Wood House 76

Jessica Hockett, PhD

Terminology for discussing and studying COVID-19 as an event will continue to develop as we move further away from the acts and episodes that marked its “beginning” in the public mind. Some of the language and ideas introduced through social media, interviews, presentations, and publications will prove more useful and durable than others.

Here I document how I encountered and came to use the term constructed event to describe “the COVID-19 pandemic,” present a working definition, and explain how it overlaps with and differs from several other concepts that I and others have used.

For purposes of this discussion, COVID event refers to the collection of claims, declarations, classifications, testing and data practices, institutional actions, media presentations, public performances, and consequences associated with the materials named SARS-CoV-2 and with the disease called COVID-19, which those materials allegedly cause.

Staged versus Constructed

Since 2023, I’ve described the COVID-19 event and specific episodes related to it as staged. I first used the word when I wrote in June 2023 that “the disappearance of flu could have been staged.” Soon thereafter, in connection with geographically implausible patterns of COVID-attributed deaths, I said, “Staged events & iatrogenic deaths are criminal.” 

The following month, during a discussion about the New York City death spike and conspiracy theories, I said, “I think it was staged. I think we had staged sudden spread of a novel deadly coronavirus,” and pointed to reasons involving what time-series data revealed. On Twitter/X and in articles, I referred to certain elevated doctors and nurses as ostensible whistleblowers and suggested that scenes where they appeared (or were placed into) may have also been staged.

These and other ideas later converged in New York City Spring 2020: An unsubstantiated mass casualty event that appears fraudulent and staged, in which I defined staged broadly to mean “set up or presented in the moment or ex post facto to look like something other than what it actually is or was”.

David Booth similarly described the “so-called Covid-19 pandemic” as a “staged event” in his September 2025 paper, Covid-19 as a structural deep event: Cutting to the chase on perpetrators and motives.¹ Booth didn’t explicitly define staged but applied the term both to the COVID-19 event as a whole and to particular incidents, such as the Bergamo military truck parade. 

Although staged captures my perspective accurately, and I have no intention of abandoning the word, I recognize the public may equate it with “faked” or with a literal “show” prepared and performed by thespians. 

Many elements of COVID were (and still are) entirely feigned or fabricated or are otherwise best understood as medical or political stagecraft. But viewing the event as a fully scripted production carried out by people who all understand the roles they have played obscures the operational complexity and understates how much remains unknown. 

Describing COVID as a constructed event permits viewing what was observed — and, critically, what should have been observed but was not — as part of a larger arrangement in which activated plans, strategic and opportunistic staging, and organic developments came together.

The term also builds on language I have used, both independently and with coauthors, to characterize particular elements of the event. Examples include

• describing the primary reference sequence for SARS-CoV-2 as “constructed”;
• saying SARS-CoV-2 “appears to be a constructed entity assembled from something already ‘out there,’ in humans, or otherwise detectable”;
• comparing genomic sequencing with photographic upscaling as processes that use prior patterns and models to “fill gaps” and produce “a reconstruction — an inference presented as truth”; and
• repeatedly asserting that the New York and Bergamo mortality curves may have been manipulated, engineered, or “retrospectively constructed.”

I first heard constructed applied to COVID as an event in a March 2026 interview with Dr. Piers Robinson, research director for the International Center for 9/11 Justice.² The relevant segments follow [emphasis and linked content added]:

@43:36 – Jeremiah Hosea (host): If you could give us some thoughts about COVID as a propaganda event. It seems to me like there’s some very clear parallels between 9/11 and then, fast forward just about two decades, a little more than two decades, and then it’s the COVID event. And it seems like a major goal of the 9/11 event was to create the homeland security industry, and then it seems that COVID was then used to create the biosecurity state. What are some of your thoughts about COVID as a propaganda event, Dr. Robinson?

Piers Robinson: Well, I think that there are very clear parallels. My co-editor Kevin Ryan, who’s himself a 9/11 whistleblower, he’s been in the 9/11 truth movement for a long time, but we wrote a paper a year and a half ago called “A Plausibility Probe of COVID-19 and 9/11 as Structural Deep Events.”  And so we were picking up on Professor Peter Dale Scott’s concept of Structural Deep Events, these events which are nefarious, carried out by deep state actors, and used in order to mobilize publics in particular directions and get them to do particular things.

And, you know, as we discussed before, 9/11 as a structural deep event, that’s about getting people to support wars in the international system. And with COVID-19, I think it’s very similar. It’s also a structural deep event. It shares similar features. You have a situation where an event occurs, it is then subject to propaganda. 

[…]

And so in the same way that 9/11 was used in order to justify these wars against various countries in the international system, I’d argue now, based on the work that I did with Kevin, but also the work other people such as Jessica Hockett are doing on COVID-19, is that the event is actually starting to look almost completely, as it were, constructed. Yeah. That the idea of a novel dangerous virus actually being in circulation is very weak. The evidence for that is almost non-existent.

You don’t have any kind of indications in the autumn of 2019 of death rates going up, for example. You have no evidence of a dangerous virus starting to spread. What you do have is that, come January, you have a declaration that there is a novel virus, and then you have the PCR test which was rushed through in mid-January, and after that you then have these kind of figures being thrown around that we have this pandemic, and then you have the lockdowns following that. But prior to that you don’t have what you’d expect to see, which is people starting to die from this virus.

Everything was back to front, so to speak. So the entire event, I think, evidence-wise, is starting to look as though it’s constructed. It’s not simply, for example, elites taking advantage of a real dangerous virus. It was elites actually constructing and exaggerating fear around this virus in order to push forward, as you said, the political agenda, trying to push forward the biosecurity agenda and the biosecurity state, and all of the ways in which that enables elite groups to get much more control over their population.

Robinson didn’t articulate a formal definition of constructed event but identified several features that he regards as signs that a pandemic involving a deadly virus did not occur:

• little or no evidence of the claimed threat before its official announcement;
• reliance on testing, statistics, and propaganda to establish its apparent reality;
• the production or exaggeration of public fear; and
• the use of that fear to advance political objectives.

Robinson also distinguished a constructed event from a more genuine occurrence that elites and other parties leverage to their advantage.

Constructed suggests something intentionally “put together” or “built,” rather than something that arose merely in reaction to — in the case of COVID — a declared, independently occurring biological phenomenon.³ Describing COVID as a constructed event therefore helps shift the main emphasis from viewing it primarily as the onset of an epidemiological phenomenon that triggered a political reaction to scrutinizing what occurred as a proactive, well-executed sociopolitical operation — or as an ongoing campaign conducted in phases and across various theaters. This shift doesn’t preclude close examination of evidence from science and medicine; rather, it broadens the kinds of evidence that should be reviewed.

Another advantage of constructed event is that the term accommodates differing views about how, and to what extent, an event was assembled. It’s less inflammatory than “plandemic,” which could be taken to mean that every aspect was conceived in advance and carried out according to a single design.

Calling an event constructed doesn’t necessarily mean that every participant acted knowingly or that every record, activity, illness, injury, or death was fabricated or fraudulent. It can mean that the public-facing event and its assigned causes were built from selected, generated, arranged, performed, or distorted components. An analyst may conclude that authorities exploited one or more real occurrences, instigated important components, or both – and did so at various times and for myriad reasons. 

Constructed Event: A Working Definition

Building on Robinson’s characterization, Katherine Watt and I used constructed event in How Easy and Legal It Is for Governments to Fake or Construct Outbreak and Pandemic Events to encompass events in which real occurrences and consequences are selected, organized, and presented. There, we distinguished the term from related concepts and offered the following working definition:

A constructed event is an event that occurs (i.e., things take place in physical reality), but whose publicly-assigned cause is false or misleading. Government, media, and allied institutions attribute the event to one or more agents, forces, or processes while concealing, obscuring, or protecting causes (actual, alleged, or presumed), actors, or mechanisms. The goal is immediate and ongoing compliance/conformity: to induce people to accept the official/state-sponsored explanation, support or tolerate the prescribed response, refrain from resistance, and stop asking questions. A constructed event produces a managed understanding of what happened, who or what is to blame, and what must now be done.

The construction, as we explained it, lies in the arrangement and presentation of what people see and experience, the causes officially assigned to them, and the public understanding produced and maintained by government, media, and other allied individuals and entities.  

Again, this doesn’t mean nothing actually happened or that people’s experiences were all or only “in their heads.” Individuals and groups may participate in a constructed event without understanding its larger structure or their roles therein.

As stated elsewhere in the same presentation, I hold the view that COVID-19 is a constructed event that involved staging the sudden appearance and spread of a novel, risk-additive, disease-causing pathogen from a point source, using actors,⁴ simulated activities, performances, and scripts. 

The populace was not actually experiencing something called a pandemic. We were enlisted and engaged in a pantomimed war or practice exercise against a deadly pathogen.

Real events occurred, and real people died or were harmed as a result of deliberate and directed actions taken to execute, promote, and sustain that war. But the causes of those deaths and injuries were not what authorities purported them to be, and the stated reasons for many of the actions taken were (and still are) false or misleading.

“Performance Art” and “Illusion”

Katherine Watt’s use of “performance art” is a related but more specific concept.

In a 2 November 2022 discussion with Sasha Latypova, Watt used the term in reference to manufacturers’ clinical-trial activities and the FDA’s regulatory activities, conducted in a context in which, she maintains, no physicochemical standards govern the design or manufacture of diagnostic tests or vaccines:

Sasha Latypova: How do we think about it? If they never had to produce them or produce them to quality of the clinical trial – if it’s not even a clinical trial, what do we think of them as?

Katherine Watt: I think of them as a performance art. They had to do them only insofar as they had to make people believe that real ones were happening. […] But a lot of the people I think, like at the level of Brook Jackson and down, did not know that what they were participating in was fake. They actually were getting injections. They actually were having symptoms or not having symptoms. They actually were reporting some of them to the clinical trial sites. The clinical trial sites were actually reporting some of the things that happened to the sponsors. Because they needed to maintain that part of the fraud too. (Full transcript, pp. 10-11)

Performance art describes one way in which components of a constructed event may be carried out. Institutions and participants undertake the outward forms of (for example) clinical trials, regulation, scientific review, emergency decision-making, or other official processes so that observers will believe that valid, substantive processes are occurring.

Some participants may know that the performance is false or misleading. Others may sincerely believe that they are participating in legitimate activities. Real actions and consequences can therefore occur within a performance without making the publicly-assigned meaning of the performance true.

Watt’s conception of performance art resembles the work of a magician: actions are performed and appearances conjured to direct observers toward a particular effect and interpretation.

Along similar lines, numerous writers and commentators over the past six years, including Watt and me, have repeatedly stated that COVID-19 involved casting and projecting illusions. Jon Rappoport was one early voice saying that diagnostic testing in particular – including the WHO’s anointed assay – was “creating the illusion of a pandemic”.

Acts and presentations of various kinds, many involving technologies and fear-based images and messaging, gave people the impression that a dangerous phenomenon was occurring on a scale that warranted action, even though the public had no way to independently verify claims about its “arrival” or risks.

The Place of “Constructed Event”

The terms highlighted in this article overlap, but describe different things.

• Illusion describes the appearance or perception produced.
• Staged describes particular actions or presentations used to produce or support that appearance.
• Performance art describes institutional procedures or activities carried out to create belief that genuine and valid processes are taking place.
• Constructed event describes the larger arrangement of claims, actions, data, institutions, performances, and consequences through which an official understanding is built and maintained.

These categories are not mutually exclusive. Booth’s broader use of staged, for example, overlaps with what Watt and I describe as a constructed event.

The utility and “staying power” of each one as applied to the “pandemic” launch and perpetuation will depend on what an analyst or commentator is trying to study and convey, and how successfully the term accomplishes that purpose. Constructed event needn’t replace or compete with Structural Deep Event (SDE),⁵ which is a more developed theoretical framework concerning covert or deceptive state activity, political objectives, and resulting structural changes. 

Whether or not constructed event enters academic and public discourse, the phrase offers a practical and potentially powerful way to frame what we call “COVID” and provoke discussion and analysis that extend beyond both narrowly scientific and medical explanations and the bounds of prevailing official and permitted-dissent narratives.

---

Footnotes

1. I provided feedback on a draft of Booth’s paper. ↩︎
2. I am not claiming that Robinson coined the term or was the first to apply it to COVID; his interview was simply the first instance I encountered. One earlier example of applying “construction” to events as presented by the news media is David Altheide’s Creating Fear: News and the Construction of Crisis (London and New York: Routledge, 2018). ↩︎
3. COVID is alleged to be a biological phenomenon by those who argue for a lab/research-based origin of SARS-CoV-2 and those who assert emergence via zoonosis. ↩︎
4. Institutional actors, crisis actors, political actors, military and intelligence services actors, etc. Not a single or uniform type. ↩︎
5. Or with State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD): deHaven-Smith, L. (2006). “When Political Crimes Are Inside Jobs: Detecting State Crimes Against Democracy.” Administrative Theory & Praxis, 28(3), 330–355. ↩︎

Works Linked or Referenced

• Hockett, J. (2023, June 10). “Flu, interrupted.” Wood House.
• Bock, R. (Host). (2023, 23 August). Enigma of Rapid Mortality Surge, NYC 2020 . [Video interview]. Coronavirus Conversation. YouTube. Relevant passage begins at 40:25. | Hockett, J. (2025, November 28). “On staged sudden spread, the New York event, and potential data fraud: Excerpts from discussion with Randall Bock on 24 August 2023.” Wood House 76.
• Hockett, J., Neil, M., & Engler, J. (2023, December 14). “New York COVID-19 Hospital Frontline: The Silent Witness.” Wood House 76.
• Hockett, J. (2024, December 16). “New York City Spring 2020: An unsubstantiated mass casualty event that appears fraudulent and staged.” Wood House 76.
• Booth, D. (2025, September). “Covid-19 as a Structural Deep Event: Cutting to the Chase on Perpetrators and Motives.” Journal of 9/11 Studies.
• Hockett, J., & Engler, J. (2025, January 16). “Did the Trucks of Bergamo Carry Only One Coffin Each – and Does it Really Matter?” Wood House 76. 
• Engler, J., & Hockett, J. (2025, March 12). “Novelty and immunity: Why were we so blind to the obvious?” Sanity Unleashed.
• Hockett, J. (2025, May 12). “Is there any possible way for SARS-CoV-2 and/or ‘COVID-19’ to have a ‘lab origin’?” Wood House 76.
• Engler, J., & Hockett, J., Neil, M. (2025, August 19). “Filling in the gaps: The connection between photographic upscaling, genetic sequencing, and ‘finding’ of SARS-CoV-2”. Sanity Unleashed.
• Hockett, J. (2024, April 15). “The F word.” Wood House 76.
• Hockett, J., & Engler, J. (2025, May 6). “Is the Bergamo 2020 death curve more ‘modeled’ than ‘measured’?” Wood House 76.
• Hockett, J., & Engler, J. (2024, November 24). “Yes, We Believe the Bergamo (Italy) All-Cause Death Curve is Fraudulent.” Wood House 76.
• Hockett, J. (2026, 8 February). “Absence of expected stochasticity is grounds for suspecting data fraud and demanding proof: Comparing Bergamo and New York Spring 2020 to Milan 1630 and other high-casualty curves.” Wood House 76.
• Hosea, J. (Host). (2026, 20 March). “The Bassline episode 135” [Interview with Piers Robinson]. The Bassline.
• Robinson, P., & Ryan, K. (2024, September). “A Plausibility Probe of 9/11 and COVID-19 as ‘Structural Deep Events.’”Journal of 9/11 Studies.
• Scott, P. D. (2014, April 6). “The American Deep State, Deep Events, and Off-the-Books Financing”. The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus.
• Hockett, J., & Watt, K. (2026, 18 May). “Transcript: How Easy and Legal It Is for Governments to Fake or Construct Outbreak and Pandemic Events.” Wood House 76 and Bailiwick News Archives.
• Latypova, S., & Watt, K. (2022, 2 November). “American Domestic Bioterrorism Program.” Bailiwick News Archives.
• Watt, K. (2025, 21 April). “Legal History of Biological Product Non-Regulation.” Bailiwick News Archives.
• Hockett, J. (2026, April 22). “TRANSCRIPT: Gaps between Projection and Reality in Spring 2020: New York and Beyond.” Wood House 76.
• Rappoport, J. (2020, 30 March). “Corona: Creating the Illusion of a Pandemic Through Diagnostic Tests.” NoMoreFakeNews.com.
• Corman, V., Bleicker, T., Brünink, S., Drosten, C., Landt, O., Koopmans, M., & Zambon, M. (2020, 17 January). Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR: Protocol and preliminary evaluation (Version 2). World Health Organization.
• Hockett, J., Engler, J., & Neil, M. (2025, May 28). “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).” Wood House 76.