Year of the Cat. Interview with RFK’s science advisor Jay Couey. ‘Covid’ closing arguments. Tantra Studio.
Saturday Edition | Revised Program Notes are now on Substack | Alt Player | Video Edition
Friday Edition | Alt Player | Zip File
Note to Listeners — Here is my open letter to Denis Rancourt, which will take you offsite to Substack (in a new window). This letter/article is the outline and references for my closing arguments, presented in the full program and on the second player below.
Program Notes from Substack, Mostly about Saturday’s Program
Dear Friend and Listener:
I have two editions of Planet Waves FM for you this week. I’m planning to release one Friday night and the other after the Aquarius New Moon on Saturday.
On the regular program (which should post well before its 10 pm EDT scheduled time) will feature part two of my closing arguments on the ‘covid’ scenario. My outline is here.
Saturday, I will have a three-hour interview with Dr. Jay Couey, a Ph.D. in biology who has the ear of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland and Children’s Health Defense (CHD). Listening to the interview in full is a big commitment, and I suspect that only a few people will be interested — very interested. If that is you, then you have the whole conversation. Transcripts are pending.
This may seem like a dry subject, but only as much as placing 4.4 billion people under lockdown and house arrest in March 2020.
As I have been reporting since May 2020 (and have been investigating since my initial work on HIV and AIDS in 1992), there is a question about whether viruses have been proven to be a real thing: a contagious disease bomb. That people may believe in them is one thing; that trillions of dollars change hands is another (and both of those are cautionary).
I will stake my reputation on this: it’s a real question, and the evidence is so strong that anyone who understands it would admit that there is at least a legitimate issue here, and it needs to be worked out before the next act of society-wide virus terrorism.
CHD and the Virus Problem
Children’s Health Defense, which is essentially a publishing organization, is doing everything it can to avoid discussion of problems with the claimed existence of SARS-CoV-2, the claimed pandemic and the virus theory generally.
It’s not that they boldly claim there is no controversy; they ignore the controversy, and bias all their coverage against it. With one brief exception, the topic has been banned from all of their channels.
CHD pushes the flimsy pandemic narrative to this day. They push the bogus “lab release” and “gain of function” theories without offering any evidence supporting them. They even advanced the utterly vapid claim of a monkeypox pandemic. In effect, they repeat what their supporters already believe, and do not challenge it.
I have personally confronted Mr. Kennedy about the virus problem; you may see and hear what he had to say in reply — essentially, he says to me and to his audience that be believes in viruses (see transcript). At the end of this article, I quote his private position, which is entirely coherent and makes much more sense.
Where is the Nuance?
CHD often blames its science advisors for their view that the virus problem lacks all merit. So I thought I would interview one of them, and put the questions to him; he agreed to come on the program and we spoke at length earlier this week.
Dr. Couey recently wrote, “While we agree that there have been many, many lies during covid, we believe that the situation is complicated, and that the ‘no virus’ stance lacks sufficient nuance to the most viable position.”
He asked me what I thought of his idea. I replied:
I was intrigued by your statement that “the ‘no virus’ stance lacks sufficient nuance to be the most viable position.”
That in itself needs some nuance. Several presenters (at least three teams that I know of and know personally) have gone back to the origins of virology and then traced (nearly) every major incident blamed on a virus to the present.
They have provided detailed scenarios, alternative viewpoints, multiple causes of events, evidence of financial motives, and many other analyses.
The virus position is, “Viruses cause disease. But we can’t tell you how, why, where or when, they just do.”
That is the position that to my ear lacks nuance.
What Does the Science Advisor Know?
In this interview, I do not attempt to play “gotcha” with Dr. Couey; that is not my style. Rather, in the course of a three-hour deposition, I do my best to draw him out and find out where he really stands, and try to determine how he knows what he thinks he knows.
This directly reflects upon one of the most prominent “health freedom” organizations in the world — and all the other big ones take the same view. Everything else is a lie, but the virus is real.
What is their reasoning process? This conversation will give you some real insight, if you are patient enough to listen through it and maybe take some notes. Please don’t try to do it all at once unless you’re fully engaged. You will need your detail brain fully awake for this project.
I’m posting the full interview as a Substack podcast to facilitate discussion and evaluate Dr Couey’s ideas, which are in turn the ideas of Children’s Health Defense. If you want to know what they know, ask Jay Couey — and I have.
What is CHD’s Real Position on the Virus Problem?
Many outspoken figures take a public position and a private position on the same issue. Privately, Mr. Kennedy gives a very different answer than roundabout the one he gave in public when I asked him in April 2022. What is Mr. Kennedy’s private position on the virus problem? Here it is, written last summer to one of the medical doctors who has done the most work on the virus problem:
“I’m grateful for your courage and intellectual integrity. I have an open mind on this issue but no bandwidth to spend the time energy and credibility capital to personally investigate it. I feel the same way towards those people who passionately and knowledgeably argue that 9/11 is an inside job. It could be true. But there are opportunity costs in taking on this cause and I think diminishing returns to my overall effectiveness. I cannot right every wrong or expose every falsehood. I need to be strategic In choosing my battles. If you reflect, you will find that you do the same. I admire and encourage you but I must beg off on this war for the time being. I’m more likely to join if you get it nearer the goal line where the cost/returns ratio improves.”
Translating out of political language, the president’s nephew and the attorney general’s son means: This is too risky of a position for me now in terms of “opportunity costs,” and “diminshing returns,” meaning the expected financial impact from his donor base. Most of his donors are wholly committed to the existence of viruses, to an almost humorous degree.
Mr. Kennedy is saying: You guys take the risk; you take the hits while this issue is unpopular and even considered a little crackpot. We are not going to help. But when you’ve paid the cost, and gotten the public on board, and are “nearer the goal line,” we will then come in and take over the issue.
Now, let’s find out what his science department thinks about the issue. Put on your ears and sharpen your pencil.
With love, your faithful reporter,
“In the event that there’s a problem establishing the truth of this virus, we’ve got a very serious problem on our hands. And the line between the mismanaged pandemic and the made-up pandemic is the line of intent and the line of intent is the difference between bad public health policy and genocide”.
Eric F Coppolino
Investigative Reporter and Truth Seeker Extraordinaire
I’m taking notes!
Eric, the interview with yourself and Dr Couey, the long version, was simply brilliant in that it did not become polarised between arguments over this and that. Rather, it was a really fine discussion of all points of concept, and an exploration of ‘Between this and that, there is another thing present.’ I like that dynamic.
There is an Alchemist Laboratory aspect to sciences like Biotechnology. Dr Couey maps that rather well and I find it to be a matter of dismay that such people are so badly paid in our society. But I did enjoy his story of life inside the Academy and the processes that go on there, and the disconnections therein. The point of dismay, is the way the downstream organisations, hijack the findings of the Academy, reinvent them for whatever reason, and then use their ‘creations and findings’ to manipulate government processes.
Which leads to a couple of questions. First would be, why do we look to government as the source of everything that we need. Is the government now both God and Satan? It’s looking that way, and it begs the question as to why we give both and either, our faith in life. That needs to pull back, to be pulled back home. Second question would be… if all of this is process in motion, towards a second American Revolution, what might that process be in the real lives of the people?
Had to come back and listen again!
This is possibly the best Covid Era interview I have watched to date. I did not take your advice – watched in a single session. This old-fashioned epidemiologist (’98) cannot wrap her head around the complex fraud of ‘genomic epidemiology.’ Epidemiology is, by definition, population-based, which requires groups of people for comparison using simple rates and proportions, not digital libraries of digital components from …. digital particles? I studied epidemiology & biostatistics (University of Cincinnati, 1993-1998) and prepared my dissertation in ’97. Infectious disease was one of many topics – not at all a focus. The word ‘virus’ does not appear in the index of my introductory text; neither does ‘infection’ nor ‘infectious disease.’ It was understood that modern human illness was chronic and multi-factorial, and epidemiology focused on teasing apart the known factors and discovering new associations between heavy metal and chemical poisoning (including industrial pollution) and illness in humans. A personal story: In 1997, I was told I would need to take the new Genetic Epi series in order to graduate. I remember the conversation well- I had already finished the required coursework, so I refused. I slipped through, but the remaining students had to take the series. I am now realizing that I was one of the last students to be educated under the ‘toxins cause illness’ paradigm, before genes took over. My impressions are: genetics is promoted because it seems too complex to understand while simultaneously blaming illness on the individual or ethnic group; virology was created and promoted to combat the mounting toxicology evidence and to create career paths that would not lead to the ‘we are poisoned’ conclusion. The ‘digital’ fraud extends to much of the clinical trial research (including vaccine safety and efficacy,) not just viral sequencing. Strange statistical techniques requiring human-decided inputs and algorithms are now used instead of transparent numerators and denominators gleaned from counting. Controls are gone, and counting is gone. -Teresa [email protected]