The Covid Chronology :: New Edition Posted

Read the Latest version of our Covid Chronology —

Here is the beta version of the 2021 timeline.

Oct. 6. was a big day.

Note from New York, June 13, 2024 — We have finally done a major overhaul removing the spacing errors described below. There are no new content updates, but we are working on the Oct. 6, 2020 entry.

Note from New York, Aug. 8, 2023 — Version 5.2.3 and version 5.3.0 (which is a series) are the same thing. Most of the problems exported from Word to Pages are resolved, though the 5.3+ series will continue to address minor issues. (These appear as words stuck together that are not detected by spellcheck.) I have not had much chance to add newly recalled events; if you have sent any in, please send them again. Thank you! — efc

Note from New York, July 20, 2023 — Version 5.2.3 — This edition corrects a diversity of issues created by moving the live version from MS Word to Apple Pages. There may be more problems to find; I am working on version 5.3.0, which will also have a number of added events. Sorry about issues in the prior version.

Note from New York, July 5, 2023 — Version 5.2.2 — This edition corrects a little problem in the prior one — none of the links were clickable. We’ve moved editing from Word to Pages and the error should be resolved.

Interview with Sam Bailey on the chronology appears at the bottom of the post. The chronology is also covered in The End of Covid.

Note from New York, June 25, 2023 — Version 5.2.1 — I’ve finally done a new version that is a technical correction. I am planning to add some new data, but not any time soon. Note that we have published the 2021 chronology, which takes us clear through the vaccine rollout, implementation, and all the associated events.

Note from New York, Feb. 7, 2023 — Version 5.2.0 — This version adds testimony from funeral director John O’Looney in England that he witnessed a biosecurity tent in a hospital on Dec. 9, 2019, long before there was any reason for international concern. He said that it’s likely that the biohazard area was set up in late November. I have published his entire email and a link to my January 2023 interview with him where he mentioned this.

On this date some sources say there were 41 cases of pneumonia in Wuhan that later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, a fact refuted by the Lu paper, published Jan. 20, 2020. Still, 41 claimed cases of pneumonia is not sufficient reason to erect a biohazard tent in England. No virus had been “discovered” at this time and there was no reason to suspect that someone in England had been killed by an outbreak in China.

Note from New York, Jan. 24, 2023 — Version 5.1.9 is a minor upgrade that mostly cleans up typing errors. The note below remains the most interesting upgrade. I am planning to have a beta of 2021 up soon. This one will be more of a news chronology than a primary source scientific one, though I reckon that over time we will add primary sources as they come in. Also, I recognize we need to focus a level of this whole project on litigation. Is there someone in the house who would help out with that? Basic paralegal skills would be perfect, or we can train. Write to me!

Note from New York, Jan. 12, 2023 — I’ve posted a new edition with some important additions related to the initial papers claiming the existence of a virus in early January 2020. This includes an email from David Rasnick, Ph.D., who explained the means by which the Fan Wu team did its metagenomic transcript and claimed that it was a full sequence of SARS-CoV-2. We are currently sorting out technical matters related to the declaration of the “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) declared Jan. 30, 2020 and the global pandemic declared March 11, 2020. The posts below go over the additions to version 5.1.6.

I intend to have a draft of the 2021 chronology posted within a week or so. We are done with the main framework of the document; I need to go over it and clean up the language and presentation. But, it is done. We continue to track events every day in real time at Covid19 News. — efc

The Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan skyline.

Note from New York, Dec. 18, 2022 — I’ve added an explanation of the patient origin of samples claimed to have been used in creating the metagenomic transcripts leading to the submitted files 402123 and MN908947. This will give you an idea how complex this process is, as well as the complexity of documenting what happened. You may find this on page 35 of the new edition. — efc

Note from New York, Dec. 1, 2022 — At long last, I have a new edition for you. There are two main improvements: we have done a careful trace of media reports claiming some version of the lab release theory. Several of these have been added. The origins of the now de rigueur theory of “covid” go back to January 2020 PR rollout of the pandemic scenario.

The story was initially dropped as a denial of lab leak theories, even though hardly anyone knew that anything was supposed to be happening; this was around Jan. 23, 2020. The media strategy developed into one publication would claim lab release, and another would discredit it is a scam. This MO is still being used in late 2022.

New York City.

We have also focused additional details of the “pandemic” international media 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 “covid victims” it had documented.

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, 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.

This paper was published in 2007, 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.

The next update will start to include months from 2021. It has taken me this long to be fairly confident of having most of what happened in 2020. 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.

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. This is alternately known as an “in silico sequence,” “contrived virus,” “mimicked clinical specimens,” “synthetic nucleotide technology,” and a diversity of other scrims. It all amounts to a computer model. That is what this here chronology is about. — efc, 10:22 pm, 12.1.22

Note, July 14 — Greetings from Kingston. The past two weeks, I’ve had a series of breakthroughs related to something called MN098947 — the claimed original sequence of “SARS-CoV-2,” also said to be the source of primers for the official “covid tests” in the U.S. and Europe.

Eric Francis at the 1969 Woodstock Festival site on June 2, 2020. Photo by Lanvi Nguyen.

I now have a better sense of what is happening as the file for this sequence was updated four separate times on the GenBank database. It is associated with what is known as the Wu paper, published Feb. 5, 2020.

Following the Technology! 

In a related story, I am piecing together what the “Little Dog” essay is about — an impassioned diary by a lab technician who thought she was involved in the new plague, which she said would be “strangled in the cradle.” that was published in late January 2020 by someone at a company called Vision Medicals in Gunagdong, China.

This team, associated with what is called the Ren paper, produced another sequence claimed to be “SARS-CoV-2” called 402123. The two stories merged this week. Here is a short article on the page where I will have a discussion on the new Planet Waves FM Friday evening by 10 pm EDT (scroll down below card trick video).

The new version of the Chronology is 5.1.2. Several of the updates involve tidying up the MN908947 angle, though that will get a thorough rewrite soon, based on these new developments. Of literary and historical value is a beautiful, tragic account of life on March 10, 2020.

More info, video and audio interviews are below.

The document linked above a comprehensive chronology of the “covid” crisis that spans from 2006 through the end of 2020. The PDF updates frequently (sometimes many times a day). The newest edition corrects events from January 27-30, 2020 involving the WHO’s trip to China, their press conference the next day, and the declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, that is, a global pandemic. This document currently extends through the end of 2020 (which keeps getting more interesting).

We are underway with 2021, though that is a whole other book; a whole other era. Please use the newest version. New versions include many events previously missed, such as when ivermectin entered the discussion, details about the NYC shutdown of both the subway system and Broadway, and more.

The Version 4 series added all known “isolation” papers from June 2020 back to the beginning, the history of “gain of function,” many other prehistory events, and the apparent media rollout of the crisis timed with the World Economic Forum (WEF) conference in Davos, Switzerland on Jan. 21, 2020. The newest versions document Moderna’s claim that its mRNA technology is similar to computer storage, operating systems and applications.

Below — an older interview on Vermont Public Television with Mark Borax about how the timeline was developed. See interview below in video format. See interview by Max with Eric about the development and history of the covid PCR tests.

Leave a Comment