Jessica Hockett, PhD
Excerpted from this page. Posted 25 July 2026.
On ~16-17 January 2024, Jonathan Engler sent a request, via third party, to Jeffrey Tucker of Brownstone Institute, asking Tucker to consider writing a short piece making people aware of the “debate” with Dr. Kory and linking to the corresponding articles (here, here, and here), in order to raise awareness of the questions raised and discussed.
Text:
Jeffrey,
You don’t know me, but I sit on the Panda exec with Nick Hudson. I also co-chair the UK-based HART group with Dr Clare Craig.
The work that the Brownstone Institute has been doing is quite remarkable, going places where others fear to tread.
There is – however – one area you haven’t really ventured into: the question of to what extent there REALLY was a novel disease entity called “covid”, a novel virus, or indeed a pandemic at all.
In this regard, many consider the word of doctors like Pierre Kory and Peter McCullough to be gospel.
To put in bluntly, several of us – myself, Jessica Hocket (who you know) and Prof Martin Neil – think they suffer from extreme observation and confirmation bias, and we have been challenging many of their core assumptions.
I ask you to please read and digest these 3 articles:
Our original critique of “spikeopathy” here:
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/a-closer-look-at-spikeopathy-as-the
Kory’s response here:
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/debate-was-covid-19-a-pandemic-caused
Our response to Kory’s response:
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/our-response-to-dr-pierre-kory
There are substantial holes in the entire pandemic narrative. We believe that for a variety of reasons many with a vested interest – whether that be prestige, reputation or money – are hugely disincentivized from examining the events in 2020 critically, and are therefore either wittingly or unwittingly playing a role in maintaining an illusion.
This illusion is dangerous as it seems to have validated a simple recipe that the medical-industrial complex can repeat any time it chooses. Indeed, they currently talk of little else other than “the next pandemic” – something which should terrify us all, but not because of any putative virus.
We would like you to consider writing a very short piece making people aware that this debate is actually happening, including making reference to the 3 articles. We think people are totally ignorant that the question marks we raise even exist.
Kind regards
Jonathan Engler
I don’t recall whose idea the proposal was or why the request wasn’t sent directly to Tucker, given that Brownstone had published two articles that included Dr. Engler and Prof Neil and myself (here and here). Emails from the timeframe don’t point to a reason, and I did not retain copies of conversations with Dr. Engler and Prof Neil from Slack and Signal.
Tucker declined via the third party, saying, “to me these questions are inevitable but beside the point really. It makes the most extreme and hard-to-prove claim possible and causes distraction from the myriad disasters otherwise. In other words, the severity issue is interesting but beside the point concerning the right way to respond. That said, these people have done some great research.”
This was a different request from the one we later made of Tucker in October 2024:
Leave a Reply