Jessica Hockett, PhD
On 21 August 2026, I wrote to Dr Wilson Sy regarding his study Excess Deaths in the United Kingdom: Midazolam and Euthanasia in the COVID-19 Pandemic. That email can be found in No, London Did NOT ‘Really See a 200% Death Increase in April 2020’.
Dr. Sy replied on 11 October 2026. I am publishing my response, which includes further analysis and supporting graphs. (Redactions have been applied to two sentences that allude to personal details.)
My response focuses on what the datasets he evaluated can establish: whether a fixed one-month shift is justified, what community prescribing figures can tell us about drugs actually administered (especially to hospital inpatients), and whether the timing of London’s mortality rise supports his proposed explanation.
The comparisons I provided show deaths by occurrence and Midazolam prescribing peaking in the same month without a shift, with the relationship weakening over the longer series. These are substantive questions about measurement, chronology, and inference.
The disagreement here is not over whether drugs and medical directives caused death. I have continuously and vociferously argued in support of the iatrogenesis hypothesis since late 2022. My contention is that Sy’s analysis does not establish the relationship claimed.
Given the legitimate ongoing focus on the impact of NG163 and NG165, it bears repeating: official data show that London’s reported mass-casualty event was nearly at its peak when the guidelines were issued on 3 April 2020 — and “over” by the time the BMJ received this important letter. That chronology raises the possibility that the guidelines themselves provided cover for what was already happening in London.
12 October 2026
Dear Dr. Sy,
Thank you for responding. [Redacted sentence]
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the poor quality of COVID-19 data and the planned nature of the event. I documented the vaccination-data definition games you mentioned as they unfolded in Chicago.* The extent of government deception and coercion was deplorable. To my knowledge, no officials in any country have been held to account.
I have several remaining questions about the paper and your explanation of the one-month lag. I understand that [redacted], time, or interest may limit your further engagement, and offer this response as a record of my own thinking, with no expectation of a reply.
1. What justifies the one-month shift?
You wrote: “Even ONS mortality data have limited accuracy. For example, monthly data have inherent inaccuracy of up to one month. In the Midazolam paper, the pharmaceutical data had first of the month as the record data, whereas the ONS data had the end of the month as the record data. The automatically introduced a one-month time gap in the two dataset. This may have introduced discrepancies of up to one month. Sorry, the data were not collected better.”
I appreciate the clarification, as I don’t see this explanation in the paper, but I am still confused.
Both datasets cover calendar months, but the ONS mortality figures are based on registration, not occurrence. Assigning the first or last day of a month to a dataset doesn’t establish when the underlying events occurred. Deaths registered in April could have occurred in April, March, or earlier. Registration delays vary and aren’t limited to one month.
How do these differences justify a fixed one-month shift? Am I missing something?
2. What can community prescribing figures tell us about drugs administered, particularly in hospitals?
The English Prescribing Dataset excludes hospital inpatient prescribing and doesn’t establish whether, when, or where injectable Midazolam was actually administered. I don’t see these limitations acknowledged in the paper, and some figures are labeled “Midazolam injections,” which could simply be a terminology error or difference – albeit one that goes beyond what the dataset permits.
My investigative interest with respect to the UK is in London in particular. To date, I haven’t been able to find a data source that reports drug use with hospital inpatients in London.
London’s mortality increase was already well underway in March, particularly in hospitals:
- Week ending 6 March: 453 hospital deaths
- Week ending 20 March: 700
- Week ending 27 March: 1,109
- Week ending 3 April: 1,626
Hospital deaths had more than doubled by 27 March, a week before NG163 was issued.
I’ve attached a daily London mortality graph and a weekly place-of-death graph, both marking 3 April 2020, when NICE issued guideline NG163, for your reference. It’s difficult for me to reconcile the trajectory of deaths with the timing of the guideline (and with NG165, which was issued the same day) such that I would be able to say the guidelines themselves were a primary driver of excess death.
I have wondered whether NG163 and NG165 may have served to divert attention from or provide cover for protocols already underway in hospitals and with ambulance services such as sedation for mechanical ventilation or the medically unjustified hastening of deaths under directives associated with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, blanket DNRs, and withholding full life-saving measures from patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Mortality and community-prescribing data alone cannot address that theory, of course, and I’m aware that your paper identifies and cites many disturbing practices that contributed to death during spring 2020 and thereafter.
3. What conclusions can the prescribing and mortality data reasonably support?
Please also find attached London graphs showing:
- Monthly deaths by occurrence and Midazolam prescribing (2019–2021): Both rose in March 2020 and peaked in April, without a one-month shift.
- Longer series (2017–2024) and 12-month rolling correlations: The relationship was weakly negative or approximately zero in late 2019, became strongly positive around the spring 2020 mortality spike, and weakened thereafter, as deaths declined but prescribing remained elevated.
These patterns raise questions about decisions made before, not just during, spring 2020 that may have affected prescribing practices and the timing or reporting of deaths.
I have theorized elsewhere that mortality in late 2019 in certain places may have been higher than official data show, and that some deaths in spring 2020 may have been digitally “brought forward”. If so, the mortality curves themselves, and correlations derived from them, warrant closer scrutiny.
You wrote, “The main point is not to allow minor discrepancies to distract from significant results – results which have significance regardless of the possible errors. The significant result is that Britain had helped many Britons to end their lives during the early days of COVID.”
I share your concerns about how drugs and medical directives were used to hasten deaths. But I don’t regard the issues I’ve raised as minor discrepancies, because they concern what the datasets measure, whether official figures and various narratives are credible and can be substantiated, and what conclusions they support.
To be clear, I am not disputing that the use of Midazolam and other drugs across healthcare settings and situations expedited deaths — and caused deaths that would not have occurred at all. My own position goes even further than yours:
There was no new disease in 2020, all deaths labeled COVID-19 are fraudulent, and government-activated/issued directives intentionally killed many Britons in early 2020 and for years thereafter.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond and consider my questions. I offer them in the service of understanding and documenting what happened. I welcome your response, especially with respect to the one-month time-shift, but understand if you prefer to leave the exchange here.
All the best,
Jessica Hockett
*Link added for public posting
Graphs appended to email in PDF
Leave a Reply