaccinated people should be persuaded to be worried about unvaccinated people, particularly unvaccinated people who are recovered individuals. So they’re preaching a completely false doctrine that only supports the lining of the pockets of the pharmaceutical firms and doing so in a way that is threatening to polarise society – creating kind of an apartheid state between the vaxxed and the unvaxxed. 

On the reason that – particularly for those who are familiar with how skilful those who propagate the messages of agendas can be – the penny hasn’t dropped:

There are two groups. There are the people for whom the penny dropped before covid – they know all this stuff is nonsense, but it doesn’t suit them. So they continue to pump the narrative. And then there are the people who perhaps, you know, in an effort to rationalise the positions that their institutions are taking, come up with some convoluted logic to support the position. It’s quite sad to see because, you know, we see doctors and scientists adhering to positions which would never have even occurred to them in January 2020.

If you’d asked a doctor in January 2020 whether you need to be vaccinated for a disease that you’ve already had, there’d be no hesitation – he would immediately respond to you, ‘Absolutely not – what nonsense.’ You know, this is just conventional – and when I say conventional, I’m talking about first year basic immunology. When you ask somebody whether this disease can be spread asymptomatically before 2020 – well, not particularly this disease, but respiratory viruses in general – they would all give you a very guarded answer. They would say, ‘Yes, it probably does occur, but it’s not the driver of the epidemic, et cetera, et cetera.’

Now, you suddenly have – with no evidentiary support – everybody swearing that this is the cause of all of the calamities, that this disease is unique and it’s different and it’s novel and it has a completely new way of spreading. And there’s no evidence to support that position. Yet they behave as if it is gospel truth. So the characteristic of the times is that the narrative is not actually built on science, but a kind of religious fervour – an institutional approach, rather than a process approach to determining what is and is not the case. 

On our trust in doctors and Big Pharma given their track record of – particularly in respect of pharmaceutical companies having had to reach settlement agreements to address the opioid crisis:

Well, I think what happens is when you have a fear driven mania, people’s cognitive ability declines to virtually zero – and so they forget everything. In January last year, you would have had no problem reminding people that the pharmaceutical industry is amongst the most corrupt industries in the world. And the stats that you cited there about settlement, you know, relate to only one company. All of them have had massive settlements in recent years, you know, for egregious breaches of public trust.

So, to suddenly expect those organisations to put together, sincerely, trials for vaccines, to opine sensibly on all aspects of the pandemic, to do anything other than to foster a narrative of fear in the interests of flogging their PCR tests and their vaccines is incredibly naive. 

Read Also:

(Visited 9,408 times, 3 visits today)