Quite the show
Miri Meets Jessica Hockett video originally published on https://miri.substack.com/p/miri-meets-jessica-hockett on 10 April 2024 | Posted to YouTube on 30 March 2026 with permission of Miri Finch. Transcript by Jessica Hockett published to WoodHouse76.com on 3 April 2026.
Miri Finch: Hello, Everyone. Welcome to another edition of Miri Meets. I’m very pleased to have with me today my first transatlantic guest. Jessica Hockett joins us all the way from Chicago. Welcome Jessica. Jessica’s been doing some phenomenal work over the last four years, exposing the COVID tyranny with a particular focus on New York.
Jessica, if you could just tell us a little bit about your background and how you got into exposing the tyranny of the last four years.
Jessica Hockett: Sure. Happy to join you, Miri. Like you said, I’m from Chicago. And when, 2020, the human rights heist of 2020 began in March, I was, like many people, confused, perplexed. I wasn’t afraid of a virus. I had kind of seen or been following enough to know that – or believe anyway – that my family and I weren’t at risk of anything. I was really concerned about the closures of churches and schools and the economy. My husband works in the city, and I thought, “Okay, how is this going to work with everybody staying home? That’s going to affect the what’s going on in the economy of all of these cities. How is this actually going to work out?” So, I was very, very skeptical and opposed to the closures from the very be beginning.
I created a Twitter account that was focused on the COVID nightmare in May 2020 under the pen name of Emma Woodhouse. And through that, over time, the account or the followers grew. my focus was always on what was going on with what the government was saying, what laws they were breaking, what was going on in the data, especially in Chicago. And in 2021 or so, I began to look more closely and ask questions about New York City because the mass casualty event there in spring 2020 was head and shoulders above pretty much everybody else except some provinces in northern Italy. So that’s a little bit how I got my start. I’m not a paid operative. I don’t have any associations with pharma or medicine or any anything like that. I can say it was really organic and that my I just gained a following through my advocacy and focus on data.
Miri Finch: Right. Fantastic. And would you have described yourself as a conspiracy theorist before, or was this the first thing that made you really question the narrative?
Jessica: I just think of myself as a theorist period, now. But that’s a great question. I think people who know me, maybe even my parents would say from a young age – and actually my parents are like this too – I was taught to question, not simply just accept what other people are saying.
I grew up in the church, and even within the church I would say my parents, my dad especially, would say, “Okay, let’s listen to what this person is saying and measure it against what the Bible actually says.” So that critical thinking, I really have to credit my parents with.
I’m not so sure about “conspiracies” per se. In the past I never really thought about did we really land on the moon? Or is the government’s story about 9/11 true? I’ve never wondered about the JFK assassination. I just was sort of disinterested in it.
But with the COVID affair, I have begun to see what occurred from kind of a longer point of view, right? Said, you know, I think there’s a history here of the government saying things that aren’t exactly true. The government does not bat a thousand, right? The government has its own motives. So, I guess if that makes me a conspiracy theorist, it makes me a conspiracy theorist. But “COVID made me a conspiracy theorist,” is that what a lot of people would say? I think so at this point.
Miri: Yes, absolutely. Now, I know that you studied the excess deaths in New York very closely. And, as you say, New York was exceptional, apart from a few provinces in Italy and that they did have significant excess deaths, but I know you’ve got a very interesting theory about what might have caused that. So if you could tell us a little bit more about that, that would be great.
Jessica: Sure. It’s pretty complex. I mean, just to start with some basic facts: New York City saw an additional 27,000 or so deaths in 11 weeks. At one point, it had peaked at a 700% increase from base to peak. The equivalent of nine or ten World Trade Center disasters in 11 weeks, with most of that happening in about four or five weeks. So, the sheer number of bodies is truly incredible. And even though – like a lot of other people I have not necessarily always concerned myself with what cause of death has been attributed to, like, Oh, is it from COVID, with COVID? I’ve looked at the all-cause mortality, but as I’ve studied this event, I’ve tried to not just look at that, but also look at other data points like 9-1-1 [emergency] calls, ambulance dispatches, what was going on with hospitals. And what we see is an unexplained event where we have hospital activity dropping very, very low at the same time that the hospitals experience a mass casualty event that has to be the biggest event in a U.S. hospital system’s history.
The hospitals lost the equivalent of, near equivalent of, every full inpatient bed in that time period. So just think about that for a second. Imagine that every hospital bed in the city is full at some point – 20,000 – and then losing all of those bodies. It implausible is what I would say.
Four years later, we don’t have a complete list of names of the people who died. We don’t have any way in New York to obtain death certificates via FOIA. You can do that for other states, but not in New York. We don’t have any kind of memorial. We don’t have a “Four Years Later” documentary on this event.
So, even though I have a lot of different ways of thinking about what occurred, I think the core explanation that I’m at right now is that New York City was used to stage a pandemic and to stage the sudden spread of a novel deadly respiratory pathogen. But no such thing was occurring.
We don’t see this pathogen in any data before the federal government says 15 days to slow the spread. All the data is, just nothing’s going on. And then it’s like 15 days to slow the spread was some kind of “go” signal, right? Or some kind of euphemism for Begin the New York City live-exercise plan. And maybe a signal to the world as well.
So that’s what I’m seeing. And it’s not a theory that I had when I started out investigating this. It’s really as a result of gathering different kinds of data, going back and looking at these real time news reports, these “approved voices,” which I think is a concept that you’ve talked about, but approved voices of doctors and nurses at the time that were being covered by the media and saying, “Wait a minute, they are all on-script. They are all saying the same things.” A lot of which don’t [sic] make sense at this point. It probably didn’t make sense then either, but we were in the midst of a shock and awe campaign. And when you look back at it now, you’re like, “Why are they saying that they’re seeing young people dying in the hospital? Were they? Were they really?” And you probably have things like that in the UK as well. I haven’t studied it as closely, but where you go back and you look and you’re like, this didn’t make sense, and they’re all singing from the same song book. There’s only so many explanations for that.
Miri: Yeah, absolutely. So there were excess deaths, but these weren’t coming from, as you say, a respiratory pathogen. So, what would you say they were coming from?
Jessica: Well, first, I want the government, because they’ve made a claim about what occurred. I want them to substantiate the claim. I don’t believe that that curve, this like massive spike that we see that looks like a bomb went off, frankly. It looks like a bomb went off, multiple bombs. I want them to have to prove that that was a real time event that occurred. Did the number of people who they say died on each day actually die on that day, die in the places that they say that they died, and die only once?
I think it’s possible that we have an event that was modeled. Remember all the models that were out there, right? I think we have, it’s possible that there was an event that was modeled, and then they didn’t, they fit things to match the model. So that may mean that they’ve moved or reclassified some deaths that occurred in the past. It may mean that there was, right now we don’t see excess mortality for the rest of the year in New York City, for the rest of 2020, except in that huge spike. So, it’s possible that they pulled some deaths back. It’s possible. I mean, all we have is a spreadsheet, right? So, it’s possible that somebody hit some extra digits in there, like completely fabricated deaths. It’s possible that there are death certificates that are people who died outside of the five boroughs, or even in the same region, elsewhere in the United States, and they were put in there. There’s a lot of possibilities that I can see, especially when no proof has been offered that this occurred.
Miri: Right. Absolutely. Now I do remember a lot of stories coming out of New York from whistleblower doctors saying that there was gross misuse of ventilators, and that a lot of doctors were saying this is the wrong treatment, but they were using them. Do you think that could have been used to inflate?
Jessica: Yes. One thing that’s interesting, I spent a lot of time looking at the ventilator narrative. One thing that’s really interesting is that, in the very beginning, we heard, We need ventilators. We need ventilators. Governor Andrew Cuomo said something to the effect of This is a war and the ventilators are like our missiles. This is like World War II. He made that analogy. So, we heard that pretty strongly and criticism of the federal government needs to get us more ventilators.We need thousands of ventilators. Then, maybe after two weeks of that or so, we got a counter op. We had a doctor named Cameron Kyle-Sidell apparently recorded himself in his Manhattan apartment saying, “Oh, you know what? I don’t think these ventilators are working. We really need oxygen.” Or “we really need to use these other techniques.” And he gained a lot of traction. That March 31st video was everywhere. And then he was covered by WebMD and then he was covered by the New York Times. It’s fascinating.
So I’ve come to believe or come to see that the ventilator narrative may be a cover that, you know, Ventilators! and then No, no, not ventilators! Right? All of that may be part of a staged op/counter op. Oxygen, giving people a lot of oxygen is deadly, I’ve come to realize that or see that through other people that have pointed that out to me, especially recently. Sedatives, you need to sedate people to put them on a ventilator, right? And we have data that shows some pretty high doses of midazolam and some other sedatives and sleep agents that were used. That’s also a pretty direct way to kill somebody, right, with an injection.
So, with the ventilators, at least in New York, we don’t have the data to say how many people were ever put on ventilators. The peak [COVID] ICU intubated census is about 2700, but we don’t know how many people were put on and taken off. We just, we don’t have – I’m from a restaurant family, so I think of tables turning. And how many customers you go through. We don’t have data to show that. The excess in hospital inpatient in that period is 15,000. So almost 20,000, but 15,000 above normal. So when people are like, “Well, it was the ventilators,” I’m like, “Well, that may be part of it, but we actually don’t have enough people on ventilators in this time to say it was only the ventilators.” Do you see what I’m saying?
Miri: Absolutely.
Jessica: It’s a really complex operation with ops/counter ops that I believe were planted. And if you were hearing from somebidt, if you were hearing from a voice, that was “allowed” – that’s what I would say, right? I think you would agree with that.
Miri: Oh yeah. Totally. Absolutely right. And you’re absolutely correct that this video that you’re referring to really did do the rounds and that’s kind of what I was thinking about when I asked you that question. So yeah, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. So obviously we’re in complete agreement that there was no pandemic. There was no novel pathogen. But this was made into a huge world crisis. So why do you think the world’s governments colluded to stage this event? What do you think they were trying to achieve? And do you think they’ve been successful?
Jessica: Yeah, that’s a – well, first of all, they have been successful thus far, right? How do we know that they pulled it off? Because they pulled it off. Right? So far. So far. And yes, I do think they colluded. I didn’t always think that, but I came to that conclusion. And by the way, all my conclusions are preliminary. I’m always willing to change my mind in light of new evidence. I’m not – some people might think I’m entrenched, but I’m not. I’m like, bring your best evidence. Bring your best arguments.
But through looking at the flu program, not just in the United States, but through the WHO and how long that disease surveillance program has been going on and what some of the objectives are, I’ve come to realize that You know what, through the WHO and other agencies, there’s a lot that’s already globally coordinated, right? So, for example, the flu surveillance program, the WHO has something called the International Classification of Diseases system. You can think of it as like, I don’t know what it’s called in the UK, but here like the Library of Congress system for classifying library materiald. You can think of it as kind of like that, where they have this system of all these different codes for all thedifferent diseases and ailments. And those are used for medical billing. They’re used for death certificates.
And so to coordinate things through, to introduce, for example, a “new cause of death,” all the WHO has to do is announce it and give guidelines for it. Right?
You might remember that in the beginning, actually as early as January over here, we had people calling for a “coordinated response”. So when people say to me, “Well, are you saying that all these countries coordinated?” Yes! They were saying that they needed to give a coordinated response.
Part of the motivation – I don’t think this was the whole thing – but part of the motivation, I think, was problems with vaccines and shots like the flu shot and other shots that were being, I think they were immunosuppressive. And I think, especially since 2009, but probably before then, I think that they were messing around with a lot of shots. And toward the goal – this has long been a goal for a lot of these countries, and for the WHO, the CDC – toward the goal of what’s called a universal flu shot, or a universal respiratory illness shot, right? One Shot to Rule Them All, to invoke Lord of the Rings.
There are a lot of benefits that we can think of, so to speak, for a One Shot, One Seasonal Shot for every man, woman, and child to take, right?
Miri: Yeah.
Jessica: That could be linked to social credit. It could be used to limit your movements. There a lot of purposes. It’s lucrative. There’s a lot of purposes that it serves. So, for me, I see an effort to off-ramp the egg-based flu shot that I think was causing, there’s evidence that was causing a lot a lot of problems, to off-ramp that and to onramp mRNA, not just for flu, but mRNA for like cancer, right? Like a cancer shot. So I think they needed, I think in a sense it was an off-ramp this and on-ramp mRNA. And to do that they needed a crisis. They had a solution. Maybe the bottom line for me is they had a solution in need of a problem, but they also had some problems that were going on.
And I think there were a lot of public/private interests, a lot of people who had been – Bill Gates, other people, you can go back and look. These interests, I think, became more and more aligned and the idea that we’re going to have a pandemic. A pandemic is coming! A pandemic is coming! And they needed ROI, return on investment, in their not only flu pandemic preparedness efforts, but, on the US side anyway, bioteterrorism preparedness. Those two industries had sort of become one and the same, more or less, since 9/11 especially.
The analogy I use is if you spend decades preparing for the forest fire of a lifetime that would only ever be caused by five simultaneous lightning strikes hitting the forest – you know, an impossibility, basically. Something that’s never going to happen. Sooner or later, you might light the matches yourself, right? But, unlike other people, I would say that this whole Well, they released a virus. I think that’s bogus. I don’t think you can – I think viruses get out of labs all the time, you know, engineered or otherwise, and they can’t get far.
But they have an interest in people being afraid of that. Oh, they’re making another virus. Somebody can make this in their garage, as Jonathan Couey puts it. But the truth is, it can’t happen, so they had to stage it. They had to stage it.
Miri: Yeah, I totally agree with you. So, what is the mood like in the US now, in regards to COVID? Is there still a lot of paranoia? Do you still see people in masks? They’re still lining them up for boosters, or is it is it starting to ebb away quite a bit?
Jessica: You know, that’s a great question. I mean, I can only speak for where I live, which is in suburban Chicago. You do still see masks, not from a ton of people. They kind of ebb and flow. The guy I get my coffee from every morning at Dunkin Donuts at the drive-thru window has, I don’t think I’ve ever seen his face, or maybe have once or twice. He’s still wearing a mask. So, I think I think that’s gonna be with us for a long time.
I think a lot of people just want to move on. I think they want to pretend, and I understand. It’s been, we’re all suffering from a form of one form or another of PTSD. But I think nobody necessarily wants to talk about it and talk about the truth of what occurred. It’s like people – one of my followers on Twitter puts it this way: calls it the pandemic of pretending or the pretend pandemic, where people are sort of going through the motions, like, Oh during COVID or during the pandemic. So, they’re still very much, as we would expect, they’re still very much using that language.
But it’s almost like you feel like people maybe think it was a scam, or you can maybe open up that conversation, but people aren’t ready yet. I have had some success with people that I know,
just on a one-on-one basis, or family, with this technique, of bringing up things like (and I don’t have a hard and fast theory about this, by the way) but saying like, “Hey, why do you think we haven’t gone back to the moon? Are we ever going to go back to the moon?”
Miri: Yeah. Yeah.
Jessica: And it’s a great conversation starter. It’s not my rabbit hole, but it’s interesting to hear what people think. Or they might say, “Well, yeah, I don’t know,” or “I definitely think we went to the moon. We just haven’t gone back because we haven’t devoted the resources,” or “It’s too expensive,” etc. But they’ll say, “Yeah, but the JFK assassination, like that’s crazy, right?”
So, everybody kind of has – nobody thinks the government’s batting a thousand, I think I said that earlier. And so I like this technique of opening conversations, because eventually do get to COVID in some way, shape, or form, but they’re a way of just broaching the topic of the lies that we’ve been told. And again, I find that most people think the government has lied about something in the recent past.
Miri: Okay, that’s encouraging. Do you think this climate might change at all in the lead-up to your elections? Do you think any of the candidates might try and ramp this up a bit to collect votes?
Jessica: That’s a great question. Nobody follows me for my political prognostications. That’s for sure. And I’m not voting for any of the three major candidates, by the way. I’ll probably vote Libertarian just because less is more. But it will be interesting to see how this plays out. The three major candidates all subscribe, as far as I can tell, to the government’s core story, which is that there was a sudden spreading novel deadly or risk-additive pathogen and that there was a pandemic or that a pandemic needed to be declared.
So, for me, I don’t see that any of the three candidates would depart from that. So, but it will be interesting to see what is said, if anything, or what is disclosed or maybe what’s, maybe what the candidates or candidates’ teams try to use against each other, or try to use against Donald Trump, for example, or Biden as we lead up. But we’ve got a long way to go before November. So, any anything can happen for sure.
Miri: Yes, absolutely. Do you think that the US government and the world’s government have finished playing Pandemic yet, or do you think we might be in for a sequel?
Jessica: I think that we’re in for a sequel of some kind. However, I’ve noticed that there are a lot of so-called health freedom and anti-mandate folks who, they’ve taken this idea that they’re not done yet. The next one is going to be worse. That’s its own kind of fear-mongering. Do you see what I’m saying? That empowers the people who declared a pandemic in the first place. And a lot of those people, I know you know who Brett Weinstein and some of these other people are. Like they can’t even say that there wasn’t a pandemic before. Do you see what I’m saying? The latest thing now here, and I’m trying not to give it airtime, actually, because I think we just need to starve the beast, but is like a frenzy over bird flu. No. No. Like X. X.
Miri: Yeah.
Jessica: But we do know this isn’t a secret that Pfizer, Moderna and others are in trials for a shot for RSV, flu and COVID, right? This combo shot. So, what I do expect – I don’t expect them to try to stage another pandemic. I think they’ve checked that, you know, they check boxes and then they can’t go back to that staged activity, right? They have to upgrade it to some to something else. But I do think that they are going to be launching this One Shot, and it will be interesting to see how people react to that. I think the populace is smarter than we were before, but I just don’t think they try the same op again in the same way. I don’t know what you think about that, but what do you – do you think they’re going to try to “do pandemic” again or what do you what do you think? I’m curious.
Miri: Yes, unfortunately I do. Because I think that they primed the population so successfully now to, you know, obeylockdown rules, and they could increase their tyranny and remove so many of our freedoms under that guise. I think they didn’t go to all that trouble to only do it once.
Jessica: Sure.
Miri: So I do think they’ll do it again, but as you say I think it’s going to be much more difficult for them to pull off again because people are much more cynical. People are much more rebellious. I think I think a lot of us at the beginning even those of us who didn’t believe there was any novel pathogen were shell shocked at the beginning, like nothing like this hasever happened before and weren’t quite sure how to respond. But if they try it again, we’ve got so much knowledge now that we didn’t have there and we’ve developed so many networks I think we’ll be able to respond much more robustly. And I think they might have tried to stage another one. They’ve kind of tested the waters like with monkeypox, and like as you say now with this bird flu, and then they see the reaction of the populace is just no, no no, we’re not we’re not going for this again that they kind of have to draw back.
So, I think they’re going to wait until the climate is a bit more unstable before they try again, potentially post-election because you’ve got big elections coming up and so have we and I suspect that ours might be timed to occur very, very closely to yours and then there could be a lot of social unrest after the elections in both countries, which I think could be a prime time. Oh let’s stage another pandemic.
Jessica: Yeah. Yeah. I mean they’re definitely trying, gonna try to launch this One Shot, right? So that they can Oh look, it’s so convenient now. You only have to get one shot.
Miri: Yes. Right.
Jessica: So that that is definitely coming. So all these people with their newfound convictions, about bodily autonomy and everything else, I’m actually very much looking forward to the Brett Weinsteins of the world standing by their new principles. Let’s see what happens. Like we’re getting another test, folks. Let’s see. So, I don’t want to say that I’m looking forward to that, but there’s part of me like Okay now I see. Now I know what to expect and I want to see what all these other people do. So, I am gearing up to fight again. Well, I’m just going to keep fighting, right? I haven’t really stopped.
Miri: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. That’s a that’s a really good point because I think with a lot of these people their role might be to solidify the legitimacy of the next pandemic because they might say, “Yes okay, COVID was a hoax or COVID was overblown, but this one’s real and you can trust us to say it’s real because we told you the last one was fake.”
Jessica: Well, and unlike other people, so I’m totally an outlier on this, but I think the purpose of the COVID shot was – I mean, to on-ramp the platform, right? But simply to kind of create chaos and confusion and I don’t think the government or the powers that be care about all this talk about the harms of the COVID shot because I think they know that a lot of confusion was created. You can’t separate, in the end, you’re not going to be able to separate the effects of a COVID shot from the effects of the flu shot people were still getting or other things that were happening to people. I think they know that. So, I don’t I think these conversations that are allowed about the COVID shot now, like on social media, that they are not bothered by that at all. Right? I think they’d rather that than people go back to 2020 and say, “Wait a minute. Was there anything spreading in the first place?”
And it’s interesting to see. You don’t see the Brett Weinstein or the Robert Malones or some of these other characters. You don’t see them questioning any of that. They don’t. Instead, they’re like, “Oh, but the shot, but the shot.” You’re like, “Yeah, but New York, for example, this was used to substantiate that there was a spreading pathogen that was deadly, right? So, can we talk about whether that happened before we move on to the next pandemic?” Do you see what I’m saying? So, yeah. I just don’t think the government cares about all this talk about the harms of the COVID shot. Sorry.
Miri: Yeah, that’s a really good point. And a lot of these approved opposition do, as you say, all coalesce on the point but there was a pandemic. They might say it wasn’t as serious as the government said or it didn’t need a vaccine, but they all agree that there was a pandemic. And it is a relatively small fringe of us who say, “No there wasn’t. It was completely invented.” So, have you ever talked to any of these people and presented your data to them, and what kind of response do you get?
Jessica: It’s really interesting. I mean, yeah, done some presentations. My colleague, you might know Jonathan Engler. He’s one of my, a handful of colleagues that I have on this There was no pandemic – look at the data. But I presented to Panda, Pandata, a group that I’m associated with. I’ve done some other interviews like this. Jonathan and I presented recently. I think it’s going to be made public, or clips of it are going to be made public soon, to a group called IPAK that is sort of Pro Lab Leak and Pro Pandemic. But we’ve gotten some, we got some interesting kind of feedback or comments from people in in that group.
But by and large I don’t get a lot of pushback, or worse, just silence, right? People ignore me, especially on the American side, like fellow American influencers. It’s like nobody wants to touch this whatsoever. And you know, the election’s coming up, so people have kind of staked their claims, right? Or they’ve committed to what they’re going to advocate or what they’re going to focus on before the election occurs.
But it’s interesting. I don’t necessarily get a lot of real push back, But I think it’s worse. The dynamic silence, I think it’s called, where we’re just going to pretend like we’re not hearing this and not engage. Do not engage Jessica Hockett on the New York topic. Because I think it’s a threat to all sides. Like, what if that curve is fraudulent or manipulated in some, one or more ways by, I mean, I think it’s at least four, if not up to 10,000 or more deaths. Well, that hurts the early treatment crowd, doesn’t it?
Miri: Yeah. Yeah.
Jessica: I mean, that hurts the COVIDIANS. That hurts a lot of people. So, I think nobody wants to talk about it, if for no other reason than that. But I don’t get a lot of actual counterarguments that I see, which is, I think, interesting. I think that’s really interesting.
Miri: Yeah. Yeah. I’ve experienced exactly what you have. It seems that there’s two acceptable positions. You can have the mainstream position, you know, there was a terrible plague. Lockdowns were necessary, vaccines were necessary. Or you can have the approved alternative position, which is that there was a disease, but it wasn’t very serious. We didn’t need to lock down, we didn’t need vaccines. But then there’s a third position, which is not allowed, which is there was there was no plague. There was nothing. It was completely made up. You know, statistics were fudged of government officials lied on television. And when you take that third option, you know, it’s totally outside of the Overton window. And so both sides will just reject you as a lunatic.
Jessica: Well and let me add something to that. Here’s another sort of distracting position, at least in the way that it’s approached. Here’s what I’ll get from people on my Substack or on Twitter: People will say, “Well there are no viruses.” And I’m like, “Okay, like that may or may not be.” Or viruses are something that are detected and identified, but they’re not transmitted between people. Like we could go on about that. I’m open to all of that.
But for me that’s kind of a distraction too because it’s like, well even if there are no viruses or there’s no such thing as SARS-CoV-2, that still doesn’t answer the question of what happened. That doesn’t get anywhere. And yeah, maybe we’ll come to a place where we realize, “Hey, this virus thing is sort of made up,” or “They call viruses things that are kind of already in us, but they don’t really pass between us. They’re not out there circulating in the environment.”
All of that could be true, but that doesn’t really get us to the truth in a practical way. And that’s what I’ve tried to be focused on is what actually happened. This isn’t unknown. Like this is knowable. From a historical perspective, I think, at least, this is knowable.
So, some of those things that maybe those positions that people would consider fringe, and I’m fine with fringe, but they can be a distraction, too. Do you do you see what I’m saying?
Miri: Yeah. Yes. And I’ve had some dialogue with people who hold those beliefs about viruses too. And I’ve kind of said the same thing to them. I’ve said, “You know, I’m totally open to that.” And it doesn’t seem that viruses are contagious and they’re probably, what we call viruses are a name for exosomes, which is something is in the cell and helps with cellular cleansing. But what I’ve said to them is this, you know, this isn’t the big trump card that you think it is. This doesn’t unravel the whole puzzle. This doesn’t, the whole house of cards doesn’t fall down if you just keep saying there are no viruses, because as you say, it doesn’t offer us a comprehensive explanation about what was going on, not only with this particular pretend pandemic but with all sorts of other things that they lie about like cancer. Okay, there are no viruses so how does that account for, you know, the whole cancer scam and the cancer industry?
So I think that people can get too focused on the there are no viruses issue, which you know is interesting and is worth looking into but I think people can get too single-focused on it and we do need to look much bigger. So it seems we’ve had exactly the same experience there.
So when you talk to people in your day-to-day life, do you bring up your data and how do they respond to this?
Jessica: You mean face to face with people?
Miri: And friends and family.
Jessica: Yeah, I mean like I said, did we talk about this on the recording yet or was this off was this off recording? We were talking about introducing like, you know, why haven’t we gone back to the moon? And I mean that’s more kind of how I’ve approached it. I think a lot of people that I know, you know, they follow my Substack, they know that I’m on Twitter, but I would say in general, it’s not brought up. That’s what I would say at this point. And to be fair, I probably don’t have as many interactions – I don’t go to a workplace day-to-day, so maybe face-to-face encounters with a lot of people are different.
I have found a lot of opportunities to even just have little conversations, not necessarily about COVID per se but about the government with even the checkout person at the grocery store.
So, for example, my phone, my Apple Pay hasn’t been working lately, and so, it hasn’t been working consistently. So, I’ll say things like, “Oh my gosh, Apple just wants me to get another phone so that they can, you know, upgrade to the next thing.”
Or I’ll slip little things like oh now the government is doing this or they’re pushing panic about this, you know, this little chat.
And it’s funny because I do get reactions like, “Oh man, you’re not kidding.”
We had a cell phone outage. This was like a month and a half ago. AT&T, like a huge swath of the country were out with AT&T, and I think I was at the bagel shop and said like, “Hey, I think this might be a drill. They’re systems testing.” And the lady behind the counter is like, “Uh, they sure are.”
So I think having those little conversations is really important, especially because we had two-plus years, at least, over here of them making us cover our faces, like literally obstructing our speech and communication with others. Limiting our gatherings. You weren’t going to a pub with someone where you could sit there and talk about how crazy the government was, or just test your opinions like, “What do you think is actually going on here?” That was intentional. They don’t want two moms talking on the playground about what the government is doing.
So I think we need to bring those back – those small little conversations.
Or when somebody says, “Oh, I just had COVID. I was so sick.” Like, “Oh, you know, I’m so sorry you were sick,” but not letting them dramatize it, right? Like, “Oh yeah. Man, that stinks when you have a cold.” Like just drawing it back to, it’s actually normal for people to get what we call flu-like illness. Whatever it is that causes it.
Saying things like, “Well, was everybody in your house sick?” I’ve been telling people lately, the four people in my household have never been sick all at one time. I think the max is two. So, I’m not really sure that we necessarily catch these things from each other.
So, that’s how I’ve approached it so far. Not, “Hey, look at my New York graph. Look at this massive spike!”
I could get a t-shirt, though. I could get a t-shirt. Ask me about New York. The graph on the back, just advertise it.
Miri: That’s a good idea. Yeah, I think that’s a great idea. What you just alluded to is very interesting, and I think it’s very true that the whole COVID production was very theatrical and people seem to really enjoy having a starring role. So when they get that positive test they feel special. Like they’ve been given a part in a movie, don’t they? And you know they want to put their test on social media and you know you don’t get any attention when you’ve got a cold but if you’ve got COVID then suddenly there’s drama and excitement. And I think this maybe is why that the government was able to get so many people to comply because maybe people’s a lot of people’slives were quite repetitive and humdrum and suddenly they’re part of a big disaster movie and they’re finding it exciting.
Jessica: Well, and actually since you brought that up, I should have said this at the beginning but when you think about New York City it is the perfect place to, well, stage anything, but stage a pandemic.
We have decades, I mean, you think about King Kong, what, in 1933 that movie was made? I mean, where New York is the perennial target and victim of everything, right? We have the media there. It’s the media capital of the US, if not if not the world. The UN is there. We’ve had these other disasters there. I don’t think there’s any more disaster prepared city in the U.S., if not the world, but we are supposed to think that it was caught off guard by a cold?
Like does that really make sense? But people believe it, I think, because these ideas have just been ingrained in us. And I’m not saying all that ingraining in movies and everything is necessarily always intentional. But, at some point, we start to believe or the government starts to believe, scientists starts to believe these stories that they create and they just keep making them bigger and bigger and bigger until now we’re part of the show, right?
I don’t think reality TV shows helped that at all. We had a reality TV show. President Donald Trump was perfect. Perfect for the pandemic show. And we’re the audience but we’re also part, we’re also kind of the stars, or we’re part of the stage crew, right? And we love that, and we can say, “We lived through a deadly pandemic.” People love that, don’t they?
Miri: Oh yes. Yes. Absolutely.
Jessica: Human nature. It’s human nature. Nothing’s new under the sun.
Miri: No. No. Absolutely not. And I think it was absolutely key that Donald Trump is, as you say, an actor, a reality TV actor. He’s got a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, you know, and it wasn’t a coincidence that he was in office when this was staged, as was Justin Trudeau, who was, famously, a former drama teacher. And if you look at the crossover between politics and performance arts, it’s absolutely enormous. You know, obviously Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and in the UK, we’ve got Lawrence Fox, who’s from a famous acting dynasty. He leads a fake opposition political party. And the list goes on and on. And I don’t think this is incidental. I think it’s very intentional because the crossover between these two things is immense. And there’s a saying that politics is showbiz for ugly people. And I think that is kind of quite literally true that there’s very, very little if any difference between politics and Hollywood. They’re just scripted, acted shows to program the masses. Would you agree with that?
Jessica: Absolutely. And another facet of that, I would say, is these what I call Bros with Shows – these kind of faux journalists that we see everywhere, or hosts of podcasts. Tucker Carlson is a great example. And I used to be a fan of Tucker Carlson, but especially in the past year or so, I’ve kind of come to see him as part of the show as well. And his role (or part of his role) is to put these Approved Voices on. I just call them infomercials now. And if you’re on Tucker Carlson, Oh okay. What does the U.S. government want us to believe now?
Like their role – Bill Maher is the same way. I can think of other examples, but their job is sort of to move the Overton window, right? And to put things out there that are now acceptable to say, but they’re all, they’re all, a lot of them, are recorded. They’re edited. We even have a lot of podcasts where, you know, they’re more like, “Hey, we’re a couple people just having a conversation”. Like the Joe Rogans. But I don’t think that these are really the truth. I mean, they all feel like they’re panto – Leo Biddle says “The Pantodemic”. They’re all pantomimed.
Miri: Yes.
Jessica: Right. And they’re not authentic. Maybe a lot of it never was authentic and I just didn’t see it. But it almost seems to me with social media, it just seems like it’s even more obvious where I was telling some friends yesterday, I’m like, we just need to call this out directly and be like, “This is a show.” See these early treatment doctors in the US in spring 2020 and summer 2020? They’re not heroes. They’re not who you think they are. They are part of the show. And just call it out or laugh at it. I think that’s part of the answer. Are you Gen X? I can’t remember if you’re Gen X or not.
Miri: Millennial.
Jessica: Okay. All right. I’ll – you can be honorary Gen X, but I sometimes tell Gen X, like, “Look, remember what the government did to E.T.? Like that’s basically what they’re constantly trying to do. Like we just need to call we just need to call that out. Stop believing their story. Stop believing their lies. Call a spade a spade and just end the show. End the show. Stop watching it. Stop watching it.”
Miri: Yes. I completely agree and, you know, obviously the government always knows that there’s going to be a certain amount of people who don’t believe the mainstream narrative and so they set up some talking heads to appeal to those people. And you can always tell who the government wants you to listen to or you know who the social controllers want you to listen to because they’re very prominent. They’ll either get mainstream media coverage. It may be negative, but that doesn’t matter because they’re still in the mainstream media. So, you know, the authorities want you to know about them or they get enormous social media followings, you know, into the millions. People like Andrew Tate. And nobody authentic is ever able to get that level of visibility. And I’m sure you’ve experienced this excessively yourself. You know, you get shadowbanned and de-platformed. And that is what authentic voices get all the time because um if you’re not controlled, then it is not in the interest of the social media platforms or the mainstream media to promote you in any way. So they keep you playing very, very small.
So the prominent voices, the ones, the names we all know – Joe Rogan.
Jessica: Russell Brand, that’s another one.
Miri: And that’s because, obviously, as all we know, the best way to control the opposition is to lead it themselves. So that’s what they do. So when people say to me, as they do a lot, “Oh you call everyone controlled opposition,” I say, “No, only everyone prominent, because everyone prominent is controlled opposition.”
Jessica: Right. The alt voices are also allowed.
Miri: Yeah. Right.
Jessica: So that’s – and I’m not saying that they get a script from the U.S. government or from the CIA or whatever. But they get encouraged and fed certain things in different ways, right? And they might not be entirely cognizant of it, but you know, don’t tell me that Russell Brand is censored. He’s not censored. Here’s another kind of litmus test, not only for celebrities, but some of these celebrity-doctor types. I don’t know if you have as many in the UK, but if 2020 was the best thing that ever happened to you, or turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to you, like personally, financially, I’m not real interested in what you’re saying, because that worked out really well and you have no incentive to question what was going on, right? You were probably part of the show, whether you knew it or not.
So, I’m just done, I’m done pussyfooting around these things. And I’m a direct person anyway. But it’s like, enough. We need to call this out very directly.
Miri: Yeah. Absolutely right. So have you got a specific focus at the moment? Is there anything you’re concentrating on? Yep.
Jessica: I mean, I am still doing New York. I just got, not that long ago, I got some other data back from FEMA. I don’t know if you know what FEMA is here: the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In 2021, they put a funeral assistance program in place for COVID-19 victims, where you could get, if you had paid the funeral expenses or cremation expenses of somebody who died from COVID, then you could get up to $9,000 reimbursement from the federal government. And that program is still in place, extended through 2025.
So I got some data from them regarding the number of applications and approvals from New York City, because I wanted to see how many death certificates were submitted. And I’ll just say we are a long way off from that event being substantiated. So, I’m still trying to get all of this data kind of in a row so that I can make like an all-in-one place case forfraud or potential fraud.
Myself and Jonathan Couey have a meeting scheduled coming up on April 23rd with a staffer of Ron Senator Ron Johnson. I don’t know if you know who Ron Johnson is. He’s sort of one of the two senators that’s been assigned to the Controlled Opposition, in my opinion, whether he knows it or not. But through a series of events, I got the attention of his staff. I think they’re just trying to manage me, but we’re going to have an opportunity to talk to a health policy staffer and express our concerns about the events of early 2020, and I think at least be able to say, “Hey, we tried to tell this U.S. senator,” right?
“Why didn’t you tell Ron Johnson?” I did try to.
So that that’s what I’m kind of trying to focus on is bringing some of my theories together, getting things out there beyond just Twitter threads. I use Twitter for documenting research a lot.
And then the idea is, you know, taking some of that and making it, I mean, maybe eventually into a book of some kind where I can say, “Hey, this is what I think occurred.” It might be wrong, but I just want to be on the record whether I’m right or wrong, or whether I gain attention or not. My goal is not to be on Tucker Carlson. I want to be able to tell my kids. And they know, but I want there to be a record of like, “Hey, this is this is what I did. This is what I fought for. This is what other people did and fought for.” I think that’s really important.
Miri: Absolutely right. So if people want to find out more about your work, where’s the best place for them to go?
Jessica: Sure. I’m on Substack. The simple address is just woodhouse76.com. And then on Twitter, I’m wood_house76. I used to be, when I had my eponym, Emma Woodhouse, but I just changed it to my real name. So, just Jessica Hockett on X. Am I supposed to call it X now? So, those are the main, the two main places that that I put my work. I’m sure I’m shadowbanned and suppressed and all of that stuff, but you know what? I just see it all as, even Substack, I just see it as enemy territory, right? And I’m going to be there until they take me out. That’s the way I see it. I’m just going to keep fighting for now.
Miri: Fantastic. Well, it’s been wonderful to chat to you, Jessica. Thank you very much for coming on. And I’ll put all your links above this video when I put it out on Substack.
I hope you connect with a lot more interesting people as a result.
Jessica: Yeah, thank you very much.
Miri: Okay, thank you. Take care. Bye-bye.
###
Leave a Reply