1
0:00:00 --> 0:00:07
I better hand it over to Charles, Dave, otherwise he'll be punishing me next week.

2
0:00:07 --> 0:00:08
That's correct.

3
0:00:08 --> 0:00:09
The punishment will be coming.

4
0:00:09 --> 0:00:11
And here's David Martin.

5
0:00:11 --> 0:00:13
David, I can see you.

6
0:00:13 --> 0:00:17
So it looks like you're here.

7
0:00:17 --> 0:00:21
If you can hear, he's muted at the moment.

8
0:00:21 --> 0:00:22
Here we go.

9
0:00:22 --> 0:00:23
There you go.

10
0:00:23 --> 0:00:24
Now I'm here.

11
0:00:25 --> 0:00:26
All right.

12
0:00:26 --> 0:00:30
Now I'm Charles Covess here in the red jacket.

13
0:00:30 --> 0:00:37
I'm the moderator here to keep order of this chaos of these geniuses that are on this call.

14
0:00:37 --> 0:00:38
69 so far.

15
0:00:38 --> 0:00:45
So you're a hot, you're a hot, how shall I say, a celebrity, celebrity presenter here,

16
0:00:45 --> 0:00:46
David.

17
0:00:46 --> 0:00:51
Now for everybody else, whoever is new here, welcome to Stephen Frost Group.

18
0:00:51 --> 0:00:53
We run this like a rotary meeting.

19
0:00:53 --> 0:00:58
So for the first two hours or so, we're going to structure away.

20
0:00:58 --> 0:01:01
And then after that, we go to the bar where it goes.

21
0:01:01 --> 0:01:04
And sometimes, David, this conversation has gone for five, six.

22
0:01:04 --> 0:01:08
And the record, Stephen says, is eight hours of people sitting on the Zoom chatting with

23
0:01:08 --> 0:01:09
each other.

24
0:01:09 --> 0:01:14
But you know that my question to you is how much time have we got you for?

25
0:01:14 --> 0:01:22
Well, you have an hour because my son's birthday party is going to be is going to be a conflict.

26
0:01:22 --> 0:01:25
So I'll be an hour with 15 minutes Q&A before I hit the road.

27
0:01:25 --> 0:01:26
Beautiful.

28
0:01:26 --> 0:01:27
All right.

29
0:01:27 --> 0:01:32
So we'll those who have questions, we do them in order in your audience tonight.

30
0:01:32 --> 0:01:38
You have doctors, you have physicians, you have lawyers, you have scientists, you have

31
0:01:38 --> 0:01:45
patent experts, you have thinkers, you have journalists, and you have people who come

32
0:01:45 --> 0:01:49
here twice a week to explore ideas.

33
0:01:50 --> 0:01:54
The next hour is yours and then we'll moderate questions with you and welcome.

34
0:01:54 --> 0:01:57
And Stephen, everyone's here because they know who you are.

35
0:01:57 --> 0:02:01
We don't need to waste time on an intro, but you can do your own intro, Stephen, unless

36
0:02:01 --> 0:02:04
you want to do an intro.

37
0:02:04 --> 0:02:05
Stephen?

38
0:02:05 --> 0:02:06
I've lost David.

39
0:02:06 --> 0:02:08
I can't see where he is.

40
0:02:08 --> 0:02:09
Isn't it the bottom?

41
0:02:09 --> 0:02:10
I'm here.

42
0:02:10 --> 0:02:11
Hello, David.

43
0:02:11 --> 0:02:12
Yeah.

44
0:02:12 --> 0:02:15
So thank you very much for coming, David.

45
0:02:15 --> 0:02:21
What I know about you is that you're a patent expert and you've via the patents, it seems

46
0:02:21 --> 0:02:26
to me I saw a list today that you've assembled, I think about 40 names of it.

47
0:02:26 --> 0:02:29
And you've assembled a list of the people we need to go after, which is going to be

48
0:02:29 --> 0:02:32
very useful for us.

49
0:02:32 --> 0:02:35
Well, I have indeed.

50
0:02:35 --> 0:02:38
Just to give you all a bit of background.

51
0:02:38 --> 0:02:40
First of all, lovely to be here.

52
0:02:40 --> 0:02:44
And I'm delighted to know that there is such a thing as still a journalist, Charles.

53
0:02:45 --> 0:02:48
I was informed that that was an extinct species.

54
0:02:48 --> 0:02:51
I thought we were now solely into propaganda.

55
0:02:51 --> 0:02:55
So I'm glad that there are some of the dinosaurs still on this call.

56
0:02:55 --> 0:02:57
That's lovely to hear.

57
0:02:57 --> 0:03:05
For those of you without a background, I am the CEO of MCAM.

58
0:03:05 --> 0:03:13
We are the underwriter for global intangible assets, have been since 1998.

59
0:03:13 --> 0:03:19
And in that capacity, we have the unusual ability to watch the movement of both intangible

60
0:03:19 --> 0:03:24
assets and their financing in one hundred and sixty eight countries.

61
0:03:24 --> 0:03:31
We monitor absolutely everything that moves across any one of the WTO or affiliated member

62
0:03:31 --> 0:03:32
states.

63
0:03:32 --> 0:03:40
And I have the historical archive of intangible asset transactions going back to 1786 and

64
0:03:40 --> 0:03:43
anything that's moved on the water or on the land or in the air since then.

65
0:03:46 --> 0:03:49
We have we have information about that.

66
0:03:49 --> 0:03:54
What's most important is we have linguistic genomics technology that allows us to do

67
0:03:55 --> 0:04:01
cross database referential comparing and contrasting of information, which allows us

68
0:04:02 --> 0:04:07
to look at both overt and covert funding of an enormous amount of activity.

69
0:04:07 --> 0:04:15
And that is how in 1999, we fell into the coronavirus rabbit hole, fell into that rabbit

70
0:04:15 --> 0:04:24
hole for the very simple reason that I was monitoring the seventy four registered scheduled

71
0:04:24 --> 0:04:32
pathogens that are part of the global consensus on the biological and chemical weapons subject

72
0:04:32 --> 0:04:37
to the treaties that prohibit the promotion, development or transfer of biological and

73
0:04:37 --> 0:04:40
chemical weapons that the U.S.

74
0:04:40 --> 0:04:47
has not stated to you as a member, but we have we have our own federal statutes that enshrine

75
0:04:47 --> 0:04:51
a lot of the prohibitions on biological and chemical weapons.

76
0:04:51 --> 0:04:57
And I was particularly alarmed in 1999 to see the work of Ralph Baric, where he was

77
0:04:57 --> 0:05:03
beginning to modify the spike proteins and other receptor attributes of coronavirus

78
0:05:04 --> 0:05:05
to target cardiac tissue.

79
0:05:06 --> 0:05:12
For those of you not familiar with the history of coronavirus as it has been part of the

80
0:05:12 --> 0:05:19
kind of broader conversation around immunization generally, the first patent on coronavirus

81
0:05:19 --> 0:05:24
vaccines and specifically on spike protein affiliated with coronavirus model was filed

82
0:05:24 --> 0:05:26
by Pfizer in 1990.

83
0:05:27 --> 0:05:33
And since 1990, there has been an enormous amount of focus on using coronavirus for its

84
0:05:33 --> 0:05:40
technical merits as a vector to transfer a variety of agents into various cells.

85
0:05:41 --> 0:05:45
But for the decade of the 90s, coronavirus injections were largely focused on the

86
0:05:45 --> 0:05:50
gastroenteritis problems of pigs and dogs, because that's who economically were most

87
0:05:50 --> 0:05:52
impacted by coronavirus infection.

88
0:05:53 --> 0:05:57
Gastroenteritis was the primary concern of coronavirus researchers at the time.

89
0:05:58 --> 0:06:05
But it was in 1999 when Ralph Baric succeeded in getting the spike protein to target

90
0:06:05 --> 0:06:11
cardio cardiac tissue, specifically cardiac endothelial cells, that Anthony Fauci reached

91
0:06:11 --> 0:06:16
out to him to fund what became the thing we're living in now.

92
0:06:16 --> 0:06:22
What he funded was a recombinant chimeric alteration of the spike protein and several

93
0:06:22 --> 0:06:26
other proteins associated with coronavirus model.

94
0:06:26 --> 0:06:31
And he did it specifically to target cardiac and lung epithelial tissue.

95
0:06:32 --> 0:06:39
In 2002, he patented the recombinant chimeric alteration of the spike protein that actually

96
0:06:39 --> 0:06:45
gave rise to infectious replication defective clones of coronavirus.

97
0:06:45 --> 0:06:49
That's the title, by the way, infectious replication defective.

98
0:06:49 --> 0:06:54
And the rationale for doing that was to use coronavirus as a vaccine vector.

99
0:06:54 --> 0:06:57
At the time, Anthony Fauci funded the project.

100
0:06:57 --> 0:07:02
He was trying to get to an AIDS vaccine and he thought coronavirus would be the perfect

101
0:07:02 --> 0:07:06
platform to deliver an AIDS vaccine.

102
0:07:06 --> 0:07:08
So that was the funding basis for that.

103
0:07:08 --> 0:07:15
As you all know, historically, it was a year later in 2003 that we had the first alleged

104
0:07:15 --> 0:07:17
outbreak of SARS.

105
0:07:18 --> 0:07:26
And the rest of the story becomes a very insidious spiral into the weaponization of the spike

106
0:07:26 --> 0:07:28
protein associated with coronavirus.

107
0:07:29 --> 0:07:34
Now, I'm going to use a term for the rest of this conversation, which is very important.

108
0:07:35 --> 0:07:41
And it is the basis upon which we are tomorrow filing the first federal case against the

109
0:07:41 --> 0:07:48
president of the United States and all of the federal actors associated with this particular

110
0:07:48 --> 0:07:49
campaign of terror.

111
0:07:49 --> 0:07:51
That case gets filed tomorrow.

112
0:07:52 --> 0:07:58
And when we do, it is important to realize that when I use the term, the spike protein

113
0:07:58 --> 0:08:04
associated with coronavirus, we have to be very clear on why I'm saying that.

114
0:08:05 --> 0:08:15
At present, we have no evidence either from the 2003 or the 2012-13 or from the 2020

115
0:08:15 --> 0:08:21
alleged outbreak of human infections with what is being called SARS coronavirus.

116
0:08:21 --> 0:08:28
We have no evidence that there is anything other than a pathogen that has been manufactured,

117
0:08:28 --> 0:08:31
which is, in fact, the spike protein associated with coronavirus.

118
0:08:32 --> 0:08:37
We do not have evidence, as is clearly stated in the clinical and diagnostic literature,

119
0:08:37 --> 0:08:45
we have no evidence of an infection with a complete coronavirus model.

120
0:08:45 --> 0:08:47
So we do have a very interesting thing.

121
0:08:47 --> 0:08:53
What humans are suffering from is the scheduled toxin, which are the proteins associated

122
0:08:53 --> 0:09:01
with a series of proteins derived from recombinant and chimeric development off of coronavirus.

123
0:09:02 --> 0:09:10
But coronavirus, the cDNA genome and coronavirus, the propaganda message, are not the same

124
0:09:10 --> 0:09:16
thing. If you go back and you look at the 2003 patent filed by the CDC, it's very, very

125
0:09:16 --> 0:09:24
clear that the Chinese sample that was uploaded in April of 2003, which gave rise to the CDC's

126
0:09:24 --> 0:09:31
patent on SARS coronavirus, contained the manipulated spike proteins that were actually

127
0:09:31 --> 0:09:37
done in the laboratory. So the fact is that we don't have any evidence from 2003 forward

128
0:09:37 --> 0:09:41
that a naturally occurring coronavirus has ever been associated with SARS.

129
0:09:42 --> 0:09:44
That's kind of an important point to make.

130
0:09:45 --> 0:09:51
And courtesy of a series of data leaks that I have successfully gotten into Europe, we

131
0:09:51 --> 0:10:02
finally saw just in the last about two weeks, the publication of the article that was

132
0:10:02 --> 0:10:09
reported in the Daily Mail in the UK, which actually shows that, in fact, not only is my

133
0:10:09 --> 0:10:15
statement correct, but we also see that three years ago in Moderna's patent, we see the

134
0:10:15 --> 0:10:21
spike protein modification with a 12 nucleic acid sequence, which in fact was patented

135
0:10:21 --> 0:10:27
by Moderna three years before the election, new SARS coronavirus COV2 came into being.

136
0:10:27 --> 0:10:32
So the fact of the matter is that nucleic acid sequence, which I've referred to many times

137
0:10:32 --> 0:10:38
over the last two years, is now confirmed in third party research to be the same thing that

138
0:10:38 --> 0:10:45
Moderna patented three years before the alleged outbreak of SARS COV2 and the associated

139
0:10:45 --> 0:10:51
mythical set of symptoms classified as the first disease in human history to have no

140
0:10:51 --> 0:10:54
differential diagnosis to prove its existence, COVID-19.

141
0:10:55 --> 0:10:59
So the cool thing is we invent a pathogen, which is a known scheduled toxin.

142
0:11:00 --> 0:11:04
We invent then a disease that has no ability to be detected.

143
0:11:05 --> 0:11:11
We terrify the world and we come to the conclusion that somehow or another, this was

144
0:11:12 --> 0:11:17
all a bat and a pangolin who got on it one night in a Beijing bar, and that's how we're

145
0:11:17 --> 0:11:18
supposed to see the rest of the world.

146
0:11:18 --> 0:11:21
But that is, in fact, not the case.

147
0:11:21 --> 0:11:27
Now, what I want to do is I want to just make sure we're clear on kind of what we're

148
0:11:27 --> 0:11:28
doing from a legal standpoint.

149
0:11:29 --> 0:11:37
From a legal standpoint, we have a very fundamental argument that actually is hypothetical

150
0:11:37 --> 0:11:43
up until 2005, and then it becomes non-hypothetical and it's based very much in reality

151
0:11:43 --> 0:11:45
beginning in 2005.

152
0:11:46 --> 0:11:56
Ralph Baric and NIAID up until the 2005 DARPA conference had made it abundantly clear

153
0:11:56 --> 0:12:00
that they saw the potential for what they called infectious replication defective

154
0:12:00 --> 0:12:03
coronavirus. And for those of you not familiar with all of that literature, it's

155
0:12:03 --> 0:12:08
important to point out that what they were looking for was a way to modify proteins

156
0:12:08 --> 0:12:13
associated with coronavirus so that they would increase their virulence and harm to the

157
0:12:13 --> 0:12:20
individual exposed to the particular modified coronavirus model, but would not be

158
0:12:20 --> 0:12:25
transmissible or infectious, hence infectious, but replication defective.

159
0:12:25 --> 0:12:31
In other words, how do we make it target a target, but not necessarily spread to the

160
0:12:31 --> 0:12:39
community? It was in 2005 when Ralph Baric gave his first bio weapons conference on the

161
0:12:39 --> 0:12:45
weaponization potential of coronavirus, and it was associated with the emergence of two

162
0:12:45 --> 0:12:48
very important historical timelines.

163
0:12:48 --> 0:12:52
The first historical timeline, obviously, was the passage of the PREP Act.

164
0:12:53 --> 0:12:57
The PREP Act here in the United States was particularly developed so that we could

165
0:12:57 --> 0:13:05
actually secure for vaccine manufacturers the same liability shield and immunity from

166
0:13:05 --> 0:13:12
product liability that was available in the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Act.

167
0:13:12 --> 0:13:20
The 2005 PREP Act was allegedly put in place because of the anthrax scare that took place in

168
0:13:20 --> 0:13:27
September of 2001. As many of you know, there was a tiny little problem with that because, well, the

169
0:13:27 --> 0:13:33
alleged anthrax poisoning happened in September of 2001, in May of the same year.

170
0:13:33 --> 0:13:37
So for those of you not familiar with calendars, that's a few months ahead of time.

171
0:13:37 --> 0:13:42
The Army had already acquired 300 million doses of Ciprofloxacin.

172
0:13:42 --> 0:13:48
Now, Cipro, for those who are not familiar with it, is a drug that is used to treat Bacillus

173
0:13:48 --> 0:13:55
anthracis toxin infection in humans, and the infection is derived in most instances from

174
0:13:55 --> 0:13:58
hide tanners. And you heard me say that correctly.

175
0:13:58 --> 0:14:07
You get an anthrax poisoning from infections of a toxin that comes from Bacillus anthracis

176
0:14:07 --> 0:14:11
inside of the curing and tanning of hides.

177
0:14:11 --> 0:14:16
Now, I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Great Buffalo Hunt in the summer of 2001,

178
0:14:16 --> 0:14:23
but I'm not, and I'm not familiar with the Great Water Buffalo Hunt or the Great, you know,

179
0:14:23 --> 0:14:28
Giraffe Hunt or the Great, Great Any Other Hunt that would have given rise to 300 million of us

180
0:14:28 --> 0:14:33
being exposed to hide tanning during the summer of 2001.

181
0:14:33 --> 0:14:39
So it's reasonable to assume that given that there was no giant hide tanning enterprise in the summer

182
0:14:39 --> 0:14:44
of 2001, that the Army knew that there was going to be exposure to anthrax somewhere in the near

183
0:14:44 --> 0:14:50
future, which is the reason why they would buy 300 million doses of a drug for a condition that

184
0:14:50 --> 0:14:54
affects hide tanners. Not necessarily a plausible argument.

185
0:14:54 --> 0:15:01
And in September, when that came out, we saw very clearly that the reason for the alleged rush on

186
0:15:01 --> 0:15:07
ciprofloxacin had something to do with the September event after the May purchase.

187
0:15:07 --> 0:15:13
Now, I was asked to lead on behalf of the United States Senate an investigation into that, which

188
0:15:13 --> 0:15:18
for those of you not familiar with the giant enterprise that went into investigating the first

189
0:15:18 --> 0:15:25
biological weapons attack in the United States that was publicly discussed, I was accompanied

190
0:15:25 --> 0:15:30
by the crack team of two, and you heard me right, two postal inspectors. That was the sum

191
0:15:30 --> 0:15:35
total of the investigative power of the United States that investigated the anthrax attack.

192
0:15:37 --> 0:15:43
Me and two postal inspectors. Mind you, we sent several hundred thousand people to their death for

193
0:15:43 --> 0:15:49
the other thing that happened in September of 2001. But the one that actually was a biological

194
0:15:49 --> 0:15:56
and chemical weapons attack was Dave and two postal inspectors. Not necessarily a very rousing

195
0:15:56 --> 0:16:03
response to a biological weapons attack in the United States, but that was the proximate cause

196
0:16:03 --> 0:16:08
for the reason why we needed to get the prep act. But the problem with that whole scenario in

197
0:16:08 --> 0:16:15
September of 2001 was the public didn't get too fearful. And so we needed to actually get a bigger

198
0:16:15 --> 0:16:22
fear mongering program going on, which is what gave rise to the 2005 bioweapons conference.

199
0:16:22 --> 0:16:27
When Ralph Baric announced coronavirus was a plausible bioweapon that we could have,

200
0:16:29 --> 0:16:34
we could have the public become afraid of. The problem was, as you all know, that the great

201
0:16:34 --> 0:16:41
economic shutdown of 2003, which never happened, and the great public panic of 2003, which never

202
0:16:41 --> 0:16:50
happened when we had SARS 1.0, led to a very interesting little problem. The public didn't

203
0:16:50 --> 0:16:56
get scared. And since the public didn't get scared, the promise of coronavirus didn't quite work out.

204
0:16:57 --> 0:17:02
Now, the good news for Ralph Baric and Anthony Fauci and their colleagues at the University of

205
0:17:02 --> 0:17:09
North Carolina Chapel Hill was DARPA bought the bait and in 2005 began funding the biodefense

206
0:17:09 --> 0:17:14
program. And while I won't go into all of the boring details, which you can find now in the

207
0:17:14 --> 0:17:20
documents that I've summarized on prosecutenow.com. So if you want to go back and look at the historical

208
0:17:20 --> 0:17:25
timeline on any of this, you can go to prosecutenow.com and grab the documents that are there.

209
0:17:25 --> 0:17:32
But what we did watch was over the next several years, a very interesting funding collaboration

210
0:17:32 --> 0:17:39
that took place to essentially give rise to the pandemic that was announced in 2019.

211
0:17:40 --> 0:17:51
What's very problematic is that in 2011 or 12, we know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology

212
0:17:52 --> 0:17:59
and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill began working on a very interesting modification.

213
0:17:59 --> 0:18:05
They called it a chimeric recombinant modification of coronavirus. And they were using an

214
0:18:05 --> 0:18:13
exceptionally interesting section of the protein synthesis model to develop a way to make sure that

215
0:18:13 --> 0:18:21
two fundamental targets, the ACE2 receptor binding domain and the S1 spike protein domain,

216
0:18:21 --> 0:18:26
could be modified to increase their virulence and their impact on human lung epithelia.

217
0:18:28 --> 0:18:36
It was in 2013 that we have recorded the first transfer of what was called WIV-1,

218
0:18:36 --> 0:18:42
which is the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus 1, which was uploaded to a server and then

219
0:18:42 --> 0:18:47
recombinated and structured in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, which gave rise to a

220
0:18:47 --> 0:18:55
very important grant that was funded also in 2013 by NIAID. These grant numbers, by the way,

221
0:18:55 --> 0:18:59
you'll be able to reach out of the documents that I've referenced in Prosecutenow.com.

222
0:19:00 --> 0:19:06
What happened inside of that grant is actually fascinating because it is the first time we have

223
0:19:06 --> 0:19:13
reference to an in vivo infection of human lung tissue with the spike protein associated with

224
0:19:13 --> 0:19:21
what we now call SARS-CoV-2. And we know it happened somewhere between 2013 and 2014 because

225
0:19:21 --> 0:19:28
at the gain-of-function moratorium in October of 2014, NIAID, Anthony Fauci's organization,

226
0:19:28 --> 0:19:36
specifically instructed Ralph Baric that his grant on the in vivo testing of this recombinant chimera

227
0:19:36 --> 0:19:41
of the spike protein was in fact subject to the gain-of-function moratorium. That document was

228
0:19:41 --> 0:19:49
sent to UNC Chapel Hill in October of 2014. And then mysteriously, for reasons that cannot ever

229
0:19:49 --> 0:19:56
be justified under any circumstance, UNC Chapel Hill impaneled not one but two institutional review

230
0:19:56 --> 0:20:03
boards. One of the IRBs was impaneled to discuss the ethics of the research that was being undertaken.

231
0:20:03 --> 0:20:10
The second IRB was impaneled to assess the ethics of actually doing a project that was

232
0:20:10 --> 0:20:16
violating the federal moratorium on gain-of-function research. The fact that you have a

233
0:20:17 --> 0:20:22
moratorium and the fact you have to have an IRB to review the ethics of breaking the law

234
0:20:22 --> 0:20:29
is a very interesting puzzle. You have a first review of the ethics of doing the work in the

235
0:20:29 --> 0:20:33
first place, which was clearly unethical. And then you have the ethics review of the

236
0:20:34 --> 0:20:42
conducting a study in the face of a moratorium, which was actually also another ethics review.

237
0:20:44 --> 0:20:50
In all of my 20-plus years of medical research prior to that moment, I was puzzled by how you

238
0:20:50 --> 0:20:57
could have an ethics review board reviewing the ethics of an unethical thing and then having that

239
0:20:57 --> 0:21:02
particular board's ethics reviewed by yet another ethics board. Kind of an interesting little

240
0:21:02 --> 0:21:11
double-take on what we actually call ethics. And for some reason, this was not only done,

241
0:21:12 --> 0:21:18
but in the 2015 article that came out of that work, which actually gave rise to the description

242
0:21:19 --> 0:21:30
of the WIV-1 infectious clone, they made reference in the references in the paper to said reviews,

243
0:21:30 --> 0:21:37
which is actually kind of funny. And then in 2016, we have the very interesting co-emergence

244
0:21:37 --> 0:21:43
of two publications. The first one was the publication of Peter Daschek's comment.

245
0:21:44 --> 0:21:49
And his comment, for those of you who have not heard me talk enough about this topic,

246
0:21:49 --> 0:21:59
I will read the quote simply because it's too unfortunate not to read. In 2015, Peter Daschek

247
0:21:59 --> 0:22:04
made the following statement at the National Academy of Sciences. To sustain the funding base

248
0:22:04 --> 0:22:10
beyond crisis, he said, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical

249
0:22:10 --> 0:22:17
countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. Just put a pin in this for a moment. I'm breaking

250
0:22:17 --> 0:22:26
the quote. In 2011, the World Health Organization had declared SARS coronavirus an eradicated

251
0:22:26 --> 0:22:37
disease. So why we would need in 2015 a vaccine for an eradicated disease, at least bends credulity,

252
0:22:37 --> 0:22:45
if not outright indicts it. But let's go ahead with the rest of the quote. A key driver is the media

253
0:22:45 --> 0:22:51
and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the

254
0:22:51 --> 0:22:56
real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.

255
0:22:58 --> 0:23:06
That is a quote from 2015 published in February of 2016. And co-emergent with the publication

256
0:23:06 --> 0:23:15
of that particular quote in 2016 was the statement by Ralph Baric's lab that SARS coronavirus is now

257
0:23:15 --> 0:23:27
poised for human emergence, end quote. Now, I don't know how many of you on this call have a question

258
0:23:27 --> 0:23:34
about what Peter Daschek's intent was or what Ralph Baric's intent was. I've been criticized

259
0:23:34 --> 0:23:39
many times to suggest that, I don't know, somehow or another, I'm reading something into this.

260
0:23:40 --> 0:23:47
But I don't know how else you can spin the need for pan coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the

261
0:23:47 --> 0:23:51
media and the economics will follow the hype. I don't know if that sounds like public health

262
0:23:51 --> 0:23:57
policy to the rest of you, but I'm old fashioned here in Virginia. That sounds like an explicit

263
0:23:57 --> 0:24:03
statement of a plan for domestic terrorism, because that is by definition under section 802

264
0:24:03 --> 0:24:09
of the Patriot Act, 18 US code, that is the definition of public coercion.

265
0:24:10 --> 0:24:15
So I hate to break it to you, but when I suggest that there's been a law violated,

266
0:24:15 --> 0:24:21
I'm not suggesting it. I'm actually making a very clear statement, because this is analogous to

267
0:24:21 --> 0:24:27
having a bank robber standing on the steps of a bank with a bag full of money, having a blue little

268
0:24:27 --> 0:24:33
dye pack explode and suggest that maybe he's a bank robber. This is actually an act of domestic

269
0:24:33 --> 0:24:40
terrorism. It was stated to be exactly such in 2015, published in the Proceedings of the National

270
0:24:40 --> 0:24:49
Academy of Sciences in February of 2016 with the co-emergent publication of Ralph Barrett saying

271
0:24:49 --> 0:24:54
SARS coronavirus is now poised for human emergence. And let's go unpack his little article,

272
0:24:54 --> 0:24:59
which by the way was done during the Gain of Function moratorium. He specifically made reference

273
0:24:59 --> 0:25:07
to not any old SARS coronavirus. This was the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus. This was WIV1.

274
0:25:07 --> 0:25:12
This was actually the thing he uploaded from the Chinese servers that allegedly infected six miners

275
0:25:12 --> 0:25:21
in 2013 and then was amplified by its pathogenicity to make sure it targeted human tissue much more

276
0:25:21 --> 0:25:28
accurately in 2016. So when I lay these facts out, these are not subject to interpretation.

277
0:25:28 --> 0:25:33
Otherwise, these are subject to the evidence that was written by the criminals themselves.

278
0:25:35 --> 0:25:39
Now, what makes this particular thing worse is one year later, the gene sequence associated with

279
0:25:39 --> 0:25:46
the coronavirus poised for human emergence is the one that was filed by Moderna into their patents

280
0:25:46 --> 0:25:54
on the spike protein vaccine that was put into their first patent application in 2017, going into

281
0:25:54 --> 0:26:00
2018, depending on when the document actually landed in the patent office. So three years before

282
0:26:00 --> 0:26:06
we have an outbreak, one year after we are told that there's going to be the need for a medical

283
0:26:06 --> 0:26:13
countermeasure, such as a pan coronavirus vaccine, we have Moderna uploading the very exact same gene

284
0:26:13 --> 0:26:21
sequence for the mRNA spike protein sequence, which becomes the alleged pathogen of 2020

285
0:26:21 --> 0:26:28
and becomes the backbone of the injection in 2020 and 2021. Now, call me old fashioned,

286
0:26:29 --> 0:26:36
but that is a criminal conspiracy. That is not a natural public health pandemic. It is a criminal

287
0:26:36 --> 0:26:45
conspiracy. And the fact that all of the parties are complicit and did so in writing. So we're not

288
0:26:45 --> 0:26:52
making allegations. We're not making inference. We're following the inconvenience of $140 billion

289
0:26:52 --> 0:26:57
of research that we've followed from beginning to end. And it turns out that inside of that rabbit

290
0:26:57 --> 0:27:05
hole, we find this was a criminal conspiracy premeditated and enacted for a very simple reason.

291
0:27:06 --> 0:27:12
Now, the fascinating thing that I encounter is that a lot of people sit back and say, well,

292
0:27:12 --> 0:27:19
Dave, that's a huge, huge, huge amount of evidence. How on earth did you go back and research all of

293
0:27:19 --> 0:27:27
it? And the fact of the matter is I didn't. I watched it unfold. I have public briefings on

294
0:27:27 --> 0:27:34
this very topic that go back to a 2003 publication that I'm holding right here. This was published in

295
0:27:34 --> 0:27:40
2003, my first intelligence briefing on this situation. And I have tried to call attention

296
0:27:40 --> 0:27:47
to this from my first published briefing in 2003. My first oral briefing was in 1999,

297
0:27:47 --> 0:27:53
but my first published briefing was in 2003. The difference between what I do and what a lot of

298
0:27:53 --> 0:27:57
other people do is I don't wait for events to happen and then go piece the puzzles together.

299
0:27:57 --> 0:28:03
I actually watch what is unfolding. And that way it's a heck of a lot easier to figure out who done

300
0:28:03 --> 0:28:10
it, because it turns out that if you're watching people fun, any one of over 70 scheduled pathogens

301
0:28:10 --> 0:28:16
and chemicals, it's pretty easy to see who was responsible for what unfolded.

302
0:28:17 --> 0:28:24
Now, the reason why this is extremely important is that we have to take a step back and ask

303
0:28:24 --> 0:28:32
ourselves the question when we have people who are so explicitly criminal and so explicitly corrupt,

304
0:28:33 --> 0:28:39
many times people of goodwill struggle with the how on earth could that have happened? How could

305
0:28:39 --> 0:28:47
it be that anybody would do such a horrific thing and do so with such impunity? And I want

306
0:28:47 --> 0:28:53
to remind you all that we know this from psychology literature going back several hundred years.

307
0:28:54 --> 0:28:58
And one could argue it goes back to Plato's Republic because he makes reference to this

308
0:28:58 --> 0:29:06
in the Republic, that sociopaths actually get part of their thrill. Part of what fuels their

309
0:29:06 --> 0:29:13
intentions is the fact that they can get away with things and do so in the face, full face of

310
0:29:13 --> 0:29:20
the public. And part of the enthusiasm that they receive from their actions is in fact the fact

311
0:29:20 --> 0:29:27
that they can do this with impunity. That is in fact part of the pathology. And I think a lot of

312
0:29:27 --> 0:29:32
times people sit back and say, well, there's no way there's no way that they could have put all

313
0:29:32 --> 0:29:38
of this out in public. And my point is not only is there a way to do it, the fact that the only

314
0:29:38 --> 0:29:45
people who actually ever confirm the existence of a pathogen, the only people who ever can confirm

315
0:29:45 --> 0:29:50
the existence of a disease and the only people who actually confirm the existence of the intervention

316
0:29:50 --> 0:29:55
called this injection or this medical countermeasure that they're calling a vaccine,

317
0:29:56 --> 0:30:01
the only people that have been involved with this are financially conflicted parties who are part

318
0:30:01 --> 0:30:06
of the sociopathic network. That's the only people. No one else has been able to do any of

319
0:30:06 --> 0:30:10
the requisite steps. The only people who have verified any of it are in fact the people who

320
0:30:10 --> 0:30:16
are perpetrating the crime. Now that's a terribly convenient thing. When you ask the criminals to

321
0:30:16 --> 0:30:22
investigate their own crime, it turns out they don't see any crime. Also part of a broader

322
0:30:22 --> 0:30:29
definition of sociopathology. What we're doing for those of you who are sitting there going, well,

323
0:30:29 --> 0:30:34
that's a pretty depressing way to either end my Sunday or start my Monday or wherever you are in

324
0:30:34 --> 0:30:39
the world. This is not meant to be depressing. It's actually just the cold light of day.

325
0:30:41 --> 0:30:48
What we are doing is we are actually beginning a process of a very long and it's a very cumbersome

326
0:30:48 --> 0:30:56
process of getting to the criminal prosecution of principally several individuals, the people who

327
0:30:56 --> 0:31:04
are in fact directly in the crosshairs are Alex Azar, who is the Director of Health and Human

328
0:31:04 --> 0:31:09
Services under the Trump administration, who for those of you not watching was under investigation

329
0:31:09 --> 0:31:14
for antitrust law violation when he was an executive at Lilly before taking the role with

330
0:31:14 --> 0:31:22
the Trump administration. And by the way, his antitrust investigation, his price fixing and

331
0:31:22 --> 0:31:29
racketeering investigation was on price fixing the cost of insulin for poor diabetics in Mexico,

332
0:31:29 --> 0:31:36
which obviously if you're a really nice person, what you're doing is price fixing insulin for

333
0:31:36 --> 0:31:44
diabetics in Mexico. That sounds like a great, great place to go. He was under investigation

334
0:31:44 --> 0:31:49
when he was appointed. So it's good if you get somebody proficient in antitrust violations

335
0:31:49 --> 0:31:53
to be the Director of Health and Human Services when you're actually trying to run a criminal

336
0:31:53 --> 0:31:57
racket. It's actually one of those wonderful things where you actually get a competent

337
0:31:57 --> 0:32:02
person to run the criminal racket. It's kind of like the mob making sure that they get the right

338
0:32:02 --> 0:32:10
boss. But Alex Azar, Anthony Fauci, who clearly has been the perpetrator of this and the funding

339
0:32:10 --> 0:32:17
source of all of this activity, certainly since the mid 1990s and in 2011 said that by the end

340
0:32:17 --> 0:32:23
of September of 2020, he was going to have the world accept a universal vaccine platform.

341
0:32:23 --> 0:32:29
And if you want to go back and read that document, it's the 2011 decade of the vaccine

342
0:32:29 --> 0:32:34
document that he produced with the World Health Organization. If you want to go read that and be

343
0:32:34 --> 0:32:39
very depressed, you'll go read that and be very depressed because he told us that he was going to

344
0:32:39 --> 0:32:46
do it. And he told us that if we weren't going to pay attention, a la the flu shot, we would actually

345
0:32:46 --> 0:32:51
get an epidemic or a pandemic so that we'd actually accept the platform. So the good news is

346
0:32:51 --> 0:33:00
he told you it was coming in 2011 and he fulfilled his promise. So the good news is he's

347
0:33:00 --> 0:33:05
a sociopath with a conscience. He wants to make sure that he keeps his promise. And that's a nice

348
0:33:05 --> 0:33:10
thing to find in a sociopath. If he tells you he's going to destroy the world, it's good to know that

349
0:33:10 --> 0:33:18
he has every intention on following through with that threat. But that 2011 document is when he

350
0:33:18 --> 0:33:22
makes it abundantly clear he's going to do this. And then obviously we have a whole host of other

351
0:33:22 --> 0:33:28
co-conspirators, Peter Daschick, the companies involved. There's no question that Moderna had

352
0:33:28 --> 0:33:35
access to what we're calling SARS-CoV-2, which is actually not a virus. It's actually the modified

353
0:33:35 --> 0:33:44
spike protein. All of that information was available in November of 2019. In fact,

354
0:33:44 --> 0:33:48
in writing, Ralph Berg has confirmed that he shared that information in a material transfer

355
0:33:48 --> 0:33:53
agreement with Moderna a month before there was alleged outbreak. So the good news is we know that

356
0:33:53 --> 0:33:59
this was never about an epidemic. This was never about a pandemic. This is about a bioweapon called

357
0:33:59 --> 0:34:05
the spike protein derived from SARS-CoV. And it is in fact the thing that is now actively

358
0:34:06 --> 0:34:13
harming and killing and maiming thousands and millions. So our litigation starts with the case

359
0:34:13 --> 0:34:19
we file tomorrow. The case we file tomorrow is going to be a federal case and is going to

360
0:34:19 --> 0:34:25
challenge the designation of this experimental gene therapy using a spike protein platform

361
0:34:25 --> 0:34:31
as a vaccine, as it does not meet the legal definition under the 1986 act of what a vaccine

362
0:34:31 --> 0:34:35
is. And so we are actually challenging the CMS. We're challenging all of the federal

363
0:34:35 --> 0:34:41
mandates associated with this injection. And we're challenging it on the basis that is in fact

364
0:34:41 --> 0:34:48
an experimental therapy. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines, for those of you not familiar with

365
0:34:48 --> 0:34:54
the legal and statutory definition of the police state action that gives rise to a public health

366
0:34:54 --> 0:35:00
mandate for vaccines, must disrupt either infection or transmission or both.

367
0:35:01 --> 0:35:07
This obviously not only fails to meet either of those standards but does one less. It actually

368
0:35:07 --> 0:35:14
turns the body into the manufacturing platform for a scheduled toxin. When you tell the human

369
0:35:14 --> 0:35:20
body to develop a scheduled toxin, you are in fact turning every individual into a walking

370
0:35:20 --> 0:35:25
bioweapons factory. That's actually not my intention. That is not my extrapolation. That

371
0:35:25 --> 0:35:32
is the definition of what it is. When you enable the production of a scheduled toxin,

372
0:35:32 --> 0:35:39
which the spike protein is, in that scheduled toxin, you are now turning a human being into

373
0:35:39 --> 0:35:44
a vector. And that vector is defined under our biological and chemical weapons statutes.

374
0:35:45 --> 0:35:50
So everybody that's gotten injected is in fact now walking around in violation of biological and

375
0:35:50 --> 0:35:56
chemical weapons laws, which is kind of an interesting proposition. But setting that aside,

376
0:35:56 --> 0:36:01
what we are doing is taking on that first. We are then going after the conspiracy, which is actually

377
0:36:01 --> 0:36:07
the racketeering, which gave rise to the mandates without any background or underlying supporting

378
0:36:08 --> 0:36:15
material. And we're taking that case through a very interesting state to federal action,

379
0:36:15 --> 0:36:22
because the state to federal action is actually one where we are able to get to felony crimes

380
0:36:23 --> 0:36:29
at a state level without having to get the federal jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice

381
0:36:29 --> 0:36:36
or any of the attorneys general involved, because they're in fact unwilling to be involved for a

382
0:36:36 --> 0:36:40
whole host of reasons, not the least of which is they are compromised. So we're beginning that

383
0:36:40 --> 0:36:45
process tomorrow. We will be keeping people updated on how we're going with that process

384
0:36:47 --> 0:36:51
at ProsecuteNow.com. That's where all of the information is going to be kept current.

385
0:36:52 --> 0:36:59
And that's a highlight film. And given how many hands are up, what I will do is I will actually

386
0:36:59 --> 0:37:05
end early. This is unprecedented. I usually take my full hour. But given the fact there are a lot

387
0:37:05 --> 0:37:12
of hands, I'd rather answer your questions than keep going, because I can talk about this stuff

388
0:37:12 --> 0:37:18
for hours on end. Most of you know that. I have done over 350 interviews and lectures on this. So

389
0:37:19 --> 0:37:25
the reason why it's somewhat familiar is I could do this and hold my breath and stand on my head

390
0:37:25 --> 0:37:32
and be in a gas cloud and still be able to pull it off. So why don't I turn this over to whoever

391
0:37:32 --> 0:37:38
is moderating the questions and I will take them as they come. That's me, David. Well done. Brilliant.

392
0:37:38 --> 0:37:43
Now the tradition here, David, is that Stephen Frost gets heard to go at questions because he's

393
0:37:43 --> 0:37:47
the moderator and then we'll go through. And thank you for that and noticing how many hands are up. So

394
0:37:47 --> 0:37:55
you've generated a lot of questions. Stephen, over to you first. Thank you. David, where can we find

395
0:37:55 --> 0:38:02
a list of the people you've identified most culpable? So there are two documents I would

396
0:38:02 --> 0:38:07
recommend looking at. One is called the Fauci dossier. For those of you who find that online,

397
0:38:07 --> 0:38:14
please download it for free. Do not buy it from Amazon. I put it out in the public domain.

398
0:38:14 --> 0:38:20
Somebody decided to turn it into a profit center and they stole the material and put it on Amazon.

399
0:38:21 --> 0:38:31
Amazon won't take it down. So don't buy it. It's available for free. You can pull it off any browser.

400
0:38:31 --> 0:38:38
It's called the Fauci dossier. It should come on a HubSpot so you can get it for free. So pull that

401
0:38:38 --> 0:38:46
one. That one, Stephen, is the simplest way to get kind of the primary hit list. And then on

402
0:38:46 --> 0:38:52
prosecutenow.com, we have the draft indictment, which is the draft criminal indictment, which goes

403
0:38:52 --> 0:38:58
into the details on the specific criminal conspiracy for domestic terrorism, antitrust,

404
0:38:58 --> 0:39:05
and sedition. Those are the two documents I would recommend to get to the short line of that. And

405
0:39:05 --> 0:39:10
Stephen, if you would like, I actually have a private document, which I'd be more than happy

406
0:39:10 --> 0:39:15
for you to share with your community. I don't have it next to this computer in my studio,

407
0:39:15 --> 0:39:22
but I can send it to you. And it is the timeline of this macabre evolution of the coronavirus

408
0:39:22 --> 0:39:30
situation going back to Pfizer's 1990 patent and some of the predecessor work, including probably

409
0:39:30 --> 0:39:43
one of the most notable problems that we have, which is the fact that we have from 1999

410
0:39:43 --> 0:39:51
up until 2010. The National Science Foundation project that gave rise to the birth of Moderna

411
0:39:51 --> 0:39:58
in 2010 was in fact a project that was specifically looking at how to take mRNA

412
0:39:59 --> 0:40:05
and reverse transcribe it into DNA. And so for the people who say that this does not have any effect

413
0:40:05 --> 0:40:11
on DNA, the fact is that's a false statement. There's 10 years of National Science Foundation

414
0:40:11 --> 0:40:17
data that was in fact the forerunner of Moderna that successfully took mRNA and actually got it

415
0:40:17 --> 0:40:23
into DNA. So I just want to make sure that we're clear on those things. But Stephen,

416
0:40:23 --> 0:40:30
if you'd like, I'd be happy to send that longer piece to you and you can share it with your

417
0:40:30 --> 0:40:36
community. That would be really helpful. Yes. Not least for my MP who's struggling to understand

418
0:40:36 --> 0:40:43
everything. Yeah, not a problem. And for those of you who can't make prosecutenow.com work,

419
0:40:43 --> 0:40:48
you have to type it the right way. It's prosecute, the word prosecutenow.com.

420
0:40:48 --> 0:40:53
And if you type it correctly, you'll get it. So I'll take the next question.

421
0:40:54 --> 0:41:01
David, could I ask you whether you would, if I write to the Metropolitan Police, would you

422
0:41:01 --> 0:41:08
hit them with a few documents? I'm sorry? If I make contact with the Metropolitan Police,

423
0:41:08 --> 0:41:15
would you hit them with a few documents which might encourage them to start investigating again?

424
0:41:15 --> 0:41:21
Yeah, you're actually the two documents. There's a summary of litigation. And there is the two

425
0:41:21 --> 0:41:25
documents on prosecutenow.com. There's a summary of litigation and the draft indictment. Those two

426
0:41:25 --> 0:41:29
documents alone have triggered most of the DAs and most of the other investigations that we've

427
0:41:29 --> 0:41:36
started. So I would start with that and then we'd be happy to go to other conversations after that.

428
0:41:36 --> 0:41:41
And then last question, because I'm aware of all these people who want to ask you questions. That's

429
0:41:41 --> 0:41:51
a record, by the way. So I just wonder whether, oh, yes, the video. Would you be happy with the

430
0:41:52 --> 0:41:56
video if we edited it and then presented it to you to see whether you're happy with it?

431
0:41:57 --> 0:42:02
This video? Yes. Oh, you're welcome to share it. Any of you are welcome to share it. You're

432
0:42:02 --> 0:42:08
perfectly fine. Excellent. Thank you so much. And can I just ask you from a personal point of view,

433
0:42:08 --> 0:42:11
do you feel pretty confident that you've solved the crime here?

434
0:42:12 --> 0:42:18
Well, solved involves actually getting people locked up and taking on the responsibility of

435
0:42:18 --> 0:42:22
actually getting people locked up and taken off the street. And I haven't done that.

436
0:42:23 --> 0:42:30
But there is no solve to have. This is a crime that was done in public admission. This is what

437
0:42:30 --> 0:42:38
we call in Crown law a prima facie crime. You can't say what they said and not be committing

438
0:42:38 --> 0:42:47
crimes. So, I mean, the issue is not solving for the issue is getting enforcement of. And that's

439
0:42:47 --> 0:42:50
the challenge that we're dealing with now. Thankfully, we're starting to make headway on

440
0:42:50 --> 0:42:56
that. Sure. And have you have you laid evidence before the International Criminal Court?

441
0:42:57 --> 0:43:03
Well, yes and no. Let me put it this way. For those of you not in the United States,

442
0:43:03 --> 0:43:07
International Criminal Court is a bit of a sticky thing if you're a U.S. citizen,

443
0:43:08 --> 0:43:15
because two administrations have made it a felony for U.S. persons to actually recognize the actions

444
0:43:15 --> 0:43:20
of the International Criminal Court. So what I have done is I've provided information to

445
0:43:20 --> 0:43:25
Reiner Fulmick. I've provided information to a number of others. I know there's an enormous

446
0:43:25 --> 0:43:31
amount of information that's been shared with them, but I have no intention of committing a

447
0:43:31 --> 0:43:37
felony in the process of trying to indict felons. So I'm trying to avoid that. I understand. Yeah.

448
0:43:37 --> 0:43:44
So, Charles, we're ready. All right. So everybody, keep your questions tight, minimize.

449
0:43:44 --> 0:43:49
We don't need statements. This is Question Time, questioning a genius like David Martin.

450
0:43:49 --> 0:43:55
Liam Sturgis, you first. Okay. Thank you so much. And thank you, Dr. Martin. You're a hero of mine,

451
0:43:55 --> 0:44:03
and you successfully made me a nerd. I'm sure you recognize that cover. You bet. So I'll keep it

452
0:44:03 --> 0:44:10
brief. A million things I could ask you. My question is, this criminal series of actions goes all the

453
0:44:10 --> 0:44:16
way to the top like you've described, but we've also got all the way down. I'm in Vancouver,

454
0:44:16 --> 0:44:21
Canada. We've got our federal, our provincial, and our regional municipal health officers

455
0:44:21 --> 0:44:28
who all seem to be either completely hypnotized or knowingly complicit. And the other thing I

456
0:44:28 --> 0:44:33
noticed is a lot of them in these positions now were involved with the 2003 SARS outbreak in

457
0:44:33 --> 0:44:39
Toronto. Correct. To what extent do these people, in your opinion, know what they're doing?

458
0:44:40 --> 0:44:45
And to what extent have they just been misled through other careers? Well, that's a beautiful

459
0:44:45 --> 0:44:51
question. And let me make the following statement. My grandfather said never attribute to malevolence,

460
0:44:51 --> 0:44:57
that which is ignorance. The fact of the matter is you're ignorant until you have the information.

461
0:44:57 --> 0:45:03
And once you have the information, you're malevolent. The fact is that every person who's

462
0:45:03 --> 0:45:08
been involved in the promulgation of every one of the standards, every one of the actions, and every

463
0:45:08 --> 0:45:13
one of the interventions has actually done so without considering the source from which they

464
0:45:13 --> 0:45:19
got the information. I've confirmed that now in every jurisdiction that people took without

465
0:45:19 --> 0:45:27
verification of its provenance. They took information from third parties and then took action based on

466
0:45:27 --> 0:45:33
that information without challenging its veracity. And every single case, I don't care if you're a

467
0:45:33 --> 0:45:39
community public health worker or you're the president of the United States, if you allow an

468
0:45:39 --> 0:45:45
act of terror to be done based on your failure to check the provenance of the information that

469
0:45:45 --> 0:45:52
you're given, you are committing a crime. And that crime is everywhere from a crime of reckless

470
0:45:52 --> 0:45:58
homicide in certain instances up to a crime of domestic terror and sedition. And in British

471
0:45:58 --> 0:46:04
Columbia specifically, Liam, it's important to point out that in British Columbia, we have the

472
0:46:04 --> 0:46:10
UBC platform of the lipid nanoparticle that became the basis for what became first Tecmera, then

473
0:46:10 --> 0:46:17
Inex Pharmaceuticals, then Acuatus and Arbutus Pharmaceuticals. And there is no question that

474
0:46:17 --> 0:46:22
British Columbia has absolute knowledge that they are aiding and abetting in the delivery of a

475
0:46:22 --> 0:46:28
biological weapon. And therefore, there is not any agent of the British Columbia government that is

476
0:46:28 --> 0:46:35
not complicit in this act. So I hate to break it to you, but if you're in BC, you are right in the

477
0:46:35 --> 0:46:43
thick of the crime. And you are in fact, by very definition, participating in the bioterrorism

478
0:46:43 --> 0:46:52
event that we're seeing right now. Next, Josh. Hi, thanks so much. Two quick questions. One,

479
0:46:52 --> 0:46:59
you say that the SARS-CoV-2 is not a virus, it's a spike protein. So if that's what you're saying,

480
0:46:59 --> 0:47:06
then how is this supposed contagion taking place if it's not through viral spread? And the second

481
0:47:06 --> 0:47:13
question is, if you look, so the Moderna patents with a 19NT sequence, there's like six of them

482
0:47:13 --> 0:47:19
with that sequence in it. None of them actually claim that sequence in the patent. It's registered

483
0:47:19 --> 0:47:24
along with some 30,000 other sequences. Can you explain a little bit about the kind of,

484
0:47:25 --> 0:47:29
what does that mean? Because people are saying, well, Moderna patented it, but they didn't really

485
0:47:29 --> 0:47:34
patent it. It's registered. What's the kind of legal nuance there? And why would they do something

486
0:47:34 --> 0:47:42
like that? Yeah, so two very good questions. First of all, there is no evidence of any transmission.

487
0:47:43 --> 0:47:48
And I hate to break it to people. There is zero evidence. As a matter of fact, when the asymptomatic

488
0:47:48 --> 0:47:55
carrier story was kind of circulating all over the place, laboratories around the world actually

489
0:47:55 --> 0:48:00
tried to see if they could actually replicate an infectious fingerprint from one person to another

490
0:48:00 --> 0:48:05
person, which allegedly was the argument of transmission. And regrettably, not a single one

491
0:48:05 --> 0:48:13
of alleged asymptomatic transfer ever actually had a pathogen signature between two allegedly

492
0:48:13 --> 0:48:18
infected parties. So how is it spreading? It's not spreading. It's being injected and it's being

493
0:48:18 --> 0:48:24
exposed. I mean, the reason why we have this, and by the way, look at something very simple. And

494
0:48:24 --> 0:48:30
here's evidence of what I'm talking about. Why would cruise ships have infections and casinos not?

495
0:48:30 --> 0:48:36
You have exactly the same density of people. You have the exact same profile of people and people

496
0:48:36 --> 0:48:41
get it on a cruise ship and don't get it in a casino. We know that these things are not true.

497
0:48:41 --> 0:48:46
The problem is we're being bamboozled by a cover story that says that there is infection.

498
0:48:46 --> 0:48:52
The wonderful story that was done in Seattle, Washington, where we were told that airborne

499
0:48:52 --> 0:48:57
transmission happened and we were told that it was because there was a singer in a choir. But

500
0:48:57 --> 0:49:03
unfortunately, I've directed choirs. You know what never happens? Sopranos never project their air

501
0:49:03 --> 0:49:09
over baritones and bases and altos. You know why? Because they're sopranos. Where do sopranos sing

502
0:49:09 --> 0:49:16
in a choir? They sing in the front row. The whole story, every single one of the stories has been

503
0:49:16 --> 0:49:23
based on a terrible, terrible fallacy that we have a transmitting virus. We don't have a transmitting

504
0:49:23 --> 0:49:29
virus, which is the reason why the clinical trials for both Pfizer and Moderna made it abundantly

505
0:49:29 --> 0:49:35
clear that we were not going to stratify any pathogen, because if we did, we'd find out that

506
0:49:35 --> 0:49:40
there wasn't one. And so what we do is we have this bullion base of symptoms and we say that's

507
0:49:40 --> 0:49:47
what a disease is. That's not true. Nothing is spreading. People are getting sick from exposure,

508
0:49:47 --> 0:49:52
but exposure is an environmental toxin. Your patent question is an important one because

509
0:49:52 --> 0:49:59
the 12 nucleic acid sequence that is in the Binerida filing is disclosed in a patent filing.

510
0:49:59 --> 0:50:06
Now, let's get very clear. The only thing that is a claim is in fact what is claimed. But let's take

511
0:50:06 --> 0:50:13
the CDC 2003 patent as an example. If you go back and look at the CDC patent in April of 2003 on

512
0:50:13 --> 0:50:19
SARS coronavirus, what they have is a single claim. And it says the claim is the sequence ID1. And

513
0:50:19 --> 0:50:25
then you go and look at what sequence ID1 is and you find out that the sequence ID1 is the complete

514
0:50:25 --> 0:50:35
cDNA genome of the coronavirus. Now, what happens when you have a claim that says it's a sequence?

515
0:50:35 --> 0:50:39
People go, well, they didn't claim all of coronavirus. And so you go and look and you find out

516
0:50:40 --> 0:50:46
that sequence ID1 not only had the primary genome sequence, but it also had an enormous number of

517
0:50:46 --> 0:50:53
variants. So your question is actually a beautifully precise question. That's why I really like it,

518
0:50:53 --> 0:51:00
because when we have a code in a claim that actually refers to a sequence number or a

519
0:51:00 --> 0:51:05
sequence ID or an accession number, we have to go back and then look at all the derivatives of that.

520
0:51:05 --> 0:51:13
So it in fact does embrace the claim. But you're right that it actually lists this as one of a

521
0:51:13 --> 0:51:19
huge number of variations that could exist. And what's happening inside of all of these

522
0:51:19 --> 0:51:25
coronavirus patents. And for those of you who are wondering, there are 4100 patents containing

523
0:51:26 --> 0:51:36
the SARS-CoV genome or a fragment thereof. 4100. The fact that Moderna picked the 12 sequence,

524
0:51:36 --> 0:51:40
which is in the modification of this particular spike protein, is the reason why it's of note.

525
0:51:41 --> 0:51:48
Because in all of them, and we've been through all 4100 of them, and clearly there's homology at

526
0:51:48 --> 0:51:53
over 95% across almost all of them, something that the patent office does not check.

527
0:51:53 --> 0:51:59
But what makes these Moderna patents particularly interesting is they in fact anticipate a never

528
0:51:59 --> 0:52:05
seen in nature variant of the nucleic acid sequence for the spike protein. That's the

529
0:52:05 --> 0:52:10
reason why those patents are interesting. For no other reason. It's not that they own

530
0:52:11 --> 0:52:17
that particular sequence, it's they actually modeled that sequence. And the fact is that

531
0:52:17 --> 0:52:22
unless they were doing nothing more than random nucleic acid sequence generators,

532
0:52:22 --> 0:52:27
that had to come from something. And the fact that it coincides with Ralph Baric's publication

533
0:52:27 --> 0:52:34
of the same sequence alteration, that's the reason why I think it actually is quite relevant.

534
0:52:34 --> 0:52:44
Thanks, Josh. Glenn, you're up. You're muted.

535
0:52:45 --> 0:52:53
I'm okay. I'm on. Thanks. Great to meet you. Through my lawyer and based in Dallas,

536
0:52:53 --> 0:52:58
I've been investigating doing a suit against the FDA for them failing to do their appropriate

537
0:52:58 --> 0:53:06
process in the five to 11 year olds. I'm familiar with they brought forward to me the case from

538
0:53:06 --> 0:53:13
Children's Health Defense versus the FDA through the Eastern District of Tennessee. I imagine

539
0:53:13 --> 0:53:23
you're familiar with it. Yes. It was initially dismissed on the lack of standing. Yep. So as

540
0:53:23 --> 0:53:30
part of what you're doing, and potentially as a way to both propel your case, and to propel the

541
0:53:30 --> 0:53:36
public awareness, I was wondering if you would consider adding additional plaintiffs to your

542
0:53:36 --> 0:53:43
case that included all of the vaccine injuries. Yesterday, Dr. Jerry Brady was interviewed by

543
0:53:43 --> 0:53:50
Dolores Cahill. On that interview, he indicated his belief that there are at least 600 million

544
0:53:50 --> 0:53:57
vaccine injuries across the world, and potentially as many as a billion. So this would offer us an

545
0:53:57 --> 0:54:04
ability to reach out to an enormous number of people to see there's interest and get

546
0:54:05 --> 0:54:11
substantially extra awareness of your suit. Glenn, thank you for that suggestion. Yes,

547
0:54:11 --> 0:54:18
we are very much contemplating going into the whole area of a class of plaintiffs that might

548
0:54:18 --> 0:54:24
involve the injured. The way we are contemplating doing that, and it is early days of this,

549
0:54:25 --> 0:54:32
is that we have a difficulty with getting any AG or US attorney to take the criminal side of this,

550
0:54:32 --> 0:54:38
which for me is my passion. One of the things we're looking at is the possibility of a

551
0:54:38 --> 0:54:44
shareholder derivative lawsuit, where we actually sue the companies for misrepresentation.

552
0:54:45 --> 0:54:50
It turns out that we now know that statements made by both Pfizer and Moderna

553
0:54:51 --> 0:54:57
are statements that they knowingly made false disclosures on their research and their trials

554
0:54:57 --> 0:55:02
to shareholders. And we may be able to achieve more through a shareholder derivative suit than

555
0:55:02 --> 0:55:08
we can through pursuing this as the classic criminal. It ultimately gets to the same outcome,

556
0:55:08 --> 0:55:14
but the difference is we don't have to have the law enforcement that refuses to take action,

557
0:55:14 --> 0:55:21
take action. So we are looking at that issue, and there is a high probability that we are going to

558
0:55:21 --> 0:55:26
be doing something in a slightly nontraditional way, because we have to circumvent the criminal

559
0:55:26 --> 0:55:32
prosecution that is not happening right now. And rather than trying to spend years going after it,

560
0:55:33 --> 0:55:35
we're going to get the same outcome a different way.

561
0:55:35 --> 0:55:40
Dr. John B. Reilly Are you familiar with the testimony by Deanna McCloud

562
0:55:41 --> 0:55:48
that the FDA information from the randomized control trials actually failed its endpoints?

563
0:55:48 --> 0:55:51
Dr. John B. Reilly Well, given the fact that the endpoints are

564
0:55:52 --> 0:55:57
actually a failure in and of themselves, remember that the FDA has a vaccine standard,

565
0:55:57 --> 0:56:03
which they published most recently in 2014, which says that they have to actually measure

566
0:56:03 --> 0:56:10
infection and transmission as a primary endpoint. The fact that they failed to follow their own

567
0:56:10 --> 0:56:17
written and published standard is just one of the many things that they failed. And the fact is that

568
0:56:17 --> 0:56:22
as we know, the Federal Trade Commission requires that before you can make a statement

569
0:56:22 --> 0:56:27
on the efficacy of a medical treatment to diagnose, treat or cure, you have to have two

570
0:56:27 --> 0:56:32
independent double-blind placebo-controlled peer-reviewed trials before you can make a

571
0:56:32 --> 0:56:38
statement. So we know that all of these things, Glenn, all come together in the very, very clear

572
0:56:38 --> 0:56:44
statement that the FDA has violated its own written principles. It has violated statutes.

573
0:56:45 --> 0:56:51
And I know a lot of people talk about this. It's actually a slightly irrelevant thing to point out.

574
0:56:51 --> 0:56:57
But the fact that the CDC and the FDA have allegedly altered what they call a vaccination

575
0:56:57 --> 0:57:03
is immaterial. The statute defining a vaccination was last statutorily defined by the United States

576
0:57:03 --> 0:57:12
Congress in 1986. And the CDC and the FDA cannot willy-nilly change a definition with a standing

577
0:57:12 --> 0:57:18
in law. They, in fact, can only put it on their website and pretend that they're changing something.

578
0:57:18 --> 0:57:23
But the fact of the matter is there is no such thing as a definition of vaccine that does not

579
0:57:23 --> 0:57:28
include the transfer of immunity. And so, Glenn, it's a great point. And yes, we are going to take

580
0:57:28 --> 0:57:38
the class case forward. Thank you very much. Okay. Peter Huga, you can... Wiles Policeman Attorney.

581
0:57:39 --> 0:57:45
David. Thank you very much, Dr. Martin. Thank you for the presentation. Very, very interesting.

582
0:57:47 --> 0:57:52
As Charles alluded to, I'm involved in law. I'm also involved in the Metropolitan Police

583
0:57:52 --> 0:57:58
case, which hasn't failed. It's stuttering a bit. But they have been served with a solicitor's letter

584
0:57:58 --> 0:58:06
now demanding that they take action, or we will. It's a slightly different subject. My question

585
0:58:06 --> 0:58:12
revolves around. In the UK, we have something called the Fourth Industrial Revolution. And I'm

586
0:58:12 --> 0:58:19
sure it's happening in all countries under a different name. It's described in the government

587
0:58:19 --> 0:58:27
white paper here as a fusion of technologies, including AI, gene editing, and advanced robotics,

588
0:58:27 --> 0:58:34
blurring the lines between physical, digital, and biological worlds, which is scary enough in itself.

589
0:58:35 --> 0:58:42
Now, I've tried to research some patents, one of which was a Google patent, and I can't put my

590
0:58:42 --> 0:58:48
finger on it at this moment. And another one is a Microsoft one, which I have a number here,

591
0:58:48 --> 0:58:56
which is described as, and I quote, a cryptocurrency system using body activity data. So do you have

592
0:58:56 --> 0:59:02
knowledge of such patents? And moreover, is it graphene oxide, as discovered in the recent

593
0:59:02 --> 0:59:10
vaccine vials lab analysis that will enable our transhumanism? Well, so first of all, yes, I'm very,

594
0:59:10 --> 0:59:15
very familiar with a lot more patents than what you're making reference to, the ones you made

595
0:59:15 --> 0:59:22
reference to, and several hundred more. And many of them come out of IBM. IBM has probably one of

596
0:59:22 --> 0:59:31
the most copious portfolios in this area. Graphene oxide is certainly a potential tool to use, but

597
0:59:31 --> 0:59:37
it is not the most interesting tool. The issue that we are facing right now is a world in which

598
0:59:38 --> 0:59:45
we have this unholy balancing act between gene therapies, which are what the mRNA things are,

599
0:59:46 --> 0:59:53
and the fact that we are actually modifying and transcribing into the human a number of industrial

600
0:59:53 --> 0:59:59
markers. And those industrial markers are all kinds of things. In many instances, Peter, I would say

601
0:59:59 --> 1:00:04
that the ship in many respects has already left the port, though, with respect to how the human

602
1:00:04 --> 1:00:11
is behaving using the cunning tool called the smartphone. I think vast amounts of people

603
1:00:11 --> 1:00:15
failed to understand that the convenience they think they're carrying with them is in fact,

604
1:00:15 --> 1:00:21
one of the most insidious surveillance devices ever developed. And so the fact is, well, yes,

605
1:00:21 --> 1:00:28
I do believe that there is an increased press towards making more and more of that kind of

606
1:00:28 --> 1:00:34
intervention actually corporeal, meaning that it is going to be actually physically within our being.

607
1:00:35 --> 1:00:40
The fact of the matter is, I think that for the social implications of transhumanism,

608
1:00:40 --> 1:00:45
the last time you went to a restaurant and you saw a family speaking to each other by texting,

609
1:00:45 --> 1:00:52
I think we've already hit it. I think we're there. The fact that we intermediate it with a bio-AI

610
1:00:52 --> 1:00:58
is not going to make it less human. It already is devoid of human. And so spot on. But yes,

611
1:00:58 --> 1:01:04
there's a huge amount of stuff. And I wrote an essay that's on my inverted alchemy post. If you

612
1:01:04 --> 1:01:10
ever want to read any of my thoughts, inverted alchemy is my blog. You can get it off of David

613
1:01:10 --> 1:01:16
Martin dot world, or you can go straight to inverted alchemy. But I did one on AI, which

614
1:01:16 --> 1:01:20
Peter, you would find helpful. Next. Thank you very much. You're most welcome.

615
1:01:21 --> 1:01:27
Valentina, you're up. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, Dr. Martin.

616
1:01:29 --> 1:01:34
I also have a question about the graphene oxide in relation to the spike protein.

617
1:01:34 --> 1:01:39
Yes. From what I hear and from what I've researched, I've read many studies on the

618
1:01:39 --> 1:01:46
spike protein. And to me, it wasn't convincing that it was actually created in the lab. It sounds

619
1:01:46 --> 1:01:53
like this is the toxin that is being the result of either the methylation process or some other

620
1:01:53 --> 1:02:01
exposure to graphene oxide, if any. Correct me if I'm wrong, if it has any relation to that.

621
1:02:01 --> 1:02:08
And then, of course, any time we're talking about the toxins, we are expecting the antidote. I cannot

622
1:02:08 --> 1:02:13
imagine that they would create toxin without having an antidote. And I wanted to hear your

623
1:02:13 --> 1:02:21
opinion about that, if there is an antidote and is either a mac in that first side doesn't have

624
1:02:21 --> 1:02:30
anything to do with the situation, has anything to do with this particular research. And the last

625
1:02:30 --> 1:02:39
question is more like a request. I have a Russian channel and I want to use this opportunity to see

626
1:02:39 --> 1:02:43
if I can invite you to do an interview with me for my Russian audience.

627
1:02:44 --> 1:02:49
Well, so a couple things. Let me go try to go through all of those. Each one of those could

628
1:02:49 --> 1:03:00
be another hour long session. So let's start with this. The graphene oxide question in isolation

629
1:03:01 --> 1:03:07
is actually, in my view, a bit of a distraction. We have a whole host of pathogens and toxins and

630
1:03:07 --> 1:03:14
toxic chemicals. And I want to point out specifically one of merit. We are aware of

631
1:03:14 --> 1:03:18
somewhat of the formulation of the lipid nanoparticle, but we are actually not entirely

632
1:03:18 --> 1:03:24
aware of what's being done with the carrier. And certainly from the vascular endothelial cell

633
1:03:24 --> 1:03:29
response, I think it's highly likely that we're having probably as much damage coming from the

634
1:03:29 --> 1:03:37
lipid nanoparticles as we're having come from any of the other embedded elements. If I look at the

635
1:03:37 --> 1:03:43
actual chemistry of what's going on, I think that once again, I'm not suggesting, please don't

636
1:03:43 --> 1:03:50
misconstrue what I'm saying. I don't think that graphene oxide is necessarily a inert kind of

637
1:03:51 --> 1:03:55
innocent bystander. I think there are far worse components of what's being injected

638
1:03:55 --> 1:04:01
that have far more dramatic health effects. And so I'm just making that observation based on my

639
1:04:01 --> 1:04:07
own research over the last three and a half decades in looking at vascular tissue,

640
1:04:08 --> 1:04:13
looking at both mechanical and chemical deformation of the vascular endothelial

641
1:04:13 --> 1:04:21
cells. So that would be my point on that. With respect to the broader questions of

642
1:04:23 --> 1:04:29
getting this information communicated to your last question, what I have been trying to do is making

643
1:04:29 --> 1:04:33
sure that everyone knows all of the content that I have is publicly available. What I'm trying to

644
1:04:33 --> 1:04:39
do is additive. So if there's specific sets of questions that you would like me to address to an

645
1:04:39 --> 1:04:45
audience, I'd be happy to do that. What I'm trying not to do is just repeat kind of the same sock

646
1:04:45 --> 1:04:51
puppet presentation every time, because I actually go through that several times. And let's jump to

647
1:04:51 --> 1:04:56
a couple more questions, because I'm going to have to step away very quickly. So I'll answer a couple

648
1:04:56 --> 1:05:04
more. Oh, the antidote situation. The antidote that is being planned is CRISPR. It is not a

649
1:05:04 --> 1:05:12
chemistry. It is actually another manipulation of the genes. The official antidote that was funded

650
1:05:12 --> 1:05:17
as part of this particular campaign of terror, funded by Dustin Moskowitz, the co-founder of

651
1:05:17 --> 1:05:25
Facebook, that particular antidote is CRISPR. So the goal is to get you injected and then gene

652
1:05:25 --> 1:05:31
edited every time you have something else come along. So the official antidote is gene editing.

653
1:05:32 --> 1:05:38
If you like part one, part two is far worse. If you're good with the injection of an mRNA,

654
1:05:38 --> 1:05:45
you'll love CRISPR, because having a Facebook founder edit your genes just sounds like a

655
1:05:45 --> 1:05:49
phenomenally, phenomenally good idea. Let's hop to the next question.

656
1:05:50 --> 1:05:57
Thanks, Alexander. Richard? Dr. Martin, where are these documents implementing Trudeau's financial

657
1:05:57 --> 1:06:01
benefits from these vaccines and how do we get our hands on them? I've got some mountains to step on.

658
1:06:01 --> 1:06:06
Yeah, the documents that disclose Trudeau's interests come out of the lawsuit of the

659
1:06:07 --> 1:06:13
litigation between Arbutus and Acutus in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as well as

660
1:06:13 --> 1:06:21
in the Moderna patent invalidation cases that started in 2018. And those are available online.

661
1:06:21 --> 1:06:28
You can grab all of those. As many people have asked, Dr. Robert Malone made a reference to a

662
1:06:28 --> 1:06:36
40% interest of Trudeau and Acutus. That information allegedly came from conversations that he had with

663
1:06:36 --> 1:06:43
a member of the Acutus Pharmaceuticals shareholder team and founding team.

664
1:06:43 --> 1:06:49
I am not privy to the holdings of the private company Acutus. I am privy to the holdings of

665
1:06:49 --> 1:06:54
the public company Arbutus. And when I make the statement, and I want to be very clear on the

666
1:06:54 --> 1:07:00
statement that I make, when I make the statement that Trudeau's Canada gets paid for every single

667
1:07:00 --> 1:07:07
injection, the basis for that is very simple. Both Arbutus and Acutus pay a royalty to British

668
1:07:07 --> 1:07:13
Columbia every time either Moderna or Pfizer shots are given. That's in both of their public filings.

669
1:07:13 --> 1:07:18
So when I say that Canada and the Trudeau government benefits from every shot,

670
1:07:18 --> 1:07:22
it's in the public filings of public companies that actually say exactly what I'm saying.

671
1:07:23 --> 1:07:30
Whether or not there is a family ownership or not is an open question. I will tell you, Richard,

672
1:07:30 --> 1:07:36
the thing that has drawn my most interesting attention on that topic is a very fascinating

673
1:07:36 --> 1:07:44
150 million Canadian dollar donation to the Trudeau Family Foundation that was actually for

674
1:07:44 --> 1:07:50
a variety of health related research. And the provenance of those funds, other than they came

675
1:07:50 --> 1:07:54
out of the general ledger of the Canadian government, and went to the private Trudeau Foundation.

676
1:07:55 --> 1:08:02
Beyond that, we can't find records of that. So I'm not suggesting by virtue of the we can't

677
1:08:02 --> 1:08:07
find records that we know where it went, because I don't. But what I do know is that there was 150

678
1:08:07 --> 1:08:13
million dollars granted by the Canadian government to the Trudeau Family Foundation, and its

679
1:08:13 --> 1:08:20
dispensation is not known by me or anyone else unless somebody has documents I haven't been able

680
1:08:20 --> 1:08:25
to lay hands on. And I'm good at laying hands on documents. So I'd love to find the person who finds

681
1:08:25 --> 1:08:32
it. Thank you, David. So we're getting close to the quarter past. The quarter past Mark Simon is

682
1:08:32 --> 1:08:42
a patent expert. Thank God. I wouldn't say that. I'd be interested. Thank you very much. I really

683
1:08:42 --> 1:08:47
follow your work. Are we interested to have a full list of all the patents you refer to?

684
1:08:47 --> 1:08:55
Yep. Go to the FatshidoCA. The last 200 pages are nothing but that. So you've got them all.

685
1:08:56 --> 1:09:03
Okay. Thank you. And also, there's a document you can get off of the MCAM website. It looks like this.

686
1:09:03 --> 1:09:11
If you put MCAM, my company name, and then you type in COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2, you'll get the

687
1:09:11 --> 1:09:18
actual list which has the gene sequences, the 100 plus patents that have the gene sequence homology.

688
1:09:18 --> 1:09:24
And you can grab that off of the MCAM corporate website. That's m-cam.com. M-CAM.com.

689
1:09:26 --> 1:09:32
Thank you. Now a lot of the technology that was developed for the liquid nanoparticles is

690
1:09:32 --> 1:09:35
older than 20 years. How come they are still paying royalties for that?

691
1:09:36 --> 1:09:42
Because as you know, it's very possible to evergreen patents. What you do is you actually

692
1:09:42 --> 1:09:49
start with a core foundation and then you modify subtly, modify either chemistry or in this case,

693
1:09:49 --> 1:09:54
chemistry and geometry, and you keep inventing these. These are evergreen and

694
1:09:54 --> 1:09:57
Canada is as bad as the US with evergreening pharma patents.

695
1:09:58 --> 1:10:03
Thank you. And final short question with your knowledge in patent literature and medical

696
1:10:03 --> 1:10:08
research. Have you been able to look at how to use the patents actually to work on

697
1:10:09 --> 1:10:11
remedies, treatments, antidotes?

698
1:10:11 --> 1:10:15
Yeah, we have a very big project going on like that. I'm not talking about it publicly yet

699
1:10:15 --> 1:10:19
because it's still very much in development, but I will be talking about it soon.

700
1:10:21 --> 1:10:22
Great. Thank you.

701
1:10:23 --> 1:10:24
Great. Thank you.

702
1:10:25 --> 1:10:30
Last question, Theresa and then Stephen so that we get you away by the 15 minutes.

703
1:10:30 --> 1:10:31
No worries.

704
1:10:33 --> 1:10:39
Hi. Thanks, Dr. Martin. Very quick question. We found out, well, we've had confirmation this

705
1:10:39 --> 1:10:46
week that the Pfizer spike protein is reverse transcribing into DNA. Is this thing self-amplifying?

706
1:10:46 --> 1:10:47
Is it self-disseminating?

707
1:10:48 --> 1:10:55
Well, what we know is that it was engineered to be capable of transcription. So we know that.

708
1:10:56 --> 1:11:02
What we don't know is what exactly is happening with the amplification, because when you actually

709
1:11:02 --> 1:11:08
introduce a synthesized, and this is really important, and I would love for people to know

710
1:11:09 --> 1:11:14
the injection is not derived from even a hypothetically natural substance.

711
1:11:15 --> 1:11:24
The injection is derived from a computer simulation of a chimera of the SARS spike protein.

712
1:11:24 --> 1:11:29
So we have to understand that if you and I were actually to look at this from a scientific

713
1:11:29 --> 1:11:33
standpoint, we would actually start by looking at historical data on what we know the spike

714
1:11:33 --> 1:11:39
protein to do. The problem is there are two nucleic acids that have been modified that do not match

715
1:11:39 --> 1:11:45
anything seen in nature, and as such, anything that we would do with that information would be

716
1:11:45 --> 1:11:53
pure conjecture, because until we actually see generational implication, which we can do in the

717
1:11:54 --> 1:12:01
models, I mean, the liver model that was used for the paper you're referencing is something that we

718
1:12:01 --> 1:12:06
can start looking at generational either amplification, preservation, or modification.

719
1:12:07 --> 1:12:15
But until that's done, the answer is we don't know, but the concern is anytime you're injecting a

720
1:12:15 --> 1:12:21
theoretical thing into a person, we don't know is not an acceptable answer. You cannot obtain

721
1:12:21 --> 1:12:28
informed consent when the answer is I got no idea. Well, one of Pfizer's original five candidates was

722
1:12:28 --> 1:12:34
self-amplifying, wasn't it? Yes, and in fact, the early work off of the back of the 1990 vaccine,

723
1:12:34 --> 1:12:41
in fact, was so, you know, the probability is that that was a goal, but I can't make a comment

724
1:12:41 --> 1:12:48
without the data, which I don't have. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you, Teresa. And David,

725
1:12:48 --> 1:12:54
before Stephen thanks you formally, can you save the chat because there's lots of lovely comments

726
1:12:54 --> 1:13:00
there for you. And there's some questions there for you will send you the chat after the event.

727
1:13:00 --> 1:13:07
But you say this now on your computer and people saying nice things about you. So I think, you know,

728
1:13:07 --> 1:13:11
when you go to your grave, you can be read it at your funeral that all these people said nice

729
1:13:11 --> 1:13:18
things about you. You know, the good news is I am doing what I know I was here to do. So I

730
1:13:18 --> 1:13:25
I'm grateful for the chance to meet all of you. And I have way more people saying nice things than

731
1:13:25 --> 1:13:32
I have saying bad things. So in the balance, I feel like I'm probably okay. Beautiful. Stephen,

732
1:13:32 --> 1:13:40
over to you. Charles, who will send the chat to David? I'll send if you will. Okay. So thank you

733
1:13:40 --> 1:13:46
very much, David. We're trying to encourage the Metropolitan Police in London, of all places,

734
1:13:47 --> 1:13:53
to investigate this. They seem to be under a bit of pressure. But now they've been served with the

735
1:13:53 --> 1:14:00
lawyers letter. 27 pages from memory, I think. I just wondered whether you might be able to help

736
1:14:00 --> 1:14:09
us. We'll try not to take your time unnecessarily. But if sorry. Yeah, what we'll do is, as I said,

737
1:14:09 --> 1:14:14
we'll be posting the federal case that gets filed tomorrow. I think you'll find that very helpful.

738
1:14:14 --> 1:14:21
And I think combined with the other two documents I made reference to, I think you'll find most of

739
1:14:21 --> 1:14:28
your journey at least beginning to be paved. But Stephen, you're welcome to reach back out. And I

740
1:14:28 --> 1:14:33
would be delighted to be of assistance in any way we can. Thank you so much.