About Last Week
In this letter, Eric Francis Coppolino explains the controversy his article caused in the "covid truth” community, and how his investigative team did the work.
Dear Friend and Reader:
Those of you who follow my investigative reporting — a Planet Waves specialty since the first days — may be aware it’s been an unusual moment. Last week’s monthly edition went out without an essay for the first time ever. I used my remaining energy to write the best possible September horoscope I could do. There was a heck of a lot going on.
Here’s what happened.
My primary assignment covering “covid” is understanding the PCR test. Because the test requires a real sample, this led to my investigating the problems with claims of government officials that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was actually isolated.
Many of you learned this issue from me. Not everyone appreciates that I have diligently covered and uncovered this angle for the past 920 days because it contradicts what many think of as common sense.
During this time, a devoted group of medical doctors, Ph.D. scientists and several rather amazing independent researchers have been developing this issue. You have met many of them on my program. They have received a lot of flak (and censorship) from “covid truthers” who are not telling you what they really know.
See the video presentation here.
A Cult Figure Emerges
Then earlier this year, someone named Poornima Wagh emerged on the “truth” scene claiming to be a double Ph.D. in virology and immunology, granted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) — the very capital of the virus theory.
She further claimed she had personally supervised the analysis of 1,500 samples of lung fluid from “covid” positive pneumonia patients in Southern California in mid-2020 — and could not isolate any whole virus whatsoever, or even recreate an in silico (theoretical) “virus” from those samples.
She became a cult figure, receiving great acclaim from her audiences, jumping from podcast to podcast and garnering ever-larger and more enthusiastic audiences and endorsements.
In a two-month investigation, my team and I drilled into this matter, and determined that none of it was true. We confirmed that she had never received any degree from London Hygiene. Our analysis of her scientific claims — aided by our sources with actual scientific training and lab experience — revealed she could not possibly have conducted any of the experiments she said she did.
Her descriptions of the process were so absurd, you could compare them to a "dairy farmer" who doesn't know the difference between milk and ice cream, or a “sportscaster" who said the New York Yankees scored a fantastic touchdown.
The problem was that because she was deceiving the public on every level, she was threatening the public integrity of those who are doing legitimate work on the issue. Some hostile to even asking the virus question attempted to use her as an example of why the entire virus isolation question was flawed — though that did not gain any traction. Those raising the issue to public awareness are calling for a real investigation, not drawing an ironclad conclusion.
My story landed right on a tectonic fault line, set off an earthquake and sent shockwaves through the “covid truth” community. I mean, it was really wild. The ground is still vibrating. Something like this has only ever happened two or three times in my career.
The Need for Standards and Practices
We discovered that many of the podcasts that people are obsessed with don’t bother to check the bona fides of their guests. We further discovered that some don’t care if presenters get it wrong — as long as they agree with their opinion.
This is just another version of the same “believe the experts” bullshit we went through in 2020 that devastated society and has injured and killed millions: as long as Fauci or Moderna said it, it’s true.
With my renewed 15 minutes of world fame, I am calling on all new media presenters to take seriously the need to verify not just that their guests are really who they say they are, but to implement standards and practices — and set an editorial policy that they honor.
To my readers, I would encourage you to be careful whose word you take on the issues. To do this on anything but an “it sounds good” basis requires gathering real knowledge. Here is how you can tell you’re gaining that: once you know enough to formulate a question, you’re learning. It doesn’t matter if you don’t think it’s a smart question. When you can ask something, no matter how basic, you’re learning.
This past Sunday, I appeared on one podcast where this individual was a guest six prior times, explaining how I did the story. I think it’s my best interview ever — where I also get into the issue of life under full digital conditions. That’s the actual problem we face.
Your Links to the Resources
Here is the original investigative report, called Charlatan’s Web. This is part of my Substack project (some of you get these free mailings). Here is a followup called The Trout in the Milk.
I devoted the most recent Planet Waves FM to the issue.
Tomorrow’s program will have more astrology — that I promise! This will include a reading of Poornima’s chart.
All of this work was a project of our nonprofit investigative team Chiron Return, which also publishes Covid19 News and the What Happened: The Covid Chronology, 2006-2020.
Thank you to all in the audience who make donations to help the work going. Every bit counts. If you’re a free subscriber to my Substack, please be a dear and upgrade to paid. Thank you for that.
Faithfully,
Larry, are you reading the articles that I am writing?
I devote half of the original article to her lack of basic scientific knowledge. In an article like this, you don't write a book; I give at least two solid examples.
https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/charlatans-web
There is plenty more; she does not get ONE thing right. MIke Donio, one of my science sources in this investigation, says:
She really botched the agarose gel part. Badly.
You wouldn’t never follow up sequencing with a gel. Maybe PCR but it’s qualitative and crude. If she’s doing meta genomic sequencing, like high throughput mass tandem, there’s no way you could do a gel because you have millions of little pieces that you are simultaneously sequencing. I mean she literally says that you “can actually see the little particles of RNA and DNA”.
Not even close.
You see a band. That’s it. And you assume it’s the piece of DNA you think but only based on size. And there wouldn’t be RNA. You probably know this. When sequencing RNA one of the first steps is reverse transcription to convert the RNA to cDNA. Then you amplify with PCR and then sequence. This is actually a slightly more proper application for PCR versus the ridiculous tests. Regardless, she’s way off.
Let me know if you have any questions.
In the video, Eric mentions that other presenters such as RFK Jr. and Del Bigtree will not confront this issue (the existence of viruses). I recently was made aware of the following post which goes into why:
Danny Boy Limerick writes: "I don’t trust Del Bigtree because I believe he (and others) have co-opted the legitimate grassroots “anti-vaccine” movement, and turned it into a more palatable and acceptable “Safer Vaccine Movement” or the “Vaccine Risk Awareness Movement”, as part of an elaborate controlled opposition campaign. This has been obvious to many of us for a long time, but for people who may be new to these concepts, I will lay out some of the basics.
This campaign is designed to take control of the legitimate opposition voice, which understands that all vaccines are dangerous, create new artificial boundaries as to what is and isn’t an acceptable level of resistance and dissent in the public discourse about vaccines, and silence and marginalize the informed and unjected – the real dissidents and the real health and freedom movement – people who understand that there’s no such thing as a safe vaccine."
http://dannyboylimerick.website/del-bigtree-exposed/
Reposted by Greg Wyatt. His site has lots of other interesting info on the anti-quackcine 'industry'
https://gregwyatt.net/del-bigtree-exposed/
The Baileys, Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman review Del Bigtree's statements on the virus issue:
Are people not ready for the truth? If they are not ready after two and a half years of fear from the media and mismanagement from health authorities, when will they be ready? Should we trust Del to make that assessment?
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Viruses-Baileys-Cowan-Kaufman-Respond-To-Del-Bigtree:b