Shared in an effort to promote respectful public disagreement within broad alliances

I’m sharing correspondence between Jeffrey Tucker and I following his response to an inquiry about whether he would be willing to “host” a written debate on the Brownstone Institute website. (If you’re not sure what I’m referring to, see this article.)

My two associates were copied on the emails but the responses were mine alone and should only be interpreted as representing my perspective (i.e., I was not speaking for the group). There was no expectation of privacy.

The purpose of sharing this exchange is three-fold:

1. It’s illustrative and instructive of differing perspectives among those who dissent from the government’s COVID narrative. I’ve said elsewhere that I believe such differences have been discouraged or minimized in ways that are ultimately obstructive to finding out what happened and why, and to holding governing officials accountable. I think it is a good thing, not a bad thing, for differences to be public—and for people to avoid relegating robust discussions to small or private groups when those discussions might better serve various interests & causes by being in a “Town Square.” (This was also the idea behind engaging Dr. Pierre Kory in public debate.)
2. It’s an example of respectful exchange between thoughtful people who take the COVID event seriously. Mr. Tucker & I have each devoted a considerable amount of time to our respective efforts and received a fair share of criticism from all sides. It’s not a secret from anyone who follows both of us that we disagree about a number of things. Although Mr. Tucker is a muchhigher-status individual in the broader landscape than I am, I believe we are on near-equal ground when it comes to being able to articulate our views and avoid taking “professional” differences personally. As I said earlier this week, I am not mad at Jeffrey Tucker. This isn’t Jessica v. Jeffrey, with people needing to pick a side. This about the honorable and ongoing struggle over key questions, potential answers, and knowns/unknowns. 
3. Good platforms for written debate are in short supply. Platforms like X are limited in their ability (and willingness) to promote substantial dialogue, especially if the dialogue falls outside an acceptable and/or revenue-friendly range of topics & stances. Also in short supply is anything like the old The New York Times Room for Debate (which the newspaper ended in 2017, shortly after Donald Trump took office).¹ Letter-writing has a strong track record when it comes to documenting events, alliances, factions, etc. (Even the angry unsent letter has its place: The Lost Art of the Unsent Angry Letter.) I would love to see more debate take epistolary/epistolic form, as people often tend to be more measured and intentional in formal emails than they are in discussion groups and on social media. 

Subject: Re: Opportunity to shore up the “lab leak” theory.
Date: October 10, 2024 at 7:59:01 PM CDT

Dear Jeffrey,

Thank you for a prompt & transparent response.

To clarify, our proposition is less about Chan and Ridley per se than it is about the Lab Leak and Wet Market hypotheses — both of which we find lacking in terms of logical suppositions or evidence re: mechanistic plausibility, chronology, and related claims.

We agree that lab leaks of various kinds are documented. To our knowledge, none has been purported to result in supersonic spread, let alone successive mass casualty events around the globe in fortuitous locations — including the eminently (and imminently!) disaster-prepared New York. We think you agree that a coronavirus did not strike the city with the force of bombs or an asteroid assault to kill 20K+ people — a small fraction of whom have been publicly named.

Ideally, someone with an “agnostic” position on the pandemic question would welcome diverse viewpoints from serious analysts. Given that Martin and Norman Fenton have recently published a formidable book on the COVID event — one endorsed by myriad COVID dissidents and which includes co-authored contributions from Jonathan and myself — I  believe we are qualified to submit a studied provocation. 

We are far less concerned about being “right” than we are about stretching the status quo. Today’s status quo is yesterday’s censored/suppressed dissidence, after all.

That said, all organizations have the right & responsibility to make decisions based on their priorities, obligations, etc.

Given that you are so well-versed in the media landscape, might you know of a neutral outlet willing to consider publishing our challenge to the Lab Leak/Wet Market-Zoonosis duality?

Despite the differences, I am encouraged that Brownstone has been able to grow and impact public discourse – including on matters where I hold an entirely different viewpoint – and remain grateful that you republished some of my work in 2022 and 2023.

All the best,

Jessica

Subject: Re: Opportunity to shore up the “lab leak” theory. Date: October 11, 2024 at 9:49:54 AM CDT

Thank you Jessica.

Yes, the lab leak makes sense to me based on the best reports of the scientists who have examined all the evidence, and it fits with the timeline too. Brownstone does attempt to achieve objectivity on all empirical aspects of the case which is why I’ve resisted dogmas in two directions: Covid was a mass killer or Covid did not exist. The case is complicated with many moving parts. My intuition is that you have uncovered many fishy features of the NYC death event, which is why I have been happy to publish you on this topic.

I’ve waited for four years to run an article that would explain why a lab leak is probably not something to fear given epidemiological dynamics: the tradeoff between severity and prevalence subject to latency. I’m not the one to write it but I do hope that some epidemiologist does at some point.

I sense from your writings that you have hard and heavy conclusions from your investigations and feel a strong passion to prove them. As you suggest, I don’t think Brownstone is the place for those polemics. It might be many years before we discover the fullness of precisely what unfolded. Again, that conclusion is based on my intuition from the evidence, right or wrong.

Subject: Re: Opportunity to shore up the “lab leak” theory.
Date: October 11, 2024 at 10:49:03 AM CDT

Thanks, Jeffrey. 

I am grateful that you have shared your perceptions, including of me, my orientation, and my motivations.

Allow me to address a few points:

—Our perspective is not represented by either “Covid was a mass killer” or “Covid did not exist.” Even if it were, those are two perspectives on a continuum, neither of which should be feared or avoided but rather welcomed and engaged – if not necessarily “on” or by Brownstone, in the broader intellectual space. 

—Domain-relevant expertise (e.g., epidemiology) is insufficient for probing the COVID event, including the events of early 2020, which we contend were not largely epidemiological (if they were at all) but political, sociological, and psychological. I suspect you will be waiting a long time if the expectation is for an epidemiologist to suddenly upend the assumptions of their field and do so without any provocation or challenges from those in other disciplines and orientations saying things like, “How do SEIR models ‘work’ with this series of events, this other evidence, etc.?” 

—You are mistaken that I (or Jonathan or Martin) have “hard and heavy conclusions” and a “strong passion to prove them.” I have said repeatedly that I could be wrong, my conclusions are tentative, and the burden of proof should be on those who made the initial claims about the existence of a public health emergency and much else. I have more questions than answers and make every attempt in my language to not go beyond the bounds of what data and qualitative evidence allow me to say — and to be abundantly clear when I am stating a matter of opinion versus indisputable fact. I also try to avoid common self-affirming phrases like “We know that…” or “We now know that…”

—You are correct that my passion is strong but incorrect that I am out to “prove” entrenched conclusions. That perception is at-odds with what and how I’ve written, including about the New York event. 

I was hoping you might be able to suggest other outlets for our proposal, but it seems none is coming to mind.

We appreciate you being so forthcoming.

Kind regards,

Jessica 

---

1. I think it was Newsweek that used to have a Point/Counterpoint feature. I would love to be directed to news outlets with regular “debate” features. There could be many and I have simply lost track.  ↩︎