Jessica Hockett, PhD
This post preserves an exchange with David A. Hughes from 17 and 21 September 2026, written in the comments for his article “On Neil Ferguson and Government-sponsored Modelling: When Academic Epidemiology is Corrupted for Political Ends” (15 May 2026). It was first posted to Wood House 76 on 22 October 2026 and will revert to the September date to match the original exchange. Links embedded in my responses were not in the original posts; I’ve added them for reader reference.
Jessica Hockett:
Hi David. I won’t litter your comment board with links, but I want to push back gently on the point about how “bad” the modeling was, because I think it unwittingly sidesteps just how planned and successful the launch of the COVID event truly was.
The daily all-cause mortality curves of New York City, Bergamo, London – and the COVID-attributed death curve of England as a whole – in particular look very much like the Imperial models. This is one reason why I and a few others have contended the curves were data-engineered.
Also, I haven’t published directly about this yet with respect to the UK, but it is the launch of “pillar 1” mass testing around 12 March 2020 that (per official data) that coincides with the mortality event in London. I know others (e.g., Martin Neil) have written about the UK’s “volte face” which you hint at as well.
From my perspective, the volte face was theatrical and part of the master script, but it’s more than possible that certain players were told in that short time frame that testing of in-hospital patients (and corresponding deaths engendered by democidal protocols) meant the virus had “arrived” and was “spreading” to create an emergency.
David Hughes:
Hi Jessica,
Thank you very much for these observations.
So, the idea is that democidal protocols were used to convince people that a “deadly virus” had arrived, and the curves were engineered to fit the resultant deaths?
Very sinister if true…
Hockett:
You’re welcome. Thanks for replying.
It wasn’t the democidal “treatment”/non-treatment/mal-treatment protocols alone; it was the test and what staff were directed to do in response to the test result. In the UK, at least in London, per Whitty and per the relevant dataset, Pillar 1 testing (hospital based) launched with gusto on/just after 12 March 2020.
Without the test, there could be no “signal” sent to doctors and nurses regarding the feigned/staged arrived of a “novel” spreading thing. They had to believe that something new and causative of a unique & potentially deadly illness was spreading from person-to-person or in the air. Government: “Attention, frontline workers: When you see this result, coupled with this laundry list of symptoms – or even no symptoms at all – do/don’t do x, y, z…”
There are people on the edge of life in hospitals at all times. You could have a minimal number of new admissions (whom you’re also mistreating) and still generate excess for a brief period with the people who are ALREADY in-hospital. (Described here: https://woodhouse76.com/2024/03/30/the-allegory-of-the-damaged-ship/)
Yes re: the curves, to a point, but it depends what you mean by engineered to fit the deaths. My contention is that the DAILY ALL-CAUSE death curves, at least in certain places, are distorted in magnitude, timing, or both. The number of people who are claimed to have died on each day, in the settings claimed, is false. [1]
This is different from contending that the number and trajectory of COVID daily deaths is engineered/falsified, which is something that Thomas Verduyn of PANDA has written about [2], as have Martin Neil, Norman Fenton, & Scott MacLachlan [3].
I necessarily agree with the thrust of what they’re saying because I reject COVID-19 (U07.1) as being a valid, unique illness or cause of death that came on the scene in 2019/2020. But it’s different from contending the ACM curves are not trustworthy and in need of substantiation. [4, 5, 6]
Because I left and removed my work from X and Substack and don’t actively monitor a lot of players in the COVID dissident scene the way I used to, I’m not sure if anyone besides me is actively making the ACM fraud claim. (Rancourt rejects it and his team did not respond to an email query about data used in their June 2025 study that I sent a few different ways last month.)
Providing other references related to what I’ve said above…no pressure to read or read now, necessarily.
Definitional piece
[1] https://woodhouse76.com/2024/04/15/the-f-word/
COVID death curve fabrication/distortion:
[2] https://pandauncut.substack.com/p/the-dashboard-that-ruled-the-world
[3] https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/exaggerated-estimates-from-epidemiological
Visual comp to Imperial:
[4] https://woodhouse76.com/2025/05/06/is-the-bergamo-2020-death-curve-more-modeled-than-measured/
Stochasticity argument:
Too “good” to be true:
[I have now littered your board with links, but it is in the service of supporting what I am saying.] 🙂
###
Leave a Reply