Full Interview: (7mins)
During the “International Covid Summit III” which took place at the European Parliament, Nick Hudson, co-founder of Pandemics Data and Analytics (PANDA), spoke with BAM! During this interview, he sheds light on the excesses of the political decisions taken, in particular during the COVID-19 crisis.
ITW Nick Hudson: Pandemics – Data and Analysis (PANDA)
May 4, 2023 BAM-TV | CrowdBunker | Odysee | Rumble
Hello, we are here with Nick Hudson from Cape Town, South Africa. Thank you for coming here from the other side of the world. Could you explain what you said and what your position is about the pandemic we saw last year?
Sure, I’m Nick Hudson, Chairman of an organization called pandata.org if you want to find our website. We started as an organization in response to the initial lockdowns as they rippled around the planet. Our position was very much that no cost-benefit analysis had been performed before these very harmful policies were rolled out in lockstep in every country in the Western world. Our organization grew very rapidly as we began to connect with people in other countries, and we became one of the first organizations to study the international data showing that lockdowns were not having the benefits that the modellers had expected.
From there, our work went on to cover all aspects of the COVID policy response. Our view is that it is best understood as a “political” phenomenon and not a “medical” one. This is a realization that I think people are gradually coming around to as they realize that the harms that were caused by the policy response massively exceed the harms that the virus ever had the potential to cause.
The standard reality is that COVID as an entity represents absolutely minimal risk to the vast majority of people on the planet. Therefore, a response that took into account the totality of the world shutting down everything and closing schools and so on, was inappropriate at the level of utilitarian analysis.
More importantly, all those responses were, in principle, wrong; they were ethically wrong as well.
Our view is that it is important now, for us to stop obsessing over the minutiae of the COVID mortality, and the early treatment, and the vaccine harms and so on, and just step back and see this event in its full political context, because that political context is suggestive all the time of great danger for humanity.
And for the very important principle that was the very founding concept of the West and of Europe that we know today that principle of the protection of human agency, and of mitigation of power of how we prevent authoritarian control from governing our societies and permit a flourishing world, a flourishing society, a society where there is a diversity of ideas and opinions.
All of that is at risk at the moment and the COVID phenomenon, the COVID policy response, is but one example of many that warn us that we are heading in the wrong direction.
So you are seeing also the pandemic crisis as also a tool for some political views right? Could you make a parallel with the climate discussion about the climate fear that was existing before and still existing now and seems to be stronger and stronger. What do you think is a parallel between both COVID and climate?
Yes, let’s take a step back.
The general rule of thumb that I believe everybody should adopt, is that if any problem is being presented as a global crisis, then it is a scam.
And the pattern that we are confronted with is really the fabrication of global crises, the presentation either of non-existent problems or small local problems as being general global crises, that fabrication followed by the assertion that the only solutions that are permissible are global ones that require global authority and global control.
That is the general pattern that we are up against. The COVID policy response was one of those. Look at what happened to countries like Sweden or Tanzania who tried to push back against the new orthodoxy.
The climate change crisis is another example where we are told that the biggest threat to the world is this molecule C02. And that an increase in the level of this molecule will cause an increase in temperature and that that temperature increase will be bad for us and that the only thing we can do is consume fewer fossil fuels and less energy.
That’s fitting the pattern exactly.
The other thing you can observe is instead of presenting science as an ongoing evolving activity, it is presented in terms of static knowledge, “consensus”. And you see the cancellation and censorship of dissident voices rather than engagement with them. These patterns are proof of a scam. That is what people need to understand.
Whenever something is presented as “The Science”, as a “consensus”, it is a scam.
You do not have to go and get engaged in all of the minutia of the scientific principles and the models and the measurements at all. You can know with absolute certainty that you are dealing with a scam when dissent is suppressed.
I think that people think that scientific consensus is scientific processes. This is not a same thing.
Absolutely not the same thing. Science works on the principle that all explanations that we have for how the world works will eventually be replaced with better ones.
And that process happens in an evolutionary way, in the world of competing ideas. As explanations are tested and found to embed errors and found to represent reality in a way that is wrong, in other words they are falsified, what happens is there is a creative process in the sciences, when new ideas, new explanations, altered explanations step into fill the gap left by the ones that have been falsified and that evolutionary process is fundamental to science, and is completely contradicted by the very notion of “consensus science”, or “following the science”.
Okay, thanks very much. I hope you will stay here in Brussels to discover the beautiful weather, and thank you for answering our questions.
It’s a pleasure, thank you for the work you are doing, it’s really good.