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)
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.
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).
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)
https://archive.vn/9apJd
I have the stats for NY for that period. I cannot remember any such spike. They must have been added later.
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.