Archiving these tweets, which I wrote about later here, on the date they occurred. Good example of overt nannying of/attempting to manage/control dissent, discussed here.
On 14 June 2023, Michael Shellenberger said,
We now know that covid started in a lab and that the US government has known for a long time that the first people to get sick were the scientists working on gain of function research, which makes viruses more infectious.
To which I, Jessica Hockett, replied:
Respectfully, your report isn’t much better than the “fact checkers” because you rely on anonymous officials from the same govt that has lied to us about this mess for three years. Do you not see that?
Shellenberger never responded. Justin Hart stepped in and said,
I’m not sure what this constant friendly-fire is about, Jessica.
Hockett:
I’m not sure why you insist on insisting that “we are on the same team”.
We can be anti-mandate together, but why does that mean we have to agree on everything – or that differences some of us think matter go unchallenged or unspoken?
I’m questioning his work & assumptions. That’s not allowed because….?
Hart:
I think your critique of his sourcing is masking your true critique – which is your claim that there was no virus at all. But maybe I’m misunderstanding you.
Hockett:
I have never, ever, ever said there was no virus. Here’s what I’ve said.
No sudden spread of a novel pathogen
But sudden spread of Pandemic Definition, PCR Tests, Panic, Protocols, Policies
You not only misunderstand me, you appear [to] have little interest in engaging with my questions – which are not personal – unless it’s to scold me.
I have long assumed it’s real and asserted that whatever it was had been circulating in the U.S. since May 2019 or sooner.
I also said this REPEATEDLY in the RG chat – and questioned the NYC narrative and flu’s alleged disappearance. Those things took a back seat to getting my kids into school, unmasked, fighting vax mandates, etc.
I have not changed in my skepticism. Maybe you were used to most of it being curbed in a chat group, I don’t know.
It’s okay to disagree, Justin — and publicly so.
You aren’t a thret to me, nor I to you.
I question and pushback as I see fit. I don’t care about “being right” – I care about the truth. Think you do too.
Hart:
I’m trying to reconcile this weird threaded intention:
– Shellenberger notes that even China is admitting it leaked from a lab (seems newsworthy)
– You question his sources (fine)
– The inference I took was you do NOT believe it leaked from a lab
– But I know you don’t think it came from a wet market
– And now you admit that you believe it did indeed come from a lab
– So I’m left asking: what do you actually disagree with here?
Hockett:
What weird threaded intention? I’m showing you some big-picture things I’ve said.
I [believe] very little from China, but my view is that the agent/sequence called SARS-CoV-2 is likely a lab-adulterated but I don’t really care if it is or not and could argue different ways. I suspect things get out of labs all the time; none are capable of “getting out” and generating a mass mortality event.
It doesn’t need to have been from a lab, China’s lab, or even just one lab for everything in 2019 and early 2020 (including the pandemic declaration) for claims to a global viral pandemic involving a novel deadly pathogen to be false.
But “bioweapon leaked from China lab” helps justify the pandemic declaration and U.S. response thereto (“so much we didn’t know”). Michael’s sources being unnamed govt officials is eye-rolling, given the number and scope of half-truths and lies govt officials (named and unnamed) have told and participated in.
Leave a Reply