All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 26, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
01:06:33
Dr. David Martin - Why Does Trump Keep Promoting the Vaccine?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, let's get started. Let's get started.
So, So,
So, Welcome to Man in America.
I'm your host, Seth Holhouse.
Today we have a visionary whose discoveries have treated numerous diseases.
A global finance expert.
A man who's brought powerful white-collar criminals to justice and invented life-changing medical technologies.
These all describe my guest today, Dr. David Martin.
So why does this man, who's worked with Congress and governments all around the world, think that COVID-19 wasn't a freak accident of nature or a lab leak, but a plot years in the making?
And what criminal patterns has he seen before that are showing themselves again on the world stage?
And most importantly, I want to ask him the question that's on everyone's mind.
Why is President Trump continuing to push the vaccine, even as people are dying from it?
So, let us welcome Dr. David Martin.
Thank you so much for joining us.
I'm so honored to have you on my show.
Seth, it's a delight to be here, and it was a delight to make your acquaintance down in Texas.
What a beautiful evening we had together, and thanks for taking this time.
Oh, absolutely.
Thank you very much.
So, David, tell us your story.
How did you go and how did you become one of the leading voices in this fight for freedom?
You know, what is it that caught your attention and made you realize that something was off with this whole pandemic?
Well, I'm a veteran of fights for liberty and the cause of humanity.
So the good news is when you're called into action, you take action.
Seth, you know that for several decades now, I have been very instrumental in bringing visibility to things that are overt and covert operations that are done to harm humanity.
And it's something that's been part of my life for as long as I've been around.
So the good news is it goes back quite a ways.
Very few people know, but My journey into this started in 1983, my first congressional testimony ever, which is something where people go back and go, wow, 83.
And, and, you know, I've been involved.
I wasn't alive then.
Yeah, well, there you go.
I have been very active in trying to bring visibility to a couple really key things.
Number one is A government cannot work if it's built on fallacies, lies, and lack of transparency.
We cannot have a democratic system.
We can't have any system of government if it relies on secrecy and lies to keep itself in power.
Something fundamentally I hold, and quite frankly, I've spent my entire life making sure that people who think that that's the way you govern realize that when they fall asleep at night, I want them to know that there's the little scratching sound, which is, I'm coming.
And I want that to be ever-present.
So, back in 1983, that was my first congressional hearing where I was asked to comment on the Selective Service legislation, where I was actually advocating for the fact that I think, as an American, we have a duty to serve our country.
And I thought that it was an important message to deliver as, at that time, a teenager.
So, got started in this early, then was unfortunately in Central America during the Iran-Contra scandal.
I spent way too many evenings and weekends uncovering where black ops and covert operations were essentially using the cover story of the war on drugs.
to build a black ops funding operation for the United States to fund various campaigns and conflicts across the Middle East and Central Asia.
I was involved in some of the inquiries into that.
And then since then, I have been constantly involved in monitoring a number of things where the United States government agencies associated with the government and corporations who are actually the kind of the The benefactors for the government are engaged in things that are fundamentally antithetical to our values as Americans and antithetical to the principles of humanity.
And so having done that for the last, you know, going now into the fourth decade of my involvement in this, the answer is really simple.
I don't have an off switch.
I think that if we, the people, ask for a better humanity, if we want to form a more perfect union, it is incumbent on us to be alert, to be informed, and to take action.
So, I mean, it sounds like you've been going head-on or at least exposing what a lot of us are now only understanding to be the deep state, the shadow government, the military-industrial complex.
Yeah, yeah.
But I would encourage people to set that cover story aside for a moment and realize that probably the biggest lie that we've been told is that truly since 1604, we've been subject to a far more insidious thing than the military-industrial complex, and that is the drug dealing complex.
Our entire nation was built on the British East India Company and the Virginia Company.
Those are two companies set up in England in the 1600s and they were set up to do what?
They were set up to traffic opium and to traffic tobacco, to traffic sugar.
Our country is a story of drug dealing.
Our country is a story of the mercantile excesses to which we would go To essentially addict populations to things that harm them.
So whether it's tobacco or opium, then whether it was sugar in the 18th and 19th century, whether it is the modern pharmaceutical story, even the story of the military industrial complex is a cover story for the drug dealing.
Which is, in fact, the core of the foundation that has rotted underneath this great country.
And if we really want to address this, we have to stop pretending to fall for the second order and third order cover stories and realize we have a problem.
And our problem is that we have actually accepted a social fabric that is built on addiction, It's built on anesthetizing ourselves and making ourselves unconscious to the pain that we experience in our lives and in our society.
And we have to start owning the fact that until we have the ability to say it's the pharmaceutical industrial complex, it's the drug dealer complex.
Listen, if you're Pfizer and you're killing a child with an mRNA strand, or you're a drug cartel leader in Mexico City, you are no different.
You are allowing the illusion of the manipulation of people's lives and humanity for profit to be something for which you have total contempt for the humanity that we all seek to see.
And until we can have the real conversations about it, the fact of the matter is we've been in the drug dealing business since 1604 and we are still in it today.
That's what this economy is built on.
That's what our entire government and our entire corporate structure of America was built on.
And the minute we embrace the fact that we're drug addicts and we've got a drug war, that's where we need to start the problem.
So whether it was in the 1600s or now, if you trace up, I mean, is it the British crown?
I mean, who's running this?
Who's behind the scenes?
Who's the Oz behind the curtains with what's happening?
Well, so behind the curtain is remember that it wasn't until 1805 where we finally had the Rothschild admission where Baron Nathan von Rothschild famously said, You know, he who controls the coin of the realm controls the realm and I control the coin.
Now, the fact of the matter is that's been an old story.
And the old story is that we have propped up puppet governments that go back as far as we can.
We can certainly research even into the Greek and Roman era.
Where it is, in fact, patrons who support the people who ultimately become allegedly the leaders.
And we haven't had probably a representational democracy certainly in the last two and a half thousand years.
So the notion that we're somehow broken in the modern era is ridiculous.
I mean, it's nice to pat ourselves on the back and walk around lamenting The failure of government now, but the fact of the matter is, until we understand that public service was probably last seen on this planet, somewhere around Cyrus the Great, where you actually have the notion that a leader is not somebody who stands in front with the loudest voice, but is in fact the one who's leading the charge.
Who's actually defending the village, who's actually giving life and limb and fortune for the benefit of the people.
That's what leadership is.
And unfortunately, what we've adopted in our modern narrative of leadership is that it's the person with the loudest voice, the biggest bullhorn and the biggest checkbook.
And the fact is that when we turn that into what we call leadership in government, it's corrupt to its core and it will always be corrupt to its core.
Gosh, well, I think that really goes straight to the heart of the issue we're going to be talking about today, but I have a few questions kind of leading up to that.
You know, one is, so I recently watched Plandemic 2 Indoctrination, and my family watched it too, so you have to watch this.
Merry Christmas!
Exactly.
It's like, yes, you know, it's like Biden's dark winter or the truth, which might be even more scary, but I'd rather have the truth.
Can you tell us just a little bit about your journey of discovering, especially through the Patent Database, some of the story behind how we got to where we are now?
Yeah, so I started monitoring this in 1999.
My first official briefing on the coronavirus situation itself is a published document in 2003.
I happen to keep a copy of it handy on shows so that I can actually show people what the first document looked like.
This was a document that released the entire discovery of what was happening with violations of biological and chemical weapons around the period of time that was when most people remember in 2001, the anthrax scare.
In 2001, there was a very bizarre situation that occurred, which was the U.S.
military ordered 300 million doses of ciprofloxacin from Bayer.
Ciprofloxacin is the drug that's used to treat anthrax poisoning, and anthrax is a disease that most commonly is seen among hide tanners.
Leatherworkers, because that's where bacillus anthracis spends most of its time.
Now you can imagine how weird it would be if in the spring of 2001 you see the US military buying 300 million doses of a drug that is available primarily for treating, I don't know, anthrax poisoning in hide tanners in India.
There's not a huge demand in most parts of the world for anthrax treatments because there's not a huge demand for hide tanning.
I don't know, maybe you are.
Maybe Seth, you've got your hide tanning special thing and I'm now speaking to the Hide Tanning Association of America.
I raise chickens, that's about as far as I can go.
But when you see something like that, and then obviously September 28th comes around 2001, and we suddenly have this alleged release of Anthrax, there's no question that when you see event horizons that don't make sense on the horizon, What you're doing is heightening your acuity to say, watch for what comes next.
And so we came across that government contract as part of our normal business activities.
Because when you have an unusually large international order of a then coming off patented pharmaceutical, that didn't make any sense.
Obviously, in September of 2001, it started making sense because obviously, as we now know, the anthrax that was allegedly meant to harm and kill Americans, was in fact a product of the bioweapons programs in the United States.
So, the bummer is, somebody knew it was coming, somebody actually prepared for it to come, and then it came.
The tragedy, Seth, is that the same methodology is used every time.
And the bad news is we watch it every time, and the good news is that we know what to watch for every time.
And so, beginning in 2002, I started briefing the United States Congress, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement on pathogens that were clearly emerging as frontrunners for bioterrorism against the population.
2003 is when we started specifically focusing in on coronavirus because of the 2002 patent that was issued or sought by at the time, sought by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
Which was the very first patent on the recombination amplification of the pathogenicity of coronavirus and specifically, and Seth, this is the part that's chilling.
And it's really chilling.
We have to acknowledge that, you know, it's offensive to hear that this actually was done.
But Anthony Fauci and NIAID, working in partnership with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, specifically sought to engineer what they called an infectious replication defective coronavirus.
What that means in plain English, and by the way, it is gain of function, whether we want to call it that or not, What they did was they were trying to build something which would make an individual sick, but be less likely to be transmitted to others.
That's the definition of a bioweapon.
That was patented by UNC Chapel Hill in 2002, and the next year we had the first outbreak of SARS in 2003.
Now you tell me, am I drawing a conclusion?
Given the fact that coronavirus had been circulating in animal populations for millennia, and what it did before humans messed with it, is it infected the gastroenteritis-triggered internal organs of animals, and specifically dogs, pigs, and other vertebrates, It was a GI problem.
It was gastroenteritis.
It wasn't a pulmonary and it wasn't a cardiac problem until humans turned it into that in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
And so the reason I gave rise to this as a significant strategic threat was because it was very clear that the United States was beginning a program that was to weaponize coronavirus.
And that's when I started this in 2003.
So the, you know, three and a half million or so, you know, a million dollars given to the Wuhan lab and that whole, the whole idea that, you know, I think that most people think they hear the narrative.
They think that, oh, we gave a few million dollars to Wuhan.
They made this over there and they let it go.
This process started in the United States with probably much more, much more money being given to it over the years.
And was that still under Fauci's direction?
Because wasn't he in charge of distributing all that money?
$191 billion.
That's the real number.
$191 billion.
And Fauci, after 2003, had the additional undisclosed amount of DARPA funding, which for the biodefense program, which actually also funded the work at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, which was the increased weaponization of coronavirus, included in 2013.
A very, very chilling additional piece of the overall conspiratorial plan.
And that was in 2013.
Allegedly, if we are to believe the public record, there were six minors in China who contracted what is now described as the symptoms of COVID-19.
Now, the bummer is it was in 2013.
The alleged coronavirus associated with that particular outbreak in 2013 was called the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus-1, or WIV-1.
WIV-1 was allegedly isolated in Wuhan, uploaded to a server, and then reconstructed in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
Was that under Ralph Baric?
Ralph Baric, funded by Anthony Fauci and subject to the October 2014 gain-of-function moratorium, in which UNC Chapel Hill received a letter from NIAID saying that the grant was a gain-of-function grant.
And saying that they should keep working on it, even though it was subject to the moratorium.
So, you know, this is in Anthony Fauci's own writing that he's in fact telling UNC Chapel Hill, hey, we've got this moratorium.
It's in place, but wink, wink, nod, nod.
It's not in place for you.
Keep making this weapon happen.
In 2015, the work was done to actually get the coronavirus from Wuhan Institute of Virology To a place where in 2016, as much as I hate to say this, they published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that SARS coronavirus is now poised for human emergence.
Their words.
Their words, not mine.
And you also had, because one thing I've looked into a lot is the Chinese Communist Party's role in this.
I think it was 2015 or 2016 that the People's Liberation Army published a book, I think it was a 261-page book, about how a weaponized coronavirus was the best way to wage war on the United States.
Because they need our farmlands, they can't drop a nuke and destroy all of our resources like they've done to their own country.
So do you think that this decades-long plan was interwoven with the Chinese Communist Party?
Oh, absolutely.
But remember, once again, and this comes back to my central premise, China is as much theater as the United States is theater.
The Chinese Communist Party is a convenient decoy to allow people who have mercenary interests in making sure that they keep their control over the whole world.
They've just decided since 1999, since the accession of China into the World Trade Organization, they've just decided that China is currently their agent provocateur.
The idea that this is somehow a nefarious plot by China to take over the world is as much an illusion as somebody's alleged plot to take over America.
The fact of the matter is, people who have mercantile interests in the outcome have decided that the empire is going to shift.
They have decided that the empire that they can manipulate the most is the Chinese Communist Party right now.
And from 1999 until the present, they have been doing everything they can to start stacking the deck in favor of China and in opposition to the U.S.
hegemony since the Second World War.
The problem that we have is holding on to the illusion that the flag flying over your head has anything to do With the real actor.
This is not a state war, China v. America.
This is actually a corporatocracy.
And by the way, the corporatocracy, without question, includes the likes of the Amazons and the Pfizers and the Modernas and all of those, the Burroughs Welcome.
You know, it includes those players, but it includes the financial players, like the Black Rocks and the State Streets and the people who are actually the aggregators of capital.
And the problem we have is we're still having conversations as though we are somehow in the latter part of the 1800s and still believe that the Westphalia notion of drawing lines on maps matters.
This is about the people who control the supply of goods and services, the people who control the supply of resources.
And listen, let's face the facts.
The facts are that Russia, China, and India entered into agreements starting in 2008 to build their alternative to the US dollar.
They could not have done that if it weren't for the collaboration of United States corporations who had bet against the United States.
And when we think about 2007, the global financial crisis of 2008, and then the economic collapse of 2011, we are foolish if we're not looking at the fact that $40 trillion, and just for those of you who are out there calculating with your calculators, $40 trillion, three times the total GDP productivity of the actual production of the United States, three times that, were bets made against America by investors who were moving $40 trillion out of our pocket and into the pocket of the Chinese Communist Party.
That's what 2011 was.
And if we start actually realizing that we're pretending that somehow or another, this is a new problem.
It's not a new problem.
We were asleep.
We were buying our Starbucks.
We were shopping at our Whole Foods.
We were doing all sorts of things.
And we were asleep while the actual takeover happened.
And unfortunately, you know, few of us, I mean, the good news is I'm on, I'm on video in 2007 saying all this.
So the retrospector scope is at least convenient because I called it, but that's what happened.
So in Dallas, in the conversation we're having, you talked about social security running out, I think in 2028 and the catastrophe that awaits with that.
How does that tie into all this?
Can you explain that a little bit?
Yeah, well, there's a practical reality that's objectively true, and then there's Dave Martin's theory on the motivation.
So let's start with the practical reality.
When Social Security was set up, it was supposed to be a safety net, and it was supposed to be a means by which seniors and people with various disadvantages were not left on the side of the road by our society.
And it sounded like a laudable goal, and it probably had some laudable merit to it.
The problem is, from the 1970s forward, Social Security became a bit of a Ponzi scheme.
Which was we took money in in the present to pay off the obligations that we had already made.
But then we started borrowing against the trust fund and we started using the trust fund as a slush fund.
And by the 1980s, it became very clear that the design of Social Security, which was a long dated asset pension management program, had been hijacked by then Congress and the White House.
to be the piggy bank that you could rob with the promise that one day you'll pay it back.
But like all piggy banks that you rob, you don't keep the other half of the promise.
And so what happened was we ran into a little problem.
And the big version of the little problem was when we started in the early 2000s
to realize that the actuarial projections, which is the calculation that you make
if you're an asset holder, you make calculations on how you're gonna fulfill
your obligations.
In the early 2000s, we realized we had a problem.
And the problem was that we were going to run out of money or we were going to have to increase the social security tax.
Now, imagine if you're the Bush administration, you've just gone through 9-11 and you drop the bomb that says, hey, we need to increase social security tax by 10%.
That goes over like a lead balloon, as you can well imagine.
And so when we could have fixed this, Not only did we choose not to, but we did something that's even worse.
And here's the death knell of Social Security.
In 2001, the patriotic thing to do was get a second mortgage on your house and spend money to help prop up the economy.
So everybody went out, got second mortgages on their house, paid off their credit cards, and then wound up loading up their credit cards, now turning their real estate into essentially an ATM.
of consumer debt.
The reason why we had the global financial crisis in 2008 is because that debt came due and it turns out people didn't pay.
And so there was an enormous financial failure.
But here's where the problem comes in.
The problem is much of the investments that were meant to support long dated assets like pension programs, like Social Security, like Medicare and like Medicaid, Those programs were in fact buying assets which were junk bonds.
They were credit default swaps.
They were derivatives.
They were all kinds of other things.
And when that market collapsed, any hope of surviving as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid's trust fund went to zero.
And by the way, by 2011 was the last time we could have fixed the problem.
By 2011.
Those of you counting here, this is 2021.
So we're 10 years over the edge of the cliff, and we're like the wily coyote running past the clouds and hoping that we don't look down, because we know what happens when we look down.
We actually fall, and there's an anvil above us that lands on our head.
We don't want to have that happen.
But here's the interesting challenge, and this is the fact.
The fact is that we know the Social Security Trust Fund runs to zero in 2028.
And that's assuming that we don't have any more manipulations of fixed income prices, that the central banks don't actually continue to keep rates artificially low.
None of those assumptions, by the way, even have a chance of holding.
So what I just said is the tooth fairy.
It won't happen.
We're going to run out before 2028.
Here's the big problem.
We have 86 million Americans right now for whom Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is the primary source of livelihood.
That number could go to 120 million by the time we get roughly to 2028.
Now's the problem.
And this is where we go into the theory.
Dave's theory is that we don't want 120 million Americans over the age of 65 in 2028.
And I don't think it's much of a theory.
I don't think it's much of a reach.
To suggest the fact that when the CDC and the FDA with no justification whatsoever decided that we start injecting people at 65, which by the way was the first alleged population of interest despite the fact that there was not a single shred of empirical evidence to suggest that age had anything to do with infectivity or illness.
What did have something to do with infectivity and illness was other Concomitant problems, heart disease, you know, diabetes, all these other kind of things.
But age wasn't that.
But the fact that they went after age tells me that the reason why I have a hunch that this was an intentional harming of the over 65 population is because over 65 is only relevant in the social security paradigm.
So if you bump off people who allegedly have lived a full life, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You know, we're going to call it an unfortunate thing, but decreasing that population, I don't think is an accident.
And I think the likelihood is by 2028, we are going to sit back and go, oh my gosh, did that really happen?
And the answer is not only did it really happen, it was designed to happen because we needed to shrink the beneficiary pool by 2028.
And that is real because it's another form of gerrymandering.
Wow.
Think about it.
that if you kill the over 65 population, Seth, you know where?
Yeah.
You actually get to redistrict.
Think about it.
Think about who votes which side of which ticket.
Exactly.
I remember seeing all the nursing home stories in California, you know, in New York City, very blue city.
I used to live there.
Where's your conservative population?
Well, it's wherever there's going to be people that are 60s, 70s, 80s plus.
So maybe that was just the beginning step.
Well, listen, I mean, it is a travesty that we don't talk about this, but there is no question that the reckless mistreatment of senior citizens That took place under the Cuomo administration in New York that took place in New Jersey by Phil Murphy.
The horrible things that were done by Gavin Newsom in California.
These were willful acts of indifference towards senior citizens.
That's the reason why when I talk about this is my theory.
And by the way, I'm saying it's a theory.
I'm not telling you that it is, you know, that somewhere there's chapter and verse that some nefarious plan has in the notebook that says this.
But the fact of the matter is, if you are going to solve the social security problem, And just political expediency 101, Seth.
If we're gonna solve this problem, we got one of two options.
And by the way, the Social Security Administration themselves says this.
We can either increase the Social Security tax right now, 15%, and decrease benefits by 20%.
That, by the way, is how you get to 2030.
You heard what I said.
Increase tax by 15%, decrease benefits by 20% today, just to survive to 2030.
Now politically, is that more or less acceptable than creating the cover story of a pandemic that allegedly killed off grandpa and grandma?
So do you think that a lot of politicians are aware of this?
Yes.
Really?
And I think a lot of politicians know that they can't handle the notion that maybe the public, if they were told the truth, Would actually be able to have their moment of grief, because let's face it, what I'm saying is an unfortunate reality.
But the fact of the matter is, we live in a world where politicians are more than happy, more than happy to get elected in the next cycle.
But who are unwilling to deliver the painful message that says, guess what?
Promises made in the 1940s and 1950s are broken promises.
We didn't make them, but we are the stewards of their failure.
And now as responsible human beings, we are going to do the right thing, which is to confront these issues head on and trust Americans to actually be responsible and say, okay, we'll take an ounce of pain.
Listen, go back to the Second World War, and I tell people this repeatedly because it's a part of history we've failed to understand.
We chose to have less tires on the road.
We chose to consume less gasoline because it was patriotic to make sure resources were available for the war effort.
Americans are willing to do the thing they're called to do if If they see that it is done equivalently, if they see everybody is shouldering some of the burden and having some of the pain.
We are a people who are willing to make sacrifices for the common good.
But we have to be told the truth.
And it can't be sacrifices for some, but oh, by the way, if we're elected, it doesn't apply to us.
It's got to be sacrificed across the board.
We can handle the truth.
And the tragedy is our elected officials are unwilling to embrace that.
So do you think that's why a lot of politicians are not talking about deaths from the vaccine?
And even Trump, perhaps, is not pointing towards the deaths from the vaccines.
Well, there's no question, because if we were in any other situation, I mean, think back to every other product liability case.
We had a couple, what was it, AMC Gremlins, I think it was, that had their gas tanks that blew up and we shut down the entire line of cars.
We had H5N1 vaccines and we had 800 or 900 deaths and injuries and we shut down the entire program.
The fact is that as much as the CDC and the FDA try to hide behind what they reportedly say is the error in the VAERS database, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, what they don't seem to realize is that by saying that there are errors, they are violating the 1986 Act.
Most people don't know this.
In fact, I haven't heard anybody except me talk about this.
The 1986 Act, which shields manufacturers from liability.
Which was under Reagan, right?
Reagan's 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Protection Act.
If you go back and read that, what you find is that the manufacturers of vaccines are required to keep VAERS accurate.
That's actually a statutory requirement.
So if they're telling you that it's not accurate, they're admitting to violating the law.
Nobody's talking about that.
And I mean, even the people who are fighting mandates aren't talking about that.
And I'm sitting there going, are you crazy?
Read the law.
You cannot, on the one hand, say you're going to get the indemnity shield, and on the other hand, say VAERS can't be trusted because VAERS is a statutory requirement.
And that's the quid pro quo in getting the immunity.
If the VAERS is wrong, then the immunity is pierced, because it's the manufacturer's legal responsibility to make sure VAERS is accurate.
I mean, and these are the simple things.
These are simple things.
But even the people who say they're awoke, Are not paying attention to the simple self-evident violations of the process.
And that is a topic of an entire different conversation.
But the point is that when you have somebody like President Trump making the statements he's making, I'm going to be the first person to go out on a limb and say he was duped.
Because there's no question that Alex Azar, who was, by the way, put in by the Bush administration, To make the PrEP Act a mirror of the liability shield that the 86 Act was.
So let's get really clear.
It was Reagan in 86.
It was Bush in 2005.
These are the ones that handed the pharmaceutical industry the gate pass.
Complete immunity.
Complete immunity.
And so for anybody who sits there going, oh, this is a Biden problem, you know, we have to take a tough pill here.
Republican presidents are the ones that gave the pharmaceutical industry the hall pass.
Even the Republican hero of Reagan?
No question.
So, I mean, it's a tough pill to swallow, but we have to swallow it.
There it is.
The point is that what we know is Alex Azar was put in place to actually get the PrEP Act to give liability to adult medical countermeasures, which is what was childhood under the 86 Act.
And then 2017 comes along and the guy who Trump appoints to be the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, let's remember this.
When he was appointed, he was being investigated for criminal antitrust violations, collusion and price fixing, and his criminal charges in Mexico We're for tripling the cost of insulin to diabetics in Mexico.
That's the guy who Trump put in place to run the criminal racket that became COVID-19.
Listen carefully to what I'm saying.
This guy was under investigation for antitrust law violations.
He was ultimately liable for his work at Eli Lilly where he price-fixed and price-manipulated the cost of insulin to diabetics.
That's the guy who Trump put in the position of running the emergency.
So how could Trump have done that?
Was he duped?
Good old-fashioned manipulation.
The benefactors who write the checks are the ones who make the appointments.
I am not suggesting in anything I'm saying that Trump had a list of 10 potential candidates and he kind of got them on The Apprentice and then interviewed them and figured out, yeah, you're hired, you're fired.
I'm not suggesting that at all.
As a matter of fact, I'm certain that he had no idea that when he signed that appointment, I'm sure he had no idea that Alex Azar was under investigation for antitrust violations.
Because that's not good optics.
Just isn't good optics.
So the likely reason is... Go ahead.
I would say, do you think that's also why Trump had Fauci and Burks, who has their own checkered past?
Is that why they were in the front?
Because I remember watching and thinking, why does Trump have Fauci with his history of AIDS and all this?
Why is he the front person of this?
Well, and let's face it, Fauci tried unsuccessfully to get vaccines patented from his own laboratory, and the patent office actually schooled him in the fact that he did not understand what a vaccine was, and they rejected his patent.
So this guy is not just an epic fail as a doctor, as a researcher, and by the way, has zero, zero experience in respiratory pathogen diseases.
He had no credibility.
So the notion that he was America's doctor for a respiratory pathogen program, that's like saying that I've got a chiropractor and what I need is neurosurgery.
You know what?
If I have a back problem, I'm happy to go to a chiropractor, but guess what I'm not going to do?
If my brain is open, I don't think I need a neck adjustment.
I need my brain closed.
The fact is, Anthony Fauci had no credential.
He was put in that position to show that he had in fact executed the coup d'etat on the presidency.
This was the pharmaceutical industry having photo ops to say the President of the United States has been marginalized and emasculated and he is standing behind Fauci, he's standing behind Burks, he's standing behind Alex Azar, and the fact of the matter is Trump to this day does not understand that not only was he played, but this was a coup in which he had the coup leaders in his inner circle.
So there's a lot of folks that make sense of this by saying that Trump, by using Operation Warp Speed and by rushing the vaccine out, that he averted what was originally a plan for five to 10 years worth of lockdowns as they held the dangling carrot of the vaccine, that he was forced with this scenario where it's like, okay, there are five years of lockdowns and everyone's dying from that or using Operation Warp Speed or rushing a vaccine out.
Yeah, well, that's because somehow or another, back in the spring of 2020, we decided to listen to Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, and we decided to take a computer gamer, no kidding, a guy who does epidemiology by computer games, and we decided to let him tell us how many people were going to be dead.
Now, I'm not diminishing people.
Please don't misquote me.
But I'm not diminishing that there are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of seven or eight hundred thousand people who died of some form of influenza-like illness across the last two years.
I am not saying that that did not happen.
What I am saying is that Neil Ferguson's two million bodies in the streets did not happen.
Didn't happen.
And it didn't happen because the bioweapon that was engineered, if we go back and read the ingredient label on the bioweapon, it says, infectious replication defective.
Now, Seth, the problem with that is they told us what it was.
They told us that they were making a thing that made you sick, but was hard to transmit.
We had to look all over the place to come up with these BS stories of transmission, and not one of them.
Has been empirically shown to be the case.
As a matter of fact, when the study was actually done on asymptomatic transmission, not only did we not find evidence of transmission, we could not find the provenance of the infectious agent.
Meaning that, allegedly, I got sick, I gave it to you.
You can test whether I did give it to you because there's a fingerprint of my stuff on the thing that you get, if in fact it was transmitted.
Tiny little problem.
We can't find any evidence that that transmission actually happened.
Now part of the reason for that is the RT-PCR can't do it.
It's technically impossible.
So you can't have a thing that is verified because we literally aren't measuring it.
So there's that problem.
But the deeper problem is when it was actually sequenced, we found out that transmission wasn't happening.
And it's a bummer to tell people that the science, which allegedly is the thing we're supposed to worship, the science can't find the story to back their own story.
And we're supposed to buy it.
And, and, and, you know, with, with Trump, because I think it's, this has become such a divisive issue among his base.
And I see comments all over the place.
You have one side, they're like, he's a vaccine salesman and I, he'll never get my vote again.
The other side are like, look, he, he has, this is a wartime, he's a wartime president.
He had to make sacrifices.
I'm trying to be objective and really understand what was happening.
So even now with all the information that we have access to, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't have some people that are telling him.
This is what the VAERS data is saying.
There is evidence that people, whereas with Candace Owens a couple of days ago, he said, no one's died from the vaccine.
And he also said that the people going to the hospital are the unvaccinated.
So why do you think, is it because maybe if he speaks out a little bit against it, the media is going to blame him for any unvaccinated death?
Or why do you think he's in this situation?
Well, because, I mean, I'll return to my previous definition of leadership.
Leadership is saying the truth.
If you're not capable of saying the truth, then you're not a leader.
And the fact of the matter is, there is not a single possibility that President Trump could possibly make this statement, no one has died from the vaccine, because in the clinical trials themselves, There were abnormal numbers of deaths in the vaccine population.
Now, remember that you weren't allegedly considered vaccinated until post-14 days after receiving a shot.
First time, by the way, in any vaccine trial where we allowed people to die from a shot, but it didn't count because it happened within 14 days.
The fact of the matter is that Trump is lying and we need to call it what it is because integrity requires that we call it what it is.
People died.
Pfizer has a memo that they actually had published that said that there's an acceptable death rate in their vaccine program.
Now, an acceptable death rate in any of the product would not be tolerated, but an acceptable death rate in a vaccine program is tolerated.
The fact of the matter is, if Trump ever read the VAERS statute, as I pointed out earlier in the 1986 Act, He would realize that there is a requirement for that to be correctly reported.
The fact that Pfizer will not release the data on their adverse events and deaths and they're pretending to need 55 years to do what took less than 120 days for the FDA to review.
The fact of the matter is people are bearing the evidence and everyone knows it.
This is a willful act of the malicious harming of Americans.
This is a willful act of domestic terrorism.
And I have been more than happy to hold the possibility that Trump was very poorly advised.
But I'm running out of patience on that story very quickly.
And I think a lot of people who would like to be able to support Trump in other ways are running out of patience on that story.
Because the fact of the matter is, you do not promote a thing that is known to harm and kill young people, old people, to create myocarditis in the youth.
You do not promote that and still have any modicum of ethical bones in your body.
You cannot do that.
It is incompatible.
And we need to actually have the integrity of saying that.
And do you think that for him, because I think Operation Warp Speed seemed like such an accomplishment to get this out there, that even if he was deceived at that time, that maybe it's just too much to accept the truth and to face and to admit to people that he was involved in what could have become a very real threat and a murderer of humankind, of many people?
You know, I've raised this issue several times and I'm glad you brought it up because I think there is a genuine need on behalf of those of us who actually have an advocacy for humanity to have a bit of humility and humanity and realize That when people have done things that are horrific, in this case, in quite literally, resulting in the loss of human life and the premeditated loss of human life, let's face it, remdesivir, which is the drug that a lot of people are being forced to take in hospitals, is killing people.
Remdesivir was killing people in previous clinical trials, which is the reason why it never got approved.
It didn't get approved because it was killing people.
By the way, Ralph Baric, one of the co-investigators on the invention of Remdesivir.
So, conveniently, murder in chief running times two.
But the fact is that we have a situation where each and every one of these particular programs has been administered in a way where the conscience of an individual is seared to a point where if you actually had to step up and take responsibility and accountability for the actions that you took, The results would be tragic.
And so this is the way in which evil works to blackmail good people.
It makes the admissibility of your accountability so painful that you actually double down on the evil.
This is like a kid, you know, it's like a kid who goes, you know, into the Oreo jar before dinner, still has the crumbs on their cheek.
And swears that it's not an Oreo.
You know, you got the dust on your face, you got the milk dripping off your chin, you got the little white gooey stuff stuck between your teeth and you swear, no, I didn't have a cookie.
Right?
That's where we are.
And quite frankly, this is Trump's Oreo jar.
He's got the cookie crumbs on his face and saying he's not eating the cookie.
And I, and I, everything that I've seen, this is why it's been very difficult for me because everything that I've seen up until now with Trump, he's protected the second amendment, you know, the free speech, 1776 commission.
And he's, you know, put a thorn into the CCP side.
Like every single thing I've seen has made me very confident in him as a leader.
And so I just, I hope that Whatever things he's battling personally, that he can come forward and address this in the right way because, you know, I think our country needs him in some form.
And if he's losing the support of people because of this, I think that it's taking us down a very bad path.
Well, he received in the fall of 2019, he received a very, very clear statement drafted by yours truly.
That actually said, if you want to have a chance at winning the election, you have to stop supporting the coup attempt.
I mean, that letter is a letter that I wrote, and I know that it was requested by a member of his family, delivered to him.
I know he knew it.
And my point was, if you want to win the election, what you need to do is actually point to the short guy that's in front of you in this podium, And go, by the way, this domestic terrorist is the reason why we almost lost our country, and I'm holding this domestic terrorist accountable.
Convenient thing is it would have been very easy to have Secret Service of the FBI there and arrest him and cuff him and we would have been out of this nonsense a long time ago, but for reasons that can only be described as patronage because it turns out that it is bad bad bad for business if you're going into an elected position It's bad for business to be on the wrong side of the drug dealers Because let's face it Drug dealers are the largest endorser of political campaigns in America.
The biggest lobbyists, by almost double, twice the oil investors.
By close to triple.
By close to triple now.
So the fact of the matter is, if you hold the drug dealers accountable… They hold you accountable and you don't get elected.
And that has got to stop because Trump's morality was for sale for 30 pieces of silver.
And he has sold American lives to the drug dealers.
Yeah, that's a heavy, it's a heavy thing to even explore.
I mean, do you think that there could have been any kind of NDA or something that would have stopped him from speaking in a certain way about what's happening with these vaccines?
You know, I try as best I can to stick with the evidence that I have in my possession.
What I do know is that on the 19th of September, 2019, when he signed the executive order that included the mandate for vaccines that included a recombinant technology, recombinant gene technology, In September of 2019, Seth, there was not a single reason for that to be an executive order.
There's a lot of things wrong.
Remember that during that period of time, we did have another emergency use authorization going on.
People forget this.
We had another EUA, and that EUA was on the opioid crisis.
Now, it turns out That the same people who were making billions of dollars getting people addicted and killed by opioids held the patents.
Listen to what I'm saying.
They held the patents on a non-addictive formula so that no one could make the non-addicted formula.
That's a live EUA that was live in September of 2019.
If the president was caring about humanity, he could have made an emergency use authorization to force the production of non-addicting opioids, because that information was known by the government.
That information was known by the media, and not a single person was taking action on that.
But instead on September 19th, he signs an executive order that mandates a vaccine urgent platform.
In September of 2019, there was nothing on the horizon in September of 2019.
And the only reason that executive order was put on his desk is someone paid him to sign it.
Is that the executive order that ties into the CRISPR technology?
That's the executive order that ties into the mRNA platform, which is exactly what Anthony Fauci told Congress in December 4th of 2019.
So before there's a Wuhan anything, before we've heard of anything happening in China, we were told this was for the mRNA vaccine platform.
That's what the executive order was for.
That's exactly what was said December 4th, 2019.
4th, 2019. And that gives rise to the economic interests of CRISPR because it turns out that
if you start putting mRNA into people, you're going to have to find technologies that are
going to clip it out.
And the only way you're going to do that, because as many times as people tried to do it before, it never succeeded because the church always got in the way.
Morality always got in the way.
We needed to find a way to get the church and morality out of the picture.
And we needed to make sure that we could edit the human genome and have nobody So what do we do?
We actually manufacture the agent of delivering the altering chemistry, the mRNA platform, and then lo and behold, mysteriously, in December of 2020, we give two women the Nobel Prize for CRISPR.
During the pandemic created to get CRISPR into mainstream without the objection of the church, who had objected for it for a decade before.
And so can you explain this a little bit, what CRISPR is?
CRISPR is a very simple gene editing process which goes into the genome and allows you to clip what are called palindromic repeat series.
That's where the CRISPR acronym comes from.
But what it's looking for is sequences inside of the genome that allow certain genes to express.
And what the goal of CRISPR is, is to modify humans so that we can edit them to either have features that we do like or take out features that we don't like.
So we can play God.
Not play God, just thumb our nose in the face of God.
This is actually pure contempt for everything that we've called divinity.
Gosh, so do you think, and this is an understanding where Trump was at with all this, and he talked a lot about the invisible enemy that he's up against, and do you think that he is in some ways trying to fight up against this cabal, the corporateocracy that's ruling the world?
Do you think that he's still trying within You know, I know that that was certainly the position that I aspired to hold.
And if that sounds like it's watered down, it is.
lot more debts in the future.
You know, I know that that was certainly the position that I aspire to hold.
And if that sounds like it's watered down, it is.
I wanted this to be an answerable in maybe there's a multi-level chess board and this
is a move on one level to save a move on the other level.
But here's the problem with that story.
The problem with that story is what has happened to the military.
You do not allow the Department of Defense to issue a self-inflicted harm order to the Department of Defense.
Where you take military men and women, people who are trained, advanced fighting forces, Navy SEALs, special forces, you know, special air wings in the Air Force.
You do not take our best defense and sideline them by forcing them to take a kill shot.
You do not do that if you're playing for the same team.
You would never do anything.
And by the way, the current Secretary of Defense is a traitor.
And we need to call it what it is.
You do not weaken your own army so that a foreign party can take advantage of that weakness.
We have fewer special forces.
We have fewer Marines.
We have fewer defensive postures than we had six months ago and eight months ago.
And we did it for what?
We did it because we were trying to force people to take a jab that would ultimately harm their fighting force readiness.
I wrote a piece for the Department of Defense, and it was circulated internally, which actually suggested that in addition to the vaccine injury question, which is actually a very significant problem, we were doing what was called battlefield softening.
In other words, we were self-inflicting onto our defense forces a means by which fewer of them could potentially rise to the defense of this country.
And we did that intentionally.
And no empire in human history has survived an internal military fighting force softening.
And we did it to ourselves.
So this is not something I can look at and just kind of innocently go, well, it's just an errant judgment and there's a chessboard play that there's... Listen, this is corruption at its core.
This is evil at its core.
And we the people have to be able to actually call it what it is.
This is the expression of evil.
And against that expression, we have to have the voice of truth and we have to have the forces of good.
I've lost your audio.
Am I okay now?
I just got it back.
Okay, great.
So soon we're going to transition over for the Q&A session on RISE TV, but I want to just ask one final question to some of this part of the conversation, which is, where do you see this heading?
Where are we going and where does the hope lie?
Because it's a pretty grim picture sometimes.
So I'm not a fan at all of hope.
I think it is a disgusting metaphor that allows us to defer reality.
So I'm going to go with the I am certain.
I am certain.
Of a present where we as people of courage, we have people of faith, we have people of morals, we have people of values, have the opportunity to let this be the clarion call that wakes us into action.
The great news is we're having this conversation, Seth, because you had something stir within you, which woke you up to say, this is a conversation I must share.
I had something in me that woke up and said, this is information I must share.
This is a moment where the evidence shows that people who do have a moral compass, people who do have a voice, people who do understand what leadership is, and who do understand what it means to put the lives of others before their own.
This is a moment where we, in fact, are standing up.
And so the great news is I don't have hope for a future, I have certainty for a future.
Because the fact is that we are now coming into the Christmas season and listen, We tell the Christmas story, like many other stories, so freaking wrong because we're trying to make it a Hallmark greeting card.
Remember, remember that King Herod sought to kill every child.
Remember that.
No different from the puppet-in-chief Biden seeking to kill and maim everything under the age of five so that he can actually continue this reign of domestic terrorism.
And it was in that moment That what happened?
It was in that moment that wise men from the East came and found a stable.
And in that stable, they found a mother and they found a child.
And they actually realized that there was something so much bigger, so much more transcendent than any of the forces of darkness.
And listen, we're talking about the whole Roman Empire killing off every child.
You think that was a bad day to be alive?
You better believe it.
But guess what?
It was into that moment That our incarnation story happens.
We have to start telling our own truth.
And our own truth is the light will always prevail against the darkness.
This is the absolute certainty, not the hope, the certainty that we in fact are going to prevail.
You know, I've asked that question a lot, and I can tell you that's the only time that an answer has ever brought tears to my eyes.
So thank you very much for sharing that.
Well, there's your Christmas soundbite, everybody.
Yeah, there we go.
A few seconds, and we'll turn that into our Merry Christmas soundbite.
Yeah, Merry Christmas from Dr. Martin.
So we are going to transition over to RISE TV now.
So for those of you that are watching, if you want to ask your own questions, it's a much more intimate setting.
We've already got a lot of questions we've been collecting from folks who are watching, which is great.
We've got about a half an hour, so maybe a tad longer if we can stretch David out a little bit
but There's a link in the description below if you want to get
a free trial in even if you just come over for the interview
And then you run away, it's okay, but I think you'll probably up staying cuz it's got some great
Yeah, well, let me just put a pitch in here people It takes a lot of time and resources to do what Seth is
doing So do yourself and him a Christmas favor.
And actually, make this worth your while because I know it's worth all of our while to do our part.
So stay longer and make sure that you've put something in Seth's stocking.
Thank you, David.
And before we hop over, where can people find you?
And if people want to find you, support you, harass you, where can they get you?
Yeah, the best place to go is fullyliveacademy.com.
That's all one giant word.
Fullyliveacademy.com or davidmartin.world.
Those are the two places to find me.
Okay, great, great.
So for those of you that joined us on Rumble, thank you very much.
This video is going to stay up on there for you to share with your friends and family.
Some very important messages in here.
It's not been an easy discussion from some angles, but I think that The avoidance of difficult topics has gotten us to where we are right now.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
And so I thank you, David, for just speaking very candidly about things.
So we're going to hop over to RISE TV.
Rumble, thank you all so much for sticking with us.
And Kate, are we over onto RISE only?
Okay, great.
All right.
So, David, I have to say this has been a fabulous interview, and I hope to have you on more often.
I look forward to it.
Next time we'll do it face-to-face so that we can be sitting across the table.
That I'd like.
Yeah, that I'd really like.
Well, if you're ever in the countryside of Ohio, got a studio set up.
▲
Export Selection