- an international organization I’ve been a part of since spring of 2023 - has published The Nature of the Events of the Covid Era, a statement which largely represents my own views on the COVID “Pandemic,” role of Gain-of-Function research, and related issues & questions.
Excerpt follows:
What do we mean by “there was no pandemic”?
The conventional understanding and public perception of a pandemic is one associated with the spread of a disease which a) increases the risk of death for many people, including the previously healthy, and b) directly causes a high number of deaths that would not have otherwise occurred.
Indeed, governing authorities and public health officials implied that everyone, regardless of age and health status, was susceptible to the new virus, anyone could die from it, and that infection by it created substandard immunity which needed augmenting by novel therapeutic injections.
However, it quickly became apparent in 2020 that whatever “Covid” was, it did not seem to afflict the healthy any more than many other common respiratory infections, left huge swathes of the planet untouched (even with vast over-attribution), and had no discernible effects on global all-cause mortality.
Hence, under any reasonable and commonly held understanding of the meaning of the word “pandemic”, we were not experiencing one. This is so whether or not a novel virus did emerge at some point prior to 2020 to cause a novel disease referred to as “Covid-19”.
Many of those who insisted we had experienced a pandemic have switched to relying on a meaning of pandemic which does not require that it involves large numbers of deaths, only illness.
…
Regardless of whether or not what transpired accorded with any entity’s definition of pandemic, it is clear that authorities misled the world – with catastrophic consequences – about the existence of a sudden global health emergency, including the events which preceded and followed the pandemic declaration.
Many have characterised the events of the Covid era as an overreaction to a novel virus which turned out to be less serious than initially claimed, and that serious mistakes were made in the response.
However, we go further than that. We challenge the core assumption underpinning the entirety of most discourse around the subject, as we shall expand upon below.
Full statement on PANDA website
UK-based
made a "No Pandemic” statement in 2023.
As far as I know, no U.S. organization or association has taken stances similar to HART’s or PANDA’s, with regard to whether the world experienced a pandemic in 2020.
UPDATE: The full PANDA statement now posted on PANDA UNCUT Substack.
Thanks for writing and publishing this document. For me, it does clarify PANDA'S hypothesis, which is bold.
I definitely agree with the main conclusions - namely, there never was an unusually "deadly virus," which the authors state means there was no "pandemic" as we should correctly understand this word.
I DO think one can cite significant "evidence" - which I've tried to do in my "early spread" articles - that there was "something" that was making more people sick than a normal or, say, the previous 10 flu seasons.
Was this "something" explained by a virus that was created in a lab? Did our mad scientists create a new virus that made many more people sick, but caused the deaths of very few people?
In the future, I'll try to write a more detailed piece that highlights the majority of points I agree with and the few I don't (or the elements of my hypothesis I'm not ready to abandon). But I'm going to sleep on the points made in this article before I write that piece!
Read the whole thing! (as they used to say) about 6 8.5x11 pages of text. But if you have had enough of it and can't takes no more! This will suffice:
"PCR testing created the illusion that something novel was spreading, whereas in fact all that was truly spreading was the testing itself"