David, I've made you a co-host. I'll welcome everybody. Stephen, well done for organizing
as usual. Great speakers are making us work even more for our supper by having three meetings
a week. But anyway, David, that's very good. It keeps us all on our toes. We are Medical
Doctors for COVID Ethics International, founded by Stephen Frost. I'm Charles Cobess. Australasia's
passion provocateur. I wear my red jacket because red is color of passion. And you can
see Sam Dubay in his red top there. It's a lighter red than me.
I'm worried for anger. This is the color of anger, Charles.
Very good. So David has presented to us previously and we have a moving population. The recordings
are all getting viewed on the Rumble channel, but for, so that particularly newcomers, we
welcome newcomers who are recommended by existing participants. The professions here, they have
little doctors, lawyers, retired professionals, journalists, engineers, writers, researchers,
dentists, financiers, patent experts. And I found from Simon DeWolf yesterday that there's
over a thousand patents in bond trading alone. Get that everybody? A thousand patents.
Well, many, many more than that. David knows about patents, Charles.
Way more than a thousand. That is a gross underestimate.
Wow. How amazing. So we're here for increased understanding about the challenges to freedom,
truth, justice, health, and ethics. We're here in a true spirit of exploration and discovery.
We, if you want anyone added to the list, please send me an email. If any of you produce
podcasts, newsletters, et cetera, substacks, please put them every week into the chat so we
can find them easily. Don't hold back. Share it with the group. Wonderful resources that you're
all producing. We will, we, most of us understand we're here in World War III. We go for two and a
half hours. And then it goes to a telegram video chat for those who have the time. David,
how long have we got you today so I can plan this process?
Yeah, I was, I had booked the two and a half hours. So that's, that's what I was planning on,
but I'm- No, no, that will, that will be wonderful because we love having the ability to have
conversation, discussion, and go deep and help you. And, you know, we're here, as I'm sure,
many presenters realise that we're here to help the presenters as well in their great work. So
Stephen does a great job picking the presenters. And then we are a resource of over a thousand
people ready to help if help is needed. David and any presenter who, any presenter who sees
this recording, there's no censorship, but there is proper moderation. It's a free speech environment.
Free speech is crucial, everybody. That's why we don't support the offence industry. If you're
offended by anything that anybody says, that you'd be offended, we're not interested. And in your
life, if someone says to you, I'm offended, just never apologise. Never apologise. This offence
industry is going, is the best way to shut up free speech. When you shut up free speech,
you shut up freedom. Without freedom, you are not human. This is a place where you
discover what your beliefs are. You perhaps change your beliefs. Many people get upset
if their beliefs are questioned. It is about the development of science. If you have any solutions
to anyone's problems, put them in the chat too. If you think a product is fantastic,
put it in the chat. But you don't need to have a big debate with somebody. If somebody says,
9,000 milligrams of vitamin C is great. And someone else says, no, no, no, that's too much.
You don't have to have that debate in the chat. We come from love, not fear. Love expands you.
Fear contracts you. From all of the speakers we've had here, that Stephen has organised,
that we've listened to, there is no doubt in my mind that we have a spiritual war on our hands
as well. And those who wish to take away our freedom are hitting us at the spiritual level.
They don't understand love. We do. And that's the power that we have. And human beings unifying
are a powerful force. So have an open mind. Your self-awareness is an opportunity here.
In terms of your patience level of the Q&A, I moderate that. Each one of us has a different
agenda, constantly balancing the needs of the participants here. That's what needs to happen.
And we don't have 10 hours. We only have two and a half hours. This is recorded at the Rumble Channel.
I'll put the address in there. Welcome again specifically. If you are new, if you're a
virginal visitor or member, please feel free. You don't have to. Introduce yourself in the chat.
Tell us about you. And that's about it. David Martin is a superstar. Everyone knows who he is.
We're delighted to have you. There's a special event. And David, over to you. Unless Stephen,
you want to say anything specific? Yeah, I just wanted to. So David, you might. So the recording
wasn't on when you were explaining the picture behind you, but that might be something you would
like to share with people. I don't know. It's up to you. I'm happy to just to recap. The image
behind me is the Tree of Life carving, which actually graces the mosque in Ahmedabad, India.
It happened to have a very particularly important phase in my life when I was asked to be there
during the Muslim Hindu riots, which resulted in the death of thousands of people.
And I was asked to come over and be part of a conversation about how to
recast the social and the political systems that would potentially lessen that conflict. And
as evidenced by history, some bit of what we did may have had an effect because we haven't
had the mass riots since. But the image is the relief of the Tree of Life done in alabaster
on the mosque in Ahmedabad and superimposed behind it is our integral accounting wheel,
which is how we approach every situation and every problem to try to look at six dimensional
analysis of everything, which is a whole nother topic. If you want to learn more about that,
you can spend time on the FullyLive Academy, where I have a lot of explanations on that,
or on my blog, Inverted Alchemy, either one have a look at integral accounting and you get a picture
of what those things are. But to dive in very briefly, for those of you not entirely familiar
with the work that I've done, I thought I'd give everybody a very quick background,
because I really would value more Q&A this time than monologue. So what I'll do is give you a very
quick overview and then we can get into some topical issues that are of import right now and then
open up the floor for a more in-depth Q&A. To start off, my background is I have been involved in
a number of different fields, largely in finance and international trade. For the last 30 years,
my academic career started at the University of Virginia when I was on the faculty in the
medical school in the departments of radiology and orthopedic surgery. I got my PhD from the
University of Virginia and then became the director of the first for-profit clinical
trials organization on medical devices in the history of not only the University of Virginia,
but the history of the United States. It was the first for-profit corporation ever set up inside of
a non-profit university in the Commonwealth of Virginia. That background dovetailed with the
other business I was running also at the same time called Mosaic Technologies. Mosaic Technologies was
a treaty-restricted technology transfer company that I founded in the late 1980s.
Our specific focus was to go into countries that were prohibited from exporting offensive
military technologies as a condition of the treaties ending the Second World War
and find civilian applications for defense technologies that came out of
all of the countries that were given prohibitions after the Second World War. Germany, Italy,
much of Eastern Europe. As the Soviet Union fell apart, we were very actively involved in
the dissemination of technologies in the diaspora of engineering coming out of Russia.
Then Japan, obviously. I say without any hyperbole that if you use any technology whatsoever,
whether it's automotive, telecommunications, or anything in the medical space, the likelihood is
I have had a direct impact on that technology coming into your hands somewhere on this earth.
That statement is not only because of the work through Mosaic Technologies, but in 1998,
I started a company called MCAM. MCAM was the first and the only of its kind in the United States.
It's what we call a GSE, or government-sponsored enterprise. Ours was not government-sponsored,
but it was government-sanctioned. What we did was we created the world's first and continuously only
means by which companies could use general intangibles as collateral for regulated finance.
Our platforms are used to underwrite banking transactions in 168 countries. I often say if
it moves anywhere across a border, we see it because it is something that is not hyperbolic.
Again, that's the way it is. We do the underwriting of intangible assets to make sure that those are
applicable for regulated capital transactions in banking situations in 168 countries.
That's what MCAM has done for the last 25 years. I have been involved in a number of things on the
capital market side. Jermaine, to this conversation, I was asked in the late 1990s to be very
involved in looking at the programs that were at least blurring the line, if not crossing the line,
of biological and chemical weapons programs. As we were going through technology transfer issues,
it was very common for us to come across technologies that enabled or the overt technologies
associated with biological and chemical weapons in all of 122 countries that we were engaged in
at the time. As a result of that, whether it was the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in the
United States, whether it was the National Biological Engineering Programs in Tehran,
whether it is the programs in the UPACO platform that actually gave rise to what became the Euro
Tox Conventions, we were very involved in understanding what was going on in the
weaponization of nature and the weaponization of chemistry against humanity beginning in the late
1990s. That is how we fell into our involvement with coronavirus. My first briefing on coronavirus
was officially done for law enforcement intelligence agencies in 2002 going into 2003.
When we pointed out that Ralph Barak at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
at the direction and funding of NIAID had developed what he referred to as an infectious
replication defective clone of coronavirus. What is important about that to start off this
conversation is the use of terminology is quite critical. When you actually develop something
which is infectious and replication defective, that is nonsense garble speak for a weapon.
That means it's intended to hit a person, it's intended to affect that person, but it's intended
to actually have a target, not a distribution target. That's why we call it infectious replication
defective. Replication defective means that it was intended to have a delivery target that was
actually something that was intentionally identified against an individual. That's a
very important point we're going to get to in a little bit. It's important to realize that in 2002
UNC Chapel Hill funded by NIAID developed what became the thing that we now call SARS-CoV.
That is not a naturally occurring modification of anything. It never was naturally occurring.
Anybody familiar with the coronavirus model prior to 1998 realizes that with the exception
of experimentation done by Ralph Barrett funded by NIAID, the primary target of coronavirus
research was canine and porcine juvenile gastrointestinal disorders because that's
where coronavirus had its impact. It was not a respiratory and it was not a cardiovascular
pathogen. It was a GI pathogen. If you go back to 1990 and look at Pfizer's very first patent
on a coronavirus vaccine, you can see the evidence of that in all of the literature associated with
Pfizer's first coronavirus patent vaccine in 1990. What happened during the decade of the 90s is
Ralph Barrett modified coronavirus using a series of modifications and amplifications
to have it target rabbit cardiomyopathy. Let me just say that one more time. Rabbits
cardiomyopathy. That model as a research and experimental model is quite problematic for two
reasons. Number one, it defies what is in fact the restrictions that we have on the development of
biological weapons because you cannot take a naturally occurring scheduled toxin or pathogen
and amplify it so it increases pathogenicity. That is actually an illegal act under 18 U.S. Code
several sections, but most notably section 175. It is illegal to do what he did and it was illegal
to fund it. That work without question violated U.S. Code and is a felony violation which carries
a lifetime sentence as well as up to $100 million economic damage if it was involved with an
institution which in this case it was with the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. This
is actually the foundation and it was important to point out that it was identified as a way to
modify both spike protein, the ACE2 receptor proteins and several of the furin cleavage sites
and other things which were being modified so that they would actually hit cells of different
origins. We would actually have an enormous number of other organ systems involved where
coronavirus had once upon a time not had any meaningful clinical effect whatsoever.
In 2002, the development of that coronavirus became instrumental in what happened in the fall
of 2002 and the spring of 2003 which as you all know was the allegation of the first outbreak
of SARS-CoV-1. Now the truth is that SARS-CoV-1 which was patented in April of 2003 by the CDC
and the cDNA sequence for the entire sequence of SARS-CoV isolated from humans was patented on the
25th of April 2003 by the Center for Disease Control and roughly 50 co-inventors if you believe
that I've got a bridge to sell you in the middle of a swamp but the fact of the matter is 50 people
put their, slightly over 50 people put their name on that application, many of whom had nothing to
do with the alleged invention. What makes that particular date important is two days later
the vaccine for SARS-CoV was actually patented by Sequoia Pharmaceuticals.
I can tell by looking at everyone's face who has their camera on that that name means nothing to
anybody because it doesn't mean anything to anybody because Sequoia Pharmaceuticals wasn't
a company. It was actually some shell corporation and if you go back to the provenance of that you
can find all kinds of messy trails of financing that have tentacles into and out of Sequoia
Pharmaceuticals but two days after the SARS coronavirus isolated from humans patent was
filed by the CDC a vaccine for the exact same virus was also patented. You think operation warp
speed was fast figure that one out how on earth can you actually have allegedly a virus isolated
on the 25th of April 2003 and two days later have vaccine trial data filed in a patent for a vaccine
on the exact same pathogen and once again anybody who thinks that that's even theoretically possible
absent the back to the future DeLorean time machine is certainly on the edge of their sanity.
What became problematic very quickly is it was clear that the coronavirus outbreak of 2002 going
into 2003 was part of a plan it was not an isolated event and the plan involved anthrax and it involved
H1N1 and the reason why we know this is because it was specifically announced in a series of
conferences in Slovenia and a series of conferences that took place in India where the linkage
between the anthrax the H1N1 and SARS were all brought together as a justification for creating
what would become a mandate for medical countermeasures which is a defined term and
Pascal back to your work it would be important to make note of the fact that the evolution of
the term medical countermeasures as a code word inside of World Health Organization and a code
word inside of statutory engagements medical countermeasures is a military term developed
by DARPA and it was part of a combined op that includes anthrax H1N1 and SARS coronavirus and
then later included Ebola and a couple other things but it's important to realize historically
that this was all part of a single operation and the operation was driven in large part for two
objectives the stated objective number one was that we wanted to have a universal vaccine vector
where we used biologic agents and their ability to penetrate the cells as a vaccine vector and
coronavirus was chosen by Anthony Fauci to be the preferred mode of delivery of vaccines he figured
that if you were going to come up with an HIV vaccine or any other vaccine that coronavirus
was the most malleable model that could be used to deliver other vaccine agents into the cell
thus the focus allegedly on coronavirus however there was another part of the process which
became visible to the public and I am not able to talk about the classified phase of this but it
became visible to the public in 2005 coincident with the passage of the prep act and other things
where DARPA expressly held a conference on the bio weapons capabilities of SARS coronavirus very
specifically an entire conference dedicated to the weaponization of coronavirus where Ralph Baric was
one of the lead presenters that conference in 2005 gave rise to several hundred million dollars
of non-competitive grants that went to UNC Chapel Hill and their collaborators and those non-competitive
grants were for the express weaponization and p3 program if you look at DARPA's p3 program you'll
see all of this detailed but that p3 program which was essentially allegedly developed for
warfighter readiness and in fact the only thing it was was anything but that it was actually a way
to use the defense department's black programs to develop biological weapons allegedly in
anticipation of their use in conflict all of this was done and well documented and the
non-competitive grants associated with this in 2005 persist to this day where there is
zero interdiction in the gain of function funding and there has not been any interdiction in the
gain of function funding going into this program so it's important to realize that's been going on
since 2005 in 2010 a very bizarre thing happened the bizarre thing was a 10-year national science
foundation grant entitled Darwinian chemical systems was actually in its 10th year of renewal
when the lead investigators associated with Darwinian chemical systems which is the
organization that was set up to see if you could get mRNA to write into eukaryotic and other cells
DNA that particular program which was called Darwinian chemical systems if you're looking it
up that program became a company called Moderna and if you go back and you look at the origins of
Moderna a very bizarre thing happens one of the principles of the national science foundation
grant and two venture capitalists who had no venture capital experience in 2010 are listed
as co-inventors on the first patent filed by Moderna before Moderna even existed once again
a time machine problem we have money going into a company that has never produced anything we have
investments going in and we have venture capitalists listed as co-inventors on mRNA as a genetic
engineering program both of whom had no experience whatsoever in any form of science or chemistry or
biology or anything else but they are listed in the first patents filed and assigned to Moderna
before Moderna actually existed another one of those moments where it scratches your head with
credulity where you sit there and say this was clearly set up for something else and the something
else became very clear very fast the something else was the recognition beginning in 2008 and
then finalized in 2010 which was the recognition that if you were going to stabilize mRNA to do its
job either as a vaccine or a vaccine vector it would be necessary to start modifying some of the
nucleosides that go into the compounds associated with everything in the mRNA therapeutic environment
and that was the introduction of pseudo-uridine now pseudo-uridine beginning in 2008 but certainly
by 2010 was known to have cardio toxic effects and most problematic there were well-documented
reasons to assume that it would down regulate interferon 1 the down regulation of interferon
1 is super problematic because what it does when it is inside of the cell is it actually is a pro
oncogenic activity in other words by down regulating interferon 1 you essentially are turning
on the switches and the early work in glioblastoma showed that it was universal if you had pseudo-uridine
inside of a cell and that cell had any proclivity towards cancer it was a pro-oncogenic agent but it
turns out that there was a difficulty in stabilizing mRNA to get it into a living system
which is the reason why the University of British Columbia and others got together to start working
on the lipid nanoparticle platform that would allow the mRNA to get far enough into the system
to create a vector that would get to the cell so that the pseudo-uridine laced mRNA could get
into the cell and that program which is actually something that is also very well documented coming
out of the University of British Columbia is the basis upon which we got the polyethylene glycol
platform and we got all of the other lipid nanoparticle platforms that are currently used
in the present injection all of this done in 2010 to 2013 in 2013 a very alarming thing took place
we know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology allegedly isolated through medical sampling
a coronavirus alteration from a few miners who were doing bat guano mining
in the Guangdong province of China those miners all came down with clinical symptoms that are
largely associated in fact 100 percent in this case associated with what we call COVID-19
once again suggesting that a novel disease in 2019 was not possible given the fact that the disease
was actually documented in 2013 by the very organization in Wuhan that actually isolated it
but what was problematic about that particular sample was according to written records we have
from Ralph Baric the sequence for this super pathogenic strain was uploaded onto a server
and he then re-engineered that particular pathogen in North Carolina for his work in 2013 and 14
and in October of 2014 after the gain-of-function moratorium was put in place
NIAID sent to Ralph Baric an authorization to continue his gain-of-function research listed as
such and worse than that modified the name of the project so that it went from an in vitro project
to an in vivo project so I want you to just sit with that for just a second right we we actually
had an in vitro model approved on Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one in 2013 after the gain-of-function
moratorium after everybody was told to stop this there was a non-action letter that was sent to
UNC Chapel Hill to say that because the project was already funded UNC Chapel Hill could continue
its gain-of-function research number one and number two do that research in vivo and I want
the chilling effect of that to have exactly the chilling effect that it should have during a
moratorium we actually made it more lethal in living systems than we had prior to the gain-of-function
moratorium and then of course we have that wonderful quote which I have to say every time I speak
which is Peter Daschek's quote in 2015 until an infectious disease crisis is very real and present
and an emergency threshold that is largely ignored to sustain the funding base and once again this is
a crime this is a criminal racketeering crime this is not public health to sustain a funding
base beyond the crisis we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical
countermeasures such as a pan influenza or pan coronavirus vaccine 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 that is
a quote from the National Academy of Sciences meeting published in February of 2016 the quote
was at an event in 2015 but that is a public admission of domestic terrorism that's what that
is because if what you're doing is saying that you need the media to create the hype to get the
public to accept something that is a by definition violation of section 802 of the Patriot Act in the
United States and globally it is a violation of domestic terrorism in every civilized country
you cannot terrorize a population into coercion and not violate domestic terrorism statutes in
every one of the civilized countries on earth for us that's a very important thing here in the
United States because it creates an extremely important felony particularly as it relates to
what became the underlying argument for what became the current pandemic in 2016 we have the
publication of the work that Ralph Baric and his colleagues did with respect to Wuhan Institute of
Virology virus one we're including the modifications that are now associated with what is allegedly SARS
COV-2 and the patents on all of those modifications which all predate this outbreak by at least a year
and a half every single one of the nucleic acid sequences and every single one of the nucleoside
pairings that is associated with the novel SARS COV-2 was published and patented by 2016
and the official paper that was published that said SARS COV-2 Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one
was poised for human emergence was published in 2016. Now what makes the next part of the story
problematic is a very bizarre and esoteric piece of U.S. law and that is the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole
Act of 1980 which authorized university federally funded research to iner to the economic benefit
of the researchers that got federal funding that particular act gives the federal government in the
United States what's called march in right provisions and that just simply means that anyone
who is actually funded by the federal government has the ability to commercially exploit their
innovations but at any point that the government determines that it's necessary for them to have
access to that technology at that point in time the government has a right to what's called a
Fran license a fair reasonable and non-discriminatory license it requires no rights contracts transfers
anything else it's a simple right that's granted by statute in the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act. Here comes
in the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act. Here comes the problem in 2018 actually in late 2017 we don't have the
exact date because all we have is the evidence of the transfer but in late 2017 and early 2018
for some reason the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was asked by NIH to transfer the
patent from 2002 to NIH that is an unprecedented move and why the UNC Chapel Hill patent would need
to be transferred back to NIH in 2018 defies any logic and defies any legal standing because the
U.S. government already had the march in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act so there's no need to
transfer it and when that transfer happened that alerted us to a very significant problem because
at the same time the CDC had lied to the United States Patent Office in their entirety of the
overall platform that was the coronavirus isolated from humans the CDC had actually violated the
federal statutes on patents 35 U.S. code with respect to their prosecution of that patent
but ironically during the same period of time they renewed the patent light the patent maintenance fees
on the SARS-CoV-2 SARS-CoV-1 patent that CDC had had at the time now according to the CDC's official
fact-checking you know quoted statement the reason why CDC allegedly filed a patent on coronavirus
was allegedly because they wanted to be able to make sure everybody anywhere on earth could research
it without commercial implications the only problem with that story is that in 2006 and 2007
the CDC actually was told by the Patent Office that it was not able to patent the coronavirus
because it was already in the public domain and the CDC bribed the United States Patent Office to
get the patent on coronavirus even though twice it was actually categorically rejected as a
unpatentable subject matter because the matter was already in the public domain so if you want to buy
if you want to buy the CDC story unfortunately the the financial records and then a handwritten
falsified date on the application which we have in our possession was the final straw that showed
that the CDC had bribed the United States Patent Office to issue the patent in the first place
and by 2016 they were paying the renewal fees to make sure that the patent was still in place
and still directly under their control which gives us the interesting emergence of the most alarming
terminology that we saw arise in April of 2019 so remember we're still long before patient one long
before any of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 stuff is in the official press or anything else
in April of 2019, Moderna amended four patent applications one of which had been pending I
believe for nearly seven years and had been multiply rejected but they amended the patent
to include the phrase the accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen.
Now for those of you not familiar with the English language let me just point out
that there is one operative term in that line that's problematic and the term is release.
Sit with that for a second the accidental or intentional release they didn't talk about a
leak they didn't talk about oops something might go wrong with a BS4 lab BSL4 lab they actually
said accidental or intentional release
and if you're not getting it you're not awake that's a problem it's a problem to say that you
are going to release a respiratory pathogen in any population at any time for any reason
and they put that in four patent applications in April of 2019 and the exact same language showed
up in September 18th 2019 when the World Health Organization World at Risk publication came out
which said that in September of 2019 the country's signatory to the World Health Organization
would plan an exercise with the accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen
so that by September 2020 there would be a worldwide acceptance of a universal vaccine
platform. The exact same phrase that was in the Moderna patents in April of 2019 showed up in
September of 2019 in the World Health Organization's World at Risk publication and one day later
and I'm not making this up one day later President Trump signed the executive order for the
development of DNA-based vaccines as an executive order for the national priority of vaccine
development in other words operation warp speed started with an executive order on September 19th
2019 four months before patient one allegedly happened in China. To add to the problem we have
obviously the unfortunate development that took place in November of 2019 when Ralph Baric by his
own written admission and I have this in writing from Ralph Baric transferred the sequence for this
injection to Moderna in a material transfer agreement in November of 2019. Now conveniently
Ralph Baric was also the member of the ICTV the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses
for the World Health Organization that in February and March of 2020 was the one supposed to be
identifying allegedly this novel coronavirus so it's very helpful to have the guy who made it be the
guy who is actually independently investigating the novelty of it about six and a half months after
he's sent a sample of the alleged novel virus that hadn't been determined novel and hadn't been
determined a virus he actually had the material transferred to Moderna in November of 2019 it
wasn't until March that he actually figured out that it was a novel pathogen once again a time
machine problem and you'll notice that there are a number of time machine problems here the last of
which I want to point to is the very interesting bizarre moment of black wholeness in terms of the
story of this criminality which took place on or about the 29th or 30th of January 2020.
On January 29th of 2020 Alex Azar had determined that there was not a public health emergency
and there was no need to declare one in the United States and then on the 31st or on the 30th he
actually went on television and actually said the same thing there is no public health emergency we
don't need to declare one we're keeping an eye on it etc etc and then on the 31st mysteriously he
filed the public health emergency declaration and backdated it to the 29th.
I just want to be clear on this he said it wasn't an emergency he went on national television
confirming that it was an emergency and one day later with no material alterations in any information
mysteriously we actually have the declaration retroactive to the day that it wasn't an emergency.
Now why on earth would you do that? Well the answer is very simple if you go back and look at what the
vaccine research organization at NIAID was doing they actually had already started their work and
needed the entirety of the immunity shield to wrap around the beginning of the first formulation
of the injection and it turns out somewhere between the 29th and 30th somebody got wind of
Alex Azar's stupid comment that said there wasn't an emergency and said hey buddy not only do we
need to have the immunity shield but you need to backdate your statement so that we get it
for when we actually started. Somewhere between the 29th and 30th we know that that's when the
intervention called the current injection actually went into production and we have the declaration
retroactive to try to afford medical countermeasure liability shields to make sure that they had the
ability to cover work that had already commenced before number one there was a pathogen number two
there was any sample of a pathogen and a month before get this right a month before the ICTV was
even impaneled to determine that there was a novel pathogen so we have a month between when allegedly
there's a novel coronavirus that has not been called the novel coronavirus we have a month
between when it was allegedly a national health emergency until we actually have the ICTV ruling
on its novelty and the person ruling on its novelty is none other than Ralph Barrett.
I mean it's as dumb as having Peter Daschick go investigate a wet lab in China
though these things are are are equivalent to having a a bank robber on the steps of a bank
holding a bag of money and a gun and being asked by the police to investigate the possibility
of somebody robbing the bank. I mean that is how absolutely ludicrous this entire exercise is
and that's precisely what happened. We filed our first complaints with the office of the inspector
general on all of the things I've just described in the spring of 2020. Under the statute the OIG
is required to have a 90-day response and sitting here today on the 9th of February 2023 we have not
had a single response from any of the OIGs to whom we sent our first racketeering and antitrust
complaints. Throughout the spring and summer of 2020 our focus was to try to get racketeering and
antitrust investigations into the collusive behavior and the restraint of trade behavior
that was going on as Anthony Fauci beginning in March and April started suppressing all clinical
alternatives so that we would have the de facto opening of the possibility of having only an
injection and only remdesivir as the only way out of this path this this pandemic and that active
suppression ironically flies in the face of Ralph Baric's own published information because it turns
out that in the early part of the 2010s Ralph Baric found that the zinc ionophore the very same
thing that Dr. Zev Zelenko put in Zstack that very same mechanism was actually an anti-coronavirus
infectious intervention. If you used zinc and you used zinc ionophores you actually saved yourself
from coronavirus related disorders and that was Ralph Baric's own work so the fact that they
used Ralph Baric's work to then shut down Ralph Baric's work is another interesting time machine
conundrum where we know that there's a restraint of trade in 2010 and again in 2012 we know that
the NIAID funded and approved research that showed that hydroxychloroquine was effective
against SARS coronavirus infections and once again we were told that it was not effective
after they had determined it was effective. We were told that making the entirety of the
the overall experience of what became the mechanism of counting the number of infected
through the amplification of fragments of proteins as the official way of determining how many COVID
cases there were. Anthony Fauci by his own admission said that he was not a big fan of any of the work
of Kerry Mullis. He had a personal vendetta as well as a professional critique and he had in 2010
also in 2012 he had actually done an enormous amount of work to come up with alternatives
to what in fact became the entirety of how we nominated whether or not somebody was
COVID infected and all of those things were actively suppressed during the spring of 2020
so that the only conclusion that could be reached by the late spring is the only way out of this
alleged pandemic was a vaccine and that recitation took place across the entire globe where heads of
state said the only way out is a vaccine. Now here comes an interesting little glitch.
If you're in the United States and I know some of you are and know a lot of you are all over the
world there's a very interesting problem and this goes back to once again Pascal's comments on
the treason issue. The actual language used to declare a state of emergency and the provenance
of who wrote that is actually something that no attorney general in the United States has been
able to identify the person that was the one who drafted the executive order or the emergency order
that shut down any state. Now it turns out I happen to have the opportunity to experience in
one particular state a situation where they forgot to change the properties section in the document.
You know when you go into Word or a PDF file or anything else you actually have to make sure
you've edited out the properties section because you want to make sure nobody knows that it was a
template. Well it turns out that the template that was used is not from the state that shut
the state down. That means that every governor who signed any declaration of emergency was in
fact guilty of treason because when you allow a foreign actor and in states the foreign actor is
defined as anybody who's not within the state. When you allow a foreign actor to without verification
shut down your state and suspend your constitution that is treason at the state level. The same thing
happens at the federal level and it turns out that the provenance of the documents used to shut
down countries and states is something that mysteriously nobody's bothered to ask the question
who wrote it. Well it turns out that all you have to do is get a copy of it and look in the property
section and you find out that it wasn't written by an elected official and it wasn't written by an
appointed official and it wasn't written by any of the people who should have been writing these
things. It was actually a template and it's pretty important that we start realizing that these are
the simple errors that are made by criminals who think they won't get caught and these are the tools
that we must use to go after those criminals and I'm actively pursuing that particular one
in the state where this issue was first pointed out. So we're working on that one as well.
We started changing our legal strategy in the summer of 2020 because it was clear that we could
not get a single attorney general and we could not get a single prosecutor to have any reasonable
activity to go after the antitrust case which was what would have been the appropriate legal action
to take in the summer of 2020. That was before we were putting a modified mRNA into people's arms.
The minute we went to the injection clinical trials, which by the way are a violation of 21
Code of Federal Regulations section 50.20 to 23 and they're a violation for a very simple rule.
Under post-Nurenberg conditions and under every statute of human subjects review,
there is an independent IRB requirement and an independent IRB means that the IRB has to be
impaneled. The institutional review board approving a protocol has to be impaneled
with independent members who have no financial interest in the outcome of the study. Not a single
IRB in the world for any of the COVID interventions met the legal standard for an independent IRB.
To this day, there has not been a single legal clinical trial anywhere in any country on any of
these interventions. That is a Nurenberg and a 21 Code of Federal Regulations violation and it must
be something that we pay attention to because the absence of an independent IRB means that every
derivative protection that's afforded to every one of the manufacturers of any medical countermeasure
go out the window if the independent IRB has not been impaneled. So great news is another angle
that we are actually adding to the criminal racketeering piece because there was actually
a very clear case on the fact that that had never been done and we have a number of IRBs that have
been part of the injection clinical trials where we have now heads of IRBs who have shared that
information with us as well. So the good news is there is zero independence therefore the 21 Code of
Federal Regulations rules have not been followed therefore none of the immunity shields are actually
robust protecting any of the manufacturers. That's all good news because ultimately we'll be able to
pierce all of the theoretical liability protections that they think they have because it turns out
that the crime is already committed before they started doing the injection.
When they did the injection they knew that they were using pseudo-uridine, they knew they were
using PEG, they knew they were using lipid nanoparticles and they knew that all of those
things were associated with oncogenic and cardiovascular disease-inducing activities
which means that this now becomes a case not only of negligent and willful homicide but it becomes a
case of premeditated murder and I'm going to wrap up on that one in a minute so just put a pin in
it because I'm going to come back to it. What we decided to do is start pivoting our legal research
into that area and then the CMS and the other mandates came about and as many of you know we
filed the first federal case in the United States on the CMS mandate against the government for the
deceptive medical practice of calling a thing a vaccination which was not a vaccination,
it did not ever meet the legal standard of a vaccination. The legal standard by the way if
anybody's paying attention in the U.S. was defined in the 1986 act and specifically said that there
was all sorts of problems with the distinction between the term vaccination and the term medical
countermeasure and the term elective medical procedure. The fact of the matter is vaccine by
definition is abundantly clear that its objective has to be the prevention of infection and the
prevention of transmission and the fact of the matter is these clinical trials that were set up
for this injection not only did not test any of those but worse still violated the FDA and the
CDC's own published standards on vaccine clinical trials all of which required a humoral response
as a clinical endpoint or some other immune response as a clinical endpoint. There has never
been and there never will be a vaccine clinical trial that has symptom by committee endpoints
and this is a symptom by committee endpoint clinical trial which is a at best treatment
not a public health measure not a police power and not a vaccine. We brought that case in Utah
we brought it in Utah for a very particular reason because in Utah deceptive medical practices
by an outside non-licensed agent outside the state of Utah is a class three felony and the
attorney general according to the statutes in Utah shall prosecute any third degree felony crime
around deceptive medical practices and that's why we filed it in Utah. The great news is we filed
it there the bad news is that we got a judge an 83 year old judge who having sat on the case for
almost six and a half months used the federal register as his official opinion to dismiss the
case mysteriously two or three days after the department of justice changed the lead counsel
for the federal government on the case after it had been sitting moribund for no time at all.
The great news is we have the federal government's defense which is the affirmative admission of
their deceptive medical practices and the affirmative admission of their practice of medicine
without a license Utah representatives so we do have the felony and we're in in fact engaged in
the prosecution of that right now. Now last piece I'm going to talk about is the murder side.
It became clear that the department of justice and the ags of the United States and for that
matter law enforcement around the world was not going to take the antitrust case and they were
not going to take the domestic terrorism cases and so we decided to go down a much more practical
pathway and the practical pathway we chose was to start briefing sheriffs and district attorneys
to identify somebody who would be willing to go after negligent homicide against the hospitals,
hospital organizations, managed care organizations, pharmaceutical distribution outlets including
all the drug stores, the CVSs, the Walmarts, everybody else going after negligent homicide
for them and going after premeditated murder against Fauci and Barrick and the others who
actually architected this program specifically on a patient profile that is very particular and very
unique. The patient profile is somebody who had been injected and within 14 days was admitted to
a hospital or a medical center where they were put on remdesivir and killed. There are several
thousand of these cases and the reason why these cases are important is because it gives us the
ability to get premeditated murder courtesy of the 2018 world health organizations rescission of using
remdesivir in the Ebola clinical trials in Africa because the fatality rate with remdesivir was 53%.
Given the fact that we have that information in 2018, any use of remdesivir has a higher risk
profile and is considered to be ultra hazardous activity. That's a legally defined term coming out
of UK law almost 200 years ago but an extremely or ultra hazardous activity resulting in death
becomes the basis for premeditated murder charges. We now have 25 sheriffs in the United States,
we have several thousand patient cases and we now finally have an intersection where we have the
nexus of a dead body in a jurisdiction where we have the nexus of a sheriff and a DA that's willing
to take these prosecutions. We are just starting in the last several weeks the active negligent
homicide and premeditated murder cases against a number of folks and that is where we are right now
and Charles I trust that we at least got a 30,000 foot flyover of the state of play
and I'm happy to take questions and I know welcome the eagle 88's had his hand up first so I'm going
to go to him unless you want to jump in. No no I know you're totally capable of handling
Q&A David but you can relax on that because the tradition here is that Stephen
goes first and last at the two and a half. Okay great that's beautiful I'm happy to do any protocol
I won't mess with a good thing that's not broken. Beautiful all right well first before Stephen
goes David thank you so much for a masterful I wrote down the note a masterful overview
a bit more than a helicopter view a whole string of important principles everybody and please go
back and watch the recording because it you sent them out like a machine gun and each one of them
as I'm crazily writing notes literally everybody from our respective countries important food for
thought thank you so much for sharing that with us Stephen I think I'll let you go
first the one the one no no you go first Stephen go. So David thank you very much for coming on and
um I wanted to ask you um so there are several uh crimes here I know you you've gone into this
in real detail presumably you're choosing the crimes to go after on the basis of how easy it is
to to to get further along the road is that right or which crimes so that's one thing second thing
which crimes do you think are the most important for us to uh hold these uh criminals to account
so mass murder treason fraud racketeering crimes against humanity genocide yeah so
so Stephen let me let me answer that in a couple dimensions because the dimension makes a difference
um we have at the core of this particular act of terrorism globally we have a criminal racket
structure that has been largely in place formally since 1980 and that is what I would call the
unholy alliance of captured agencies be they the CDC the FDA NIH NIAID any of those
where industry captured agencies are colluding with another corporation that people don't like
to call a corporation but it happens to be outed as such which is the university
you know when the Clayton act and the Sherman act in the United States
and antitrust acts were packed passed all across the world in the turn of the last century we were
looking at companies and banks inclusion well the companies and banks that are in collusion today
are government captured agencies and universities universities are nothing more than a money
laundering facility that actually launderers money between corporations and governments and it turns
out that they have a hefty in many cases 40 to 60 percent override on making sure they've scraped
enough money off the top to make sure that they can build very fancy buildings and and and do all
sorts of other nonsense but the fact of the matter is that we have the two legs of the stool that
have not been covered in antitrust acts before which is captive agencies which are corporations
and universities which are corporations which then act in collusion with corporations as we
understand them to be so we have an unholy trinity that continues to operate all of the time and if
we don't ultimately break that cabal we will swap one domestic terror campaign for another and it
will be this ongoing exercise so so what i'm doing right now is i'm actually making sure that the eye
on the prize is break the financial racket which enables this to happen so that we don't have monkey
pox and we don't have ebola and we don't have you name it pathogens down the road my criticism of
most people's legal strategy so far has been they're pretending like covid was the problem
covid is a symptom of the problem and i'm not saying it's not genocide and i'm not saying it's
not a crime what i am saying is that if we don't ultimately have our eye on the prize of the
structural problem we're not going to solve the problem we are going to solve a symptom and swap
problem for the next problem so my long play is very specifically to make sure we've introduced
into evidence enough information to get the public to stop pretending that universities are
researchers they're not they are money laundering corporations and they are money laundering
corporations that are part of a propaganda machine for captive agencies and until we break that cabal
we are not going to actually get out of this mess now that doesn't mean that there aren't
active crimes that are happening right now and my second focus and you heard me say this i have two
eyes second focus my second focus is on making sure we pierce the corporate facade of immunity
the reason for that is the minute that pfizer or moderna or astrazeneca or anybody else
actually is on the hook for the civil and criminal damages of negligent and willful homicide
which bear with them treble damage risk financially they will stop doing this activity
because they can't afford to do it the mistake that we have made is we have let them hide behind
the illusion that they're protected with immunity and both the prep act in the united states and the
1986 act both of them have one and only one silver bullet and that is criminal fraud during
the promulgation of the activity if criminal fraud took place that means a felony and fraud took place
then all of the immunity shields fall and what we're trying to do is get the fastest pathway
to get the companies on the hook because if we succeed the words pfizer and moderna
will in fact be past tense terms that we use a la the terms like american cyanamid pre-bopal
right we have to go after the beast that we can kill and if we kill the beast then we have a high
penalty associated with any other corporation trying to do that so those are the two things
that we're doing right now there are a lot of other strategies but steven those are our two priorities
i love it so steven i took a note of that everybody felony plus fraud equals no immunity
just that's correct everybody keep going steven felony plus fraud equals no immunity that's
correct so um so do you think so you've talked about racketeering you've also talked about
treason but i'm not sure that we're addressing the treason as much as we should be doing because
that's the thing that really threatens our way of life rather than the racket but so i'm sorry i
you probably cover answered this in your mind but but i'm still struggling to separate the two
yeah so so so remember that the the reason why we have racketeering laws is because they're
treasonous right remember going back to 1604 and this is exceptionally important and most people
not familiar with commonwealth history or law don't understand this but the reason why it is so
dangerous to have a criminal racketeering organization is because it acts as a supra national
concern it suspends constitutional enforcement because what happens is that in collusion and
in manipulation the entirety of systems no longer apply and what you get as pascal alluded to before
is you get these supra national non-elected non-accountable entities who are in fact
dictating to each other the terms and conditions under which they're going to suspend laws and
constitutions and that problem is at its heart the definition of racketeering yes anytime anytime
you do that and that's why i i hear what you're asking and i think it's a really important and
and somewhat nuanced question but you don't have the world health organization without racketeering
you it doesn't exist world health organization as a structure is a criminal racket it is a money
laundering exercise where privately funded individuals advancing privately funded objectives
which have no public interest whatsoever or public accountability are making determinations
that are supra constitutional to any person who's a signatory any organization is signatory to that
organization that by definition is the interlocking directorate definition of the clayton act we know
that it is a racket so so i'm not saying one is less or more important but what i'm saying is the
fundamental law that we have to actually make sure we keep an eye on is the fundamental law that says
that any unaccountable organization acting in criminal collusion is in fact the basis upon
which these things are being done and since 1604 since the british decency company charter we have
known that that criminal collusion racket is in fact the basis of the problem so it does not mean
and i'm not at all suggesting that the treason isn't a laudable legal angle but if we don't go
after the root problem we will substitute one form of tyranny for another yeah so the enabling thing
is the racketeering you mean there's no question because that you don't you don't have the current
world health organization as it's currently configured if we actually would enforce
anti-racketeering behavior we have by definition in the world health organization we have a clayton
act prima facie interlocking directorate which is a felony violation of the clayton act and that
should be prosecuted because it would put world health organization off the map yeah yeah so so
have you covered everything that kathryn what's been pointing to in the united states which is
corruption of the laws and statutes okay can i uh sorry uh sorry sorry can i add to david's
dr david martin just to add on because we researched this um with lawyers here
who is resident here and has immunity from switzerland granted the same whf same organizational
crime and gavi so let's this these three here enjoy diplomatic immunity cannot be prosecuted
pay no taxes now the best way to live well if i have to prove a crime it's a lengthy process
but it's easy much easier than that the vienna convention stipulates how governments can avoid
and withdraw immunity have a look into it yep when when the who got immunity at that date
it was a list of documents to be submitted the the the charter of incorporation all these things
in the charter statutes point number one it's on wjo's website is i don't know to to to call it to
promote uh global health of humanity etc right to protect humanity human dignity all that
that's very simple vienna convention says if the nature of the business
evidently changed and it has because they promoted globally mrna unregulated uncertified
injections immediately immediately immunity is worth is nil that's correct okay but you do it
the same time you have to to file criminal charges to arrest tedros the whole board
arrest blue light and the same day lift you and then arrest them same for the web same for gavi
same procedure same that way you don't have to go to a lengthy process where they have defense
against the charges and all this it's very simple the nature of the business has changed and evidence
public knowledge that's very simple to prove and the immunity of belief that's it sorry now i
appreciate it it's and it's a very good point and the fact of the matter is that's why one of the
things that i try to encourage people to do is become exceptionally exceptionally exceptionally
savvy around the nuance of corporate anti-competitiveness laws because the fact is
any statement and as pascal just said any statement of the intent of the corporation
if the statement of the intent no longer applies then all of the derivative acts fall away at the
same time and that is the immunity shield that actually we need to have peers so thank you for
adding that pascal i appreciate it hang on so so so so that's another level david that's one more
thing i have to go sorry i have to leave one more thing has anyone studied quantum grammar yes okay
quantum grammar reveals the fraud of the contract
and the codes are simple and if you look at the contracts of for me the i'm saying the bad guys
like the well clinton hillary and what's her name kamala harris are proficient by the way
in quantum grammar coding and that's dangerous um what we call that if it's used by the bad guys
you call that if it's used by the bad guys it's dangerous and we have to look also how to decode
wjo veff and gavi contracts with the code syntax code of quantum grammar thank you
very good stave thank you david i'm still not clear about where you so are you um going after
are you going after the uh the perpetrators of the um uh the fraud um rather than the
pol it seems to me that the 192 governments or thereabouts uh there was a global coup d'etat
in march 2020 how do we address that in your book or you mean that we go through the racketeering
and then get to the treason yeah because what will happen steven one of the problems is that
citizens in any country have a very difficult time pursuing criminal charges without prosecutors
collaborating with them and unfortunately prosecutors in this particular case are on
the take and are incapable of being considered but what can happen is as you do the discovery around
practicable crimes so what we have in sheriffs and da's in the u.s. as we pursue discovery
we can actually unfold information that in and of itself becomes prima facie admission of crimes you
have to build this case because you're you're starting with the self-evident nature of the
facts on the table which are a group of unelected individuals conducted a takeover of duly elected
authorities all over the world that's a true statement there's no question about it however
there is no jurisdiction in which that allegation does anything other than serve as an allegation
until we actually have the criminality components in the process of some form of prosecution
because we can sit here as much as we want and this is a problem that i've had with enormous number of
of organizations where you know people are going yes but it's a self-evident crime we know that
it's done absolutely there's no question about it and there is no jurisdictional pathway for any
individual or even a group of individuals to take action until we have a prosecution in process
where the evidence that becomes surfaced through that prosecution then is presented as prima facie
evidence for the next thing so it is a stepwise process and that's the reason why we're taking
the approach we're taking because if we start with the yes there was a coup d'etat yes that
coup d'etat was evident and there there is no question that the individual actors are even
known to to pretty much everybody now the problem is we do not have a jurisdiction in which any
action can be taken until we have an active prosecution so that's the reason why we're taking
this approach so in the second world war they had military tribunals following the second world war
correct but you had prosecutors remember you had prosecutors willing to do it in this case we have
no prosecutors willing to do it yes but but during the second world war there was no prosecutor
willing to do it then either so we have to wait sorry that's correct and that's my question to
you david how do we get to uh how do we get from here to a situation where we have prosecutors
like at the at the military tribunals yeah um of course the military complicit in this
yeah so well maybe they were in the second world war too oh there's no question
so how do we get from here to the equivalent of military tribunals like we saw in this
very very simply the same way that that elliot ness got to the mob in chicago in the 20s and 30s
you make it a financially impalatable condition to maintain the status quo and at that point
prosecutors realize that it is in their interest to pursue the law and not pursue the graft there
is no question that until that decision is self-evident in the minds of prosecutors they
will take graft every day over the pursuit of the law and what we have to do is make the economics
tip in the favor of the law rather than in the favor of the graft and right now they're tipped
in the favor of the graph and david how do we how do we make sure the prosecutors prosecute the
crimes which we think they should prosecute not what they think when they might actually be
acting to limit the damage do you understand me well no question in fact i've lived that very
path for the last two and a half years with every attorney general because the fact of the matter is
i've tried to get any attorney general to take the antitrust laws and their response is i don't have
staff familiar with the sherman and the clighton act well last time i checked familiarity with a
statute does not exonerate somebody from committing a crime i i didn't know that until i found out
that every ag decided that if they don't have an office dedicated to that particular line of
questioning then then suddenly you know the crime can be committed because allegedly they don't have
competence to prosecute it the fact is that we're in a situation right now where murder and negligent
and reckless homicide are things that prosecutors do understand and one of the things we can do and
listen i mean i don't know how many people are listening to this and i don't know how many people
will listen to it but the fact is that the reason why we have the draft indictment that is is on the
prosecute now dot io website it looks so softed prosecute now dot i am somebody looks like this
the reason why we have the draft indictment on that page is because every person can can fill out the
form whether they're in the u.s or anywhere in the world and actually say here is the itemized list
of the eight felony counts and the eight felony counts need to be in front of every ag as often
as possible and we have thousands and thousands of people who are actively submitting this because
steven to your point there is a war of attrition happening here too as long as the incumbent
Pfizer funded exercise is you know the only message that's buying airtime and and and ear time
then then we're up against a problem but as long as elected officials particularly in you know
various jurisdictions where where some part of the law includes some part of elected official
as elected officials become more and more aware that this is felony crimes they're letting happen
then we've seen that the tide turns now the good news is that it's only taken me two years
to get the first ag to agree to set a committee together to pursue this it's only taken me two
years and i remind people that from 1898 to 1911 that's how long it took us to get the clayton act
even considered 1898 to 1911 so i'm doing pretty good right i'm two years into something that took
the last generation a century ago it took them you know a decade to get to where i am right now
that doesn't mean we're succeeding it simply means that this is a war of attrition we must
increase and amplify our voices so that more people are sending this information to elected
officials and law enforcement and we need to continue to do that so that every single one of
them knows that the decision that they take this day to not prosecute is a decision that will
ultimately in order to the detriment of them and the society down the road and the more we do it
the more effective it is and we're already seeing the effects of it so i know it's working
so we need to hold these criminals to account for destroying our way of life for psychologically
torturing populations all over the world it's really important that we hold them to account
because if we don't then then they'll do it again that's exactly right and so we need to make sure
that we really kill it this time yeah and we have to understand in my view exactly what has happened
exactly what has happened in the last three years and all of us not just the people on the other
side have been psychologically tortured so in the context of having been psychologically tortured
how can we be sure that we've got it right because if we go down one road it might preclude us going
down another more successful road in the long term so what i'm trying to say is how do we know
that we have sufficient understanding of what has gone on worldwide to to close it all down for them
so we have to have a very good understanding of what has taken place to be able to close it all
down in the future yeah when i think that's where you know there's a number there's a number of
people who began their awareness of this topic somewhere around late 2019 early 2020 i feel like
a locust eating prophet wearing sackcloth because i've been trying to get people to pay attention to
this since 1999 when we first actually surfaced the cardiomyopathy patents that were coming out
of UNC Chapel Hill so i you know but by the evidence of my ineffectiveness because last
time i checked 1999 to 2023 suggests that i have been absolutely abject failure for 24 years
um but the fact of the matter is we're we're i we don't have questions there isn't a question here
we have the funding we have the entities involved we have every corporation we have every person
associated with every corporation we have every funding source for every corporation that
information is all collected the issue is not a matter of the whodunit this is a crime that was
done by sociopaths who left talisman next to every body this is not a this is not an investigation
this is actually a criminal enforcement action that needs to be taken and what we have to do
is we have to actually focus on what the issue is because as long as we pretend that somehow or
another the evidence is the the failure right somehow or another we're waiting for a smoking gun
the guns are all smoking we don't have a problem when when you have peter daschick in 2015 admitting
to the national academy of sciences that he is going to promote a domestic terrorism campaign
you do not need more evidence that is a jailable felony offense under section 802 of the patriot
act there is no i i was meaning so how do we it depends on what your view is you know you maybe
don't think that ukraine and financial crisis all the others you know food shortages and all
this nonsense you know the the actions against the farmers in holland yeah whether that's all
and the banks you know trying to move towards digital how that that's how do we bring how do
we bring all that into it yeah that's why that's why i did the four-hour lecture at the arlington
institute back in the fall i showed that all of this stuff has been woven together this this goes
back to the small war plants act of the 1950s i have every single shred of that woven together
and if you go and have a look at that particular lecture at the arlington institute in four hours i
talk about that and emp and emf and digital currency and all of the things that are inner
woven together every single one of these things every one of them comes back to a criminal
racketeering conspiracy which is defined which is clearly in evidence and is in need of prosecution
and the problem that i continue to face is that people because of their lack of familiarity
with crimes are trying to argue constitutional or jurisdictional questions this is not a
constitutional or jurisdictional question this is a crime and the problem we have is a ton of people
are pursuing this as though that the issue is let's pick the jurisdiction let's pick the
constitution let's pick the whatever else you don't do that a bank robber has never been prosecuted
under a constitutional provision that's not how you prosecute a bank robbery
yeah and you don't prosecute genocide and you don't prosecute remember genocide was not prosecuted
under criminal acts it was prosecuted under military tribunals we do not have a criminal
path that is being pursued other than the ones that i'm pursuing right now and that's what we
have to do so for example david's doing a lot of no no hang on just one more point the the lack
of education it seems has contributed to all this not correct so how do we nail the people who've
been educating or mis-educating our children to believe that the family doesn't matter breaking
social bonds with their with their with family with their country you're not allowed to show a
british flag in in the uk because that's uh you know too far right um how do we address that in
all this because that's really important the lack of education that has occurred in the united
states and the united kingdom children don't know anything these days plus uh the danger the known
danger must be known the danger of cell phones to children and to adults never mind children so that
you've got a population of adults parents who don't know how to protect their children how do
we address all that those are crimes in my opinion well and that's like i said that's why i did the
arlington institute speech if you haven't seen it i highly recommend it because i put all of the
pieces of it together um but anyhow let's let's jump into some of the other questions thank you
very much yes yep you're most welcome steven albert hey dave how are you doing um my name my
name is albert i go by welcome the eagle i'm here in san jose california and i i feel so antiquated
the bears guy uh you know everybody now knows you know oh yeah they you know they throttle they
delete reports they you know they do all kinds of shenanigans in bears but it it was you that said
that they are entrusted um to also like maintain the database correct and um i was i was hoping
to ask you um like where in the federal registry can i can i find details on absolutely in the 1986
act and thank you for asking this question bears is irrelevant for two reasons one is
that um under the prep act all of the medical countermeasures live inside of the cip not inside
bears um the countermeasures injury compensation program so so the reason why cdc and fda have
hidden behind the bears doesn't matter is because technically they're right until the childhood
schedule includes covid injections there is no reason for bears to count but let's get really
clear on the fact that bears is established under the statute in 1986 and it's very clearly defined
that they have to maintain the database it has to be maintained as accurate that's part of the statute
so they do not have an exception you can't say bears is incorrect if you're a pharmaceutical
company if you're a pharmaceutical company it is your requirement to maintain its accuracy
so that's by statute the other thing and very few people know this is if you go back and read
the actual congressional record on the approval of the 1986 act there was a rate of increase of
injury that would actually suspend the 86 act it was actually a calculated rate of not more i think
than 1.7 percent per annum increase of injury and you go back and look it's in the statute itself
and it actually tells you how many increases have to happen after which congress is required to
review whether or not the vaccine protections given under the 86 act are still viable and no one
to my knowledge no one has actually prosecuted on that particular point and it is absolutely
critical that we look at the fact that if we see the number of adverse events that have been
reported from 2020 to 2022 we have broken the statutory barrier that was the basis upon which
the 1986 act was passed and now we've done it with children so that means that we have an ability
right now to force a mandatory congressional reconsideration of the entire 86 act and that's
by statute that is not by a theoretical guess or you know a social will or anything else
that is the statute has been broken that's awesome dave i just wanted to bring to your
attention that i that i follow um you know even on my verza wear website i put on there i'm i'm
auditing medical fraud so i like that word fraud it like an example uh you know 30 percent of all
the of all the various reports for covid 19 don't have the age populated in the age field yet yet
the age is clearly documented in the narrative section so that's 450 000 reports that don't have
that they claim don't have an age populated but i found 300 000 of those reports where the age is
clearly documented yeah stuff like that or those or 10 percent of all the reports they can't tell
us what what state in the united states it originated from you know and it's like i actually
think now after all this um auditing i actually think that they actually go in and scrub the data
like it was once there and they took it off and um you know reiterating what um bobby kennedy said
at my church in may of 2021 where he interviewed a bunch of of theirs internal bears people like
reps or something where they they they uh said and they calculated that about 150 000 reports
had disappeared meaning that they had never even been published so i mean i don't know how much more
i could how much more of a of a of an accusation i could say that say i really don't think that
bears publishes all legitimate reports that they even receive well and and then add cip which
doesn't publish anything which is actually a violation of the um 2005 prep act and you know
i i have encouraged in fact i encouraged bobby kennedy to make sure he also used the correct
designation because anybody um reporting an injury that is actually covered under the prep act which
is what all of these injuries are has a cip cip reporting requirement and none of those none of
those have been actually in a public format that's actually reliable at all so this is a fundamental
statutory issue and i'm glad that you brought it up because it's actually something we do very much
pay attention to but most people have never read the 86 act increase of adverse event provisions
that say that congress is required to look at the growth rate of adverse events and is required to
take action if it exceeds and it's it's a low number it's i think it's 1.7 or 2 or something
like that it's a very very low threshold that requires reconsideration of the act
right on a great information david the last the last piece um i just put it in the chat it's this
image that says um as of 2011 only initial reports are made public in bears and meaning that before
that and i've looked at these older reports uh 2010 and older and i can tell how they basically
append the follow-up data to these to the initial report so now that that almost changes the whole
bet paradigm when i'm wondering well gee how many of these 1.5 million people that are in bears are
actually now since dead right so um anyways god bless you and uh bait you know keep up the good
work god bless you thanks more research more research there for you albert keep working no
time for you to die hi hello i just have a quick question if you're familiar with the work of jj
kui and his um i guess his claim that the lab leak release was was not actually what took place it
just if you are familiar with it and you think your view is consistent with his or you have a
disagreement just that's my question thank you i'm not familiar with his specifics but this was not
a lag lab leak uh when you use the term accidental or intentional release um it is a release not a
leak there's no question that the pathogen that's killing people is actually the chimera that was
altered by ralph barrack so it has nothing to do with wuhan institute of virology other than
by association but it's not a china thing there's a very simple way we could show this and by the
way i've challenged anybody who has any medical facility around them to take um pathology samples
of tissue predating the um the alleged patient one in december of 2019 and by the way every
pathology lab anywhere on earth has frozen samples that go back you know sometimes five to ten years
in many cases preserved by statute if there was a crime or anything else and the fact of the matter
is it's a very simple thing to do test whether or not you see any of the uh frag fragments in um any
pathology reports prior to december 2019 and what you'll find out is this thing has been circulating
in the population disseminated likely through a number of vectors um one of the most interesting
ones that i've pointed out is that the only two venues into which allegedly we had the introduction
of the pathogen was cruise ships and nursing homes what's unique about cruise ships and nursing
homes when from a public health standpoint and and think about this the the public health paradox
is that there are two equal environments from the standpoint of public health risk that should have
equivalent case counts cruise ships and casinos they are exactly the same as a public health
profile same number of physical contacts same proximity same everything else the difference
is that on cruise ships you have central water processing facilities and in nursing homes you
have central processing water facilities the likelihood is very high that given the fact that
we have zero case counts from casinos and 100 of early case counts from ships when public health
wise they are exactly the same they are identical as a public health vector the likelihood is very
high that the release was done on cruise ships and was done in nursing homes not that that's where
allegedly patients started having coronavirus but but do you think that once it was released it
propagates or it needs to be re-released no no it's continuously released and the real death
count i mean if you look at the actual data from from from every life insurance company which is
the only real actuarial data and the real clinical pathology data that matter because
you know unfortunately the the um i've made this allegation many times there was no excess death
in the spring of 2019 there was no excess death in the spring of 2020 it wasn't until we started
injecting people that people started dying now that doesn't mean that people did not die in the
spring of 2020 what it does mean is that we did not have excess deaths going on that were anything
other than attributable to influenza and there is zero zero excess death in any mortality data from
any life insurer until we started injecting people at that point in time we killed people
with the modified mrna we did not kill people with coronavirus thank you
thank you i mean excellent questions john the look-out
thanks charles can you hear me okay yep okay um so uh david i've been following your efforts
as well as the efforts of uh sasha lotopova and katherine watt um also karen kinkston they've both
given presentations here in this forum um prior to my joining this group uh i was following the
efforts of reiner fulmick so everybody's doing their own thing um you know i'm always trying
to be as much of a team builder as i can i think uh yeah collaboration is is a positive uh quality
um i i'm building a little bit maybe on something that steven brought up earlier
but uh it seems like um reiner fulmick is uh trying to take his case uh to the icc he's not
having much luck that that i've seen um uh sasha and uh katherine they are primarily focused on
incriminating evidence the that points at the dod and the federal government karen kinkston solidly
brings up through contractual uh agreements uh the the idea that pfizer is the head of the snake
i think everybody's looking for who to prosecute here who to focus efforts upon and uh i think
legally it comes down to a question of who has standing to sue um yeah that's a big point yeah
so um i don't i don't know uh if you know pursuing one or the other of these avenues uh without
proper standing is going to necessarily impede another team from going after you know somebody
that they can actually uh reach but you bring up a good point that um you know that there's no real
criminal path here um in my mind i'm trying to kind of resolve a question and i would just
appreciate your input on it to the extent that you're familiar uh if between um uh sasha latopova
and katherine watt's argument that we should be going after the the dod and karen kinkston's uh
equally compelling presentation that we should be going after pfizer do you have an opinion
as to which of these two are on a good path or a viable path yeah so let me let me disqualify one
right out of the gate and the disqualification is that because of the fact that the crime originated
from the united states and because the united states is not a signatory and bound by icc as a
matter of fact to the contrary bringing an action as a uh citizen or permanent resident of the united
states is in fact in some instances considered to be a felony um the icc is not a jurisdiction
that is even relevant in this particular case because the crime is actually 100 percent a us
crime now crimes by by derivative have gone globally but the crime is a us crime and as a
result the icc is irrelevant in this matter there is no chance that you get anywhere um with any
prosecution and the worst thing is you could actually put a double jeopardy problem out there
by pretending to pursue something there and ultimately getting the icc to fail to take
act or dismiss which would prejudice downstream prosecution so that one is a dead on arrival
because of the nexus of the crime and the only value there is to stephen's point you could go
after genocide you could go after the contractual issues where you know Pfizer and Moderna forced
governments into waiving liability issues there's a lot of things you could do at icc but you can't
go after the crime there Pfizer is an interesting animal for the simple reason that the actual
perpetrator of the crime is not Pfizer the actual perpetrator of the crime in this particular case
is a pass-through relationship that Biontech has with Pfizer but the actual dissemination
of the agent at the outset was not Pfizer or Biontech it was the unfortunate defense department
cover operation out of South Carolina ATI which was the operation warp speed contractor so the
official counterparty to the dissemination of the injection was not Pfizer and was not Moderna and
was not Biontech it was ATI and ATI is a defense department contractor whose previous contracts
were in mis and disinformation for propaganda promulgation from the department of defense
that's their pharmaceutical credential that got them the contract to run operation warp speed
so you have a nexus problem with actually a very easy dismissible case if you pursue Pfizer without
pursuing ATI and its parent company answer and answer for those of you not familiar with it
is essentially compiled off of a bunch of folks that are part of the office of naval research and
other forms of special operation and black operation businesses and you have to go after
them so a pursuit of the nominal target Pfizer is going to be dismissed on probably ripeness
and standing that's a terrible place to go and once again prejudicial in the minds of courts
the degree to which you want to pursue the department of defense or any of the agencies
associated with the department of defense is a mountain that is much much much harder to climb
than going after SEC misrepresentations tax fraud misrepresentations or racketeering it is critical
in my view to try to get the most viable pathway that has a leg to stand on as your primary thrust
and I want to come back to your opening comment collaboration is absolutely essential but
collaboration can't involve essentially a bunch of people with rocks throwing them randomly in
the darkness saying we're working together there has to be a unified approach that says that we're
going after a consolidated target and the reason why I'm working with a number of different groups
is because exactly to your point this is an us proposition this is not a my proposition the reason
why we have prosecute now the reason why we work with the davalir law group the reason why we
succeeded in getting face masks off of airplanes with the health freedom defense fund using the
davalir law group the reason why all those things happen is because we collaborated and we succeeded
and the reason why nobody has to wear a face mask on a plane is because collaboration worked but
to that end it only works when you stay focused on a laudable and plausible objective
and filing random civil actions or filing reckless actions are not helping in fact they're
prejudicing they're prejudicing the the the the courts around the country who now are citing other
opinions based on frivolous and unthoughtful civil actions that have been filed so i'm a big fan
of trying to make sure that we go after crimes and i'm a big fan of making sure we do it
collaboratively and your point is very well taken thank you thank you john now david so you know will
houston was in the orth cuba people drop out anytime any of you in a queue i watch this so will
houston will be next before he goes and then we'll have rudek from czech republic great in
australia we've got the standing problem a significant standing problem julian gillespie
was on this call earlier he's a a lawyer the australian vaccination risks network of which
i'm on the committee was thrown out of the federal court because of a corrupt judge literally a
corrupt judge and one of the issues that we're all grappling with as are you like the 83 year old
judge is that the wrong judge can create bad precedent and then half corrupt judges can rely
on that bullshit so it is a real issue and david i as i've said to many people just for those who
weren't here before judges will wake up when their grandchildren start dying so that'll be a helpful
process yeah so will and then daniel when were you in the because you dropped off too didn't you
daniel well put you back in the list just tell me where you were okay well oh we'll work we'll work
out so will houston next and then rudek and then daniel tell me who you are after thank you charles
can anybody hear me yep i can hear you will okay very good uh hi david um so uh does a patent for
a virus prove that viruses exist no no oh okay that's good does a budget line item
for gain of function research prove that viruses exist uh no remember remember let's let's just
just pause for a second viruses are a model they are a model derived from a broken model from the
1950s of dna which also doesn't exist because remember chromosomes exist dna doesn't dna is a
model built by watson and crick not and defined by the way by not watson and crick i mean they
get credit for it but they didn't actually do it these are models and models are as good as models
are they do not represent nature they are an artifact to describe a natural phenomenon
i would say that a virus is a replication competent intracellular obligate parasite
that causes cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease which transmit between hosts via natural
modes of exposure we're not talking about i mean this is a a word that supposedly describes
something real so that's yeah and then and therein lies therein lies the same problem we have i mean
listen we have the general theory tells us that that allegedly if we want to believe it
that allegedly we have things called atoms and atoms are allegedly made up of protons and neutrons
and electrons but nobody has bothered to test the tiny little theoretical problem with the general
atomic theory suggesting that somehow neutrons are the byproduct of the decay of supernova
and the decay of supernova has a half life of 15 minutes but somehow or another we can have
supernova that are parsecs away that continually supply every 15 minutes every neutron that lives
inside of every atom i mean the problem i'm glad you brought up i'm glad you brought up a test for
for the atomic theory because i'm just wondering are you familiar with the settling the virus
debate statement it's also sometimes called the virus challenge oh yeah it was proposed by
mark bailey kevin corbett and tom cowan they were the principal authors yep yep all right would you
consider being a signatory to that because that is basically the purpose of that is to validate or
to prove what tom cowan calls the the pillars the basic pillars of virology which remarkably
haven't been proven up until this point and they would include isolation and purification
yeah scanning electron microscope photography genetic sequencing the serum test pcr or or otherwise
and the and the proof of pathogenicity yeah would you consider signing up to would you sign the
virus challenge oh there's no question and i've i've been i've been i've frequently shared the
stage with tom cowan and i love his work and i think what he's doing is phenomenal and i think
it doesn't go far enough because i actually have a fundamental problem with all of the models that
we've chosen since 1880s when we actually you're saying it doesn't you're saying it doesn't go far
enough but you're you're forgive me for interrupting you but i just want to use my time as quickly you
know as efficiently as possible but your whole presentation is based on the fundamental assumption
you're talking about furan cleavage sites and yeah gain of function research and super pathogenetic
strains and yeah hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for coronavirus your whole
presentation is in direct contradiction to no it isn't no it is not it is linguistic
only what you're suggesting is an ontological argument that's not being made what i am saying
is the evidence that we have is the evidence of crimes in a dimension in which the crimes occurred
this is you haven't even defined you haven't even you haven't defined the crime scene correctly
you've in fact what you've done is you are stipulating to the crime scene as defined by
the perp it's ralph barrack uh that that wants us to believe that viruses exist it's anthony
fauci that wants us to believe that i don't disagree with you what i'm saying is i also
don't acknowledge that debt denominated currency is a form of money but that doesn't make a bank
robbery less a bank robbery the argument is a goofy one when it comes to ontological arguments
where what you're doing is picking a linguistic model and then pretending that it doesn't exist
i don't recognize debt denominated currency but it doesn't change a bank robbery that that analogy
doesn't help add clarity i don't think of course it does it's the same thing what you're doing
will listen to what david's saying stop cutting across him please you're using a linguistic
framework and i actually agree with you i don't think that the virus model works but i don't think
dna works and i don't think adams work because if you actually look at every single one of those
models they were exactly defined so that we would build a chemical rather than a frequency based
view of reality so the fact of the matter is you could pick any one of a number of topics and the
only point i'm making will is a very simple one it's a model just like representational currency
is a model just like laws are a model and if what we're going to do is debate existentially the
existence of the absence of a model that's a different conversation but when we are dealing
with crimes we have to use the language of the realm to deal with the crime
David you put you put it brilliantly in one sentence about five minutes ago what did you say
that's why we recorded it that's exactly fine again okay will you want to have anything by the
way when we have we have guests and david i love how you're able to handle anything so that's
wonderful most of our guests can handle the questioning because as i said at the start
to answer the question you have to be able to answer the question you have to be able to answer
upset if they're frameworks you know it's not a problem and i don't have a problem i'm just
saying that if we're going to critique the applicability of the virology model or the
virus model or the terrain model or anything else and my criticism and i've done it with tom
with tom sitting next to me is if you're going to critique models then let's critique models let's
actually go to the base of it. Let's not pretend like the virus versus terrain is interesting,
because it's not interesting. The interesting question is why we've decided in the mid 1800s
to see the world through a descriptive lens where we actually do reductionist analysis of things
by breaking them into the tiniest particles and then trying to describe how something works.
That is analogous to having anybody take a tapestry and untie every thread, put the threads on the
floor, and then try to find the virgin next to the heart at the well. The fact of the matter is
that does not constitute an analysis of anything. It constitutes only that what you're doing is
semantic debates, and that's not going to help us deal with this problem until we actually
address the broader problem. The broader problem is that we actually have a language
handed to us by the oppressors, and now we're arguing about the nature of language.
It's a code. That's what it is. My last question is, thank you everybody,
for this forum, Charles and Stefan especially. Have you read, David, have you read Mark Bailey's
A Farewell to Virology? Could you also comment on Christine Massey's FOI request?
212 institutions from 40 nations and nobody can find evidence that SARS-CoV-2 exists. Thank you.
Yeah, well, I mean, once again, it doesn't exist because there is no such thing even using their
rules on their phenomenology and on their linguistics. There is no such thing as SARS-CoV-2
isolated as an individual anything. Using the evidence that was put before the ICTV
back in February of 2020, it became exceptionally clear that by the time we allegedly had
some sort of definition of what we wanted to call this thing, there were already over 200 variations
of the thing that we were allegedly calling a novel thing, which tells us-
Christine's FOI says there's zero evidence of the thing.
Yes, but once again, the phylogenetic data, whether you want to accept the model or not,
also shows that the phylogenetic data shows there wasn't a thing. There were a bunch of things that
were fragments of things that were characterized by individuals and it turns out that those things
characterized by individuals have in fact never been fully isolated because the only technology
we have right now to look at the thing we call a virus or we call RNA is an assembly of fragments
anyhow. So on the best of days, we never get it. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you, Will.
We'll have Ruddock and then Daniel Nagazi and then Jim and we've got 26 minutes to go, David. You're
doing well. Now, you're sure you don't need a time to break? I worry about our guest who can go over
Oh, Lord, no, I can go forever. Wow. Okay, Ruddock and then Daniel.
Hi, everybody. Hi, David. Thank you very much for your answer to Will because it's exactly
answered my question so I can ask you something similar. 700 million worldwide will die from COVID
shots by 2028. How did you come up with this number 700 million? Yeah, that was actually
something that the headline is wonderful. If you actually listen to the presentation, you actually
find out that that's not what I said. What I said was using the model that was stipulated that said
we were looking for a 10% population reduction in the decade of vaccines data, which is actually
funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, they called for a 10% population reduction by
2028. And they said it would be achieved through vaccination. And all I said was, if that were in
fact the case, then that would represent a 700 million person reduction in the population of
the world. Now, the fact of the matter is, it is my assertion that if we look at what was added in
pseudouridine into the injection, I think we are going to see all cause cardiovascular and cancer
mortalities going to epidemic levels. And I think that's going to happen now. I don't think that
that's going to happen at some indeterminate period down the road. The reason why it was so
important to put a number on that is because people throw around percentages, like 10% of the
population reduced or whatever, and people don't assume that what you're talking about is not just
the people who are currently walking around on the planet. You're also talking about disruption
of reproduction. And so the total cost of this is actually not just how many arms got
shots and how many shots resulted in cardiovascular disease or cancer or other things. The real problem
is something that we're already seeing in birth rates, where we're literally seeing a cessation
of fertility in an enormous number of populations. So when we put those together, Radik,
I would suggest that 700 million may be, ironically, a low estimate, not a high estimate,
but you have to look at it from a population statistic standpoint, meaning that we are not
going to be replenishing the population at the rate that we were. Therefore, the actual loss of life
is much higher than what we're talking about because we are actually
succeeding the notion of reproduction as a consequence of this action. So I'm glad you
brought it up, but I actually am very precise when I use language, and that precision was something
that the headline just happened. It was an attention-getting headline, I get it, but that's why
what I have to say is something that requires paragraphs of thinking, not headlines.
Excellent, because this was my concern. The number seems to me too low as well.
I agree. It is merely based on the projections. If you look at the actuarial data coming off
of some of the life insurance modeling right now, we're talking about some people estimating
that we could have a third of the population gone in the same time horizon. So I have done
what I've done based on the public statements and just projecting the public statement.
And the second quick really fast question. Today was announced by WHO,
the avian influenza is in game again. And Tedros was mentioning very clearly that they are worried
about the human transmission, which means only one thing, the bio-weapon again.
Yeah, so that's a good point. And remember that the bivalent strategy with mRNA is the holy grail
that Anthony Fauci has been pursuing since 1986. And the fact that they want to do a combined
influenza plus coronavirus injection, you need to have a influenza pandemic to make that happen,
because right now the uptake of influenza injections is at an all-time low in the
circulating population. So people aren't falling for the bivalent argument,
which is the reason why we have to create the illusion of an influenza outbreak.
Thanks for pointing that out. Thank you. Thank you too.
Thank you, Radik. Daniel Negazi, who I'm sure you know, David.
Hello. Hello, Daniel.
Thank you very much. I can resolve that previous whether or not viruses exist debate. And it's
actually thanks to a video you did a long time ago, Dr. Martin, that was about your bougainvillea,
the bougainvillea rebels. And where that led to a refinement in my thought was with the issue of
process. So I find myself these days, I think less and less about facts. And I think more and
more in terms of the mathematical integral of facts, which is the process that generates facts.
And then I spend maybe about half my day, mostly during sleeping time, thinking about the mathematical
integral of the process that creates facts, which the conclusion I've come to is the reason
to have a process that creates facts. And so how that changes the whether or not there's a virus
debate is when you apply process. Well, what can we observe? We observe DARPA. DARPA likes to make
very large weapons like Star Wars type projects. They also like to make hand-sized weapons that
that soldiers can use. They also like to make microscopic weapons. So of the microscopic
weapons, you can have parasites like worms, intestinal parasites, you can have smaller ones
like bacteria. And the smallest theoretical weapon you can make is probably a virus, a self-replicating
segment of DNA or RNA. So in that frame of process, whether or not viruses exist is rather a moot point.
It's more to the point that if viruses didn't exist, an organization like DARPA or whatever
its international equivalent is, would probably try to engineer something smaller than a bacteria
to cause harm. So now that we have a murder weapon, which is a genetically engineered product,
then we have to look at, you know, just basic, you know, crime scene investigation. Well, who is the
victim in this murder? So the murder are men, women and children around the world. What was the murder
weapon? Engineered device, a genetically engineered device. Now, who is the assailant? So as far as we
can observe, well, the assailant seems to involve DARPA, a very large organization, the NIH, and even
larger than the NIH. So the WHO. Now, as a man on the ground, you know, as men, women and children
around the world, we have to ask ourselves, are we able to reach the head of this monster that is the
assailant that's caused this genetic poisoning of the human species? Are we able to reach a
jurisdiction where we can attack and prosecute the head that sits at the WHO level or even above the
WHO level? Yeah, likely not. So I'm in completely complete agreement with your approach to go after
the states, because the only way we can bring down this monster, if we can't reach the head,
is to go after the toenails. And we have to keep chipping away at the toenails, because that's what
we are able to reach as men and women on the ground. And hopefully, by getting at the toenails,
then the toes, then the ankles, we can bring the entire system, the system where the WHO is able to
enact worldwide a crime against humanity. That's probably the only path we have in winning this.
So to go after the state level jurisdictions, even better if we can go after municipal
jurisdictions and get a quick win in a municipal jurisdiction that sets a precedent for a state,
and then the state sets a precedent for the United States, and then the United States can probably
set a precedent for the world. We'll see. But I agree with the approach, going small when
the assailant is really big. We have to think in terms of that process. Use the opposite
of what you're countering, what your assailant, what your enemy is. The other thing was,
from a clinical perspective, I did notice in the County of Lamont, Alberta, everyone in the town
swore that they had the worst influenza they've ever seen pass through the entire county
in November of 2019. And what's unique about that situation is throughout the peak of the
pandemic, throughout 2020, no one in that county was positive for COVID-19. That is, people came
into the hospital, but no one came into the hospital with a COVID-19 illness, likely because
they all had the illness in November 2019, which is why they were protected all throughout 2020.
The other clinical note I want to make is that during this pandemic, when I was working,
I did notice that the infectious disease that passed through that was called COVID-19
did have a very unique clinical feature, that this is different from every other influenza,
coronavirus, adenovirus infection that I've seen before. And that is the one from 2020 and 2021
caused a lot of pulmonary fluid buildup. And that was clinically different from every other
viral illness that I've seen in my career as an emergency doctor. And what's also interesting is
after being exposed to these unique viral symptoms of a viral illness with a very wet
and very fluid rich profile in terms of causing fluid buildup in the lungs, a day later I had
the runny nose of my life. This wasn't a bacterial sinusitis, I did not have a fever, I just had a
very fluid copious runny nose. But unlike any other runny nose I've had in my entire lifetime,
I took a single dose of Ivermectin and then it was resolved. So I can attest to personal experience
of the existence of some contagious agent that caused extreme amount of physiologic fluid buildup
that was resolved. Daniel, you've never been psychologically tortured previously, presumably?
No, no, I've never been. I don't think so. But you have been in the last three years, we all have.
Oh, I spent a lot of time at work. So, you know, luckily the job posting I had, I could pick up as
much work as possible. So I was actually having a good time in 2020-2021 because I was working so
much. And I actually enjoy emergency department work. So as far as the psychological torture goes,
it only started in September 2021 for me when I was no longer able to work. And that led to
a lot of distress because I find emergency medicine quite satisfying mentally, physically,
and emotionally. So being taken away from my work, I'd say my psychological trauma only started in
September of last year, 2021. Yes, but you can be injured. So you can be psychologically tortured
and not realize it. So you might think that you weren't, but and I thought I wasn't, but I think
now I was like everybody else. So they were destroying social bonds, you know, it's very
subtle. Okay, come on, keep going. So we're tied on time. So Daniel, you done?
So what Daniel, David points out, and I remind people that the third Star Wars movie is Daniel,
the Daniel Nagazi strategy. And in the third Star Wars movie, the machines of the empire
were brought down by the Ewoks in the forest. Remember all collaborating, David, with their
bits of string to trip down. And it reminds me of the story in the African wilds and a lion
kills an elephant by taking a chunk out of its foot and waiting for it to bleed to death.
Well, and let me just make the observation there is a way to go after the head of the beast,
and that is to stop putting money into Blackrock. Nice. All right, thank you. We've got a couple
more to go. We've got 12 minutes to go. Love it. Jim. Thank you, David. That was a great
presentation. You mentioned Blackrock at the end. That's very important. And that's really
very important. And the universities that you point out their ties as well. I have a particular
fondness of the University of Pennsylvania. They seem to be embedded in this with the development
of the MRI and technology, factcheck.org and reward for two of the highest ranking people
at the University of Pennsylvania. Amy Gutman became the diplomat or ambassador, as well as
David Cohen, ambassador, as well as Zeke Emanuel's brother, Ram, ambassador to Japan diplomatic
community. This intelligence community, the Department of Defense, seems to be the focus
of this whole thing. And they seem to be driving it through all maybe six eyes, the six eyes
organization. This seems to be similar to the plot of Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy, where a virus or
a spike protein is released and the vaccine is worse. We know that this is DOD in relationship,
and I'm not sure if you're familiar, but I have some information and belief that this spike protein
is racially specific and may not attack certain people, including Larry Fink, including
George Soros. So the people who invented it may have made it so it doesn't kill them off and
doesn't kill and doesn't make their progeny infertile. Because of the ACE2 receptor binding
is racially specific, it actually repels K26R. So the question becomes, we kind of know who
did this and it wasn't the Chinese. We know it has to do with the Department of Defense and it
has to do with people who are overlords over the Department of Defense, which are intelligence
agencies and maybe even some would say demons. The Department of Defense may have made a deal
with the demons. How do we deal with contracts, secret contracts, are supposed to be overseen by
HHS Office of Inspector General? How do we deal with secret contracts? How do we hold these
entities responsible when they are seemingly allowed to depopulate the world in a racially
specific manner? Thanks. Well, if we go back to 1914 and we look at the formation of the
collaboration between Booker T. Washington and Andrew Carnegie to set up the Eugenics program,
which included the establishment of the Tuskegee Institute, which most people who are
now entirely woke have a hard time dealing with. That Andrew Carnegie and Booker T. Washington
collaborated on the development of the National Eugenics Office. Let that sit in your woke
bucket wherever you want it to sit. The fact of the matter is for an extremely long time,
the answer is that where capital is opaque, power becomes more opaque.
We know without question that the aggregation of power inside of BlackRock is a perfect example,
is a situation where a company went almost two decades ago from near bankruptcy to being the
largest asset holder on earth with no explanation whatsoever in how that happened. We know that by
2012, automated trading had replaced actual trading as the way equity markets move,
which means price is determined by quantitative load balancing, not by price. There's a whole
bunch of things that have been hijacked. The fact of the matter is the Department of Defense
and the intelligence communities thought they had the racket covered until one topic, which has not
been brought up but needs to be brought up, and that was Edward Snowden. When Edward Snowden went
to China and then went to Russia, a very important thing happened and we need to be very clear on
that. It wasn't until just a few years ago that I could even say this out loud because it was
classified until it actually accidentally became unclassified. Under the book written by
Hank Crompton, Life Inside the Clandestine Service, he was the first person to officially
out the file that Edward Snowden actually took to China and then took to Russia. That file
is the resolution of what was called the Corporate Cover Program.
The Corporate Cover Program is the CIA's means by which it takes people who are affiliated with
corporations and essentially recruits them into being double or triple agents.
Those agencies are resolved where you have a person who allegedly is an executive for GE
or Bank of America or whatever else. Those individuals actually go and under the guise
of being corporate actors, they actually are both espionage for government as well as commercial
espionage actors. What most people don't seem to pay attention to is the resolution name file,
which takes the code names of the assets for the agency and resolves them to the corporate entity
and actors that they actually are in real life. It's probably the most valuable piece of
intelligence on the planet and that is the reason why Edward Snowden is still alive in my estimation.
Because he actually took to China and then to Russia the name resolution of every single agent
that is actually under the cover of a corporate identity. Now the reason why this is important is
because when we think of the intelligence agencies, we think of the alphabet soup. We think of the CIA,
we think of the DIA, we think of the ONR, we think of all of these alphabet soups that we've become
familiar with. But what we don't realize is that a significant proportion of what we think of as
corporate executives are also part of a macro intelligence agency and that agency has one fatal
flaw and the fatal flaw is now their identities are known by the Chinese and by the Russians.
And since they are known by the Chinese and by the Russians, the United States has actually been,
in fact, decapitated as a prime actor ever since Snowden made it to Russia.
Because the ultimate blackmail that is going to destroy the United States economy and therefore
the United States power and influence is the resolution of those name recognitions. And the
minute those names are actually publicly disclosed, the economy that we think we know as we know it
that we think we know as we know it will go away. So it's important to realize that the
macro situation, which has nothing to do with the conversations we've had for the last two and a
half hours, the macro conversation is a much larger existential one. And to Daniel's earlier point,
if we don't understand the context in which this is happening, this is a current race against a
reorganization of the collapse officially of Westphalia models of nation states.
We are now going to go into a corporatocracy defined by despotic organizations, which are
multinational in nature. We have already achieved that position and what will happen is we'll
accelerate it. And if we really want to know how all this got really off the trail, the fact that
Edward Snowden was able to walk out with the name recognition and identity recognition and resolution
of every corporate cover program is the real reason why we can't do anything in this country
because this country is actually already compromised. We've got blackmail on absolutely
everybody and because we have blackmail on everybody, accountability is near impossible in the U.S.
Thank you, David. Master's already done. Jim, here's your challenge, David. You have 10 minutes.
We'll go five minutes to answer. We'll deal with five hands up and we'll finish at the two hour
35 mark. You okay for 10 more minutes? There you go. And I'll do up to a minute question. I'll do a
minute answer. How about that? Perfect. Rapid fire, Lars. Thank you, Jim. Go, Lars.
Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm going to be very brief. I have received, and this is very
complex, I have received a proposal to, I will call it participate in the next phase of the
coronavirus project. Let's call it that. It's very dramatic. It's Department of Defense is involved.
I need to talk to you about this. Let me know how I get in contact with you.
You better just reach out to Charles and to Stephen and they can put us in touch. Lars,
done. Thank you. Thank you. Lars, well done. Lars and Stephen are in close contact. Very good, Lars.
Well, first of all, thank you, David. I was following your work for quite a while,
actually, well, throughout the pandemic. And thank you for resolving the pandemic.
That too. So since 2020. And thank you for resolving the conundrum about your opinion
on the viruses. I actually agree. I have very similar opinions. And you and Daniel, both of
you, thank you for speaking up because I remember people were wondering, but because we're short on
time, let me get straight to the comment and question. So it seems to me that we're actually
dealing with an existential thing, even much, much, much deeper than anything we've discussed.
And we are looking at a, we can say mindset and resulting power structure that is thousands of
years old. And we can talk about Roman emperors or the Vatican or the families or the dynasties
or many other things. And they all represent that mindset and they may be competing with each other,
but nonetheless, it's the same mindset. It's a spiritual hunger. And they would stop at nothing
in order to win and to stay in power just because the urge, their own spiritual deal,
I mean, their own urge is so strong that they will really stop at nothing. They will do violence
and anything like they've done for all history.
Quick question.
Yeah, so your question.
So my question is, well, first of all, where do you find the courage? Because you should understand
that. So where do you find the courage to go against that? And then how do you think,
how do you think we're going to handle the question of human bad habits? Because all of
that ultimately is supported. Human bad habits are the worst. They are the most important factor.
So Tessa, let me address this. I have never found courage to be a very attractive asset.
I find persistence to be far more attractive. And that is when you have an unassailable set of
information and perspective, which is what I have been blessed with over my life. The fact of the
matter is, you know, I have been given access to things that are unusual. That access has gone back
to very early in my life. What I find is that the capacity to have confidence in being persistent
is something that is an attribute of humanity that the individuals who are currently controlling the
narrative and controlling the power systems find impossible to rationalize. And what I have found
in my own lived experience, and if you've read my book, Cuda 12, you actually would get a direct
answer to a lot of your questions. Having been drawn into the circle of people attempting to
hijack my involvement into the current situation that's unfolding back in 2008, 9, 10, 11,
what I did very clearly was I simply said no to the people who were making deals that would
compromise me as an individual and me in my mission. And the fact is that what has won the day
is the curiosity from people who have given themselves over to a dark agenda,
who are trying desperately to figure out what on earth motivates me because all the things that
motivate them don't seem to work. And that is the reason why I say it is a persistence argument,
not a courage argument. You need to be the last one standing. You don't need to be the most powerful.
You need to be the last one standing. And that is in fact what humanity has always proven to be
in the face of every form of evil that's ever shown up on this planet. Humanity ultimately has
a residue, a remnant, a small number sometimes, but it always has a few people who stand against
the forces of darkness. And we are the evidence that every time they are the ones that win.
And we will be that again.
Beautifully said, David. Thank you, Tessa. Great question. Big question.
Next example of persistence here, David, is John Bodwin from Massachusetts.
And then we've got Janet and Glenn, and then we're finishing.
Hello. Nice to meet you and thank you. We talked in Twitter spaces maybe a week ago.
Indeed, John. Good to see you.
Yep. So I like everything you're doing. I mean, my whole goal was always Rico in the end. You said
a couple of things that caused me to raise my hand today. One of them you wrote, you said,
unified approach, then you talked about objectives. So again, it's words, right? You're a stickler for
words and so am I. I believe that the way through this is not a full frontal or even a flanking
strategy, but more of a multi-point. In that regard, alliances are better than unions.
And to have, as long as there are intelligent people, if you coordinate your attacks that
are multi-point, we can have multiple fora, multiple legal theories. And each can share
in the creation of the discovery requests. If we get to discovery, I doubt I'll get to discovery,
to be honest with you, but let's say I do. If I do, I'm going to call you up and call other people
up and say, how can I help you with the discovery that I request? And I think if we all ally in that
regard, we'll be much better. The question I have relates to, well, a couple more things. Number one
is we don't win anything without public opinion in the end. One of my objectives is to ruin
people's trust in government. And therefore I get into the data and I do a lot of Twitter stuff,
spaces, and I try to get people to understand that the government is killing their children.
And when they understand that, then we'll win public opinion. Then we can start winning over
some of these AGs and so forth. So the question is, have you looked at the various avenues of grand
juries at the state and county level? Yes, we have. In fact, we worked for quite a while with
Dr. Ely out in Washington. Oh, I'm in a group with him. I'm on his team. So we've worked with a number
of people who have been trying to impanel similar organizations. And what we have found is that the
traction that we're getting is to have sheriffs and DAs who are at least sympathetic so that the
grand jury has the courage to move forward. And so, John, we're big fans of the grand jury
approach, but we want to make sure that the ecosystem is prepared so that we have the
ability to bring a credible law enforcement response to the outcome. We don't want to have
people spinning their tires on getting to a point where they have achieved a Pyrrhic victory in
identifying the problem, but not having a jurisdiction willing to do anything about it.
And that's the reason why we're doing this in tandem now.
Thank you, David. Thank you, John. Great question. We're tied for time. Janet and then Glenn.
You muted, Janet.
Janet. Sorry. Yeah. Yes. Three quick questions. If SARS-CoV-2 exists and was a released pathogen,
how do you think it was disseminated and transmitted around the world into different
populations in geographically distinct areas that does not, on the face of it, appear to be a
plausible mechanism? Number two, if attorneys general are refusing to prosecute the criminals,
what is the source of the coercion over the attorneys general to prevent them doing their jobs?
Number three, is Snowden a spy? Well, let's start in reverse order. Snowden, yes, he is a spy, and
there's a lot of people who are, and as he has been trained in spycraft and his associations have
been trained in spycraft, there's no question that using a classic definition of involved in
espionage, he is very much involved in espionage. What he also is, is an opportunist who saw an
opportunity to make sure that he ensured his future and thus did what he chose to do, which
is to hold the American citizens and the American government hostage by taking information that would
achieve both objectives, and he pulled it off. So no question. On the second question,
um refresh me, I'm sorry, I just, I just lost it. If attorneys general are refusing to prosecute,
what's the source of the coercion to stop them? Yeah, so that's very simple. In the United States,
the attorney general moniker means almost governor, and metaphorically and actually,
attorneys general are political, not judicial, uh oriented people, and if you look at most state
statutes, most states do not in, in involve the attorney general at the criminal prosecutorial
powers that most people think they have. Most of those actions are essentially, um, think of them
as general counsel to a corporation rather than law enforcement per se, and we need to understand
that attorneys general are less likely to pursue criminal acts than our district attorneys or US
attorneys or others. So AGs are relatively pointless, and because their futures are largely
linked to political aspiration, they are unwilling to do anything that is not popular, therefore,
making the popularity question a, an extremely important thing, and that's the hearts and minds
comment that John made before. We have to get hearts and minds alongside, so it's politically
expedient to do that. Um, and then your first question. Yeah, the first question was, was if
SARS-CoV-2 exists and was released, how was it disseminated and transmitted? Yeah, so if you go
back to 2016 and you look at a very interesting map of the alleged hot spots of where bat caves
allegedly had coronavirus circulating that was likely to escape, you find quite mysteriously the
bat cave origin story started, are you ready with this, in northern Italy, okay, in New York City,
where we see tons of bat caves in Marvel comics, in Seattle, Washington, which is another place
we've seen tons and tons of bat caves everywhere, in Guangzhou, uh, China, in areas around Hong Kong,
and mysteriously every single place that 2016, every single place where in 2016 we were told
there was a high risk of an outbreak of, of, um, uh, coronavirus outbreak because of this
interspecies transfer, every single place happened to coordinate perfectly, according to Columbia
University's Earth Institute, which is the ones who published the map of where coronavirus was
going to happen, exactly every place they said it was going to happen is exactly where every patient
allegedly started. That means that in 2016 we had the distribution roadmap and in all likelihood it
involved water and physical distribution of the pathogen through both aerosolized and non-aerosolized
means and because we know that there was a absolute concordance between the 2016 map of
where the outbreak was going to happen to the actual outbreak that allegedly did happen,
we know that the release, not accidental transmission, was the mode of operation.
And Glenn, you get the last question. So you're saying it sprayed around, someone went around?
I'm saying it was literally, I'm saying that the agent that was causing people illness was
disseminated and distributed and it was probably done through waterborne and airborne vectors.
Thank you, Janet. Glenn, last question and then we're going to go.
Thank you, David. Thank you, David. The world is bowing to the waste of your decency and intelligence
along with Judy Michaelvitz. Eight billion people will one day be grateful to your genius and
generosity and ethics. Just quickly on to Janet's question.
Glenn. Hi. So I appreciate a variety of the things you brought forward, especially some of the
clarity, your use of the laudable and plausible actions and precision of language. My position is
I've been working with a group, a number of people in this group have been part of my team
and I view it that a role that I take on is to try to deliver the complex elements to 85% of the
public, that so much of the data is swarming them and drowning them, that I try to bring things I
think can sit into what I'd call the red pill 101. As part of that, I work directly with
the Satchelarpova and Catherine Watt to bring forward their story and to try to get that
message out and in the public eye. There is a problem with it in that so far we do not yet have
the language, the precision of language where people are picking up on the fact that the
entire vaccine program has not been delivered by Pfizer and FDA, but it has been delivered by
the DOD and the countermeasures segments and Vardar. So far, even with all of us piping up
about this at a routine basis for the last 8 to 12 weeks, still not a single legislator in Congress
is using that phraseology that we can't stop the vaccine because the FDA has no authority to,
that only the DOD and the HHS secretary has that authority and no one is pointing at that
direction or even using the phrase the DOD vaccine or DOD countermeasure in a routine way.
So I was wondering if you have thought through that vocabulary and is there a suggestion you have
that everyone should start using including all of our doctors and all of our legislators in Congress?
Well, yeah. What I have encouraged and Zev Zelenko and I worked very tirelessly to try to get
as many people as possible to use the term bioweapon because we actually were tired of
hearing people debate on whether it was a virus or not or this or that or the other thing. The
fact of the matter is there was an engineered agent that was distributed to people for active
harm and killing. I do not use the word vaccine because it is absolutely not the appropriate term.
I use the term injection and bioweapon. That is a choice that I have made to make sure that I don't
infer that there is even a question around that. Christiana Shackelford with Real Reactions,
if you are not familiar with her work, you ought to be. Formerly part of the intelligence community
and Department of Defense, now one of the most active people in the world in trying to highlight
issues like this. She and I have worked together for years with the Secretary of Defense and others
to try to raise awareness around this. If you go to realreactions.org, you can find out an enormous
amount of the work that she and I have been doing over the last considerable amount of time. She
hosted a Twitter space with me just two nights ago that was extremely well attended. We have a
number of people who are working on that and I would highly recommend that if you are interested,
Christiana Shackelford is in my mind the point of the spear on addressing the fact that this is a
Department of Defense issue that needs to be addressed as such. I would encourage you
to put her on your radar screen if you do not already have her.
Okay, and one other question and that is relating to Whitney Webb who has spotlighted many of the
things you have described today and part of her theme is it is not clear we can actually win
against them. Until we do, we need to be going into protective mode and one way to do that is to go
local and to go offline. I was wondering if you would endorse that theme for the vast majority of
the public to at least get them working towards something that they can be protective and at
least shielded somewhat from the attacks in the storm. Glenn, I can only answer for myself.
I think that I am doing exactly what I was here to do and I think it involves being in the middle
of the storm. I suspect that somewhere on some part of my anatomy is the use by date
and when that expiration comes, it will be old milk, it will smell bad and they will pour it out.
And between now and then, I am pretty sure that I am doing exactly what I am doing and I think
that we need to be focused on the fact that humanity is the sum of us, not the constituent
individuals of us. That means that we need to be in the fray, we need to be working together and
as many of us as possible need to actually take positions on the line because if we don't,
I think the moment we see ground to any of this campaign of terror and that includes isolation
and that includes retrenchment, then I think that the other side is one and we have lost.
I am about staying in the fight and that does not mean anybody else needs to,
but I know that the only way I get off this field is carried out on a shield.
That is the only way I get off this field. One last question on the time table.
Transhumanism, is that a worry? Not in the least. Transhumanism,
we haven't figured out what it means to be human. There is a long way between figuring out what it
means to be human and getting to trans anything. We do not have a worry as long as we are not
addicted to the enslavement of the digital world that is being served up. We will not be slaves
to something that we don't put our own shackles on and the easiest way to deal with transhumanism
is to say no. That's it. Good. Thank you, Glenn. So final,
final, Stephen, no series of questions. Please thank David, I do, but Stephen always is the
last word, David. All right, Stephen, last word.
So on the transhumanism, David, you say that we shouldn't go with that, well, we don't,
but what about the people who are going along with that and don't realize what is going on?
So how do we get them to say no? That's the problem.
Yeah, well, here's the thing. I learned a very long time ago, I had the great opportunity to
deal with a person who was in my life for a couple of decades who dealt with depression.
And I made the mistake as a young person thinking that I was the solution to their problem.
And somehow, if I just put enough time and energy and love and compassion into that,
that somehow or another just the osmosis of being around my goodness was going to solve their
problem. Yeah.
And guess what? It didn't.
It didn't. My job is very clear. And I think our job collectively is very clear. Our job is to make
sure that ignorance arbitrage does not harm anyone. And that means very specifically,
our job is to communicate as effectively and as broadly as possible. But I have long ago given up
on the idea of convincing people because the fact is that facts have never in the history of
humanity, it's ever overcome belief. And this is not going to be the first time that happens.
This is a world in which perspective is defined. And this goes to Daniel's comment that I'll close
on. Perspective, the observer and the observed operate as a trinity. And they form the chord
on which the notion of perception will even occur. Forget facts, even perception.
And until we have a coherent view of the observed, the observer, and the context,
we cannot achieve anything other than the noise of spewing information into the wind.
And our job is to actually try to diversify our context, to diversify the observations,
and to diversify the observed so that as many people as possible can achieve the opportunity
to have access to information. But at the end of the day, the determination of accepting that
information is purely based on the context of the observer. And it is not something that can be
forced on anyone for any reason. No, but we can influence maybe. So for example, if we can
convince the populations around the world that there was no pandemic, in my view, there was no
disease called COVID-19, no new disease, and it's likely that there was no virus in the sense that
you can isolate it. As you said, it's a computer model. So the whole thing was a fraud, in my view.
People do understand fraud. So they think there's been a pandemic. One of the questions that's said
is, there's been a pandemic, or use the word pandemic. So do we just do nothing to, how should
I say, to convince people there's been a fraud? So if we say there's no pandemic, do you understand
what I mean? Is it totally useless trying to educate people? Well, no. I mean, like I said,
ignorance arbitrage has been the currency of power systems for a very long time. The selective use
of language, the selective use of information, the selective use of all sorts of things has been
extremely, extremely important. But for example, in the last couple of questions, the question of
transhumanism is a wonderful example. We're using a term around which there is zero, and I mean zero
concordance about what it actually means. Is it AI? Is it synthetic? Is it what? What is it? And the
fact of the matter is everybody using the term pretends to be talking about the same language,
and nobody agrees on the common framework under which that term is being used. So the reason why
I don't engage it is not because I'm indifferent towards it. I don't engage it because I don't
fear something that is an illusion. The illusion that we modified plants with, are you ready for
this? GMO plants, if we go back to 1904 and we look at Japanese documents, we know that we were
informed that by using Bacillus thuringiensis, we were going to destroy the GI systems of any person
exposed to BT toxin. That was in 1904 in Japanese literature. The reason why that was never introduced
when we were talking about BT crops in the 60s and 70s is because Americans decided not to read
Japanese. That's it. So the reason why we have now 40 years of gastrointestinal crisis in this country
is because we decided that Japanese as a language was not readable, and therefore we decided not to
take into account documents in 1904 that said if you put BT toxin into any system, what you're going
to wind up is destroying the GI system. Now what's my point? My point is that we don't even do a good
job using the same language. God forbid if we have multiple languages. Exactly. And so the point here
is this. If people want to get dogmatic about their particular terminology or whatever else,
that's perfectly fine. I will tell you the reason I use the language I use and whether it's
appreciated or not is irrelevant to me. I use the language I use because I am pursuing legal action
where statutory definitions matter. And if I'm going to use a statutory definition
and I'm going to have a public comment, they are going to match. And whether somebody likes it or not
is absolutely immaterial to me because what I know is that across the last four years I have not had
to recite or rescind a single statement I have made because I have paid the attention to the fact
and a simple fact. You have so that I'm going to continue to focus on the crime at hand.
Unmute Stephen. We've got to go. Last question. Last please thank David. We haven't got time to
keep going on this. Stephen, unmute yourself. Hey everybody. It's lovely to catch up with you
and I look forward to many, many interactions in the future. David, you cause a brilliant command
of the English language and that's why you're so successful in what you've done tonight and what
you have been doing. You have a wonderful command of the English language and I really like the
English language and you also have amazing clarity of thought and you're incredibly articulate.
So thank you Stephen. Thank you David everybody. Thank you. Good night. Take care. Good afternoon.
Good evening. Thank you so much David. Bye. Please keep in touch.
Thank you so much David. Bye. Please keep in touch.
Thanks everybody. I'll give you one minute to put last messages in. I'll send this chat through to
David. If you want to say nice things to him, any resources you want to put in him. One minute
you've got to put it in the chat. Remember any names you want to add to the invite list,
put them in the chat as well. Chuck and Frosty. I love it. Sammy DeBay.
Stephen the Frost. The man who's frostbitten in Wales.
David Martin.