I better hand it over to Charles, Dave, otherwise he'll be punishing me next week.
That's correct.
The punishment will be coming.
And here's David Martin.
David, I can see you.
So it looks like you're here.
If you can hear, he's muted at the moment.
Here we go.
There you go.
Now I'm here.
All right.
Now I'm Charles Covess here in the red jacket.
I'm the moderator here to keep order of this chaos of these geniuses that are on this call.
69 so far.
So you're a hot, you're a hot, how shall I say, a celebrity, celebrity presenter here,
David.
Now for everybody else, whoever is new here, welcome to Stephen Frost Group.
We run this like a rotary meeting.
So for the first two hours or so, we're going to structure away.
And then after that, we go to the bar where it goes.
And sometimes, David, this conversation has gone for five, six.
And the record, Stephen says, is eight hours of people sitting on the Zoom chatting with
each other.
But you know that my question to you is how much time have we got you for?
Well, you have an hour because my son's birthday party is going to be is going to be a conflict.
So I'll be an hour with 15 minutes Q&A before I hit the road.
Beautiful.
All right.
So we'll those who have questions, we do them in order in your audience tonight.
You have doctors, you have physicians, you have lawyers, you have scientists, you have
patent experts, you have thinkers, you have journalists, and you have people who come
here twice a week to explore ideas.
The next hour is yours and then we'll moderate questions with you and welcome.
And Stephen, everyone's here because they know who you are.
We don't need to waste time on an intro, but you can do your own intro, Stephen, unless
you want to do an intro.
Stephen?
I've lost David.
I can't see where he is.
Isn't it the bottom?
I'm here.
Hello, David.
Yeah.
So thank you very much for coming, David.
What I know about you is that you're a patent expert and you've via the patents, it seems
to me I saw a list today that you've assembled, I think about 40 names of it.
And you've assembled a list of the people we need to go after, which is going to be
very useful for us.
Well, I have indeed.
Just to give you all a bit of background.
First of all, lovely to be here.
And I'm delighted to know that there is such a thing as still a journalist, Charles.
I was informed that that was an extinct species.
I thought we were now solely into propaganda.
So I'm glad that there are some of the dinosaurs still on this call.
That's lovely to hear.
For those of you without a background, I am the CEO of MCAM.
We are the underwriter for global intangible assets, have been since 1998.
And in that capacity, we have the unusual ability to watch the movement of both intangible
assets and their financing in one hundred and sixty eight countries.
We monitor absolutely everything that moves across any one of the WTO or affiliated member
states.
And I have the historical archive of intangible asset transactions going back to 1786 and
anything that's moved on the water or on the land or in the air since then.
We have we have information about that.
What's most important is we have linguistic genomics technology that allows us to do
cross database referential comparing and contrasting of information, which allows us
to look at both overt and covert funding of an enormous amount of activity.
And that is how in 1999, we fell into the coronavirus rabbit hole, fell into that rabbit
hole for the very simple reason that I was monitoring the seventy four registered scheduled
pathogens that are part of the global consensus on the biological and chemical weapons subject
to the treaties that prohibit the promotion, development or transfer of biological and
chemical weapons that the U.S.
has not stated to you as a member, but we have we have our own federal statutes that enshrine
a lot of the prohibitions on biological and chemical weapons.
And I was particularly alarmed in 1999 to see the work of Ralph Baric, where he was
beginning to modify the spike proteins and other receptor attributes of coronavirus
to target cardiac tissue.
For those of you not familiar with the history of coronavirus as it has been part of the
kind of broader conversation around immunization generally, the first patent on coronavirus
vaccines and specifically on spike protein affiliated with coronavirus model was filed
by Pfizer in 1990.
And since 1990, there has been an enormous amount of focus on using coronavirus for its
technical merits as a vector to transfer a variety of agents into various cells.
But for the decade of the 90s, coronavirus injections were largely focused on the
gastroenteritis problems of pigs and dogs, because that's who economically were most
impacted by coronavirus infection.
Gastroenteritis was the primary concern of coronavirus researchers at the time.
But it was in 1999 when Ralph Baric succeeded in getting the spike protein to target
cardio cardiac tissue, specifically cardiac endothelial cells, that Anthony Fauci reached
out to him to fund what became the thing we're living in now.
What he funded was a recombinant chimeric alteration of the spike protein and several
other proteins associated with coronavirus model.
And he did it specifically to target cardiac and lung epithelial tissue.
In 2002, he patented the recombinant chimeric alteration of the spike protein that actually
gave rise to infectious replication defective clones of coronavirus.
That's the title, by the way, infectious replication defective.
And the rationale for doing that was to use coronavirus as a vaccine vector.
At the time, Anthony Fauci funded the project.
He was trying to get to an AIDS vaccine and he thought coronavirus would be the perfect
platform to deliver an AIDS vaccine.
So that was the funding basis for that.
As you all know, historically, it was a year later in 2003 that we had the first alleged
outbreak of SARS.
And the rest of the story becomes a very insidious spiral into the weaponization of the spike
protein associated with coronavirus.
Now, I'm going to use a term for the rest of this conversation, which is very important.
And it is the basis upon which we are tomorrow filing the first federal case against the
president of the United States and all of the federal actors associated with this particular
campaign of terror.
That case gets filed tomorrow.
And when we do, it is important to realize that when I use the term, the spike protein
associated with coronavirus, we have to be very clear on why I'm saying that.
At present, we have no evidence either from the 2003 or the 2012-13 or from the 2020
alleged outbreak of human infections with what is being called SARS coronavirus.
We have no evidence that there is anything other than a pathogen that has been manufactured,
which is, in fact, the spike protein associated with coronavirus.
We do not have evidence, as is clearly stated in the clinical and diagnostic literature,
we have no evidence of an infection with a complete coronavirus model.
So we do have a very interesting thing.
What humans are suffering from is the scheduled toxin, which are the proteins associated
with a series of proteins derived from recombinant and chimeric development off of coronavirus.
But coronavirus, the cDNA genome and coronavirus, the propaganda message, are not the same
thing. If you go back and you look at the 2003 patent filed by the CDC, it's very, very
clear that the Chinese sample that was uploaded in April of 2003, which gave rise to the CDC's
patent on SARS coronavirus, contained the manipulated spike proteins that were actually
done in the laboratory. So the fact is that we don't have any evidence from 2003 forward
that a naturally occurring coronavirus has ever been associated with SARS.
That's kind of an important point to make.
And courtesy of a series of data leaks that I have successfully gotten into Europe, we
finally saw just in the last about two weeks, the publication of the article that was
reported in the Daily Mail in the UK, which actually shows that, in fact, not only is my
statement correct, but we also see that three years ago in Moderna's patent, we see the
spike protein modification with a 12 nucleic acid sequence, which in fact was patented
by Moderna three years before the election, new SARS coronavirus COV2 came into being.
So the fact of the matter is that nucleic acid sequence, which I've referred to many times
over the last two years, is now confirmed in third party research to be the same thing that
Moderna patented three years before the alleged outbreak of SARS COV2 and the associated
mythical set of symptoms classified as the first disease in human history to have no
differential diagnosis to prove its existence, COVID-19.
So the cool thing is we invent a pathogen, which is a known scheduled toxin.
We invent then a disease that has no ability to be detected.
We terrify the world and we come to the conclusion that somehow or another, this was
all a bat and a pangolin who got on it one night in a Beijing bar, and that's how we're
supposed to see the rest of the world.
But that is, in fact, not the case.
Now, what I want to do is I want to just make sure we're clear on kind of what we're
doing from a legal standpoint.
From a legal standpoint, we have a very fundamental argument that actually is hypothetical
up until 2005, and then it becomes non-hypothetical and it's based very much in reality
beginning in 2005.
Ralph Baric and NIAID up until the 2005 DARPA conference had made it abundantly clear
that they saw the potential for what they called infectious replication defective
coronavirus. And for those of you not familiar with all of that literature, it's
important to point out that what they were looking for was a way to modify proteins
associated with coronavirus so that they would increase their virulence and harm to the
individual exposed to the particular modified coronavirus model, but would not be
transmissible or infectious, hence infectious, but replication defective.
In other words, how do we make it target a target, but not necessarily spread to the
community? It was in 2005 when Ralph Baric gave his first bio weapons conference on the
weaponization potential of coronavirus, and it was associated with the emergence of two
very important historical timelines.
The first historical timeline, obviously, was the passage of the PREP Act.
The PREP Act here in the United States was particularly developed so that we could
actually secure for vaccine manufacturers the same liability shield and immunity from
product liability that was available in the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Act.
The 2005 PREP Act was allegedly put in place because of the anthrax scare that took place in
September of 2001. As many of you know, there was a tiny little problem with that because, well, the
alleged anthrax poisoning happened in September of 2001, in May of the same year.
So for those of you not familiar with calendars, that's a few months ahead of time.
The Army had already acquired 300 million doses of Ciprofloxacin.
Now, Cipro, for those who are not familiar with it, is a drug that is used to treat Bacillus
anthracis toxin infection in humans, and the infection is derived in most instances from
hide tanners. And you heard me say that correctly.
You get an anthrax poisoning from infections of a toxin that comes from Bacillus anthracis
inside of the curing and tanning of hides.
Now, I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Great Buffalo Hunt in the summer of 2001,
but I'm not, and I'm not familiar with the Great Water Buffalo Hunt or the Great, you know,
Giraffe Hunt or the Great, Great Any Other Hunt that would have given rise to 300 million of us
being exposed to hide tanning during the summer of 2001.
So it's reasonable to assume that given that there was no giant hide tanning enterprise in the summer
of 2001, that the Army knew that there was going to be exposure to anthrax somewhere in the near
future, which is the reason why they would buy 300 million doses of a drug for a condition that
affects hide tanners. Not necessarily a plausible argument.
And in September, when that came out, we saw very clearly that the reason for the alleged rush on
ciprofloxacin had something to do with the September event after the May purchase.
Now, I was asked to lead on behalf of the United States Senate an investigation into that, which
for those of you not familiar with the giant enterprise that went into investigating the first
biological weapons attack in the United States that was publicly discussed, I was accompanied
by the crack team of two, and you heard me right, two postal inspectors. That was the sum
total of the investigative power of the United States that investigated the anthrax attack.
Me and two postal inspectors. Mind you, we sent several hundred thousand people to their death for
the other thing that happened in September of 2001. But the one that actually was a biological
and chemical weapons attack was Dave and two postal inspectors. Not necessarily a very rousing
response to a biological weapons attack in the United States, but that was the proximate cause
for the reason why we needed to get the prep act. But the problem with that whole scenario in
September of 2001 was the public didn't get too fearful. And so we needed to actually get a bigger
fear mongering program going on, which is what gave rise to the 2005 bioweapons conference.
When Ralph Baric announced coronavirus was a plausible bioweapon that we could have,
we could have the public become afraid of. The problem was, as you all know, that the great
economic shutdown of 2003, which never happened, and the great public panic of 2003, which never
happened when we had SARS 1.0, led to a very interesting little problem. The public didn't
get scared. And since the public didn't get scared, the promise of coronavirus didn't quite work out.
Now, the good news for Ralph Baric and Anthony Fauci and their colleagues at the University of
North Carolina Chapel Hill was DARPA bought the bait and in 2005 began funding the biodefense
program. And while I won't go into all of the boring details, which you can find now in the
documents that I've summarized on prosecutenow.com. So if you want to go back and look at the historical
timeline on any of this, you can go to prosecutenow.com and grab the documents that are there.
But what we did watch was over the next several years, a very interesting funding collaboration
that took place to essentially give rise to the pandemic that was announced in 2019.
What's very problematic is that in 2011 or 12, we know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology
and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill began working on a very interesting modification.
They called it a chimeric recombinant modification of coronavirus. And they were using an
exceptionally interesting section of the protein synthesis model to develop a way to make sure that
two fundamental targets, the ACE2 receptor binding domain and the S1 spike protein domain,
could be modified to increase their virulence and their impact on human lung epithelia.
It was in 2013 that we have recorded the first transfer of what was called WIV-1,
which is the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus 1, which was uploaded to a server and then
recombinated and structured in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, which gave rise to a
very important grant that was funded also in 2013 by NIAID. These grant numbers, by the way,
you'll be able to reach out of the documents that I've referenced in Prosecutenow.com.
What happened inside of that grant is actually fascinating because it is the first time we have
reference to an in vivo infection of human lung tissue with the spike protein associated with
what we now call SARS-CoV-2. And we know it happened somewhere between 2013 and 2014 because
at the gain-of-function moratorium in October of 2014, NIAID, Anthony Fauci's organization,
specifically instructed Ralph Baric that his grant on the in vivo testing of this recombinant chimera
of the spike protein was in fact subject to the gain-of-function moratorium. That document was
sent to UNC Chapel Hill in October of 2014. And then mysteriously, for reasons that cannot ever
be justified under any circumstance, UNC Chapel Hill impaneled not one but two institutional review
boards. One of the IRBs was impaneled to discuss the ethics of the research that was being undertaken.
The second IRB was impaneled to assess the ethics of actually doing a project that was
violating the federal moratorium on gain-of-function research. The fact that you have a
moratorium and the fact you have to have an IRB to review the ethics of breaking the law
is a very interesting puzzle. You have a first review of the ethics of doing the work in the
first place, which was clearly unethical. And then you have the ethics review of the
conducting a study in the face of a moratorium, which was actually also another ethics review.
In all of my 20-plus years of medical research prior to that moment, I was puzzled by how you
could have an ethics review board reviewing the ethics of an unethical thing and then having that
particular board's ethics reviewed by yet another ethics board. Kind of an interesting little
double-take on what we actually call ethics. And for some reason, this was not only done,
but in the 2015 article that came out of that work, which actually gave rise to the description
of the WIV-1 infectious clone, they made reference in the references in the paper to said reviews,
which is actually kind of funny. And then in 2016, we have the very interesting co-emergence
of two publications. The first one was the publication of Peter Daschek's comment.
And his comment, for those of you who have not heard me talk enough about this topic,
I will read the quote simply because it's too unfortunate not to read. In 2015, Peter Daschek
made the following statement at the National Academy of Sciences. To sustain the funding base
beyond crisis, he said, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical
countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. Just put a pin in this for a moment. I'm breaking
the quote. In 2011, the World Health Organization had declared SARS coronavirus an eradicated
disease. So why we would need in 2015 a vaccine for an eradicated disease, at least bends credulity,
if not outright indicts it. But let's go ahead with the rest of the quote. 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.
That is a quote from 2015 published in February of 2016. And co-emergent with the publication
of that particular quote in 2016 was the statement by Ralph Baric's lab that SARS coronavirus is now
poised for human emergence, end quote. Now, I don't know how many of you on this call have a question
about what Peter Daschek's intent was or what Ralph Baric's intent was. I've been criticized
many times to suggest that, I don't know, somehow or another, I'm reading something into this.
But I don't know how else you can spin the need for pan coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the
media and the economics will follow the hype. I don't know if that sounds like public health
policy to the rest of you, but I'm old fashioned here in Virginia. That sounds like an explicit
statement of a plan for domestic terrorism, because that is by definition under section 802
of the Patriot Act, 18 US code, that is the definition of public coercion.
So I hate to break it to you, but when I suggest that there's been a law violated,
I'm not suggesting it. I'm actually making a very clear statement, because this is analogous to
having a bank robber standing on the steps of a bank with a bag full of money, having a blue little
dye pack explode and suggest that maybe he's a bank robber. This is actually an act of domestic
terrorism. It was stated to be exactly such in 2015, published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences in February of 2016 with the co-emergent publication of Ralph Barrett saying
SARS coronavirus is now poised for human emergence. And let's go unpack his little article,
which by the way was done during the Gain of Function moratorium. He specifically made reference
to not any old SARS coronavirus. This was the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus. This was WIV1.
This was actually the thing he uploaded from the Chinese servers that allegedly infected six miners
in 2013 and then was amplified by its pathogenicity to make sure it targeted human tissue much more
accurately in 2016. So when I lay these facts out, these are not subject to interpretation.
Otherwise, these are subject to the evidence that was written by the criminals themselves.
Now, what makes this particular thing worse is one year later, the gene sequence associated with
the coronavirus poised for human emergence is the one that was filed by Moderna into their patents
on the spike protein vaccine that was put into their first patent application in 2017, going into
2018, depending on when the document actually landed in the patent office. So three years before
we have an outbreak, one year after we are told that there's going to be the need for a medical
countermeasure, such as a pan coronavirus vaccine, we have Moderna uploading the very exact same gene
sequence for the mRNA spike protein sequence, which becomes the alleged pathogen of 2020
and becomes the backbone of the injection in 2020 and 2021. Now, call me old fashioned,
but that is a criminal conspiracy. That is not a natural public health pandemic. It is a criminal
conspiracy. And the fact that all of the parties are complicit and did so in writing. So we're not
making allegations. We're not making inference. We're following the inconvenience of $140 billion
of research that we've followed from beginning to end. And it turns out that inside of that rabbit
hole, we find this was a criminal conspiracy premeditated and enacted for a very simple reason.
Now, the fascinating thing that I encounter is that a lot of people sit back and say, well,
Dave, that's a huge, huge, huge amount of evidence. How on earth did you go back and research all of
it? And the fact of the matter is I didn't. I watched it unfold. I have public briefings on
this very topic that go back to a 2003 publication that I'm holding right here. This was published in
2003, my first intelligence briefing on this situation. And I have tried to call attention
to this from my first published briefing in 2003. My first oral briefing was in 1999,
but my first published briefing was in 2003. The difference between what I do and what a lot of
other people do is I don't wait for events to happen and then go piece the puzzles together.
I actually watch what is unfolding. And that way it's a heck of a lot easier to figure out who done
it, because it turns out that if you're watching people fun, any one of over 70 scheduled pathogens
and chemicals, it's pretty easy to see who was responsible for what unfolded.
Now, the reason why this is extremely important is that we have to take a step back and ask
ourselves the question when we have people who are so explicitly criminal and so explicitly corrupt,
many times people of goodwill struggle with the how on earth could that have happened? How could
it be that anybody would do such a horrific thing and do so with such impunity? And I want
to remind you all that we know this from psychology literature going back several hundred years.
And one could argue it goes back to Plato's Republic because he makes reference to this
in the Republic, that sociopaths actually get part of their thrill. Part of what fuels their
intentions is the fact that they can get away with things and do so in the face, full face of
the public. And part of the enthusiasm that they receive from their actions is in fact the fact
that they can do this with impunity. That is in fact part of the pathology. And I think a lot of
times people sit back and say, well, there's no way there's no way that they could have put all
of this out in public. And my point is not only is there a way to do it, the fact that the only
people who actually ever confirm the existence of a pathogen, the only people who ever can confirm
the existence of a disease and the only people who actually confirm the existence of the intervention
called this injection or this medical countermeasure that they're calling a vaccine,
the only people that have been involved with this are financially conflicted parties who are part
of the sociopathic network. That's the only people. No one else has been able to do any of
the requisite steps. The only people who have verified any of it are in fact the people who
are perpetrating the crime. Now that's a terribly convenient thing. When you ask the criminals to
investigate their own crime, it turns out they don't see any crime. Also part of a broader
definition of sociopathology. What we're doing for those of you who are sitting there going, well,
that's a pretty depressing way to either end my Sunday or start my Monday or wherever you are in
the world. This is not meant to be depressing. It's actually just the cold light of day.
What we are doing is we are actually beginning a process of a very long and it's a very cumbersome
process of getting to the criminal prosecution of principally several individuals, the people who
are in fact directly in the crosshairs are Alex Azar, who is the Director of Health and Human
Services under the Trump administration, who for those of you not watching was under investigation
for antitrust law violation when he was an executive at Lilly before taking the role with
the Trump administration. And by the way, his antitrust investigation, his price fixing and
racketeering investigation was on price fixing the cost of insulin for poor diabetics in Mexico,
which obviously if you're a really nice person, what you're doing is price fixing insulin for
diabetics in Mexico. That sounds like a great, great place to go. He was under investigation
when he was appointed. So it's good if you get somebody proficient in antitrust violations
to be the Director of Health and Human Services when you're actually trying to run a criminal
racket. It's actually one of those wonderful things where you actually get a competent
person to run the criminal racket. It's kind of like the mob making sure that they get the right
boss. But Alex Azar, Anthony Fauci, who clearly has been the perpetrator of this and the funding
source of all of this activity, certainly since the mid 1990s and in 2011 said that by the end
of September of 2020, he was going to have the world accept a universal vaccine platform.
And if you want to go back and read that document, it's the 2011 decade of the vaccine
document that he produced with the World Health Organization. If you want to go read that and be
very depressed, you'll go read that and be very depressed because he told us that he was going to
do it. And he told us that if we weren't going to pay attention, a la the flu shot, we would actually
get an epidemic or a pandemic so that we'd actually accept the platform. So the good news is
he told you it was coming in 2011 and he fulfilled his promise. So the good news is he's
a sociopath with a conscience. He wants to make sure that he keeps his promise. And that's a nice
thing to find in a sociopath. If he tells you he's going to destroy the world, it's good to know that
he has every intention on following through with that threat. But that 2011 document is when he
makes it abundantly clear he's going to do this. And then obviously we have a whole host of other
co-conspirators, Peter Daschick, the companies involved. There's no question that Moderna had
access to what we're calling SARS-CoV-2, which is actually not a virus. It's actually the modified
spike protein. All of that information was available in November of 2019. In fact,
in writing, Ralph Berg has confirmed that he shared that information in a material transfer
agreement with Moderna a month before there was alleged outbreak. So the good news is we know that
this was never about an epidemic. This was never about a pandemic. This is about a bioweapon called
the spike protein derived from SARS-CoV. And it is in fact the thing that is now actively
harming and killing and maiming thousands and millions. So our litigation starts with the case
we file tomorrow. The case we file tomorrow is going to be a federal case and is going to
challenge the designation of this experimental gene therapy using a spike protein platform
as a vaccine, as it does not meet the legal definition under the 1986 act of what a vaccine
is. And so we are actually challenging the CMS. We're challenging all of the federal
mandates associated with this injection. And we're challenging it on the basis that is in fact
an experimental therapy. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines, for those of you not familiar with
the legal and statutory definition of the police state action that gives rise to a public health
mandate for vaccines, must disrupt either infection or transmission or both.
This obviously not only fails to meet either of those standards but does one less. It actually
turns the body into the manufacturing platform for a scheduled toxin. When you tell the human
body to develop a scheduled toxin, you are in fact turning every individual into a walking
bioweapons factory. That's actually not my intention. That is not my extrapolation. That
is the definition of what it is. When you enable the production of a scheduled toxin,
which the spike protein is, in that scheduled toxin, you are now turning a human being into
a vector. And that vector is defined under our biological and chemical weapons statutes.
So everybody that's gotten injected is in fact now walking around in violation of biological and
chemical weapons laws, which is kind of an interesting proposition. But setting that aside,
what we are doing is taking on that first. We are then going after the conspiracy, which is actually
the racketeering, which gave rise to the mandates without any background or underlying supporting
material. And we're taking that case through a very interesting state to federal action,
because the state to federal action is actually one where we are able to get to felony crimes
at a state level without having to get the federal jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice
or any of the attorneys general involved, because they're in fact unwilling to be involved for a
whole host of reasons, not the least of which is they are compromised. So we're beginning that
process tomorrow. We will be keeping people updated on how we're going with that process
at ProsecuteNow.com. That's where all of the information is going to be kept current.
And that's a highlight film. And given how many hands are up, what I will do is I will actually
end early. This is unprecedented. I usually take my full hour. But given the fact there are a lot
of hands, I'd rather answer your questions than keep going, because I can talk about this stuff
for hours on end. Most of you know that. I have done over 350 interviews and lectures on this. So
the reason why it's somewhat familiar is I could do this and hold my breath and stand on my head
and be in a gas cloud and still be able to pull it off. So why don't I turn this over to whoever
is moderating the questions and I will take them as they come. That's me, David. Well done. Brilliant.
Now the tradition here, David, is that Stephen Frost gets heard to go at questions because he's
the moderator and then we'll go through. And thank you for that and noticing how many hands are up. So
you've generated a lot of questions. Stephen, over to you first. Thank you. David, where can we find
a list of the people you've identified most culpable? So there are two documents I would
recommend looking at. One is called the Fauci dossier. For those of you who find that online,
please download it for free. Do not buy it from Amazon. I put it out in the public domain.
Somebody decided to turn it into a profit center and they stole the material and put it on Amazon.
Amazon won't take it down. So don't buy it. It's available for free. You can pull it off any browser.
It's called the Fauci dossier. It should come on a HubSpot so you can get it for free. So pull that
one. That one, Stephen, is the simplest way to get kind of the primary hit list. And then on
prosecutenow.com, we have the draft indictment, which is the draft criminal indictment, which goes
into the details on the specific criminal conspiracy for domestic terrorism, antitrust,
and sedition. Those are the two documents I would recommend to get to the short line of that. And
Stephen, if you would like, I actually have a private document, which I'd be more than happy
for you to share with your community. I don't have it next to this computer in my studio,
but I can send it to you. And it is the timeline of this macabre evolution of the coronavirus
situation going back to Pfizer's 1990 patent and some of the predecessor work, including probably
one of the most notable problems that we have, which is the fact that we have from 1999
up until 2010. The National Science Foundation project that gave rise to the birth of Moderna
in 2010 was in fact a project that was specifically looking at how to take mRNA
and reverse transcribe it into DNA. And so for the people who say that this does not have any effect
on DNA, the fact is that's a false statement. There's 10 years of National Science Foundation
data that was in fact the forerunner of Moderna that successfully took mRNA and actually got it
into DNA. So I just want to make sure that we're clear on those things. But Stephen,
if you'd like, I'd be happy to send that longer piece to you and you can share it with your
community. That would be really helpful. Yes. Not least for my MP who's struggling to understand
everything. Yeah, not a problem. And for those of you who can't make prosecutenow.com work,
you have to type it the right way. It's prosecute, the word prosecutenow.com.
And if you type it correctly, you'll get it. So I'll take the next question.
David, could I ask you whether you would, if I write to the Metropolitan Police, would you
hit them with a few documents? I'm sorry? If I make contact with the Metropolitan Police,
would you hit them with a few documents which might encourage them to start investigating again?
Yeah, you're actually the two documents. There's a summary of litigation. And there is the two
documents on prosecutenow.com. There's a summary of litigation and the draft indictment. Those two
documents alone have triggered most of the DAs and most of the other investigations that we've
started. So I would start with that and then we'd be happy to go to other conversations after that.
And then last question, because I'm aware of all these people who want to ask you questions. That's
a record, by the way. So I just wonder whether, oh, yes, the video. Would you be happy with the
video if we edited it and then presented it to you to see whether you're happy with it?
This video? Yes. Oh, you're welcome to share it. Any of you are welcome to share it. You're
perfectly fine. Excellent. Thank you so much. And can I just ask you from a personal point of view,
do you feel pretty confident that you've solved the crime here?
Well, solved involves actually getting people locked up and taking on the responsibility of
actually getting people locked up and taken off the street. And I haven't done that.
But there is no solve to have. This is a crime that was done in public admission. This is what
we call in Crown law a prima facie crime. You can't say what they said and not be committing
crimes. So, I mean, the issue is not solving for the issue is getting enforcement of. And that's
the challenge that we're dealing with now. Thankfully, we're starting to make headway on
that. Sure. And have you have you laid evidence before the International Criminal Court?
Well, yes and no. Let me put it this way. For those of you not in the United States,
International Criminal Court is a bit of a sticky thing if you're a U.S. citizen,
because two administrations have made it a felony for U.S. persons to actually recognize the actions
of the International Criminal Court. So what I have done is I've provided information to
Reiner Fulmick. I've provided information to a number of others. I know there's an enormous
amount of information that's been shared with them, but I have no intention of committing a
felony in the process of trying to indict felons. So I'm trying to avoid that. I understand. Yeah.
So, Charles, we're ready. All right. So everybody, keep your questions tight, minimize.
We don't need statements. This is Question Time, questioning a genius like David Martin.
Liam Sturgis, you first. Okay. Thank you so much. And thank you, Dr. Martin. You're a hero of mine,
and you successfully made me a nerd. I'm sure you recognize that cover. You bet. So I'll keep it
brief. A million things I could ask you. My question is, this criminal series of actions goes all the
way to the top like you've described, but we've also got all the way down. I'm in Vancouver,
Canada. We've got our federal, our provincial, and our regional municipal health officers
who all seem to be either completely hypnotized or knowingly complicit. And the other thing I
noticed is a lot of them in these positions now were involved with the 2003 SARS outbreak in
Toronto. Correct. To what extent do these people, in your opinion, know what they're doing?
And to what extent have they just been misled through other careers? Well, that's a beautiful
question. And let me make the following statement. My grandfather said never attribute to malevolence,
that which is ignorance. The fact of the matter is you're ignorant until you have the information.
And once you have the information, you're malevolent. The fact is that every person who's
been involved in the promulgation of every one of the standards, every one of the actions, and every
one of the interventions has actually done so without considering the source from which they
got the information. I've confirmed that now in every jurisdiction that people took without
verification of its provenance. They took information from third parties and then took action based on
that information without challenging its veracity. And every single case, I don't care if you're a
community public health worker or you're the president of the United States, if you allow an
act of terror to be done based on your failure to check the provenance of the information that
you're given, you are committing a crime. And that crime is everywhere from a crime of reckless
homicide in certain instances up to a crime of domestic terror and sedition. And in British
Columbia specifically, Liam, it's important to point out that in British Columbia, we have the
UBC platform of the lipid nanoparticle that became the basis for what became first Tecmera, then
Inex Pharmaceuticals, then Acuatus and Arbutus Pharmaceuticals. And there is no question that
British Columbia has absolute knowledge that they are aiding and abetting in the delivery of a
biological weapon. And therefore, there is not any agent of the British Columbia government that is
not complicit in this act. So I hate to break it to you, but if you're in BC, you are right in the
thick of the crime. And you are in fact, by very definition, participating in the bioterrorism
event that we're seeing right now. Next, Josh. Hi, thanks so much. Two quick questions. One,
you say that the SARS-CoV-2 is not a virus, it's a spike protein. So if that's what you're saying,
then how is this supposed contagion taking place if it's not through viral spread? And the second
question is, if you look, so the Moderna patents with a 19NT sequence, there's like six of them
with that sequence in it. None of them actually claim that sequence in the patent. It's registered
along with some 30,000 other sequences. Can you explain a little bit about the kind of,
what does that mean? Because people are saying, well, Moderna patented it, but they didn't really
patent it. It's registered. What's the kind of legal nuance there? And why would they do something
like that? Yeah, so two very good questions. First of all, there is no evidence of any transmission.
And I hate to break it to people. There is zero evidence. As a matter of fact, when the asymptomatic
carrier story was kind of circulating all over the place, laboratories around the world actually
tried to see if they could actually replicate an infectious fingerprint from one person to another
person, which allegedly was the argument of transmission. And regrettably, not a single one
of alleged asymptomatic transfer ever actually had a pathogen signature between two allegedly
infected parties. So how is it spreading? It's not spreading. It's being injected and it's being
exposed. I mean, the reason why we have this, and by the way, look at something very simple. And
here's evidence of what I'm talking about. Why would cruise ships have infections and casinos not?
You have exactly the same density of people. You have the exact same profile of people and people
get it on a cruise ship and don't get it in a casino. We know that these things are not true.
The problem is we're being bamboozled by a cover story that says that there is infection.
The wonderful story that was done in Seattle, Washington, where we were told that airborne
transmission happened and we were told that it was because there was a singer in a choir. But
unfortunately, I've directed choirs. You know what never happens? Sopranos never project their air
over baritones and bases and altos. You know why? Because they're sopranos. Where do sopranos sing
in a choir? They sing in the front row. The whole story, every single one of the stories has been
based on a terrible, terrible fallacy that we have a transmitting virus. We don't have a transmitting
virus, which is the reason why the clinical trials for both Pfizer and Moderna made it abundantly
clear that we were not going to stratify any pathogen, because if we did, we'd find out that
there wasn't one. And so what we do is we have this bullion base of symptoms and we say that's
what a disease is. That's not true. Nothing is spreading. People are getting sick from exposure,
but exposure is an environmental toxin. Your patent question is an important one because
the 12 nucleic acid sequence that is in the Binerida filing is disclosed in a patent filing.
Now, let's get very clear. The only thing that is a claim is in fact what is claimed. But let's take
the CDC 2003 patent as an example. If you go back and look at the CDC patent in April of 2003 on
SARS coronavirus, what they have is a single claim. And it says the claim is the sequence ID1. And
then you go and look at what sequence ID1 is and you find out that the sequence ID1 is the complete
cDNA genome of the coronavirus. Now, what happens when you have a claim that says it's a sequence?
People go, well, they didn't claim all of coronavirus. And so you go and look and you find out
that sequence ID1 not only had the primary genome sequence, but it also had an enormous number of
variants. So your question is actually a beautifully precise question. That's why I really like it,
because when we have a code in a claim that actually refers to a sequence number or a
sequence ID or an accession number, we have to go back and then look at all the derivatives of that.
So it in fact does embrace the claim. But you're right that it actually lists this as one of a
huge number of variations that could exist. And what's happening inside of all of these
coronavirus patents. And for those of you who are wondering, there are 4100 patents containing
the SARS-CoV genome or a fragment thereof. 4100. The fact that Moderna picked the 12 sequence,
which is in the modification of this particular spike protein, is the reason why it's of note.
Because in all of them, and we've been through all 4100 of them, and clearly there's homology at
over 95% across almost all of them, something that the patent office does not check.
But what makes these Moderna patents particularly interesting is they in fact anticipate a never
seen in nature variant of the nucleic acid sequence for the spike protein. That's the
reason why those patents are interesting. For no other reason. It's not that they own
that particular sequence, it's they actually modeled that sequence. And the fact is that
unless they were doing nothing more than random nucleic acid sequence generators,
that had to come from something. And the fact that it coincides with Ralph Baric's publication
of the same sequence alteration, that's the reason why I think it actually is quite relevant.
Thanks, Josh. Glenn, you're up. You're muted.
I'm okay. I'm on. Thanks. Great to meet you. Through my lawyer and based in Dallas,
I've been investigating doing a suit against the FDA for them failing to do their appropriate
process in the five to 11 year olds. I'm familiar with they brought forward to me the case from
Children's Health Defense versus the FDA through the Eastern District of Tennessee. I imagine
you're familiar with it. Yes. It was initially dismissed on the lack of standing. Yep. So as
part of what you're doing, and potentially as a way to both propel your case, and to propel the
public awareness, I was wondering if you would consider adding additional plaintiffs to your
case that included all of the vaccine injuries. Yesterday, Dr. Jerry Brady was interviewed by
Dolores Cahill. On that interview, he indicated his belief that there are at least 600 million
vaccine injuries across the world, and potentially as many as a billion. So this would offer us an
ability to reach out to an enormous number of people to see there's interest and get
substantially extra awareness of your suit. Glenn, thank you for that suggestion. Yes,
we are very much contemplating going into the whole area of a class of plaintiffs that might
involve the injured. The way we are contemplating doing that, and it is early days of this,
is that we have a difficulty with getting any AG or US attorney to take the criminal side of this,
which for me is my passion. One of the things we're looking at is the possibility of a
shareholder derivative lawsuit, where we actually sue the companies for misrepresentation.
It turns out that we now know that statements made by both Pfizer and Moderna
are statements that they knowingly made false disclosures on their research and their trials
to shareholders. And we may be able to achieve more through a shareholder derivative suit than
we can through pursuing this as the classic criminal. It ultimately gets to the same outcome,
but the difference is we don't have to have the law enforcement that refuses to take action,
take action. So we are looking at that issue, and there is a high probability that we are going to
be doing something in a slightly nontraditional way, because we have to circumvent the criminal
prosecution that is not happening right now. And rather than trying to spend years going after it,
we're going to get the same outcome a different way.
Dr. John B. Reilly Are you familiar with the testimony by Deanna McCloud
that the FDA information from the randomized control trials actually failed its endpoints?
Dr. John B. Reilly Well, given the fact that the endpoints are
actually a failure in and of themselves, remember that the FDA has a vaccine standard,
which they published most recently in 2014, which says that they have to actually measure
infection and transmission as a primary endpoint. The fact that they failed to follow their own
written and published standard is just one of the many things that they failed. And the fact is that
as we know, the Federal Trade Commission requires that before you can make a statement
on the efficacy of a medical treatment to diagnose, treat or cure, you have to have two
independent double-blind placebo-controlled peer-reviewed trials before you can make a
statement. So we know that all of these things, Glenn, all come together in the very, very clear
statement that the FDA has violated its own written principles. It has violated statutes.
And I know a lot of people talk about this. It's actually a slightly irrelevant thing to point out.
But the fact that the CDC and the FDA have allegedly altered what they call a vaccination
is immaterial. The statute defining a vaccination was last statutorily defined by the United States
Congress in 1986. And the CDC and the FDA cannot willy-nilly change a definition with a standing
in law. They, in fact, can only put it on their website and pretend that they're changing something.
But the fact of the matter is there is no such thing as a definition of vaccine that does not
include the transfer of immunity. And so, Glenn, it's a great point. And yes, we are going to take
the class case forward. Thank you very much. Okay. Peter Huga, you can... Wiles Policeman Attorney.
David. Thank you very much, Dr. Martin. Thank you for the presentation. Very, very interesting.
As Charles alluded to, I'm involved in law. I'm also involved in the Metropolitan Police
case, which hasn't failed. It's stuttering a bit. But they have been served with a solicitor's letter
now demanding that they take action, or we will. It's a slightly different subject. My question
revolves around. In the UK, we have something called the Fourth Industrial Revolution. And I'm
sure it's happening in all countries under a different name. It's described in the government
white paper here as a fusion of technologies, including AI, gene editing, and advanced robotics,
blurring the lines between physical, digital, and biological worlds, which is scary enough in itself.
Now, I've tried to research some patents, one of which was a Google patent, and I can't put my
finger on it at this moment. And another one is a Microsoft one, which I have a number here,
which is described as, and I quote, a cryptocurrency system using body activity data. So do you have
knowledge of such patents? And moreover, is it graphene oxide, as discovered in the recent
vaccine vials lab analysis that will enable our transhumanism? Well, so first of all, yes, I'm very,
very familiar with a lot more patents than what you're making reference to, the ones you made
reference to, and several hundred more. And many of them come out of IBM. IBM has probably one of
the most copious portfolios in this area. Graphene oxide is certainly a potential tool to use, but
it is not the most interesting tool. The issue that we are facing right now is a world in which
we have this unholy balancing act between gene therapies, which are what the mRNA things are,
and the fact that we are actually modifying and transcribing into the human a number of industrial
markers. And those industrial markers are all kinds of things. In many instances, Peter, I would say
that the ship in many respects has already left the port, though, with respect to how the human
is behaving using the cunning tool called the smartphone. I think vast amounts of people
failed to understand that the convenience they think they're carrying with them is in fact,
one of the most insidious surveillance devices ever developed. And so the fact is, well, yes,
I do believe that there is an increased press towards making more and more of that kind of
intervention actually corporeal, meaning that it is going to be actually physically within our being.
The fact of the matter is, I think that for the social implications of transhumanism,
the last time you went to a restaurant and you saw a family speaking to each other by texting,
I think we've already hit it. I think we're there. The fact that we intermediate it with a bio-AI
is not going to make it less human. It already is devoid of human. And so spot on. But yes,
there's a huge amount of stuff. And I wrote an essay that's on my inverted alchemy post. If you
ever want to read any of my thoughts, inverted alchemy is my blog. You can get it off of David
Martin dot world, or you can go straight to inverted alchemy. But I did one on AI, which
Peter, you would find helpful. Next. Thank you very much. You're most welcome.
Valentina, you're up. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, Dr. Martin.
I also have a question about the graphene oxide in relation to the spike protein.
Yes. From what I hear and from what I've researched, I've read many studies on the
spike protein. And to me, it wasn't convincing that it was actually created in the lab. It sounds
like this is the toxin that is being the result of either the methylation process or some other
exposure to graphene oxide, if any. Correct me if I'm wrong, if it has any relation to that.
And then, of course, any time we're talking about the toxins, we are expecting the antidote. I cannot
imagine that they would create toxin without having an antidote. And I wanted to hear your
opinion about that, if there is an antidote and is either a mac in that first side doesn't have
anything to do with the situation, has anything to do with this particular research. And the last
question is more like a request. I have a Russian channel and I want to use this opportunity to see
if I can invite you to do an interview with me for my Russian audience.
Well, so a couple things. Let me go try to go through all of those. Each one of those could
be another hour long session. So let's start with this. The graphene oxide question in isolation
is actually, in my view, a bit of a distraction. We have a whole host of pathogens and toxins and
toxic chemicals. And I want to point out specifically one of merit. We are aware of
somewhat of the formulation of the lipid nanoparticle, but we are actually not entirely
aware of what's being done with the carrier. And certainly from the vascular endothelial cell
response, I think it's highly likely that we're having probably as much damage coming from the
lipid nanoparticles as we're having come from any of the other embedded elements. If I look at the
actual chemistry of what's going on, I think that once again, I'm not suggesting, please don't
misconstrue what I'm saying. I don't think that graphene oxide is necessarily a inert kind of
innocent bystander. I think there are far worse components of what's being injected
that have far more dramatic health effects. And so I'm just making that observation based on my
own research over the last three and a half decades in looking at vascular tissue,
looking at both mechanical and chemical deformation of the vascular endothelial
cells. So that would be my point on that. With respect to the broader questions of
getting this information communicated to your last question, what I have been trying to do is making
sure that everyone knows all of the content that I have is publicly available. What I'm trying to
do is additive. So if there's specific sets of questions that you would like me to address to an
audience, I'd be happy to do that. What I'm trying not to do is just repeat kind of the same sock
puppet presentation every time, because I actually go through that several times. And let's jump to
a couple more questions, because I'm going to have to step away very quickly. So I'll answer a couple
more. Oh, the antidote situation. The antidote that is being planned is CRISPR. It is not a
chemistry. It is actually another manipulation of the genes. The official antidote that was funded
as part of this particular campaign of terror, funded by Dustin Moskowitz, the co-founder of
Facebook, that particular antidote is CRISPR. So the goal is to get you injected and then gene
edited every time you have something else come along. So the official antidote is gene editing.
If you like part one, part two is far worse. If you're good with the injection of an mRNA,
you'll love CRISPR, because having a Facebook founder edit your genes just sounds like a
phenomenally, phenomenally good idea. Let's hop to the next question.
Thanks, Alexander. Richard? Dr. Martin, where are these documents implementing Trudeau's financial
benefits from these vaccines and how do we get our hands on them? I've got some mountains to step on.
Yeah, the documents that disclose Trudeau's interests come out of the lawsuit of the
litigation between Arbutus and Acutus in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as well as
in the Moderna patent invalidation cases that started in 2018. And those are available online.
You can grab all of those. As many people have asked, Dr. Robert Malone made a reference to a
40% interest of Trudeau and Acutus. That information allegedly came from conversations that he had with
a member of the Acutus Pharmaceuticals shareholder team and founding team.
I am not privy to the holdings of the private company Acutus. I am privy to the holdings of
the public company Arbutus. And when I make the statement, and I want to be very clear on the
statement that I make, when I make the statement that Trudeau's Canada gets paid for every single
injection, the basis for that is very simple. Both Arbutus and Acutus pay a royalty to British
Columbia every time either Moderna or Pfizer shots are given. That's in both of their public filings.
So when I say that Canada and the Trudeau government benefits from every shot,
it's in the public filings of public companies that actually say exactly what I'm saying.
Whether or not there is a family ownership or not is an open question. I will tell you, Richard,
the thing that has drawn my most interesting attention on that topic is a very fascinating
150 million Canadian dollar donation to the Trudeau Family Foundation that was actually for
a variety of health related research. And the provenance of those funds, other than they came
out of the general ledger of the Canadian government, and went to the private Trudeau Foundation.
Beyond that, we can't find records of that. So I'm not suggesting by virtue of the we can't
find records that we know where it went, because I don't. But what I do know is that there was 150
million dollars granted by the Canadian government to the Trudeau Family Foundation, and its
dispensation is not known by me or anyone else unless somebody has documents I haven't been able
to lay hands on. And I'm good at laying hands on documents. So I'd love to find the person who finds
it. Thank you, David. So we're getting close to the quarter past. The quarter past Mark Simon is
a patent expert. Thank God. I wouldn't say that. I'd be interested. Thank you very much. I really
follow your work. Are we interested to have a full list of all the patents you refer to?
Yep. Go to the FatshidoCA. The last 200 pages are nothing but that. So you've got them all.
Okay. Thank you. And also, there's a document you can get off of the MCAM website. It looks like this.
If you put MCAM, my company name, and then you type in COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2, you'll get the
actual list which has the gene sequences, the 100 plus patents that have the gene sequence homology.
And you can grab that off of the MCAM corporate website. That's m-cam.com. M-CAM.com.
Thank you. Now a lot of the technology that was developed for the liquid nanoparticles is
older than 20 years. How come they are still paying royalties for that?
Because as you know, it's very possible to evergreen patents. What you do is you actually
start with a core foundation and then you modify subtly, modify either chemistry or in this case,
chemistry and geometry, and you keep inventing these. These are evergreen and
Canada is as bad as the US with evergreening pharma patents.
Thank you. And final short question with your knowledge in patent literature and medical
research. Have you been able to look at how to use the patents actually to work on
remedies, treatments, antidotes?
Yeah, we have a very big project going on like that. I'm not talking about it publicly yet
because it's still very much in development, but I will be talking about it soon.
Great. Thank you.
Last question, Theresa and then Stephen so that we get you away by the 15 minutes.
No worries.
Hi. Thanks, Dr. Martin. Very quick question. We found out, well, we've had confirmation this
week that the Pfizer spike protein is reverse transcribing into DNA. Is this thing self-amplifying?
Is it self-disseminating?
Well, what we know is that it was engineered to be capable of transcription. So we know that.
What we don't know is what exactly is happening with the amplification, because when you actually
introduce a synthesized, and this is really important, and I would love for people to know
the injection is not derived from even a hypothetically natural substance.
The injection is derived from a computer simulation of a chimera of the SARS spike protein.
So we have to understand that if you and I were actually to look at this from a scientific
standpoint, we would actually start by looking at historical data on what we know the spike
protein to do. The problem is there are two nucleic acids that have been modified that do not match
anything seen in nature, and as such, anything that we would do with that information would be
pure conjecture, because until we actually see generational implication, which we can do in the
models, I mean, the liver model that was used for the paper you're referencing is something that we
can start looking at generational either amplification, preservation, or modification.
But until that's done, the answer is we don't know, but the concern is anytime you're injecting a
theoretical thing into a person, we don't know is not an acceptable answer. You cannot obtain
informed consent when the answer is I got no idea. Well, one of Pfizer's original five candidates was
self-amplifying, wasn't it? Yes, and in fact, the early work off of the back of the 1990 vaccine,
in fact, was so, you know, the probability is that that was a goal, but I can't make a comment
without the data, which I don't have. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you, Teresa. And David,
before Stephen thanks you formally, can you save the chat because there's lots of lovely comments
there for you. And there's some questions there for you will send you the chat after the event.
But you say this now on your computer and people saying nice things about you. So I think, you know,
when you go to your grave, you can be read it at your funeral that all these people said nice
things about you. You know, the good news is I am doing what I know I was here to do. So I
I'm grateful for the chance to meet all of you. And I have way more people saying nice things than
I have saying bad things. So in the balance, I feel like I'm probably okay. Beautiful. Stephen,
over to you. Charles, who will send the chat to David? I'll send if you will. Okay. So thank you
very much, David. We're trying to encourage the Metropolitan Police in London, of all places,
to investigate this. They seem to be under a bit of pressure. But now they've been served with the
lawyers letter. 27 pages from memory, I think. I just wondered whether you might be able to help
us. We'll try not to take your time unnecessarily. But if sorry. Yeah, what we'll do is, as I said,
we'll be posting the federal case that gets filed tomorrow. I think you'll find that very helpful.
And I think combined with the other two documents I made reference to, I think you'll find most of
your journey at least beginning to be paved. But Stephen, you're welcome to reach back out. And I
would be delighted to be of assistance in any way we can. Thank you so much.