Jessica Hockett's research is quite comprehensive- this interview not only did not do it justice but Naomi Wolf seemed to micromanage and "steer" the conversation aside from the lengthy interruptions.
The problem for the likes of Naomi Wolf, RFK, Peter McCullough and most of the "established" Covid dissenters is that the evidence produced by the likes of Jessica, Jonathan, Denis Rancourt and several others disproves their fundamental assertions that there was a pandemic caused by a unique viral pathogen- it is just the source of the pathogen and the draconian responses which were problematic according to the "establishment" Covid sceptics.
The bigger problem for those who reify the big lie of there being a pandemic is that the data presented by Hockett et al is unassailable and point towards criminal actions that were enacted in order to kickstart this global operation.
A groundswell of public opinion would also change the landscape on who is or isn't interested in this information so I think that Naomi Wolf was a little disingenuous in the last segment of the interview.
How could that groundswell be created? Precisely by having some of those at the "top of the health freedom establishment" not only putting but by keeping this evidence out in front and pressuring public officials to look at it and obtain even more details.
You can't tell me that these people are not aware of this information.
I have the same chilling take-away as you, Jessica. There's several disconcerting scandals here. One is the excess deaths and the policy response that obviously cost many people their lives. But the bigger scandal might be the "watchdog press" that doesn't care an iota about this .... or else they have zero curiosity about what really happened or finding out what might explain all of these deaths.
They are either okay with what happened (which connotes a level of evil or callousness about human suffering) ... or they're too obtuse to figure out what was going on. And/or: they are too timid to challenge "authority figures."
Same thing happened with 9/11. It seems people are in such a hurry to ‘move on’ and ‘get over’ the trauma they’ve experienced, that they’re willing to ignore indications and evidence of a horrendous crime. Journalism failed then, too.
You keep going—the work is invaluable and so important!
Anecdotally, I’ve heard from people on Twitter since 2021 that the NHS in UK had similar “ limit care” directives to ems workers when they arrived to find someone suffering with cardiac issues. I’m sure it’s all a coincidence though . 😡
Quick note on The Daily Clout article, their hyperlink isn't correctly pointing to your substack.
Regarding the May 24th "incalculable loss" NYT issue, I saw on Twitter you scanned the front page to count deaths in NYC (54 IIRC), would it be helpful if I dropped all the names/ages/city from that issue into a google sheet to review? I have the original issue and could scan it pretty quickly (it continues on pages 12, 13, and 14 beyond the first page).
i think this is a reasonable claim simply b/c of 1) the known lack of death cert transparency, and 2) the incentives for c19 deaths. that’s a recipe for fraud.
You mentioned two documents, one advising EMTs not to administer standard care for cardiac arrest (I'm paraphrasing), another document that shows EMTs had financial bonuses to avoid bringing people into the hospital - can you share those two documents at the end of this post?
I've followed this closely since May 2020 after reading and looking up dozens of the "incalculable loss" NYT and comparing to CDC mortality data, and having the same question as you - how could 3% of the population account for 25% of the excess deaths? If it's based on density, why didn't London have the result? Why didn't a proportionate number of deaths happen in other large dense cities (Chicago, Miami, Houston). If the virus' first kill was in a nursing home in the suburbs of Seattle end of Feb, shouldn't Seattle been hit hard? But no excess deaths in Washington until later 2020?
I'm thankful you have continued to dig and hope you manage to draw attention to this. I'm stunned how everyone is disinterested as the mystery of NYC will solves a lot questions (and raise new ones).
That said, I lean towards the number of deaths being correct. The suddenness is probably correct. I'm not ruling out tampering with data, but that doesn't make much sense for a few reasons:
1) Why would "they" want to make themselves look bad? Having deaths spike *immediately* after lockdowns start shows their policy was disastrous. If they could manipulate the data they would have shown a gradual increase in excess deaths throughout the end of Feb/Early March, and then have recede back to normal once lockdowns started to show how they saved us and these ideas were good after all.
2) If the argument was the spike was created to convince us to lockdown/stay locked down/get the vaccine, that doesn't match with how those ideas were sold. The MSM was not talking about how NYC and only NYC had 7x the typical deaths at the height of lockdowns. The MSM largely avoided talking about just how bad NYC had it compared to the rest of the country - instead trying to say everyone was in danger (see how few people from NYC are included in "Incalculable Loss")
3) They are all disorganized, easily panicked, idiots. There is no strategy. It's all reaction.
The simpler explanation remains, the leaders panicked. They yelled "fire" in a crowded movie theater. The more crowded the theater is, the more dangerous it is to yell "fire".
That 35,000 people died in the 12 weeks following lockdowns in NYC rather than the typical 12,000 in a city of 11,000,000 shouldn't be too surprising when you consider how much disruption they made to healthcare. How much they terrorized the population, raising stress, anxiety. How much they improperly treated those that sought care. How much a prison cell your 400 sqft flat you bought for $600K feels. Suddenly halting all the hospitals that take in 20,000 patients a day (correct me on the right number - spitballing) was sure to cause death [1].
For the past 3 years, I still had issue with why other cities didn't see as much spike in death - granted there's a major difference between how much chaos happens shutting down NYC compared to Chicago, but I would have expected at least 3x (Illinois as a whole had 32K deaths instead of 24K during those 12 weeks).
So, for the "fire in a theater" hypothesis to be correct, there must have been additional bad ideas unique to NYC and surrounding areas, deeply stupid ideas that didn't make it to San Francisco, Chicago, or Seattle.
My ears perked up though when you mentioned about the EMTs, because those are the type of stupid decisions that can stack and cause a cascade of deaths which may not have been done in other states.
/end rambling
Have you and Jonathan Engler been able to get death records from Connecticut? Right after lockdowns they had deaths jump +130%, with a 60% increase for that 12 week stretch. One of the highest spikes in the country after NY/NJ/MD and considering the wealth and health of CT residents that seemed odd too.
___________________________
[1] This old comment of mine still stands (2nd one down about touring St Johns in Queens 2007)
Did the number of people who are claimed to have died on each day, in the locations and settings claimed, actually do so in real time? That's the key question. It's about the time-series curve, not just the total. The total could be correct, but the curve fraudulent.
1) Because more death right away was a good thing at the beginning, for making people "take the virus seriously." My view is that New York was used to help stage sudden spread of a novel deadly pathogen and "affirm" a pandemic declaration. New York needed to be under attack and "under-prepared."
2) "The MSM was not talking about how NYC and only NYC had 7x the typical deaths at the height of lockdowns." What time period are you talking about? Yes, it was minimized ex post facto - in terms of "New York defeating the virus", but in those weeks, all eyes were on NYC. The hospitals, morgue trucks, etc etc. The message in media all over the country was the 15 days - and then beyond - was important so that everyone else didn't become New York.
3) Who was disorganized and panicked? Can you give specific examples?
Nov 19, 2023·edited Nov 19, 2023Liked by Jessica Hockett
Thank you for your feedback - all the links you shared I haven't seen except Engler's piece from last year on Italy (but I will re-read as it's been a year). I also missed this post from pandata you are on (not just your comment you linked me to): https://pandauncut.substack.com/p/does-new-york-city-2020-make-any I will consider all this, and reply Monday.
Thanks for pointing out 8 million. I regularly mix up NYC vs balance of New York State population all the time.
I think the analogy of a tsunami would describe what happened in NY City, per the "authorized narrative." When you have a tsunami, everything is still and normal and then, out of nowhere, it hits - a giant wave rushes across the shore, killing (sometimes) hundreds of thousands of people with the force of the wave, mass drownings, etc.
In NY City, all was fine throughout the cold and flu season (no noticeable excess deaths at all) and then - probably around the first week of March - the wave started to build up. In incredible numbers, people who had not been infected with a virus started getting infected all at once. The average time span from infection to death from Covid is 21 days. While people were getting infected in early and mid March, the giant wave didn't really hit and cause tsunami-like deaths until late March and, most conspicuously, in April.
The virus, which hadn't been super contagious, suddenly did become super contagious. And it killed an eye-opening percentage of people who contracted the virus. My hypothesis of "early spread" couldn't have been true because this wave would have knocked out the city weeks or months earlier.
It's strange the wave hit after the lockdowns designed to prevent or slow "spread," but, per the authorized narrative, this is what happened.
And, like a tsunami, the wave rolled back out and, by May and June, things were closer to normal.
Unlike the huge tsunami of 20 years ago, this tsunami only hit one city tremendously hard and, a couple of other cities pretty hard. For some reason, tt missed the vast majority of cities in the country.
Apparently, it largely missed China, which reported only 50 Covid deaths by the end of January. Or, maybe, China's lockdowns were better and worked? Those lockdowns came well after China's initial cases, so who knows? Maybe China's doctors are better? Or China's citizens are able to survive super contagious and extremely lethal viruses better?
There's still a lot of unanswered questions here. But nobody should actually ask any of these questions. Especially journalists who live in NY City.
Nov 19, 2023·edited Nov 19, 2023Liked by Jessica Hockett
My point is the authorized narrative that Covid is a super contagious AND "lethal" virus probably doesn't occur absent the massive spike in excess deaths in NYC (and before that, northern Italy). However all the recorded deaths happened, the virus fear-mongerers HAD to have an "event" like this to cement the narrative that lockdowns, draconian NPIs and then mandatory "vaccines" were all justified and HAD to take place.
I also think "late spread" (not "early spread") IS actually the official narrative for virus spread. That is, this "novel" virus was NOT infecting Americans prior to "latter January" 2019. Any "cases" between mid-January and early March were just "isolated." For some reason, a few people might have been infected in very late January or February, but these people weren't transmitting the virus in large numbers to other people in their communities. Because of this, the novel coronavirus did NOT spread across the country (or world).
The government narrative is thus "late spread" is what happened (that's the "tsunami" - a tsunami of "late spread" hit the USA in NYC in mid March). All the deaths in NY City in late March and April were used to "confirm" this narrative.
I love your reporting which I think is advancing this theory - the huge spike of deaths was somehow inflated and that, perhaps, 27,000 "extra" deaths didn't really occur over a 11-week period of time.
I think this is your hypothesis, right? There's no proof (that's been presented to the public) that this massive number of extra deaths actually occurred in NYC in this period of time.
Yes, I think that is what the government is claiming. I KNOW that's what they are claiming because they said exactly that at a CDC press conference on May 29, 2020. The CDC also published a paper that said that. According to the CDC, there was no spread of a novel ILI-causing viru in America before "latter 2020." That was the headline of that press conference and paper. Officials looked and could find any "indication" of "early spread" (although they didn't call this "early spread," they just said they'd found no cases - they could "confirm" prior to latter January 2020). These public health officials also said they were going to keep looking for such evidence ... which they certainly did not do.
Yes, I understand you and (Rancourt and others) don't think "early spread" was happening or couldn't happen. I think this virus could and did infect probably millions of Americans before, say, March 15th and have presented the evidence of why I have this theory or formed this hypothesis.
Where we agree, I think, is that "Covid" couldn't have caused all these extra deaths. In my opinion, a novel virus could not have created this spike in excess deaths.
Also, I think we agree that the Covid PCR test was the main way this whole pandemic was created - out of thin air, probably. But they also needed a big spike in extra deaths to create the requisite fear. The extra deaths arrived in March and April. To me, these are "late" deaths caused by "late spread," which IS the government position of what happened.
My latest article provides evidence that shows this "Late spread" is the official government position. Nobody (except me) paid attention to that May 29, 2020 CDC press conference and CDC paper. Just about everything they said at that press conference and in that paper was a lie.
Edit: CDC officials could NOT find any "indications" of spread before latter January 2020. They cover their asses by saying they could not find any evidence of "wide-spread" transmisison, which seemingly leaves open the possibility of "limited spread." They also cover their butts by saying they could find no evidence of community spread that they could "confirm."
That's my main point: They created the early-spread investigation protocols which precluded the possibility of "confirming" early spread. Basically, if there was no PCR-confirmed early cases, there were no early cases. But nobody in America got a PCR test before January 16, 2020. They also use only "sequencing" as their metric to "confirm" spread. They intentionally ignored positive antibody evidence of early spread (and ignored people who'd experienced obvious Covid symptoms and had all the clinical presentations of Covid).
Tim McCain, who tested positive for antibodies on May 1st, was hospitalized for 24 days in January 2020 in critical condition. He had all 11 Covid symptoms and every part of his medical records was consistent with a "severe" case of Covid. But he didn't have Covid because he didn't have a positive PCR test in late December or early January.
For public health officials to state there was no evidence of “virus spread” in New York City (or near NY City), they have to dismiss these two examples of (possible) “evidence.” This is an email I received from Rachel Benedetto who lives in metro New York:
“I, too, was extraordinarily sick at Christmas 2019, and doctors told me it wasn't flu, wasn't strep, wasn't pneumonia, but weren't sure what it WAS. Then later (in April and June 2020) I also had two positive antibody tests. Most of my family and I believe it was certainly Covid, but many others give me the same, “You must have had something else and then an asymptomatic Covid infection" line rather than entertain the possibility it could have indeed been Covid. Reading others' stories helps me feel validated and a little less frustrated …”
... 40 miles from New York City is Belleville, NJ, where a man named Michael Melham serves as the city’s mayor. Mayor Melham reports he had all the Covid symptoms and became sick at a conference of New Jersey municipal employees between Nov. 19-21, 2019.
Mayor Melham later received TWO positive antibody tests. He also insists he was contacted by “many” people who attended the same conference who said they had the exact same symptoms after attending this conference.
If Mayor Melham DID have Covid, he got it from some unknown person who had it earlier than him and this unknown person who transmitted the virus to him had it even earlier - which, to me, connotes a virus that was “spreading” from person to person in early to mid November 2019.
The fact “many” other people reported the same symptom also suggests “virus spread.” It’s certainly enough possible evidence for virus origins detectives to “investigate” this possibility, which (tellingly) they never did.
Mayor Melham and Ms. Benedetto both say they got TWO positive antibody tests - so if they got one “false positive,” the second AB test was also a “false positive.”
Neither person later contracted PCR confirmed Covid which suggests they might have acquired immunity to this virus when they were sick in December and November 2019.
To me, these two cases suggest “early spread” in and around NY City two or three months before the first “confirmed” cases in this city and region of the country.
Virus spread is also “suggested” because I’ve identified so many other antibody-positive possible cases in at least 15 other U.S. states in the same months (November and December 2019). How could so many people from so many geographically-dispersed states have tested positive for antibodies if the virus was NOT spreading from person to person?
In other words, I don’t think these case studies suggest no virus spread in America or even “limited spread.” What these case studies suggest is public health officials who do not want to “investigate” a possibility they do not want to “confirm.”
The final (key) question would be WHY didn’t these trusted, “truth-seeking” officials want to investigate these likely/possible early cases? Here’s details of Mayor Melham’s possible early case of Covid:
Here is the "official narrative" of virus spread in the USA, according to top officials of the CDC who (allegedly) "investigated" when "spread" commenced in America. The headline - from NBC News - gives us this narrative/conclusion.
Jessica Hockett's research is quite comprehensive- this interview not only did not do it justice but Naomi Wolf seemed to micromanage and "steer" the conversation aside from the lengthy interruptions.
The problem for the likes of Naomi Wolf, RFK, Peter McCullough and most of the "established" Covid dissenters is that the evidence produced by the likes of Jessica, Jonathan, Denis Rancourt and several others disproves their fundamental assertions that there was a pandemic caused by a unique viral pathogen- it is just the source of the pathogen and the draconian responses which were problematic according to the "establishment" Covid sceptics.
The bigger problem for those who reify the big lie of there being a pandemic is that the data presented by Hockett et al is unassailable and point towards criminal actions that were enacted in order to kickstart this global operation.
A groundswell of public opinion would also change the landscape on who is or isn't interested in this information so I think that Naomi Wolf was a little disingenuous in the last segment of the interview.
How could that groundswell be created? Precisely by having some of those at the "top of the health freedom establishment" not only putting but by keeping this evidence out in front and pressuring public officials to look at it and obtain even more details.
You can't tell me that these people are not aware of this information.
I have the same chilling take-away as you, Jessica. There's several disconcerting scandals here. One is the excess deaths and the policy response that obviously cost many people their lives. But the bigger scandal might be the "watchdog press" that doesn't care an iota about this .... or else they have zero curiosity about what really happened or finding out what might explain all of these deaths.
They are either okay with what happened (which connotes a level of evil or callousness about human suffering) ... or they're too obtuse to figure out what was going on. And/or: they are too timid to challenge "authority figures."
So we've got this going for us as a nation.
Same thing happened with 9/11. It seems people are in such a hurry to ‘move on’ and ‘get over’ the trauma they’ve experienced, that they’re willing to ignore indications and evidence of a horrendous crime. Journalism failed then, too.
You keep going—the work is invaluable and so important!
Anecdotally, I’ve heard from people on Twitter since 2021 that the NHS in UK had similar “ limit care” directives to ems workers when they arrived to find someone suffering with cardiac issues. I’m sure it’s all a coincidence though . 😡
Quick note on The Daily Clout article, their hyperlink isn't correctly pointing to your substack.
Regarding the May 24th "incalculable loss" NYT issue, I saw on Twitter you scanned the front page to count deaths in NYC (54 IIRC), would it be helpful if I dropped all the names/ages/city from that issue into a google sheet to review? I have the original issue and could scan it pretty quickly (it continues on pages 12, 13, and 14 beyond the first page).
Thanks. I'll reach out to DC.
Funny enough, I went to the library today and got the full issue with all the names and locations. :) Will report on X soon.
i think this is a reasonable claim simply b/c of 1) the known lack of death cert transparency, and 2) the incentives for c19 deaths. that’s a recipe for fraud.
Exactly. You get more of what you pay for. Plus, where is the call for investigations? Where is the 3-year anniversary documentary?
You mentioned two documents, one advising EMTs not to administer standard care for cardiac arrest (I'm paraphrasing), another document that shows EMTs had financial bonuses to avoid bringing people into the hospital - can you share those two documents at the end of this post?
I am working on that article with a colleague
Great - Looking forward to it!
I've followed this closely since May 2020 after reading and looking up dozens of the "incalculable loss" NYT and comparing to CDC mortality data, and having the same question as you - how could 3% of the population account for 25% of the excess deaths? If it's based on density, why didn't London have the result? Why didn't a proportionate number of deaths happen in other large dense cities (Chicago, Miami, Houston). If the virus' first kill was in a nursing home in the suburbs of Seattle end of Feb, shouldn't Seattle been hit hard? But no excess deaths in Washington until later 2020?
I'm thankful you have continued to dig and hope you manage to draw attention to this. I'm stunned how everyone is disinterested as the mystery of NYC will solves a lot questions (and raise new ones).
That said, I lean towards the number of deaths being correct. The suddenness is probably correct. I'm not ruling out tampering with data, but that doesn't make much sense for a few reasons:
1) Why would "they" want to make themselves look bad? Having deaths spike *immediately* after lockdowns start shows their policy was disastrous. If they could manipulate the data they would have shown a gradual increase in excess deaths throughout the end of Feb/Early March, and then have recede back to normal once lockdowns started to show how they saved us and these ideas were good after all.
2) If the argument was the spike was created to convince us to lockdown/stay locked down/get the vaccine, that doesn't match with how those ideas were sold. The MSM was not talking about how NYC and only NYC had 7x the typical deaths at the height of lockdowns. The MSM largely avoided talking about just how bad NYC had it compared to the rest of the country - instead trying to say everyone was in danger (see how few people from NYC are included in "Incalculable Loss")
3) They are all disorganized, easily panicked, idiots. There is no strategy. It's all reaction.
The simpler explanation remains, the leaders panicked. They yelled "fire" in a crowded movie theater. The more crowded the theater is, the more dangerous it is to yell "fire".
That 35,000 people died in the 12 weeks following lockdowns in NYC rather than the typical 12,000 in a city of 11,000,000 shouldn't be too surprising when you consider how much disruption they made to healthcare. How much they terrorized the population, raising stress, anxiety. How much they improperly treated those that sought care. How much a prison cell your 400 sqft flat you bought for $600K feels. Suddenly halting all the hospitals that take in 20,000 patients a day (correct me on the right number - spitballing) was sure to cause death [1].
For the past 3 years, I still had issue with why other cities didn't see as much spike in death - granted there's a major difference between how much chaos happens shutting down NYC compared to Chicago, but I would have expected at least 3x (Illinois as a whole had 32K deaths instead of 24K during those 12 weeks).
So, for the "fire in a theater" hypothesis to be correct, there must have been additional bad ideas unique to NYC and surrounding areas, deeply stupid ideas that didn't make it to San Francisco, Chicago, or Seattle.
My ears perked up though when you mentioned about the EMTs, because those are the type of stupid decisions that can stack and cause a cascade of deaths which may not have been done in other states.
/end rambling
Have you and Jonathan Engler been able to get death records from Connecticut? Right after lockdowns they had deaths jump +130%, with a 60% increase for that 12 week stretch. One of the highest spikes in the country after NY/NJ/MD and considering the wealth and health of CT residents that seemed odd too.
___________________________
[1] This old comment of mine still stands (2nd one down about touring St Johns in Queens 2007)
https://archive.vn/9apJd
The number of deaths being correct in what way?
Did the number of people who are claimed to have died on each day, in the locations and settings claimed, actually do so in real time? That's the key question. It's about the time-series curve, not just the total. The total could be correct, but the curve fraudulent.
1) Because more death right away was a good thing at the beginning, for making people "take the virus seriously." My view is that New York was used to help stage sudden spread of a novel deadly pathogen and "affirm" a pandemic declaration. New York needed to be under attack and "under-prepared."
2) "The MSM was not talking about how NYC and only NYC had 7x the typical deaths at the height of lockdowns." What time period are you talking about? Yes, it was minimized ex post facto - in terms of "New York defeating the virus", but in those weeks, all eyes were on NYC. The hospitals, morgue trucks, etc etc. The message in media all over the country was the 15 days - and then beyond - was important so that everyone else didn't become New York.
3) Who was disorganized and panicked? Can you give specific examples?
4) City proper (which is what all of the data I label NYC is, unless otherwise noted as metro) is 8.3M - 8.8M, not 11M. Regarding disruptions, I've laid all of those out myself in presentations, on Twitter, and in the comments of the PANDA article and understand the potential impact. I'm not saying all that was https://open.substack.com/pub/pandauncut/p/does-new-york-city-2020-make-any?r=jjay2&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=43039843 What we're saying is, even with all of that in consideration, the mechanisms don't work at the data are incongruent.
We have not looked at Connecticut, but this thread is relevant: https://x.com/Wood_House76/status/1721714019961028994?s=20
See also these posts:
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/three-cities-same-virus
https://pandauncut.substack.com/p/were-the-unprecedented-excess-deaths
Thank you for your feedback - all the links you shared I haven't seen except Engler's piece from last year on Italy (but I will re-read as it's been a year). I also missed this post from pandata you are on (not just your comment you linked me to): https://pandauncut.substack.com/p/does-new-york-city-2020-make-any I will consider all this, and reply Monday.
Thanks for pointing out 8 million. I regularly mix up NYC vs balance of New York State population all the time.
Did you say you have the full paper copy of the May 24, 2020 NYT?
Yes!
I'm emailing you.
Sure thing!
Seems like you need to catch up :)
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/new-york-city
I have the stats for NY for that period. I cannot remember any such spike. They must have been added later.
The NYC spike was always high.
I remember downloading the stats at the time and thinking that they were completely normal. I shall go and have a look for them.
I think the analogy of a tsunami would describe what happened in NY City, per the "authorized narrative." When you have a tsunami, everything is still and normal and then, out of nowhere, it hits - a giant wave rushes across the shore, killing (sometimes) hundreds of thousands of people with the force of the wave, mass drownings, etc.
In NY City, all was fine throughout the cold and flu season (no noticeable excess deaths at all) and then - probably around the first week of March - the wave started to build up. In incredible numbers, people who had not been infected with a virus started getting infected all at once. The average time span from infection to death from Covid is 21 days. While people were getting infected in early and mid March, the giant wave didn't really hit and cause tsunami-like deaths until late March and, most conspicuously, in April.
The virus, which hadn't been super contagious, suddenly did become super contagious. And it killed an eye-opening percentage of people who contracted the virus. My hypothesis of "early spread" couldn't have been true because this wave would have knocked out the city weeks or months earlier.
It's strange the wave hit after the lockdowns designed to prevent or slow "spread," but, per the authorized narrative, this is what happened.
And, like a tsunami, the wave rolled back out and, by May and June, things were closer to normal.
Unlike the huge tsunami of 20 years ago, this tsunami only hit one city tremendously hard and, a couple of other cities pretty hard. For some reason, tt missed the vast majority of cities in the country.
Apparently, it largely missed China, which reported only 50 Covid deaths by the end of January. Or, maybe, China's lockdowns were better and worked? Those lockdowns came well after China's initial cases, so who knows? Maybe China's doctors are better? Or China's citizens are able to survive super contagious and extremely lethal viruses better?
There's still a lot of unanswered questions here. But nobody should actually ask any of these questions. Especially journalists who live in NY City.
To clarify, you're saying the tsunami/Wave is the government narrative for NYC?
My point is the authorized narrative that Covid is a super contagious AND "lethal" virus probably doesn't occur absent the massive spike in excess deaths in NYC (and before that, northern Italy). However all the recorded deaths happened, the virus fear-mongerers HAD to have an "event" like this to cement the narrative that lockdowns, draconian NPIs and then mandatory "vaccines" were all justified and HAD to take place.
I also think "late spread" (not "early spread") IS actually the official narrative for virus spread. That is, this "novel" virus was NOT infecting Americans prior to "latter January" 2019. Any "cases" between mid-January and early March were just "isolated." For some reason, a few people might have been infected in very late January or February, but these people weren't transmitting the virus in large numbers to other people in their communities. Because of this, the novel coronavirus did NOT spread across the country (or world).
The government narrative is thus "late spread" is what happened (that's the "tsunami" - a tsunami of "late spread" hit the USA in NYC in mid March). All the deaths in NY City in late March and April were used to "confirm" this narrative.
I love your reporting which I think is advancing this theory - the huge spike of deaths was somehow inflated and that, perhaps, 27,000 "extra" deaths didn't really occur over a 11-week period of time.
I think this is your hypothesis, right? There's no proof (that's been presented to the public) that this massive number of extra deaths actually occurred in NYC in this period of time.
We're saying the daily death curve appears to be false and has not been substantiated by proof of when and where the deaths occurred.
With the tsunami metaphor, you're saying that's what the government is claiming?
Re: spread - you and I differ in that I don't think a novel coronavirus "spread" from person to person at all.
Yes, I think that is what the government is claiming. I KNOW that's what they are claiming because they said exactly that at a CDC press conference on May 29, 2020. The CDC also published a paper that said that. According to the CDC, there was no spread of a novel ILI-causing viru in America before "latter 2020." That was the headline of that press conference and paper. Officials looked and could find any "indication" of "early spread" (although they didn't call this "early spread," they just said they'd found no cases - they could "confirm" prior to latter January 2020). These public health officials also said they were going to keep looking for such evidence ... which they certainly did not do.
Yes, I understand you and (Rancourt and others) don't think "early spread" was happening or couldn't happen. I think this virus could and did infect probably millions of Americans before, say, March 15th and have presented the evidence of why I have this theory or formed this hypothesis.
Where we agree, I think, is that "Covid" couldn't have caused all these extra deaths. In my opinion, a novel virus could not have created this spike in excess deaths.
Also, I think we agree that the Covid PCR test was the main way this whole pandemic was created - out of thin air, probably. But they also needed a big spike in extra deaths to create the requisite fear. The extra deaths arrived in March and April. To me, these are "late" deaths caused by "late spread," which IS the government position of what happened.
My latest article provides evidence that shows this "Late spread" is the official government position. Nobody (except me) paid attention to that May 29, 2020 CDC press conference and CDC paper. Just about everything they said at that press conference and in that paper was a lie.
Edit: CDC officials could NOT find any "indications" of spread before latter January 2020. They cover their asses by saying they could not find any evidence of "wide-spread" transmisison, which seemingly leaves open the possibility of "limited spread." They also cover their butts by saying they could find no evidence of community spread that they could "confirm."
That's my main point: They created the early-spread investigation protocols which precluded the possibility of "confirming" early spread. Basically, if there was no PCR-confirmed early cases, there were no early cases. But nobody in America got a PCR test before January 16, 2020. They also use only "sequencing" as their metric to "confirm" spread. They intentionally ignored positive antibody evidence of early spread (and ignored people who'd experienced obvious Covid symptoms and had all the clinical presentations of Covid).
Tim McCain, who tested positive for antibodies on May 1st, was hospitalized for 24 days in January 2020 in critical condition. He had all 11 Covid symptoms and every part of his medical records was consistent with a "severe" case of Covid. But he didn't have Covid because he didn't have a positive PCR test in late December or early January.
For public health officials to state there was no evidence of “virus spread” in New York City (or near NY City), they have to dismiss these two examples of (possible) “evidence.” This is an email I received from Rachel Benedetto who lives in metro New York:
“I, too, was extraordinarily sick at Christmas 2019, and doctors told me it wasn't flu, wasn't strep, wasn't pneumonia, but weren't sure what it WAS. Then later (in April and June 2020) I also had two positive antibody tests. Most of my family and I believe it was certainly Covid, but many others give me the same, “You must have had something else and then an asymptomatic Covid infection" line rather than entertain the possibility it could have indeed been Covid. Reading others' stories helps me feel validated and a little less frustrated …”
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/i-asked-for-early-spread-anecdotes
... 40 miles from New York City is Belleville, NJ, where a man named Michael Melham serves as the city’s mayor. Mayor Melham reports he had all the Covid symptoms and became sick at a conference of New Jersey municipal employees between Nov. 19-21, 2019.
Mayor Melham later received TWO positive antibody tests. He also insists he was contacted by “many” people who attended the same conference who said they had the exact same symptoms after attending this conference.
If Mayor Melham DID have Covid, he got it from some unknown person who had it earlier than him and this unknown person who transmitted the virus to him had it even earlier - which, to me, connotes a virus that was “spreading” from person to person in early to mid November 2019.
The fact “many” other people reported the same symptom also suggests “virus spread.” It’s certainly enough possible evidence for virus origins detectives to “investigate” this possibility, which (tellingly) they never did.
Mayor Melham and Ms. Benedetto both say they got TWO positive antibody tests - so if they got one “false positive,” the second AB test was also a “false positive.”
Neither person later contracted PCR confirmed Covid which suggests they might have acquired immunity to this virus when they were sick in December and November 2019.
To me, these two cases suggest “early spread” in and around NY City two or three months before the first “confirmed” cases in this city and region of the country.
Virus spread is also “suggested” because I’ve identified so many other antibody-positive possible cases in at least 15 other U.S. states in the same months (November and December 2019). How could so many people from so many geographically-dispersed states have tested positive for antibodies if the virus was NOT spreading from person to person?
In other words, I don’t think these case studies suggest no virus spread in America or even “limited spread.” What these case studies suggest is public health officials who do not want to “investigate” a possibility they do not want to “confirm.”
The final (key) question would be WHY didn’t these trusted, “truth-seeking” officials want to investigate these likely/possible early cases? Here’s details of Mayor Melham’s possible early case of Covid:
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/covid-was-spreading-across-us-in?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Here's my last article. Note the links to the CDC press conference of May 29, 2020. That's the official government narrative on "spread."
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/investigation-into-virus-origins?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Here is the "official narrative" of virus spread in the USA, according to top officials of the CDC who (allegedly) "investigated" when "spread" commenced in America. The headline - from NBC News - gives us this narrative/conclusion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/coronavirus-started-spreading-u-s-january-cdc-says-n1217766?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma