All language subtitles for TheGreatReset_del1_edit (transcribed on 21-Jan-2024 12-20-54)

a lot of information on a lot of things. And I do my best to try to find a rational way

to get that information into the hands of the public. We have to get really clear on

the facts because there's facts and then there is the media hype that was created.

The original source of the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 is believed to be bats. Experts

suspect that bats could be the like a host. Well, here's something we do know. The animals

that carry coronaviruses, particularly bats, are the creatures at the center of this coronavirus

outbreak. I think the whole thing has been very well orchestrated to set a number of

little breadcrumbs out there 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. The

price for a vaccine, Pfizer and Moderna, showing positive results more than a dozen potential

vaccines around the world now in human trials. Why aren't we allowed to question the definition

of vaccines despite the fact that it is a violation of the legal definition? Why weren't

we allowed to question the suppression of commercial proven published alternatives?

Why weren't we allowed to question any of the antitrust cases? Why weren't we allowed

to question a single one of those things? And the answer is because it was a foregone

conclusion. We were going to get the vaccine. This is one of those things where you sit

back and you go, the audacity of the crime is what's surprising. The crime is not Moderna

and Pfizer. They're just the arms dealers. The crime is actually what allowed them to

become arms dealers and why on earth we actually have declared war on humanity. That's the

crime.

Hi, I'm Dr. David Martin. I'm the founder of MCAM. I'm the founder of Purple Bridge

Management, it's a quant fund. I'm now the founding chairman of Rasa Energy. Prior to

that I was assistant professor of radiology and orthopedic surgery at the University of

Virginia. I was the founder of the first clinical trials program for medical devices at the

University of Virginia in the 1990s at the medical school there. My background is in

biology, psychology, sports medicine, orthopedics and radiology. I 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 MCAM 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 at Chapel Hill when Ralph Baric 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.

So we weren't looking for something we were just aware that if something would show up

in the data we would 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

it 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 was 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 a 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. 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 Baric at UNC Chapel

Hill, the same Ralph Baric 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

it 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 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 in 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, well, 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. And I encourage everybody

who doesn't listen to this carefully to go back and re-look 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 of the United States and the competitiveness laws of Europe, because

what you have to do is you have to suppress all alternatives. Because 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. And 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, their published rules.

When you start going, OK, 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 their 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 case and in

their 10 Q filings with the SEC. That's not my opinion. It's 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 Baric entered into a material transfer agreement, which Ralph Baric in his own words

has said was the transfer of the sequence for the injection. Was the vaccine going to

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 it. Well clearly the edits of the Moderna patents were self evident.

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? They are saying that they are going

to release a respiratory pathogen. That's what they are saying in the patent application.

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

same people say they are 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,

something that somebody couldn't have anticipated, couldn't have conceived of based on the prior

information that was out there and then non-obviousness which means that you are 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, 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 got to wait to see how the primary goes. So let me get this straight,

so what we're going to do is we're going to allow people to be murdered while 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 the oops, these are not the

maybes, these are not the, 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 injection. 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 Arbutus 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 BioNTech. They were trying to get out from

under the licenses that they already had. They already had. These were not licenses

that somehow and mysteriously were granted in 2020. These were licenses that predated

us 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 was 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 BioNTech were

the inside runners. We knew they were going to get the contracts from what ultimately

became OpT variation 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 and 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 interests 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 that 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 Daschek, by the way, set

it out right. We are going to get the public to understand the need for a medical countermeasure

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?

Well, I wonder. Did nature conspire? Did bats get to 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 everything that

people know about him. His protocol came from the published work of Ralph Barrett, who was

the guy who realized that zinc ionophores and the use of zinc and vitamin D and something

like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, which actually open up the zinc pathways into the

cell. Ralph Barrett 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? 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 Barrett'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 or 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. 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 a 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,

that 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 in 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.