This is the first of a series of articles by Nick Hudson on the political clown world that public health has become as most of the world has abandoned all guidelines and principles of public health in favour of previously contraindicated policies that have turned out to be ineffectual and very damaging.

From the start, PANDA has maintained that vaccination should be approached from the same risk-benefit perspective that forms the basis of all good public health policies and animates our other perspectives on the pandemic.

A false narrative about Covid has supported ineffective and highly destructive policies leading to the evisceration of individual rights, democracy and the rule of law in the name of a disease that presents negligible risk to most of the population. Virtually every element of the response has not been based on good science and the data prove that wherever you look.

It’s been nine months now since I analysed the statistics on official ‘COVID-19 deaths’ published by the institutions responsible for justifying the regulations and programmes of the UK biosecurity state. These include the Office for National Statistics, the National Health Service and Public Health England. Together with concerned reports from medical bodies, including Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and the Alzheimer’s Society, these statistics strongly suggested that at least half the 80,000 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in 2020 resulted from the withdrawal of medical diagnosis, treatment and care under lockdown restrictions. However, this is a conservative estimate, and doesn’t include the 20,000 excess deaths in care homes last year swept under the COVID-19 carpet.

For publishing the figures on adverse drug reactions and deaths following injection with a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ that I discussed in Part 1 of this article, my account was temporarily suspended by Twitter for what it said was ‘spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.’ In addition to this suspension, my post was removed because, Twitter claimed, it included ‘content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information’.

Predicting the future, as someone once said, is a fool’s game; but in attempting to anticipate, at least, how the UK biosecurity state will develop and expand, I have one guiding premise. Given the political will, the technology to enable that will, and the lack of opposition to it — or, which amounts to the same thing, the financial and legislative power to overcome that opposition — how would those who have this will, dispose of this technology, face this lack of opposition or wield this power, use it and to what ends? What, in short, would those with power do if they could do it? I wasn’t alone in my fears that social-distancing, compulsory face coverings and digital tracking aps would lead to mandatory testing and ‘vaccination’ as a condition of citizenship.

Last week gets my vote for the most eventful one in the two years of madness that has been the Covid policy response. These are the significant events that were underreported or mischaracterised by mainstream media.

Part 1 of 3 | Were scientists like South Africa’s Professor Salim S. Abdool Karim, lauded by media and leaders globally, neutral with regards to political pressures in their approach to the Covid response? Part 1 of this series looks at Karim’s life and work under the religious mantle of science.

Part 2 of 3 | A multiplicity of scientists independently reaching the same conclusions and recommendations creates the illusion that ‘the experts cannot all be wrong’ when, in fact, these experts are really one conglomerate.

Part 3 of 3 | We have witnessed the rise of a new class of ‘experts’, granted extraordinary power to repeal ancient liberties. Most critically, these experts have brooked neither dissent nor debate. Has such strange new authority been a success, and should it be tolerated again?