Dialogue on Substack with Tim West and others
Jessica Hockett, PhD
Reacting to a colorful article by Anthony Colpo (Can the “No-Virus is a Psy-Op!” Crowd Please Buy Themselves a Brain?) I said,
I have a brain.
I believe “No Viruses!” IS a psy-op.
I also believe viruses are not what we have been told and sold.
Now what?
Tim West replied:
I’m utterly baffled! There are no two more honest sincere intelligent people than Mike and myself. 10s of hours of meticulous work in my case.
No virus evidence is a simple fact to be aware of.
No Virus is no different from no Climate Emergency and No unicorns.
It is an undisputed hard fact Jessica that viruses are 100% fictional.
This is why I set up the Virus Confirmation Fund to make this abundantly clear. this was an idea literally plucked from thin air to rescue a dead germ theory.
No point has there been a single piece of evidence for their existence ever found.
This is not the time to drag one’s feet on this.
Do you think no climate emergency is also a psyop? I wonder if not, why not?
At least people get to read Anthony’s article if you restack it in this way.
Moving to the awareness that viruses and transmissible pathogens in general are 100% fictional is one of the key important steps of our time.
I have had no illness since I understood you cannot catch it. This is true for many people. The germ theory lie is an incredibly insidious lie which is Self responsible for a vast amount of illness.
You do have a brain but you have allowed it to be captured by a PsyOp.
Trying to suppress awareness of the fictional nature of contagion is one of the key aims of the perpetrators.
Jessica Hockett to Tim West:
Hi Tim.
My point isn’t about the scientific validity of the “no viruses” position or the sincerity of those who hold it. It’s about whether “No Virus” has functioned as a rhetorical device and an effective psychological operation strategically leveraged (if not planted) during the COVID event, in ways that ultimately served/continue to serve the perpetrators.
Over the years, I’ve noticed that many (though not all, and not you or Mike [Yeadon]) who lead with “viruses don’t exist” show little interest in explaining anything beyond that claim — and often seem to undermine those who argue that SARS-CoV-2, “COVID-19,” and the broader COVID event are not adequately explained by simply declaring “no virus.”
My own view on viruses is expressed here:
Related piece:
Response to Matt Ridley (lab leak hypothesis):
Tim West to Jessica Hockett:
You have clearly not kept up with any of my work. 😟
You are misrepresenting my position and Mike’s.
I fight the No virus position very very, very strongly.
I have established the basis of the scientific method with the two colour protocol.
It is on that basis that I proceed.
With respect, You have spent very little time on this at all, Jessica if you are still unaware that these are 100% fictions.
Why do you believe in viruses?
Has there ever been one single piece of evidence ever for their existence and if so, why don’t you claim the money?
It is ridiculous that you try to make us prove that unicorns don’t exist when all we are saying is that there is no evidence that they do exist.
We are not cleaning that they don’t exist. We are stating a fact that there is no evidence that they do exist.
It is bewildering that so many people are so behind the curve. https://substack.com/home/post/p-162393415
Jessica Hockett to Tim West:
I keep up. 🙂
I’m not declaring that viruses do or don’t “exist.” I reject the term and the framing for reasons I’ve made clear. Maybe I’ll adopt it eventually, as you and others have. But not yet.
“Do viruses exist?” “Are they what we’ve been told?” “Are they endogenous phenomena rebranded and weaponized?” “Is ‘No Virus’ itself a psy-op?” — These aren’t the same question, even if they overlap. Precision matters.
I don’t have a problem with Colpo’s take on viruses. He writes with flair, and he’s entitled to his position.
What I do take issue with is the unwillingness to confront the grift, distraction, and disinformation that flourish in parts of the “No Virus” camps (plural). Some of those players are so over-the-top that it’s hard to believe they aren’t meant to discredit more serious questions. If I were running an op, I’d want them front and center. I’d also want tons of anonymous chaotic accounts on X and Substack, simply repeating mantras and all-but-demanding that others use certain words and phrases, a la cult indoctrination.
Demanding that others use a certain word or phrase is always a red flag. For example I’m not going to say “Hospital murder protocols” because it doesn’t capture my view and I think it falls short on many fronts. If someone demands I say it, I regard them as someone to avoid.
If we’re still unable, or unwilling, to interrogate our own assumptions about the COVID event, or consider how we ourselves might be targets of psychological manipulation (including the kind we manufacture in our own minds, with little assistance from anyone else), then we’ve learned nothing.
As for Kaufman, Cowan, and others who came into 2020 already “No Virus,” I don’t find them compelling. Not because of the position, but because they seem uninterested in the deeper operational questions that matter most (matter most to me, that is…my questions don’t need to be theirs).
Hope that helps.
Reply to Jessica Hockett from Dr Mike Yeadon
I think I do understand what you’re arguing. It’s literally a device, devoid of anything, but it provides confusing signals.
Jessica Hockett to Mike Yeadon:
Yes.
And it’s usually tossed out as a one-liner — angrily, with ad hominem — under the illusion that declaring “Viruses don’t exist!” settles every question about disease, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, or the COVID event itself. It’s intellectually immature, at best.
Cases in point: Many of the replies to my Note.
From Substack reader comments [added 18 July 2025]
Jimmy Gleeson said:
The one thing that we could all agree on, I believe, is that no matter what position you take, there will be a psyop aspect to it. That is, if you look at all the members of that group or club, you will find some enigmatic people in that group. The difference with the “no virus” folks that I believe I am a part of is that this group is substantially smaller than the other groups, and thus the nuts stick out a bit more the smaller the group is.
Jessica Hockett to Jimmy Gleeson:
What you’re describing is not, in my view, a psyop per se but what happens more organically as a natural function of human behavior.
For purposes of this conversation, I’ll invoke this USDOD publication, because PSYOP is a formal military term* https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp3-13-2.pdf
“The specific purpose of psychological operations (PSYOP) is to influence foreign audience perceptions and subsequent behavior as part of approved programs in support of USG policy and military objectives. PSYOP professionals follow a deliberate process that aligns commander’s objectives with an analysis of the Executive Summary. PSYOP requires sustained application across all phases of an operation. environment; select relevant target audiences (TAs);develop focused, culturally, and environmentally attuned messages and actions; employ sophisticated media delivery means and produce observable, measurable behavioral responses.”
I am making a distinction between having a No Virus position and (what I believe is) one component of a years-long, highly strategic, multi-phrase, coordinated campaign involving military and intelligence agencies in many countries that are attached to certain positions and intentionally misdirect, confused, distract, etc. Serious ‘dissident’ analysts writing under their own names should be able to relate to exactly what I’m talking about when it comes to “There are no viruses!!” as a rhetorical technique.
The PSYOP flank aside, the two terms I find most problematic — and nonscientific — in the virus discussions are “exist” and “belief/believe.” Whether those terms with respect to the COVID event were planted by PSYOPs in early 2020 or have long been what No Virus/No Contagion proponents have said, I don’t know and would need to investigate further.
*which has been changed to “Military Information Support Operations (MISO)” but it doesn’t matter much.
Jimmy Gleeson to Jessica Hockett:
I agree with you, but how does one discriminate between the two? A voice or presence that appears to be an “unreliable narrator” will have the opposite effect of what they communicate.
Jessica Hockett to Jimmy Gleeson:
Not necessarily. Look at the definition again (and read the whole document, perhaps)
PSYOPS rely, in part, on repetition — and they excel at identifying targets with focused messaging through sophisticated (and I would add “varied”) media.
When they say “observable, measurable behavioral responses,” they mean “we know what works and have spent tons of time and money on testing this stuff.”
I think there are more than “two” to discriminate but the most basic pattern that I’ve seen and experienced (which I think other analysts could corroborate) goes something like this:
I say, “There are multiple signs that the New York City all cause death curve is fraudulent.”
PSYOP (No Virus variant): “VIRUSES DON’T EXIST!” 🙂
You’re saying this has an opposite effect. I’m saying it has the effect(s) it intends.
Jimmy Gleeson to Jessica Hockett
No doubt it has the effect it intends.
I also get what you are getting at here. The “no virus” used as a response to your argument disinclines people to look at the evidence of fraud, or more broadly, poisons the well in thinking that if this is the “unserious” conversation going on here, then why should I be associated with it at all?
I get what a psyop is. It was employed against us in spades in 2020. And the “media” of it was telephraphed everywhere. In fact, you could argue that masks, social distancing, canceling large scale events was all part of the coordinated psyop along with the various staged events in New York and Elsewhere.
There were provisions made in the tabletop exercises performed for the different segments of society that would have arguments against the psyop, and all of them had answers already built in to address these different segments. One of the brilliant maneuvers was that dealing with the hurricane of fear and panic propaganda was that any reasonable dissident voice was drowned out by the psyop.
Part of the psyop was the creation of noise to drown out the dissident voices. So, for even those that question “do viruses exist?” there was a noise aspect to that answer as well. As much as those of us who started initially with “the virus was never as dangerous as they claimed it was” were considered “minimalists” well the whole “there is no evidence of a virus at all…and here is the century of literature and science to show that this isn’t a mere flash in the pan assertion” there is the noise of “there was no virus” without explanation or any depth of conversation beyond that.
Again, I ask, how do you distinguish between the two? I don’t deny that there is a psyop for any position taken concerning Covid. I also agree that getting people to only say or act in certain ways is the same type of absolutist attitudes we pushed against to begin with.
Jessica Hockett to Jimmy Gleeson:
I am only using one thing I say and an example response to illustrate the technique.
One branch of the PSYOP wing of No Virus — which could literally be operatives or simply people who have been influenced by techniques employed by others — is very personally disparaging, insanely aggressive, and essentially exists for the sole purpose of saying you are an idiot unless you say viruses don’t exist/there is no evidence for the existence of viruses.
Sample phrases below:
“Why are you still pushing the virus lie?”
“Stop pretending viruses are real.”
“You know there’s no such thing as viruses.”
“You keep ignoring the truth about viruses.”
And here’s a fun one. I have “Stockholm syndrome.”
Leave a Reply