Why is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. running from the missing virus problem?
The leader of Children's Health Defense doesn't acknowledge that every government in the world admits they have no clinical sample of SARS-CoV-2. Why do all of his publications conceal this fact?
RFK Jr. and his advisors are struggling with an issue that has consequences for the “health freedom” and “covid truth” scenes, and the world.
By Eric F. Coppolino
WHEN I HAD MY ONE opportunity to ask Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. one question at a fundraising event in Greenwich, CT on April 24, 2022, I chose to ask him about Christine Massey’s work. Mr. Kennedy, the nephew of Pres. John F. Kennedy, heads Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which presents itself as an organization providing the unvarnished, uncensored truth about scientific issues to the public.
A moment earlier, Mr. Kennedy had finished a 90-minute speech about how good he is at understanding the intersection of scientific and legal issues.
When I was given the mic during the Q & A, I said, “Christine Massey in Toronto has amassed 182 responses under various Freedom of Information Law requests from institutions, provincial state, and federal, national governments, which all say that no one has a sample of SARS CoV-2 taken from a human. Would you please comment on that?”
“I Should Have Just Shut Up”
In reply, Mr. Kennedy, a lawyer, answered a different question than the one I asked.
“My inclination if there are people who say the viruses don’t exist that there is no virus...I don’t, you know, my inclination is that, um, that simply is not, you know, that’s not true.”
He added, "It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it all seems like, you know, viruses are real, and um so, look, I should have just shut up from the beginning and say I'm not gonna answer that question.”
I never asked for his personal opinion about whether viruses exist, which is irrelevant. This is a legal and scientific matter. I asked about why governments admit to having no record of actual SARS-CoV-2 virus — a fact verified many other ways.
I followed up: “The governments have said they don’t have a sample” of virus taken from a person.
He responded: "Freedom of information laws do not require the government agency to do science, or to answer specific questions.”
And he added: “What they do is…make it obligatory for the government to give you existing documents. If you are telling the government, ‘I want you to verify these, there are documents’, they say, listen there’s nothing to verify it. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they've got nothing."
But in this case, they should definitely have something. After all, they are the ones who officially declared the pandemic, and who claimed this was on the basis of “science.” If nothing else, “science” means some verifiable proof.
Eroding Popular Faith in Democracy
Mr. Kennedy appeared to be claiming that “no records found” FOI responses are not relevant, or don’t prove anything. However, Ms. Massey’s intent is to see if government officials can establish the basis of their claim that there was a viral outbreak. Presumably, that would start with proof of a virus.
Mr. Kennedy was outspoken about a “no records found” FOI response in late 2020 when the New York State Department of Health (NYS-DOH) said that it had no records of any scientific study showing that surgical masks can stop a virus, or are safe. New York’s mask order was based on claims of scientific proof, and NYS-DOH is looked to as a world leader for its knowledge of public health issues. He wrote to his Instagram followers:
“It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping mandates. This letter illustrates the hazard of abandoning due process.”
His Instagram account has since been deleted for making just such statements.
Ms. Massey’s FOIs are not about something so seemingly trivial as face coverings. Rather, they are about seeking proof of the justification from the same institutions and governments who asserted, beginning in early 2020, that there was a virus, that it was contagious, and that there was an urgent threat to human life that had to be acted upon immediately. Any reasonable person would expect there to be a scientific basis for this position.
Based on this claim, government officials put 4.4 billion people under house arrest, locked down businesses, and caused incalculable harm, grief and loss of life. Asked simply whether they have any scientific proof of their reason for taking these actions, they all say no.
So what was the medical basis for locking down the planet? If you read my letter to CHD’s science spokesman, you will see there may have been none at all.
CHD President Mary Holland’s Reply on Weds., Jan. 25
On Wednesday afternoon, I reached out to Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense, for comment in this article, providing them with a nearly-finished draft. Ms. Holland, an attorney, replied a little while later:
"We have responded to Ms. Massey on several occasions. We are aware of government responses. As Bobby pointed out at the event in Greenwich, governments aren't compelled to keep samples, make them available or perform science in response to FOIA requests. It's not clear what the import of [Massey’s] information is."
She seems to be saying that she doesn’t understand the importance of direct evidence that the same government agencies who declared a viral pandemic having no record of the virus involved. Also, Ms. Massey has never asked for samples, only for scientific papers or other evidence justifying public policy decisions.
In a Nov. 6, 2022 email, Ms. Holland seemed to understand the issue better, and wrote to Ms. Massey, “Thanks for reaching out and for all your excellent work accessing information from various agencies.” She then quoted CHD’s science advisor, Dr. Jay Couey, anonymously:
"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 be the most viable position.”
He is right about the lack of nuance: no means no.
What Would his Father Have Done?
This is now a matter of intent: governments knew or should have known they had no scientific evidence of a virus, yet they seized power and acted on society anyway — granting themselves every kind of legal indemnity and immunity to avoid personal legal liability for their actions.
What occurred in 2020 was not, in Mr. Kennedy’s aching words, “a mismanaged pandemic.” All of the mitigation measures are now demonstrably deliberate, unnecessary acts that harmed nearly everyone, and killed many.
Based on the government’s admission of foreknowledge, the matter should go straight to the prosecutors and the federal grand jury. I am sure Mr. Kennedy’s father, Robert Sr., who served as Attorney General of the United States, would have been infuriated by this disclosure.
After he’d had a scotch and cooled off, I imagine he would have personally started drafting a criminal indictment against the officials who defrauded the public, the press and the rest of the government (including the President) by making and acting on a false claim, causing incalculable loss to the nation and the world.
Today, the younger Kennedy is concealing the crimes and deceptions of the United States government. Yet he says he is on the side of the people and the truth.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Private Position
Many outspoken figures take a public position and a private position on the same issue. Publicly, Mr. Kennedy says he thinks there is a virus, and that the government’s confirmation that there is not one doesn’t tell us much. Privately, Mr. Kennedy gave a very different answer than his roundabout response when I asked him about the virus FOIs last April.
What is Mr. Kennedy’s private position on the missing virus problem? Here it is, written last August, provided to me by the recipient:
“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.”
What Mr. Kennedy does not say is, “We tell the truth about what we know” — despite the word “truth” appearing all over CHD’s website.
He does not say, “Gee, that’s interesting. We will look into it.”
He doesn’t say what should be easy: “Here’s this scientific paper showing isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from a human host.” That in itself would not settle the matter — there are other steps to any proof of disease causation — but it would at least expand the discussion, or show that there is a significant problem with the FOI project. But no such paper exists.
Rather, Mr. Kennedy is saying: I know you’re right. But taking on this admitted falsehood is too risky of a matter in terms of “cost/returns ratio” (what we put out versus what we get back), “opportunity costs” (lost opportunities), “credibility capital” (his donors won’t believe him) and “diminishing returns” (it’s a bad fundraising tool).
These are all financial references. Mr. Kennedy does not seem to want to mess with his currently very successful fundraising formula, especially knowing he’s concealed this well-developed issue from his donors and subscribers for more than two years.
The Power to Suppress Dissent
In a Jan. 24 mass email sent by Children’s Health Defense, signed personally by Mr. Kennedy, he wrote of a recent lawsuit his organization filed against the Washington Post, AP and Reuters, “Our groundbreaking antitrust lawsuit has the power to demolish Big Media’s ability to suppress dissent.”
What about the cartel of “little media” monopolizing one side of the story and discrediting the others? Crushing dissent is what exactly he’s doing — that is, the people whose findings dissent from the viewpoint that the “pandemic” crisis was legit. If there was no virus, and the government knew it, and admits it, that has serious implications.
Many have done excellent work documenting the problem, from a diversity of angles related to the claimed virus and the methods of virology. These include Dr. Mark Bailey’s 2022 paper “A Farewell to Virology,” Mike Stone’s ViroLIEgy website, and the PCR chronology of which I am editor.
Find out a little about the controversy so many people don’t want you to know about. It is fair to say that keeping people in the dark does not serve to inform or educate them. Rather, this policy denies access to information and actual, urgent developments that we all have a right to know about — under the pretext of giving that very information.
Further, CHD in particular is obsessed with lab release and gain of function theories. They routinely push these theories as if true. Yet knowledge of a lab-released “SARS-CoV-2” would require "it" to have been found in people and then purified and studied, same as a natural virus, while the FOIs confirm that this never happened.
Note that a mode of release from the lab has never been proposed. It’s just generic lab release, but from where and how? The window? The side door? The Grubhub guy? Nobody gives a hint, or asks for one.
This is Not About What Anyone Believes
The bottom line of this matter is not about what Mr. Kennedy or anyone else believes. Rather, it’s about whether they report accurately the known fact that no government can produce evidence of an actual SARS-CoV-2 sample taken from a human being.
This belongs on every page one in existence: on every blog, vlog, website, stream, cast, channel and Substack, so we can talk about it, analyze the excuses/explanations offered by institutions, public officials and virologists, and understand what it all means.
Professional “truth” organizations with massive followings claiming to report the news who conceal this fact are gaslighting the public. Most people suspect there is a problem with the virus narrative; but many feel a little weird about it because were there a question, surely Bobby would say something.
Were I one of Mr. Kennedy’s donors, readers or supporters, I would be asking: for how long have you known the government has admitted there wasn’t a virus, only a made-up computer model of one? What exactly is the “vaccine” about, then?
And why didn’t you tell us? Given the recent revelations of the Twitter files, these are important questions.
Eric Francis Coppolino is a New York-based investigative reporter and radio host, executive director of Chiron Return, and author of the Covid Chronology. If you want to help support our reporting efforts, we would be most grateful.
https://planetwaves.net/terms-of-service-and-editorial-policy/
This is from the Planet Waves FM and Planet Waves editorial policy. Every publication needs a set of guiding principles it holds itself to, and that the public can hold itself to:
Science and Science Coverage
Planet Waves is part of the investigative tradition of reporting on scientific fraud. Our writers and advisors have covered topics including dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls, Agent Orange and its use in the United States and Vietnam, Industrial Biotest Laboratories, AIDS, genetically modified organisms, glyphosate, nuclear power and the development of the atomic bomb. You will encounter those topics from time to time on our pages.
We draw the distinction between science and political science: between honest, data-driven inquiry, and corporate- and government-sponsored use of laboratories (whether government- or privately owned) that justify mass poisoning and actions that endanger life on planet Earth.
When it comes to the coverage of science in any form, our credo can be stated in four words: “Where is your data?”
In other words, our role as journalists is to hold science to the standards of science. The source of funding of any study is a valid and necessary consideration in the evaluation of the research.
Those claiming before the public to have the backing of science must do more than state an opinion or speculate. All assertions claiming to be based on science must be backed by data, methodology and repeated experiments, per the scientific method. Until that data is produced and verified, it is construed to be nonexistent.
The opinion of a scientist is not a scientific finding. Therefore, the opinions of scientists shall be clearly identified as such and distinguished from data-based scientific findings.
Chemicals, drugs, vaccines and new technology are not innocent until proven guilty; it is up to the manufacturer or purveyor of any chemical, technology or device to prove that their product is safe. The human race and its environment are not a test laboratory, and the planet and the human body are not toxic waste dumps.
Our editorial policy is to honor the precautionary principle: in the face of the unknown, the only sane course of action is to proceed with caution and to consider the potential worst case scenario. Then, see what the data says.
Are you saying that doing "good work" entitles someone to deceive the public, and then claim the public is not ready for the truth? Or that telling the truth has "opportunity costs"?
I hold myself and my readers to a higher standard. And I think they agree.