All Episodes
Previous Next
April 25, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:04:45
Dr. Sam Bailey with Eric Coppolino, April 20, 2022
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Actually, we proceeded on the virus-no-virus assumption.
We went on the double assumption.
We did a kind of a Buddhist thing and I never excluded one or the other.
I was absolutely beyond certain that there was no validity to the virus claim.
Today, it is my privilege to be speaking with Eric Coppolino.
Eric is the host of Planet Waves FM and has been on the air for over 25 years.
There are so many strings to his bow and he's one of the most interesting people you could hope to meet.
Thanks to his previous experience investigating the Environmental Protection Agency, the CDC and the FDA, Eric was onto the COVID nonsense at a very early stage.
In fact, Eric's first reporting on scientific fraud was in 1983, when he documented the plans to resettle the nuclear waste-contaminated Love Canal neighbourhood in Niagara Falls.
I first became aware of Eric's work in early 2021, when he demonstrated aspects of the COVID PCR fraud While interviewing PCR expert Stephen Buston on his show.
We'll talk about some of the pivotal revelations from that interview today.
Eric will also be discussing a very important project he is building that will help all of us contesting the COVID narrative now and in the future.
Well, Eric, welcome to my channel.
I'm very excited to have you with me today.
It's an absolute pleasure.
But we're in completely different parts of the world at the moment.
You're in New York City.
I'm upstate New York.
I'm upstate an hour north of the city.
Tell me about what is the view like from New York at the moment?
Well, I mean, I'm looking down my little street here.
My town is like a three block city.
So it's very small.
So I'm looking down a little shopping street and I'm in my home office.
I have a company office downstairs, but I usually work up here and it's kind of cloudy and chilly spring day.
What's the mood like in New York?
Like there was a psychiatrist that was on Del Big Tree.
And he said, when did you know there was a problem?
And he said that, I knew there was a problem when leaving my house felt like entering a locked ward when I was doing my residency in psychiatry.
And I thought, yeah, that is the feeling.
A locked ward and a nurse ratchet is working everywhere, the big nurse, you know, enforcing all this insanity.
So things have settled down a little bit.
You know, I'm happy going out.
I can do my own shopping if I need to.
You know, this whole thing's been so upsetting.
And the hard part about seeing through it is that I know that other people are not, and it's not really a matter of opinion.
Eric, that leads me into the next question, which is, I'd love it if you could tell the audience a bit more about you, about your background and how you got to this point here.
Well, I've had a well-rounded journalism career but my first big story was when I was 19 and I lived in Buffalo.
I was a student and I was coming up through the ranks of a campus magazine and I read an article on the Buffalo News about the plans of the New York state government to resettle a neighborhood that had been built on a toxic and nuclear waste dump.
called Niagara Falls that should be more famous than it is, but it used to be used to be more famous than it is now.
And I thought this is worth investigating that they want to resettle this neighborhood they had just evacuated four or five years ago.
So I that was my first exposure to covering the New York State Department of Health.
And then I met Lois Gibbs, the once housewife who organized the evacuation of this neighborhood, took EPA officials hostage at the office of the Love Canal Home Owners Association, and Jimmy Carter declared an emergency.
Based on them, essentially, it was a very friendly kidnapping, but they did say, we're going to keep you here until we hear from the White House.
And now there'd be like SWAT teams all over the place and they would just shoot it full of holes.
But back then, Jimmy Carter was president and he declared an emergency at the Love Canal.
And that led to the evacuation.
And so I met Lois and knew her when I was very young, and she taught me a lot of the very basic chess moves that these government entities do.
And she's a very intense, very serious woman who'd been through everything.
You know, she'd been through, I mean, everything.
And they managed to evacuate a thousand families or so out of this Pure hell.
Wow.
I mean barrels coming up out of the ground and kids playing next to the toxic waste dump, the official – there's no border to a toxic waste dump.
So that got me started and then I – the Chernobyl incident got my attention and I knew I would be doing a career as an environmental journalist but I had no idea what that meant I guess I could have imagined it, but I really couldn't.
And then I did a lot of just kind of classical reporting jobs, municipal reporting, government reporting, and then I started covering higher education.
And in the middle of covering higher education, there was a chemical disaster on the campus I lived near that went from being like the quaint, peaceful, College, upstate college campus one day to being overrun with guys in moon suits and level A and B protection the next day.
And I didn't come up for air.
I mean, I just went, I'm just like, this is the most important thing I've ever had to had to write about.
And so I proceeded on two tracks with that.
One was I cover the campus very intently, you know, the cleanup of the campus.
And basically, I found out that I nearly shut the whole campus down.
That in effect, I did take over the someone very high up in the administration, I had Lunch with the other day, 30 years after the fact told me what was going on behind the scenes.
And then doing that, I met lawyers who are suing GE Westinghouse and Monsanto.
And they realized I was capable of accurately reporting on these issues and telling the truth, which is not easy to find journalists who don't just either get frightened, get pulled off the story or sell out.
That's normally what happens.
And they knew that I was, you know, in for the long haul, and they started releasing the discoveries, the documents they were getting in Discovery.
So I amassed a collection of like 75,000 pages of documents, which I still have, and learned the art of document collecting, and I learned how to network with document collectors, how to work with plaintiff attorneys.
I developed a real love for the litigation process in this kind of case, and I became basically an expert in civil fraud.
Not criminal fraud and I've done a number of kinds of fraud besides that including real estate fraud.
So I've done a few tours of duty and also in 1992 I got – well, I was on to the AIDS thing right away because my mom handed me the New York Times when I was like a teenager and with one of the first stories about AIDS in it.
Because our family spoke honestly about sex.
And so I read this and got interested in it.
And I'll skip – there's a lot to this.
But in summer of 1992, right before the dioxin story got fully all-consuming, I sat in the library for a month in the kind of health section of the campus library and read every paper I could find about HIV and AIDS.
Like I went through this database and I pulled them up and I copied them and I took notes and I annotated them and at the end of it, I had no answers whatsoever.
Nothing added up.
There shouldn't be whole cohorts of gay men who do all the things you're supposed to do to get AIDS who are all perfectly healthy.
And there shouldn't be HIV positive people who are perfectly healthy, and HIV negative who have AIDS, and every other possible combination that did not add up to that causes that.
And I've spent time looking into HPV, HSV, and all these other things, and again, they never have any answers.
It's all just speculative.
Oh, well, it spreads that way.
It spreads that way.
It's dormant.
It's this.
It's that.
When do you have it?
There's no answers.
But they act with total confidence, like they know exactly what they're doing, like cardiac surgeons or something like that.
So my introduction to you, obviously, Eric, was in early 2021 when you interviewed Stephen Buston.
And for me, that was just such a... I was blown away because you... I have not heard a comparable interview.
With an expert like that.
I was just, even now when I listen to it, I'm like, Eric, you're zinging him, you're all over it.
But please, can you tell, and I'd encourage people to listen to this interview, and I'll link it in the description if you haven't already listened to it.
Tell me, how did this interview come about?
How did you know to contact him and how did that story start?
So I knew about a lot of the problems with the PCR, but nobody wanted to talk about the reverse transcription process.
I couldn't get people to open up about this mystery phase where they convert this kind of crummy, fragmented RNA, magically make it into DNA, because the PCR can't find, RNA can only find DNA, so they have to go through a series of steps to Transmogrify it into something that can be found.
And so David Rasnick sent me Buston's 2017 article, Walking the Walk but Not Talking the Talk, Problems with Repeatability of RTQ-PCR.
It sounds like the most exciting thing anyone's ever read.
So I read this a few times.
Okay, so he's the guy to talk to about the RT phase, because I couldn't really get anyone to open up.
Anybody, all the people who were, couldn't get anyone to open up.
People, not people who did the retraction paper.
Maybe they didn't understand it.
Maybe they couldn't explain it.
Maybe they had a reason to not talk about it, but bust and rode about it.
So I thought this was going to be a friendly interview.
This was direct examination, not cross-examination.
It turns into cross-examination by accident, honestly, because I got bored during the interview.
Well, he was dodging.
When I listen back to the one he did with David Crowe less than a year earlier, he's much more forthright with Crowe.
So he's hemming and hawing on the RT thing because all the problems are in the RT phase.
All the false positives have their origin in, I think, all the stuff that's incorrectly converted and tagged and probed and primed and all this stuff.
is in this messy part of the of the process and I noticed he was dodging that like I couldn't get him I couldn't lead him back around to that like so so then I said well what about the retraction paper?
And he unloaded and he said, well, what a disgrace.
And then he admitted that there was a committee inside Eurosurveillance to defend this thing.
So he makes a judgmental comment.
He admits he hasn't read that part of the paper and then he admits there's this committee to defend The peer review, air quotes, peer review of this thing.
It's like, well, that's interesting.
So we end the interview and I put the thing onto a file and I send it to everybody I know.
Basically, which includes the entire Rethinking AIDS list and every, every source that I had and said, what do you think?
And the next thing I know, Kevin McKiernan has done this play by play deconstruction in a series of tweets where he's like, okay, I agree with that, but then, well, that's BS and that's BS.
And then that's more BS and that's even more BS.
And I'm glad we agree on that.
And I wanted to own up to it.
And it was suddenly, it was like, I was Twitter famous with people like Maria von Kirchhoff copied in, and all of them, like, well, I guess I've made my debut on the European virology scene.
I was just a friendly astrologer on the path of reverse transcription.
And, um, I, you know, it's happened other times in my career where I've, I do an interview and I, I really don't know exactly what the answers mean.
I know how to formulate them.
I know some of what they mean.
But then people with more knowledge hear into it much, much more than I can.
The litigants, the attorneys, the properly trained researchers and so forth.
So I learned a lot from responses to the interview.
And like I say, I wasn't really being very aggressive because I was really – I just had an honest question.
I wanted to know about the reverse transcription process.
Yeah, I mean, really, it was all about following this one because I had a gap in my knowledge like there was a hole and I knew that like, okay, what what and why aren't people saying anything about this, you know, so, but he makes all kinds of admissions, all kinds of admissions, he admits that the that the whole thing is useless, basically.
Yeah, well I think what is amazing about Buston is that he is regarded as the expert on PCR in the world.
And I think what was incredible that you did in that interview was you, I actually think it wasn't just the RTSU, I think you honed in on a lot of areas because What I was hoping to do, and we'll just see how we go for time, but is just to play little parts of the snippets of your interview.
And I just wanted to get your quick thoughts on those parts.
Right.
So, I mean, a lot of people know that the New York Times reported that 90% of these so-called PCR confirmed cases would disappear if you drop the cycle threshold down to 30.
Yeah.
And then, what the New York Times has not admitted, and I have personally tried to shake their tree a little bit, is that they admitted in 2007 that there was a 100% false positive incident at Dartmouth-Hitchcock.
Do you know that incident?
I don't know.
I have looked at the article you referenced, the Planet Waves article.
I've looked at that.
Were you surprised about Professor Buston that he wasn't aware of this incident, of the pertussis incident, and the gross failure of the PCR in this clinical application?
Whether or not he knew about it, he had a responsibility to know about it.
It was a matter of total public record.
It was in the New York Times, it was in MMWR, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which warns, absolutely outright warns, that the PCR cannot be used as the sole diagnostic method and that it does not, We're going to have problems if we do this.
They come right out and say it.
All the people quoted by Gina Collada in her article in The Times say the same thing.
They're all saying the same thing.
And they make excuses for what would happen to Dartmouth homebrew test, still a problem in 2020.
But Bustin had – he had a professional obligation to know about that.
Anybody who writes a book that thick, anybody who writes an 800 page book about the PCR where the table of contents takes three minutes to print, is supposed to know things that are a matter of historical public record about this device used in reverse transcription setting for RNA target He's got to know about it.
That is a knew or should have known.
That is scienter.
He cannot feign ignorance on that.
He can't even claim ignorance on that.
Okay, we'll go to another part of that interview.
And I don't think, I think most people agree that just because you have positive results, you have to then relate that to the clinical symptoms or whatever to say whether this person has COVID-2, replicating SARS-CoV-2 or not.
And the only way you can really do it is by doing a second test a day later, say, or if you're lucky and the bioload is high enough, you might be able to detect using antigen tests.
But that's not being done.
Every time someone gets a PCR positive, the New York Times and everybody else is calling that a confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2, of COVID.
I don't understand what the confirmation is.
There's no split sample.
There's no retesting.
There's no symptoms.
Yeah, I guess it's a definition of confirmed.
You confirm that there is SARS-CoV-2 RNA there.
That's what I would say.
Right.
Yeah.
but they're calling it a confirmed case of infection. - Yeah. - So in 2020, I started pointing out about, in my videos about Boston's own PCR MyKey guidelines and the difference, this to me is crucial, in my videos about Boston's own PCR MyKey guidelines and the difference, this to me is crucial, about between But the latter was being completely ignored for the alleged COVID-19 cases.
It has been a PCR pandemic only.
Were you tempted to press him on this even further?
Well, reading the transcript back, I wonder why I didn't.
But I think he said what we needed him to say, which is the truth, which is that there have to be strict guidelines.
There are not strict guidelines being applied.
There's no consistency to the tests.
There's no consistency to the protocols.
Everything's being done on the fly in parking lots.
I don't even know how they're keeping these laboratories clean.
I mean when they did – I read a book called The Virus and the Vaccine about polio and when they did their double-blind tests of polio using the PCR, they were required to use laboratories that had never tested for SV40 ever previously.
They didn't want to risk even having a molecule of it floating in the air from an experiment 10 years ago.
So using brand new labs and virgin gear so they could have absolutely safe testing and they were doing all kinds of double blind.
You had to pass your negative control, your positive control, or your sample was disregarded.
I'm thinking, well, whatever the PCR may be, that's actually the way to use it.
Now, the other thing I find shocking is the 35 cycle issue.
What a joke this is.
So everyone admits that after 35 cycles, you've basically, you've got nothing.
Now Fauci, the way Fauci says it is comical.
He's saying, well, you don't have anything that's viable above 35 cycles.
Like you could catch the virus from the PCR's output.
What Buston says to David Crow is that when you get, once you get a positive at cycle 35, you've only found one molecule.
A molecule in the sample.
So what do you have after that?
Well, you have absolutely nothing.
Your absolute detection limit, which is in itself absurd, is one molecule.
Why are they doubling it 10 more times in New York to cycle 45?
There's only one reason they could possibly do that, particularly knowing about the Dartmouth-Hitchcock incident.
There is no other meekly rational explanation in our version of logic, plain simple logic, they are going for false positives.
They set up a test where they were going to get a huge number of false positives because that's all you get over CT35.
They're all false positives.
Well, yeah, even if you think that they're not, even if you're still riding the virus train, and we have a long list of people who are riding the virus train, and my friend Will Houston calls them the virus pushers against clotshots.
He's brutal.
What good is your test if it's got nothing, if there's nothing to find?
Above cycle 35.
This is a plain work of fraud.
And I'm surprised there's not lawyers all over this thing jonesing to depose these people.
Look at measles.
Measles is a killer.
Measles virus protects.
Measles vaccine protects against measles.
But there's famous litigation from Germany in 2017 that is essentially proven that this virus has never been isolated and purified.
I forget the name of the litigants, but it went to the High Constitutional Court in Germany.
Which virus?
Measles.
Yeah, of course it's been purified.
We can look at pictures of measles tomorrow.
When we correspond after this conversation, could you send me the papers showing the purification of measles?
Yeah, I'm sure you can.
Email me with all the things you want me to send your mother, I'll get them together, okay?
This is a bit of a loaded question because I've already made a video addressing the non-existence of the measles virus.
Did he provide a paper to you with the evidence of the measles virus?
He didn't, and I will write to him and ask him.
But what he did, he did answer with a document that I'll prepare a clean PDF of it for you about the clinical pre-symptomatic, that question.
I followed up on that question with him.
Right, so I didn't do it in the interview, I followed up afterward.
By the time I had an opportunity to follow up about the measles issue, McKiernan had already tweeted out, and I'm sure he was having very bad days.
And I might have ruined his whole business plan to go into the PCR testing business, which he announces during the interview that he's developing a rapid commercial assay These things are worth millions of dollars.
You retire early.
You have one of these things hit and you retire early.
And a lot of people are retiring early as a result of having made so much money on this.
Now, the other reason, and I think this is at the very heart of the reason why they're not making the distinction between pure analytical use of the PCR versus clinical use, is that there's almost no business for the analytical use.
All the business is in the diagnostic sector.
Because that's what they're doing.
I mean, there's no one doing analysis.
They don't have primers to actually do an analysis.
So it's all a bunch of diagnostic sham.
Exactly.
Yeah.
And I think on a bigger level, too, that they need a diagnostic test because ultimately they want to get rid of the doctor element.
They need to disconnect it.
So it's basically like a technician.
Then you don't even need the technician.
I've got a computer to do it for you.
Well, so the thing that really happened during so-called COVID was everything was sucked into the digital realm, right?
Harvard became Netflix, Zoom became bigger than all the airlines combined, this kind of thing.
And so this is part of the vision, it's part of the agenda 2030 and all these visions of having everything on the internet is you get rid of the doctors, you have robots doing everything, you send your sample into the lab, they tell you what disease you've got, And then you show up at the execution center.
I mean where are they going with this?
It's very frightening.
My background is in homeopathy where the doctor sits and listens to the patient talk for two hours and describe, is my asthma worth sleeping on the left or on the right?
You know, do you constipate when you think about your mom?
This kind of thing.
And so people are complicated, you know?
Anybody who's had a pet knows the cues are subtle.
You know, what mood is your cat in?
Yeah, no, I agree with you, and it's shocking, but at the same time, for me personally, I can look at it and think, this woke me up, and I'm so grateful for it, because I was completely in the matrix.
Oh, I see.
Yeah.
Well, you were doing your version of computer, you had a computer medicine business, were you doing an online?
Yeah.
In honesty, I totally believed in it, and I really did, and you know how you feel, I feel embarrassed now, I really do, but you can't, You can't change what happened.
I'm just, I'm grateful that.
But yes, you woke up, but look, there's some, I think there are some things you can do a zoom call with the doctor.
Some things.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I just, my whole, the whole medical model to me is broken, but, um, it's a, that's a whole nother discussion of what, um, what medicine should look like.
But yeah, it's, uh, anyway, I'm sorry.
There's one last clip.
So one thing I'm interested in, then I have one question about Spanish flu, but the studies showing purification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2, I have not seen anything that to me meets the standard of purification and isolation.
Everything's run through other cell lines and put into a broth and then they PCR the broth and they find their target.
And they see it, they take a picture of it.
Right, but why does every government, when public records request, including United Kingdom and the United States, say we have no clinical samples of this?
Why do they all say that, if it's not true?
I have no idea.
That's not really my area of expertise, but as far as I know,
The original samples from the first paper that was published by Wu has all the publication and all the evidence including electromicrographs and the first patient that was detected in the United States, his RNA or his viral RNA formed the basis of all RNA samples then sent out by the CDC to labs in America.
It has definitely been isolated and cultured from a patient sample on numerous occasions, including in the United States.
I don't know.
There's two definitions of isolation going around, though.
One is that you separate it from all else, and the other is you put it into a broth and you find it.
Yeah.
Well, that's not really my area of expertise.
As far as I'm concerned, I've read the papers.
That's the standard way of isolating a pathogen, so I have no problem with that.
Well, it's the current way that's used, I would say.
The idea of true purification, you separate it into centrifuge, and you know you've got only that.
And then that is the thing that is sequenced.
And then used to prime the PCR.
It does not appear that that's what's happening.
From why limited, you know, a year into this?
Well, the way the sequence was established was by taking the sample from the original patient, growing up something, and then sequencing it, and then assembling the sequence.
And what came out of that was a SARS virus, which then very closely resembled a bat SARS virus.
And obviously it was a different one.
So, well, you know, this is a standard way of doing this.
So I really don't want to comment.
I can't comment any further on that, except that to me, that's perfectly acceptable.
That's the way to do it.
Right.
Right.
Okay.
You then want to take that, whatever you isolate, and infect tissue culture.
And you can infect animals, don't you?
And they become sick.
So, yeah, I don't see a problem there.
Okay.
I mean, I'm just – this is the first – you're the first convincing person I've heard argue that side.
Mm-hmm.
You know, because nobody wants to say – you know, very few people want to say much anyway, right?
Right.
You know, so that, and if, you know, I can bring you into that discussion with this other biochemists I'm working with who are saying, well, we've got, and doctors, we've got our own earlier definition of isolation, which means separating it from everything, and all the isolation that's happened with SARS-CoV-2 has been
Okay, let me go back to the original Wu paper and have a look at it again, and I'll get back to you about that as well.
Professor Buston, get back to you about Fan Wu's paper, because this is an incredibly important paper as well.
He didn't and I can't really make heads or tails of it and it seems like a post hoc rationalization of MN908947 and they're claiming that they've built an entire genome but this seems to me to be like a theoretical construction of like you watch one inning of a baseball game and then you make up the whole game into extra innings from just one inning.
The universe is holographic but it's not that holographic and I think what's important is that That Corman and Drosten cite MN-908947 in their paper on January 23rd, and the CDC cites it all the way along in their specifications for the PCR as being the sample for the primers.
This is the one sequence that they cite.
And it is – so I'm hobbled in that I – not exactly but at least I can ask people.
But I've never studied genetics or biochemistry in any way.
So I've had to learn this all from the ground up.
But that's journalism and I'm – at least I'm willing to take two years and not two days to do it.
At this rate, it's going to be the rest of my life probably.
But I knew what was going on with that from a very good source in Italy named David Bettini.
Who was close to the Corman-Drawston retraction paper.
And so for months before that happened, I had someone I could ask any question to about how this all worked.
And so I was not getting my calls returned by the people at Sunnydale up in Toronto.
And we found Bettini because we found like a Facebook reply explaining why they didn't return calls.
Which is they didn't isolate and purify anything.
They actually had no sample.
It's all a bunch of, basically, they make up some bad soup.
And they're all, they're pretending like a child making up, you know, cartoon scenes with the cold cereal and the spoon.
I mean, it starts to seem that off the wall when you actually understand what they're doing.
It's complete speculation.
In early 2020, did you have a lot of existing contacts already?
Were you just on the pulse?
You obviously networked and found the people that could give you the good information.
How did that process work?
I had no contacts.
I have a friend who is a – she's kind of a safecracker type of researcher, Cindy Teist-Ragusa.
I have an editorial team because I run a website that was not exactly related to this topic at the moment and I had a lot of experience from my mentors in toxicology about how to go about How to go about doing things.
And so on March 3rd, I set up a discovery team and we, cause I knew it wasn't going away.
And it really, I've come to this point several times.
It was just like standing right in front of a wall that goes so high.
You can't see it.
And it was hard to get people to speak on the record.
And I, I knew enough to knew that the PCR was going to come into play.
And I just basically started making calls.
But we also – we did two things.
On March 3rd, we recorded every article we thought was significant every day and have done so every day since.
We probably take Sundays off, I think.
And then I knew that we were getting a late start on March 3rd.
So I began to commission a series of researchers to trace the timeline back.
And so we did a series of revisions to this backdated timeline, and finally in February or January of 21, I really got serious about that, and I put the screws down to everyone that I had met, everyone that I knew, and people I knew had collections, and people who were obsessing over sequence publishing dates, and really started building the
The timeline back to the beginning.
And so it proceeded on several tracks at once.
Most of the work has gone from basically documenting from October through March.
October of 19 through March of 2020.
I put most of 2021 and 2022 into those four or five months.
Wow!
But also looking further and further back, I commissioned a gain-of-function research We had to rule out a number of things.
Actually, we proceeded on the virus-no-virus assumption.
We went on the double assumption.
We did kind of a Buddhist thing, and I never excluded one or the other.
I was absolutely beyond certain that there was no validity to the virus claim at all, but proceeded on the dual hypothesis theory to make sure that I was not ever going to have any kind of confirmation bias.
And so I would have guests, you know, I had Dr. Stephanie Seneff on my program, lovely, brilliant, I mean, my kind of girl, like computer engineer, toxicologist, biologist, she's like got it all.
And when we began the interview, I said to my audience, we're going to proceed under the virus paradigm for this discussion.
Yes, yep.
And so we did that, and she kind of smiled a little bit, and it's not my job to say, hey Stephanie, you know.
We just proceeded under that theory.
But her theory starts with a roundup theory.
She's like, well, whatever's going on, I think that people are being poisoned.
So right away, I reached out to her and I began to get a series of guests.
So we track all the news articles.
We're trying to read every study.
We're talking about it constantly.
We never went to sleep.
That's what I'm suggesting here.
We never had any foregone conclusions.
And one by one, I got better guest after better guest on the program.
One led to another.
Now, I found an article I wrote on May, I think, 16th, 2020, called Is It or Isn't It, where I lay out the entire issue, all the mainstream theories, all the alternative theories.
I'm like, Wait a second.
I forgot I wrote this.
Second, I had the whole territory mapped out in six weeks, and I thought I wasn't making any progress at all.
But I never accepted any of it as a foregone conclusion.
We still gave a fair hearing to everyone.
I mean, I got two very important early leads.
One was John Rapoport's article where he provides all the documentation from the test, the emergency use authorizations and all that that says, all this thing does is find molecules, doesn't diagnose anything.
Right in the EUA, that's what it says.
A couple of days later, Celia Farber's article came out, which included an interview with Cary Mullis.
Yeah.
Obviously, he died in August of 19.
I wrote to both of them.
I didn't hear back.
But, you know, I had another breakthrough.
I mean, I get lucky.
God loves me when I do this work.
And there's always like this hand on my shoulder guiding me.
And I really wanted to meet Celia Farber.
And one of my closest friends up here used to go out with her sister.
Now they're in a band together.
They've known each other 40 years.
They were having a very she-she, eight invitees only.
Birthday party for Celia at Gerald Salenti's office.
It's exactly 64 paces from my office in that direction.
So I'm invited.
Celia sat there with me the whole night and explained everything.
Including, like, the news hadn't gotten to me exactly why the entire HIV AIDS hypothesis was completely for garbage.
And she explained it in two sentences.
Once I could focus the question and have the right person, explaining it.
So she introduces me to Raznick.
So one day, I woke up in July of 2020.
And I thought, I've got to talk to a virologist.
Now they weren't talking.
I was hearing interviews with all retired ones and pensioners and all, right?
They're the only ones who could talk.
They weren't going to have their grant pulled or their laboratory taken away.
They were working out of their kitchen or their spare bedroom.
So I'm like, You know, basic reporting.
I'm like, I went to SUNY Buffalo.
Let's call, let's look up the virology department.
So I picked the guy who looked like the oldest, grizzliest virologist, virology professor.
And I called him up and it was summer, nothing going on.
He picked up that I was a, let's say politely, vaccine skeptic, but I convinced him that I was open-minded or I wouldn't be talking to him.
So I dressed him down a little bit.
And I said, look, whatever I believe, I'm calling you to ask you what you think.
And I was not recording, but I can still take notes, typing.
And I had a two and a half hour ask me anything session.
And during this session, he explained to me what was about to come out, which was that they never had a full genomes.
They were assembling it like pages from a book, he said.
And I didn't put that together.
You know, they're so complicated.
I'm just like, still putting pieces together.
And that's the chronology.
So anyway, I talked to this guy, Melendi.
I send the notes from Melendi to Celia Farber, and she sends me Raznik's phone number.
Now you're getting into some good stuff here.
It's one step at a time.
You talk to that one and you always leave the conversation with a reference or a phone number or the next person.
Okay, who else can I talk to?
And you just don't give up.
That's it.
I think of it as the Pisces method.
You just never give up.
And I'm Sicilian, so I've got both.
I'm heavily armed with my pencil, not even a pen.
So I'm jumping around a little bit.
I'm going through these steps.
But all the while, I've got editors working on this news chronology.
Every single day, we're cataloging the news.
We've probably pulled together 2,500.
We've got a list of 2,500 articles, all still available right off of planetwaves.fm.
And so that was going on.
So we were tracking this hour by hour, day by day, trying to not go insane.
I mean, we were in over our heads too.
We don't have a budget.
Nobody's paying us for this.
We're all basically volunteers, except the people I'm paying to run the news blog, which we still have an editor who just gathers news, 10 articles a day.
for as long as we can keep going.
And so in early 21, I get really serious about the chronology and I take all my printed papers, all the scientific papers, all the articles, all the emails, all my little short interviews with Bettini, all the interesting emails that have come all my little short interviews with Bettini, all the interesting emails that have come through, all And I start to compile it into a serious chronology.
And then I'm like, that person has that.
And Bobby has all those files.
And this guy, Benjamin, has all those files.
And I turn up the heat and I'm like, send your stuff, send me your stuff in, send it in.
Let's go, let's go, let's go, chop, chop, chop.
And then I start to build it, build it, build it.
And I go for seven months doing that.
9-11-2021, we published the first version of that.
And then it was dormant for a little while.
We still continue to gather information.
And then several months ago, I went on a whole new campaign to kind of build it out, build it back, build it forward, get all the gain of function stuff in.
And now basically what I'm doing every day for like four hours is I'm just packing the grout.
I'm slowly extending it into September and October.
And that's what it is.
Now, the thing is, I know the power of the chronology.
If you, one of the problems we're having is the memory hole.
Second, the propaganda model now is total overwhelm.
The, these, all these people making public statements are contradicting themselves one They say one thing, they take it back.
Vonker Kove at WHO says, no, can't spread through normal air breathing contact.
Then the next day, she walks it back.
Fauci one day says, masks don't work.
Then the next day, he says, masks work.
They've done this 20, 30 times in this, and people are spinning.
Their heads are spinning.
Sorry, I'm just interested in this just from a psychological perspective because have you seen this before with nuclear waste dumping and did they do this sort of constantly confusing tactic of and it's almost like you can't even like 1984 you don't even know what's what's real or what you've heard before because there's so there's all these contradictions.
The internet didn't exist for a lot of those.
Yeah.
So the internet has created a whole level of disembodied chaos.
So there were other tactics with – in the days of lying about toxins, but they still use those tactics.
So they proceed on two tracks.
They make public statements in their public releases and their comments to the press and then there are the memos behind the scenes, which we're first starting to see now because they're starting to come out under FOIA requests.
And then they have what are called ringers.
They have paid scientists, so-called PhD scientists throughout the world and they get the call from the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and they snowjob people and they create the he said, she said effect.
So they're using all of those tactics.
They're using obfuscation tactics.
They're using discrediting tactics.
They use a lot of discrediting tactics, but it's never happened at this absolutely kaleidoscopic level where if I didn't have five people helping me do this, I would never have, I would have completely gone insane.
Yeah.
But we were onto it.
We were tracking it.
We, and we, we maintained the discipline of, of the no virus, virus paradigms.
I mean, even that in itself is huge.
It's huge.
Like just to keep going with these two.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Sorry.
Yeah.
It was a lot of energy.
It was a lot of energy to do this because it's like you don't know till you know which is true, but then slowly you do your work and the preponderance of the evidence tips.
I mean, I think the beauty of the chronology is all you have to do is read like any one page.
And it's like, well, this debunks the whole thing.
That one is up to 100 pages.
But the first few pages where I cover two events, I cover the Dartmouth-Hitchcock event Which is the third time they had a pattern.
They knew this thing was complete BS for RT-PCR.
And then Fauci's 2004, I believe, article where he says, well, it really wasn't the Spanish flu, H1N1 that killed people.
Really, it was bacterial copathogenesis.
Way to confuse everyone with that.
But, oh, and it's also true for 1950-whatever and 1968-69.
And he says, outright, he says, we must take this into account for future pandemics.
We cannot use viral procedures alone to diagnose this or solve our problems.
It's right there in the record.
By the second entry in the chronology, you know it's over.
They have no test and they have no pathogen theory.
How it's lasted this long, it's like Night of the Living Dead.
I don't know.
I don't know how these corpses keep coming back.
The propaganda model is really intense and none of your really good PCR people are going to say, look, as Bettini said, he said, this is a tower of shit and we're trying to knock it down.
It's just, but what you've done is unbelievable.
And I mean, you need some kind of award for what you've done, because I think putting it all together now for all of us is the most important thing to be able to, it literally is the best reference there is for going through.
Cause even my husband, Mark, he's writing quite an impressive paper at the moment, and I know he's going to be using your chronology.
That's what it's for.
That's why I've done it.
Yeah.
It's a resource.
It's become kind of an encyclopedia, and I'm quoting from sources heavily because they get deleted.
I'm downloading PDFs.
I'm doing my best to keep the document collection alive, and it'll all link back.
Eventually, I'll start to switch them over to PDFs I host on my server.
And, you know, I'm planning to keep building it.
And there's clearly several books and there's a hundred articles coming out of this.
And you can take any one of the issues that comes up.
They're constantly making admissions against interest.
By May, the whole thing is over.
And then it's over again and then it's over again.
But you can see that they are trying to keep beating it to get ready for the vaccine rollout.
They're delaying and delaying and delaying, and then they get their vaccine, and now they've got, based on one calculation, 2.6 million dead Americans from this vaccine, with the 26,000 listed at the correction factor of 100.
That's 2.6 million.
So they've got dead people.
Oh, that's COVID.
Then they invent the breakthrough case.
So it's just one long endless scam and they keep lying their way out of their lives.
And most people can't conceive of this.
That's the problem.
You have to have been to this rodeo a few times.
You have to have heard the New York State Health Department say that it's okay that your home is sitting on a toxic waste dump, but just don't go in your basement for more than one minute and 46 seconds.
You think, these people are on a completely different planet.
Yeah.
Oh, these are perfectly safe four-bedroom homes in New York for $50,000.
Just don't move here with kids.
So the thing that I had done was I had conceived of issues like this before, and I had seen the fact patterns, and I know what fraud is, which means I know that it's possible that it can happen.
What do you see, Eric, as sort of the way out of it?
Having seen, and I know maybe this is just too big, but what do you think is the exit strategy?
Because you mentioned before about Lois Gibbs, her advice, the sage advice she gave to you was people, it's basically people turning things around, is it?
What did she say to you?
You know, her existence as a house mom, right?
There was such a thing back then in the 60s and 70s.
You could be a housewife.
It wasn't an insult.
Her job was to raise children.
She didn't know scientific background, but she had hoarse sense.
She knew that people were getting sick all over her community.
There were barrels coming up out of the ground.
They knew what the thing, they figured out what the thing was.
And so she Just leads the charge, but she's just an ordinary person.
She was not an expert.
She wasn't a Ph.D.
or an M.D.
or any other kind of a D. And I understood that, and this has happened many times.
Carol VanStrom, another one of my most important mentors, she lived on a little farm in Oregon that kept getting sprayed with Agent Orange.
And her kids were getting sick and her and her husband brought a case against the Bureau of Land Management.
They work with a thing called the Journal of Pesticide Reform.
And so I learned from citizens how to do this first and then second from their lawyers How to do it.
And then I learned how to handle sources.
How do you handle the experts?
How do you handle them?
And I learned you do it gently and you be friendly and you let them unravel themselves basically.
No need for a hostile interview.
Just be nice to people and treat them as people.
Like I learned that everyone's a person.
So that's kind of the secret of my journalism is I just reach people on the human level and I'll talk to you exactly like I talk to my dad or like I would talk to Donald Trump or like I would talk to the police or anybody else.
I'm the same person all the time and there's a real power to that.
But I'm sincere in my quest.
That's the thing.
If I were motivated by money, I would be an advertising executive.
There's no money in this.
I mean, please, I have a non-profit organization that pays for all my ink.
So I'm motivated only to understand.
I'm motivated by my curiosity.
I'm motivated by being faithful to my readers and telling them.
I'm motivated by posterity to make sure that an accurate, an honest record is left for the future.
And, you know, people are going to find this chronology.
It's going to be very useful to people.
And I believe this will settle down.
I don't think we're going to go completely down the drain of transhumanism.
I think this was an unwise assault.
It was a little bit Hitler-ish.
Conquered the entire world at once.
Conquered Russia, Africa, Poland, France, England, all at the same time.
One little country.
So, they took too much too fast, but we're weakened by years and years of overexposure to digital.
We've forgotten that we're people.
We identify with our computing devices.
We fall asleep, and I tend to not, but most people fall asleep in front of them.
They're hypnotized.
So, we've got a lot of problems to work out, but this has woken some people up.
We need to stay awake.
And remember who we've met and what we've learned and help each other out and not get to every man for himself about this.
There's a whole social history of the COVID movement in the United States that I would like to write about.
Because I was one of the first people out of the gate, and I was in the room when Tom Cowan met Andrew Kaufman.
And I recorded their first session.
Yeah, that was up in Ghent at Arclight.
Yeah, that's on the Planet Waves website, that meeting.
Yeah, they walked in.
They had never met each other.
Wow.
I mean, you're creating history, Eric, aren't you?
I'm a documentarian, really.
I'm not trying to change things, but knowledge coming to light changes things.
So there is an effect of that.
But I'm really doing my best to faithfully record and to be a fair witness, you know, to the human experience.
Yeah, that's an interesting concept too, because with history you realize it's the history is in the, it's because of who's writing it, it's the voice of whoever's writing it that you're reliant on, that they're telling you the truth.
And I think what you've created with chronology is a fair, accurate representation of what happened, because you know that it's going to be rewritten.
Wikipedia is going to have, I can't even, I don't even want to know what Wikipedia would say, Yeah.
But the important thing is the lies are very important.
As one of my mentors once said, the shape of the shadows reveals the shape of what's hidden.
And so you see – you learn a lot from the lies.
You learn a lot when you trace the motives for why a certain thing is said.
And the beauty of the chronology is investigative reporting, we learn two things during Watergate.
To the two, I think, central precepts of investigative reporting come out during Watergate.
The first one – and everyone knows these expressions, right?
But they come out of Watergate.
What did the president know and when did he know it?
That's thing one in investigative reporting.
And then the thing is – thing two is follow the money.
So this comes out in the chronology also when we find out, well, and you and I are both obsessed with science.
So, right, we want to know.
I was dissecting frogs in my basement at age 10.
I had a man who worked in a lab and got me bullfrogs to dissect, inhaling formaldehyde and stuff.
That's why I turned out this way.
So I want to know the science.
But along the way, I've turned over many, many, many other issues.
We really should be talking about this financial meltdown that happened in 2019 and why they respond to a badly substantiated threat of a virus by shutting down all the businesses.
That's absolutely bizarre.
Yeah.
And my sharpshooting friend, Bill Houston, summed up my entire chronology.
He summed up the entire chronology.
January 11th, suspect virus.
February 11th, name of a disease.
March 11th, global pandemic, shut down the planet.
Eight weeks, start to stop.
By the end of April, no, by the end of March, they've got 4 billion people under house arrest.
Yeah.
Wow.
It's true.
That is absolutely true.
That's how fast.
I know.
And at the time when it's happening to you, well, I think for most people that they're just, they're completely swept up in the fear.
They have no idea what's happening.
It's terrifying.
And we get swept up in things and our media hypnotizes us into getting swept up in things.
And there's, I think it is a possibly a logical response to think, If there's 200 fire trucks, there must be a fire.
Yeah.
But I went the last time I covered a fire because one of the things I was doing while I was covering all this stuff and talking to virologists and stuff is in the United States, we're allowed to have police scanners.
We're allowed to have EMS scanners.
Yeah.
We can listen to pretty much anything on a public FCC channel.
And so I started listening pretty much around the clock in that phase and there was nothing going on here.
So part of what I was led by was observational evidence.
So the biggest – the hotspot in the United States was considered to be New York.
This was like the epicenter, ground zero, the symbol of the crisis, etc., etc.
And we are commuting distance to New York City.
All throughout the peak of the so-called viral outbreak, the commuter buses and trains coming back and forth every day, five days a week, and some weekends.
Tourists coming up, going down.
Nothing happened up here.
There was no outbreak up here.
You can see, I remember at the time of the lockdowns are happening and you're like, but nothing is happening.
You're looking around, everything is normal.
Even the people in the hospitals, there's nothing new.
And that's what you're constantly trying to understand what you're being shown versus what you're, it doesn't, it doesn't make any sense.
One day it just dawned on me.
I've got a timestamp on that, where I'm like wandering around Rhinebeck, my car's, my Subaru's getting an oil change or something, and I'm like, wait a second.
I mean, it was kind of like the feeling of discovering your boyfriend's cheating on you, but you knew it for three years, and then one day it dawns on you.
Like, all those facts added up, and like, how did I miss that?
Only this was fortunately a month into it.
Like, this can't be true.
But because I have such a logical engagement, I still had to prove every last damn thing.
Five ways from Sunday, I still had to check it.
I'm still verifying.
I have now a day-by-day audit of everything I learned and the day that I learned it on.
That's what the chronology really is.
It's an audit.
I just want to thank you so much, Eric, for your time and to go through what you've been doing, because it's phenomenal.
How can people follow you?
How can people find out more about chronology?
The central website where you can pretty much get to everything is chironreturn.org, chiron, C-H-I-R-O-N, return.org, and planetwaves.fm.
That's my Pacifica Radio program.
I do a program.
every Friday night at 10 o'clock Eastern time.
And you will see everything linked through there.
Chiron Return right now is dedicated completely to the chronology.
It's the first post.
It updates quickly, so we link from the blog post rather than from the PDF file.
And I'm easily found at EFC at planetwaves.net.
Can people donate to help fund this?
Thanks for asking.
Yeah, Chiron Returns, a federally licensed 501c3 nonprofit corporation.
Our goal is to keep this work going and to train people how to do it.
And so if you go to Chiron Return or Planet Waves FM, it's the same.
The money goes to Chiron Return and pays for this work, which means paying editors and for supplies and rent.
I have a brick-and-mortar office that we do this and phone bills and internet fees and everything like that.
So thank you.
It's wonderful what you're doing, Eric, and I'd really encourage people to To support what you're doing because this is where the change happens.
It's what you're doing.
And I have absolutely loved your videos.
You're down to earth, hilarious.
You know, they're the only real presentations with a meek hint of irony or comic relief.
I mean, I get this is a serious issue, but I learned from dioxin activists that you have to have fun.
You have to have fun doing it.
And if you're going to cause Monsanto a really bad day, have fun causing Monsanto a really bad day with your three motions filed and email campaign and all this stuff.
You have fun.
You have to have fun doing it.
And the people from Euro is the best reward for the, for the work, the people that I meet along the way.
Yeah.
Wow.
That's what we're doing here on earth.
And, um, we need to remember that.
I'm grateful, Eric.
And I love that we've been finally able to connect, even if it's via Zoom.
But I think it's, yeah, you were onto it from the beginning.
And I'm grateful because you helped me.
I've tried to reference particularly your interviews that you've done that have just, for me, they were incredibly helpful.
And I think it helps as well, bring everyone along and get those nuggets of gold.
Well, look, this is all comprehensible.
I think we really have to know that.
It takes time to wrap your mind around it.
And I'm never asking anyone to believe me, but just to try to follow my reasoning and see maybe where I'm not complete or call me out on a fact that I might not have gotten right.
But I promise you this is not a matter of opinion.
You who are listening, you know this.
Once you actually look at the issues honestly, you can see what's going on.
Now, this leads to things that are not very pleasant.
When you start getting into the motive and what's really going on behind the scenes, and are they really going to take away money?
And we're going to really all have like phony Bitcoin that we can't buy pizza if we have a prescription for diabetes drug or whatever it is.
But you can't let what the implication of the truth is block you from seeing the truth.
Yeah.
And I think that's the defense mechanism of, oh, I can't, I refuse to believe that.
That's not, no, you can't, you can't refuse to believe anything.
You shouldn't believe anything anyway.
It's not about believing it.
It's not, you have to, you have to really understand.
And that takes work.
You can't be lazy.
Thank you.
Thank you, Eric.
It's been an absolute pleasure, and hopefully, if you agree to it, I'll have to come back on and talk some more.
Listen, any time, and we can do a follow-up whenever you want.
And we can focus the presentation on certain other specific issues, but I think this is an evolving conversation, and we who are presenting it are learning in the process of presenting it.
It's not easy.
It's not easy.
And people who are listening need to take it easy on the people who are trying to make an honest, an honest inquiry here.
Because it's when you get all the way into the weeds, it's very, very complicated.
And, you know, it takes years to figure out, but we've given it years.
So.
Oh, all right, Eric.
Greetings to you.
And yeah, we'll talk soon.
Yes.
To help sustain my channel in this time of censorship, please support my work on Subscribestar.
Link is in the description.
▲
Export Selection