All language subtitles for EXCLUSIVE_DAVID_MARTIN_CHALLENGES_FACT_CHECKERS (transcribed on 16-Jan-2024 13-40-32)

If you're watching the high wire and you have not seen the documentary,

Plandemic in Dr. Nation, then you're probably one of the only three people that

watched this show that have not. Last week I had the honor of interviewing the

director of Plandemic Mickey Willis, an amazing job on this documentary that is

asking really, really powerful questions of what is really going on here. At the

center of this documentary is really one figure. David Martin is at the center of

this documentary making some incredible claims. This is some of what was

discussed in Plandemic. We maintained a series of inquiries into every

individual, every organization, and every company that is involved in anything

that either blurs the line of biological and chemical weapons or crosses that

line in any of 168 countries. In 1999 there were a million patents

digitized by IBM and those million patents were the first time human

innovation had been put into an electronic digital searchable format. We took

that information and we did a very simple exercise using our linguistic

genomics technology. We made the horrific assessment that approximately one

third of all patents filed in the United States were functional forgeries

meaning that while they had linguistic variations they actually covered the

same subject matter. In 1999 patents on coronavirus started showing up and

thus began the rabbit trail. In 2003 the Center for Disease Control saw

the possibility of a gold strike and that was the coronavirus outbreak that

happened in Asia. They saw that a virus they knew could be easily manipulated

was something that was very valuable and in 2003 they sought to patent it and

they made sure that they controlled the proprietary rights to the disease, to

the virus, and to its detection, and all of the measurement of it. We know that

Anthony Fauci, that Ralph Barrett, that the Center for Disease Control and the

laundry list of people who wanted to take credit for inventing coronavirus were

at the hub of this story. From 2003 to 2018 they controlled 100% of the cash

flow that built the empire around the industrial complex of coronavirus. On

April the 25th 2003 the US Center for Disease Control filed a patent on the

coronavirus transmitted to humans under 35 US code section 101. Nature is

prohibited from being patented either SARS coronavirus was manufactured

therefore making a patent on it legal or it was natural.

Therefore making a patent on it illegal. If it was manufactured it was a violation

of biological and chemical weapons treaties and laws. If it was natural

filing a patent on it was illegal then either outcome both are illegal. Well it is

my honor and pleasure to bring on David Martin for this discussion. David

thank you for taking the time today. Del, it's an honor to join you. All right I

want to say something right up front because just simply by playing those clips

by even saying the word pandemic odds are the disentire interview will be taken

off of Facebook immediately. It may even shut down the channel permanently.

We're always at risk of that right now. So I want to say to my viewers out there

if you have not taken the opportunity please go to the highwire.com and sign up

with our mailing list because we are not going to shy away from these

discussions simply because we're being threatened by social media platforms.

Go to the highwire.com and sign up to our email list so that we you can always

find us. Now I want to say this too David just because I bring people onto the

show and I discuss documentaries does not mean that I believe everything hook

line and sinker. These are important discussions and they have to be thorough

and I think that you've done a brilliant job of laying things out here but for

those fact checkers that are watching right now I want to point out that

David Martin should be on MSNBC and Fox and every major network right now

being asked the questions that he's being attacked about from this film. It's

unfortunate that the highwire is one of the few places that this can happen but

we're going to have a thorough discussion. I just want to say to my audience that

what we're going to discuss now are theories put forward by David Martin just

because I'm interviewing him does not mean that I support these statements. I want

to be clear on what the highwire is because we have so many new viewers. We are

a part of an ongoing investigation into one of the most confusing moments in

science and world history. There are those that say that this virus is manmade

others that swear it's natural. I personally am still on the fence and I have

brought on scientists from both sides of this conversation and as I've told you

before I do very little work pre-interviewing my guests and figure out what I

want them to say. I want a natural conversation I want to ask the questions and

I want to allow the people that come on this show to thoroughly share their

perspective and where they're coming from. I want to make that clear that what

you're about to see and I know the scene is ridiculous to a lot of you why is

you doing this because I'm tired of being censored. I'm tired of being taken

down for doing what I was allowed to do when I worked on CBS if I was allowed

to tell the story. Farma our sponsors let us do the story. We were allowed to

talk about it. We live in a time now where we are not allowed to ask people

conversations. I want to remind you I believe it was Barbara Walters that you

know sat down with Khomeini or you know and other leaders like Khaddafi. That

does not mean that the reporter supported Khaddafi or regimes like his

Saddam Hussein. We interview because we're curious and I del-Baitry and a

curious citizen in the United States of America where free speech is supposed

to rain supreme. So with one of the longest and most boring caveats in world

history let me start out this conversation with you David Martin first

of all. When I watched this film it blew my mind and the statements

especially when you talked about the legalities around whether it's natural

a natural virus that's been patented or you know a bio weapon either way it

could be legal. We're going to get into those discussions first but what I did

not get from the documentary is who are you? Where do you come from? What is it?

You know when I watch television I have seen you as a financial analyst of

some kind on CNBC you talk about you know investments and finances and

hedge funds. Can you explain to me what the heck a financial advisor or you

know specialist on Wall Street how do you now find yourself in the middle of a

discussion of the origin of a virus that is the heart of one of the

strangest moments in world history. What is your specialty that puts you

here? So Dell it's it's actually funny and you have to go back actually quite a

long way and I know everybody thinks this is a new thing it isn't this has been

around for a long time and I've been involved with it for a long time in fact a

long time for me goes back to 1991. In 1991 I was somewhat discovered at the

time as a graduate student at Ball State University as having a very unique

capability of speaking science to the capital markets. Back in 1991 what that

meant was that we were working on the very first clinical trials at the time

for measuring cholesterol using reflectance photometry. Most people will

forget that cholesterol wasn't really a thing until the Framingham Heart Study

got published and in 1990 and 1991 suddenly everybody wanted to get tested

sound familiar. We didn't know it was a thing then it had to be a thing and in a

very unusual set of developments I happened to be someone who both had the

physiology training as well as the ability to speak about the commercial

consequence of the measurement of cholesterol at that time into the capital

markets and so I was kind of one of those anomalies that actually could speak

science on one hand and balance sheets and excel on the other hand and that

gave rise in 1992 to the first formation of a medical device clinical trials

organization at the University of Virginia which is where I went from my PhD and

ultimately joined the faculty of the medical school at the University of

Virginia but we set up the first clinical trials for profit clinical trial

center on medical devices for the FDA and we went on for a decade running

clinical trials and everything from MRI technologies to large scale

treatments of pain therapies all sorts of modalities that had to do with chronic

both orthopedic and and rheumatoid conditions we had an enormous amount of work

in the first combined drug device submissions in the history of the FDA which

was using inert gases to measure the effects of contrast enhancement for MRI

across the blood brain barrier so I was the pioneer of medical device clinical

trials for the FDA for a decade in fact we were that at that time working

directly with CDRH at the FDA we were working on breast cancer technologies

from Russia we were working on I-128 iodine and gadolinium and other forms of

diagnostic agents that were both drugs and devices so I spent a decade

doing clinical trials and running those at the University of Virginia through

a company at the time called the I-D-A-MED we did we did some of the largest

clinical trials on medical devices in US history and so that decade concluded

in 1998 when the United States government and the specifically the small

business administration realized that there was a fundamental problem in the

banking world which was people were not able to understand how intellectual

property and intangible assets supported commercial credit and my company M-CAM

was set up as the world's first and still to this day the only entity that

has the ability to provide regulatory capital relief for banks using intangible

assets patents copyrights trademarks things that are actually intangible assets

as regulatory acceptable collateral in the markets which gave rise to an

entire business that we're very well known for speaking about innovation and the

role of innovation in the capital markets and for those who are not familiar

it's worth noting that our systems are what officially measures the leading

economic indicators for the US and the global economy the innovation alpha indexes

published by the conference board so our company is the official measure of both

US and international innovation economies and we've been that since the

2015 creation of the CNBC IQ 100 index so I bring that out we are one of the

really quick hold on one second David we found that how we create the CNBC IQ

100 index of innovation leaders today CNBC and bail is the CNBC IQ 100 index

a first of its kind rules based index of large cap companies that derive

substantial revenue growth through the use of protective proprietary technology

is powered by M. Cam International a firm that maintains an unprecedented

archive of documents related to patents trademarks copyrights and other

intangible assets from 160 countries now I'm not a big finance guy but from a

layman's perspective it might understand that while a lot of people

analyze the you know the liquid assets the financial background of a company

valuing it there that your specialty is looking at the types of proprietary

things that they own patents they they own and giving some sort of want a

viable understanding of what the value of those things are that's right and we

are the only ones in regulated capital markets across the entirety of the

world to actually underwrite them and tell what's important for your audience

to understand is that underwriting starts with a fundamental question which is

do you actually own what you say you own that sounds like a simple question but

when it comes to a thing like a patent or a copyright or anything else it is

more nuanced than you might think and that is because in the pursuit of patents

in the pursuit of copyrights it is very frequently the case that you will find

that companies or agencies or individuals misrepresent or seek to

influence the law in ways that are actually not legal which is how we get in a

very direct way oddly enough into this conversation it reminds me of you

know I work a lot with Robert Kennedy Jr. on the discussion of vaccines and

people will say he's not a doctor you know he has no business here but what he'll

say is that I'm environmental attorney I spent my life defending or fighting

against chemicals and properties I read journals and medical journals and can

read a medical study as a profession it's a part of the profession that I have

so when somebody when people start to hand me medical references and journals

discussing mercury in vaccines and things like that it wasn't like I didn't

understand that I have been fighting and very you know very good you know

reading those those technical journals in this case though it revolves around

financing people try to write off he's just a finance guy you read patents as

as probably the larger part of what you do which is the central part of what

the pandemic discussion is right what is well-hidden where did they come from

go ahead yeah well and it's important for people to realize that as a member of

the medical school faculty at the University of Virginia right so this is not you

know medicine is my training it is my background and I spent many years on the

faculty so when I talk about clinical trials I'm not talking about them in an

abstract sense I did submissions to the FDA I worked on the CDRH panels so

these are things that are professionally part of my life and I have a very

long and published legacy in doing it so this is not an avocation for me but

when it comes to understanding intellectual property and when it comes to the

forensics around intellectual property we add one more credential in the

early 2000s the United States Treasury deputized me individually and contracted

with my corporation to lead criminal and civil penalty inquiries into what at

the time was one of the largest tax frauds in US history which was a scam

perpetrated on the United States Treasury by corporations who willfully

misrepresented their intellectual property positions so we've been both

involved in civil and criminal proceedings with respect to that and as is the

case now it was very very popular for agents of those companies to seek to

disqualify me at the time as just a medical guy so the funny thing is you know

when I was taking down bad guys I was just a medical guy and when I'm now

taking down bad medical people I'm just a finance guy so I think somewhere in

the middle I think I've landed probably in the middle of the fairway so then I was

good my next question is gonna be you know that you are used to some adversity

pandemic is arguably you know one of the most controversial films in the world

right now it's getting censored you're under attack by most multiple publications

have how many new let me just ask you right now how many news organizations have

had you on the show whether it's NBC ABC I mean these are networks that might have

had you as an analyst before has anyone really asked to have you come on and

defend or discuss the issues around pandemic no we have been only corresponded

with specifically by the New York Times when we filed the office of

Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services complaint in

April we started showing the evidence that we were providing in that

particular proceeding we showed that evidence to the New York Times and we

have had not only email correspondence but one very extensive phone conversation

about this and the article has yet to appear the only other media outlet that

has come out is that we did receive from a USA Today Fact Checker fellow we

received an email after a pandemic came out in that email we responded to a

series of information disclosures that they had and then they published the

Fact Checked Outdoor Smear campaign without making reference to a single

thing that we had actually sent them so that those are the only those are the

only two mainstream media inquiries we've had and it's important to put that in

contrast to the fact that when we took on the patent case with respect to the

Epipen scandal several years ago my op-eds were the subject of CNBC

publications I was on camera I was on air and that was the exact same type of

forensic investigation we're doing now but obviously the political overtones

were very different and and we were successfully able to lead a very dynamic

assault on the Epipen price gouging exercise and as you know that that

ultimately wound up in favor of families who desperately need to keep their kids

alive after allergens so let's let's get in I think that you know one of the

things I want to do here is give you an opportunity that you're not getting

anywhere else to to answer to these fact checkers now I thought the pandemic

did a great job already discussing fact checking where it comes from so

many of these organizations don't even have a doctor or a patent specialist

they make phone calls and experts says well this is what's going on and they

take the experts word for it you're an expert your expert opinion doesn't matter

so clearly fact checkers are just opinion checkers and if it doesn't match

their opinion then they write you up it's a really crazy world we live in

here it's leading to book burning censorship but let's go through some of these

fact checks shall we just to sort of I want to hear what you have to say

about it because they raised some interesting questions this is the fact

check dot org new planned-day video pedals misinformation martin runs a

company called m cam which analyzes patents and intellectual property to

estimate the investment investment value of companies the planned-day

video shows footage from event to a one with references to travel restrictions

and misinformation for example next to footage taken during the actual

pandemic about those same subjects for honor viruses are a family of

viruses and experts who have known to the pandemic threat posed by coronavirus

for years so it's not surprising to those who study such outbreaks that a

preparedness exercise would have sent centered on a coronavirus martin claims

that the centers for disease control prevention saw the possibility of a

gold strike when the stars epidemic arose in 2003 skimming across the screen

while martin makes that claim is a headline for November 2003 news story about

the race to patent the virus however that story doesn't support his

argument it actually explains that the CDC wasn't pursuing the patent for

profit rather it was doing so to keep others from monopolizing research

similarly the director of the CDC the time doctor Julie Gerbering told reporters

that filing for the patent was a protective measure to make sure that the

access to the virus remains open for everyone okay so they are saying that

your claim that they were trying to own or make money off of it we are

hearing a lot about NIH patents involved in this vaccine that are going to

make scientists you know millions and millions of dollars you know that's not

the part you're not talking about NIH but what do you have to say to this idea

that the CDC first of all didn't patent it to control it patent it to free it up

yeah that's a beautiful piece of absolute

crack shit sorry but that's the bottom line let's let's let's review a tiny

piece of patent law first there's a thing called section 102 of the 35 US

code which is a law that basically says that you can't patent something that has

been published in an enabling disclosure in the public domain now in 2003 April

25 2003 when the CDC filed its patent application it could have done

something else if it wanted to keep it from ever being patented or commercially

exploited it could have simply printed the SARS coronavirus genome by doing so

it would have placed it in the public domain making any patent on it ever in

the history of humanity illegal patents are not to defend the release of

information patents are for commercial exploitation which means that if you

file a patent what you're saying is that for the next 20 years you want to

control the commercialization and the commercial consequence of your

innovation so let's on its face state that if the CDC filed a patent to release

something into the public domain that would be a misapplication of the patent

law and it would be a waste of taxpayer money at the minimum but here comes the

bigger problem the bigger problem is what they said in the article you just

quoted is a lie and it's a lie because on September the 7th 2005 the United

States Patent Office agreed with me they said you're not entitled to a patent

on this because the information you're seeking to patent is in the public

domain therefore no one can get a patent on it it's called a section 102

rejection the CDC wasn't happy with that and so they submitted a series of

filings and in May 2006 the patent office wasn't convinced and the patent

office issued a final rejection that's a little bit of a straight let me

get this straight because I just wanted before we get too deep CDC then if I'm

not understanding the CDC is saying we filed a patent so that some company couldn't

grab a patent and keep anybody else from getting near it right we wanted to

make sure that all the great scientists in the world would always have access

therefore that's why we filed a patent and what you're saying is the patent got

rejected because the patent office said this is already protected space you are not

allowed a patent just like nobody is because these remain available to the

public because it's part of the public domain so they clearly went out of their

way to get it out of the public domain and make it their own well and and let's

be clear I'm not saying this this is their documents and this is where your

disclaimer falls apart deal because I haven't stipulated an opinion once I'm

reciting from their own legal filings at the United States patent office that I

happen to have copies of you you can't make up an opinion on the fact that on

September the 7th 2005 the CDC was told you submitted something that has

99.9% homology to what is in the public domain therefore you don't get a

patent and they protested and they came back and said no no no no no no we are

entitled to the patent that we you just told us we're not entitled to and even

after they said that the patent office was unconvinced and on May the 5th

2006 the patent office came back and said you're still wrong people you are not

entitled to this patent and the CDC again not only came back and appealed that

decision but they filed an appeal to overrule the decision of the patent

examiner who would not relent on this point by the way the patent

examiner did her job she did not relent but they went over her head and they

ultimately got a patent granted on the genome and this is important for

everybody to listen to for the genome called SARS coronavirus which is the

subclade of the beta coronavirus that we're talking about today and everybody

who wants to jump through hoops about well this is a different SARS this is a

different coronavirus this is a different fill in the blank the problem with

their argument is for it to be SARS coronavirus which is kind of the front end

of SARS-CoV-2 for it to be SARS coronavirus it has to have a high homology to the

existing and patented version of coronavirus so that everything about what the

CDC said in their public statement is falsifiable on their own evidence it's

falsifiable in patent law itself they are not allowed to actually file a patent

on something that's already in the public domain and as I stated in the film

and as I reach routinely state it's also a violation of section 101 which is a

bigger problem because section 101 of 35 US code says that patents on nature

are not legal all right so I want to let me let's go right there before we jump

in I want to this is because I would say when I was watching the whole thing you

know I'm watching the documentary making sure I'm ready to talk to Mickey Willis

this line jumped out of me to me it was the biggest statement in the entire

film we've already played it in the larger package but I want to bring

attention to this take a look at this under 35 US code section 101 nature is

prohibited from being patented either SARS coronavirus was manufactured

therefore making a patent on it legal or it was natural therefore making a

patent on it illegal if it was manufactured it was a violation of biological

and chemical weapons treaties and laws if it was natural filing a patent on it

was illegal then either outcome both are illegal okay so there's huge issue

being taken with this this is what the fact checker article had to say about it

that next Martin claims that federal law wouldn't have allowed for a patent on

that isolated virus again he's wrong instead of reading from the US patent

laws he says he is in the video martin reads from a 2013 US Supreme Court

decision that's an important distinction since the decision which changed one

aspect of patent law that's relevant here came ten years after the CDC filed

for a patent related to the virus that causes SARS while the Supreme

Court did find that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature

and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated that decision came

a decade after the CDC sought the patent so it sounds like the fact checkers

are saying here that you are right you can't patent something that's natural

but you are making a statement as though that has always been the case but this

was a new finding that this patent was legal at the time it was patented because

the Supreme Court had not ruled that that nature is unpatentable that didn't

happen to what is a 2013 what is your response to this well that's actually one

of the most easy layups that is putting it right in front of the green because

what it shows you is the fact checkers are not familiar with the division of

powers in the United States the Supreme Court does not make the law 35 US

code section 101 was written long before the marriage in edict's case and 35

US code section 101 predates the CDC filing nature cannot be patented

period now the fact that people sought and ultimately obtained patents on

nature is in fact a fact that has been going on ever since the United States

patent office changed its business model to issue patents and then have them

contested after the fact it's a good business model when you get to print

forgeries and collect revenue for those but the Supreme Court in their own

decision which is what the fact checkers should have bothered reading which we

know they didn't the Supreme Court bothers to point out that they have long

held that there is no way to patent nature I have a right here let me let me

read it we have long held that this provision contains an important implicit

exception laws of nature nature natural phenomenon and abstract ideas are

not edible there you have a long held seems pretty clear it's not saying we

are and so listen I mean you've seen this Dell you've seen this with the way

people misquote the Jacobson case in vaccinations right people sit there

saying well the Jacobson case clearly showed that the Supreme Court says you

can mandate compulsory vaccination nothing could be further from the truth the

Jacobson case was about a five dollar fine not compulsory vaccination and that

Jacobson case turned on the fact that he didn't want to pay the fine or get

the vaccination basically what the Supreme Court said was if you're not going to

get the vaccination you can be charged for five dollar fine as I pointed out

that Alan Dersowitz right right Alan Dersowitz says people don't I can

forcefully eject you I said no it does it means you can charge me fine hold

me down kidding me down and piercing my body and injecting a toxic chemical

to me beyond you know outside of my will has never been upheld in a court so

no assault and battery assault and battery is not a police state power you're not

allowed to do it so right so but but here again we have a situation where the

fact checkers almost get it right except their hung on their own little news

here and here let me tell you what's wrong with their argument okay let's give

them the benefit of the doubt let's say for the sake of argument I've got it

wrong and the CDC was justified in patting nature even though it's against the

law and in 35 section one one let's say they're right here's the tiny problem

their patent came up for renewal which is something every patent does and it came

up for renewal in 2015 which I think fact checkers would be willing to submit is

two years after the Supreme Court declared these patents illegal and the CDC

repaid the maintenance fee to keep the patent so even after it was declared illegal

they re up to the patent every single fact that is laid out in their public

their legal record shows that they are lying and willfully in 2015 willfully

breaking the law because if it was a question before 2013 and even if we

grant it was which it wasn't because the Supreme Court said we've long held

that these are not legal but even if I'm wrong about that opinion they still

broke the law in 2015 there's no way and that's why I love the fact checkers

because they actually teed it up right basically well he might have got it wrong

well okay I think that we would be at least I'm willing to say that to me the

Supreme Court saying we have long held means this goes back in time but you're

right even if it didn't mean that 2015 comes after that that decision now

what about the next part after that Martin takes his claim one step further

saying if it was manufactured it was a violation of biological and chemical

weapons treaties and laws if it was natural filing a patent on it was illegal

in either outcome both are illegal that's the video clip that we showed that's

not right either said already array a professor at Duke University School of

Law in a phone interview with fact check dot org lots of things have been patent

over the years there would be illegal to use said right she gave the example

of devices for taking illegal drugs explaining that having a patent on something

doesn't give you the right to use it I guess she's referring to some sort of

pot pipe or something like that is the same as a biological weapon it's a right

there I've been it sounds like apples and oranges but let me do a better job

for them because I think that this is this may be more of a sticking point for

me you know you are saying that patenting a SARS coronavirus is illegal either

way if it was natural you don't allow to do it but if it's a potential

biological weapon but I would say this I focus on vaccines all the time MMR

vaccines you know the MMR like it's the mump strain of the the vaccine that

murch owns that allows in the patent they attached measles and rubella to make

a vaccine so that they can claim the market but they own the patent to the

mump strain of the virus vaccines are made because these companies own

patents to what appears to me to be natural elements that could you could I

mean you could argue they're using it to make a biological weapon because

mumps could be it be a very weak biological weapon but you get the idea

whether it's chickenpox or measles or any of these things these companies have

been patting these things for a long time how do you decipher I mean that I think

the CDC could easily say it wasn't for a bio-weapon is for future vaccine that

the world is going to need so you're making a claim and it seems to me you're

missing a middle point what if it's not a biological weapon is not you know

it's not nature maybe they've adjusted it just enough to get through the

patent office but they're going to try and make a vaccine in case we're

attacked by a biological weapon shouldn't the CDC be allowed to do that no see

that's the problem if it was a therapy or if it was a detection or if it was

something that was actually for the laudable reasons you just laid out then one

can very easily make the argument that detecting rice and or detecting

anthrax or detecting Ebola or Zika or fill in the blank pathogen

detecting any of those things is actually a very laudable thing to do it's

actually in the public interest here's the problem the problem is that beginning

in 2005 all of the parties that we talk about and by all the parties I specifically

mean the National Institutes of Health DARPA the the University of North

Carolina Chapel Hill and others specifically began looking at how the

coronavirus is could be combined to increase their pathogenicity that's where

the line crosses okay you are not allowed under biological and chemical

weapons treaties and conventions you are not allowed to take an active agent

of nature and willfully increase its pathogenicity that is the reason why we

got into things like the Nuremberg trials the ultimate Nuremberg code and

the biological chemical weapons treaties that followed it is not a matter of

legal action to engage in the increased pathogenicity of any pathogen for any

reason and it's really important that we get this distinction del because the

problem is that in 2005 we knew in published documents that DARPA saw both

offensive and defensive capabilities of using coronavirus as a pathogen of

war this was not some sort of what if we get attacked this was actually a

recognition that this thing could be chemically altered to achieve strategic

battlefield and warfare implement implemented benefits now once again CDC is

not entitled to play around with the chimeric and recombinant alteration of a

pathogen to make it more lethal that's not ever authorized it never will be

authorized and it is actually the violation I speak up part of the reason why

the Supreme Court and part of the reason why 35 US code section 101 is so

explicit on saying that the technology of nature is a technology yes that can

be understood and exploited but it must be used as nature not patented and if you

patent that nature and then you seek to commercially exploit it and the way you

go about exploiting it is by starting to recombine and chimerically alter a

pathogen that's where you cross the biological and chemical weapons gray line

into a bright line violation I think that that makes sense to me and it's

something that you know I feel like there's this place in humanity especially

the United States of America where we think we have really you know we're

sort of above the rest we mean well for the world and you know we do what's

right to try and protect the world but I feel like deep down this really we

shouldn't really be having to have this argument because I bet you if I stop

everyone on the street and say do you think that our government secretly uses

viruses and works towards developing potential future weapons do you think

that they do that even if I said you know they mean I know I could stop so

say you know that it's illegal to make a virus into a weapon right to say oh

yeah even though you know that they just heard it for the first time but if you

ask them do you think the government does it anyway as a way to potentially

protect us in the future I think that most people would say of course they do

I mean that's what we do right we know every country has spies we know that they

break rules they break laws and that's just what we do we look the other way

but when it comes to these issues I think where you know it starts to get

really dicey is we were used to all the discussions about nuclear weapons

right we look at Iran we got to get into your facilities we got to see what

you're doing there because nuclear energy I mean it's really similar right

nuclear energy okay nuclear bombs not okay studying a natural virus in case

it ever you know breaks out across the country make a vaccine okay making that

virus or taking that energy to do some harm not okay right well in in 2013

let's remember that the National Institutes of Health came to this

conclusion this is not Dave Martin's conclusion right the National Institutes of

Health came to the conclusion that what was being done on gain a function and

the Camarital Terration of Coronavirus was crossing possibly both legal and ethical

lines this is not me oh pining on it this is the National Institutes of Health

the check writers themselves who themselves said that they felt that they had

probably blurred across lines so don't you know this is not Dave spinning the

story this is this is real policy makers who came to the conclusion that this

shouldn't be done and came to their own recommendation of shutting down the

programs on their own so I am reciting facts I'm not making them okay so let's

get to then I appreciate I think those were all you know barely clear defenses

they make sense to me someone else can try and take that deeper but I for one

is a reporter I think you've done a good job of making that clear clearly the

Supreme Court rule that we've always said that you can't patent nature and you

make sense in since they're already admitting maybe we should stop doing this

that there was a problem but here's my issue I mean I'm still I'm still going to

say planned them it was powerful I'm not sure does the film definitively set out

to say this is a man-made virus that was a release upon the world I'm still on

defense I think that what you are presenting what planned them and other

scientists I'm hearing more and more and I'm interested in this in this

conversation but a lot of it's circumstantial a lot of it is still circumstantial

evidence so let me just ask you for your opinion do you believe that this is a

man-made virus and do you feel like you have enough proof to make that statement

I think that if you look at the transition of funding in 1999 from the

ten years of research where coronavirus was focused on cardiomyopathy and

rabbits and then recombinant research on coronavirus started looking at the

amplification of the S1 spike protein the open reading frame around the

receptor binding domain and the ACE2 receptor as a target of amplification I

think it is reasonable to say that the human species and by the way I'm now

quoting from patents filed by these individuals so these individuals include

Ralph Barrick the CDC and Moderna I think it's important to realize that these

individuals made a point of saying that coronavirus has historically not been a

pathogen of major concern and then beginning in 1999 and between 1999

2003 we see the amplification and modification of two strands of coronavirus

and suddenly in 2002 going into 2003 we have the first SARS coronavirus

outbreak now we've got a linear problem with the way we tell stories Carl

Popper was famous for talking about the error of historicism and one of his

arguments is that we have a very linear view of things we think that things

start and then they tree and they kind of branch out from a single root what

we don't contemplate is the possibility that people who were doing research on

the combination of coronaviruses and bat populations who themselves were going

into bat populations and exchanging information biologically with bat

populations we don't have a postulation even at this point in time that

suggests that bats could have been cross contaminated with what humans were

doing we have this theory and the way the theory goes is that coronavirus was

highly mutagenic it does all kinds of adaptations and suddenly in 2002

slash 2003 somehow some bat populations got next to humans and we had the

first outbreak of SARS the inconvenience of that story happens to be the

fact that for three years we were actually focused on the things that

ultimately nature seemed to mutate I'm very careful about trying to ascribe

blame or credit to whether this was a human derived or a genetic derived or

some sort of in between but I do think that it is tragically ironic that if you

look at the bat SARS-CoV populations around the world which predominantly

according to Columbia University find themselves in the Seattle area in the

New York area in northern Italy in parts of Iran and in several parts of

central China I do think it's interesting that all of the outbreaks have

occurred where genetic transmission studies have been taking place where

researchers are going into bat caves and bats are coming out of bat caves now

that doesn't make it causal I'm not stating at all that it is a unidirectional

thing but I'm also not stating that when you have human animal interactions our

illusion that things can only go one way clouds are thinking we have an ability

and we've seen this by the way in the craziness we do when we mess with

mutations in nature we have an ability to amplify mutations that nature then

goes on and amplifies more so can you blame a bat can you blame a person I'm

actually not sure that's a constructive question even because at the end of

the day what we know is that to your earlier point in this show when humans

start messing with nature we often don't think of the consequences and so is

it the case that researchers interacting with bats may have cross-contaminated

bats well that's plausible I'm not saying it is or isn't the case but I do find

it alarming that when we went to identify the unique attributes of SARS-CoV-2

and if you look at the ICTV publication which is the World Health

Organizations International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses and you

look at how they made the distinction of what type of coronavirus subclade this

bat this RCOV-2 was they specifically harvested unique populations of known

bat colonies and decided that the homology was based on known bat colonies so

this was not a mysterious bat cave that somebody stumbled across this is a

bat cave it was pretty highly trafficked in the past and the samples that were

collected happened to match the ones that allegedly came out of Wuhan China in

December of 2019 and samples we have all of that were going and being taken

to laboratories right they're using them we know that that was going on and we

know it was going on through federally funded research for many many years

and that's the reason why I'm so cautious about this Dell because it's

important for us to recognize that we've got to break this notion that nature

just happens immune from our effect on nature right the fact is that we may

contribute to natural you know mutations we may contribute to nature changing

its own course and that's why I think that the question of the providence of

the mutation is somewhat secondary to the fact that to your earlier point we

mess with nature at our great peril because we don't think about the collateral

consequences of our actions very often and after the fact we then try to back

ourselves into a story to make it look like we were the victims and nature was

somehow the perpetrator I think that's all really clearly putting you right

I mean I think that it bothers me bothers me when we have nuclear weapons

facilities that still develop weapons it bothers me when we know that we're

developing biological weapons and we excuse it by saying well we're trying to

protect ourselves all of this is just waiting for a mistake to happen at some

moment you know whether or not this escape from a lab what we know is there have

been escapes from labs these things are going on you know I think Judy

Mike of it points to cross contamination that we've witnessed in multiple

products you know as those sitting in a lab that these labs are all work on

different experiments but they're cross contaminating each other I want to

thank you for taking the time we could go on for hours and hours this is what

we do on the high wire though it's not about a quick headline I find this

conversation extremely fascinating you have a very fascinating outlook on

this and just before we started the show I was talking to Mickey Williston his

team I want to put forward that you know a lot of the work that we do at I can

is based on vaccines and the science around that you were clearly investigating

patents and then ideas like that so I think that we should all work together I

I think that whether or not this is man made somebody I don't believe it's been

answered I'll tell you that anyone that tells me that we've decided it's clear

someone said to me the other day a really good friend was proven it was natural

they were what what what I mean show me that proof show me like they they're

already admitting that they couldn't find the virus in the Wuhan you know

seafood market so oh here we go I mean here's the proof it's a bat and

Pangolin went into a Chinese bar and and that was proven there's the cartoon

that proves it I mean that's the world we're in right now will you work with us

at the informed consent action network to drill down I know that you have more

information some of which we were talking about bringing out here but I want

to vet it further I think that we may lose our channel here this isn't about

channels it's not about fame I want to get the science right and somebody be

better be willing to answer the questions and ask the questions so can we work

together moving the future to get to the bottom what the hell's really going on

here so so Dell one of the things I love is I love how many people have this

incredulous story of one or two bad actors can seemingly take over the world

and we have the history of the the Hitler's or the Polpots or the Stalin's we

have all these stories of the one or two bad actors who wind up you know

wreaking havoc on our our our story of humanity and and unfortunately we have

a bunch of stories where good people die early and so all of our hero stories

seem to end with you know somebody on a cross or somebody you know getting shot

or somebody and what I find is that what we're missing as the human story is

people who actually can transcend that it's not about them it's not about their

individual story it's about the collective good and I and I love the fact that

Mickey and you and and our organization and others can actually come together and

be as organized as the forces of darkness the fact of the matter is that if I

made the following sentence which I'm now making on the high wire I'm putting

the pharmaceutical companies on notice on your show I happen to have the

prosecution histories of all your vaccines not just covid all of them wouldn't

it be interesting if the patent trial appeals board at the United States

patent office suddenly got all of your vaccine patents challenged wouldn't it be

interesting if we brought this same scrutiny to every single one of the

toxins that you are putting into the public in the name of public health

wouldn't that be interesting and wouldn't it be fun if they couldn't pick the oh

that's the Dell story or that's the Mickey story or that's the Dave story

because it turns out we would just have a few too many heads to figure out which

was the hydrated chop and the answer is not only a hearty yes but it's

actually it's time to go on offense we're not going to play defense on this but

we're going to be the 11 member team on the field we're not going to be a

superstar because at the end of this story this is a story of humanity standing

together for the benefit of the human race this is not going to be Dell or

Dave or Mickey's show this is about us doing what any decent human being

would find both laudable and desirable and to that end you have my undying

commitment fantastic look folks this is really happening you know we are in

an investigation we know we're not being told all the truth the the media's

jump to immediately and this is my problem David the way they jump to immediately

say no this is natural defies all reason as a journalist I have to say it

defies all reason number one that we could come to that conclusion that

quickly and number two that every media organization went with that story

let's be clear China is not our ally China is our enemy they have a communist

nation we do not agree with their philosophy we do not agree with how they

treat their people we do not trust them at all yet every mainstream media outlet

is telling me telling us trust China oh no China was absolutely right no why this

makes no sense when Iran has a nuclear you know facilities I said we want

inside or we're not going to hand you any money in the middle of an Iraq well

we got to see your bunkers we got to see what's inside of them we have got to

see what's inside of the Wuhan you know laboratories you know and any

others around the world you cannot tell me that in the 17 seconds that this

made the media that everyone figured out that it's natural and that's where I'm

at right now I want to take this investigation deeper we're going to I'm not

telling I'm not telling anyone my audience right now that this is a man made

virus but I'm telling you what I have not stopped investigating it now we have a

new member on our team that's gonna help us do that get to the bottom of it

for you so for that David I'm sure this is not the last time we'll be talking to

you thank you for all of your time I look forward to working with you in the

future it isn't delight Dell thanks for all you're doing and I look forward to

it as well have a beautiful day you too if you like that clip then be sure to

check out our live broadcast of the high wire every Thursday morning at 11 a.m.

Pacific time you can watch it on Facebook iTunes and Twitter we'll see you

there