David Martin Transcripts

Transcript to interview dr David Martin COVID Select Committee Cover-up may2024

Hello, everybody. It's Saturday afternoon. I'm in Virginia, and it has been a while since I've seen people online. But I figured there was something so important this week that I I really couldn't let it go without some comment. And that is the House Select Committee on the COVID Origins inquiry where Ralph Barrick, Anthony Fauci anticipated, and and most recently, Peter Daschick, have have been brought to congress, under the ruse of the COVID Select Committee who, reportedly is trying to get to the bottom of the origin story, and I have watched as the most bizarre and sad Kabuki theater has happened where it is abundantly clear that the House COVID Select Committee has zero interested whatsoever in getting to an origin story.

And because they can't find their way to get to the origin story, I figured maybe it would be helpful if, I don't know, somebody who knew what the heck they were talking about would actually write some questions for the people that they are allegedly examining. And, and I will tell you if you watched Peter Daschick's, testimony this week, to say it was laughable was actually an insult because the fact of the matter is the questions that were asked by the committee, were unacceptable. It's just pure unacceptable. The the facts that exist, the evidence that exists in the public record that the COVID select committee has willfully chosen to ignore is absolutely unacceptable. And that's the reason why I said, why don't I do a quick show where I pose a couple questions that the select committee should be asking?

Now the bad news is, as as you all know, I have the answers to these questions, but it would be great to get the individuals on record. And and insofar as those of you who are not familiar with congressional inquiries go, there is a process inside of Congress where you can not only ask questions during the testimony period, but you can ask what are called questions for the record, which are where you can ask people to provide written evidence. You can ask them to provide emails or correspondence or any one of a number of things. And so what I'd like to do is take just a few minutes and offer a few questions that the COVID select committee should ask and then have the QFRs, the questions for the record that follow, to say, please supply all written communications and all evidence of phone records that actually substantiate the facts that I'm gonna lay out. So let's just go through it very quickly.

If Anthony Fauci was sitting across the table from the COVID select committee, a question that should be asked is why did you authorize in vivo gain of function research on coronavirus at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill by Ralph Barrick and his team during the gain of function moratorium. And after asking that question, someone on the committee should simply put this particular letter in front of him and say, why is it, mister Fauci, that on the 21st October 2014, you decided to waive the gain of function moratorium specifically for Ralph Barrick's coronavirus coronavirus gain of function research. And why specifically did you authorize the modification of that protocol, which just for the record, happens to be the the, the grant that was referenced inside of the letter itself, why did you choose to allow this particular gain of function research to include work in vivo, meaning in living systems. The reason why this is important is because Ralph Barrick in his testimony and Peter Daschick in his testimony have talked about the fact that there were careless lab leaks and careless lab errors in Wuhan, But no one on the committee bothered to ask the question, what happened with the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 that Ralph Barrick created in his lab in North Carolina in 2014, 15, and 16, and published the results of manipulating it in 2016 in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences under the headline, and we'll come back to this, SARS like w ivonecov poised for human emergence from the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in March 15, 2016.

Why, doctor Fauci, did you authorize the gain of function research on the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus in North Carolina? And why is no one on the select committee asking any of those questions, even, by the way, to Ralph Barrick, who is the person who, in fact, not only created the weapon, but created the deployment for it, And in the fall of 2019, entered into a material transfer agreement with Moderna to make sure that they had the sequence so that they could put it into the shop. A second question that you would ask doctor Fauci, why did the Department of Health and Human Services transfer ownership of Ralph Barrick's infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus patent from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to the National Institutes of Health in the, year preceding, allegedly, the pandemic? Why was it important for the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH and NIAID? Why was it important for them to take ownership of the infectious replication defective clone patent from UNC Chapel Hill that would have been filed in 2002?

Why did they need to have that patent? What was the commercial interest in it? And why in 2020, when the United States Congress asked for a specific accounting of the patents owned by or under the or under the management of Department of Health and Human Services. Why was that patent never listed despite the fact that it is the basis for the, in fact, proof that this was a human manipulated pathogen in 2,002 using the model of coronavirus. 3, doctor Fauci.

Why did Ralph Barrick transfer to the VRC, the vaccine research center? Why did Ralph Barrett transfer the COVID sequence to Moderna prior to the first patient reported in Wuhan? And then finally, doctor Fauci, why is it that in 2018, in the lead up to your participation in the global simulation, in the global preparedness modernity board publication of September of 2019, why is it that in 2018, adverse event following injection legally had its definition changed to only include injections that had published evidence of the side effect being documented associated with the injection so that no new experimental injection could possibly have an adverse event because the definition precluded the ability for an adverse event to exist. Those would be 4 very simple questions to put to doctor Fauci, and, ironically, if they put them to doctor Fauci followed by the QFRs, which would be the request for all written correspondence, unredacted, all information around the answers to those 4 questions and the collateral conversations around those questions. If that was put to doctor Fauci, we would actually have an arrest of a person who has lied to congress, participated in the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board in a violation of the Sherman and the Clayton Act of conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to racketeer, we would actually have an arrest.

We wouldn't have the theater that Rand Paul has promoted for the last three and a half years. With Peter Daszak in front of the committee, the opening question should be, Peter, why is it that in March of 2015, you stated that to sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding for the need for medical countermeasures, the term defined under the PREP Act, such as a pan coronavirus injection. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the 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.

Mister Dashick, what did you mean when you said that in 2015, and and why would you have said that given the fact that in 2014 and 2015, the world was told that coronavirus was no longer concern because it had been eradicated according to the World Health Organization. So what precisely did you know? What were you engaging in? Not only with Wuhan Institute of Virology, but what were you doing with Ralph Barrick during that period of time? What were you doing with the Department of Defense that during that period of time?

What were you doing with the VRC at that particular point of time? What were you doing that made that statement necessary? And why would you have said that at the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences meeting when, as I said before, the world had been told there is no problem. If Ralph Barrick was actually seriously questioned in front of the committee, The opening line beyond the 2002 patent question, which is at what point did you know that the infectious replication defective clone that you were building was capable of dual use purpose, meaning that we could use it allegedly to develop models for response to terrorism and public health, but we could also use it to actually deploy as a weapon. Clearly, sometime between 2,022,005, you made the recognition and the public statement that this, in fact, was an ideal platform for bioweapons.

And why is it and once again, just put this document right in front of him. Why is it that in 2,005, you decided to say that synthetic coronaviruses as biohacking biological warfare enabling enabling technologies should be promoted in June of 2,005. What precisely was the motivation to actually select this as a bioweapon platform? And, by the way, I'm not making an accusation. I'm actually reading it from line 57 of your curriculum vitae at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

You're the one that gave us that information. So why is it that you not only did that, but when did you start reproducing the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 model in your lab at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and how many variations and strains have you in fact replicated in the United States? This question, by the way, should be asked by every member of congress. But no member of congress and no member of the COVID select committee bothered to ask a question, but we should be asking that question because, ironically, what we know is during the gain of function moratorium from 2014 to 2016, we know that they were manipulating a model from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the reason why we know that is because it's published in the 2016 paper in the proceedings of National Academy of Sciences where they said that particular bioweapon was poised for human emergence. That's their statement, not mine.

That's their statement in the proceedings. If we had, I don't know, in front of the committee, a person like Ralph Barrick, we'd say, when you published your gain of function research in 2016 on coronavirus poised for human emergence, why did you use the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus 1 sequence for this research? What was it about the Wuhan Institute of Virology information that you uploaded from the servers to recreate a pathogen in violation, felony violations of biological warfare limitations here in the United States. What was it that made you decide that you needed to use that strain for the paper that ultimately was published in 2016 saying that we had the weapon ready to launch? And another question that you would ask a person like doctor Ralph Barrick is, how much money did you or anyone with whom you're affiliated, including corporate interests and the University of North Carolina, how much money did you make on remdesivir after knowing that it killed 53% of the patients in the Ebola trials in the African clinical trials where the the World Health Organization determined that the use of remdesivir was unethical because of its lethality.

And why is it that as a researcher at a reputable university like the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, why is it that when the recommendation to use remdesivir was made, you, as the knowledge holder and the inventor, Why is it that you did not step in and stop the unnecessary murder of Americans by having that administered as a therapeutic agent at a time when you knew that the lethality of this was so egregious that the World Health Organization had elected to pull it from clinical trials because 53% of the patients that were receiving it in the Ebola trials were killed, and I'm quoting, regardless of viral load. Meaning, that in the cases of Ebola distribution of remdesivir, whether you were sick or not, 53% of the people that got the injection died, and you knew it, and you knew it in 2018. So, mister Barrick, inventor Barrick, doctor Barrick, why didn't you raise a flag and say this is an unethical, inappropriate, and highly irregular thing to put into the use as an emergency medical countermeasure when you knew it would kill people. And, obviously, the corollary question that a select committee, if it was an ethical organization, if it was intending to actually serve the public interest instead of bury this as the China virus narrative, If it was actually serious about origins, what it would do is it would actually pursue these lines of questions, and then it would dig into the facts that we've laid out for the last four and a half years, which unambiguously say that this was not a wet market in China.

This was not a natural mutation. This was not any of the things we've been told. This was an excuse to set the stage for the distribution of an experimental gene therapy in the form of mRNA injections, and it was the pretext for creating the crisis that began the rationale for the global pandemic treaty that the World Health Organization is trying to ram through ramrod through this month. If we really had representatives who were really elected and really cared about origins, they would actually ask the right questions. But what they've done instead is they've given Ralph Barrick, they've given Peter Daschick, and they've given Anthony Fauci all the room necessary to wiggle their way through accountability under the guise of a committee hearing that is nothing but a theatrical scam perpetrated on the American people and on the global population.

There is no COVID select committee looking into origins. There is a whitewash job that is happening in Washington, and not a single member of the committee has had the decency of actually putting a single fact in front of any of the witnesses, which would in fact indict the entire program of the COVID terror campaign as what it always has been. A racketeering exercise coordinated by the World Health Organization's Global Preparedness Monitoring Board for the exclusive purpose of gaining access to the control of sovereignty over the movement and the free association of people around the world. And, ladies and gentlemen, it's up to you. I have spent the last 4 years timelessly and tirelessly making sure that I inform as many people as possible about this, but it is now in your camp.

You are not going to get the mainstream media reporting this. You are not going to get third parties reporting this. It is up to you to make sure that every member of the COVID select committee is bombarded with this information until they finally do one of 2 things. Step up and take accountability for actually the cover up that they're running right now, or step away so that real accountability can come when we go to the the ballots in in November. We are actually at a point in time in human history where the lies and deceptions are not just the 3 people on the screen behind me.

But the lies and deceptions more insidious are the people who allegedly hold public accountability, who have done absolutely nothing but whitewash this exercise so that everybody gets away free. And as long as I'm speaking, as long as I'm acting, as long as you all take action, we will together hold them accountable. Thanks for taking the time, and remember, this will not end until each and every one of you take the action necessary to bring accountability to the public. Thanks very much, and have a good rest of your day.