All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 26, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
01:04:24
Dr. David E. Martin Drops Shocking COVID-19 Truth on Canadians
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This information is not intended as legal, medical or nutritional advice and is for informational
purposes only.
Vaccine Choice Canada does not endorse or accept responsibility for statements, views and opinions presented by its guests.
Welcome to our national call with Vaccine Choice Canada.
My name is Ted Kuntz and I'm the President of Vaccine Choice Canada.
We have an incredible turnout this evening.
We realized earlier today that we needed to change our plan with Zoom To increase our capacity so that everyone who registered would be able to join this call.
Without an increase, hundreds of you would have been left in the waiting room.
What a lovely problem to have, but while I'm delighted to see all of you, it doesn't escape me that we are here in these numbers because of the sad state of Canada today and the world, and the increasingly egregious violations of our rights and freedoms by our various governments.
That said, a special welcome to those of you joining us for the first time.
I hope you value what you see and hear and will want to join us every Wednesday for these important conversations.
Much of this increase, I suspect, tonight is due to Randy Hillier.
Randy is with us tonight and is live streaming this conversation.
Randy, I'm sure you can hear me.
Thank you for joining us and for all your good work and standing up for our rights and freedoms in Canada.
And now for our special guest.
We are privileged to have a very knowledgeable and respected guest this evening.
I trust Dr. David Martin is known to all of you.
He is an incredibly intelligent and articulate man in the bowtie whose testimony in Plandemic shocked the world.
David revealed with undeniable evidence that the COVID pandemic has been planned for decades.
I assume that most of you are well acquainted with this information, and so we intend to use our time with David tonight to advance the conversation and expose even more information that proves that the events of today are the results of planning of yesterday.
Welcome, Dr. Martin, and thank you for joining us this evening.
It is an honor to have this moment to bridge What has historically since 1815 been the longest unguarded and open fellowship of countries and to will that some part of this conversation will once again make permeable that which has been rendered by those who choose to suppress humanity impermeable at the moment and we're looking forward to the day whether it's at the Calgary Stampede or
Sipping wine at the CN Tower in Toronto, or watching the beautiful nature phenomenon up in Nova Scotia, or doing what I love to do, which is kayaking around British Columbia.
When we can do that face-to-face and hand-in-hand, I will be delighted that we had this conversation so that we can reopen what should never be closed.
Wow, beautiful words to start off with, David.
Thank you.
I'm assuming most everybody on this call is well aware of who you are and your background, but more and more people are coming to this information for the first time, and so I'm wondering if you would just take a few minutes to give a brief overview of your background and the knowledge and expertise that you bring to this conversation.
Certainly.
For those of you unfamiliar, during the decade of the 90s, I was the founding chairman of Mosaic Technologies, NIDMED, Mosaic Technologies, was a treaty-restricted technology transfer company here in the United States.
And what we did was we worked with finding civilian applications for technologies developed in military applications around the world, most prominently countries that were prohibited from exporting offensive military technologies as conditions of the treaties that ended the Second World War.
And so from breast cancer, to stealth materials, to anechoics, to antenna, to every device that you probably have in your hand or in your laptop, we had a very important role to play during the decade of the 90s in bringing technologies out of bioweapons and weapons laboratories and getting them into civilian and commercial use.
In 1998, I founded and was and remain the chairman of MCAM, which was Mosaic Collateral Asset Management.
And what we did there was we brought the worlds of intangible assets and banking together so that the one asset that is in fact a right given to every citizen of the world that is part of the giant trade agreements that once again came out of the Second World War, The one asset that every citizen has, which is the asset of their creativity, innovation, intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks, etc.
We built the organization that allowed that to be regulated and used as bankable collateral so that small business could have a leg to stand on.
And we built that company in 1998.
And as a result of the formation of MCAM, we fell through an unfortunate, but now fortuitous rabbit hole.
And that was That in 1998, we did the first ever audit of the patent systems of the United States, of Canada, of Australia, of the European Union, and elsewhere.
And what we found, quite tragically, is that an enormous number of crimes were being committed using the patent system to, in fact, stand in the way of progress, not to advance the innovation and useful arts for which they were established.
And specifically in 1999, we uncovered what became the roots of our awareness of the current pandemic that we've been exposed to.
In 1999, we uncovered the biological and chemical weapons patents that were proliferating around the country and around the world.
And in 1999, going into 2000, we first reported on the weaponization of biological materials in violation of biological and chemical weapons treaties.
And among those weaponizations was in our first published report for a number of intelligence and law enforcement community.
Our identification of the chimeric alteration and recombinant technologies around coronavirus which in 1999 were first developed to serve as a means by which we could build a vaccine vector, at the time, thought to be useful for the treatment or prevention of HIV.
The problem with that work was it very specifically, beginning in 1999 with NIAID's funding, directed by Anthony Fauci, it was very clear That what they had done in their gain of function research in 1999 was take what was a normally occurring pathogen and turn it into what was then referred to as an infectious, non-transmissible pathogen.
In other words, they actually made it more dangerous to the human and they made it more dangerous so that it could be used As a potential for vaccine vectors going forward, and that was in 1999.
In 2002, the weaponization of coronavirus was complete.
And you heard what I said 2002.
That's when the spike protein.
That's when the ace receptor dynamics.
That's when the open reading frames around various subfractions of the protein synthesis that's available using the model created by the coronavirus model.
All of that was fully weaponized by 2002.
And I make that point very clearly because we did not have SARS as a human condition until we had invented a weaponized version of coronavirus.
A decade earlier Pfizer had filed the first patent on a coronavirus vaccine that was a veterinary application And that was filed in 1990.
So Pfizer's first effort to get a spike protein-based vaccine for coronavirus started in 1990, not in 2020.
This has been, to restate the obvious, a pathogen bioweapons program that is now over two decades in the making.
And it is vital for us to understand That what is currently being called the medical countermeasure referred to as a vaccine does not meet statutory definition of that particular technology because unlike every other vaccine in the history of humanity, every other vaccine is derived from some either fragment of or attenuated version of a pathogen.
This particular injection that we're dealing with right now, this particular injection is an mRNA model, computer generated, not derived from a living or an organic material.
This is a computer simulation of an mRNA strand which was thought to be a means by which we could turn the human body into a pathogen creator.
By that I mean the formation of the coronavirus-associated spike protein.
And for the first time in vaccine history, and once again, I'm using that term because it's what we're calling it, and it is not, in fact, a vaccine.
It's a gene therapy to create a bioweapon.
But for the first time in vaccine history, we are relying on the immune system to respond to a pathogen creation that we first inject into people.
So the fact of the matter is we have an unprecedented outcome.
And if we go back and look at the patent record, if we go back and look at the laboratory record, and if we go back and look at the funding record, we see that the current pathogen called SARS-CoV-2 was clearly chimerically altered and was clearly chimerically developed in the laboratory so that it could be used both as a weapon and as a medical countermeasure In 2015, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and we've reported on this quite significantly, funded by NIAID, developed and violated the International Convention on Biological and Chemical Weapons by taking a foreign uploaded model of SARS-CoV-2 and turning it into a recombinant chimeric pathogen, which they said, and I quote, was poised for human emergence.
And poised for human emergence, not in 2019 as we've been told by the propaganda, but that publication was published in February of 2016, published from work that was done from 2013 to 2015.
There is no novel coronavirus.
There is a weaponized version of a computer simulation of a fragment that is in fact modeled to be The spike protein analogous to what we've been told is the spike protein associated with SARS-CoV-2.
The problem is we do not have anything that is actually derived from an actual pathogen, and we do not have anything that's actually responsive to the immune system that was in fact responsive to a pathogen.
This is a computer simulation meant to harm and destroy what we called humanity.
You know, David, just listening to you, I mean, nothing that you said is new.
And yet to hear again still shocks me that we are at this place, at this time, globally killing humanity.
Yes.
And according to Pfizer, we have what they refer to in their own documents as an acceptable death rate.
I don't know how many of you can sit with that statement, but the notion that there is something called an acceptable death rate is something I find morally repugnant.
But I find more interesting than that Canada's role in this, which has achieved almost no fundamental coverage in any media or even in the counterculture media, and most Canadians don't realize that Canada itself And not just Canada, but specifically the University of British Columbia, beginning in 2005, realized that if it was going to be relevant in the biotech space, it had to be the country and it had to be the research hotbed for establishing the delivery mechanism whereby mRNA vaccines could be developed.
The University of British Columbia, working in partnership with Inex Pharmaceuticals in 2005, Developed the lipid nanoparticle technology that ultimately became the basis of the formation of a company in British Columbia called Tecmera Pharmaceuticals.
In 2009, Tecmera had a very interesting set of challenges, and this was commensurate with the 2008 declaration by the World Health Organization that the coronavirus was in fact eradicated as a condition associated with SARS.
And because of the lack of funding in 2008, both Canada and the United States struggled with the fact that they had developed a technology that was supposed to be for a vaccination of coronavirus and for a number of other viral models.
But the problem was they ran out of funding.
And so there was a series of reorganizations.
And in those reorganizations, two companies were formed, Arbutus Pharmaceuticals and Acuitis Pharmaceuticals.
Acuitis Is the one that unfortunately the government of Canada has not told the citizens of Canada is the reason why both Moderna and Pfizer have the ability to deliver the current bioweapons program.
And I think most people would be shocked to find out that when you have the Prime Minister of Canada getting up in front of a camera in the spring of 2020 telling the world that the only way forward is to allegedly return to a new normal when there is a vaccine.
What Trudeau did not tell the public was that he had a financial stake in the outcome of that being the selected pathway forward.
What he didn't tell the Canadian public was that Canada's blight on the moral record of what has been historically an amazingly wonderful set of innovations coming out of the Canadian Research institutions and research laboratories, in fact, created the mechanism whereby you could take mRNA and inject it into a population and try to stabilize that injection.
The lipid nanoparticle technology that was developed and ultimately passed to Arbutus was the subject of a licensing agreement that was made with Acuitas Pharmaceuticals in British Columbia, a private company who conveniently had very little reporting requirements.
Acuitous misappropriated the lipid nanoparticle technology and ultimately made it available to both BioNTech and Moderna.
It is absolutely critical for us to understand that without the Canadian contribution of the lipid nanoparticle technology from British Columbia, we would have no meaningful response in the form of what's being called a vaccination and we would not have a bioweapons program.
That's a pretty important statement to make to an audience largely of Canadians.
And it would be very interesting to find out why it is that Trudeau has not admitted to the public and has been unwilling to actually put into the public record the what we know to be at least billions of dollars of concessions.
And it could be, I mean, if we look at just Pfizer BioNTech's own situation, We know that in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech, that last quarter alone, somewhere between $8 and $9 billion came in the form of the revenue off of all of the interventions that are being sold off as coronavirus vaccines.
In the last quarter alone, this would place this tiny little British Columbia company, which in 2009, people, was functionally owned by one person.
I mean, we need to kind of bear that in mind.
One person actually owned this company, Thomas Madden, who's the CEO of Acuitous.
In 2009, he was largely the sole owner of it.
He actually appropriated the technology in a labor dispute, which functionally was a trade secret argument around this.
And when we actually look at what happened in 2016, and this is a very important point, people, in 2016, Somebody in Canada knew that there was something going to happen with this particular vaccine platform because in 2016 Arbutus Pharmaceuticals and Acuitis Pharmaceuticals got into litigation on whether or not the license for the lipid nanoparticle technology that Acuitis had from Arbutus was in fact capable of being extended to other pathogens.
And in 2016, there was a significant amount of litigation, and the license that Acuitous had to use lipid nanoparticle technology developed by Tecmera, developed by Arbutus, the license was actually terminated in 2016.
That coincides with the weaponization of SARS-CoV-2.
Now, do we have, at this moment in time, The written record of the evidence of what we know was knowable, the answer to that is no.
There is no public information that currently exists that has been made in any format that any of us can access.
There's no public information to tell us what precisely transpired in 2016, which allowed this particular dispute to erupt between these two Canadian firms, all based in the history of TechMira.
But somewhere in 2016, somebody knew that there was a lottery win to be had.
And my guess is that somewhere inside of the Canadian health system, and somewhere inside NIAID and the Vaccine Research Centre, and somewhere inside the UNC Chapel Hill records, we will find that the Trudeau government was fully aware by at least 2018 that we were going to have A significant pandemic requiring this core technology to be unleashed on the world, courtesy of the Canadian collaboration on lipid nanoparticles.
And there is no question that by the time we get to 2019, March specifically of 2019, we know that Arbutus, Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech and others We're in fact working on a vaccine for a respiratory pathogen and we know that information because they amended their patent filings to say exactly that.
So let me just unpack this a little bit, David.
You're revealing evidence here that this technology has been in the works in a Canadian University of British Columbia, supported by Government of Canada, For a number of years now, it was clear that there was a gold mine to be had here because there was a fight over it.
And when Trudeau announced in 2020 that we needed a vaccine to get back to normal, he didn't say, listen, we're part of the solution here.
We've developed technology that's going to save the world.
Talk about how great Canadian technology is, and I know you don't like to speculate, but why would he not celebrate and announce that to the world?
Well, I think it's very clear that he has, for a significant period of time, become extremely compromised in the fact that he pretends on the one hand to be a victim of a public health crisis, and on the other hand, not unlike the governor of New York, The spokesperson for the alleged level-headed response of draconian lockdown and countermeasure approaches, which create the market demand that says that we're going to remove civil liberties, we're going to remove the right for people to actually engage in any civil discourse.
But in fact, what we're going to do is pretend like we are somehow the victims of a natural set of events that have unfolded.
The fact of the matter is he knows very good and well because he was party to, and the government certainly was party to, agreements with Pfizer, with Moderna, and with others, where there was no question that Canadian firms knew good and well that the lipid nanoparticle technology was actually a frontline contender for a respiratory pathogen simulation.
And by no later than September of 2019, the Canadian government was fully aware and participating In what was supposed to be a global exercise to test the readiness of the world to deal with a respiratory pathogen pandemic that was planned and published in September of 2019.
And the Canadian government was very much a party of that.
So there's no chance that this was not fully known, fully anticipated, fully premeditated, And there is no question that the script that Trudeau read from was a script that was in fact marketing what would become a federal restraint of trade violation in Canada, which was a very important restraint of trade.
By making the allegation, before we even knew what the actual pathogen was technically, what we know is that Trudeau's statements biased the marketplace against the consumer So that there was, in fact, declared by the government a single pathway, a single market opportunity out of this particular pandemic.
And by telling the world that the only way forward was a vaccine, what that did was it actually precluded the use of lifesaving countermeasures that were medicines that could have helped and could have supported the health of people.
And instead of that, we watched people die.
Well, we were waiting for an economic windfall, and that economic windfall is going to a private corporation whose accountability is not to a shareholder, is not to anything that has public visibility.
It has the private benefit of being a private British Columbia company that can be used as a front for all manner of things.
And it is, in fact, without question, participating in one of the greatest crimes In terms of racketeering and collusion that this world has ever seen.
Well, David, that was the question in my head.
What kind of crimes are these?
I mean, this is treason amongst other things.
This is criminal.
This is homicide.
Yeah, and it's important for us to really focus in on this because most people have heard me talk about the racketeering and antitrust laws that are violated.
And both the U.S.
and Canada have very robust antitrust laws.
The fact of the matter is there's three fundamental elements of antitrust and all three are violated.
The first is that you cannot do what's called market allocation.
In other words, you cannot use either a public or a private institution where colluding parties get together and say, we are going to tell the consumer what their only option is.
That's a market allocation violation of a racketeering thing.
You also cannot suppress information And coerce people into accepting a single scenario when the market forces are not at play.
In other words, you cannot suspend from market consideration other alternatives so that you pick the only winner in which, by the way, you've already placed bets on the table in the form of funding and you also have an economic gain.
And you can guarantee yourself that the Canadian government knows very good and well that it had huge economic gain to gain from The use of the lipid nanoparticle technology, and it had everything to lose if the lipid nanoparticle technology didn't win.
So we know that the collusion was there.
We know that the racketeering was there.
We also know that there was insider information, non-transparent transactions from what's called interlocking directorates, where individuals who have the ability to set prices, to allocate research dollars, and to ultimately set acquisition policy To take that technology on board is, in fact, by very definition, the racketeering that is anti-competitive, anti-trust.
Now, why is this important?
It's important because these are all felony violations.
And what makes a felony violation far more important than a civil crime is that a felony violation actually pierces the veil of corporate liability.
And this is a very important point people need to understand.
The reason why I'm so obsessed with going after felonies and not going after civil cases is because the felony violation of antitrust laws, which is prima facie established in this pandemic, would in fact mean that the manufacturers would not have the protections provided here in the United States under the 1986 Act, under the PrEP Act, and in Canada, Under those acts equivalents.
In other words, no corporation gets civil liability immunity if they are complicit in a felony crime.
And once we establish that that is in fact the case, which by the way, does not require legal expertise.
This is a prima facie case, meaning the facts present themselves.
There is no question That this was an act of racketeering and collusion.
There is no question that this is an act of willful manipulation of market forces in violation of statutes both sides of the border.
And the fact of the matter is, the minute this becomes felony violation, all of the liability flows back.
Civil and criminal liability flows back to the manufacturers.
And I can guarantee you that the day Pfizer and Moderna The problem is we have no accountability right now.
Well, you actually do.
You've got an election coming up sooner than we do.
no question that the entire terror campaign would shut down the next day.
The problem is we have no accountability right now.
Well, you actually do.
You've got an election coming up sooner than we do.
And the fact of the matter is this is a moment where Canadians need to understand that we've
been duped as a community.
And by the way, that's not unique to Canada.
The civil society of the world has been duped to believe that we should be arguing about face masks and social distancing and whether businesses should stay open or not.
We have been duped into having a conversation that is the wrong conversation.
There is a crime that is being committed.
Our public officials are complicit in that crime.
And there is no question that as a civilization, we owe it to ourselves and future
generations to make sure that we are not silent while those who are in positions of elected
authority are committing willful acts of crimes against humanity.
With this information, should there not be a criminal investigation starting this minute?
If it's there.
There absolutely should be.
Here in the United States, we have the unfortunate reality of not having the benefits of some of what you guys have in Crown law.
But the fact of the matter is, in Canada, as well as the rest of the Commonwealth, you actually have a mechanism where you can allege and actually initiate criminal proceedings without
relying on the justice department we have in the U.S. We know that our DOJ here in the United States
is entirely corrupt. We know that they have been willfully incapable of prosecuting any of
the known crimes, which by the way include here in the United States, one of the best known crimes
that apparently we can now get away with, which is lying to Congress.
As most of you know, Anthony Fauci has now, on two documented occasions, actually lied to Congress, which is a violation of, I think it's 35 code section 101.
No, it's section 1001 of the criminal statute.
But lying to Congress is something that Fauci started doing, In the fall of 2020, when he willfully failed to disclose the financial interests that NIAID had in a number of the technologies that were being promoted in this, in this particular pandemic, failed to disclose the NIAID's and NIH's financial interest in a request that was made by Congress in a report submitted to Congress.
Anthony Fauci lied about his financial position, which is in fact a felony.
And then, obviously, as you all know, recently, he actually lied about funding gain-of-function research despite the fact that, as we entered into the public record, there are over 50 letters sent out from NIAID and NIH to his gain-of-function funded studies when the gain-of-function moratorium was put in place that, in fact, stated specifically NIAID grants that Anthony Fauci had approved That we're, in fact, gain-of-function research.
And ironically, if you look at the influenza research, it is, in fact, NIAID's own model of gain-of-function, which is published in the op-ed on why gain-of-function research should be supported, which was a piece that they wrote in 2014.
We know that there are countless crimes which are felony violations on both sides of the board.
And we know.
That it will not be until the public forces this into action that any action will be taken.
But we need to focus on where the issue is.
And I've seen even in the comments a number of people saying, why aren't we talking about PCR tests?
The reason why we're not talking about PCR tests is it's not a crime to use the wrong technology to measure a thing that doesn't exist.
It's not a crime.
It's stupid is what it is.
It's not a crime.
I'm talking about things that in fact have jailable and financial and felony statutes that make sure that we are capable of holding people accountable and actually sending people to prison where they belong.
And that includes our Prime Minister?
There is no question that your Prime Minister has violated not only the laws of Canada but has participated in a bioweapons treaty violation Let me be very precise on why I say that.
Because when I make an allegation, it has to stick.
And the allegation comes from the definition of a bioweapons program.
Inside the definition of biological and chemical weapons, the manufacturer or the ability to provide the means by which you manufacture a biological weapon, defined under the statute as a fragment or a modeled fragment of a pathogen known to cause human harm, The fact that it is Canadian company technology that is required to deliver this particular weapon means that the government of Canada is complicit in violating biological and chemical weapons laws.
And that falls to the Prime Minister.
So when I make the allegation, I'm dead serious about it.
So we have a choice about whether we're going to re-elect a criminal or not.
Well, unfortunately, I would love to be able to tell you that I have faith in the fact that we can come up with people who are sitting for elections that are in fact capable of standing before the public and saying that when I take an oath of office, I mean to protect and defend the citizens of my country.
Fact of the matter is, I'm not sure how many people on either side of our lovely border step up and actually take that seriously.
I know that there are good people.
I actually know that a number of people who get to the point of where they think they are going in power ultimately find themselves compromised, but I would certainly love to think that somewhere along the line there is a Canadian who's capable of standing up and saying that the laws of Canada and the international conventions to which Canada is a party are in fact going to be upheld and I do so solemnly swear that should be Not a huge reach.
And let's hope that come September, it's not a reach.
Linda and Darlene, I wonder if you can find Randy, if there's a way to get him on.
I'd like to hear his comments to what David has said, as well as Rocco.
I know Rocco was trying to join this call as well from his phone.
Because what you're saying, David, here is so, you know, the impact of this, the consequence of this is so significant.
It's It needs to be heard.
It needs to be broadcast from coast to coast.
We need to recognize what we're facing, and we're facing the act of crimes against humanity as we speak.
We're living in this time.
Well, and listen, I mean, we're all here because of this moment, right?
As Ted, you know very good and well from our conversations, the fact of the matter is, I am unwilling to be silent because I know that I actually have information and I have compiled information.
And the bad news for people like Trudeau is if you think that this is the only piece of information I have on things that he's been involved in, that's the tip of the iceberg.
The fact of the matter is I'm very comfortable making public allegations against public seated people in authority because I happen to know That this is not one situation.
This is not isolated.
This is the beginning of a contest and I would be more than delighted to find out how deep they want to go head-to-head with me on what I know about their actions.
You know, you talked about trying to find a politician that has the integrity to stand up and the amount of people that are compromised.
One of the things that I recognize is that this didn't happen.
I mean, you point out that the technology didn't happen 18 months ago or less, but the erosion of our systems of accountability, our courts of law, our universities, our politicians, our corporate systems, they've been gutted over decades.
Yep.
To get us to this point so that we are literally can be knocked over with a feather because there are so few institutions that now have integrity to actually stand for the principles of democracy and freedom and the things that we think we're based upon as a country.
Well, and I think we have to get to a point of realizing, and Ted, you made a beautiful point, and I just want to make sure that we spend a little bit of time looking in the mirror.
Not surprisingly, the metaphor is sitting right behind me.
But you're exactly right.
This didn't happen overnight.
We are now faced with the consequence of an enormous amount of our efforts that, in fact, should have been taken when we saw these erosions taking place.
And what happens is as long as it's not affecting us, as long as it's kind of not in our own backyard, we think that there is in fact some sort of immunity that we'll have from this.
But remember that I have yet to see anybody in British Columbia going to the University of British Columbia and asking for them to be held accountable for their role in developing the delivery mechanism For this particular vaccine.
I don't hear about the British Columbia protests at the University of BC, and I don't hear about it because people in British Columbia are largely unaware of the information that in fact states the degree to which the University of British Columbia was in fact complicit in this.
I don't see people walking around protest signs of, you know, bring acuitous pharmaceuticals to integrity And hold them to account for their deal that they cut with the German biotech company.
I have not seen any evidence of those things.
And that's not a dig at any individual or any organization or any action.
But the fact of the matter is, these things were all happening while we were asleep.
And that doesn't mean that we need to first and foremost go, oh, let's go find the bad guy and let's go to the town square and have the public accountability You know, mob style, what it means is we need to be very, very clear on the fact that we were asleep at the switch.
And it is on us to realize that if this happened, while we weren't paying attention, we better start not only forming a response to this, but we better start informing ourselves more completely so that we do not allow corporate takeovers of our public space.
Like has been allowed to take place in the last 20 months.
Well, David, you use the expression about looking in the mirror.
I'm reminded of Michael Jackson's song, The Man in the Mirror.
That's where we need to start.
As long as we look to somebody else and say they're the reason why things are the way they are, we act like we're victims.
And yet we've participated in this in ways that we need to recognize and do different if we're going to live in a free and democratic society.
We have allowed the erosion of our rights and freedoms.
We have gone along with that.
We have acquiesced.
You know, we're the frogs in boiling water that keep saying, it's okay, it's still comfortable.
In addition to that, we have, you know, to me, when I look at the media that's complicit in this, this tyranny would not happen if the media told the truth.
It would end this afternoon.
Yeah, and remember people, and for those of you not familiar with the Reiner Follmeck and the Stu Peters interviews, I will recite for your benefit what I have recited into the public record many times.
In 2014, the veterinarian Peter Daszak, who ran EcoHealth Alliance, the company that has been criticized for its role in laundering NIAID funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
But it's important for you to all realize that in 2014, Peter Daszak specifically said at a public meeting We need the public to accept a medical countermeasure for a pan-coronavirus vaccine.
And I'm quoting from him.
We need the media to create the hype and we need to use the hype to our advantage.
Investors will follow if they see profit at the end of a process.
Those are the published words of the guy who was the Wuhan Institute of Virology SARS-CoV-2 architect.
So when you think that somehow or another I'm making an allegation that suggests that maybe there was some sort of, you know, I'm implying that there might be something that is off-putting.
Listen to what they said in their own words.
We need the media to create the hype.
We need the hype to terrorize and coerce the population into what?
Accepting a pan-coronavirus vaccine.
That statement made in 2000, And 14 is critical for us to think about because when you have a statement made that says that the public needs to accept a pan influenza or pan coronavirus vaccine and you say that after the World Health Organization has declared the coronavirus based SARS to be something that has in fact been
Obliterated from human history.
This is a disease that has finally been overcome like we overcame polio and like we overcame smallpox and like we overcame everything else.
This is allegedly, according to the World Health Organization, an eradicated disease.
But an eradicated disease is supposed to have a pan-coronavirus vaccine, which is requiring media hype so that Investors will put money in because they'll see profit at the end of the process.
Those are their own words.
That's not Dave Martin's opinion.
And if we, in fact, have the perpetrators of this crime telling us that they are going to do the crime, why are we left sitting agape in 2020 or 2021 going, oh man, that just sounds like a conspiracy?
Well, It sounds like a conspiracy because it is a criminal conspiracy.
It is a racketeering conspiracy meant to harm and destroy human life.
Well, Rocco Gladys says over and over again, this isn't a conspiracy theory.
It's a, it's a conspiracy fact and conspiracy is in the criminal code and it's there for a reason because it happens.
And we, we allow that phrase conspiracy theory to discourage us from standing in our truth and holding people accountable.
David, could you connect some dots for this?
Why is this injection so important to their agenda?
What piece does it play in the larger agenda?
Well, once again, let's go back and visit the statements made by Peter Daszak.
As you all know, we had a period of time where the idea of a vaccine became quite popular Among a certain ilk within the established public health community.
We know that beginning with the 1986 Act, there was a means by which pharmaceutical companies were very interested in sheltering themselves from liability because they knew they were entering a phase where the increased danger of their actions was going to ultimately mean that business was not viable.
If you know you're going to harm a population, You need to make sure that you do the groundwork to make sure from a litigation standpoint, you move yourself as far away from prosecution as possible.
We know that beginning in 1986, there was a commitment on the part of the people who bought Congress, bought elected officials in the US, in Canada, around Europe.
And in 1986, there was a willful act to take what was supposedly a loss-leading public health product, like vaccines, And turn it into a moneymaker.
And it turns out it's a great idea to do that.
Because if what you're going to do is ultimately try to sell people on a whole host of other pharmaceuticals, it is exceptionally good to build the autoimmune disease pattern, which builds habituation to classic pharmaceutical intervention.
That began in 1986.
And as we moved into the 1990s, it became very clear that the HIV campaign, which was supposed to be the giant payday where we had the ability to somehow finally get everybody to be afraid of a pathogen, didn't pay off very well because it was classified as a lifestyle-oriented disease.
And then what we had in the mid-1990s was the birth of the obsession about what was called a universal influenza vaccine.
The desire on the part of industry was to make sure that every person would get addicted to taking the influenza shot every year.
It's a great moneymaker.
It's a wonderful way for the industry to keep jabbing people on an annual basis.
And the problem with that is, as we all know, the influenza vaccine was far less effective than people hoped it would be.
And the public, not surprisingly, wasn't willing to fall for it.
Which led to a series of meetings, which took place at the NIAID Advisory Council, Together with international partners to come up with a way to build a mechanism whereby we could convince the world that we needed to have a universal vaccine program for the world.
The World Health Organization, NIAID, the Vaccine Research Center, and their international collaborators got together and said, basically, what we need is we need to have an event which allows a Mass campaign of terror to be unleashed so that the public accepts something.
And so they went down the pathway of a universal influenza and a universal coronavirus vaccine.
Tragically, there is in fact no evidence that either of the pathogens was isolated.
There was no evidence that we had a basis to create this mass campaign of terror.
And even in what was reportedly a pandemic, we actually didn't have people getting sick From a pathogen.
One of the reasons why the World Health Organization made it abundantly clear that COVID could be declared with no laboratory evidence is because if, in fact, there was a requirement for laboratory evidence, we would have actually had to test for a virus.
But you didn't have to to have COVID-19.
You had to have a series of clinical symptoms.
Ironically, what we have now is a situation where we are, in fact, injecting people.
And this is where we need to get very clear on this and remember People, if you don't hear anything else, remember, the word vaccine is misleading.
What is happening is the mRNA computer simulation of an S1 spike protein thought to be modeled off of the possible SARS-CoV-2.
And so you got all of those preconditions.
This is not a virus.
This is not to disrupt a virus.
This is actually an injection to make your body produce a foreign pathogen.
That's what this injection is.
The theory being that once that pathogen is being produced inside of your body, and by a pathogen I'm talking about, the S1 spike protein, the minute that is produced, we are hopeful, hopeful, that's what the official science is, we're hopeful that the body then triggers An immune response which will build not an antibody to SARS-CoV-2.
The thought is that we'll actually build an antibody to the spike protein model that we're injecting.
Here's the problem people.
Every single public statement that says that this is a COVID vaccine is a lie.
This is not a vaccine for COVID.
This is actually a medical countermeasure using gene therapy to try to manipulate your body into being a factory of a pathologic substance, the spike protein associated with coronavirus, and hopefully that triggering immune response.
And we have to get clear on this.
They told us it was a vaccine because they wanted the shield of immunity of liability.
That's why they called it what it is.
As recently as the first quarter of 2020, in their own Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Moderna still made reference to the fact that the FDA considered their mRNA technology to be a, quote, gene therapy, end quote.
We do not have an injection that is in fact associated with the actual pathogen model that is called SARS-CoV-2.
And as a result, we must call it what it is.
A foreign supplied computer model delivered to the world from China at some point in the early hours of 2020, sometime between June 7th or January 7th and January 20th, It is a computer model of a simulated pathogen, which was simulated from sampled populations of as many as 40 people prior to the 30th of December.
That model that was uploaded to servers around the world was then used to identify a computer model of what might be the mRNA strand that would code the spike protein, and that is what is being injected.
We have to get clear on the facts.
That this is not a classic vaccine the way we are trained to think of vaccines.
This is a gene therapy to create a protein within the body, which is to create an immune response.
And we're hoping that by injecting that pathogen using Canadian technology as the vector, which is the lipid nanoparticle technology that came out of the University of British Columbia, we must understand Okay, I know we have less than 10 minutes with you, David.
So there's two conversations I want to have with you.
What can we do now?
narrative is false. And our elected officials have willfully coerced the population using
acts of domestic terror to make that message heard.
Okay, I know we have less than 10 minutes with you, David.
So there's two conversations I want to have with you. What, what can we do now? What's
the most important thing we ought to be focusing our energy and our attention on now?
Well, as a Commonwealth country, what I would say is that you need to re examine your statutory
basis of action and make sure that your members of parliament are inundated with the information
that we're sharing right now.
Complicity with allowing the government to commit a crime in Canada is something that must, must be done immediately.
And if you are living north of the US-Canada border, You know, your Member of Parliament must be informed that there is an active racketeering and criminal conspiracy that is actively harming the public and it is using the resources, the wealth, and the innovation of Canada to violate international and domestic bioweapons and bioterrorism statutes.
So, the first thing is to make sure that people hear this message.
The second thing is to hold them accountable.
You have an election coming up very very soon and what you must do is you must look to those individuals who are standing for public office and quite specifically have them make a public statement.
Are you going to allow this to continue or are you going to do something to disrupt this?
And any official who's standing for office who is unwilling to actively commit to a public inquiry An inquest and ultimately a Royal Commission equivalent must be voted out and you would vote in those individuals who are capable of making that commitment.
By merely having the conversation, it is important that you as citizens understand your role in making sure that there is in fact a public commitment.
Getting people on record is the first thing to do, but the second thing to do is to stop Having debates that aren't real debates.
This is not about masks.
This is not about social distancing.
Those were decoys to distract us from the crimes that were being committed.
The crimes that are being committed are racketeering, bioweapons, and in fact, at least, reckless homicide, if not willful murder, of massive members of our population.
And we cannot sit idly by and allow that to persist.
And the last conversation I want to have with you, David, is after you and I chatted the other day, I came away, you said some things that create hope.
Yes.
What has you hopeful?
Well, like I said, in many times when I'm asked this question, I have no hope, I have certainty.
I'm far bigger fan of certainty than hope.
I am certain that within the listening audience of what I see on my screen is 1.9 thousand, so close to 2,000 people who are listening to this.
Someone or more of you has a prosecutor, has a barrister, has a QC, has a golf partner, has somebody who has the capacity to in fact move forward.
There is no question That we have within 2,000 people's reach using the, you know, very famous Kevin Bacon, you know, six degrees of separation.
We have the people within our network who are the people who can take the appropriate action.
Somewhere there is an elected official.
Somewhere there is a prosecutor.
Somewhere there is a QC.
Somewhere there is someone who is within the reach of someone who is actually in this conversation.
The fact of the matter is there is no question that it is not going to be the ballot box alone that decides this.
This is going to be the human factors of people who in fact take their initiative to make sure their network is activated to the issues and we in fact make a very clear statement that says we the people are watchfully aware of what is going on and we are not going to allow this to go on in our name.
And David, that's what gives me, I guess the word is certainty for the future is there are too many people that see what's going on that are going to stand up and defend our rights and our freedoms and will not back down.
Yep.
I had a lovely conversation with Vincent Gersey, who's a retired police officer, and he was talking about how his 30-some-odd-year-old son said, Dad, really, is this such a big deal?
Is this the hill you want to die on?
And Vincent said, yes, son, it is the hill I want to die on.
This is our battle.
This is our time.
And there are more and more people every day who are recognizing it, standing up, and will not step back.
And we will be stronger because there's 1,900 people who now have the ability to know that they were here in this moment at this time informing themselves about what is transpiring.
And we have the ability, as we've said before, to actually do what it takes to stand together because the only power that the incumbent energies have is to make sure we're isolated.
And we just blew that cover a little wider open by a factor of 2,000 people right now.
Well, David, you, um, you're an incredible warrior.
One is you bring information forward that the world has been, it's been hidden from the world and you have, you have found it and revealed it courageously.
I can't imagine it's easy to stand in the place you're in knowing how many people don't want you to say what you're saying.
But you're modeling courage for the rest of us, integrity, honesty, And I think that by itself gives certainty for the future.
Well, let me leave you with the following observation.
I'm the first to say that I don't think when you're doing what you are here to do, it's courageous.
I think it's courageous to stand against what you know to be right.
I think it's not courageous to stand for what you know to be right.
And I'll leave you with a beautiful story that, you know, I grew up in a religious environment, so I have a lot of religious metaphors that are in my background.
But I love the story of Joseph in Egypt when he meets his brothers.
And he meets his brothers, obviously, during the famine.
And there's all kinds of nonsense going on about, you know, when he's going to do the big reveal that he is the brother they sold into slavery.
And there was a really cool, beautiful moment in that story.
And I love that.
And I'd love for you to think about this.
Joseph actually, when he has the opportunity to do the I Told You So moment, he says, in a very beautiful way, he says, listen, he goes, I was just sent ahead of you.
That's it.
I was sent ahead of you to prepare for what was going to come.
Now, he could have done all kinds of I Told You So things and he didn't do it.
What he said was, you know what?
It turns out that in my case, I started watching this thing in 1999.
I started doing the things that I was doing in 2002.
I started briefing the world's law enforcement in 2003 about this before there ever was a SARS.
And the fact of the matter is, the reason why I can stand so comfortably in knowing that what I'm saying is true is I have actually been watching this thing unfold longer than any person in elected office right now.
The fact is, I know what I'm talking about.
And I know that they don't.
And one needs to be very clear on the fact That it is not courageous to stand with the truth.
It takes courage to stand with a lie.
But it actually is human to stand with the truth.
And I am delighted to stand not only with the certainty of what I know, but I'm delighted that we have the thousands of people who are participating in this conversation who are ultimately going to now have a firm foundation upon which they can stand To make sure that they have the ability to have the candle of truth against the torn of the darkness of those who wish to destroy us.
We will, as we the people, we will prevail.
Whether we do it collectively or whether we have some fall along the way is neither here nor there, but it's never courageous to be truthful.
It's always courageous to try to hide and hope you're not discovered.
Wow, that's a very powerful message to leave us with.
David, thank you for your work.
Thank you.
It's an honor, and I'm delighted, and like I said, the minute the borders are open, Kim and I will be across the border celebrating, and we'll get some, what do you have, Tim Hortons up there?
We'll get some crappy donuts, and we'll get, you know, whatever you guys have, some, you know, maple syrup, and hang out with you guys, and have a great time, and I think there's a couple of thousand Canadians here.
We'd be delighted to buy you a beer or a glass of wine.
Yeah, we will.
And maple doughnuts.
There you go.
I'm willing to end on maple doughnuts.
That sounds great.
As long as I can get a bike ride in to make sure that I work some of it off, we'll be good to go.
But listen, thank you so much.
Thank you all for being a part of this call.
And I am delighted and honored to meet you this way.
And I look forward to the day we can meet face to face.
Blessings.
Blessings to you.
Very good.
If you find value in the kind of conversations that we have here at Vaccine Choice Canada, I invite you to support our work and our mission by becoming a member.
Vaccine Choice Canada is Canada's oldest and most trusted vaccine risk awareness authority.
▲
Export Selection