Every single aspect of the “Covid” narrative is fake. There was no pandemic.

An executive summary of PANDA's position statement of 1 March 2024

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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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
  1. 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.
  1. 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
  1. “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.”

    After all, as we have argued, the actual escape of something from a lab is not required to generate a “pandemic”; the mere seeding of the narrative of escape, rollout of testing and resultant social contagion is all that is needed.

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.


Jonathan started his career in clinical medicine. After a few years, he moved into the Pharma Industry, designing and running an international clinical trial program, before he and a colleague spotted a gap in the market for a company utilising IT to automate several clinical trial processes. The company they founded was sold, it had 6 offices worldwide and 500 employees. Jonathan then retrained as a lawyer, but having missed the commercial world he invested in several Healthcare start-ups, one of which (involved in cancer diagnostics) he now chairs.

Publisher’s note: The opinions and findings expressed in articles, reports and interviews on this website are not necessarily the opinions of PANDA, its directors or associates.

Share this article


By submitting your email address you agree to receive updates from PANDA about our work. To see how we use and protect your personal data, please view our privacy policy.
Scroll to Top


As a non-profit organisation, PANDA’s work remains free of bias and conflicts of interest. Support our work with a monthly donation which aids our planning and resources, and enables societies that are healthy, functioning and resilient.. We rely on your financial support to keep the conversation open.

We value your privacy

We use cookies and similar technologies to improve your experience of our website, to collect anonymous statistics, and to keep our site reliable and secure.By clicking “Accept,” you consent to the use of cookies on this site. For more information, see our privacy policy.

We Rely On Your Financial Support

Every donation helps us to continue discovering, exploring, planning, reaching and impacting.