Wood House 76

Further observations on debates surrounding the COVID-19 event

Jessica Hockett PhD, Dr Jonathan Engler, & Prof Martin Neil | Revised 16 January 2026

Here we consider another false binary of the COVID-19 event:

Excess deaths were caused by “the virus” versus by “iatrogenic causes”.

Such “Virus versus Treatment” framing sprung up almost immediately during the first wave of “pandemic declaration” excess mortality as an explanation for what caused the deaths shown in provisional data and described in news reports: Is SARS-CoV-2 killing more people, or is the manner of “treating” and trying to slow or stop “it” to blame?

The word iatrogenic — aka, death by medical misadventure — became more common later.¹ The debate persists as The Virus versus The Response, with the latter being inclusive of all manner of policies and protocols implemented with the WHO’s pandemic declaration.

But the duality is fallacious, if not a deliberate misdirection, in the sense that it protects the following claim:

A novel, risk-additive virus/disease was spreading from a point-source, constituted a threat, and warranted a response of some kind.

In dissident arenas, the critical emphasis on damage created by “the response” morphed into the claim that the virus itself, i.e., its existence, origin, pathogenicity, transmissibility, is irrelevant. What matters, the argument goes, is what was done in its name, as these two posts on X asserted:

Once considered counter-narrative and radical, this stance has been marked “safe” for public discourse, media platforms, and academic journals.² Why? Because it affirms that something emerged (or leaked, or was released) which compelled taking action and activating plans.

Mainstream/Dominant Dissent and a Continuum of Belief

Having surveyed the range of theories and beliefs among those challenging the WHO’s origin story, we offer a “composite” of a mainstream or Dominant Dissent perspective about what happened with “the response” and what would have happened with a different one:

SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus that emerged, evolved, or mutated into existence in 2019 and began transmitting from some region of the world. From there, it “seeded” or spread globally, in ways too subtle for detection systems to catch and was “hiding in the flu.” Absent detection and “response,” either: a) nothing much would’ve been noticed, or b) some modest excess mortality might have occurred, varying by location and local response.

When it comes to deaths attributed to COVID-19 (specifically, those coded U07.1 prior to deployment of the shot) there exists a continuum of belief:

• Almost all were caused by SARS-CoV-2³
• Most were due to SARS-CoV-2 with some caused by “the response”
• Roughly half were due to SARS-CoV-2 and half caused by “the response”
• Most were due to the “response,” with some or few from SARS-CoV-2
• All were due to the “response,” none were caused by SARS-CoV-2
• Whatever portion is genuine (i.e., not fabricated or manipulated) was caused by the actions taken in the name of or disguised as a response. None was due to SARS-CoV-2.

It’s hard to say where the public would land on this range of views if asked directly — or which stance dominates among dissenting doctors, scientists, and public figures. But the differences aren’t trivial. Each view reflects a deeper belief about whether future pandemics are inevitable and “worth” planning for.

Almost every position across the spectrum, no matter how critical, accepts an unproven premise: that something real and dangerous appeared, spread, and warranted a response. The only debate is how well the response was “handled” because we need to “do better” next time.

But if no spreading threat was ever demonstrated, and no causal link between a virus and a disease ever established, then it wasn’t a botched reaction. It was a manufactured crisis.

In our view, any argument that sidesteps the fallacy of spread leaves the perpetrators’ tools untouched. The machinery remains, ready to be used again. Same script, new “pathogen.” Repudiating “lockdowns” is important, yet not enough — which remains a line most dissidents still won’t cross.

---

1. Examples: Senger, M. (2022, October 5). “An estimated 30,000 Americans were killed by ventilators & iatrogenesis in April 2020.” Michael P. Senger. https://www.michaelpsenger.com/p/an-estimated-30000-americans-were | Hockett, J. (2022, October 10). “April was the cruelest month.” Brownstone Institute. https://brownstone.org/articles/april-was-the-cruelest-month/ | Fenton, N., & Neil, M. (2023, February 18). “The deadly initial spring 2020 wave: The iatrogenesis hypothesis..” Where Are the Numbers?. https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-deadly-initial-spring-2020-covid ↩︎
2. Quinn, G. A., Connolly, R., ÓhAiseadha, C., Hynds, P., Bagus, P., Brown, R. B., Cáceres, C. F., Craig, C., Connolly, M., Domingo, J. L., Fenton, N., Frijters, P., Hatfill, S., Heymans, R., Joffe, A. R., Jones, R., Lauc, G., Lawrie, T., Malone, R. W., Mordue, A., Mushet, G., O’Connor, A., Orient, J., Peña-Ramos, J. A., Risch, H. A., Rose, J., Sánchez-Bayón, A., Savaris, R. F., Schippers, M. C., Simandan, D., Sikora, K., Soon, W., Shir-Raz, Y., Spandidos, D. A., Spira, B., Tsatsakis, A. M., & Walach, H. (2025). “What lessons can be learned from the management of the COVID-19 pandemic?” International Journal of Public Health, 70, Article 1607727. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2025.1607727 ↩︎
3. Alternative: “the entity named SARS-CoV-2” ↩︎

False Binaries that ‘Limit the Spectrum of Acceptable Opinion’ in the COVID-19 Debate and Perpetuate Lies Told by The Powers That Be (Part 1)

False Binaries that ‘Limit the Spectrum of Acceptable Opinion” in the COVID-19 Debate and Perpetuate Lies Told by The Powers That Be (Part 2)

Jay Bhattacharya’s ongoing protection of the untouchable core claim that keeps COVID-19 debates within ‘acceptable’ limits