Jessica Hockett, PhD

A follower directed me to the article “I explained why the Deep State loves the “no virus” narrative, and why viruses are real–4 years ago. Reposting” by Meryl Nass.

I am more sensitive than I used to be about leaving entire essays in the comment sections of other authors’ Substacks and therefore publish my reaction here.

Good day, Meryl Nass.

Previously, Martin Neil, Jonathan Engler, and myself each tried to engage you on questions related to GoF/SARS-CoV-2, without much success:

Conversation with Meryl Nass on Gain of Function Research

You and I also previously dialogued about the New York City Spring 2020 event.

Responding to Meryl Nass’s Claims About the New York City Event and “COVID”

I am not “Deep State,” not part of a “sponsored narrative,” and I have not made arguments which can be fairly characterized as “viruses don’t exist” or “denying viruses”. 

In a recent article, Dr Engler and I offered something of a “bridge” perspective and raised basic questions about viruses that we consider scientifically important.

On dividing a resistance, the existence of viruses, ‘the COVID response’, & spreading non-deadly threats

Whether viruses “exist” is a different question from questions about the causal link between viruses and illness (or between SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19).

To the points in your first paragraph – i.e., “If people believe SARS-CoV-2 is NOT a virus, then we…” (image below):

1. There are many good reasons to abolish gain-of-function experiments and so-called “bioweapon” development, none of which are contingent upon SARS-CoV-2 being a virus, novel virus, or causative of a respiratory disease. The research is indefensible and foolish because 

• nature doesn’t allow viral pandemics; 
• seasonal injections are inefficacious and immunosuppressive — ergo, those developed for worst-case scenarios via such research can’t and won’t “work” for “pandemic potential” viruses; 
• universal/One Shot goals for respiratory illness are the epidemiological equivalent of the Tower of Babel (i.e. impossible, idiotic, & defiant) and render corresponding pursuits highly susceptible to being leveraged by those with bio-surveillance, digital ID, and depopulation ambitions; 
• the implicit endgame of GoF experiments and “bioweapon” research is to compel or require some group of people to take a ‘vaccine’ resulting from the experiments — therefore, the enterprises lack an ethical or moral compass. [Excerpted from Hockett, 2024]

2. By now, I hope we can agree we shouldn’t look to governments for anything except obfuscation. Regardless of what one thinks SARS-CoV-2 is or is not, the origin is an important line of inquiry — one that certain orthodoxies have incorrectly dismissed as irrelevant or quite subordinate to ‘the response’. No matter what, SARS-CoV-2 is part of a story. Whose/what story? Who planted the story? Have scientists been duped? To what extent?

3. IVM and HCQ appear to be part of a directed, dual-sided op — i.e., intelligence-planted “Permitted Dissent” that helps keep the populace from questioning whether something was spreading.

This isn’t to say the drugs aren’t beneficial in a general way (or at least not harmful). But neither a virus nor a “new” illness or disease is required for HCQ and/or IVM to be comparable or slightly superior to chicken noodle soup and a hug. Both are better than maltreatment or euthanasia.

What Do I Think About Ivermectin and HCQ?

You also said, “I think it’s important for us not to fight over this, but we can of course disagree.”

Who’s “us”? What’s the difference, in your view, between disagreeing and fighting? Were colleagues and I disagreeing or fighting when we tried to engage you here?

Conversation with Meryl Nass on Gain of Function Research

Finally, you said, 

Please don’t waste any more of your time on the “fake virus” hypothesis. We don’t have the time or luxury to fight each other. We need all hands on deck to turn back the Great Reset (whatever it is supposed to be) and regain sane control of our societies.

Actually…it seems the people/entities/AI accounts who write and engage on Substack, self included, very much do have time for and luxury of intellectual jousting — including about the “source” of SARS-CoV-2 (whatever it is supposed to be).

The architects of the Constitution certainly did not envision that ‘freedom of the press’ would mean typing a bunch of words, ‘pressing’ a button, and sending ideas to thousands of people in a matter of seconds.

No wonder The Overlords do everything they can to control these platforms. Must be exhausting for them to play Whack-A-Mole day after day.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective.

Regards,

Jessica Hockett

Very minor conventional edits mades on 25 May 2026.

---

Origins – All