Made for Hulu: Open Letter to Jay Couey about the Early Origins of the Covid Crisis

Filling in the blanks, the virus magic trick, and a few studies you may not have that demonstrate how wide and deep runs the seemingly endless river of bullshit

Photo by Eric Francis.

This open letter to Bobby Kennedy Jr’s science advisor is a fast recap of the major scientific issues that emerged in the first month of the 2020 crisis. It addresses the virus existence problem in a clear way without reference to Christine Massey’s FOIA project.

Dear Jay:

Thanks for a fun conversation on the program Friday — it’s inspiring many others.

Here is the Planet Waves FM edition where you appear, on our home page. Here it is on Substack, with an article. The video is linked from the top of both pages.

Don’t forget to send the papers you promised. I also have two extra resources to recommend, one short, one long. This email was not supposed to be one of them…but I’m on a roll.

The short resource, in audio, is my Closing Arguments Part 2, on the new program’s page, which also sums up Part 1 better than I did the first time. This recording is the fifth player down — with January 20 on it.

Second is my chronology. I am the daykeeper of this mess (appropriate for an astrologer); we account for every single day (to the present). This document is a primary-source enhanced version of our daily news tracking effort, initially started for the purpose of drilling into the claimed SARS-CoV-2 sequencing process along the way to understanding the amplicon/primer source in the PCR design.

Sunday is day 1,057 for us working on this thrilling scoop of a lifetime.

Taking the Long Way to Figuring out the Missing Virus Problem

We held the possibility of a virus open for a year, with one exception drilling into every available angle and shred of evidence, before we had to accept that the concept had fallen apart. (I only knew of Christine Massey by way of rumor. Her findings of negative FOIAs from every government seemed impossible, because I knew what that would imply. The notion that there might not actually be a virus didn’t occur to me until around November 2020.)

Personally through all of 2020 and some of 2021, I did not know of the Baileys, much less know them personally; and for some reason did not concern myself with what Drs. Cowan or Kaufman thought in any detail, but I had an idea what they were saying. For some reason that was the one place I did not dig in. In retrospect, I can see how that served my method by having no shortcuts.

When I caught up with the work of these individuals, it served to clarify, refine and confirm what I had already cobbled together.

My Tools are Imported from Italy

I was given my basic tools by a guy in Italy, an engineer trained as a biochemist, who patiently provided written answers to my questions as I learned to form them.

(Once you can form questions based on specific facts, you’re halfway to understanding something.)

He explained that no isolation of wild, natural, intact virion had ever taken place, and demonstrated this based on an evaluation of the methods described in the published papers that claimed it had been.

I learned not to be distracted by the word “isolation” in the title of a paper.

With that as my start, I learned the issues and the lab techniques. It took me a while to discover that the assembly of random, crumbled genetic matter has a name: metagenomics. That was a huge missing concept that many issues hinted at (various people who knew the word not saying it).

Regardless of the “virus” being assembled from random crumbs and the government calling it real, like most people, I assumed that the virus had to be there somewhere. It was unimaginable (at the time) that The Whole Damned Mess Was For Nothing.

This approach, and my belief barrier, surely delayed my deeper understanding the missing virus problem sooner, but what I like is that I got there the hard way, mostly on my own. Note, I had minimal training in genetics prior to 2020, and none in biochemistry. I am more from the chemistry/toxicology side of the playa (though I did deep investigation into HIV in 1992). In chemistry, analytical testing is much more reliable and accurate.

Starting with the PCR Rather than the Virus

My delay in grasping the nonexistence of SARS-CoV-2 was also because I started with the PCR (the polymerase chain reaction analytical method), prying into the claim of a viral test. However, to understand the PCR, by which I mean really and truly understand what it’s supposed to be doing and how exactly, precisely it does it, you have to know its troubled history — and figure out where the primers come from.

The primers are the markers for the genetic code being searched for and amplified by the PCR; they define the amplicon, the thing that will be manufactured by the device.

And the discovery, way at the bottom of the SARS-CoV-2 PCR, is that the template for the primers is strictly in silico (hypothetical, theoretical, existing in a computer only), and doesn't come from a virus or match a virus, which means that the thing cannot test for a virus, since it can only search for what it already has been programmed into it.

It can only search for something known to exist.

The primers don’t come from natural or lab-made “virus” because a virus to test for was never found. So what would they be testing for? Here, the usual virus tautology (it exists because it exists) is reversed. It does not exist because it was never found, and consequently they are looking for something else.

Or said another way, the “test” is looking for something else, other than viral genetic code. Why? This is a strange place to arrive in the middle of a “viral” “pandemic” where the “test” is everything. What do they mean they’re not testing for virus?

Can a Virus be Diagnosed?

Our chronology gives details about the first-ever two claimed SARS-CoV-2 “sequences,” which means the first in silico, metagenomic transcripts, which then become source code of the SARS-CoV-2 PCR primers.

In any event, the PCR by its own admitted parameters cannot be used to diagnose an infection or identify the cause of symptoms. Even if it were finding fragments of “virus,” or “viral-specific nucleotides,” the EUA for the test openly says that finding such RNA does not prove infection. But it was and is being used to claim just that.

Part of what confused me along the way was knowing Peter Duesberg’s concept of a “passenger virus,” which means, a virus that does nothing. That was a cloudy area in my mind in October 2020 or so; but the fog cleared.

My logical path out of that was: given all the other factors, it does not need to exist. Nothing changes whether there is such a thing as a “passenger virus” or not. Its only effect would be false positives, and there are plenty of sources of those, mainly from an analytical tool that admittedly gets 100% false positives.

Searching for the Hypothetical 402123 and MN908947

The SARS-CoV-2 PCR, in all of its assorted commercial and government varieties is, to this day, searching for something hypothetical, never found in a human. It is not there, so it cannot be found. It cannot be "confirmed" or indirectly found again, which is all the PCR can do when it works.

When based on the PCR anyone claims to “find” that genetic code in one of those nose swabs, generally at amplification cycle 37 to 45 (in a messy analysis using reverse transcriptase, so add several honorary bonus PCR cycles), they call that a “confirmed case of infection.” It’s not. It’s all noise, no signal.

Those first two in silico (computer-made, theoretical) “sequences” were Fan Wu’s MN908947 series of four that keep mysteriously updating (she published the first paper and the second in silico) and Li-Li Ren’s 402123 (the first in silico uploaded to a virus database) — but Ren's paper, describing some of the methods used and its reams of financial disclosure, doesn’t come out till May 2020, when everyone has forgotten it and the virus is presumed real.

Both of these were biotech experiments conducted without comparison to healthy controls, rendering them meaningless. There’s a lot behind that sentence; Mike Stone has devoted his whole body of work to the problem.

What was published about 402123 early on, and it took work for us to connect these two things, was some Chinese propaganda posted to Medium (see English translation) referred to as the Little Dog essay (where the author describes their team’s courageous, desperate, heroic, around-the-clock efforts to “strangle the virus in the cradle.”) The Little Dog essay seemed to contain all sorts of clues at first, and now it’s just funny and melodramatic with a lot of fancy diagrams.

The Corman-Drosten and CDC PCR Design

These first two in silico transcripts (falsely called “sequences”), MN908947 and 402123, were then swept into the fatally flawed, now-certified fraudulent Corman-Drosten PCR design and used by WHO to create the illusion of positives throughout the world — except in the U.S.

When the U.S. finally EUAs (emergency use authorizes) a PCR design, it still uses the total horse-shit, claimed-to-be “partial sequencing of the [nonexistent] N-gene” they call MN908974 — even after Corman/Drosten/WHO drop it as pure garbage.

It is still to this day listed by CDC as the source of its primers! Good enough for government work.

The Corman-Drosten design distributed by WHO (also called the German test, or the Charité test) was so bad it did not even have a slot to confirm that the sample was from a human! That would be a positive control for a people and a negative control for a pawpaw fruit, for which it “tested positive."

Corman and Drosten admit they did not use human samples to design their PCR and further say they used old coronaviruses as its basis (including the earlier, fabricated, in silico SARS), which obviates any claim of a “novel virus.”

What Happened When

I am experienced covering tort law and science fraud, and alert to the legal issues created by the timing of specific events. One must study the order of what happened when

To put it simply, nothing that happens after March 13, 2020 matters in terms of the initial fraudulent claim of an outbreak. It’s all over, the boulder is rolling, the lockdown of the planet goes from China to Italy and west, and all the claims are now etched into stone and it all unfolds irrevocably.

Here is the thing: what everyone in charge knew before March 13 makes all the difference in the world. All those big shots, from Ferguson to Fauci, are now proven to have known or be on notice that there was a problem with the virus theory and that SARS-CoV-2 had never been shown to exist or to be causing illness or death.

And yet they used this as a pretext, terrorized the population with a threat of mass death, and as a direct consequence, seized power with absolutely no justification to do so. Nobody had proof of a virus then; and nobody has it now.

The Birth of the Lab Release Story

One last bit. The “lab release” concept. It was born one day, and not in a lab.

On Jan. 24, 2020, The Lancet publishes a paper by Huang et al revealing that 13 of the original 41 claimed “cases” that are used to justify everything had no contact (meaning direct presence or indirect exposure via contact tracing) with the Huanan wet market in Wuhan, rendering the "wet market origin" story impossible.

It could not be counted as a sole point source.

The day before this revelation emerges, the “lab release theory” was planted in the (London) Daily Mail. Said another way, 24 hours before the wet market theory is about to become bush meat, there is another theory not just ready to go, but already off and running. Conveniently, the big, creepy and very expensive Wuhan BSL4 lab is a short bicycle ride from the Huanan fish market. Made for Hulu.

The “conspiracy theory” (meaning lab release, for which anyone who believed it in 2020 could be thrown off of the internet or risk being medicated or put into a mental ward) gradually becomes the prevailing, even de rigueur theory.

Today, you’re an idiot if you don’t believe in it.

Wet Market Theory Flunks a Second Time

The lab release scenario develops further after the “wet market origin” of absolutely nothing failed a second time when no wipe sample taken at the market “tested positive.” (This seems impossible, but that is what was published.) So we have the claimed wet market source disproved two ways, and a big menacing lab full of virus freezers a short way across town.

In March 2020, we hear from Bat Woman, who leads the coronavirus team at the Wuhan lab, that upon hearing of the “outbreak” she immediately worried about whether there had been a leak from her facility. But she was grateful when she realized that there had not.

By the way, one thing the lab leak theory is missing (besides the virus itself) is how exactly it might have happened. There are many possible routs of “exposure” in such an incident — but none is ever mentioned or openly considered by those who advance the theory. It’s just “lab leak.” Well what part of the lab? The window? The trash? Were they running a pizzeria out of the back?

Only 15 ‘Positive’ Cases from the Original 41

OK one last, last bit. This blows my mind. Of the original 41 claimed “cases” in China, only 15 tested positive for claimed viral-specific RNA. Fifteen! The rest tested “negative”! But they still pretended those negative “cases” were part of the claimed 2019-n-CoV mystery pneumonia drop everything crisis. This fact was published on Jan. 18, 2020 in the should-be-famous Lu paper.

There was no outbreak in China whatsoever. The lockdowns there served as an example to the West of how determined the Chinese were to stop those Mongolian bastards — leading the world into lockdown and other extreme measures. We were told that Chinese authorities were nailing people into their apartments to prevent “spread,” depriving them of food. Anyone taking that kind of coverage seriously must have thought, this must be a big deal.

The role of the CCP in all of this has not been accounted for. The World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, Hopkins, Imperial College, Eco Health’s boss Daszak, Gates and Fauci all take the blame.

But the Chinese government for some reason — our mortal economic frenemy — is never mentioned in the accountability chain. China be like who me? We had to lock down too! I must ask Henry Kissinger about this.

Off the Rails

Jay, by the fourth week of January 2020 when a few people start hearing about this thing (and while the U.S. is all dragged into the first Trump impeachment), the “viral” “pandemic” is off the rails laying sideways.

But the spin machine spun on, the government was pumping the M1 with trillions in debt-cash addressing an ongoing liquidity crisis that never made the news, and WEF was doing its “great” house arrest, face-covered, hold your breath for the vaccine reset — thanks to all of which you are no longer a professor.

Please let me know if you have any followup questions about what I’ve just written.

The photo above is a bridge near where I live, which goes over the Wallkill River a little north of New Paltz. I love those colors.

Eric Francis Coppolino is a New York-based investigative reporter and radio host, executive director of Chiron Return, and author of the Covid Chronology.