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:
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,