Dr. David Martin TRANSCRIPT OF 35 MIN SPEECH  "the great setup"  feb2023

About the Guest(s):

Dr. David Martin is a renowned expert in various fields, including biology, psychology, sports medicine, orthopedics, and radiology. He is the founder of MCAM, Purple Bridge Management Sequant fund, and Rasa Energy. With a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia and a background in clinical trials and medical devices, Dr. Martin has been involved in serving the federal government since the 1980s. He has extensive knowledge and experience in patent analysis and has been at the forefront of understanding the origins and implications of the coronavirus outbreak.

Episode Summary:

In this episode, Dr. David Martin sheds light on the origins and manipulation of the coronavirus, challenging the mainstream narrative surrounding the pandemic. He discusses the engineered nature of the virus, the collusion between public sector and industry, and the orchestrated efforts to push for a vaccine. Dr. Martin also exposes the deceptive practices surrounding the definition of vaccines and the suppression of alternative treatments. By examining the evidence and patents, he reveals the audacity of the crimes committed and the manipulation of public perception. This thought-provoking conversation uncovers the hidden agenda behind the pandemic and urges listeners to question the official narrative.

Key Takeaways:

Notable Quotes:

Resources:

Listen to the full episode [here](insert link) for a thought-provoking discussion on the engineered nature of the coronavirus, the collusion behind the vaccine push, and the manipulation of public perception. Stay informed and challenge the mainstream narrative.

[SUMMARY]:

Dr. David Martin exposes the orchestrated deception surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the race for a vaccine. He reveals that the virus was not a naturally occurring phenomenon but an engineered technology designed for specific purposes. The collusion between public sector and industry conspirators becomes evident as Dr. Martin uncovers the suppression of alternative treatments and the manipulation of vaccine definitions. This eye-opening episode challenges the mainstream narrative and sheds light on the audacious crimes committed against humanity.

"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."

"The central problem is a colluding set of conspirators in both public sector and in industry."

"Why aren't we allowed to question the definition of vaccines, despite the fact that it is a violation of the legal definition?"

"The crime is actually what allowed them to become arms dealers and why on earth we actually have declared war on humanity."

"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."

"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."

"We have to get really clear on the facts, because there's facts, and then there is the media hype that was created."

"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."

"This was about creating the media hype that they told the world they were going to do in 2015. And the world was asleep."

"The evidence is unambiguous. That's how Zeb Zelenko became Dr. Z and Zeb Zelenko and everything that people know about him. His protocol came from the published work of Ralph Barrick, who was the guy who realized that zinc, ionophores and the use of zinc and vitamin D and something like hydroxychloroquine or ivomectin, which actually open up the zinc pathways into the cell."



Timestamp

Summary

0:00:00

Introduction: Dr. David Martin discusses the coronavirus outbreak and the media hype surrounding it.

0:00:48

The race for a vaccine and the suppression of alternatives.

0:01:33

The audacity of the crime and the declaration of war on humanity.

0:02:17

Dr. David Martin's background and expertise in the field.

0:03:29

The discovery of anomalies in the data and the engineering of SARS CoV.

0:05:11

The manipulation of the virus to target different tissues.

0:06:08

The origins of SARS CoV and the lack of evidence for a collected pathogen.

0:07:34

The intentional release of a lethal respiratory pathogen and the script of events.

0:10:20

The violation of antitrust laws and the suppression of alternatives.

0:12:10

Changing the definition of a vaccine and deceptive medical practices.

0:13:56

The classification of mRNA injections as experimental gene therapies.

0:14:24

Definition of vaccine changed to mean it might help you not be as sick.

0:15:00

Cases of COVID in 2020 were people in clinical trials considered unvaccinated.

0:15:35

Definition of adverse event following immunization changed to only include published potential adverse events.

0:16:38

Manufacturers can lie by telling the legal truth due to changed definition of adverse event.

0:17:14

COVID was about creating media hype, not about a disease or virus.

0:18:14

Patents prove premeditation and engineering of the pandemic.

0:19:54

Evidence of crimes committed, but no prosecution.

0:21:18

Lies to Congress about financial interests and patents in vaccine development.

0:23:09

Coordinated attack on judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.

0:24:41

Public uninformed and incredulous about the truth.

0:25:19

5G narrative falls apart as it had been used by the Department of Defense for years.

0:26:31

Breadcrumbs of various distractions to divert attention from the central problem.

0:27:54

Evidence shows synthetic coronavirus was a biological warfare enabling technology.

0:28:25

Ralph Barrick published a countermeasure for the weapon he made.

0:29:00

Zeb Zelenko used data from Ralph Barrick's work to treat Trump.

0:29:37

Treatment options were suppressed to justify emergency medical countermeasures.

0:30:20

Johns Hopkins University turned against hydroxychloroquine.

0:31:24

Society has been conditioned to accept a fear-based narrative.

0:32:35

Fear-based programming has been around for a long time.

0:33:10

Society needs to stop living in the fear narrative.


[TRANSCRIPT]

0:00:00 - (Dr. David Martin): I have 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. It suspect that bats could be the likely hosts. 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.

0:00:48 - (Dr. David Martin): And the central problem is a colluding set of conspirators in both public sector and in industry. The race 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.

0:01:33 - (Dr. David Martin): 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. I'm Dr. David Martin. I'm the founder of MCAM. I'm the founder of Purple Bridge Management Sequant fund. I'm now the founding chairman of Rasa Energy.

0:02:17 - (Dr. David Martin): 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. 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.

0:02:57 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:03:29 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 Barrick filed the patent on an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus in 2002.

0:03:59 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:04:31 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:05:11 - (Dr. David Martin): It targets sometimes, like a lung condition, like a cold or a cough, or a flulike 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?

0:05:35 - (Dr. David Martin): And the reason why I'm saying this is that this thing that we have been told we should call SARS CoV two, as it is the derivative, obviously, of what we call SARS CoV one, 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.

0:06:08 - (Dr. David Martin): 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?

0:07:00 - (Dr. David Martin): So the point is, there was no surprise. The only thing I can say after October of 2019, when we had event two and 101, 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.

0:07:34 - (Dr. David Martin): But here's where the problem kicks in. Turns out that if you go back and look at the 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.

0:08:11 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 Barrack at UNC Chapel Hill, the same Ralph Barrack who said that in 2016, the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one was poised for human emergence in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences?

0:08:43 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:09:19 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:09:51 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 isn't anymore. It's not a virus.

0:10:20 - (Dr. David Martin): It's a weapon. When you say in September 18 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 and it implies distribution. It doesn't imply that somehow or another, something just got away.

0:10:59 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 relook at that event 201 video. The script in that video is the same thing as the script in December, right? 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 n 95 masks, and you're going to have to do social distancing, and we're going to have to go after misinformation and disinformation.

0:11:34 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:12:10 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:12:43 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:13:13 - (Dr. David Martin): Their 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 their financial statements, experimental gene therapies classified as such by the FDA.

0:13:56 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 ten ks and in their ten 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.

0:14:24 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:15:00 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:15:35 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:16:09 - (Dr. David Martin): Now, let's stop and unpack that for a minute. If in 2018, we changed 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.

0:16:38 - (Dr. David Martin): Here's where we have a little tiny problem. Moderna and Ralph Barrick entered into a material transfer agreement, which Ralph Barrick, 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.

0:17:14 - (Dr. David Martin): I did what became a multimillion 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.

0:17:47 - (Dr. David Martin): 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. 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, what? Like, they're saying that they're going to release a respiratory pathogen. That's what they're saying in the patent application.

0:18:14 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 September 18, 2019, you'd think that somewhere along line, somebody 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 two, my company, MCAM, published a report on all of the patents that were the things that were declared novel in SARS Cov two, going back to the early two thousand s.

0:18:54 - (Dr. David Martin): 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'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.

0:19:28 - (Dr. David Martin): And so I thought somewhere along the line, I'd at least get an antitrust 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.

0:19:54 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:20:26 - (Dr. David Martin): 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. 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.

0:21:18 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:21:51 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 arbutus and acuitous 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 by tech. They were trying to get out from under the licenses that they already had.

0:22:34 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 was going to win the horse race to get to the vaccine was happening a year, two years before the pandemic.

0:23:09 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 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.

0:23:35 - (Dr. David Martin): They lied to Congress about whether they had a relationship with Acuitus 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 acuitus. 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.

0:24:15 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 acuitous 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 happen to be true.

0:24:41 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:25:19 - (Dr. David Martin): And as much as people say, well, but 5G just started. No, it didn't. Five G 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.

0:25:51 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 Dashik, by the way, said it outright, 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.

0:26:31 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 two. 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.

0:27:14 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 the wrong place? Did a wet market go a little sideways? Did the chinese communist party do something?

0:27:54 - (Dr. David Martin): Read the freaking evidence. The evidence is unambiguous. That's how Zeb Zelenko became Dr. Z and Zeb Zelenko and everything that people know about him. His protocol came from the published work of Ralph Barrick, who was the guy who realized that zinc, ionophores and the use of zinc and vitamin D and something like hydroxychloroquine or ivomectin, which actually open up the zinc pathways into the cell.

0:28:25 - (Dr. David Martin): Ralph Barrick 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 Zeb Zelenko was allegedly a controversial figure for reading Ralph Barrick's science.

0:29:00 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 with 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.

0:29:37 - (Dr. David Martin): 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?

0:30:20 - (Dr. David Martin): 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 or 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.

0:31:24 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:31:58 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:32:35 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:33:10 - (Dr. David Martin): 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.

0:33:46 - (Dr. David Martin): And if we as a society, stopped living in the fear narrative, the signal couldn't transmit.

The Orchestrated Crime: Unveiling the Truth Behind the Pandemic

Key Takeaways:

Unveiling the Truth

The COVID-19 pandemic has left the world in a state of fear and uncertainty. But what if there was more to this crisis than meets the eye? Dr. David Martin, a renowned expert in biology and radiology, sheds light on the hidden truths behind the pandemic in a thought-provoking interview. His insights reveal a disturbing reality: the pandemic was not a random event but a meticulously planned crime.

The Engineered Virus

Contrary to popular belief, the virus responsible for COVID-19 did not originate from bats or any other natural source. Dr. Martin reveals that the virus was an engineered technology, specifically designed to target various tissues in the body. This manipulation of a naturally occurring coronavirus raises questions about the true intentions behind its creation. Why would someone take a virus that typically causes mild symptoms and modify it to target the heart and other vital organs?

Manipulating the Definition of a Vaccine

The manipulation of the definition of a vaccine played a crucial role in the orchestrated plan. Dr. Martin highlights how the goalposts were shifted, redefining a vaccine to focus on reducing hospitalization or severity of disease rather than preventing transmission or infection. This manipulation allowed for the suppression of alternative treatments and the exclusive promotion of vaccines. By violating antitrust laws and suppressing competition, the conspirators ensured that the vaccine would be the only option considered.

The Role of the Media

The media played a significant role in creating fear and distraction, preventing the public from questioning the true motives behind the pandemic. Dr. Martin points out the striking similarities between a 2019 desktop exercise called Event 201 and the actual events of the pandemic. The script in both instances revolved around a respiratory virus originating from China, the need for N95 masks, social distancing, and the suppression of misinformation. These scripted narratives served to distract the public from the real crime taking place.

Implications and Conclusion

The implications of these revelations are staggering. The orchestrated plan behind the pandemic raises questions about the motives and intentions of those involved. The collusion between the public sector and industry, the manipulation of definitions, and the suppression of alternative treatments all point to a larger agenda at play. The audacity of the crime is what is truly shocking, as the criminals openly admitted their intentions and yet faced no consequences.

As a society, we must question the information presented to us and not blindly accept fear-based narratives. The public's complacency and lack of critical thinking have allowed these crimes to go unnoticed and unpunished. It is time to demand transparency and accountability from those in power. Only by uncovering the truth can we hope to prevent future orchestrated crimes and protect the well-being of humanity.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic was not a random occurrence but a carefully planned crime. The engineered virus, the manipulation of the definition of a vaccine, and the role of the media all point to a larger agenda at play. It is up to us, as individuals, to question the narrative and demand the truth. The future of our society depends on it.