[Q&A] PANDA 2021 – UGLY Truth About The Covid 19 Lockdowns (Part Two)
Q&A session from the “Ugly Truth about Covid Lockdowns” presentation
Suppression of Early Treatment
Thank you very much Nick, it was thought provoking as always. I’ve just got two questions before we enter go to the floor because I’m sure there are lots of people who’ve got their own questions. So the first is you never mentioned Ivermectin, there are lots of people I know who take Ivermectin as a precaution, is that a waste of money, a waste of time given everything that you’ve told us?
We’ve tried to stay away from recommending treatments just from a legal perspective we have to be careful, that’s one way in which we could be comprehensively shut down, but what I’ll say is this, that it is very clear that BigPharma has the incentive, the means and is actually showing every sign of trying to shut down any repurpose drugs, any forms of treatment, vitamin D, Ivermectin, hydrochloroquine.
Now the mechanisms for these drugs working are spoken about and there is evidence for them having some form of effect. Maybe the debate is actually around effect size. So I don’t think it’s crazy to use those things but what I would cause people to think very hard about is just why is that suppression happening and isn’t it just so obvious that the narrative here is being controlled?
There’s a suppression going on about the effectiveness of the cheaper and unprofitable treatments, that’s what’s happened.
I hear what you say, but we all know someone has died. Some families, some population groups have been really heavily affected. So what I heard you saying today was this is not really serious but if we know people who have died, then surely there is a reason to be concerned.
Absolutely and I know people have died, I have friends who have died. It is wrong to persist with measures that don’t work, simply because people are dying. That’s a mistake, and especially when there’s evidence for those measures causing more people to die, this is not about, it doesn’t matter or there isn’t a virus, there is a virus. We would much prefer not to have this virus in our world but there is a deadly reaction, and so no I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I’m not concerned or that I think we shouldn’t be concerned, that I think appropriate steps should not be taken, that’s not the message.
There is a chaotic, panicked, overreaction that is far deadlier than the virus itself.
So the reality is that this virus does kill but it kills like a sniper, not like a shotgun.
Yes I think that’s reasonable, it’s similar to other respiratory viruses, probably it’s even more extreme because influenza would be significantly more dangerous to children and young people, and the precise mechanisms for why this is the case are still a little bit shrouded, we’re getting strong clues as to why this is the case. Different parts of the immune system that are relatively more important for coronavirus than for influenza, that kind of thing, but yeah it’s very much a disease.
I mean in the UK the average age of death is older than the life expectancy, the average age of death from coronavirus, 82.5 year olds average age of death for coronavirus in the UK.
Now it’s not to say that we don’t care and just let the old people die, what the central point here was that general suppression mechanism is what they do is they suppress the mobility of the healthy people and that means that the relative mobility of the vulnerable people goes up and that’s the mechanism for shifting the disease burden on to the vulnerable people.
So we’re actually shifting, we’re causing an increase in the expected number of deaths in the interest of this ‘spare the hospital, don’t let the hospitals be overwhelmed’, which in itself is a bit of a false narrative because hospital overwhelming has been an absolute minority event for very brief periods of time in specific locations. It’s closer to the truth to say that hospitals have been empty for the duration.
It was mentioned yesterday about incentives and when you bring it back to the lockdowns and the massive damage has been done to the economies, who was incentive asked to do that?
The alignment of incentives is definitely the thing that you need to focus on in trying to understand this. I mean the big pharma incentives are transparent, they’re making you know I think there’s tens of billions of dollars a month from the mayhem of PCR testing, they stand to make huge amounts and are really making huge amounts out of the vaccine campaigns which make no sense on any level.
I mean it might be worth just just having a word about that. The word is out in South Africa that we must vaccinate 70% of the population, this is absurd, it’s absolutely absurd. We’ve got more than half of the population that have recovered and a recovered immunity is without any shadow of a doubt superior to vaccine induced immunity.
It’s an absurdity that the idea that there would be better immunity from vaccination. So we are going to vaccinate 70% of the population when 50% or more have already recovered and when at least children but probably all young people, people under the age of 50 in reasonable health are simply not at risk.
You could achieve, assuming efficacy and safety – which is yet to be conclusively demonstrated – assuming efficacy and safety you could have as much life-saving as you care to have with 10 or 15%.
So there’s a big game in town and that game is make money for pharma and the strategies that are being pursued are crazy.
There are also political alignments that are very important. There’s been a creeping, I call it the 3Ms, they’re in disguise but they’re there. Marxism, Malthusianism and post-Modernism are the 3Ms. So maybe use a P for the third one but they’ve crept into our dialogue at universities.
You mentioned Davos yesterday. Davos has become a profoundly more enthusiasm and that is dangerous. These are some of the most toxic dangerous ideas that have ever haunted the planet. This is the territory of Stalin and Mao and Hitler when you start talking this language and it’s disguised. It’s disguised in words like inclusive growth and sustainability. Lovely cuddly words, lovely cuddly words but there are dangerous doctrines and I think that that alignment is not quite an incentive but there are people for whom that story is very convenient.
Big tech, anybody who wants to centralize and that was behind my question yesterday from of Herman. I said we need to decentralize. The problems here are all caused by these overtly centralized and kind of suppressive organizations, the WHO, CDC.
You can’t speak up. You can’t, the mechanisms for error correction have been destroyed. They’re wrong about everything and nobody’s allowed to say it. The censorship is astonishing. It’s off the charts. I could talk all day about the lunacy that we’ve been subjected to. The intense pressure. It just never stops.
So the BigTech, I talk about the unholy alliance of BigTech, BigPharma and a very captured Media often owned or funded by BigTech or BigPharma and these supernational organizations such as the Gates Foundation which are just grotesquely powerful and able to manipulate narratives like there’s no tomorrow. So that’s a convergence of incentives.
People often ask me is there a conspiracy? Is there a plan? I point out the semantic differences. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy in the sense of a secret meeting in a smoke-filled room and people hatching a plot, that kind of thing. I don’t think that that’s happened but there’s a strong convergence of incentives and yes there was a plan. These plans are publicly available on the internet.
Plans that involved tearing up all the pandemic guidelines before coronavirus had even arrived. They were sitting in Bill Gates and friends sitting in a room discussing the implementation of plans that were not reflected anywhere, not in the World Health Organization’s plans which were updated as recently as October 2019. So there was a plan. This is not some kind of kooky tin foil hat conspiracy theory. The plan is there. It’s on the internet. You can go and watch it and they’ve implemented it and it suits them and they’re making a ton of money.
Lockdowns are the most regressive strategy that has ever been invented. The wealthy have become much wealthier. The trillions of dollars of wealth has been transferred from the working class to wealthy people. They’re hopelessly regressive strategy.
Let’s start with questions.
It’s Chris Edwards. Nick I don’t like to use the word but there were surges in March and let’s say December and when you look at it at a global level it seemed as if you got those increases in the curves in those two months in most countries around the world. Any explanation for that?
I wish I had a clear one. We were surprised by the second surge in South Africa especially because it came in mid-summer. It was certainly not something we had predicted and we were wrong. There’s a lot that still needs to be explained and there’s a lot that is needing an explanation.
There’s strong elements of what’s called in public health, yatrogenicity or yatrogenic death, meaning deaths from policy or treatment. So you can see strong evidence for that but it’s very hard to tease out how much of it is coming from the policy and how much is coming straight from the virus. We have a folder full of testimonies from doctors who are unwilling to go on the record telling us about widespread medical malpractice.
It’s my hope that we collect enough of them and can make them public, persuade them that to come forward but at the moment they very reasonably say that they would end their careers.
If they came out and spoke about the ridiculous misattribution of deaths; the COVID-pancrealtitus is my favourite one. It’s a disease process that doesn’t exist being written down. Alcoholic dies while testing positive = COVID pancrealtitus. There are deaths that are misattributed, there are deaths that are correctly attributed and then there are deaths that are basically caused by policy and it’s very hard to tease them apart.
My big fear here is it’s a simple matter of ramping up testing, PCR testing: because you will detect, if you PCR test amongst asymptomatic people, you will get false positives, people who are not diseased, they’re not clinically sick in any way and some of those people will die and if you die with a positive test in somebody’s hands, certainly in the UK and the US it’s been policy to write those deaths down as coronavirus deaths and in South Africa it’s been policy not to- but it happens.
So we’re still doing the work. I’m not too sure that we will have the answer for many years because our statistics are on a mess and it takes a long time for them to catch up the reporting of and attribution of all course mortality which is what’s required, and big inferences are being drawn from this very sketchy excess deaths report and incorrectly so in my opinion anyway.
Nick thanks for a really good talk and providing some reality which I think we need. Just two questions. In terms of the disease, we know that things like cancer, heart disease, malaria, many other diseases and we haven’t seen this type of reaction. Do you off the top of your head know what the numbers are compared to the so-called numbers of people who have died from coronavirus? That’s the one question. Sorry I’m going to ask two, Alex if that’s okay, and the second one is around the vaccine and it’s safety. What is your opinion? I know I’m putting you in a corner but these are hot topics.
I’m going to answer the first one because it’s easier and less likely to be shot. The ranking of coronavirus as a mortality impact is way way way below heart disease and cancer. Now neither heart disease nor cancer are contagious. Okay. So there’s a difference in the fear factor, but I mean you’re talking about those diseases are responsible for just probably between the two of them, a third of all the deaths in the world and then coronavirus is sitting at 2% of the deaths. So there’s an order of magnitude difference.
As we showed for half the world, this thing just hasn’t, it’s been a non-show, a non-event and it’s not because of the policies and that map with that huge wide territory. You’ve got countries that locked down, didn’t lock down, wore masks, didn’t wear masks and none of them had this.
So I get everybody telling me on a daily basis, but Australia locked down and they’ve managed it. Did they, how do you make that attribution? How on earth do you make that attribution when they sit in the middle of a region where nobody had an impact?
Isn’t there maybe another scientific explanation like pre-existing immunity and why on earth are they not testing at the cost of a few million dollars for pre-existing immunity? Why did New Zealand ban the importation of antibody tests? It’s inexplicable stuff. They should be encouraging the importation to establish whether there’s pre-existing immunity before you shut down your economy at the cost of billions of dollars. It’s just, there’s basic steps here in public health on not being pursued. It is insane.
So yes, if your point is that there’s mis-prioritization on an epic level. We have basically terminated our TB programs and HIV programs in this country. Many more people will die as a result of that than died from coronavirus in South Africa and I mean that by individual causes of death.
We are in the territory where the policies are going to cause between one and two orders of magnitude more deaths than the virus itself and they’ve done nothing to reduce the deaths from the virus itself. That’s where we are. That’s how crazy this situation is.
Vaccines. In this crazy world, I have to start by saying that I’m not anti-vaccine, that I take vaccines myself when I travel, my children are vaccinated. That’s how crazy this is because if I make one assertion that seems to suggest that I challenge the data on safety or efficacy, I’m “anti-vax” and I will be shut down and people will be pressed to leave Panda and so on.
Now, having said all of that, you can’t talk about the vaccine. There are a dozen odd vaccines out there, not even, I’ve lost count at the moment because there’s several now out of China and there’s one in India and there’s Russia and so on. So you can’t talk about the vaccine. Each of those is a separate product. They have vastly different mechanisms. This new messenger RNA based one that underpins the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is a very new technology. We haven’t even trialled it in animal trials in the case of these two. So you have to watch very carefully and I am concerned that the monitoring processes and mechanisms are unsound on almost a global basis.
What you can see is a sharp rise in coronavirus mortality upon implementation of widespread vaccination programs in several countries and that needs to be understood. I’m not saying it’s attributable to the vaccine, but we need to understand what’s driving it because it is completely uncharacteristic of an epidemic curve. You’ll be watching a country’s curve decline and then you start a program and it kicks up again. Why? That question must be answered and it must be answered honestly and you haven’t seen this report in the media, have you? You know, and you can see it. Italy, the UK, Seychelles.
Safety needs to be properly measured and monitored. I hope, ardently, ardently hope that all of these vaccines get a clean bill of health and that they get applied safely to vulnerable people, but it is far from clear that that’s going to be possible. I want that to be the case. I do not want to see the whole world go mad and start vaccinating children and healthy people for disease that’s of no risk to them.
You can forget ideas like elimination or extermination of the virus. Coronaviruses in general have large animal reservoirs. Being as contagious as they are, they’re going to circulate. We’re not going to get rid of this thing. It’s going to become endemic one way or another, hopefully assisted by vaccinations and it will circulate and it will circulate with much less impact. It will be like adenovirus or rhinovirus or influenza A and B, probably even milder than this. It’s with us.
So I am concerned I’m alarmed at the failure of the media to see the rampant commercialism that’s driving this program and these crazy assertions by corrupt scientists around the percentage of these populations that needs to be vaccinated. There’s no grounds for it.
Nick, is there any parallel here to what happened with smoking in the 40s and 50s when it was actually propagated as something that was good for you?
Yeah, they definitely, I see that parallel, the analogy is a good one. The only thing is it was not nearly as extreme as this. This is the disturbing thing, the extent to which we’ve all been taken and the complicit media. That’s been the unusual thing.
10% is conspiracy, 90% is incompetence, and you’re saying that the media is complicit and I could almost put my hand on a Bible and say to you that it isn’t that the media are wanting to do harm, but maybe there’s the incompetence factor that is actually driving this.
Well, the incompetence possibly an infection with the three M’s. Yeah, you’ve got some real centralists. If you knock on the door at the daily maverick, you’re going to encounter journalists who already Marxist. They believe that the world will be better off if there’s a world government and universal basic income and things like this, and so when the World Health Organization steps up and starts talking the gospel, they support it, and there’s also this culture that’s infected even mainstream journalism of cancel culture, of safety, safetyism, of this idea that words can harm. They’re all very wrapped up in the politics of work, the politics of identity politics, and they’ve swallowed that, they’ve drank that Kool-Aid, and I think that is an enabler.
So I mean, your story is exceptional. You’ve encouraged us to come and layer our arguments. You’ve tried to set up debates. That’s not the treatment we’ve had at the hands of any other publications. Some journalists have tried and they get shut down by their houses. They’ve told me privately, you know, so after that interview I did with you, you won’t believe it, but the editor came downstairs and said, never again, and he wouldn’t tell me why, and we get this refrain, this constant refrain, misinformation, disinformation even. You know, disinformation is a hell of a thing to accuse somebody of, you know, that you actively going out to propagate knowingly false information. We’ve never done that once. We’ve been in accused of it routinely, and it’s never with any specifics. They don’t go and say, “Nick, what you said about the CDC and masks or the evidence over here or that data is false, and I’d like you to stop – they never say that. It’s just this general blanket accusation of misinformation or disinformation from journalists.
So what’s your incentive? We spoke about incentives earlier, but what’s yours?
Yeah, I mean, so we keep on getting confused of being libertarians and having some nefarious profit-making motive in PANDA, which is ridiculous, has done nothing but cost me time and money. I’ve hated every minute of this. I’m motivated here by fear for what is going to happen to our world, to the fabric of our society. I’m worried about the future of my children. I want them to live in a free and liberal democracy, not in the totalitarian techno-medico bureaucracy or technocracy that we’re heading into.
China is petitioning the World Health Organization to appoint it to run a global immune passport program. Now, if that doesn’t scare the living daylights out of you, I do not know what will. This kind of centralization, this kind of control, social credit systems, that’s dystopia for you. We need to push back against this stuff because it’s coming. It’s coming.
The UK government has been denying that they were planning to implement social credit vaccine passports, this kind of thing. At the same time that they’ve been commissioning tenders, they’re lying to the public about this. You know when it went up to vote, the second vote on this bill that outlaws dissent in the UK? Outlaws dissent. Not a single member of the conservative party voted it against it. The stuff is disturbing.
That’s my motivation. My incentive here is to avoid that kind of stuff happening. I do not want to see my children growing up in the world like that.
Sorry, me again. Nick, March last year, I actually was in Europe at the time and speaking to UK colleagues said that there is no chance that South Africa would follow the Italian then British, then American stance of lockdowns, and maybe more importantly, the idea of lockdowns could be potentially understandable in the 1980s when we had an apartheid government, but with a democracy in South Africa, it would never happen because the people in government understand well that poverty kills, and so there’s somewhat racist overtones to think that a now black controlled government would institute lockdowns on their people if you don’t mind me saying is absurd. It was also in March of that year that it was too early I think for big pharma to have had an extended influence but I may be wrong on this in all the tentacles, far reaching tentacles rather, like South Africa. If that’s the case, with all those assumptions, and if those assumptions are true, what would prompt a South African government where the majority of our people are living on the edge, to institute a lockdown if they have the knowledge that poverty kills?
It’s not a simple answer. There’s several factors that play simultaneously as they generally are in complex political settings. One factor I think that was crucial in South Africa but not definitive is that our cabinet is loosely divided into communists and crooks, and both parties, both groups, they have fine great virtue in the idea of lockdown. So there was a political appetite I think at the cabinet level for lockdown.
There was also a very overt and massive and relentless propaganda campaign by the Chinese Communist Party proposing lockdowns all over the world and criticising politicians who pushed back vicious criticism, personal attacks in social media by swarms of human bots. The CCP’s propaganda capability is a thing to behold and it was unleashed in favour of lockdowns. It’s a very significant and very well documented story. You can read the letter of Michael Senger to intelligence agencies of the world where he spells out and documents the huge propaganda story. I think it was significant. (01)
You must remember that when lockdown arrived with media and social media all supporting it, the population supported it. The population thought the president was being fantastic. It was the first time that they had seen him. I remember people saying the first time he exhibited any leadership at all. I was horrified.
We wrote a nice letter where we said we sort of understand that you locked down. Have you really thought about it, have you done a cost-benefit analysis? This is the astonishing thing. Not a single government anywhere has done a cost-benefit analysis. I mean how can you not? Where is the analysis that shows to me that this is a sound policy? It does not exist and when anybody attempts one, it comes out with the wrong answer, the definitive answer being that you should never even contemplate lockdown. It’s a disaster of a policy.
Those are big but you also need to understand the extent to which the World Health Organisation is captured by the Gates Foundation and China. That’s a very important consideration here. There’s pressure from those organisations and they wield a big bat, all of them. This is the mix into which the notion of lockdown is planted and it is taken up in Italy.
You can see Neil Ferguson talking and saying, we never thought it was going to be possible to implement lockdown in a democratic country. We thought it was not going to happen. Then the Italians did it and so we did it. That’s kind of the backdrop, but I was dismayed. We know that the ministers got our letter. Some of them were seen carrying our report into meetings. It was discussed at the very highest level of government but they decided to ignore it without providing any reasons.
Our initial report showing lockdown harm was discussed and there was no reaction or response which leads me to believe that the reasons why they decided to continue lockdown are basically too embarrassing to be uttered.
Andrew here. Nick, you’re making me think. Thank you very much. Definitely thinking about my kids at this point in time. I think it would serve the argument or serve the presentation to cut it into two phases. I really think the first phase of COVID is a position of least regret. People are making big decisions, least regret decisions and I think it’s hard to counter that. People that I come across, everyone had lots of ideas at the beginning. I’m really interested in that second phase that I would discreetly break the story into USA and the literature was catching up. I think that’s very important. You said that three or four times in your presentation because now we have a rational case. The literature is catching up. It’s still early days but there is literature to support. In the second phase that we are well into now and I hear there’s a delayed response in the second case and you should be talking louder. Here we are. I think we are 0.5% of the economy of the world sitting down on the southern tip of Africa. Pragmatically now what do we do as a country? We need to get going. There’s all these international threats. The story stacks up. I think there’s credibility. Pragmatically what do we do? Especially for the international trade for companies that are working internationally. Pragmatically what are we going to do as South Africans?
There are two elements of moderation in your story which, and I like moderation. The first one is let’s not be so hard on people for going into lockdowns. That part I have to push back against because we had the guidelines. We even have statements of principle detailing what evidence threshold is required to amend the guidelines, but in the space of seven days all over the world those guidelines were torn up and all of the statements of principle and the guidelines were contradicted in every single action that’s been taken. That has to be understood. We need to unpick that and work out why public health professionals all over the world who spent decades putting these guidelines together just went through them away and went down this road. That’s not something we can just gloss over and say, oh, we didn’t know or, you know, no, we didn’t know. That’s why we had the guidelines, we did know, and the data has confirmed what we previously knew. So why does departure? It has to be answered. I can’t accept the moderate view there.
On your point of art what do we do now? Okay. History is riddled with stories of how concessions to the limitation of freedoms and of liberties are rapidly evolving stories, and so I believe that we all have to push back. We all have an ethical responsibility to push back on these emergent encroachments. Okay. So that’s point number one.
Yes, pragmatism is required. I’m an investor. Okay. I can’t go and call the shots based on issues of ideology or highfalutin principle, right? I have to do what’s sensible for my investors and that would include, you know, evaluating steps that would be somewhat concessionary here in a way, but I do hope that people walk out of this room with a lively awareness of the extent to which we are in a dangerous situation. You need to be thinking, Stalin. That’s what we’re facing here. We need to decentralize. We need to pull back from this, very smartly. The erosion of liberal values in countries that basically invented them is just breath-taking. It’s breath-taking. Nothing less.
So yes, I mean, go and read the Protocol for Re-opening. What it basically says is just with respect to some practices, just stop it. Stop it.
- Stop the PCR testing, especially of asymptomatic people. It’s a nonsense enterprise.
- Stop the Perspex boards and all the stuff, this theatre that goes on when we had breakfast, you know, the sort of, that’s what it is. It’s theatre.
- Mask wearing is theatre. It’s kind of a religious thing. It’s not, it indicates, it’s a virtue signaling thing. You know, you’re kidding yourself, you know.
So stop, stop the, an important part of getting back to normal is to stop the theatre that I would say. You’ve got, we’ve got to terminate that because it has a chilling effect on the economy. The economy is, you know, one thing that claims was right about is that the animal spirits are important, and when we are afraid, when we are behind our masks and reminding each other every minute of the day that there’s a deadly virus, that has a chilling effect. We need to stop all that stuff.
We just need to bring people back to their senses. So I would not, I would not short-change ideas like, you know, network-based ideas. Can you start a nucleus of people in your country, in your company, who are brought back to reality? Can they influence other people around them? That’s what’s required. That story about bringing people back to their senses one by one. You know, somebody has to do that work, right? It’s not, it’s not all going to happen because PANDA managed to get a big donation and launch a campaign, you know. That’s not going to be the answer. It’s got to be a more decentralized approach. Thank you.
Penny: Obviously, the fraud has been proven to be a lot more obvious since this interview back in mid-2021, and we now have almost certainty that most of the deaths were ‘murder by policy’ and that it truly was a ‘planned’ pandemic by media delusion and health / monetary driven policies, not a true pandemic, and so on, but I still found it an incredibly important interview, and it may be one that is worthwhile sending to friends whose minds are still back in 2020-mode. i.e. people still wearing masks and doing tests
|01||Senger M, Rudin S, Craig C et al,. The Chinese Communist Party’s Global Lockdown Fraud: Request for expedited federal investigation into scientific fraud in COVID‑19 public health policies [open letter], published on The CCP’s Global Lockdown Fraud, 11 January 2021 – Read on Medium | Darachi | Download on Scribd | Odysee | Darachi|