Northern Italy, the Burnt-out Forest, and Where New Yorkers died
What Happened in New York? - Part 4
This is the 4th post on the March 25, 2024 session of the IPAK-EDU Director’s Science Webinar featuring the work of Jessica Hockett and Jonathan Engler.
You can find Part 1 here. Part 2 is here, Part 3 is here and Part 5 follows here.
Check the Short Cuts section on the home page for the full clip archive.
Crime scenes are complex puzzles.
Aside from the data and evidence, there are all too often cultural and political forces at play—and social pressures—to say nothing of individual preconceptions one may bring along as baggage when attempting to make sense out of information.
Any reading, of course, is contingent on whether or not one perceives that a crime has indeed been committed.
Navigating this web of influences is the challenge for critical thinkers. To a degree, we may all need to channel our inner Columbo or Sherlock Holmes.
In The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, the detective says to Watson:
“Let me run over the principal steps. We approached the case, you remember, with an absolutely blank mind, which is always an advantage. We had formed no theories. We were simply there to observe and to draw inferences from our observations.”
What does the data from the spring of 2020 in NYC look like?
How does the spring of 2020 in NYC compare with Northern Italy, another early hot spot? What about other US cities?
Where did New Yorkers die?
Does the data match the official narrative, or something else?
Here are three more shorts from the webinar.
In this clip, Jonathan digs into the UK data and Northern Italy.
Jonathan explains the Burnt-out Forest analogy.
Jessica digs into where New Yorkers died, and what this might mean.
The recurring questions:
What actually happened in New York City in the Spring of 2020?
Does the available data support or contradict the narrative?
How do we know (or think we know) what we know?
What kind of evidence is available and what still remains elusive and undisclosed?
Paid subscribers to Twisting Strands will get access to a growing catalog of video shorts for an easy-to-watch, deeper perspective. Consider upgrading your subscription—you’ll be glad you did.
Information wants to be free—and over 90% of the content here is accessible to anyone. But everything takes care and time. If you like what you see, and you’re willing and able, consider leaving a tip. Every a little bit helps. Thank you!
Subscribers to the IPAK-EDU Director’s Science Webinar get full access to webinar recordings, including this 2.5+ hour session with Jessica Hockett and Jonathan Engler.
Your support of the webinar and IPAK-EDU makes this possible!
Check out Jessica and Jonathan on Substack, and their work with PANDA.
https://sanityunleashed.substack.com/p/its-all-in-the-timeline
“ The people who believe that a novel virus emerged from somewhere (whether it be Wuhan or elsewhere) and spread round the world causing a novel illness, detected by tests, whether they be PCR, serology or RATs) seem to be roughly divided into 2 groups:
There are what I would term the “original pandemicists”1. These people believe in the power of science to save us from the ever-increasing threat of pandemics, and believe that the timeline above really happened as they say it happened. I am not sure anyone can say anything to help them really.
But then there are the “covid dissident novel virus believers”2 with whom I actually share many views, apart from in relation to whether there was a novel virus causing a novel disease.
To the people in the second category, I would like to ask:
In light of the evidence of spread of the pathogen you call SARS-CoV-2 for months before the Chinese claim to have found the first cluster of cases, do you believe the timeline above?
If they answered yes, I would think this person belongs in the original pandemicist category. But actually most people rationalise the paradox with something like:
“Yes I believe that is roughly what happened, though perhaps not on the dates claimed”.
When pressed further, the clarification received is usually something like:
“it was part of a cover up for the lab leak which they became aware of months before”.
To which I would ask:
So your theory is that they discovered there'd been a lab leak of a dangerous virus with pandemic potential at some point earlier in 2019, and at that time they formulated a plan to lay an evidentiary trail with a specific timeline which would support an emergence of the novel virus at the end of 2019?
Given that there is no contemporaneous3 evidence available anywhere of any unusual illness being reported anywhere prior to late Dec 2019 (and even that wasn't really that unusual), how did they know all those months before - and before they even had a “test4” - that they needed to lay that trail of evidence?”