Wood House 76

Simon Wood and colleagues land an analysis in a respected journal and a mention in mainstream media

My energy level isn’t high enough to write a super formal reaction to new work by University of Edinburgh’s Dr. Simon Wood and colleagues that has declared what many said years ago and have said since: Whatever SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 are or aren’t, extrapolations from official data show that “it” was already out there and declining by the time WHO declared a pandemic and measures were taken in “response”.

I left a comment on The Telegraph‘s coverage:

This might be news to Dr Wood and colleagues, but some U.S. analysts were saying exactly this as early as April 2020. 

Even researchers from metro-area Northwell Health system (New York City, “ground zero” for an unsubstantiated mass casualty event of epic proportions in spring 2020) acknowledged years ago, “Our [testing] data reveal that SARS-CoV-2 incidence emerged rapidly and almost simultaneously across a broad demographic population in the region. These findings support the premise that SARS-CoV-2 infection was widely distributed prior to virus testing availability.” https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/12/3204/5868956

Viral genomic sequencing and antibody studies similarly concluded that the entity named SARS- CoV-2 was already prevalent in early February 2020, if not much sooner. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.266676.120 | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7372255/

Whatever one believes about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, there was no impact on mortality until “responses” involving shutting out third-party witnesses from hospitals and care homes and launching mass testing, with deadly protocols attached to positive results, were deployed.

As fellow American John Khademi explained very well in a April 2020 video, the deployment of a new test creates the illusion of “spread” very easily — and “COVID” was not the first time the conjuring trick was pulled off. The same was done with SARS and H1N1.

To those who say “It would’ve been a bad flu season,” I say, “Unless data fraud has been committed, there’s no evidence it was or would have been a bad flu season on the mortality end of things.”

Where was Covid in New York City prior to “15 Days to Slow the Spread”? Not in any kind of death data I’ve reviewed.

Where was Covid?

Pushback aside, I do appreciate and applaud that Dr. Wood has been able to publish the findings in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A. The COVID Era performance of academic journals and professional organizations was abysmal, but it’s unrealistic and unhelpful to desire their annihilation. In time, the Overton Window will shift, more scientists will muster the necessary courage to confront their prior assumptions, and something closer to the truth will be disclosed.

Until then, and unless something emerges to compel me to change my mind, I maintain that no “reaction” of any kind whatsoever was needed and what we saw wasn’t truly a “reaction” but a planned, proactive Human Rights Heist.^{1 2}

The best evidence — and the lack of certain evidence — points away from there having been a novel, disease-causing, risk-additive SARS-related virus suddenly spreading from person to person or circulating widely in the air, whether from Wuhan or anyplace else. A lab leak paper The Telegraph published last summer that appears aligned with the Trump administration’s view is riddled with holes yet to be addressed, let alone sewn shut.

So, in one sense, the “new” findings out of the University of Edinburgh protect the underlying falsehoods rather than threaten them and pose no real, imminent risk to the Official Narrative or to the pandemic preparedness industry. It seems unlikely that a major UK newspaper, even one that leans conservative, would be promoting the ideas if they truly challenged the foundations which sustain decades of falsehoods about disease spread, viral transmission, and vaccines. Arguments to Do Less Next Time or Do More Next Time both operate within the same basic framework of false binaries and, ultimately, validate The COVID Time.

Still, another win for Permitted Dissent against the Official Narrative is better than a loss. For that, I respect Dr. Wood and his team’s accomplishment.

---

1. See also here, including the comments of Katherine Watt https://woodhouse76.com/2025/06/07/yes-the-origins-of-the-virus-matter-and-are-inextricably-linked-to-the-origins-of-the-response/ ↩︎
2. David Booth wrote a nice overview of various views on motive in “Covid-19 as a structural deep event: Cutting to the chase on perpetrators and motives”. | What I’ve said about motive is here: https://woodhouse76.com/2025/02/13/motive-for-pandemic-casualty-event-101/ ↩︎

The Nature Journal(ism) Experiment: A coordinated response that’s hard to cheer