Original subtitles

Jag har mycket information på mycket.

Jag gör mig bäst för att försöka hitta en rationell mål

för att få den information i hands av publiken.

Vi måste bli riktigt klar på fackar.

För det finns fackar och det är den media hypen som var skrivit.

Den originella sorg av virusen, kring coronavirus disease 2019,

är trodde att det är bats.

Experts, jag tror att bats kan vara den likadant.

Vi vet att vi vet att vi är bäst för att kring coronavirusa

är den kräven som är i center av den här coronavirusa.

Jag tror att det hela har varit väldigt bra och att det finns många lilla bräddkrömmar.

Och alla av dem skriver från centralt problem.

Och centralt problem är ett avskälet av konspirater i både publiksektorn och industrin.

Vi har fått en vaccin, Pfizer och Moderna, och vi har fått positiva resultat.

Det är mer än en del potentiell vaccin i världen än i humana träd.

Varför inte vi inte kan fråga vaccinet om det är en violation av den legala definien?

Varför inte vi inte kan fråga om förutsättning av kommersalt fördelat och utgått för alternativ?

Varför inte vi inte kan fråga om vilken av antal antal trädsfästskaper?

Varför inte vi inte kan fråga om en av de här sakerna?

Och det är att vi inte skulle få vaccin för att få vaccin.

Det är en av de här sakerna där du sätter och går och ser att kvinnorna är så stort.

Kvinnorna är inte Moderna och Pfizer, utan armdealer.

Armdealer är faktiskt vad de har för att bli armdealer och varför vi har verkligen fördelat vart man är i humana träd.

Det är det.

Jag är Dr. David Martin och är fond av MCAM och är fond av PURPLE BRIDGE MANAGEMENT, SQUANT FUND.

Jag är nu fond av rassa energi.

Förr att jag hittade radialOW Parker형 vd REPRZTSXnenbei i universitetoomaxx.

Sports Medicine Orthopedics and Radiology.

Got my PhD from the University of Virginia, my master's from Ball State University, my undergraduate from

Goshen College in Indiana and have been working in various aspects of services to the federal

government going back to the 1980s.

So I've been kind of in this race for a long time.

If we go back and look at my first briefing to intelligence and law enforcement agencies

on what we call coronavirus, my first briefing was in 2002, my first published briefing was in 2003.

And the reason why we had this information is because my company M-CAM beginning in 1998 had all of the

patents and patent applications from patent offices around the world which fed into a system that we

used to score intangible assets for banking.

And one of the things that we did was we started tagging very interesting anomalies in the data

where we started seeing things that appeared to be potentially violations of biological and chemical

weapons laws not only in the United States but around the world.

And it is because of that that we became aware of the work at the University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill when Ralph Berwick filed the patent on an infectious replication defective clone

of coronavirus in 2002.

Now that would not have been something that would have drawn my attention had it not been for the

fact that in the 1990s because of the treaty restricted technology transfer work we had been

doing across the entire decade of the 90s we had about 64 pathogens that we were monitoring.

And we had system alerts in our data systems to say if anything shows up just flag it.

Right so we weren't looking for something we were just aware that if something would show up in the

data we'd want to have a look at it.

And what made this particular patent application so bizarre is that when you take a step back and examine it

it actually wasn't a virus it was something that was designed using a viral model

but it was specifically to be using a viral model as a technology.

So this whole idea of SARS or SARS-CoV actually doesn't exist in nature at all.

This was something that was developed and engineered to be a mechanism of taking something that

historically has been a pathogen that targets the gastrointestinal system.

It targets sometimes like a lung condition like a cold or a cough or a flu-like symptom

which is dated back to the 1950s. But now all of a sudden you have this guy who's having a target heart tissue

target other tissues and you sit there going why would you do that why would you take something

that maybe makes you have diarrhea or makes you have sniffles and then have it target the heart.

And the reason why I'm saying this is that this thing that we have been told we should call

SARS-CoV-2 as it is the derivative obviously of what we call SARS-CoV-1 neither one of those things

is a naturally occurring phenomenon. These things are engineered technologies using some of the

information encoded in what we call a coronavirus but that technology is used for human defined

purposes. It is not something that we caught from a bat. And so my concern was and by the way I

raised this concern when in the spring of 2019 Moderna filed four patent applications which had

been previously rejected and in those patent applications they made reference to an accidental

or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen. This is in April of 2019. This is before the

China virus right. You sit back and ask yourself the question why would a company that has never

made a commercial product ever. Why would a company that has never had any expertise in

respiratory pathogens amend patent filings that had been rejected to include the language accidental

or intentional release of respiratory pathogen if somebody wasn't preparing to release a respiratory

pathogen. So the point is there was no surprise. The only thing I can say after October of 2019

when we had event 201 and after the middle of September 2019 when the World Health Organization

said that they were going to conduct a worldwide exercise with an accidental or intentional release

of a lethal respiratory pathogen which is what they said. The only surprise I had was how audacious

it was that the criminals were actually telling the public that they were going to do it and nobody

in the public cared. But here's where the problem kicks in. It turns out that if you go back and look

at data from Wuhan people died in Wuhan before December of 2019. I don't know if that comes as a

shock but it's a city and people died in the city just like people die in nursing homes and they die

in cities all over the world. And this whole story of the Wuhan virus falls apart very quickly when

you realize that we have not yet had in the ICTV which is the International Committee of the Taxonomy

of Viruses. We have not yet had in any other independent review evidence of a collected pathogen.

Do we know that people died in Wuhan? Yes. Do we know they died of an atypical pneumonia? Yes.

Do we know that they died of atypical pneumonia that appeared to be associated with some of the people

working at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Yes. But here's the kicker. Why was it that the same Ralph

Barrick at UNC Chapel Hill, the same Ralph Barrick who said that in 2016 the Wuhan Institute of

Virology virus 1 was poised for human emergence in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Why is that he's the guy we asked to confirm whether this was actually manmade or from nature?

Why would we ask the perpetrator of the crime to cover his own tracks? Conveniently nature

backed itself into a story we published in 2016 and we're supposed to believe that. We're supposed

to believe that randomly a bat and a pangolin and a civet and a god knows what all else got together

in December went to a wet market and started infecting people. That's the story we're supposed

to believe. There was no December event in Wuhan just like there was no any other event anywhere

else. The thing that was killing people was a weapon that was being distributed. It was not

a transmissible thing and how do I know that? I know that because the engineering for SARS 1.0,

which by the way as you'll recall killed almost no one but it was supposed to be a virus that was

going to take down the world and SARS 2.0 has the same modification which is infectious but

replication defective. The thing that was in the patent and why is replication defective important?

It turns out for a virus to achieve what the viral model dictates. It has to go into the cell,

it has to replicate and then it has to be transmitted. But if you take out its replication

capability, you know what it is anymore? It's not a virus. It's a weapon. When you say in September

18th of 2019 the accidental or intentional release of a lethal respiratory pathogen, let's just slow it

down for a minute. You go hold on a minute. Release is a really dangerous word in that sentence.

That's not oops it leaked. Release is actually a term that implies intention. It implies distribution.

It doesn't imply that somehow or another something just got away. We have to get really clear on the facts

because there's facts and then there is the media hype that was created. I encourage everybody who

doesn't listen to this carefully to go back and relook at that event 201 video. The script in that

video is the same thing as the script in December. Suddenly there's an outbreak of a thing and it's

coming from China and it's a respiratory virus and it happens to be coronavirus and you're going to

have to get n95 masks and you're going to have to do social distancing and we're going to have to go

after misinformation and disinformation. All of that is in the October 2019 desktop exercise

and lo and behold they recite the exact same script in 2020.

If you go back and you ask the question did we always know there was going to be a vaccine?

The answer is absolutely yes. When you already say the vaccine has to win.

You're not going to consider a treatment. You're not going to consider any other protocol.

It has to be a vaccine. Then what you have to do is violate the antitrust laws in the United States

and the competitiveness laws of Europe because what you have to do is you have to suppress all

alternatives. Under the 2005 PREP Act the only way to get an emergency use authorization of a

medical countermeasure is to prove that there are no meaningful alternatives. But here's where

they screwed up. In 2016 and 2017 the CDC and the FDA collaborated on a standard document for what

a vaccine clinical trial was supposed to do. This was actually a very traditional definition

of vaccine. And for some reason in the spring of 2020 we did two things. One is we changed the

goalposts. We said a vaccine had nothing to do with transmission or infection. It had to do with

allegedly the reduction of hospitalization or the severity of disease after the second injection.

That already violates everything about what a vaccine clinical trial was based on their own

published rules. This is not Dave Martin's opinion. They are published rules. And you start going

okay hold on a minute. So we changed what the definition of a vaccine was. We mislabeled it.

This by the way is a clear and compelling federal trade commission deceptive medical practices case

because you should actually hold the entirety of the system liable for lying to the public

about even what the thing is up until April of 2020. Both at BioNTech and at Moderna.

It said that MRNA injections were and I'm quoting from the financial statements experimental gene

therapies classified as such by the FDA. Not kind of. That's where they were classified. Now people

say Dave don't say experimental gene therapies. I'm not. I'm reading it from their SEC filings

in their 10 K's and in their 10 Q filings with the SEC. That's not my opinion. Is their words.

But if you actually told the public hey guys we'd like you to take an experimental gene therapy.

You know what would happen. Everybody would say hell no. But if you actually say well we're going

to call it a vaccine which by the way never ever has there been a change in the legal definition

of what a vaccine is. So we change allegedly what we mean when we say vaccination to mean

it might help you not be as sick which by the way there was no basis for that assumption.

We have no evidence of it and then you go back and you say well in the clinical trial we also are

not going to say that you actually are immunized until 14 days after the second injection which

is really interesting. You realize then that all of a sudden all of the cases of covid in 2020

are actually people in the clinical trials.

But they weren't immunized until after the second injection.

So they were considered unvaccinated when they had adverse events like death like anaphylaxis like

all the things you expect inside of the post 14 day injection period of time. And many people say well

yeah but those aren't really adverse events because according to the adverse event thing you can't

count on those things. Well that's because in 2018 the definition clearly of the adverse event

following immunization which is an officially legally defined term. That term was changed

to mean the only thing that can be counted as an adverse event. And by the way this is one where

if you go look it up it's bone chilling to hear what I'm saying. They changed the definition

of an adverse event to be only a thing that the literature had already shown as potentially

caused by the injection. Now let's stop and unpack that for a minute. If in 2018 we change the

definition of adverse event following immunization and we change it so the only thing that can be

counted is a thing that's already published in the literature as a potential adverse event.

And then we use an agent that has never been used. What did we just do? We created an environment

in which the manufacturers could lie telling the legal truth. Here's where we have a little tiny

problem. Moderna and Ralph Beric entered into a material transfer agreement which Ralph Beric

in his own words has said was the transfer of the sequence for the injection. Was the vaccine gonna

win? Absolutely. Because this never was about a disease. This never was about an infection.

This was never even about a virus. This was about creating the media hype that they told the world

they were going to do in 2015 and the world was asleep. I did what became a multi-million viewed video

where I actually laid out the entire sequence of this. I published a thing called the Fauci dossier

in that I had thousands of patents which proved that all of this was actually premeditated. All of this

was architected. All of this was engineered. All of that information was out there. We tried to get

it in front of attorneys general. We tried to get it in front of US attorneys. We tried to get it in

front of the congressmen and senators and everything. We tried to get it in front of people and to a person.

Everyone who formally reviewed that information concluded that yes a crime is being committed

and they will not prosecute. Well clearly the edits of the Moderna patents were self-evident.

Right when you suddenly throw in the words accidental or intentional release of respiratory

pathogen. That's kind of one of those things where you go what? Like they're saying that they're

going to release a respiratory pathogen. That's what they're saying in the patent application. So I

thought that would get people's attention because it should and I don't know when the same people

say they're going to release a lethal respiratory pathogen in published material in 2019, September

18, 2019. You'd think that somewhere along the line somebody would go yeah that's an admission of a crime.

But I also right after the ICTV, the international committee on the taxonomy of viruses published

their paper on the novelty of SARS-CoV-2. My company MCAM published a report on all of the patents

that were the things that were declared novel in SARS-CoV-2 going back to the early 2000s.

And under patent law there are two criteria for what we call novelty.

Novelty is supposed to be an inventive step. Somebody couldn't have anticipated, couldn't have

you know conceived of based on the prior information that was out there. And then non-obviousness

which means that you're supposed to not be able to put that thing together with something else. So

if everything that the ICTV said was novel was already issued in not a few but hundreds of patents

then the legal definition of novelty even failed. And so I thought somewhere along the line I'd at

least get an antitrust you know US attorney or attorney general and there are a few there aren't

many but I would at least get one antitrust guy to go eh that sounds like collusion that sounds like

premeditation. That sounds like a violation of Section 802 of the Patriot Act which is domestic

terrorism. It sounds like something and it turns out that everybody behind closed doors agreed.

John O'Connor in Oklahoma one of my favorite conversations where you sit back and you go dude

here's all the evidence. He brings his team in. There's all the evidence. And he goes well I gotta wait

to see how the primary goes. So let me get this straight. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna

allow people to be murdered. Wow you wait to see how the primary goes. Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida

met with me and Zev. We sat down went through all this. I said here's the crimes. Governor DeSantis said

hold on let's see what happens with the Florida election. These are not these are not the oops these

are not the maybes these are not the this is this is coordinated. It is a coordinated attack on the

judiciary. It's a coordinated attack on the legislative and it's a coordinated attack on the

executive. So that the public suffers. What we know is that in October of 2020 the Congress asked NIH

to go through the entirety of its patent holdings and declare to the public whether it had a financial

incentive anywhere in this entire injection scheme. And according to that filing in Congress

there was allegedly no financial interest between NIH and any of the vaccines. Well that's a patent lie

and we had published the evidence of that and lying to Congress by the way is actually also a crime

which I thought might be a prosecutable offense back in the old days when I believed that we actually had laws

that we cared about. But it turns out that not only were they lying but we had two elements of the lie.

NIH CDC the FDA and UNC Chapel Hill and its affiliated research institutions had all of the patents

on the mRNA and the CDNA platforms. So they had those patents on what we know went into the ejection.

There was nothing about those patents that wasn't included in the injection. But we also know that

University of British Columbia and what became our butis and acutus pharmaceuticals that had the lipid

nanoparticle which is how we got the RNA into the injection into the person. We know that those

patents were actually actively being challenged for validity in the patent office by Moderna

and Biotech. They were trying to get out from under the licenses that they already had.

They already had. These were not licenses that somehow mysteriously were granted in 2020.

These were licenses that predated this by one two or three years and the patent office was actively

considering the invalidation of the lipid nanoparticle patents which we had published and every one of

those things was a pre pandemic event. So all of this fight about who is going to win the horse race

to get to the vaccine was happening a year two years before the pandemic. So we didn't even have to

guess who the winner was going to be. We knew that Moderna and Biotech were the inside runners.

We knew they were going to get the contracts from what ultimately became operation warp speed.

These were things that were foregone conclusions and you knew who the people were because they were

already fighting over who was going to win. So they lied to Congress about the patents that the

CADC NIH and its funded entities had. They lied to Congress about whether they had a relationship

with Acutus and Arbutus which conveniently are Canadian firms which made nothing but copious

copious copious profits on the back of I don't know a thing that accidentally came into being.

And by the way we have a presidential candidate Vivek right now is the guy who funded Arbutus

and Acutus. So we have a Republican candidate for president who is using for his campaign money

he made on his not so publicly disclosed interest in every shot that was delivered.

I wonder how that would play if I don't know somebody at a town hall would ask an inconvenient

question like hey Vivek tell us about the money you made on the back of Arbutus and Acutus

pharmaceuticals. Why don't we actually have that conversation. Well we don't have that

conversation because the public is number one uninformed and when it is informed they are

too incredulous to believe the things I just said happened to be true. Well so let's unpack the 5G

thing because that's something that I've tried to encourage people to look at actual 5G data.

Anybody who wants to believe that 5G is a new phenomenon that somehow or another proliferated

across the globe somewhere in 2018 and 2019 when the United States Department of Defense sold

the frequency needs to go back and look at the underlying fact which is the US Department

of Defense has had 5G all over the world for years and has found it to be not sufficient for their

requirements which is why they sold it commercially. And as much as people say well but 5G just started

no it didn't. 5G was sold as unusable spectrum by the Department of Defense and carriers bought it

not from the FCC not from an authorized auction they bought it from the unused frequency that the DOD

was giving up. So even the 5G narrative falls apart on its face because we are pretending like

because it went into civilian use it hadn't been used before. I think the whole thing has been very

well orchestrated to set a number of little breadcrumbs out there to allow anybody anywhere to go

it's this it's that it's something else and all of them distract from the central problem and the

central problem is a colluding set of conspirators in both public sector and in industry. New by 2015

and Peter Daschik by the way set it out right. We are going to get the public to understand the

need for a medical countermeasures such as a pan coronavirus vaccine. We need the media to create

hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if

they see profit at the end of the process. The media hype was a programmed hype and during the entirety

of covid what did we have. We had the breadcrumb of 5G. We had the breadcrumb of SARS-CoV-2. We had the

breadcrumb of UFOs. We had the breadcrumb of transgender. We had the breadcrumb of men can have babies.

We had the breadcrumb of BLM. Are you kidding. This was not some co-emergence of social issues that

all came about randomly at the same time. This was a destruction of the public confidence narrative

which allowed everybody to jump on a bandwagon so that nobody talked about the real crime.

And the real crime was something which in 2005 unambiguously stated that the synthetic coronavirus

was going to be and I quote a biological warfare enabling technology.

I don't know where the mystery is because if that is the quote from the perpetrator themselves.

Why are we trying to figure out? I wonder did nature conspire? Did bats get the wrong place? Did a wet market

go a little sideways? Did the Chinese Communist Party do something? Read the freaking evidence. The evidence

is unambiguous. That's how Zev Zelenko became Dr. Z and Zev Zelenko and everything that people know

about him. His protocol came from the published work of Ralph Beric who was the guy who realized

that zinc ionophores and the use of zinc and vitamin D and something like hydroxychloriconar ivermectin

which actually opened up the zinc pathways into the cell. Ralph Beric published that paper.

The guy who made the weapon published the countermeasure in the early 20 teens.

Wouldn't it be logical for the guy who made the weapon to actually have a countermeasure on the

off chance that he got the weapon that he was making? Right, this is not a giant surprise.

In fact not at all. And it's comical that Zev Zelenko was allegedly a controversial figure

for reading Ralph Beric's science.

When he went to treat Donald Trump he wasn't pulling a rabbit out of his hat going I think this might work.

He was actually using the data that came from the guy that made the bomb.

And his work by the way saved thousands of people's lives while Governor Cuomo was killing people in nursing homes

and in hospitals and ventilators. But once again we should have recognized that when treatment was being suppressed

and by the way not hypothetical treatment published treatment when that was being suppressed

we should have gone hold on a minute. It sounds like there's a racket here. Somebody's suppressing

real treatment options and they're suppressing it so that they can justify an emergency medical

countermeasure that can only be authorized if there are no treatment options. How funny is it

that Johns Hopkins University, that's right, named for Johns Hopkins the guy who actually popularized

hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of malaria. How ironic is it that the very institution funded

by the Rockefeller Foundation to celebrate Johns Hopkins, how ironic is it that that Johns Hopkins

University was able to turn on its own namesake and say hydroxychloroquine is dangerous.

The school has its name because hydroxychloroquine is safe. That's why it has its name. The CDC used to be,

before it became the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the US Malaria Suppression Program in Atlanta, Georgia.

Which did what? Advocate for the distribution of hydroxychloroquine. This is one of those things where you sit back

and you go, the audacity of the crime is what's surprising. Not the existence or absence of a disease

or the existence of the absence of pathogen. The thing that's shocking, truly shocking, is how audacious the criminals are

and how blind the public is to reading the information that is right in front of their face in preference

to trying to find a motivation for how bad people in government could possibly do anything as bad as what I've just described.

So I think there's a lot of problems in terms of how we have been conditioned to take on information.

And I think that as a society we have been conditioned to accept a fear based narrative without question.

You'll recall, as I will, and I'm dating myself, but you'll recall when we were told that we should

crawl under school desks in elementary school and hide under our desks in the event of a nuclear attack from Russia.

Now, you'll remember those desks. They had a wooden top, they had a little metal casement and then four metal stands.

And somehow as children we were conditioned to say that in the event of a nuclear blast

we were going to somehow be saved under our desks.

Really? Does anybody know anything about radiation? Does anybody know anything about how nuclear weapons work?

Because hiding under a desk merely means that your corpse is preserved so when the Pompeii diggers come back to dig you up

they'll find nice little encapsulated children huddled under melted metal desks.

It'll be phenomenal and it'll be great for a museum somewhere.

What a nonsensical thing to do, but why did that practice become ubiquitous across the country?

It was to instill. Fear allows you to respond to an authoritative impulse and I can guarantee you every single person who is a parent over the age of 40

knows that they were conditioned to accept, be afraid, set any logic aside, and if the authority tells you to do it in fear, do it.

And by the way, if you were like me, being a little smart ass because I was in elementary school,

when you pointed out how stupid that was, you know what you got, sent to the principal's office.

See this programming has been around for a long time and we pretend like it's, oh my gosh, how did this happen in 2019?

No, come on.

We have been habituated into the belief that if the people and authority who architect the fear tell you A to be afraid and then B what to do when you're afraid, then you do it.

And if we as a society stopped living in the fear narrative, the signal couldn't transmit.