Daykeeper Notes
The "lab leak theory" predates by one day a study in The Lancet proving the "wet market theory" was false. "Lab leak" was part of the initial media rollout of the pandemic scenario in January 2020.
An update from Chiron Return - Planet Waves FM.
Dear Friend and Reader:
A week ago, we reached Day 1000 of our daily (even hour-to-hour) tracking of, you know, the situation that emerged three years ago. On March 3, 2020, we started faithfully logging news reports, mainstream and alt, every day.
And we began digging up and documenting events going back in time to see where it all began. Daily updates continue here.
Tracking events day-by-day is an appropriate job for a reserach team well-trained in both astrology and classical news reporting. I also have detailed coverage of the astrology, for those interested.
A New Edition of the Chronology is Avaialble
And at long last, I have a new edition of the chronology for you. This document is a journalistic achievement in a time of journalistic decadence. I am amazed it even exists, but it does, logging every detail we could find between 2006 and the end of 2020. We are close to a beta release of the compiled events of 2021. (This link contains a video interview with me by Dr. Sam Bailey describing the project, and the process of editing it — scroll down.)
All of this is supported by your paid subscriptions to this Substack and your donations to Chiron Return, the nonprofit that provides the structure and budget for our work. Thank you to the many who offered extra support in honor of our 1,000th day on the job. For those who want to be part of our newsgathering operation, teaching you how to do this work is the core mission of Chiron Return. If you want to volunteer for an assignment, you may write to me at efc@chironreturn.org.
Tracing the Lab Leak Theory
The new edition has two main improvements. We have conducted a careful trace of media reports claiming some version of the lab release theory, to see where that all began. The origins of the now de rigueur theory of events go back to the fourth week of January 2020, during the initial PR rollout of the pandemic scenario.
In other words, the lab release was more like a press release, and was part of the original scenario told to the public.
The story was initially was dropped in the (London) Daily Mail on Jan. 23, 2020, when hardly anyone knew that anything was even claimed to be happening in China. (The British tabloids, known collectively as Fleet Street, gave the virus scenario more attention because they were not so obsessed with the Trump impeachment that was happening at the time.)
The very next day, on Jan. 24, 2020, The Lancet medical journal published a study saying that 13 of the original 41 cases had no contact with the fish market in Wuhan, eliminating the market as the sole point source, and pointing suspicion to the BSL 4 lab called the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Other investigations confirmed this finding over the next few months, that the fish market was not involved.
From a Crackpot Theory to the Only Acceptable One
The lab release theory was there as a kind of parachute for when all others failed. The “it had to come from somewhere” matter was answered, and protected the core scenario, which was the virus theory of events.
A media strategy emerged: one publication would whip up the lab release fluff, and another would discredit it is a scam, and they would go back and forth. Then one credible expert would say lab release (such as Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute) and someone else would deny that is true. While many “don’t know what to believe,” we get two disproved possibilities for the “origins” — the wet market or lab release — and they both protect the virus scenario.
This MO is still being used in late 2022. In this way, over the past 36 months or so, “lab release” went from a crackpot theory that could get you banned from Facebook or insulted as a conspiracist by your friends, to the only acceptable theory of what happened.
I know lab leak is popular; it seems to make sense; we now all mistrust the government; those bastards did it. Hating the government is itself a government product. However, upon even modest examination, the tale falls apart.
We have also focused additional details of the pandemic scenario’s high-profile Madison Ave. marketing campaign, including the Sunday, May 24, 2020 front page of The New York Times, purporting to show the names of some of the nearly 100,000 victims. Just four months later, the Times itself would report that there was a 90% false positive rate for diagnosis by PCR.
That in turn provided ground cover for a pre-existing 2007 article, in The New York Times itself, saying that the PCR method got 100% false positives when used as a diagnostic tool, causing three false pandemics. In other words, the August 2020 report of 90% false positives means 10% “true” positives, where previously there were none.
I cover that issue in detail here, with links to all of the appropriate documents.
The Dark History of the PCR: Well Known by 2007
Finally, I have added direct quotations from one of the most important papers in the history of the PCR, “You’ve Got it, You May Have it, You Haven’t Got It: Multiplicity, Heterogeneity, and the Unintended Consequences of HIV-related Tests.”
This paper, by Dr. Kevin Corbett of England, should be more famous, though I’m grateful it exists. It demonstrates by a diversity of means that the PCR is useless as a medical diagnostic device, as well as spiritually and psychologically toxic. For example, let’s say someone gets a false positive HIV test. What happens to their life?
Published in 2007, this landmark paper appears the same year that the details of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock incident proved that the PCR could create multiple entirely false pandemics through its inappropriate use as a medical screening tool. It is not one; its own documentation, and its inventor, admit that it cannot diagnose infection.
Dr. Corbett is my guest on the new Planet Waves FM, where we carefully consider the way that biotech is replacing conventional and alternative medicine. His mind and professional history contain some of the most crucial historical data regarding the abuse of the PCR method in the one thing for which it is incapable — diagnosing disease.
My assessment is that Dr. Corbett holds one of the most important angles on the PCR issue, and diagnostic testing generally, as he served as a nurse on two different HIV and AIDS wards in the 1990s and into the 2000s. He is not merely an academic. He is an eyewitness to history who then studied the problem of these tests, and earned his doctorate in the process.
New Update Will Cover 2021
The next update will start to include months from 2021. We will also publish a beta-version of the full year as soon as it’s ready.
It has taken me this long (and much help) to be fairly confident of having most of what happened in 2020 correct. There will, I am sure, be some doosies we missed. The story of 2021, now nearly compiled (and which was foreshadowed in December 2020), was of a war on the population to force a deadly injection, said to be a vaccine, against a “virus” that its salespeople knew did not exist anywhere outside of a computer model.
This in turn traces back to the PCR — whatever it’s looking for, that strand of allegedly viral genetic code has never been shown to come from a virus, match a virus, or cause disease. The genetic code said to be “SARS-CoV-2” exists nowhere but within computer memory as what is called a metagenomic transcript, an in-silico sequence, a mimicked clinical specimen, synthetic nucleotide technology, or some other jazz designed to dazzle you with biotech.
It all amounts to a computer model. and that is what this here chronology is about.
Thank you for having a look at this most excellent work of many hands and minds around the world, and for your ongonig support and generosity.
the question i have for you then- did you hear him deny or take a position on the virus/no virus- can you accept his reasoning? because he does have reasons and he is also willing to answer questions- in fact- he's answered every question i've ever asked- in the questions thread beneath every post--for me it would be more important to get the facts from the horses mouth- not someone elses' opinion about what the other person said0-chances are- you will just have more questions
eric- if you have any interest in his perspectives-and he's been doing fantastic work lately- i recommend you listen or read his podcasts- there is so much to learn from him-