March 27, 2021

BONUS: The Ugly Truth About the Lockdowns (Time to Reopen Society) -with Nick Hudson from PANDA

BONUS: The Ugly Truth About the Lockdowns (Time to Reopen Society) -with Nick Hudson from PANDA

The data, facts, and realities of COVID were far away from what the media and public health institutions were presenting to the world at the advent of the pandemic.

And while the controlling narrative was that of lockdowns and fear in response to COVID, organizations like PANDA have been working with some of the top minds in public health, focusing on the hard data and analytics of the pandemic to help *save lives*.

Returning to the program is Nick Hudson, co-founder of PANDA, who just gave an amazing talk at the inaugural BizNews Investment Conference where he crushed the common myths and misconceptions promoted by pro-lockdown, anti-science politicians and unelected bureaucrats.

What do epidemiologists and immunologist think of Dr. Fauci? What's the story about the COVID variants? Are asymptomatic people a danger to others?

All that (and more) discussed on today's special BONUS episode.

The data, facts, and realities of COVID were far away from what the media and public health institutions were presenting to the world at the advent of the pandemic.

And while the controlling narrative was that of lockdowns and fear in response to COVID, organizations like PANDA have been working with some of the top minds in public health, focusing on the hard data and analytics of the pandemic to help save lives.

Returning to the program is Nick Hudson, co-founder of PANDA, who just gave an amazing talk at the inaugural BizNews Investment Conference where he crushed the common myths and misconceptions promoted by pro-lockdown, anti-science politicians and unelected bureaucrats.

What do epidemiologists and immunologist think of Dr. Fauci? What's the story about the COVID variants? Are asymptomatic people a danger to others?

All that (and more) discussed on today's special BONUS episode.

Youtube Video:
Find PANDA Online:
Nick's Twitter: @NickHudsonCT

Sponsored By:

Support The Brian Nichols Show

Studio SponsorBNC: Proven sales and messaging strategies that WIN -

Support our Sponsors!

Support the program with a one-time donation or join our Patreon!

Take our audience survey for a chance to win a "Don't Hurt People, Don't Take Their Stuff" bumper sticker! 




e a b l e s Eagles remember that name because if you suffer from chronic joint and muscle pain like me then Eagles broad spectrum CBD oil is your answer to your prayers. The evil story began with the search for something natural to help manage chronic migraines but Eagles helps more than just migraines for managing chronic pain, anxiety, depression and more evils is truly a game changer in the natural alternatives to Big Pharma drugs and yours truly, Brian Nichols here on The Brian Nichols Show can indeed vouch for the quality of people's having a herniated disc in my back who coupled with years of sports injuries, I was struggling to find something anything to help manage my pain that is until evals with the best quality product and customer service in the industry evils broad spectrum CBD oil and evils freeze jail easily stand above all the competition and right now ebos is offering a special discount to all members of The Brian Nichols Show audience on all orders. All you have to do is head to and use promo code TB ns The Brian Nichols Show right TB ns at checkout that's it discount applied again. The code is TB ns at checkout to start managing your pain today with the highest quality CBD on the market one more time that is code tbms at checkout

and now on a show. And just note that we got Brian on here who's getting congressman Massey on and our typical lineup includes like homeless people that believe in Bigfoot.

Welcome to The Brian Nichols Show Your source for common sense politics on the we are libertarians network. The Brian Nichols Show is the fastest growing Liberty podcast that brings together people from all means of political thought, as we seek to have meaningful conversations about the issues you care about. At The Brian Nichols Show. Our goal is to leave the audience educated, enlightened and informed. And now your host Brian Nichols. Well, hello

there. I know Saturday you're grilling Brian, we do. Saturday, we never record on Saturday and candidly. You're right. But I had an amazing conversation with one Nick Hudson, good friend of the show. We had him back on January 1 of 2021. Just about four months ago, talking about yes these these lockdowns and the implications of said lockdown, so I just had Nick on the show. And we were going to hear the show a mid April but it just happened to coincide with an amazing new talk. He actually just did and it was the ugly truth about lockdowns and it was recorded on YouTube. It's going viral. It's going wild. So I said you know what, heck, we're delaying this conversation. We're gonna go ahead and we're gonna launch this episode Today's a special bonus episode. for you folks here at The Brian Nichols Show audience so all I ask in return, please do me a favor, make sure you share today's episode. This is a super, super awesome episode. And really it digs into pretty much any question that you could possibly want to ask like, okay, Dr. Fauci, what do real epidemiologists and immunologist think of him? Let's talk about the variants. Are those actually causing a lot of problems right now? A lot of this stuff Nick Hudson digs into so it's a really great chance to learn a lot. But first, what you need to do is make sure you go and watch the amazing video. It's again, the ugly truth about lockdowns I including the link in the show notes about 27 minutes or so. But it's well worth every single minute then come back here and strap in for a nice behind the scenes. So that being said on the show, Nick cuts in here on The Brian Nichols Show. Hello, Brian. Good to be back with you, Nick. It's so great to have you back. We just had about what a half an hour conversation before we hit the magical record button because there's there's so much that you've been doing behind the scenes, and not even just behind the scenes. Now we're getting out there and you're doing a nice Blitz. And actually, we're recording here on the 27th of March. You know, it's funny, this is gonna be an episode a couple weeks from now. I'm an officiant in a really good buddy's wedding. I was like this is gonna air sometime mid April. And I'm like, No, no, this this information. This topic we're gonna make as a special bonus episode probably airing today or tomorrow because you've had a brand new video go out on YouTube time to reopen society, or otherwise it was called the ugly truth about lockdowns, which both are great names. And this is more of a behind the scenes for folks. First, we need to make sure we're pointing folks towards this awesome YouTube video, we'll include the link in the show now it's time to reopen society invest that by half an hour or so. And then come here because this is going to be a great chance for folks is here. Not just some more context, some more nuanced, but also a little bit more in terms of what's what's been the reception, what's been the overall I guess you're the changing tenor that we're seeing next. So how about this the last time you were on the show, it was actually the first of January, and we're about four months removed from then. So a lots changed since you were last in the show. Let's kind of fill the audience in what has been going on in the past four months over a panda.

Well, we've continued Brian to to try and build the organization's capacities to get the message out there. Panda is I think unrivaled in the world in terms of the reach that it has. We have a really strong advisory board composed of some of the leading specialists in fields like infectious diseases and, and epidemiology. And then also we think it's very important to broaden. So we have people from, you know, the fields of education and and inside the organization itself there, you know, 150 odd members who are active members that include people from very diverse fields, pathology, actuarial science, economics, microbiology, and so on, you know, just just an ecology, I found the ecologists are some of the best people to have an onboard in terms of understanding the epidemic, they really do see things in a big picture fashion. Whereas a lot of these, especially epidemiologists, they've sort of learned how to solve a system of three differential equations and build an SRO model. And you know, that it's a very vulcanized narrow frame through which to view the world and they want everybody else to go away. They don't want any other experts in their, in their turf. And, and I think that's also, you know, one of the things that has enabled the bad agents in the story to manipulate them to such a degree. And I really think it is about that there are people here who have been driving towards a certain outcome. And and it's it's particularly perverse from country to country from agency to agency. I mean, if you look at the World Health Organization, if you look at the CDC, we had in place very clear and detailed guidelines for what you should do if you're struck by a respiratory virus pandemic. And within the space of a few weeks, even a few days, probably that's more accurate way of describing it. But within the space of a few days, those guidelines were torn up in the process, you know, in some cases, they were actually rules in place for what you had to do in terms of evidentiary proof to change those guidelines, let alone to tear them up. And those rules were torn up. So we had this crazy situation where a completely untested set of response measures, suddenly was implemented around the world, despite the fact that they completely contradicted everything that we knew about viral pandemics. And the very disturbing thing is when you go and you can go and look at those guidelines, you can see that they're there. And that that's presumably what the organization's were ready for, because that updated them as recently in the case of the World Health Organization as October 2019. But at almost the same time, you've got these kind of parallel organizations like Johns Hopkins University and the Gates Foundation, holding mock pandemic preparedness exercises that completely contradicted everything in the in the guidelines. So they've got their own idea about what should happen if there's a viral outbreak. And that version of the story, you know, untested by science, or scientists, is what was rolled out on us. And it happened very quickly. It's wild with the with the help of a lot of propaganda, a lot of behavioral psychology being implemented a lot of manipulation of social media, you've got these big tech and big pharma companies, exercising a degree of control over the media narrative that is without precedent in the history of Western democracies. And that's what happened here.

And they got it with fear, fear, and we were discussing beforehand. fear, fear, fear, fear, everything that has been done has been done to focus on triggering that that fear sensor, and to make your average person in many cases, not think they're just trying to react and they're like, I don't know how to deal with Coke. COVID nine, what's the actual name for COVID? I don't even know but I know I can trust these experts who have invested years of their their lives, you know, doing the research, right? I can trust these people because the media saying I can trust these people. And to your point, Nick, it raises this it just this fever across the world where people just they can't enter into conversations in a rational way. Because they're so incensed. They're so on edge. And they're they're just prepared to do whatever they're told is going to keep them safe next because of that uncertainty. So now we're a year removed from really when COVID started to be a thing. And we have more definitive evidence that just reaffirms really what we've been saying from the beginning. So as you're going through, and we were discussing your presentation, this new video that just went out, it's you know, just taking the internet by storm there. Let's kind of outline some of the things that were common myths that we heard. I think one of the things that has really and you discuss it beforehand, that's really been a big mind switch for a lot of people is this belief that a healthy person's default setting is possibly a danger is possibly sick. And this notion that asymptomatic people are a risk to society, not only we knew was a bunch of baloney, but now we have definitive data backing that up. Nick, could you dig into that a bit more, please?

Yeah. Yeah. And you're absolutely right, Brian to focus on that one, because it is the it is the lie that underpins the entire false narrative. Without the doctrine of asymptomatic transmission, being a driver of the epidemic. lockdowns don't make sense. Universal mass wearing doesn't make sense, you know, even universal vaccination. I mean, they lots of reasons why that doesn't make sense. But, and I'm not saying that, you know, I'm not an anti Vax person. I, I think vaccinations that are safe and effective, are a godsend for vulnerable people. But the idea that we need to be jabbing children and infants with an experimental drug that it is only 1/3 of the way through its trial process is immoral in the extreme. I mean, anybody who can't see that is one of these people who's gone mad with the fear, you know, you can't, or it stands to make a huge profit, right? by you know, by jabbing those kids. Um, you know, really, there's no need to vaccinate anybody under the age of, you know, depending on where you are in the world. 50 or 60. I mean, maybe in poorer countries, you can, you can drop the age, age limit a little bit. But for somebody my age is in good health, you know, I I'd much rather be exposed to Coronavirus than to the vaccine. Because the there's an and this is something maybe with with just drilling into it. Yeah, for sure. Because it's not covered in the presentation, we just didn't have time, we wanted to keep it under half an hour. This whole story of the variance, the mutations is another fear mongering tool. And the reason I can say that, with quite a lot of force is when you sit down and talk to immunologists, who are not corrupted by conflicts of interest, and so on. What they will explain to you is that the human immune system produces a very broad response to a viral attack. So if you can, if you can, if you just this, I'm not saying the virus is a straight line, but if you think of the virus as a straight line as a spectrum, a long string of genetic code, which is presented in the form of proteins, they're those genes code, the manufacturer of proteins, okay? What's happening is when your immune system gets hold of the first example that it sees, it chops up that long string, and teaches your immune system to recognize this piece and this piece and this piece. Those are called epitopes. And in a very interesting paper produced by a lab in La Jolla, out west in the United States, that was released probably a month ago, they actually went and counted the epi total responses. And what they found is that the average person produces 17 different responses. So in the event that there is a mutation, or even two or three mutations you met, you might knock out one, maybe two of those epitopes. But your immune system can still recognize 15 of them on average. And for some people, the numbers like 40, you know. And so your natural immune response is completely able to deal with the virus should you be reinfected when reinfection is not a terrible frightening thing. reinfection is the method by which your immune system is challenged. What we it's not will not be surprising to find that certain people who've had the disease and recovered get reinfected with the virus. What would be surprising is if they get sick a second time, that's very rare. So these variants, which are supposedly the the variants of concern, you know, the Darth Vader voice you have to have on when you talk about the variants of concern.

They're not a concern from the perspective of evading natural immunity. And now comes this question. Are there a concern in terms of evading the vaccines, right. And in this regard, it's a very interesting story because on one level, the the the narrative the the gated narrative has to be that vaccines work. And so you can't make too much of a scene about the variants. evading the vaccines. But on the other hand, if you can leave the story on the side and bring it up in about three months time, then I can sell you some new vaccines. Okay? So there's this emergent story that's being almost imported into the narrative by these kind of marginal scientists. Like, what's his name? Give Garrett vandenbosch. Okay, who has a video that's gone viral, you know, it's all over the nobody shutting it down. He's basically saying that the vaccines are going to cause an absolute disaster that that's going to bypass our innate immune systems, and everybody's going to die. Okay. Now, why is that little media item being accepted? Because what it's doing is the one that story grows, we will vaccinate everybody. And then we will say, Oh, look, that guy was right, we need to bring in a new vaccine and give everybody a vaccine all over again and make another $15 billion of profit or whatever the number is, is probably well north of that, you know, so. So there's this story of the variance. And the story of whether they've evade vaccines is in itself interesting, because those spike epitopes, sorry, Spike proteins, that, that a lot of the vaccines feature that what they've done is they take one fairly long portion of the virus, and they go and teach your immune system, that portion. And that's what produces, that's how the vaccine produces the immune response. Now, that's five protein is long, it's got like 12,000 genes. And sorry, genes is the wrong term. But anyway, broadly speaking, it's long and you get a. So you might get 42, different epitopes that are out of, you know, 67, or whatever it is that the human the human body recognizes, focusing on the spike protein. And so a mutation in the spike protein also wouldn't cause the vaccine to be evaded. You know, there's no question that vaccine immunity is narrower than natural immunity. And so there again, you just got to listen to the conflicted scientists who are trying so hard to say that vaccine immunity is going to be better than natural immunity, you know, if that's nonsense you'd have, you won't be able to demonstrate that even if it was the case. And it's unlikely to be so for decades, you know, right. It's not something you can demonstrate now. And it's very, very unlikely. So that's a market if you hear a scientist saying that you got to assume their bullshitters, you know, in the pocket of Big Pharma. So yeah, the variance issue is right now being used to stoke up fear, and to provoke people to continue wearing masks and locking down and all these crazy things that are so desperately harmful and so totally unhelpful. And it's just getting to the point of ridiculousness. And your team at a panda, it's a you can say this with extreme confidence, because your team is so diverse. I mean, you have people formerly from the pharmaceutical industry, you have people it from, you know, the immunologist,

you mentioned the list of types of epidemiologist, now, just goodness, Dr. Scott Atlas, you know, he's he's one of your advisors, for the for Panda, and

you guys are cooled off by the ceria Gupta, you know, bukti. These are great names, like people who, you know, with publication lists and citations and awards that just go on and on and on. I mean, they make the rest of us look like complete monkeys. But you know, yeah. And so when I publish something, you know, it an article in a newspaper or something like, it goes on to the Google Docs, you know, and it's the most intimidating thing, because the next thing that happens is the four or five designated scientists out of the 100, or whatever, or GM calling into the google doc and start tearing it apart. So by the time I pump something out, I'm very confident that nobody's gonna say to me, Well, that's misinformation, you know? Yeah. Because that's the problem is, you know, we're always under the spotlight in a way that, you know, the media puts us under the spotlight, but they never put the damn health professionals under the spotlight. Good. And they speak nonsense all the time. You know, yeah. absolute nonsense. Yeah. And they get a free pass. We get scrutinized, okay, but we just lift our game we make sure that it's all scientifically correct. And so we published an article on the variance for example, a couple of weeks ago, that's that's been very well received. And tells the story lays the story out in plain English, so that a lay man, an intelligent layman can can understand it, you know, yeah. Yeah. So I speak not as a as an expert, but as a person who is subject to the I was gonna use the word discipline, I suppose it is discipline in a way but more it's, I have access to the input of a lot of very, very bright people.

Yeah. And this I guess, because we are kind of doing this behind. The scenes reaction to your video and you're seeing there's a lot of people who I think are starting to maybe say, oh, maybe the past years narrative. Maybe it wasn't correct. Yeah. But there's there's still a strong fervent group of people who firmly believe that not only has the the course of action that we've been taking been the right course of action, but the reason that it has been the right course of action has been the well, the what ifs that we didn't know what could happen. Right. So to those folks, Nick, I mean, how can we win in those people ever mean, is there winning them over?

I think there's a minority of people who you will never win over. They will go to their graves, believing that every element of the policy response of the mass squaring of the perspex dividers of the silly stickers on the floor was absolutely warranted very effective and saved us all from dying, you know, I think you will never convert those people. And I never think of them as being in our kind of target market. But I think there are a lot of people in the middle ground for whom, you know, some of the stuff is starting to look a little ridiculous. Now they're starting to say, Well, wait a second, you said to us that when we got vaccinated, we'd get our lives back, you know, yeah, and now you're telling us we're gonna have to wear these silly masks for, you know, until 2025 was one of the claims made by a health public health person in the UK, you know, I'm smelling a rat, you know. And it is very interesting, when I this, this presentation was unusual for me, because I gave it in front of a lot, our live audience as a live as an you know, real time but also as an people, real human beings sitting in a hole. And it was really interesting, because there was a very, I could see the emotional reaction, there were people in the audience taking off their masks midway through the presentation, you could see it was like, the scales falling from their eyes, you know, and then afterwards, you know, when the whole thing had finished, which it because I was the first start in the morning, and there are a couple more presentations. It took me five hours to get back to my hotel room. And there was this very interesting thing that was happening. There were people who were like, incredibly emotional, you know, shaking, almost crying in tears, and coming and telling me their stories, what had happened to them, you know, during lockdown. And it was interesting, because a certain part of that audience already heard our story. And they were almost there to hear it again. Yeah, there was a sort of a people who are part of our fan club, okay. And they were not emotional, because for them, this is all just making complete sense. But it was the people for I think, who came in and maybe hadn't heard of us, or who were a little bit skeptical about us. They were the ones who had the strong emotional action reaction, because they sit back and think about it. Wait a second, how much of our last year? What is this all cost me? And it was you telling me it's all for nothing. And when I listened to your presentation, I believe you. Those people just want to cry. And it had a big effect on me because I It's the first time I've been in that kind of situation. And so for a few days afterwards, I was actually grappling dealing battling the to deal with all the stories that I'd heard. And this, it was a completely unexpected reaction for me, and one that I've never experienced in any environment ever before. I think, I think the last person I had to leave my presence in was at three o'clock in the morning, you know, it was way, it caused a very cathartic kind of process. And it worries me a little bit. Because I think there's a whole world or half a world because, you know, most countries out in, in Asia and the rest of Africa didn't do these crazy things. But more safely, more than half of the world has gone through exactly the process. And more than half the people in those countries bought into the false narrative and went along with the malarkey, because they believed that they were saving people. They were doing a good thing. It was the goodness that was being exploited here. And I think when those people turn and they will turn, they will, it's a certainty. You can't maintain such an elaborate lie for much longer than a year. I know to call much longer than now really is what I'm trying to say.

Well, I think well, I don't mean interrupt your thought. But I think that out there, that might be part of why this hasn't stopped. Because it would require those people in positions of power to do the unthinkable. And as I say, we were wrong. And they will never do that like it like I look at in my home state of New York, seeing someone like Andrew Cuomo to this day still standing by his nursing home policy. We just saw Rachel Levine get appointed to the top one of the top second health positions in the United States from Pennsylvania, who pulled their their mother out of the nursing home before they implemented their nursing home policy that killed the 1000s of seniors in nursing homes. So it would require people to effectively say, Yeah, not only did we do the wrong policy, but also I guess our policy did end up causing more death than we said it wasn't going to and I don't know about you, Nick, this is something I heard from the very beginning is that, well, you just want people to die. You don't care. You're so dangerous. Your ideas are just going to put more people at risk. And now we're seeing the exact opposite. You show me your slide presentation beforehand. What was the number? I mean, 15 million people? Was it you expected first starvation across the world this year? It was something like that. I think the numbers are gonna be up on an order of magnitude, I'm afraid. Yeah, it's gonna be insane.

Yeah, um, I, I hear what you're saying. But I tell you where I think there's a little bit of subtlety that's maybe worth picking up. Yeah, please. What What do you see what you say is correct, that I don't think the people who have been the face of all of these things will ever step down naturally. But what will happen is they will be thrown under the bus. Yes. They already have already seen a little bit with corner. That, you know, when when their political parties or backers realize that the winds are turning, and that they're going to need scapegoats. And they're going to need that basically, what they've done is they've used them as useful idiots, and they will now be treated exactly like the useful idiots have the, you know, the resumes of Stalin and Mao lined up against the wall and shot. I'm not saying they should be shot. I mean, that proverbially, you know, they will be thrown under the bus. And so the fatties and the drassanes and the cromoz. And you can just carry on the list of names as obviously, as long as you care to make it but the those people will be discarded by the power players who will try to say, this is a scandal, you advised me to do this, and you showed me this forecast and you, you you, and they will blame and in an effort to maintain political power, you know, so I think that's how it will play out. Yeah. Now, that would be a completely insincere again. But hey, welcome to politics. There is nothing new under the sun.

What's the good you mentioned him? We haven't talked about him yet. Dr. Fauci. Good old Dr. Fauci. He, he has been propped up for the past year as pretty much the best doctor ever in the United States. But he's been on record what saying one thing and then saying the other complete opposite position months later, or balancing it years earlier. So I'm just curious, you're speaking to a lot of folks in the the greater scientific community in the epidemiologists, immunologist community. What's, what's the perception of Dr. Fauci? Do they look at him as is someone who's actually following any science? Or is he at this point, just a political player?

No, they look at him as a as a complete charlatan, a liar. And a fraud is just nobody in the community of independent scientists, who thinks that that guy has anything to say, sensible to say, at this time, about the epidemic. They all were pretty impressed with his March paper, because very early on, he and Redfield wrote a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, where they concluded and it's in the presentation, that the impact of Coronavirus would be more or less in line with a severe seasonal influenza, which it has been exactly what it has been, you know, and you get people saying, Oh, it's the worst epidemics since the 1918. Spanish influenza, you know, well, yes and no. And don't don't say that without also saying that the population mortality rate is 160 of that epidemic. 160. It's not 1/6. Right, you know, so yeah, it's it's a it's been a severe seasonal flu, probably, you know, you can have the argument, is it better or was it lighter or heavier than the 5758 epidemic, but it's not You know, it's not way out of whack with other seasonal respiratory virus epidemics that have been, you know, bad once. Okay, so yes, people did die. Would we have preferred not to have had this? Of course? Yes, we would, we would prefer to have managed it better than we did. But this is not the Spanish flu, by any stretch of the imagination. And what he did was in January, February and March, he summarized the science pretty well saying, in the history of respiratory viruses, there's never been a situation where asymptomatic people were drivers of the epidemic. That's correct and still correct to this day. He said, there's no point wearing surgical masks in the general population, let alone cloth ones, you know, he said, he says, The, the impact is going to be in line with a seasonal influenza. And he writes that spectacular paper with Redfield, who's the other chief panic officer in, you know, in cahoots with them. And, and then suddenly, sometime in April, his brain switches. And I think unless we get people on to witness stance, to find out what caused them to switch, you will never find out because there was certainly no emerging evidence, the emerging evidence in the timeframe around the end of the first quarter last year and the beginning of the second quarter, all endorsed his original viewpoint, and the one that we've been beating the drum about since then, you know, that the World Health Organization's original estimates of mortality, we are up by an order of magnitude that all of the modelers were way out that the potential benefits of lockdown were greatly overestimated. Everything that we've been saying is, is bang in line with the science up until about February of last year. And then all those scientists go completely batshit crazy. If Archie and Redfield included, and Ferguson and Justin and Vila and all these, you know, fans, they will go crazy and take the world with them. And I want to know, I want to see those people on witness stands so we can understand what went on. Because it's not simply the case that because Bruce Aylward came back from a one week trip to China and said, Ah, the Chinese lockdown seems to have worked that the world locked down. You know, there was much more to it than that. And I think a very interesting thing is that a lot of the features of these lockdown even though these lockdowns, even though they contradicted all the guidelines, were very much in line with the thinking that was presented in the agenda 201 presentation that I spoke about also around October 2019, you know, where these people sit down and have a mock pandemic exercise where they lay out something that contradicts the guidelines?

Wow. It's, it's unfortunate. But a better word to say. Because, I mean, we've been saying this for a year, Nick, and this is why it's like, sometimes there's a meme that perfectly encapsulates, you know, I'm in the greater Liberty movement. It's like what your family thinks we do versus what we actually do. And it's like, what I actually do is smash my head against the table because we've been saying this stuff for a year and quite literally could have prevented so many millions of loss lives so many millions of loss productivity years in the future. If just we didn't react the way we did. I mean, if we had not taken you know, basically marching orders from from China from how to handle air quotes, big on the ark, what's the word handle the pandemic by doing these these very authoritarian lock downs, we could have prevented so much mass your mass starvation, mass joblessness, mass depression, drug use despair, we're seeing it all skyrocket. So it drives me crazy that we could have had this been avoided, but your focus on the topic at hand has been well now it's time to reopen society, right like now. Now we're focusing on I guess, the light at the end of the tunnel. And you're mentioning you're seeing in places are opening up the the narratives are falling. So what are some I guess some some things we can look forward to as we are approaching this proverbial light at the end of the tunnel of this very crazy past year and a half?

Yeah, look, I mean, the bright, the bright spots have obviously been the states like Texas and Florida and Arizona, that have been opening up I mean, some of them and you know, you can really say South Dakota State open and, you know, no particular calamity the same kind of story as manifested in North Dakota. You know, this show Once again that these measures were broadly unhelpful, and but very harmful. So I think those states, we owe them all a great deal of appreciation and thanks because they will. They have already shown that it is completely unnecessary to go through these charades of social distancing lockdowns and mosques. And they're all just complete nonsense, absolutely without basis in science and the data. And look, everything's fine there. And of course, there's the the test cases of Sweden, and Japan, which didn't lock down at all. And countries like Taiwan and South Korea where, you know, okay, it's maybe not a right to use them as examples, because they sit in the middle of a region where they broadly speaking wasn't a pandemic, you know, the mortality rates for Africa, Asia and Oceania, from COVID are 100 per million, which is like about, that's about 1% of their annual deaths, you know, it's nothing. So, and that's below the level of, you know, what a normal flu season would do. And why

is that? Is there a reason in particular, those areas were just completely missed?

Yeah, yeah. Because the science is being so distorted by the rabid madness, the basic studies that would answer those questions haven't been done. If I was in New Zealand, I would have said, Well, this is very interesting. The disease made landfall in New Zealand, it's highly contagious. Why didn't the spread? Now, of course, what happens is the scientists there, it's the best lockdown and the border closure, and we, you know, Pat themselves on the back, and they have their contact tracing and all this nonsense again. What I would have said is okay, maybe. But let's just go and do a serology test to see if we've already got antibodies. And even if that doesn't show up anything, let's do a T cell test. Let's go and take us a substantial cross section of our population, a few 1000 people and see whether there is pre existing immunity to this disease, because now there are dozens of papers showing the mechanisms and the extent of pre existing community immunity. And in some of the populations in which it's measured. It's It's estimated that upwards of 80% of people, you know, and why is this the case? It's not an unexpected thing, it's not at all surprising. And the size of SAS covi. Two is so closely related to size COVID. One, that it doesn't even really merit a distinct name. That was kind of a little bit of a marketing exercise. This this is a rose by any other name, but should really just be called SARS, a variant of SARS. Okay. And so it's not a new virus, it's an individual of the beta Coronavirus, known as SARS. covi. Okay, so isn't sorry. And even more than that, that virus SARS covi is very closely related to four viruses that circulate generally in the human population. And remember, US gave the story of the long string and how the how the human immune system recognizes lots of parts of that virus? Well, if your virus is 96.5%, the same as h cough, which circulates as a seasonal cold? Guess what, a lot of people would have seen this thing fairly recently, and their immune systems recognize it and they'll deal with it fine. That's where you get the so called asymptomatic cases, to completely bogus term for them, your you should call them as those are the Healthy People. Right? And they get exposed to the virus have a very such a lotta reaction to it, that they wouldn't notice that they'd had it unless you'd given them a damn PCR test, you know? So, yeah, we, we have this situation where instead of doing antibody tests and T cell tests in New Zealand and Australia, they've concluded that their lockdowns were just the best thing. I I have a strong suspicion that if you went and did those tests in those populations, what you'd find is that there was never really a risk of those diseases breaking out in those territories. Why? Because they weren't the only two countries in the region that some, whatever 70 other countries had similarly, lot experience. Some of them didn't lock down at all. Some of them don't even have the capacity to lock down. Some of them are, you know, desperately poor places that couldn't organize a contact tracing exercise, if, you know, in a room of two people, you know, that's that's pretty much what you're dealing with, you know, 52 countries in Africa that are Don't know how many countries there are in Asia, but it must be out guess something in the region of 30. Including the tiny ones, you know? And so in none of those countries, was there anything going on yet? The whole lockdown crowd go, oh, Australia, New Zealand, you know, wonderful story, look at Albert are brilliant they locked down was, you know, everything was seen through the lens of one factor when we know that multiple factors influence outcomes and that one of them, which is very noted in every study that's ever been done is cross immunity or pre existing immunity, you know? And how about what we're seeing

with like people who are getting sick, and this is something that we're not talking about, and I don't know why nobody's talking about it. It's like 70% of the cases of mortality rate are people who are morbidly obese, like elephant in the room, no pun intended, but like, obesity rates, and we see this predominantly in America, especially in America. That's one of the leading causes. And then I'm like, hold on. So that's one of the leading causes. And yet, we're gonna go ahead and shut down all the fitness centers, because science.

So there, there's a lot to be untangled there. Because the first important thing that's also not spoken about is that almost all the transmission or let's say almost all, the vast majority of transmission takes place in nosocomial settings, meaning in hospitals and nursing homes. Okay? Now, if you're morbidly obese, you're gonna be making much more regular trips to the doctor or to hospital. Okay? And if transmission takes place in those environments, why? Because that's where you find the vulnerable people, the morbid people occur more with people and the virus at high concentrations. So you take the vulnerable people and put them into a building where they're high, they're exposed to a high inoculum and they get sick and die. Let's talk about that causal chain, you know, yes, Coronavirus, is involved in that causal chain. I'm not arguing that case it should appear on the death certificate somewhere. But is that really what's the cause here, right? And then even worse than that, you take somebody who's presented at the hospital with non COVID symptoms. You run a very high cycle threshold PCR test and find a little, you know, a little little virus and flitted across the nasal membranes causes the test to trigger positive bang into the Coronavirus would, you know, clinically that's a false positive. They're not at hospital because of their Coronavirus. But if they're fortunate enough to leave hospital, they will have been infected, right. Yeah. So you've got some news arriving sick from something else being sucked into a Coronavirus ward. And that is definitely so the extent here of what are known as atra genic debts. I think when the full analysis is in, you will find that as maybe even more than half of all the deaths that have been legitimate COVID debts I'm not talking about the MIS attributed debts I'm talking about the fraction of those that are legitimate is I would guess that more than half of those as be abin iatrogenic. That's caused either by people being pushed into settings that are dangerous for them because of the PCR test, or by people being shoved onto ventilators because though they got COVID or people being treated by doctors who are suffering from from what we call COVID tunnel vision, where basically everything they see has to be crushed into a Coronavirus box. I mean, I don't know what it's like in the United States. But in South Africa, we've heard of doctors writing down COVID pancreatitis, on the death certificate, you know, somebody arrives at hospital with abdominal pain. They give them the Admission Test. Test is positive, okay? Because the patient everybody goes alright, but he's got no COVID symptoms. There's a pancreatitis, possibly because nobody knew what to do with him for the first two days while they were waiting for the test result. Okay. And then that's COVID. pancreatitis. Now that this is a very often be, I think, an iatrogenic death where the doctor is looking at this patient as if Wow, that's a strange manifestation of Coronavirus and treating it in the wrong way. I think also people with bacterial co infections who have not been treated with antibiotics because they're being treated as if they've only got a viral infection, you know, all sorts of things like this will turn out to have been the case. The panic has definitely been much, much worse than the actual true epidemic, which I think has been actually reasonably contained. Then That's. So that's the other thing that's worth saying, when I said that this is maybe as bad as the 5758 flu. I think it's only been that bad because of the panic response.

Yep. And that led perfectly into my next question. And that is, we've seen this happen before. It's happening now how, how can we help prevent this in the future? And I think that maybe is a great way to is we're getting ready to focus towards the end of the episode is, we know what works, we know what doesn't work. So I'll say, Nick, when we're setting policy going forward, this This week, we're seeing that there's gonna be long term ramifications for sure. We're gonna be feeling it. But how can we make sure that we set this in place? So this, this never happens? Again, because this is just absolute insanity?

Yeah, so to that, you've got to feel that you've got to do a root cause analysis. And unfortunately, some of the roots of this particular mania are very, very deep. You know, and so maybe let's go through the easier ones first work backwards in time to find the more recent roots to the older ones, because the more recent ones I think, are easier. So I mean, I think the one thing that needs to happen is that in countries that have constitutions you need to make amendments to those constitutions to rule out this kind of action. Now, I've become pretty convinced that there's no set of circumstances that are lockdowns are warranted where the termination of democratic processes warranted in the face of a disease Why? Because if there really is a deadly disease going around, people will manage their own risks. And then if you remember the Chinese propaganda videos of the falling men and you know there was that tacit thing now we all know that that was garbage because nobody's gone around falling over it's not our you get this this disease causes you to get progressively tighter in the chest you know, in terms of you running into breathing problems you becoming hypoxic can take some time. And you arrive at Hospital in in certain amount of distress. You don't just you're walking down the street quite fine. And then the next moment you've got down Did you know this is not heart disease? work? So we know that that was all just propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party spread about the world by a host of human butts. That's something else that has to be investigated. Why the hell did we suddenly have 1000s of people in every country in the world ready to receive and Priscilla ties this Chinese propaganda, you know? That that's a very interesting thing. And you need to look at the work that Michael Center has been doing in that regard, because it's, it's almost spooky, you know, ridiculous. But yeah, so you have to look at the constitutions and and say, Okay, let's work out ways to make this kind of action illegal. And there are countries in the world where it was Finland, Sweden. Malawi, not not many, but a few countries where the government's either tried or didn't even bother trying because they knew that there will be no legal basis for it. So make lockdowns impossible legally would be a good step. But it's not going to be possible everywhere. Some countries don't have constitutions and the government's can do what they want, you know. And there rely on the law courts to interpret what they've done. And you know, even in England, where there's a very strong common law tradition, the courts have been basically neutered, you know, it completely emasculated and haven't done the right thing once. So you can't really rely on the institutions to function properly when everybody's driven into panic. More More important than that, I think we need to look at ways to decentralize all these organizations. Because the problem with centralization is it destroys the means of error correction. And that's in my mind, distraction of the means of error correction is actually the greatest sin in the world. Okay. If you can, if error correction is what enables us, not only to course, correct, but to learn, it's fundamental to knowledge creation, and economic growth and alleviation of poverty and any good thing you can name so terminating the means of error correction is the greatest evil and error correction is not possible in heavily centralized environments. They believe their own bullshit very quickly there's they set up gated institutional narratives. And the World Health Organization is just it's you know, we've we've got some insiders who talked to us, you know, we're not allowed to do this on contracts. And it's, it's crazy shit, man, what goes on in there? In terms of they almost get taught a double speak language. Really? You know? Yeah, it's just, it's just phenomenal. And so there's a certain way of talking around the elephants in the room, you know, but wait a second, we haven't done a cost benefit analysis on lockdown. You know, you've got to be able to talk your way around that elephant. How do you do it? How do you never ever once recommend to countries that before you implement a lockdown, you should do a cost benefit analysis? You're the World Health Organization, you do Burden of Disease calculations for a living, you know, how is it that you don't make that statement? Okay.

So, yeah, we've got to look at politically at where to decentralize these organizations, at better. And then the other thing is, we've gotten lacks on maintaining independence and monitoring conflicts of interest. All of these guys at the universities and the public health institutions are completely corrupted by their funding, which comes from the World Health Organization, the Gates Foundation, GAVI and related parties. And so yeah, fine, okay, if there's going to be corporate funding of, of research programs, that's right. But then don't have those guys making decisions about which vaccine to use, you know, or, or who gets vaccine, or whether to lock down a bit more, or whether to ban a promising cheap drug. These people are all deeply conflicted. So you've got to maybe create some rules around that to monitor and manage the conflicts. But then I'm afraid the deeper problem, which I think this is a manifestation of is a multi decade or slide. In education, we have allowed the this kind of radical skepticism, it's a it's a, it's the spawn of a very postmodern view of the world, to creep into the organizations that educate our use. And according to that view of the world, there is no reality. The opinion is what's more important, your place in the power structure your place in the hierarchy. And you can see this, you know, it coming out to play now, when you go and confront these guys with something that offends the narrative. And you show them some data, they don't come back at you with data of their own and have an intellectual debate. They try and cancel you, they're trying to have you kicked out of out of social media or LinkedIn or YouTube or whatever, they try and shut you down. That comes from that kind of radical skepticism, the post modern view of the world. And it has to be undone, or we must abandon those those institutions of higher learning and start new ones, because they truly have bred the most incapable, inept, and absolutely painful generation of, of kids, I don't care, they can be 50, they're still kids, because they just do not know the first thing about how to confront problems, how to create explanations for complex phenomena, and how to engage in debate with people who are trying to do that as well. And so for me, that is just something that has hit me like a bucket full of iced water, that the time is up for those institutions we have to count out now and stop this radical administrative creep and the and the onward march of these crazy crazy theories, like critical theory. And, you know, endless number of workers comes that that invade the Academy. And even as it turns out, stretch into the STEM subjects. Yeah, well,

it's a we need to cry, I mean, almost crowdsource alternatives. I mean, I have a good friend of my show here, Cory de Angeles, he works focusing on school choice options for in the United States getting kids just alternative solutions to the education system. And I think we need to do that more into the higher ed, like we need to start instead of saying, okay, just because you have a degree from name, the Ivy League University here, and that makes you instantly a qualified candidate. No, let's, let's actually have you go through, you know, working in almost like crowdsource kind of a way with certain people who are focused on certain topics that hey, maybe you're particularly passionate about, you get really, really good at those things. And then we collaborate and we learn from each other, instead of just saying, Oh, I have my degree, and we'll use it to trust me And oh, by the way, the funding that I have, they can go to whatever project I want, I'm going to have that project, you know, obviously yield a result that's gonna, you know, push policy that we can then put into action and then we can I mean, who was Oh, yeah, who was it was Ben Shapiro, Ben Shapiro mentioned back when he went to, I think was Harvard, how he was in the law school on the amphitheatre at the time, it was Elena Kagan, who is now a Supreme Court justice in the United States Supreme Court. And she was the intro law professor saying, you are to have the collective class, the future of America, you're making the policy. And just because you're leaving this institution with a degree from Harvard, you are instantly going to be the top of society. And that's the mentality. That's the way that a lot of people think it's not a matter of what you're actually learning. It's not a matter of what ideas you're testing, but rather, the degree where it's from, you know, who who did you know, in terms of being able to get these connections? So I'm hopeful that people are gonna start waking up from this, Nick. So how about this, I do focus towards the end of the show, I want to make sure we're pointing folks towards Panda, but you're raising your finger, you have a point to make, go ahead, make your point.

Yeah, I think that kind of thinking is exactly what is going to be required. We are going to need different ways of signaling reliable knowledge and understanding other than university degrees, because I think as you correctly point out, you can you can kind of get a by virtue of your GPA and your family connections, you can make it into a top school, come out with a degree. And that tells the person something about you, there's been some kind of selection process on the way in, but it doesn't really these days come from much on the way out, because you've got the potential for somebody to graduate from a Harvard or Yale with their head full of nonsense. And, and nothing really, that's of use in the real world of practical use. In fact, I think a lot of the time those applications will make it impossible, almost, for you to be useful. If you believe the stuff that they've taught you. You're not going to be building the next spaceship to Mars, sorry, it'll crash. I'm sorry. So it's good for the the gender studies Wawa segments of the HR department of Amazon, or Google, you can get a job there, okay. But you're not going to be doing anything useful to man or beast. And that, I think, is a problem that is going to it's going to have a market solution, you know, past a smaller entrepreneurial firms got no interest hiring those people. And they're going to start looking for other ways to signify or signal quality, to test quality.

Always, well, hey, you mentioned, your team is growing over at panda. So how about this, we want to make sure that folks who do want to get more involved, but also just want to learn more about Panda, which is the pandemic data and analytics, then go ahead and find and learn more. So Nick, where can folks go ahead and do that.

So the starting point would be our website, www dot panne, You know that there's a little process of trial if people want to join as active members, which is, the requirement for that is that they have, you know, sufficient independence and time on their hands to actually contribute to the organization is not a social club, it's not a form of social media, we do look for people who can actually do some work, and they want to end the madness. But there'd be a little bit of an introduction process, and then an induction process. And there include, you know, introducing them to the members in their own countries and their own fields worldwide, and so on. So we always keen to hear from such people who can help us. The organization has grown to the extent that we now need to put in place a permanent executive, you know, the people who run the organization, with the exception of three full time, people are part time volunteers. So I have a day job, I'm an investor, I run a fund, I have a responsibility to those investors, I also have reached the limit of my managerial abilities. I'm not a manager, you know. So we've come to the point where we need to hire a full time executive. And that takes funding. And we have been the very grateful beneficiaries of some generous crowdfunding support. We want to maintain our independence from corporates and institutions. So we are going to be running a bit of a campaign on crowdfunding. And I think this is the work we're doing is of a global importance. And so any support in that regard would be greatly appreciated. We need to, you know, raise a couple of million dollars in order to put that executive structure in place in order so that the The good science work done by all these wonderful volunteers can be, you know, pulled into the mainstream and and explained to the intelligent lay man. And that that's where we, that's where we're heading for. So the starting point is, you know, the presentation and hearing this move on to the website, and You can also follow our Twitter and Facebook handles, which are both in both cases, it's at Penn data 19 pa, n da ta one nine. I'm on Twitter, and my handle is at Nick Hudson, CT for kaptaan. So yeah, those are the ways to get in touch. And we're, you know, to, to our words, to to our philosophy, we totally embrace innovation, the world of conjecture and criticism. So we don't only want to hear from people who agree with us, you know, Nick Hudson,

we could go on forever. But unfortunately, I know you have an interview coming up on your end as well. So hey, thank you so much for spending some time with us today. And thank you for all the hard work you're doing over a panda, we'll make sure we include the link to the amazing new video time to reopen society. Again, folks, you have to make sure you watch that before. I mean, obviously they made through the entire episode. I hope they listened to the video beforehand. But otherwise, folks share that episode. That video with folks out there. It's very important that we spread the message of truly what's going on with the covid 19 pandemic Nick cuts and thank you for joining The Brian Nichols Show. Thank you, Brian. Bye bye. Get ready to start your new morning ritual with our new sponsor mud water. Coffee is one of America's favorite beverages with more and more people starting their coffee habits every day with a cup of that flavorful anxiety juice. But let's be real. Have you ever heard anyone say I'm working on getting more coffee into my life? Millions of people complain about the jitters that come from coffee consumption. Our morning coffee rituals can be habit forming and for some people it can make getting a good night's sleep almost impossible. And while nearly all of us like the smell, taste and ritual of our morning coffee, why not explore eliminating the negative aspects of our morning brew? Well, what have your coffee replacement helped induce alertness, not dependency, improve mental capacity and function, improve physical stamina, performance, improve immunity and overall health. Oh, and by the way, it tastes good enough to drink every single day neat mud water. Better water is your fastest growing coffee alternative in the market consisting of organic ingredients a lot of by cultures both old and young for their health and performance benefits with 1/7 the caffeine of coffee mug gives you the natural energy and focus you expect from coffee but without the jitters and crash with an organic blend of mushrooms and ingredients like a cow Masala Chai tumeric lion's mane and more mud water offers a beverage like no other whether you want to enjoy a hot cold as a latte or however you take your coffee in the morning mud water is zero sugar zero crash zero jitter alternative surely you feeling recharged and refocused? Listen, I'm really excited to have mud water as a sponsor here in The Brian Nichols Show because I've been able to see the mud water difference for myself and you can do so click the link in the show notes. To get some mud support the show and get your new morning ritual started to write with mud water. Already thoughts? That's gonna wrap up my conversation with Nick Hudson from panda what a topical conversation and honestly, I again I didn't expect to air this episode today. But it just was one of those things where it's like, yep, this works. I mean, it's perfectly timed in the fact that you know, his his amazing video here. The Ugly Truth About lockdowns is it's not just reaching people that it needs to reach, but it's having an impact. And that was something that he shared. It really did hit me, you know, people staying until 3am talking about their lockdown experience what I mean how did it impact you them? And I would love to hear that myself. So do me a solid. I'm going to leave you guys with a call to action off you. But first, I want you to email me, Brian, The Brian Nichols with your lockdown story. What was your experience during the lockdown? Did you lose a job? Did you experienced financial hardship, whatever it may have been, I'd love to hear your story. So emailing Brian at Brian Nichols number one number two if you enjoyed today's episode when you share it, please do me a salad and tag myself and you can tag me at be Nichols liberty, Twitter, Facebook, mine's calm and parlor calm but also make sure you tagged Nick and panda. I will include the social media links in the show notes number three. If you could do me a solid head over to Apple podcasts. If you enjoyed today's episode, can you enjoy what you're doing here The Brian Nichols Show a five star rating and review I would greatly appreciate that. And hey, we just gave you a fun, random bonus episode in the Saturday which I mean, this is a fantastic conversation to be had. So thank you to Nick Hudson for for joining us here on the show today. And thank you to the member of the audience for helping us continue to pump out 345 episodes per week because Hey, you guys keep downloading it and you guys keep on getting a lot of value. So we'll keep on doing out here The Brian Nichols Show because our goal is to what's Yeah, you know the drill, educate, enlighten and inform. So that being said, it's Brian Nichols signing off. You're on The Brian Nichols Show for Nick Hudson. We'll see you tomorrow.

Thanks for listening to the Brian Nichols Show find more episodes at The Brian Nichols

audio production for The Brian Nichols Show is brought to you by DB podcast audio Learn more by emailing inquiries to Wm at dB pod

Transcribed by

Nick HudsonProfile Photo

Nick Hudson


Nick Hudson is an actuary with broad international experience in finance, who has settled into a career as a private equity investor. He is a man of wide-ranging interests—an avid reader of canonical literature, a classical music aficionado, and an enthusiastic amateur ornithologist. He has been invited to speak on various topics including epistemology, corporate governance, investment management, and more recently, the pandemic.