Letter and comments

Jessica Hockett, PhD

Below is a letter sent to dtletters@telegraph.co.uk and Daniel Bates regarding Mr. Bates’ recent article “Fauci did not believe Covid originated from Wuhan market,” followed by one comment and a PDF of other comments I made on the article itself.

---

29 July 2026

Dear Editor and Mr. Bates,

I am writing in relation to “Fauci did not believe Covid originated from Wuhan market, his diaries reveal” (27 July 2026). The article accurately quotes Dr. Fauci but draws an unwarranted conclusion.

Mr. Bates claims that Fauci’s private notes conflict with “the narrative he helped advance to the public.” A plain reading of the cited passages in context shows no such conflict.

In his 26 January 2020 diary entry, Fauci wrote that the “first infection” appeared to have occurred in early December and was not connected to the Wuhan market. He described the market not as “the source” but as “the amplifier.” Yet he concluded the same entry: “Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans.”

Fauci was therefore endorsing both a zoonotic event and subsequent human-to-human “spread”. His entry does not exclude the possibility that cases resulted from exposure at the market, nor does it imply that he suspected a laboratory was involved.

At the 17 April 2020 White House press conference, a reporter asked about suggestions that the virus was manmade and might have come from a Chinese laboratory. In responding, Fauci referred to a study – later identified in his testimony before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic as Andersen et al.’s “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” – and said its analysis of viral sequences was “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

Again, Fauci was endorsing zoonosis. He did not say that the Wuhan market was the site of that event, nor did he expressly say that laboratory escape was impossible or explain why an animal-to-human jump would necessarily exclude laboratory involvement.

Mr. Bates appears to conflate a proposed mechanism with a proposed location, scene, or situation. Zoonosis is a theoretical cross-species transmission event; the Wuhan market is a proposed setting in which exposure or an illness-producing encounter occurred. A zoonotic event need not have occurred at, or had any connection to, the market.

The January diary entry and April press-conference remarks are therefore entirely compatible: the market was not necessarily the source, while Fauci believed that an animal-to-human jump had occurred somewhere. Whether the evidence available at the time – or since – actually supports those claims, or any claim involving the sudden emergence and spread of a risk-additive novel coronavirus from Wuhan, is a separate and, in my view, more important question.

Finally, Mr. Bates errs in writing that 26 January 2020 was “nearly two months” before the World Health Organization characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic on 11 March 2020. The interval was 45 days: approximately six weeks, not nearly two months.

I would appreciate confirmation that you have received this letter.

Regards,

Jessica Hockett, PhD
Telegraph Subscriber

---

Text (link and *note added):

Anthony Fauci is a very bad man who deserves jail time for many reasons. The lies he told about a new disease, and the shot to go with it, should carry criminal consequences. The problem is that he was far from the only one who told them.

But why does it matter what he or anyone else believed about its origin?* (FYI: Fauci feared GoF research and was something of a worrywart about it, according to statements Sunetra Gupta made during a panel at Stanford in October 2024.)

The purported “existence” & potential source of novel-to-classification materials labeled SARS-CoV-2, allegedly detectable through “testing,” are not critical to the foundational claim made by the WHO and member nations that support the PHEIC & the notion of pandemics.

Remember: The foundational claim was that materials classified as a SARS-related coronavirus and labeled SARS-CoV-2 were the sole cause of what was initially called a “mystery pneumonia” and then branded, with the pseudo-acronym COVID-19, as a “disease” whose symptoms extended far beyond pneumonia and were anything but unique…and that these materials spread between humans and/or through the air.

Diaries, emails, and endless rounds of limited hangouts conducted via Sen Paul protect many lies that continue to be supported by the Flu-Racket countries in particular.

“They covered up the possibility that ‘it’ could have leaked from a lab!!” is, to date, one of the most successful Controlled Opposition PSY-OPs in contemporary history, in part because it encourages people to believe that something would have been different had open, free-form “scientific debate” about origin been permitted from Jan 2020 onward. 

But the horse had already left the barn with the assertions of cause & spread, which were never proven and simply accepted.

PDF of selected comments in thread

---

29 July 2026

*Here, with “origin,” I meant “source”. (See table in this article).

I’ve argued repeatedly that the Origin(s) of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, and what is believed, asserted, demonstrated, or not demonstrated about them, matter very much.

But an undue focus on what any individual or group thought, or pretended to think, about the source and characteristics of materials labeled SARS-CoV-2 has suppressed more foundational questions about, plot holes in, and timeline issues with the “traveling virus from afar” storyline(s).

Attention to controversies over source location, in particular, has functioned as an intentional and effective distraction and firewall, diverting attention from — and preventing public scrutiny of — the fact that no evidence yet presented provides solid support for any claim that a detectable, novel, stable, disease-causative (as a sole cause), death-causative, or transmissible substance or thing was present at any location at any time, or was moving from living thing to living thing in discrete, disease-causative “packages of information” at any time.

Whatever else this and other government-sanctioned document releases may “reveal” (or be construed to “reveal”), the contradiction Daniel Bates is trying to show simply isn’t there. In January and April 2020, Anthony Fauci was saying the same thing: that the virus had jumped from an animal to a human, whether or not that happened at the Wuhan market.

Notes from a narcissistic federal official who was well aware that he was on the record should be read cautiously and carefully, with this question in mind: Why is this what he — and others — want us to see and hear?

---

The Pre-Emptively Pardoned Anthony Fauci Did Not Help Create a Pandemic

Rand Paul Was NOT “Very Resistant” to Mandates from “the Very, Very Beginning”

Origins: Topical