Saturday, June 25, 2022
HomeCOVID-19PANDA’s Nick Hudson on Covid and the death of logic – Part...

PANDA’s Nick Hudson on Covid and the death of logic – Part 3

-

This final edited extract of Nick Hudson’s analysis of Covid and the death of logic taken from his recent talk Origins and Trajectories of the Covid Phenomenon deals with the detailed errors of the received Covid narrative as presented by the ‘authorities’ and a less-than-critical mainstream media. He also sets out three key ideas as to what can be done in response. You can read Part I here and Part 2 here

You can listen to the podcast of the whole talk here.

THE narrative that’s received is, ‘There’s a new deadly virus that we’re all susceptible to, and there’s no cure for it. And because there’s no cure, what we have to do is lock down and wear our masks until a vaccine arrives, otherwise we’re all going to die.’ That’s essentially the narrative. There are of course other elements to it, but that’s the headline version. And every element of that narrative is false. 

We are not dealing with a new virus in any reasonable sense. It’s an evolved structure with possibly some lab-introduced innovations or novelties to it, but overall, it is something that’s highly recognisable to the human immune system. Why? Well, for reasons that bear a close relation to the epistemology we discussed at the start, it’s almost impossible to create a virus from scratch, because you don’t know how it’s going to behave in a complex world. Introducing a truly novel virus would be trying to assert a completely wild conjecture that would immediately run into the problem that you can’t foresee the full complexity of the emergent behaviour of your little chemical, based simply on its sequence. Because the interaction between that thing and the human body, or all the other bodies or the climate or the temperature, is a terrain of wild complexity that we cannot begin to engage with. This shows up quite practically. 

Why? Because wherever we measure on the planet, we find that around about 80 per cent of people have pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2, an immune response that comes up and knocks the virus quite comfortably, and some of those people are your so-called ‘asymptomatic cases’, and some suffer only mild illness.

But the ‘new virus’ notion is a myth that propelled the assumption of universal susceptibility or immune naivety. It was important because it enabled the modellers to say, ‘Listen, from the cases we see in the hospital, 1 per cent of those sick people die. Everybody’s going to get sick because their immune systems have never seen this. And so, you multiply some big proportion by the whole population, and everybody’s going to die. We need to lock down to save the hospitals. We need to build field hospitals, et cetera, et cetera.’

And again, what you see is because this is dogma, propagated in an environment where error correction is killed, even in the face of the obvious error of the construction of billions and billions of dollars of field hospitals that remained empty wherever they are built, whether it was in New York or London or South Africa, was not enough to constitute a refutation of the idea of the universal susceptibility to a deadly virus. It’s never enough. So they kept on building them, and even the USS Mercy sailed out of New York Harbor having not been utilised.

So that’s how this kind of almost Stalinist Marxism plays out. ‘Here are the rules. The dogma is this. Now we do all the things consistent with the dogma.’ And nobody ever points out that something has gone terribly wrong, because they cannot be heard pointing it out. If they try, they’re silenced.

As for lockdowns and mask wearing, there’s just so much compelling, large-scale, macroscopic evidence to support the failure of those policy initiatives. And there are strong biological reasons to suspect that they were never going to succeed. If we concede that virus has evolved, then any action we take will be offset by a movement in the evolution of the virus to reflect its new conditions, compared to the general situation of social interaction and habits of wearing or not wearing things on the front of your face.

So there was a reason not to expect them to work, and very early evidence that they didn’t work at all. We saw as early as May 2020 that there was absolutely no information content on whether a country had locked down or not, in terms of what its Covid death rate actually turned out to be. Such zero correlation means that there cannot be a causal relationship between lockdowns and deaths or between mask mandates and deaths. Since we pointed this out at PANDA, it’s a result that’s been replicated hundreds of times worldwide.

Moving on quickly to the vaccine, without making too big a thing about it, everyone can see the electric fence around the vaccine narrative of ‘safe and effective’. ‘It’s safe and effective. It’s safe and effective.’ You can’t touch that issue without getting a shock. Sure enough, when you do get brave enough to grab that fence and look over, what do you see? The Pfizer Phase 3 trial is the very apparent item, and all over it are the features of a propaganda exercise. It has the wrong clinical endpoints, and it’s demonstrating something quite weak that’s got nothing to do with what’s being claimed in the narrative.

And we are in an environment where great efforts are being made to keep the underlying data hidden. It took a Freedom of Information request and two court rulings to get the FDA to do something other than what they were anticipating doing, which was releasing the information over 75 or 55 years, depending on the day of the week in the trial. And that was quite phenomenal, because the FDA had granted the vaccines emergency use authorisation in just 108 days, based on the same data. Why was it going to take 75 years for it to be released? This was a clear sign that there was a fraud at the heart of the whole thing.

And then too, there was this immediate switching of the frame of reference from the gold standard of a randomised control trial to what’s known as observational data. Pfizer unblinded the placebo group in the trial, thus destroying it, so real-world observational data became all we had. But in a complex world, it’s very easy to manipulate observational data. There are so many confounding variables floating around. So, depending on how you structure your measurement, you can always show the result you want to see. Same was true with the mask studies, there were loads of these little biased studies put together. You could always find a journalist saying, ‘Look, here’s this study that says masks work.’ But it was a terrible little observational study, and such studies are a dime a dozen if you want them to be there, and if the money is flowing in that direction, they will manifest. So too with the vaccines. Our assessment is that there is no high-quality evidence for the safety and efficacy of the vaccines – nothing at all.

So, the entire narrative from beginning to end, every element of it, is false and propagandised.  Let’s talk about the ‘why’ question briefly, and then I’ll finish by exploring what we should do.

We can ask ourselves the question, ‘Where does this come from?’ But, as with any sort of complex system, we’ve got to go back to that epistemology and say, ‘What is it?’ Well, it’s an evolved thing itself. There’s this agenda with massive and very salient propaganda causing an ideology to be distilled, and that whole structure can itself be looked at as something that’s evolved.

Are there signs that it’s old? Yes. Go back to the ‘three Ms’. How old is Marxism? 150 years old. Okay. How old is relativism? The better part of 70 years old. It’s been propelled into our universities and schooling systems all the way around the world. It looks like there’s an element of planning there, but also an element of natural emergence from complexity. What about the Malthusianism? Yeah. As I said before, it’s two hundred years old.

These ideas have been current for a long time, though they have waxed and waned. They suit certain vested interests from time to time, because they promote a worldview that justifies these notions such as the greater good that’s inherent in Marxism, and that justify the seeking of more control, the surveillance state, the drift towards these programmable central bank digital currencies and digital IDs and so on. All of this has the flavour of driving towards more control.

So we can observe that, but it doesn’t mean that we have to say, ‘Well, who is doing it?’ and identify one person or one body at the heart of the whole thing. You can also see it as having the properties of an emergent event – complexity; lots of organisations, not just the World Economic Foundation, Bilderberg Group, and the World Health Organisation, but the Atlantic Council, Council for Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, the Geneva organisations around the United Nations, the Bretton Woods organisations in the world of central banking, the Bank of International Settlements, the IMF, the World Bank; all of them are on board here. It’s quite stunning. There’s a massive, apparently but not necessarily co-ordinated, agreement that this propaganda is virtuous. In other words, that they’re supporting the political agenda that’s behind it.

Is the political agenda clear to all of them? Well, elements will be. But there might be elements of difference. As long as there is a diversity of political agendas, each group may all sign off on the propaganda as supporting their agenda. That’s entirely possible. And they may also be quite comfortable with the ideology that’s distilled because of that political agenda, because various actors are benefiting. Some will be making money. Some may be fulfilling a dream of winning a Nobel Peace Prize. Some are just busybodies – annoying people who like intervening in other people’s lives. Or some could simply be dull intellects – people who are stupid enough to believe that they know how to manage the world, and they ought to because it’ll be good for everybody. There are all sorts of objectives, of incentives, of worldviews that would be compatible with any element of this chain; political agenda, propaganda, ideology.

So what’s to be done?

A point I’ve been making a lot in my various public appearances is that while we should always seek to know more about the political agenda and the mechanisms by which the propaganda is so cleanly disseminated in this very controlled media environment, our knowledge will never be complete in that regard. And that doesn’t necessarily matter. What’s key is to remember the ‘three Ms’; to remember that they’re wrong – that they fundamentally contradict, at a very axiomatic level, our best understanding of knowledge and how to create a better world and solve problems.

At PANDA, we take the view that it is important to improve our understanding of these dynamics. We are establishing a series of five projects, the first one of which is simply taking a look at the World Health Organisation’s actions relative to the standard of its own principles, constitutional documents, the guidelines that it had written in the past, its own ideas around how to think about the burden of a disease. So we will be simply evaluating the World Health Organisation in terms of its own claimed objectives. That first project will tell us a lot. We will learn about where the pressures came from, and how it became possible that at a very senior governing level, they were able to override every single one of those principles.

Why PANDA? Well, because you won’t get a university doing it. They’re all as captured and conflicted as any of these other institutions. And you won’t get a government doing it, because they’ve all been in on it. Somebody’s going to have to do it, and we couldn’t think of anybody else. So we are starting this project. In the process we’re laying out that there need to be full-time people, because otherwise you lose the institutional knowledge. When you’re working with volunteers, the first time they get a smear article written about them, or some kind of speed bump arises in front of them, they very easily walk away because they’re not being paid. They’ve got a livelihood somewhere else that they depend on, so the threat to that livelihood can move them out quickly. You need to fully fund this, in a way creating a little university, where academics can come, be paid, and do these projects properly. And there are four others, which I won’t go into now, that flesh out the investigation into the detailed structure of the Covid phenomenon. And we see that as important work that will lead to a greater understanding of what’s to be done.

 For example, we have to become better at explaining this environment of the ‘three Ms’ in ways that normal people can easily grasp. We need to be convincing in highlighting the severe threat posed by the globalists’ obsession with centralisation. We have to start finding ways to project the unpalatableness, the unattractiveness of vastly over-centralised models and institutional structures. That’s a problem to be solved, and we have some ideas about this problem which we are working on.

We have to show that the whole sustainability story is driving in a very unattractive direction – this whole Malthusian construct.

We have to show the positives of the alternative world to this utilitarian dystopia. What world is that? The world of values. Why is that world so dismissed? I talk about the God-shaped hole problem. We’ve seen a process of secularisation. A caricature of God was presented to people, and they could not reconcile their modern minds to that. So they tossed out the whole of religion, with its evolved system of knowledge.

Even to the religious people, it’s deeply unattractive to many of them to conceive of religion as an evolved system of knowledge embedding truth, because things were tried and tested. They wanted to read it as received dogma that’s incontrovertible, as part of a caricature version of the faith. So they don’t fight the people who leave because they don’t believe in the caricature. They want the dogmatic version of the religion to remain alive, even though it itself is very clearly, if you study comparative religion and religious history, an evolved system that therefore embeds spectacular knowledge that’s been good for society. So by cancelling the God, by wiping him out because the bearded man in the sky is too far-fetched for many, you cancel the value system, creating a hole. What I like to refer to as the God-shaped hole. And into it comes Fauci with a spreadsheet. A utilitarian system.

So there should be some process developed to reassert the primacy of values and virtues, the old-fashioned way of thinking about the world; that there are things that are simply wrong, and we know that they’re not acceptable by virtue of our cultures. Things which are taboo. And there are things that are right, things that are virtuous that we ought to be trying to do in the world. Even if we can’t account for them in a detailed analytical fashion, we’ve inherited them, and that’s how we know. We’re prepared to tinker with them on the margins, but we are not prepared to indulge in games that involved their wholesale cancellation.

Reasserting this type of thinking, which would have been easily recognised by a Western person circa 1950, but which is now barely recognisable to somebody in 2020, a mere 70 years later, seems crucial to me. Why reasserting? Why rolling back? Because we’re engaging with complexity. You can’t say, ‘Listen, I don’t like that spreadsheet being used to run society. I’ve got a better one.’ That’s going to fail too. In other words, we can’t design, we can’t socially engineer a system that simply says that it’s better than the Fauci or World Economic Forum system. You have to roll back to the last thing that worked, that created generative societies and economic growth and all these things, and then restart the process of tinkering on the edges. And you will need to do a lot of that tinkering. There’s no question. We always have to.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Kathy Gyngell
Kathy Gyngellhttps://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-editors/
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @KathyConWom on Twitter.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.