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

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

<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-embed-handler wp-block-embed-embed-handler"></figure>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we can observe that, but it doesn’t mean that we have to say, ‘Well, who is doing it?’ and identify one person or one body at the heart of the whole thing. You can also see it as having the properties of an emergent event – complexity; lots of organisations, not just the World Economic Foundation, Bilderb