Shaun Newman Podcast - Ep. #205 - Nick Hudson

Episode Date: September 20, 2021

Co-founder of PANDA (Pandemics Data & Analytics). We discuss lockdowns, masks, propaganda & natural immunity - what the numbers have to say.  Let me know what you think Text me 587-217-8500

This is Glenn Healing. Hi, this is Brayden Holby. This is Daryl Sutterin. Hi, this is Brian Burke. This is Jordan Tutu. This is Keith Morrison. This is Kelly Rudy. Hi, this is Scott Hartnell.

Hey, everybody. My name is Steele-Fer. This is Tim McAuliffe of Sportsnet, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Monday. It is Election Day, September 2,0, the 20th. So wherever you're at today, make sure you get your butt into the voting booth. the voting booth if you were a resident citizen of Canada you make sure you vote if we want

things to change this is the most important day as of right now get in there and vote vote vote there just can't say it enough wherever you're at make sure you don't forget make sure you don't think your vote doesn't count get it in there they all add up we got to get in and and make our votes all right yeah that's what I got to say it's Monday, vote, election day, hopefully, hopefully good news coming tonight. Anyways, cool episode for you today, or interesting, going to tax your brain yet again. But before we get there, let's get on to today's episode sponsors, Carly Clause and the team over Windsor Plywood Builders of the podcast Studio Table.

And I said it last Monday, and I'll say it again, on their Instagram as I did a little creeping, creep in. Man, they have some serious slabs of wood. So if you're looking to get a river table or, you know, get a table with the epoxy on the top to fill in the holes, that type of thing, you should stop into Windsor plywood and see some of the slabs they got kicking there

because they are super, super cool. Or do like me, just hop on your phone, check with their Instagram or Facebook page, and you can see what they're all about. And whether we're talking mantles, decks, windows, doors, or sheds, it's Windsor plywood, all right? 780, 875-9663. Clay Smiling, a team over at Prophet River.

They've been listening because I've been ragging on them. You know, they got the new building coming, right? So I got a tour of it this past week. And the entire time I've been reading these ads, I've been going, geez, I wonder if they're taking over the old tier lounge. And for those of you who are not in Lloyd, I apologize. This will seem cryptic and you won't understand what I'm talking about. To the rest of us, that building is huge.

And you're like, I wonder if they're going on the... old tier lounge or if it's just the buckle. Well, let me tell you, it's both. It's going to be massive. It's going to be, I don't know, it looks like it's going to be super freaking cool. Sat down with Clay and Ed there this past week. They walked me through it. Still pretty much bare bones as they, you know, you can imagine all the different stuff

they got to get set up in there. But regardless, it looks pretty cool. You kind of get the feel for what's going on. And I'm excited to see it when it's all done up. sounding like December, we'll wait and see. I don't want to spell the beans on that because I'll tell December and then I don't want to happen for a few months after that and everybody will be mad at me.

But it looks like they got some cool stuff going on at Prophet River. Of course, they are your gun expert. They specialize in importing firearms from the United States of America. They take care of all that, you know, paperwork that nobody wants to do. So in days like today, visit Profitriver.com and check them out and see how easy they can make it. They are the major retailer of firearms optics and accessories serving all of Canada.

And if for some reason you're tuteling through Lloyd Minster, sorry, if you're to tooling through Lloyd Minster here, probably closer to the new year, make sure you stop and see their new building when it is up and running because it's going to be kick-ass, all right? Trophy Gallery. Downtown Lloyd Minster is Canada's supplier of glass and Crystal Awards as sports look like they're coming back. No better time than maybe take a look at some medals, trophies, etc.

You know, preseason for the NHL starting up. Lou Jays, maybe making a hunt for a playoff position. Actually, who am I kidding? They're in a playoff position. Maybe making a hunt for the playoffs? I don't know. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, but they're looking pretty good. So if you're looking for sports memorabilia,

trophy gallery can get you hooked up. I always tell the story of the Sydney Crosby jersey that we had hanging here that we helped donate for charity for the men's shelter here in town. That was myself and Clint over at trophy gallery, doing some good for the community. They got lots of cool stuff in there. I bring up the SMP travel mugs that Clint did up for me. So if you're looking for some cool things for the company,

for your employees, for employee appreciation, for sports, trophy gallery is where it's at, all right? So just take a look online at trophygallery.com. They got all sizes, all shapes, all price ranges. Just contact Clint or Dean at trophygallery.com or stop in downtown Lloydminster. All right. Jen Gilbert and the team for over 45 years since 1976, the dedicated realtors of Coldwell Banker, Cityside Realty have served Lloydminster

in the surrounding area. They offer Star Power, providing their clients with seven-day-a-week access because they know big-life decisions are not made during office hours. That's Coldwell Banker, Cityside Realty for everything in real estate, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, give them a call 780-875-33-43. And if you got that house, of course, mortgage, broker, Jill Fisher. Now obviously your name says it all. She probably serves the areas of Lloydminster, Bonneville, Cold Lake, and Vermillion.

She's looking forward to working with you for all your mortgage needs. you know, houses are like the most exciting and terrifying and frustrating and and and and when it comes to getting a good mortgage rate, don't give yourself the headache. Contact Jill Fisher. She's at jfisher.ca or give her a call 780872-2914. She'll make sense of it all for you so that you can focus on everything else because honestly trying to figure out the mortgage rate and this and that and the banks Oh man, it's making my head sore just talking about it.

SMP billboard across from the airport. If you're looking for outdoor signage, Reading Wright is where it's at. I say hassle Mrs. Deanna Wanler by giving her a call 306, 8255-3-Tripple, tell her I sent you if you're looking for outdoor signage. If you want to get some windows frosting in your office, a wall quote, heck, just go look at my Instagram and see the SMP walldeckle. I mean, that's what Reading Wright does.

they make me look sharp. Finally, Gartner Management is a Lloydminster-based company specializing in all types of rental properties to help meet your needs, whether we're talking small office or a 6,000 square foot commercial space, give Wade Gartner a call today, 78080808, 5025. And of course, if you're heading into any of these businesses,

let them know, you heard about it from the podcast, right? Now let's get on that T-Barr-1, tale of the tape. A graduate of the University of Witts-Watersrand in Johannesburg. He holds a degree in statistics in actuarial science, CEO at Santa Partners, an investor and private equity specialist. He also co-founded Panda, pandemics, data, and analytics. I'm talking about Nick Hudson.

So buckle up. Here we go. This is Nick Hudson. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast today. I'm joined by Mr. Nick Hudson. First off, sir, thanks for hopping on. Yeah, it's a real pleasure to join you.

Thanks very much for the invitation. Now, with all of these, as we move along deeper and deeper into whatever this, you know, the world we're sitting in is, I think it's really prevalent or beneficial or both to have you just kind of give a little bit of background on yourself, Nick, to, so the audience has an idea of who they're listening to and we'll go from there. Yeah, sure, no problem. I'm an ordinary guy who kept his head below the parapet for his whole life. And by trade, I'm a private equity investor. I run a private equity fund here in South Africa in Cape Town, gorgeous, beautiful Cape Town. And I have always been an avid reader, something of an autodidact. I went into the first quarter of last year with a fair degree of concern about the state of the world.

Every time I stuck my nose into what was going on on social media or in the mainstream media, I became more and more disconcerted about the direction in which the Western societies were heading. There seemed to be a lot of completely bananas behavior going on, a lot of really weird. stuff creeping into the discourse. And when the COVID story started breaking, I almost immediately started noticing an enormous gap between the media narrative and the facts on the ground. I was coming up to my annual investor conference on the 28th of February, so I wanted to make sure that this thing, that we had addressed the potential for this emergent COVID story to be something that had an impact on our investments.

So I was watching it relatively closely. I'd been studying the emergent data, including the story of the Diamond Princesship. And the conclusion that I drew was that this was not epidemiologically relevant disease. But I could immediately see that there was a media hype. hysteria being generated. And I was actually very worried about that. I discussed this with a group of friends, including an immunologist, an economist, a lawyer, just all you need is a horse in a bar and you've got a good Irish joke somewhere. But we all came to the same conclusion. And then when lockdown started being spoken about,

we became very worried, especially in the context of living in a developing country where we don't have all the social safety, welfare networks and that kind of story. The idea of locking down a developing country seemed to us to be patently insane and absurd. And when our lockdown came, we got a real fright. And so we kind of swung into action. By then, we'd been joined by a smaller, a few more people. I'm an actuary by trade, so I got a couple of actuaries who understood the data into the play. And we wrote a paper addressing what we thought was a major omission, which was that nowhere in the world, was there any sign at all that any government anywhere had done any form of cost-benefit analysis before hurtling into this new uncharted

territory that contradicted all the standing pandemic respiratory virus guidelines. I mean, the word lockdown didn't exist. If you looked at those guidelines, they ruled out not only quarantining of the healthy, but in most cases they ruled out quarantining of the sick. And here we were quarantining the whole of society all of a sudden, with no prior history of having done so and no recommendations in any country's standing guidelines. So we just simply injected this paper based on some fairly basic actuarial mathematics, pointing out that lockdown would be expected to have a public health cost that way exceeded any potential benefit from flattening the curve, which was the, the, the, the, the, the

flavor du jour of the of the moment. And we put that paper out, put our stuck our hands into our pockets and promoted it, got it into mainstream media even. And it was, it received a very mixed response. There were people who said, oh yes, this is what we had been waiting for. Somebody needed to be making this point. And there were others who started earning death threats at us, you know, it was immediately contentious in that regard. As things progressed, the team grew bigger. People who'd heard our message and were sympathetic to it, joined. People from all walks of life, scientists and doctors, but also, you know, normal commercial

people, artists, actresses, all sorts of people joined our Motley crew. And the organisation started becoming quite substantial with a really broad scientific skill base. And we got stuck into the models that were being used to. advance these lockdown theories. And we realized very quickly that there were major, major, major obvious blunders being made in these models. And we started putting out that information as well. We were invited into the local, the South African coronavirus modeling consortium symposium. We delivered our comments. The comments were accurately reflected in the press and then ignored by the modelers who went on to overestimate the demand for hospital beds in South Africa

in our first wave by a factor of 13 to 17 times, leading to a massive, unprecedented squandering of resources as field hospitals were hastily built and provisioned and then never utilized. And after months of talking this all through and trying to get our message across in media and government, we found ourselves facing increasing censorship, even though everything we had said had come to pass. And we realized that what our government was doing was not the product of any democratic process or any reasoning or sound public health process. And that all of this absolute insanity was being reigned upon us from outside the country by the World Health Organization and private organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the IHME. These cretons were advising our

to launch into untested, ineffective, hugely devastating policies that were completely at odds with all prior public health practice and all prior guidelines. And all of the noise we were making, all of the points we were raising were going to be ignored and we needed to take Panda International. And it's nearly been a year since we made that decision. And we have successfully grown. Pounder into an international organization that is aiming to replace the atrocious science, if you can even call it that, that has backed this lunatic policy with good sites in an

environment of debate where dissent is not just permitted but welcomed because dissent is the only way by which scientific process is made of any sort, scientific progress. and we've developed a following. We continue to be surrounded by smear articles and vicious attacks of one sort of another, denial of service attacks, censorship, de-platforming, all of the hooligan behavior that comes with this very postmodern approach to science.

You can't even call it science the way these guys operate. We've had professional attacks from the societies that our members are, are members of, both on the actuarial front and on the medical front. None of them have stuck. We've always been able to fight them legally, but they come thick and fast and consume resources. And we find ourselves in the position of still trying to inject just a modicum of common sense into a world that is in the grip of a mass psychosis. what do you say then to all the doctors, nurses, who say they've never seen anything like this?

This is horrific, bad. Hospitals are full. I don't know. The mainstream is what reports on that. But I've had conversations with some such people as well. And it's not like you can be like, well, are they all liars? Or I guess your guys' approach of the data and analytics of it all was, you know, interesting to me. It's very high level. It takes the emotion right out of it. It's just like,

what does this look like? Because when you're in, when you're in the shit, you're in the shit, right? And right now here in Alberta and Saskatchew, and it very much feels like we're in the shit. Yeah. Okay. So let's let's take a look at the countries that didn't behave in accordance with the mass psychosis. And in this regard, the famous example is Sweden. The less famous example is Finland. Sweden, you know, was forecast by the same modelers who put your country into lockdown effectively to have 90,000 excess deaths within weeks if they didn't lock down. In the event, Sweden did not lock down and over the course of the entirety of 2020, they had anywhere between zero and 7,000 excess deaths, but depending on how you measure it, which is to say negligible excess deaths. Finland lockdown briefly realized they had made a terrible mistake and lifted all the restrictions. No masking, no school closures, no lockdown.

Sweden never had a mask mandate. Sweden never closed its schools. They had no deaths among children. Teachers had less risk than other professions. So if you were sensible, if you didn't lose your mind and go along with the mass psychosis, like countries like South Africa and Canada and Australia and, Germany, you sailed through this thing with no excess mortality. What is that telling you? That's telling you that any burden on your healthcare system that you're incurring is what we call

yatrogenic. In other words, it's the consequence of the public health response, not a consequence of the disease. And so you're probably hearing right now where you are that your hospitals are overburdened again. But this cannot be the case because your death rate is sitting at one sixth the level it was at in your first wave. So it's a media representation, a constructive situation. So what would I say to those doctors? I'd say to them, catch your wake up. Take a look at the real world. What you and your profession has done to society is inexcusable and will never be forgiven. You better get on the right side of this very quickly because what you are doing is alarming and disgusting. And it's causing great harm to your societies, in particular,

to the children of your societies. They aren't lying. You ask me the question, are they lying? No, they're not. They're in the grip of a psychosis. People who are in the grip of a psychosis really believe that what they are doing is in the interests of society. But it is not. It's just an interesting view from a different standpoint. It's, it's, I've talked to multiple doctors now, right? Like a handful of doctors, but from all different sides of this thing. And some people hate one. It's wild to me. Some people love one doctor's take. Some people other just absolutely hate it. Doesn't matter how, how middle he is, how far to one side it always happens. When I find your look at it, it's just like, let's take, let's take the emotion right

out of it. People are dying, yes. People die every single day, yes. Let's take a look at the analytics of it now and see what is happening. I'd read, or maybe had a little, had written down a part of what you'd said on one of your talks about age graduated mortality. I was wondering if you could explain that a little bit more for me. Sure. Yeah. One of the ways in which public health officials have misrepresented this disease is in terms of who is at risk to it. The ratio of the mortality rate from COVID for the elderly vulnerable group,

to young people is a thousand to one. This is a disease that presents negligible risk to the bulk of any population. Negligible risk. For healthy under 70s, with the word healthy being important in this context, for healthy under 70s, the infection fatality rate from COVID is less than 1 in 10,000.01%. That's negligible. Yes, for your elderly, your severely comorbid people, for people who are immunocompromised, immunosinescent, this is a dangerous disease. You can find yourself very ill and in certain cases dying. It's a treatable disease. this is the other lie that's been told by public health officials. Since when have we practiced medicine on the basis that we wait until the person turns blue

and arrives at the hospital door before we treat? This is an absolute, absolute, you know, it's a scandal. Do you see, with the early treatment, the early treatment fascinates me because I think here in North America, you've seen a really good smear camp. campaign suppression, et cetera of it. And one of the things that stuck out to me early on was in order to have emergency use authorization of a vaccine, there can't be any treatments, essentially. And so from a government standpoint, maybe you can understand that that's why they were

trying to hold on to that so they could push out the vaccine. Have you seen other countries, you know, in your overview that have implemented, early treatments early on and have had great success? It's difficult to see at a country level, but the Indian state of Goa had a significant success. And at a fairly local level, because the smearing and this aggressive political campaign against early treatment has been so widespread and so vociferously pursued, you, what you find is pockets of people where, you know, one doctor, one community proceeds down normal medical lines and treats the patient in front of them using the means that they have

and their insights as physicians. And you can see in these communities that they have much higher success rates. You know, they basically have negligible death burden from the disease. And it's really important. People need to understand the extent to which the big farmer vaccine stakeholders have infiltrated our institutions of public health worldwide, not just in the last two years, over the course of decades, is quite obscene. In South Africa, I cannot find a single institute of public health that is not materially funded by a vaccine stakeholder. And this is a situation that, as I say, predated COVID. So there's a massive commercial interest. Our public health institutions are abysmally corrupted worldwide, worldwide. And in this process, they are easily prevailed upon to lie to the public in the interests of their farmer masters.

You once said it is wrong to persist with measures that don't work. And this brings us back to lockdowns, mass, you know, non-essential travel, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et et cetera. And once again, I just, I fast forward us, you know, here in my area, we went through lockdowns. We've had the mass mandate. We've had the repeal of the mass mandate. Everything's going back to normal. Alberta came out and said it was endemic and we're going to have to live with the virus.

and a week later from public pressure. Then we went into a six week. We're going to monitor again to now we're in, you know, pandemic of the end vaccinated. Now Saskatchewans there. Mass mandates are back on everything. Now we have, I don't even know that we just have such a push on everybody to get vaccinated.

You say it's wrong to persist with measures that don't work. I was hoping you. you could expand on that. Maybe you already have a little bit, Nick. Let's look at one. You mentioned the mask mandates. And when I started on this story, I actually said, you know,

in developing countries and third world countries, we need to do something that is less costly than lockdowns. And I actually suggested, let's do masks. Because at that point, the mask was, you know, the Fauci was, saying, you, masks won't do anything and you, you know, it's absolutely useless in a respiratory

virus outbreak. What are you saying? You know, that was what Fouchi was saying. And I was kind of saying, well, hey, you know, better than lockdown, let's give it a try. That was before I had brought in a full diversity of scientific perspectives into PANDA. And along the way, we picked up some really good scientists who included in their professional ambit occupational hygiene engineering, you know. And so they knew a whole lot about PPE and masks in a variety of settings from paint shops to mining and dust and to, you know, even to biological laboratories and that kind of thing. They knew their stuff.

And they all said, this is ridiculous. Cloth mask does not stop viruses. So I think all these papers saying, that they do. Well, let's look at the papers and you go and look at them. What you've got is these little rinky dink lab-based experiments where they're trying to see whether certain size droplets are stopped by a cloth mask and then they say, oh, well, there you've got a reduction in the number of droplets going to the mask. But then the person who's in the know, the scientist to understand what's going on, points out, yeah, but what happens next? You exhale over the

mask and it aerosolizes the droplets and off they go. You don't expect this to do anything. And that's why in, I think more, it was like 15 randomized control trials in the context of respiratory viruses and cloth masks, even surgical masks, were shown that there was no beneficial impact whatsoever. We then began to notice that the imposition of mask mandates and the lifting of mask mandates was indetectable in the data series. If you took a data series and showed it to a crack statistician and said to them, listen, during this period, a mask mandate was lifted and a mask, a mask mandate was imposed and a mask mandate was lifted. Tell us where it happened. No go. No signal whatsoever. If you gave them the date, they would not be able to detect where the mask mandate was

lifted and imposed. If you took two neighboring counties, the one that had a mandate and the one that didn't, there was no difference in the performance on that curve. So what do you have, had was a bunch of very low quality, very low quality, low evidentiary value studies, politically motivated, exhibiting immense bias being used, being weaponized to address what was essentially a political move. And these masks have gone from, you know, full circle from being recommended against by Fowtian friends to being now imposed as mandates where people will be arrested and beaten up by peace if they're not wearing them. They make no difference. There was never any emerging signs. In fact, in the week between the CDC making its last announcement that mask

didn't work and the week where they said they're going to become mandatory, there was one piece of emerging evidence. The CDC itself released an enormous study about mask efficacy, finding that they didn't work. That was the emerging science. But it didn't matter. The whole political and media narrative was that, oh, you know, we didn't know much about this disease now. We've learned more. There's emerging science. Follow the science. Wear a mask. It's bananas. Cloth masks do nothing. And you see it even recently. We get this Bangladeshi study coming out. Now, when you turn through the pages of that study and go to the actual tables, what you find is that the data from the study itself does not support the use of masks. But the front of the page of the document says,

holy cow, masks work. Massive study in Bangladesh. And the newspapers all come out saying it's definitive masks work. But the actual tables shown to an undergraduate statistical student, he will tell you that that is not a statistically significant result. And in fact, there's evidence of pe hacking, a phenomenon called pe hacking going on. The paper isn't worth the article isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It's garbage. And here you go with this political interpretation and everybody must wear a mask. So that's the level that things have gotten to. When you hear people say follow the science, delete. What they mean is follow the narrative and the narrative is driven entirely by a political agenda that has nothing to do with public health. What do you,

you know, you mentioned in Panda, you got all these different experts from all over the world. What's the biggest debate then right now? Like what is the hot button issue with with panda? Well, you know, it tends to, there is a little bit of reactiveness in it so that at the moment a lot of the time is spent trying to understand whether there's any sign of vaccine efficacy and trying to understand what safety issues they are, trying to debate things like whether there is any point at all in vaccinating a person who's already recovered and whether the risk benefits outweigh, whether the risks outweigh the benefits for vaccinating young people. And that kind of debate will happen, but we'll also be looking at things like transmission.

How is the disease actually transmitted? Because the entire basis for all of the stickers on the ground and the perspex shields and the masks and the six foot rules is a theory called droplet and phomite transmission, which has never been pointed to in the context of any respiratory viruses. It's always been thought that these viruses were transmitted by micro droplets called aerosols, which don't fall to the ground after six feet and will be completely, you know, a perspex divider is going to be completely useless against an aerosol. You know, the idea was that these big gobbly droplets were coming out of your mouth

and we had to make sure they didn't land on anybody or on anything. And if they landed on something, that's what a fomite is. That's the droplet on a solid item, which now can infect you. This thing has to be wrapped and sanitized or swept down or whatever. Otherwise, you're going to get infected by picking that thing up or touching that shopping cart or whatever. But that's garbage. There's no causal mechanism that has been proposed to get that virus off the shopping cart into your lungs. You get infected by aerosols.

And when we first pointed this out, you know what people said to us? They said to us that we were conspiracy theorists. Now, how can it be that scientists saying, well, maybe this disease is just like any other respiratory virus and it's transmitted by aerosols? How can that question cause you to be called a conspiracy theorist? It's because what you're up against is not science. Science admits dissent. Science admits refutation. What we're up against is narrative and the narrative is political. And I'll say it again. It has nothing to do with your interests, nothing to do with public health. Well, then what does it have to do with, Nick? So what we face here is a situation where a pretty normal

respiratory virus in the context of the broad sweep of time, this is a moderately severe respiratory virus. It's nothing exceptional in relation to the 57.7.5.5.5.5.5.5. It's nothing exceptional in relation to the 57 and 68 outbreaks. It's similar, you know, maybe slightly worse than one of those. But I would say only because of the public health reaction, it would have been much lighter than those. You know, if you look at the experience of Sweden and Finland, they had lighter epidemics than they had in 57 and 68 on an all-course mortality basis. So we've made it worse. But the point is order of magnitude is not that exceptional. So what's happened is this pretty unremarkable story has been propagandized by public health officials who are in the pocket of Big Pharma, funded by Big Pharma and vaccine stakeholders.

And they have been advising governments to implement all these authoritarian and centralizing measures. Now, politicians are never afraid of assuming more power. That's a rule. And many of them are full of these equally crazy ideas about new normal, build back better, great reset, fourth industrial revolution, new world order, all of these actually crackpot ideas about suddenly reconfiguring society without any of our permission, you know, without any democratic process being involved, they're all beholden by these malarctic ideas. And so it forms a kind of perfect storm where you've got the corrupt public health system, advising governments that they ought to adopt more powers, you assume more powers. And the government's saying,

that sounds great. And so before you know it, things that don't work are perpetuated. Lockdowns are pro-contagent. They're not associated with lower death rates. We have 52 papers that have been published confirming this time and time again, analyzing it from a variety of perspectives, event-driven perspectives. What happens? Can we see it in the epidemic curve when a lockdown is instituted or lifted? No, we can't. When we compare countries or states, with different lockdown parameters, lighter or heavier, can we see a difference? No, we can't. And so these very bad, unprecedented policies which demonstrably do not work are perpetuated because they are all driving in the direction of maintaining the psychosis, making it easy

for these vaccine stakeholders and big farmer companies to carry on making a fortune out of all of us by rolling out the ridiculous testing regimes and later on the vaccines, so-called vaccines. Well, I'm curious, you know, right now, there is a ton of pressure. I mentioned this already. Right now and where we are, the pressure to go get the vaccine is almost unbearable. That's, that's, you know, I wake up in the morning, walk to wherever, it's on my phone. I bump into somebody, it's the question of the day. You go talk, you sit down with a group of guys, it comes up because no matter where we go, it's front page news. It's right on everywhere.

You mentioned that you're in debates about it. What have you guys seen then from the vaccines, efficacy and everything else? Well, let's start with the things that we know for sure. at this stage we know that natural immunity is durable and very broad so if you've had COVID you're good to go we know that vaccine induced immunity is neither durable nor broad it's narrow and short-lived we know that layering a vaccine on top of natural immunity doesn't improve anything and probably causes harms to your immune repertoire. So that stuff we all know. We also know that the young, healthy people are at negligible risk, as I said earlier, to this disease.

And you can take that definition of young quite generously, as I said, you know, less than one in 2000 for healthy under 70s, you can imagine what the numbers look like for healthy under 40s. This is a disease that barely has any impact at all. And what that means is that for those people from a medical basis, there is no need to get vaccinated. The harms from vaccination exceed the potential benefits for that individual. So the next question is, do the vaccines have some benefit to the broader immunity community? Does some 12-year-old kid in Saskatchewan getting a vaccine actually help from an epidemiological perspective. And the answer to that is, again, a very clear no. There might be a modest reduction in the likelihood of transmission, but the vaccines do not prevent

infection. There is no causal mechanism by which one could reasonably have expected them to prevent transmission. It was never a claim of the manufacturers. This was a myth perpetuated by the same dodgy public health officials that very quickly turned out not to be true. I mean, if you take a look at Israel, one of the most vaccinated nations on the planet, they are dealing with the highest case rate per million of population in the world right now. So this idea that the vaccines prevent infection and transmission was false. There may be a slight reduction in transmission, but when you work through the mathematics of that, there is no benefit. It's absolutely negligible benefit. to me of you being vaccinated.

So we have to blow those things out the water. There's no point vaccinating recovered people. There's no point vaccinating young people. And there's no benefit to the community from your vaccination. The idea that this thing can be stopped if X percent of the people get vaccinated is the most retarded bullshit I've ever heard. Well, that goes right in the face of what we're being told right now. That's because they're lying to you.

And they have been from the beginning. from the beginning when they said two weeks to flatten the curve, that was the first lie. And just think about it. This has been boiling frog syndrome. Every single time you get to the supposed endpoint, the goalpost gets moved by another set of lies. And the lies keep on coming, whether it's about mask efficacy or locked on efficacy or asymptomatic transmission or the vaccine efficacy. I mean, let's get started on that one. You remember Pfizer claiming 95% efficacy on their vaccine? well have we seen that anywhere in the world no ways not even close what was the lie what they did

in the what they did in the study was they took out of the study anybody who came down with COVID in the first 14 days after vaccine so and they did that because they said oh it's because the vaccine only works much later but what they weren't telling you was that in the same study they identified that a high percentage of the people who received the vaccine suffered a condition called lymphocytopenia, which is immune suppression, causing them to become more vulnerable to COVID in the early days after getting the vaccine. And so by excluding those people, who are the ones, you know, the ones who are most susceptible are going to have this impact in a meaningful way, they exclude them from the vaccine arm. They create a healthier population in the vaccine

arm compared to the placebo arm and that makes the results of that trial a fraud. It's a fraud. And that system carries on. Nick, here's what I judge things by the conversations I have with the common. I'm just a, you know, you mentioned at the start. You're just a regular guy. I'm about as regular as it gets, missing teeth and all. And I sit and have conversations with just regular people, right?

And one of the things right now is they're saying, like the thing that is being told over and over again is it's like 90% of people entering the hospitals right now into the ICU's, everything are unvaccinated, right? And people who are, how so? Well, what they're doing in this trick, we've spotted this all over the world. and I would be surprised if it wasn't happening in Canada. They define vaccinated as somebody who is so many days after their second dose. So all those people whose COVID arises because of the vaccination, the people who are immunosuppressed by the vaccination, they count them as unvaccinated.

How do you find that data? If a guy wants to go look for it himself and go like, let's go take a look and see what it is. Is that something a dummy like me can find? or do I have to have a supercomputer? It's pretty difficult. Because these guys are lying, sons of proverbial, you have to go and do this the hard way with freedom of information requests.

Or by befriending a doctor at a hospital and finding out what's really going on, somebody who's skeptical and is just biting his tongue. In some cases, they're pretty blunt about it. They say that if you go and scratch through the document that where they're, They'll have their fancy chart saying that 90% are amongst the unvaccinated or whatever. But if you borrow through to the back of the document, you will find a little note that says, vaccinated is defined as 28 days after the second jab. The other trick they don't do is to, what they don't give you is the underlying population that's being drawn from.

Is that population 90% unvaccinated? We've caught them on that trick a couple of times as well. But the vaccine efficacy is nowhere near what's been portrayed by the trials and nowhere near what's being portrayed by the media. When you look at a country like Israel or at smaller places like Gibraltar was one, Iceland was another, you can see very clearly that the vaccine's not 95% effective. Otherwise, they wouldn't be having severe COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths. it just wouldn't be there because they've vaccinated so many of their population. The COVID is happening in people who are either vaccinated six to eight months ago and the vaccine is kind of worn off or it's happening in people who were recently vaccinated.

And of course, in some unvaccinated people. Of course that carries on. And another trick here is in a place like Israel, that unvaccinated population is heavily tilted towards the people who had a medical reason for not getting vaccinated. They were in such bad shape that their doctors said, if you vaccinate this person, you'll kill them. So it's that group. And then in Israel, the other community that's in that unvaccinated group is the Hasidic community, who are notorious for their high levels of prevalence of severe comorbidities.

It's an unhealthy population. So you haven't got anything approaching the comparable sets that you would have in a randomized control trial. you know, but as I say, those RCTs were manipulated to an unbelievable degree. I mean, I've just given you one dimension on which they were manipulated. They were manipulated on 10 dimensions. So you're dealing with, I always say this to people. Remember that in the pharmaceutical industry, you are dealing with one of the most corrupt industries on the planet in the whole of history. These guys are not straight shooters.

they go year after year getting the biggest court awards against them for stuff that is completely nefarious. It's not like accidental stuff. Like we accidentally mixed some of the wrong juice into our medicine and made a few people sick and they sued us. No, these are deliberate malfeasance, nefarious operations, you know. And here we are, turning around and then suddenly treating them as if they, they're as pure as the driven snow. So people need to wake up. It's as simple as this. We've lost our minds as a world.

And we need to, you know, really start paying attention and thinking whether all of this makes sense. Yeah, it's, it's tougher. As the temperature rises, Nick, it's harder to think. Yeah. So the first thing is to get rid of fear. You know, you need to, people like our age, people, you know, people who are not on death's door need to get a grip. They need to realize that

this thing was never coming for their children. It was never a good idea to take the kids out of the school. The kids were never going to be granny killers. It's not, you know, this is not how transmission dynamics work. This was all a massive lie. And so you personally have nothing to worry about. You can calm the hell down and take a deep breath and start getting over whatever fear you have of this virus. That's step number one. Courage. Get some courage. Courage is not the absence of fear. It's what you use to overcome whatever fears you have. Step one. Then you can begin to think clearly. As long as you're afraid, there is no hope of thinking clearly. And as soon as people begin to think clearly, they start seeing this horrid episode of history for what it is.

I've watched this now. People are waking up all over the world. Some countries faster than in others, but if you look at what's going on in France right now, with millions of people taking to the streets, if you look at the pushback being seen in countries like the United Kingdom, there's a very rapid process of awakening taking place. Other countries like Australia and I dare say Canada, you're behind the curve. People have been very docile, very compliant, but also in those countries, the fear narrative projection has been extreme. I mean, when we discussed masks, one of the things I should have mentioned was that we can see from the documents, the minutes, the leaks from these behavioral science committees in government, which are embedded in government policy bodies all over the world. What we see from those leaks is those teams discussing how they knew that masks weren't effective, but they felt it was very important as a reminder of the presence of a deadly violence. virus. And we have to remember that their deliberate project, their preferred approach to public health, started with instilling fear in the hearts of their communities. You can see them saying

things like, we do not think that there is an adequate perception of threat. We need to ramp up the messaging around the threat. Now, they never ramped it up in order to get it to a realistic level, they were ramping it up to get it to a massively overblown level. As I said, children were never at risk, but to maintain the narrative, they had to persuade everybody that schools would be a deadly environment and that children were going to get long COVID and all this nonsense. They had to do that and they did that with the mask. The mask was primarily, primarily a psychological tool, a tool of psychological oppression, mind you. So we have to to see that for what it was. Our governments deliberately went out to make their own citizens

terrified. And I'm sorry, but that is immoral. I don't care what the purpose is making somebody afraid is simply immoral. And all of the people involved in this enterprise need to end up in jail. That's if I, uh, I take a step back. I've had this conversation an awful lot about COVID. I'm not worried about it. Like I've, I've, I say go talk to your doctor, right? Like, if you have a, somebody you trust, go talk to them and see what they say. I mean, I'm not, I'm not at all concerned about, you know, if death came for me tomorrow because of COVID. I mean, if it's going to come for me, it's going to come. I don't know if I really have any choice in how that happens, Nick. I got to be honest, right? Like up here in Canada, we live in,

the Great White North and we live in eight months or seven months of deep winter and we drive on things and we do things that, you know, other countries don't have to worry about. So like when it comes to, um, you know, you did in a week. Well, it's just when it comes to things like that, it's like this is really put in front of, I think, our entire population death, right? And we don't talk about it enough. And so it's very much in your face all the time.

And if you got young kids like I do, now you've got to think about that all the time. And when it comes to what you're talking about with COVID, I guess I'm not at all concerned about it. I'm not worried about it. I think the majority of the population ain't worried about it. But I tell you what, the social pressures of what is being pushed towards that entire population now is wild. It is wild. And I can't speak for the world because, you know, you see the videos and whatever. I can just speak for what's going on right here, right now, and it is wild.

Yeah, and it's very sad, isn't it? Because you're being propelled in a direction, which, as we've already discussed, makes no sense from a medical or epidemiological perspective. You know, if you take out the healthy young and the recovered people from the target population in terms of the vaccination program, you're taking out the vast majority of the population, more than three quarters. So you would be concluding that if you've got to be concluding that if you've got an effective vaccine, you will be able to basically reduce the death burden and the hospitalization

burden to very small levels by vaccinating whatever, 10, 15, 20% of the population. But that's not the trajectory that they're on, you know. And it's not for medical reasons or epidemiological reasons. This is being driven by a political and corporate agenda. It's as simple as that, you know. And also I ask people to consider why has there not been debate in the public square? Why are people like me censored instead of being engaged with? You can hear from how I talk that I can reason. I'm very happy to engage. I've had three debates and you can see how I debate if you go and look at them.

But where is the debate? Why are we not seeing engagement, scientific debate? And we're being told that there is a science, the science, that we must follow. that all the scientists say that there is consensus. That's bananas. There is no consensus in science. Science proceeds by conjecture and refutation only. It's the only way it proceeds.

So why is the debate being censored? Why is it impossible for me to having lobbed fact after fact, analysis after analysis, work that's been replicated elsewhere, you know, equivalent findings that have been reached, by people deploying different methods, same methods. We get a constant validation of the work that we're doing. And yet I cannot engage a single public health official. The reason is they damn will know they're lying.

They know it in their bones. Debate would be fatal to them. That's why they're not engaging. That's why there's no debate in the public square. So yes, the insanity will ratchet up and ratchet up until the population says no, that's what's going to happen. You've got to push back. You've got to find the spine.

You've got to get people to come around, to quieten down their fears. It's interesting to me that you think most of your population is not really scared of the virus. That's great progress. And then it can't be very long until they realize that they've been duped and by whom. But then they've got to rise up. You need to get serious, serious levels of, I would call it revolt. You know, the population needs to stand up. You need to march.

You need to demonstrate. You need to protest. Peacefully, I would hope. You need to start threatening the politicians in the electorate. You need to start thinking of ways like striking. I mean, I know striking is not really part of the social fabric of Canada. But hey, desperate times call for desperate measures. the French are very good at it.

I think it's coming the way of Italy very soon. You know, the Italians know how to do a strike. They can probably shut down the country. You need to talk to people at a local level. You know, talk to your peace. Talk to your local hospital people. Engage. Try and convert people, get people around.

Make them realize that they're on the wrong side of history if they stay where they are. Well, I've had, I mean, people, if they're still listening to this, and they haven't turned you off, Nick. I have been engaged with the head guy of Lloyd, who said if we had 100% of the world vaccinated, this would be gone. It's nonsense. I can give you three reasons why that's not true. First of all, the vaccines are leaky. They still permit infection and transmission.

Number one, and that's been demonstrably proven. That's not even a contentious statement anymore. Even the CDC agrees with that. Number two, the disease circulates amongst a huge number of animal hosts. So you can't exterminate. This whole zero COVID thing is the land of some seriously crazy individuals, normally ones who are the most closely linked to vaccine stakeholders. So you must disregard such people in their entirety.

And number three, even if you did find a local extermination, you're not going to exterminate it around the whole world, you know, with the vaccines that only have efficacy for a few months, there will be an outbreak over there and people travel and things move around and it'll be back, you know. So we need to accept that this is going to be like any other respiratory virus that has arrived. It's going to become endemic. It'll circulate in the background every season. Most people will be exposed. If you've had it recently, you will have robust, sterilizing immunity. You won't be infected again. If you're in a infection was a little older, you might get an infection, but your body will still know how to deal

with it. And eventually, when you're in your late 80s or whatever, if you should be so lucky, you will quite likely succumb to it. That's the way of the world. That's how it's going to be. The natural immunity thing, just to, I like to tell you, you put it there. Because I've been told by a doctor, Peter McCullough, out of the States, that as soon as you have COVID, you can't get it again. But then, now I have people telling me all the time you can get it again. And so it just kind of like flattened his argument on its side immediately. And I was like, oh, okay, well, let's discuss that. So for a number of years after infection with a respiratory virus, you have what's known as a mucosal immune response. So it's up here in your response. So it's up here in your

upper respiratory tract, you have what are called resident memory T cells. And those, that mucosal response generates what's known as sterilizing immunity. It actually prevents you from getting a systemic infection altogether. So it's like it almost bounces the disease off of you, or the virus off of you, if you get exposed again. And that lasts for several years. after that, as your resident memory T-cell population in your mucosa starts fading, you can be infected again. But your system has memory. You have T-cells and memory B cells that can be woken up very quickly in response to an infection and your body deals with it. that should last for your entire life until your immune system starts to decay,

which is a process called immunosin essence. And there's no cure for that. And old people get taken out not just by respiratory viruses, but by any number of different diseases because their immune systems have become so compromised. That's just one of the processes of aging. So that's what it looks like. So what he's saying is what Peter McCullough is saying is correct in the sense that Once you've had it, you're not vulnerable to severe illness.

You may technically speaking be infected again, but it's not going to cause you to become severely ill. And that's true for life. As you go on, as you get very old, it stops being true. So I would credit him with the tick and the people who are telling you, oh, you can be reinfected. It's a very dangerous disease. You can get sick again and die.

Nonsense. That's garbage. those people are lying to you. Well, I just think it's in the conversations you have behind the scenes, right? I find it fascinating since I as you can tell behind my head, right? Hockey jerseys on the wall, missing teeth.

You kind of get the picture of what this was once upon a time, Nick. Now, as I continue to have people like yourselves on that make people think it's, I think the, the listener needs to understand how much talk has started happening around me and the podcast and everything, right? Hate, likes, I mean, both. It's just, but until this point, there's been none of that in our area, like none. It's been one-sided talk. And in the

background, people will have their discussions, but they're not, like, we're not, no offense to anyone in town, you're doing tons of research. I am trying to. I am trying to, too, but it's nice to get people from outside to come in and just lend their opinion and lend what their evidence is showing and their expertise and what they're seeing. And what that's doing now is it's first and foremost causing a divide in a bunch of friends and families and everything else because it's arming each other with different facts and thoughts. But it also was very good in the fact that debate is starting to happen because for 18 months, no debate happened. Like no debate happened at all, Nick.

Yeah. Well, maybe you can get it to the point where we can do a live debate. Put somebody up and have three faces on the screen and you can moderate it. But, you know, may that day come soon because nobody has a monopoly on truth, you know, in any way, shape, or form. You know, the whole scientific enterprise depends on people coming up with new ideas and those ideas replacing old ones. and eventually being replaced themselves. So we don't have a monopoly, and some of the stuff is very difficult. Like the transmission dynamics, I spent just a couple of minutes on there,

but we could talk for hours about the intricacies and some of the pitfalls in the whole aerosol transmission theory, some inconsistencies that we've noticed that make us ask questions. That would be fruitful scientific engagement, but such engagement is simply not happening. We are asked to believe the droplet and foam art theory, even after the World Health Organization and the CDC have both come out saying, oh, well, actually, it seems to be that it is actually aerosol, you know, but the narrative and all the policies all assume droplet and fomite, right? Well, let's have a debate. Let's have a discussion.

It's a very interesting one. I tell you what, Nick, I will see if I can't get somebody on. I think everybody would love that. I get asked about that all the time. Like, maybe you should try and get two of the doctors from opposite sides. I don't know if they'll allow it. But if you're willing to come on against somebody who thinks your bananas, I'd love to do that. I think that I think every listener would be like, foaming at the mouth, like yeah, now we're talking, right? Like, that would be interesting to listen to and watch. Well, I will give you a couple of promises. You can promise whoever that other person is that I will not call them any names and I'll keep a smile on my face no matter how many names they call me. That's a, that's a deal. I tell you what, we're going to, I want

slide into my final question, the crude master, usually final five. I'm going to give you one. I know we're on a little bit of a time crunch. I always ask the same question to new people who come on the podcast, which is a nice and easy one, but who would you sit down and who would you want to sit down and pick the brain up? I know you've gotten to do this with lots of people being a part of Panda, but who would you take to sit and hear some of their thoughts? Well, that's an easy one for me. There's a physicist and philosopher by the name of David Deutsch, who wrote two iconic books, well, at least as far as I'm concerned. One was called The Fabric of Reality and the Other One was called The Beginning of Infinity. And they're the two books that made the most impression on me. I would like to have a conversation with David Deutsch. I bought that book because of you. So I've just started it.

Yes, I did. You mentioned in an interview that the two most influential books in your life were that one by David Deutch. And the other one was one that has been very influential in my life, which is the Gulegg archipelago. And so at times when I think I'm going a little bit crazy, I just flip back through a couple of those pages and go, oh, man, that is. some weird coincidences, shall we say. Well, regardless, Nick, I do appreciate you hopping on and doing this with me. I appreciate all your time and your thoughts and look forward to maybe getting somebody to come on here against you. Absolutely. I'd love to do that. And it's really great what you're doing. And I wish you and all the people around you, let's call it, a comfortable

path towards the awakening. Thanks, Nick. All right. Hey, folks, thanks for joining us today. If you just stumbled on the show, please click subscribe. Then, scroll to the bottom and rate and leave a review. I promise it helps. Remember, every Monday and Wednesday, we will have a new guest sitting down to share their story. The Sean Newman podcast is available for free on Apple, Spotify, YouTube,

and wherever else you get your podcast fix. Until next time.