A full version of our position statement can be read here

  1. There was no pandemic by any reasonable definition – which must surely include that large numbers of previously healthy people in all age groups perished, whereas there was no discernible rise in global mortality in 2020.
  2. The pandemic-believers respond to (1) above by claiming that there was nevertheless the spread of a novel pathogen from a point source (“lab-leak of a virus engineered through Gain of Function research”). They say this was a “nasty” virus and the harm caused resulted from “mishandling” or a lack of “early treatment”.  However:
    a) There is no evidence that viruses can be engineered so as to have dangerous pandemic potential – lab-leaks happen all the time.
    b) The purported waves of deaths and serious illnesses appear decoupled from “spread” – there are no clusters or ripples of deaths or unusual illnesses evident; the “virus” bizarrely obeyed national and administrative boundaries to create different “pandemic outcomes”.
    c) The virus and disease claimed to have been caused by it were certainly not “novel”. “Covid” was indistinguishable from the features of known respiratory infectious illnesses. Any purported novelty is explainable by observation and confirmation bias augmented by the most extensive and powerful propaganda campaign ever waged on humanity.
  3. All the harms reported can be explained by a combination of:
    a) Massive disruptions in health and social care: maltreatment, non-treatment or inappropriate treatment, especially of the infirm elderly
    b) Misattribution of deaths to “Covid”
    c) Other harms consequent to the response to the false perception that a novel deadly virus was circulating
    d) Data fraud
  4. The notion of “something spreading” resulted from the explosion in the number of over-sensitive and under-specific tests (especially PCR) being carried out which were merely finding a pre-existing signal which had already become widespread  – and, crucially, without being noticed at all – before the purported emergency.
    As these “positive cases” were found, a number of perverse incentives created a positive feedback loop involving more testing (especially of “contacts”), more “cases” demanding more testing, more “cases” being found and so on.
  5. The timeline associated with the early weeks of the Covid era stretches credulity. We are meant to believe that the following all happened spontaneously within a 4-week period:
    a) 27 Dec 2019 – Hubei hospital reports cases of pneumonia of unknown cause
    b) 7 Jan 2020 – the “new virus” is isolated
    c) 12 Jan 2020 – sequence uploaded to internet – from a patient in Wuhan with an otherwise unremarkable pneumonia
    d) 22 Jan 2020 – a dashboard purporting to report cases and deaths globally in real time is set up and launched by John Hopkins University
    e) 23 Jan 2020 – a paper describing a validated test (developed without access to patient material) is published, having been “peer-reviewed” within 24 hours of submission
  6. “Lab leak” and “zoonotic spillover” theories are the two constituent parts of a deliberately engineered false dichotomy. By permitting argument between these two choices alone, the question as to whether we actually had a pandemic at all—and what therefore caused the myriad harms—is avoided.
    Yet BOTH theories have the same endpoint: the sustenance of the “Pandemic Preparedness Industry” which, flush with a hugely successful “Covid” episode will no doubt delight in the prospect of lucrative reruns.
    The oft-repeated references to “the next pandemic”— even by some apparent “Covid dissidents”— is a foreshadowing of their intentions, because, remember, as they say:
    “Any rogue lab can engineer these viruses now.”

Note: The above (deliberately) does not address the questions as to why the fraud was perpetrated, nor the role of the vaccine programme within it.


Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.

We would be glad to have your feedback.

Buy Me A Coffee

Source: PANDA Read the original article here: https://pandata.org/