This in-depth interview with PANDA founder and chairman Nick Hudson provides a comprehensive update on the Covid-19 story moving from Boris Johnson’s actions supporting the view that Omicron signals the pandemic’s end through to Robert Kennedy’s highly critical bestseller on “The Real” Anthony Fauci. He also discusses the astonishing DARPA correspondence now in the public domain by Project Veritas which could well be the smoking gun on how the virus originated. Powerful stuff. Not recommended for closed minds – or those content to swallow the official narrative. – Alec Hogg
Nick Hudson on whether Omicron marks the end of Covid-19’s pandemic phase
I can’t see how it wouldn’t be, at least as far as the actual virus is concerned. Of course, the pandemic ending is a political event that requires countries across the world to abandon their various projects, which now have no basis for continuing with their various restrictions and mandates and draconian interventions. So, the end of the pandemic is political, and we must not be confused about that, but from an epidemiological point of view, our view is that Omicron is a welcome phenomenon and not the boogeyman it was painted as in December of last year.
On the Omicron variant of Covid-19 being less severe than other variants with mild symptoms and low mortality
It seems Omicron has a bunch of differences from the other variants like Delta, which are all concentrated on the spike protein – the business end of the virus – the toxic little monster that causes all the trouble, both in Covid-19 and in the vaccines. Omicron lacks some of the features that appear to make Covid-19 bind particularly well with ACE2 receptors in the lungs. So, it’s become more of an upper respiratory tract infection. It seems to be behaving in a clinically distinct way that doesn’t present real risks to anybody. The mortality rates are very low, so the irony of all of this is the argument about whether it was reasonable to compare Covid-19 to a bad flu. Now the dispute is whether Covid-19 is as bad as a cold because it’s still got that aged graduated story going on but is now producing mild symptoms and an infection fatality rate that is not meaningful. It’s too low to really speak about.
On the only route to herd immunity being through natural infection
From the very beginning, when vaccines were held out as having the capacity to end the pandemic, we were sceptical. We said there isn’t a mechanism of action to produce what is known as sterilising immunity, which would cause the recipient of the vaccine to stave off infection and to not become a transmitter. We said that mechanistically, this was not possible and complained because of the way it was being presented by Fauci, Walensky, Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer. They were all making grand claims about the pandemic-ending potential of the vaccines. They were making claims it would stop transmission and were doing so even though there was absolutely no sign of that being the case in the manufacturers’ trials. We objected strenuously to that kind of approach. The way it played out was that public health officials all over the world were making claims that we need to get 70% or 80% vaccinated in order to end the pandemic. We said the vaccines would not make a dent in herd immunity. They won’t contribute towards herd immunity because they do not have this sterilising immunity effect natural infection has. You have to wait until the majority of the population has been infected and recovered before you get to that point of herd immunity. The only route to herd immunity is through natural infection. There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest infection is more likely among vaccinated people than unvaccinated people. The vaccines are concentrated on the spike protein. They provide immunity to only 6% or 7% of the virus, whereas natural immunity targets the entire structure. So, it is quite logical that if you have got a whole lot of mutations concentrated on the spike protein, that would do more to evade vaccine-induced immunity than natural immunity.
On vaccine inefficacy and divulgence on the Pfizer contract with the South African Government
At the moment, even on a generous interpretation of what it means to be fully vaccinated, South Africa loses more fully vaccinated people each day than it gains. After four or five months, the vaccine efficacy turns negative and, if you’re not lining up for a booster, you’re no longer fully vaccinated. This is, of course, written into law in numerous countries in Europe but in South Africa, we don’t have such a concept at the moment, thank goodness. The reality is that the population is saying, no, they’re not going to line up for multiple injections and are calling the bluff on the whole escapade. We’re in the situation where on an honest account, the number of people fully vaccinated never went above 30% and this is falling. Politically, that game has been lost. It leaves the government in a difficult situation because they’ve signed a very onerous contract with Pfizer and the vaccines are starting to expire. Who knows what commitments were made in terms of purchase volumes and so on. That is going to be one of the really big stories. Those contracts are draconian – the ones that have been leaked and read – they are the most draconian contracts any of us have ever seen. They were signed amid that environment where the vaccines were being held out as terminating infection transmission chains, which was never a scientifically reasonable perspective to have. Were government advisers telling them that this would be the case, that everybody needed to be vaccinated in order to exterminate Covid-19? Were the advisers telling them that natural immunity was ineffective so that you even had to vaccinate the two-thirds who had recovered from Covid-19? Who was saying what? Who was whispering in the government’s ear? These are the stories that have to come out. These things will emerge as massive scandals when we find out how it came to be that the South African Government assumed everybody in the country needed to be vaccinated. Who was telling them this because it is wrong. It was not based on good science and the people [who were advising the government] were probably trained and skilled individuals and should know it as well.
Read also:
- Nick Hudson of PANDA on recent events indicating that, finally, the tide behind the official Covid-19 narrative may be turning
- PANDA’s Nick Hudson on the politics of Covid: ‘We need to push back. This is not about a virus.’
- Nick Hudson of PANDA – ‘Academics are essentially on the payroll of the Big Pharma brigade’
