All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 8, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
55:20
David Martin Covid Revealed Interview, PART 1, Dec 05, 2021
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
you so
so so
so Welcome to episode 5 of COVID revealed
Well, we're moving past that halfway point in our nine-part docuseries, so it's great to be here with you.
We got a lot of road behind us and covered a lot of ground, but let me tell you, the road in front of us still covers more facets of this arena called COVID in ways that you need to know and understand, so stick with me.
Keep taking this journey with me.
You're going to learn things that you need to know.
I also want to remind you that during this free viewing period, we have significant discounts on owning COVID Revealed, as well as some really great bonuses that you'll be interested in.
Know that when you invest in this, that it's supporting our work, it encourages us, it keeps us going, and it's something that we have deep gratitude for.
You're saying that you appreciate what we've done, you think it's valuable, and once you own it, I want you not only to have it for yourself, but make sure that you share it with other people.
It's important That people get this information.
One of the things I got to tell you, it's so hard when people want to enter a conversation around COVID or the vaccine.
It gets very polarized and very heated very quickly and people are just seeing headlines all the time.
And I felt like it was our job to say, let's put the information together so that when people have questions or even if they're opposing or adversarial in some situations, You have the content to be able to have them see it and say, here are credible experts.
Here's their credentials.
Here's what they had to say.
It just allows us to speak for you when you're trying to communicate something.
That's one of the visions that we have for this series, to have a very encyclopedic look at COVID with experts that are credible.
So that people who maybe are getting their information from bad sources can now get it directly from very good sources.
So we are past the halfway point now in this free viewing period.
It's great to be here with you.
Episode 5 is a very, very powerful episode.
Let's go ahead and get started.
Sometimes people's intelligence can almost be overwhelming.
They are so bright, so articulate, and have this high-horsepower brain that they can take large amounts of information, sort it all for you, put it together, and then deliver it, and do it in ways like other people aren't doing.
Well, that's the case with Dr. David Martin.
You can't help but know you're in the presence of intense intelligence when he's speaking to you.
He is somebody that's come on the scene to recognize certain aspects of this whole COVID story that really nobody else is talking about.
And I have to say that this interview blew my socks off, and it's about to blow yours off, too.
It's a two-part interview, so we're going to start with part one right now.
David, I've very much been looking forward to this interview, so thank you for taking the time to come sit down with me.
Oh, it's a delight, Patrick.
Thank you so much.
So, I want to maybe approach this a little bit differently than most interviews, where we follow a trail and then get to a conclusion.
Maybe we've got to do this more like a research paper, because I know the vastness of the trail.
Let's start with the conclusion.
And, you know, what is the conclusion?
And then we're going to get into the trail that got us to this conclusion.
So when it comes to COVID, in the general context in the world, what the world believes about COVID, what the media is promulgating, versus what you know, what's the conclusion there?
The conclusion is we have a conflict of two fundamental worldviews about what humanity is.
There is a view which is informed by the industrial evolution, which is now turned into the kind of AI and cyber view of the world, which essentially sees humanity as a series of predictable, reductionist, kind of almost computer-simulatable experiences.
And in that world, What you want to do is you want to get consensus thought, you want to get consensus behavior, you want to get consensus acquiescence, you want to get the world to actually fit into a formula.
Because that's a view of humanity that says that the best humanity is domesticated.
That's one worldview.
There's another worldview, and that worldview says that the essence of humanity Is this unbelievable interplay where the spark of consciousness that tunes us into the frequency called humanity gives us the ability to see life as an ever-unfolding mastery of learning from that which has come before us, adding our own experience and our own intellect and our own creativity to that experience, and then passing along something that is fundamentally nonlinear
And in many instances, transcendent.
And so when we think about it, that one worldview is the worldview that can build a cathedral.
Where the cathedral has a dome that wasn't even contemplated when the cornerstone was first set.
Where you actually know that by virtue of building the thing you're building, Somebody else is going to look at it and go, ah, I wonder if you could do that with glass.
And then I wonder if we could do that with an arch.
And I wonder if you could do that.
And in fact, by the very act of living, we're innovating a more rich experience.
So One World View takes us down a progression towards consensus, monotony, And ultimately, absolute replacement with a digital reality.
And another worldview says, that's not what humanity is.
That's what an industrial model of a regression-oriented control system is.
And we are in fact living the fork in the road.
So, that's the cool thing about where we are.
And this conversation is advocating for the cathedral.
Great.
With COVID specifically, it seems like there are forces at play that are trying to force this door behind door number one, basically down the former path that you described, which it's interesting to say it ends up in digital replacement.
But is there, in your mind, A conspiracy.
Is there some sort of a group of people who are puppeteers trying to pull strings without people knowing about it to create certain influences in humanity to shape it into the form of whatever it is they want it to be?
No question.
And we need to take this one back a bit.
But remember, let's start where we are right now.
COVID doesn't exist.
What do you mean by that?
COVID is a series of clinical symptoms.
This is a series of clinical symptoms that by definition cannot be defined.
So the wonderful thing is they are at best a bit fuzzy.
And to have COVID means that somebody decided that you have enough, whatever enough is.
3, 5, 7 of the 11 to 15 approved symptoms.
And once you have those, you have COVID.
Okay.
This is such a bizarre experience because we invented a diagnosis and then we said that it was causal, saying we have a virus that causes these symptoms.
The problem is we actually had the symptoms long before we had isolated a virus.
And the virus exists in enormous numbers of the population with no symptoms.
So the fundamental fallacy is we have empirically established there is no causal relationship out of the gate.
There is no causal.
If you can have a fragment of what we're calling SARS-CoV-2 and have perfectly healthy experience of living, and you can have all of the things we call COVID-19, And have no evidence of any of the fragments of the alleged causal agent.
By definition, that is in fact the definition of conspiracy.
When you willfully create, as the World Health Organization and the CDC did in February of 2020, when you willfully create a conflated statement where you know that the definition, by definition, is going to be a way to manipulate the population.
Right, the difference between positive cases and sick people.
Well, we don't even know what those numbers are.
When we were told, oh, there's a thousand COVID cases.
Okay, is anybody sick?
Well, nobody asked that question.
They asked how many PCR tests were run.
We have people filling the hospitals.
Okay, great.
We have people filling the hospitals.
And crazy thing is, I can find a hospital almost any day, anywhere on the planet, If I look, I can find a hospital that's ICU is full.
And so we go, oh, there's full ICUs.
Great.
Were there any alleged viral cases in those ICUs?
These are questions we're not invited to ask because we're building an ontology around this illusion that says that we are going to use numbers and statistics To instill a state of terror and fear in a population, to coerce that population into a behavior they would not otherwise accept.
To what end?
Why would people want to do that?
Once again, when we think about the worldview, if what I'm trying to do is accelerate a very hierarchical system, where there is a few individual actors or groups
who have the ability to impose their narrative onto a population, and the population willingly embraces
whatever the overlords tell them, there are an enormous number of people
who actually are very, very happy to be in the position of that dictatorial view of saying,
we're going to impose upon, and then they watch as the masses just acquiesce to whatever they're doing.
I remind people frequently that if you go back and look at the great reveal that we saw
in the Anthony Fauci emails, which were supposedly going to be this watershed moment,
the thing that should be quite problematic is that a veterinarian, Peter Daszak,
a veterinarian is the guy driving the narrative.
Interesting.
Now, I don't, you know, I'm accused by many people of being somewhat of a polymath and I, you know, multidisciplinarian or whatever you want to Call the terminology.
And I'm not saying that a veterinarian can't have insights into public health, but I have a problem with a veterinarian who is paid to create a narrative, who is paid to definitely divert funds during an illegal action that was going on.
I have a problem with that veterinarian being chosen to be the one running the narrative where he's telling the world We need to make sure that people don't get suspicious about the laboratory in Wuhan, don't get suspicious about other things.
It's somewhat ironic that the only person who's building the narrative is the person who is actually running all the ingredients that went into the narrative.
And those kinds of things are the self-evident components of a story that says, this was a manufactured narrative.
And the manufacturing of the narrative, unfortunately, has a very long history.
Is there a relationship, though, between a contagion and these set of symptoms called COVID-19?
So all the viruses, and I know we're going to get into the patent history on these things, etc.
So when someone shows up and there's an apparent Observable cause and effect meaning here's a person who has the symptoms or develops the symptoms of COVID-19 and there is a these other people are also you know that they were around
seem to be, uh, have gotten it also through some sort of transmission.
Yeah.
Is that, is that, uh, there's no cause and effect there?
No, this is the fallacy of regression.
And I apologize in advance for everybody who hated math in the 10th grade or the 9th grade when you first saw that Y equals MX plus B formula.
But here's the fallacy.
Those same people are around a bunch of other people who didn't get sick.
And ironically, the person that allegedly got sick wasn't around somebody who was sick before.
So once again, what we're doing is making the mistake of association and causation.
And that's a fundamental problem.
That's the epidemic of stupidity.
Make the distinction of association versus causation.
Yeah, so if I'm measuring a thing, there's a higher probability that I'm going to see the thing than if I'm not measuring it.
Well, you can't see it if you're not measuring.
Well, there you go!
So the funny thing is, if I have a population, and I don't care what the population is, if I have a population, I bring the population in, and I say I'm going to measure blood pressure, you know what I'm going to find?
Blood pressure.
There's going to be some people who have higher blood pressure, and some people who have lower blood pressure.
Some of them are going to know that they had it, and some of them are not.
Some of them are going to be symptomatic, and some of them are not.
But I'm going to only see that which I choose to measure.
Now the funny thing is we picked a measurement device in this particular instance, which was not specific to a pathogen.
Right?
There has not been a SARS test ever run in the population.
The RT-PCR amplifies a fragment associated with what we think we've called SARS.
So, you know, people think, oh, we've tested for the virus.
No.
No one has ever tested for the virus.
Hasn't been done.
So what are they testing?
They're testing for fragments of either RNA strands or protein strands associated with what we think.
would be produced by the virus.
But the RT-PCR itself cannot measure what we think we're measuring.
So we do what's called cycle threshold amplification.
That's what the RT-PCR is about.
It's about taking a sample and repeatedly amplifying all of the little fragments of nucleic acid sequences.
We're amplifying those fragments Anywhere from 25, 28, 35, 40 cycle thresholds.
What that means is we're taking a tiny little speck of dust, we're reproducing it a whole bunch of times, and then we're trying to figure out whether the dust came from the carpet, or from the sofa, or from the chair, or from the dog.
Now the good news is we can build a hunch After a certain number of times looking at the thing, we can build a hunch that it's probably from either the carpet or the sofa.
But we can't tell you whether it was from the carpet or the sofa because there's similarity between the fibers in both of those.
And because all we're measuring is this tiny little sub-fragment of it, we can get to it's probably a furniture thing.
And that's what happens in RT-PCR.
We're amplifying this fragment to the point where we think we probably have an association.
But this is a disease based on the manipulation of statistics, not based on the existence of a thing.
And the thing, remember, there's a, by the way, a very simple thing that could be done.
Every research facility that has ever researched human tissue has samples of human tissue that predate November 2019.
I don't care where you are.
I ran labs.
We kept tissue samples from people for 8, 10, 15 years.
If we wanted to solve this question immediately, you know what we could do?
We could go to a tissue bank and say, let's take 100 samples from prior to November of 2019.
Let's run those samples and let's see if there's any SARS-CoV-2 in those samples.
You'll conspicuously notice why the research project that I just described has never been done.
Why hasn't it been done?
We'd find it.
Yeah.
And if we found it, then we'd have a hard time selling the story that we had a new disease.
We'd have a hard time selling the story that we have a new pathogen.
And the reason why we'd have a hard time selling the story is because it is in fact a story that's falsifiable with a very, very, very simple But not done exercise.
Of course, they have the patent on it, so yes.
Number one, so why did we choose the PCR test in the first place?
The experts, are they in on it?
Of course, they have the patent on it, so yes.
There's a big financial interest in selling a test that you can run persistently and have
no accountability for what you're testing.
It's a fabulous money grab.
Wow.
All right.
And then number two, what's the end game here?
What's the agenda to say that, hey, we're going to basically create this work of fiction,
get everybody in fear and terror, cause behavior, and there's the censorship.
going on. I mean, it's kind of easy to observe there's things, but could there be a conspiracy
on this scale? It's not a conspiracy. It's actually, remember, conspiring, if we go back and get to the
lexicon of this, right, conspiring is when one or more parties get together to create an act,
whatever the act is, which is intended to either hide or harm.
That's kind of the core of what conspiracy is.
The problem with this one is it's actually stated in public, so you can't quite call it a conspiracy.
So when Peter Daszak in 2015 at the National Academy of Sciences made the statement, we need to create universal acceptance of a universal Pan-influenza, pan-coronavirus vaccine.
We need the media to create the hype.
And we need to use the hype to our advantage.
Because investors will follow where they see profit at the end of the process.
He said this publicly?
He said that publicly.
It's been published.
It was published in the National Academy's proceedings in 2016.
Now what makes that problematic is the following.
According to the World Health Organization, The coronavirus SARS problem was eradicated in 2008.
Now you heard the date that I just said.
In 2008.
And we had that little camel fart in the Middle East, the MERS, which was a few hundred people that got terribly sick and several people died from what we called MERS.
But SARS was declared eradicated.
So why in 2015 would Peter Daszak, the veterinarian, The guy hanging out with Anthony Fauci's money that he was diverting through EcoHealth Alliance to Wuhan.
Why would he say that sentence?
We need the media to create the hype.
We need to use the hype to our advantage and investors will follow if they see profit at the end of the process.
That's a quote.
Why would he say that publicly if it wasn't not a conspiracy?
It's not a conspiracy.
There's nothing hidden.
This is a willful act of inhumanity.
This is a willful act of bioweapons and terrorism.
Because if you're telling me, as a veterinarian who's funding the weaponization of coronavirus, if you're telling me that you're telling the public that we are going to create a hype event, Is that Dave being conspiratorial?
That's not a conspiracy.
That's actually sociopathic behavior and we need to be really clear on this.
There's a group of us who find ourselves that we at least think we've self classified into rational and I'm being quite polite about that because I'm not sure sometimes that I in fact am.
I try to at least have a grounding with opening assumptions where I go, I can at least let you know the foundation of my madness.
Because I think that's an ethical thing to do, if nothing else.
But if you stop and think about what I've just said, you have the guy who's getting paid to weaponize a virus, that guy saying, we need investors to follow where they see profit at the end of the process.
Does that sound like a public health thing to you?
Well, I guess what I would say is, why would he want to be so forthright in public to something that's so obviously abhorrent?
So Plato has a very interesting answer to your question.
In The Republic, Plato talks about the audacity of what he referred to as temple robbers.
The story that he tells in The Republic is actually quite fun, and it basically says that Let's keep it really simple.
Let's make it simple for today's conversation.
If a person killed another person, we'd say, oh, that's bad.
That's homicide, or it's murder, or whatever else.
And we'd have kind of a righteous indignation, and we'd be consternated about the fact that that had happened.
OK?
So if that person killed like three people, we'd start going, I wonder if there's like mommy issues there, or daddy issues, or neglect, or abuse, or this, or that, or the other thing.
We'd still be upset about three or five or ten people being killed and we'd go, that's still unfortunate.
But there's a threshold where we stop being met with abhorrence and we start being met with fascination.
Like once we get to the Charles Manson level, we start going, that's kind of an interesting character, isn't it?
Right?
We're not taking the sum of all of the deaths.
And going, I would be shocked with that one, shocked with that one, shocked with that one.
What we do is we actually numb ourselves to the fact that we're talking about the eradication of human life.
And at a certain threshold, we get fascinated by it.
We make movies about it.
We write books about it.
And we go, isn't this a fascinating story of inside the killer's mind?
Well, what is that?
That is actually a numbing of our consciousness.
It's a searing of our sense of humanity.
Where if I can get to the now I'm going to have genocide, I'm going to kill a million people.
People sit there actually trying to reverse engineer, well how would you schedule that many executions?
Like, that's a practical issue.
I wonder if they have like a software program.
I wonder if there's an SAP program for mass murdering.
Like, we even lose the fact that people are being killed and we enter into this bizarre obsession with the mechanics of the how it was done.
Now think about a population of 300 million people or 3 billion people.
Our consciousness doesn't have the ability to enter into the sentence that Peter Daszak said in 2015.
We are going to unleash a pathogen on the world and investors are going to follow for profit.
To what end?
For profit?
Is profit the end?
Well, there's two ends, as I've stated many, many times.
One end is there are a lot of people lining their pocket with this thing.
I mean, remember that to create the illusion of this response, the medical countermeasure response that we call Operation Warp Speed, the United States government contracted ATI.
Not a pharmaceutical company.
A defense department contractor whose other contracts included misinformation and propaganda.
So you think the government is a part of the conspiracy?
I don't think it's a part of the conspiracy.
If it's not a conspiracy, but part of the agenda?
No question.
If I were going to, I don't know, if I was going to go out and make a vaccine, don't you think I'd actually hire a company that made vaccines?
Would I hire a propaganda specialist out of South Carolina?
They're the main contractor.
Operation Warp Speed went through one defense contractor.
Does that make sense to you?
No.
No.
And would it make sense to anybody?
These things are so egregious and in public that this was in fact an effort by the individuals who are running this particular racket to show that even the government has been manipulated.
We actually don't have the illusion of what we think of as a government that's at control.
As a matter of fact, it is such an egregious abuse of the agency of government where we have somebody who has the ability to have the audacity of violating federal laws, being the architect of a narrative that goes into the September publication from the World Health Organization, September 2019.
that said that we need to create a worldwide experience of an intentional or accidental release of a respiratory pathogen.
Published in September of 2019 and the exercise had to be completed by September 2020 and the milestone of completion for that exercise Was the development of a universal vaccine platform.
Who's the author of that?
World at Risk.
It's the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board.
Anthony Fauci sits on that board.
Dr. Elias from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sits on that board.
And Dr. Gao from the Chinese CDC sits on that board.
And this is all, this is published.
It's in the public domain.
Yep.
I'm quoting from it.
Wow.
Wow.
And so anybody who wants to tell me that this is some sort of deep-seated, deep-throat, follow-the-money, and you'll get into these seedy underbellies of secret handshakes and everything else, no it isn't.
It's written right in front of our faces, and it's done to do a very simple thing.
In those two worldviews we talked about at the beginning, if I want the population to ultimately accept my digital reality, I have to make sure the cognitive dissonance is so complete that you stop trusting your own brain.
And guess what they've done?
Exactly that.
A couple of things.
Just circling back to one of the... I want to close the loop on something you talked about earlier.
This whole idea of a contagion and saying, well, how come everybody doesn't get it?
Traditional germ theory is, you know, it's a matter of immune response versus the pathogen.
And, you know, there are people who are more vulnerable, other people whose immune systems will fight it off without developing the disease COVID-19.
So wouldn't that be an explanation as to why, you know, why there could be a contagion, a set of symptoms that are associated with that contagion.
And some people would get it and some people get it mildly.
Some people would die and everything in between.
Yeah.
That's a wonderfully logical question to ask.
And if we were serious about that in this particular case, then the clinical trials for the intervention would have actually measured either infection or transmission.
Great.
And by the way, the FDA has a published standard, which was last updated in 2014, which actually defined what a vaccine clinical trial primary endpoint was.
And guess what?
It had to do with infection or transmission.
Right.
Guess what we haven't done?
Those two things on this particular vaccine?
We changed the rules of what... No!
We even changed the rules of what a vaccine clinical trial was.
And we changed those rules because we knew that this had nothing to do with infection or transmission.
And remember, people have to get back to the association.
We want to live in a simple world where we can tie a nice bow on the top of a thing and go, You know, Frank died of a heart attack.
Oh, he was a smoker for 20 years.
Yeah, that's what happens to smokers.
We're living in this kind of 12th century morality play where we're told that the dragon is the reason why the bad thing happened, or whatever the myth story is.
We don't ask the question, oh, was it really the smoking that killed him?
We make the association mistake of saying that because something was associated, therefore it's causal.
And we love this obsession with causality because we want to believe in a predictable world where we know what the inputs are and we know what the outputs are.
Does that start sound like the digital world?
I need the inputs to match the outputs.
And we had to manufacture this crazy concept of healthy people being asymptomatic carriers.
How did we have to come up with that story?
By the way, In the early 1900s, 1904-1905, there was a really beautiful case in California, Juho V. Williamson, which was actually the Supreme Court of California ruling that you could not quarantine a healthy population.
That was a Supreme Court decision in California.
And who was the first state to quarantine a healthy population?
New York and California?
And you sit there going, the rules are not maybe kind of suggestions.
This is a Supreme Court decision, right?
And in a Supreme Court decision that's very self-evidently clear, you don't quarantine a healthy population.
The reason why was because it was deemed Both unconstitutional and unethical to do that.
Now, let's get back to this association causation problem.
If all of the facts stand in the way of the story I'm trying to tell you, right?
The inconvenience of, I got a bunch of sick people that I don't see the fragment in, so the causal thing seems to fall apart there.
And then I have a bunch of people where I actually seem to be seeing that they in fact are sick, but they don't have the pathogen.
And then I'm trying to tell you as the fear campaign gets built, I'm trying to say, SARS causes COVID, SARS causes COVID, COVID comes from SARS, right?
Every causal statement that's out there.
The problem is all of the evidence says that that's correct.
All of it.
And add to that, the only way we can maintain the campaign of terror Is remember back to Peter Daszak's conversation.
We need the media to create the hype to get the public to accept a pan-coronavirus vaccine.
They told us what this was.
This was a marketing program.
Every time you saw a face mask, every time you saw a sticker on the floor, social distance, this foot, six foot social distancing.
You know where that actually came from?
A Petri dish study in a hospital where they took a very, very sick patient and they set Petri dishes at different distances from the patient.
And then they actually measured what grew in the Petri dishes.
They never validated that it came from the patient.
They just actually had Petri dishes.
And then they said, how far out did the Petri dish grow weird, crazy things?
And it turns out that at six feet, they still had crazy things growing, and after six feet, they couldn't find the crazy things growing.
So they came to the conclusion in one study, which, by the way, under the Federal Trade Commission Act, is halfway to making a recommendation.
So you can't even make a recommendation about six feet.
But if you go back and you look at that study, they had a tiny problem.
They never showed that any of the things that grew in the Petri dish were infected.
We don't know.
And I'm not saying that 6 feet is safe, or 12 feet is, or 20 feet is.
What I am saying is that when you're creating an illusion, you actually don't want these questions to be either asked or answered, because this is not the point.
The point is, we're going to create a visual cue, we're going to create a behavioral clue, we're going to create all these cues, and then what we're going to do is we're going to tell the population, be afraid, all the time.
All the time.
Be afraid where you go out, where you stand, where you this, where you that.
I'm going to create a fear system in which you cannot escape the fear.
You can't go anywhere without seeing the disc on the floor.
You can't go anywhere without seeing the mask sign on the door.
You can't go anywhere without seeing the message.
And they told us in 2015 what this was for.
This had nothing to do with a pathogen.
It had everything to do with the Prophet.
Looking into your background, you've got my vote for world's most fascinating man.
Yeah, it's been interesting.
Well, you used the term polymath earlier, but there's so many areas of interest that you have and have applied them, not just that they're personal interests, but they're applicable in the world.
But you have a perspective and have followed a trail that nobody else has.
And I've been looking at this COVID thing for a long time.
And so far, I was looking at intellectual property.
Yeah.
So just for a moment, talk about your background in intellectual property and kind of your management of these databases.
And how did you start to get on this trail that we're going to get into right now?
So let's answer that at the humanity level first.
The humanity level is that we only have one asset defined by right in the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution provides every human being in America only one right, and that is the right to your creativity.
That is the only right we're granted.
And I think a lot of people don't know that because they don't read something silly like the Constitution.
But if you look at that right, you realize that we have defiled that right since 1786.
We say that everybody has equal access to the right to their creativity.
And then we build all of our social systems, we build all of our finance systems, we build all of our banking systems, we build everything to make sure no one has access to it.
And so my motivation around intellectual property came from a broken social contract that started in 1786.
And if we go back and read what the Constitution actually says, that in exchange for the promotion of the useful arts and sciences, meaning that the contribution back to my cathedral analogy, right, by Offering into the public your creativity, you should receive the benefit for having made that contribution.
The ultimate democratization of wealth, the ultimate democratization of creativity is that contract, which is you do something of value and society rewards you with the right to benefit from that.
Well, that's been erased, and it was erased many times over.
And it was erased principally under the Uniform Commercial Code, which actually put in the tax code when we invented the tax system.
But essentially what we said was that the right defined by creative inputs, Was in fact something that could be leaned as an asset.
It could be used in banking.
It could be used in tax.
It could be used in all kinds of other ways to extract wealth from a person.
But we never built the system, ever, to actually let humans actually receive the benefit.
So in 1998, after doing 10 years of treaty-restricted tech transfer all over the world, which is a very long sentence that I'm brushing over, a huge thing.
In 1998, we built the system that would allow a bank to look at the creativity of an individual and see the financial value of that creativity such that the bank could lend money based on that creativity.
And that's what my company started doing.
Now, when you do that, what you have to do is you have to establish a couple interesting things.
And I simplify it into three really fundamental questions.
First, do you have what you say you have?
Now, the reason why that's an interesting question is most of us, when we think that we've been creative, we don't bother to check on whether or not somebody else had the same impulse.
Because we're pretty sure in our own little God complexes that we probably came up with it.
So, we don't usually look in the rear view mirror and go, oh, there's ten other people that came up with the same thing.
We actually go, oh, it's my idea!
Without doing any real responsible assessment.
The first step is do you actually have what you say you have?
The second step is does anybody else care?
One of my favorite examples of this is the faster than the speed of light engine.
That's really patented.
An engine that flies faster than the speed of light.
Now the cool thing about that is it might work.
The bad thing about that is we haven't found any materials that can actually be used to implement the thing.
So the cool thing is you can get an engine, you just can't build the vehicle that the engine lives in.
The other cool thing about that invention is you have to figure out the halfway point of your flight really precisely, like to the Angstrom.
Because it turns out if you're accelerating to the speed of light, you have to start braking a long way ahead.
Because the great news is getting to the speed of light might be easy, but making sure you hit the brakes.
Before you arrive at the speed of light, which kind of has an existential problem, like smashing into Mars because we flew there really fast, but we forgot to put the brakes on halfway through the flight.
That would be a bad idea.
But the does anybody else care is actually asked and answered in the context of not do you care because you came up with the idea, but does anybody else care is, is there a context in which the thing that you were creative about actually has an expression that somebody else has shown evidence works?
And so that's the second piece.
And then the third piece is if you can't use it, and this is the tricky one, Is what you're doing something someone else can use?
In other words, what's the recycling or the refurbishing or the reconstruction of your creativity such that it could have value after you don't have it anymore?
Because those are the three questions a bank has to ask.
Do you have it?
That's an important one.
Does anybody else care?
That's an important one.
That's the value question.
And then the, can somebody else use it if you're not using it, is the collateral question.
That's the fundamental of banking.
So in 1998, we built the system which uses linguistic genomics to answer those three questions.
It was really cool.
The bad news is, when we digitized the patent record the very first time, we found a bunch of evidence of violations of biological and chemical weapons treaties.
Just by virtue of looking through what was there.
You weren't looking necessarily for that.
No, no, no.
The cool thing about my worldview is I like to enter into every experience of my life with the knowingness that there is something to find out and the unknowingness of, I have no idea what it is.
So, one of the things we found was a bunch of stuff that looked like it was violating biological and chemical weapons treaties.
And that was really problematic.
When we started seeing that a bunch of what were called pathogens, viruses, bacteria, various toxins, seemed to be showing up in things where they didn't belong.
My favorite example is the blast-resistant rocket-propelled grenade It is actually patented to deliver a payload of biological agents.
Now, I don't know about you, but I can see a syringe and I can kind of go, yeah, that's probably the way I would deliver a biological agent to somebody.
When it's on a rocket propelled grenade, I'm not sure I can quite believe that that wasn't meant to be an agent of war.
Something about the rocket-propelled grenade.
I don't know.
I have a cognitive problem with it.
And the treaties prohibit even the development of such things?
Yeah.
Any research into, development of, perfection of, commercialization of, anything else.
Disagreeing not to look at it.
Yeah, it's kind of a big deal.
And that's kind of the end of the Second World War.
We said that was a really bad thing.
And we don't want the world to have that again.
But here we're finding all these weird patents, and I started looking at these weird funding patterns.
And remember, Anthony Fauci started NIAID in 1984.
What is that?
The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease.
He started in 1984 and it seems like as he started in his role of the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, the bioweaponization of pathogens also seemed to start going through the roof.
And that was an alarm bell for me.
Because if you're running an NIH program, National Institutes of Health program, you're running an NIH program to allegedly help, you know, cure disease or help with, you know, long-standing disease.
And then I'm starting to see these weird things showing up in bioweapons programs and military programs and everything else.
I'm asking a question.
Now, I wasn't looking for the bad guy.
I just was looking at this information going, there's a self-evident problem.
It seems that NIAID is weaponizing a pathogen model.
Anthony Fauci hides in every public statement behind the fact that he was trying to find a way to naturally develop an HIV vaccine.
So Anthony Fauci's cover story is, I'm trying to make a vaccine vector that allows me to deliver HIV vaccines.
And that's the argument he's stood behind all along.
The problem is, if I'm doing that, I probably wouldn't be getting DARPA funding.
You got DARPA funding?
Yeah.
So explain what DARPA is, please.
The Defense Advanced Research Program, which is this kind of black ops of the science and technology community funded by the military complex to actually come up with Novel ways to defend the country or attack others or do
whatever you want to do And you start saying this this alliance between
the defense funding mechanisms and
allergy and infectious disease Strange pitfellows. Well, I'm willing to accept that there's
a lot of weird things in the world. I like I don't have to make sense out of things.
But when I see patterns start to emerge, where I start seeing money going to the same place, or I'm starting to see dual funding, or I'm seeing after 9-11, And then 928, which nobody remembers, the anthrax, you know, biological weapon program that took place a couple weeks after the towers fell.
And nobody seems to remember that we actually had a bioterrorism moment in America called the Anthrax Scare, which, by the way, we shut down all of our... No, we didn't.
We shut down all of our small... No, we didn't shut down all of our small businesses.
We all had to wear face masks because it was an aerosolized powder.
No, we didn't do that.
Right?
You see what I'm doing?
Yeah.
Like, you're looking at the evidence and you're going, oh, hold on a minute.
We actually had a powder form pathogen called anthrax.
We sent it through the mail.
We weaponized that.
And we did none of our interventions that we're doing for a thing that we don't actually know really even might exist.
Right?
Pretty, pretty crazy.
But we started watching and in 2001 a very alarming thing happened.
We saw the 1999 grant that was given to the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill where coronavirus was specifically selected as a malleable recombinant technology platform that could be altered so that it could target human tissue with greater virulence.
And I'm going to tell you the sentence that bothered me in the patent.
This is a patent that exists?
Yeah.
We want an infectious Replication defective virus.
What does that mean?
Yeah, it's a good question to ask.
So we want to make the virus more capable of making you sick.
That's the infectious part.
But we don't want it to be able to leave you and go to somebody else.
So we want an infectious replication defective virus.
If I'm putting the happiest thought I have in the universe on this, I'd go, okay, I get it.
It's like giving somebody radiation where you want the radiation to affect them, but you don't want them to go to the bathroom, you know, pee into the urinal and then have, you know, radiation hitting the next person who comes to the urinal.
I get it.
You can have a thing where you want the effect to be limited to that person.
Right.
And you don't want the effect to spread to other people.
I'm totally down with that.
But when you do that with a virus, and you actually then say, I'm not just going to target that individual, but I'm going to make the virus more capable of targeting human lung epithelium.
It says this in the patent?
Yeah.
And what year was that published?
That patent was published in 2002 and this is before the 2003 SARS outbreak.
Anybody have a math problem with the calendar problem I just said?
Go ahead.
Right?
We've lived, allegedly, if we subscribe to a viral model of the universe, which I'm not saying I do, but I'm saying if you do, we've been living with coronaviruses in the general circulation for millennia.
We actually build at UNC Chapel Hill.
And collaborating with researchers across the world, we build an infectious replication defective coronavirus, we make it target the human lung, and a year later we have SARS.
Wow.
Now what's wrong with the chronology of what I just said?
Let me see what's wrong.
Go ahead.
I'm the one criticizing causality, so I'm going to hang myself on my own cross.
I am not saying that the coronavirus outbreak in 2003 in Southeast Asia was, in fact, UNC Chapel Hill going to attack China.
I'm not saying that.
But what I am saying is there's a math problem on the calendar.
Which is, coronavirus wasn't harming the human population with any severity at all.
We build a recombinant replication defective coronavirus, and not only does it come out in 2003, but do you remember that it was supposed to be a pandemic that never got off the ground?
Right.
We were all supposed to live in fear of this thing, but the agency of fear didn't work because we actually didn't get enough people sick.
Now that actually sounds like Replication defective.
That's another piece of a puzzle, right?
I built a pathogen, it's supposed to be this scary uber-pathogen, and it turns out it works.
It makes people really sick, makes some people die, but it doesn't transmit very well.
Why would anybody want to patent A virus, you know, in such a way that can do such bad things.
Are they claiming it was a vector for a vaccine?
That's what, okay.
So that it had positive applications?
This is one of those beautiful Oppenheimer moments.
I didn't know I was building a bomb!
Okay, maybe.
Maybe you didn't.
Maybe you're a genius when it comes to recombinant, you know, DNA and RNA work.
Maybe you're a genius there and an absolute idiot over here going, I wonder if this could ever go wrong.
Maybe that's the problem.
I don't care if it's the problem.
If that's a problem that you have, I'm not going to give you hundreds of millions of dollars of making something more dangerous.
And we didn't stop with that, right?
In 2013, when a bunch of miners got sick in China, and they got all the COVID symptoms, by the way, all of them, in 2013, all the COVID symptoms, And there was a thing called the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus that was allegedly isolated from these six minors.
The first thing that we did was we actually built that virus in UNC Chapel Hill.
Why would you do that?
Now we know that this thing allegedly was associated with these guys that got really, really sick.
Why would you take that virus and then build, are you ready for this, a chimeric synthetic alternative that increases the pathogenicity of the ACE2 receptor and the S1 spike protein, the two things that make the SARS virus, the SARS virus.
Why on earth would you go, oh, I've got a great idea here.
The great idea is we found a version of this thing that makes people far more sick.
And they get a lot sicker a lot faster.
So let's go ahead and make recombinant synthetic chimeric alternatives of that.
Can you explain what that is?
Well, yeah.
That's actually Frankenstein's lab.
That is sitting down in a laboratory and going, I have found something that has taken the anonymous little vector, you know, that wonderful thing that we were supposed to say might be used for a vaccine, might be used for HIV.
Now I'm taking a thing that I knew made people sick.
Not an innocent little viral fragment that I could use for a vaccine.
This was a willful act where we knew that this would make people sick and then we decided to take that and make it more lethal.
And we did that.
Yeah.
In a lab.
And the cool thing about this is Ralph Baric in his response to an international journalist inquiry into this topic.
Who is Ralph Baric?
Ralph Baric is the master kind of architect of coronavirus at UNC Chapel Hill.
But the funny thing about him is that when he responded to a request from the Financial Times, I'm going to go ahead and say it because screw them, they need to be on the record for this.
When he responded to an interview request for the Financial Times, he actually said that what he was doing was in fact helping civilization.
And thousands of people were going to be saved because of his vaccine work that he was going to enable.
Conveniently leaving out the fact that in 2016, he published a paper saying, and I quote, SARS coronavirus is poised for human emergence.
Meaning?
Meaning that he had built the bomb.
Not meaning that it's out there and we might... No.
Because if you read what he actually wrote in the paper, and, you know, a lot of people who do nothing but read the headlines go, oh, well, he's just warning us that this might be coming.
So it sounds like... Yeah, it'd be nice if it wasn't a synthetic chimeric alteration of the thing, which is not natural, right?
Poised for human emergence hardly is We've built it in a lab.
And we're supposed to believe a story that this came out of a bat cave, even though, as of this date, which is the end of July 2021, we haven't found a single bat that even has a remote resemblance of this particular pathogen.
But we're still supposed to believe it came out of a bat cave.
We just haven't yet found the bat cave, but we have found, allegedly, Thousands of cases all over the world where it exists in people, but we can't find it in a bat cave, even though we know the bat cave, where it came from in 2013, when it was natural.
When it was natural, we could find it.
We can't seem to find this one.
So, just as a quick interjection, is it conclusive in your mind this is a man-made, not a naturally occurring virus?
Absolutely.
That's not even a question.
It's not even a question because the published evidence is all in patent records and is all in scientific proceedings.
There is no question at all that this did not come from a bat and a pangolin walking into a Chinese bar and getting it on one night.
That completes part one of my two-part interview with Dr. David Martin.
As you can see, we're looking at somebody with pretty extraordinary intelligence, and part two just gets better, so make sure you tune in for that one.
▲
Export Selection