All language subtitles for DavidEMartin_its_much_worse (transcribed on 29-Oct-2024 18-50-09)

Hello everyone. Welcome to the show. Happy St. Patrick's Day. David E. Martin has been

uncovering corruption his entire career. His company MCAM has been trusted since the late

1990s by various governments to investigate biological and chemical weapons treaty violations,

massive tax evasion cases, patent laws and more. He spent over 20 years scouring through

data looking for clues of violations and corruption. But the biggest scandal he has uncovered was

what he says is the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in a lab, a lab right here in the United States.

And he detailed his findings in the widely censored film, PlanDemic 2. Hi David, welcome

to the show. Kim, it's lovely to be here. Thanks for having me. Happy St. Patrick's Day, by the

way. Thank you. I see you're wearing green. Yes, I'm wearing the appropriate and after this,

I'm gonna have a green beer. But yeah, so I got like I did my ancestry, you know, the DNA. I know

a lot of people are worried about doing that. But I was I was given it as a gift and did it. And I'm

like 16% Irish. So I got it. Well, there you go. So even more legitimacy for the St. Patrick's Day.

Yeah, right. Exactly. David, I really want to talk about all of this corruption that you've

uncovered throughout your career. Can you give us first of all, what your company MCAM that was

that's been hired to investigate all of this corruption? Can you explain to us first what

your company is? And who these entities are that hire you for these various different investigations?

Yeah, well, MCAM is actually the outgrowth of a predecessor company. I also founded Mosaic

Technologies, which is where all this stuff starts. Mosaic Technologies throughout the decade of the

90s, was responsible for what was called treaty restricted technology transfer. And what that

means is that we went into countries that were prohibited from exporting offensive military

technologies and found civilian uses for technologies developed in defense labs around the world.

So for a decade of the 90s, I often tell people it was like the Q lab in the James Bond movie.

You know, you get to go in and you get to see all the things that go boom, and you get to see all

the things that do all sorts of nasty things and see if there's any ways that civilian technologies

could come from that. So things like the detectors for various forms of cancers, radio tracers for

nuclear medicine, materials that allow our cell phones to work today, those were all things that

decade long work was technology transfer out of defense labs into civilian use. And that's what

we spent the decade of the 90s doing. And then in the late 1990s, specifically 1998, MCAM was formed

to be the basis around which innovation could be used in banking. Many people are very familiar

with what's going on with the Silicon Valley Bank collapse in 1999. My company was actually

brought into Silicon Valley Bank to review whether or not what they were doing was actually legal

banking. So our our company MCAM has been really at the forefront and we are the only ones globally

to actually provide an underwriting mechanism to take innovation into regulated banking. And

that's what we've been doing for the last now 24 going on 25 years. And because of that,

who hired you to go in and look at like SVB, for example? So those are all federal contracts,

that's organizations like the Department of the Treasury. We've worked as a sole source contractor

to the Office of Large and Medium Size Business Compliance for the Internal Revenue Service.

I always tell people that when you're a tax collector, you're a friend of no one.

We were the, according to the congressional estimates, we were the second largest tax fraud

buster in United States history. Large white collar crime. But we've been hired by various arms of

the federal government, as well as being asked by both presidential appointment and congressional

appointment to be involved in all sorts of white collar crime investigations, domestic and

international terrorism investigations and so forth. So our client is the government.

Got it. So how do you go from looking at weapons, intelligence or weapons tech,

and seeing how that transfers maybe to civilian tech, to banking and tax fraud?

Yeah, very simply, everything that is done in secret lends itself to being abused and corrupted.

When you have treaties, for example, that were signed at the end of the Second World War that

encourage countries like Japan, Eastern Europe, Italy and others to hide the things that they're

doing. And when as the United States government throughout the whole Cold War, we were hiding what

we were doing, companies that are involved in hiding things, hide financial fraud, hide treaty

violations, hide trade violations, hide all kinds of things. And so when you start looking behind

the curtain in a lot of these covert and, and military and other kinds of operations, you start

finding behavior that would make the skin on the average American or the average citizen in the

world crawl. It's shocking the degree to which laws are being violated. And so it's not surprising

that when you have illegal trade transactions, you're going to have illegal finance transactions.

If you're going to have illegal finance transactions, there's a high probability

you're going to find tax fraud. And so in 1998 and 1999, the United States Treasury realized we had

data that no one else had. And because we did, coming from countries all over the world,

we were an arm for the United States Treasury Department to investigate and ultimately hold

accountable an enormous number of companies for their illegal activities.

So you were able to look at all of this data. And so you've been, so let's talk about the tax fraud.

I know that you've mentioned that you've uncovered some of the biggest tax fraud

scandals in the US, in US history. What was the biggest one?

Well, the biggest one was a thing, ironically, that was built around a proposal that was launched by

the major accounting firms and the large, large US corporations back in the late 1990s,

where companies started to realize that they could defraud the federal government in partnership

with US universities by doing this thing called intangible asset donation. And what that means to

the average person is that a company, whether that company was a large chemical company, an energy

company or a manufacturing company, would donate worthless patents, things that they were never

going to use. They would donate it to a large university, take a massive tax deduction for it,

sometimes in the neighbor of hundreds of millions of dollars of tax write-offs. And then the

university would defraud the federal government by saying that they had received $100 million

from a company and the federal government would match that with real taxpayer dollars.

So this fraud involved companies and universities colluding to defraud the federal government out

of billions of dollars. It got so bad, Kim, that by 2003, our company name became a verb

in the IRS. Companies were threatened to be MCAMed. And what that meant was that we would

expose their accounting fraud and wind up getting them found to be liable for nine figure.

And in a couple of cases, the figure actually goes much higher. Tax fraud, where companies were

defrauding the United States government and then universities, and this is the part is the dirty

secret that nobody talks about, the universities were facilitating the fraud by laundering this BS

donation, if you will, into alleged corporate matching grants that then they would use to

defraud the federal government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. And so, you know, Senate

Finance Committee testimony, IRS contracts, Treasury contracts, all that stuff later, we became

the what was estimated to be the second largest tax fraud investigator in US history.

What happened to those companies and those universities?

Well, the universities got away scot-free. And that goes to a conversation we'll have about

coronavirus because the fact of the matter is this has been a criminal conspiracy with universities

for decades, ever since the 1980 by Dole Act. And we can get into that in a later conversation. But

the fact of the matter is universities have been criminally complicit in defrauding the federal

government for now the past 40 years. And the companies themselves, many of them had to pay

very large tax penalties, in one case, treble damages, meaning that they had willfully defrauded

the federal government and as a result had to pay three times the liability, which was a very big

number. But yeah, we were able to hold a bunch of the companies accountable, but the universities

have never, ever been accountable for their participation in the fraud. And so, we were

able to hold a bunch of the companies accountable for their participation in this fraud.

Wow. And that just goes to show, I mean, that's the problem, right, is that people aren't being

held accountable for the fraud that they're committing. So, I would imagine, though, with

you going after these various companies and these universities that you are not a friend

to many of them. They don't view you as a friend. Yeah, let's just say, you know, yeah, Jesus was

like, I'm in good company, but no one has ever put on a favorite Christmas card list if you

are, you know, kind of uncovering tax fraud. I think ever since the mafia was busted in the 1920s

and 30s with Eliot Ness, I don't think you get a lot of most favored treatment if you are a tax

collector. Were you targeted? Did you ever find that you felt repercussions for these types of

for uncovering this type of corruption? Not kind of, very explicitly. Our company was

blacklisted by a lot of corporations. We were targeted by a number of federal agencies.

We had physical and actual harassment. And we had a number of times when our corporate assets

were actually frozen by federal regulators, because they thought that we were actually

acting on behalf of someone else rather than doing the contracted job that we were hired to do.

This was the most bizarre thing in the world. We were actually under publicly disclosed treasury

contracts. And there were people in the federal government that thought we were probably going

after companies for other reasons. And the fact of the matter is, we were legitimately just doing

the contracted work. But this goes to a much darker problem that we have in our government,

which is we think that we have this elected government, we think we have this representational

government. But the fact is that the government that we have is in fact, the handmaiden of the

people who put them in power. And the people who put them in power are the corporations and are the

big donors who are the financiers of those corporations. And so if you go after them,

it becomes an existential threat. And anytime you're a threat, you know, people with a lot

of resources like to go after you. And so we had three very difficult years during the mid 2000s,

where what we were uncovering was politically unacceptable in the minds of the people who

were running the show. But the so the Treasury hired you to do this was to the treasure,

were they ever the ones that came back after you and said, Hey, you're, you know, you guys are off,

or is it or was that different federal agencies? Now, as it's as weird as this sounds, I actually

have private correspondence between the head of the large and medium sized business compliance

organization at the IRS, who sent on personal letterhead as well as the general counsel for the

criminal enforcement division of the IRS. Two personal notes sent to me saying that they add in

their personal capacity appreciated the work we did, and that they recommended that we sue the

Treasury for disrupting our business. So so this is get this right. This is the people who actually

work for the people who hired us, recommending that we sue the people who hired us because of

what they were doing to damage our business. So and when you have the head of criminal enforcement

at the IRS, writing on his personal behalf, a recommendation that says we know you're doing

the right thing. We know the IRS is doing the wrong thing. We know the Treasury is doing the

wrong thing. And you are right. When the head of criminal enforcement is sending you that letter,

you know how bad the system is. How is that possible? So the people that are working there,

and they're in charge there, and they're saying, wow, the entity, the government body that we're

working for is not doing the right thing. How is that possible? I mean, aren't they running it? Or

who's really running it if it isn't them? Now, Kim, you just hit the white hot core of every

single conversation we're going to have. Because there are in many organizations in the federal

government, really good people, people who took their oath of office very seriously, people who

actually are genuinely public servants, and I will not ever throw every one of them under the bus.

But the question you're asking is the right question. When the individual working for an

organization knows that what is being done is wrong, what is the recourse that anybody has,

them on the inside, or citizens on the outside, to get justice when the very structure itself

is run by people who will not be held accountable? And that goes for the Department of Defense,

it goes for the Treasury Department, it goes for the State Department, and most recently,

it goes for the Department of Health and Human Services. Tons of people know that crimes are

being committed. But the problem is, when the justice system refuses to hold anyone accountable,

then you're left in this awkward position where it takes a courageous person to go, hey, you know

what? Our organization's wrong, what you're doing is right, and you're still going to suffer the

consequences of the organization being wrong. And we have countless, countless pieces of evidence

of that happening through a number of agencies. But clearly, this one from the Treasury was one

of the funniest ones, because when the head of criminal enforcement says it, and they're saying,

by the way, my organization is running the crime, it's kind of a pretty hopeless situation.

Does the buck stop with the Treasury Secretary? Is that where they're getting their direction?

Because obviously, that position is appointed by the president. Is that person then really running

the show politically, has a political agenda, obviously, they're an unelected official,

cabinet member? Are they the ones that are the driving force behind the decisions that are then

being made by then the careerists that are there, and the careerists are just trying to do their

daily job? Does it matter who's in charge? Yeah. So who does the buck stop with then?

Excellent question. Well, the answer really is that secretary level positions at the cabinet

are political favors. They're not real. When Alex Azar was appointed by Trump

to become the head of Department of Health and Human Services, while he was under active

criminal investigation at Eli Lilly for price fixing the diabetes medicines in Mexico.

I mean, listen to what I just said. That's not a kind of a... Well, you can kind of see it

one way or the other. I mean, this guy was under investigation for criminal racketeering

from Lilly at the time he was appointed to be director of the Department of Health and Human

Services, a secretary level position. And he's, by the way, the architect of the COVID-19 craziness.

If you go back and ask yourself, how did a criminal investigation subject become

Department of Health and Human Services director? The answer is Trump didn't make that appointment.

A political donor put him there to do the job. Just like every other cabinet level position.

I would go as far as to say, I doubt that there are many, if any, presidents who actually really

chose their cabinet. These are political favors given to donors who actually are the ones that

get to dictate to whom what role is given. And if we think for a moment that this is the best

and brightest, all we have to do is look back to Alex Azar and ask yourself, is it really ideal to

have a criminal racketeering investigation person become a cabinet secretary? Is that a good idea?

Are the optics of that good? Of course not. But we didn't have that conversation because we weren't

welcomed to because this was not a public appointment. This was a political favor to a donor.

Yeah. Let's talk about anthrax and the anthrax investigation that you did. How did you get

in on the anthrax investigation? Well, a couple things. First of all, I pointed out in May of 2001,

and most people, by the way, Kim, forget that the anthrax scare of September 2001

was the real domestic terrorism event of 2001. We talk about 9-11, but we don't talk about 9-28.

And we should. We should be talking about the anthrax scare because that's when

the Department of Defense actually attacked the American people and killed American citizens

with a bio weapon called anthrax. That's a terrible thing, and we don't ever talk about it.

But what came to our attention in the spring of 2001, so this was months before the anthrax alleged

outbreak, was a purchase order by the Department of Defense for 300 million doses of ciprofloxacin.

Now, Kim, most people don't know, but cipro was the drug that you used to treat anthrax poisoning.

Now, anthrax, as a practical matter, is a disease that affects hide tanners.

You heard what I said, hide tanners, like people who work with leather. Right, right. Now, I don't

know, I don't know in what universe we were expecting 300 million people to be suddenly

tanning hides in the great buffalo hunt of 2001. Like, what the heck that was about

feels like it's odd, but in May of 2001, the United States Army ordered from Bayer

300 million doses of a drug that would never be used.

I happened to raise a question going, hold on a minute, why is Bayer getting a contract for

300 million doses of a drug that we have never used? What are we planning on doing?

And not surprisingly, in late September, when all of a sudden there's an anthrax outbreak,

you sit there and go, okay, well, how did the Department of Defense know

that we needed to get 300 million doses of the drug to treat a thing

five months before the thing actually became a thing? Not unlike this whole COVID nonsense,

it became very clear that the Department of Defense knew something. And I happened to have,

because of my background with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and my work at the various

forts that do bio weapons programs, I happened to know where the anthrax lab was, because I

happened to be in the anthrax lab. That's how I knew where it was. So I knew that the weaponization

of anthrax was happening. And so when when it started being circulated in late September,

I knew what it was. And ironically, at that point in time, several senators reached out to me and

said, Listen, we think that this might be an inside job. And we think that Bayer as a corporation

might be involved in it. And we think that the Department of Defense might be involved in it.

So what do you know? And what ensued was over the next two years, we provided all the evidence

for the fact that this was an inside DoD job. We provided that to the Congress, we provided that

to a number of investigators. And as you know, finally, after years of hand wringing and trying

to figure out the whodunit, we finally named a US person affiliated with the federal labs,

who actually was the person who was blamed for the anthrax outbreak. Now, the fact is,

and anybody looking at history knows that the anthrax outbreak was not an act of a lone wolf.

It was a plan so that we could pass the Prep Act. And the Prep Act was necessary to essentially

suspend constitutional protections when there was a bio emergency, which is what we've just lived

through. I warned that that would happen in 2003. In 2004, as an official participant in the

bioweapons investigations in Slovenia, when I was asked by the United States government to go over,

and that was by the Office of the President, to go over and be a representative for the

Euro Talks Conference in Slovenia. When I was over there, I talked about the fact that we were

preparing for self-inflicted bioweapons attacks on the United States. And I was briefing that.

And obviously, one year later, not surprisingly, we had the coronavirus selected by DARPA and by

MITRE to be the technology for bio warfare, which is what we've just lived through.

Yeah, and I definitely want to get to that. But I first want to kind of discuss some of these other

corruptions that you've uncovered throughout your career. So basically, you're getting hired by all

of these governments or by politicians to uncover corruption. And then when you do, I mean, with the

anthrax one, was anybody held accountable? No. So what in the world is happening? You keep getting

hired to uncover the corruption, and then the corruption, you uncover it, you give them the

evidence, all this testimony happens. So why are people and entities not being held accountable?

I mean, this is what in the world is happening. So that's fundamental. Are they doing these

investigations just for, you know, for, like, what would be the reason for even doing the

investigation if they're not going to actually hold people accountable?

Well, remember that this goes back to at least the 1980s. You know, Nancy Reagan,

you know, Nancy Reagan had the war on drugs while we were doing Iran-Contra, right? We were

trading in cocaine, sending weapons to Iran, you know, arming the Iraqi government, and then saying

we were having a war on drugs. Like, seriously, I mean, when you think about all of the moving

pieces, there is the optics of concerning ourselves with the truth. And then there's

the reality that says when you get too close to the bone, and remember, I brought up a very,

very important sacred cow, the university funding systems in the United States rely on federal

agencies, which are captured agencies, which money launder money to universities, which then

support state budgets, support all sorts of other things. If you actually were serious about

ending corruption, I don't think there's a single state university in the country that would stay

open. Do you really want to see every university closed down? And the answer is, if you're asking

me, yes, if it is part of a criminal conspiracy, I want to see it closed. But if you're an elected

official from, I don't know, the state of North Carolina, do you really want the answer? Do you

really want to do the investigation? No, what you want to do is you want to pretend that there was

an investigation. And as soon as you get the information that gets a little too close to home,

you shut the investigation down, and then you discredit the person who you hired to do it.

And I have lived through that time and time and time again, there is no question in every single

investigation, whether it's SEC fraud, whether it's tax fraud, whether it's biological weapons

fraud, whether it's trade and the trafficking in military technologies fraud. Every single one of

these, what they want to do is they want to find out if somebody could get caught. So my role,

in many instances, has been almost this bizarre, can he find our crime? And when I do, and then I

provide the evidence for the crime, then all of a sudden, I'm the person who's on the outs, because

I actually, God forbid, suggested that maybe it was an inside job. Remember in 2002, when I said

anthrax was an inside job, everybody told me I was crazy. And now we know in every public record

everywhere that the damage was done by the United States against US citizens. Was anybody at DARPA

ever held accountable? No. Was anybody at any of the federal labs ever held accountable? No. And

these are murders, Kim. This is not a light thing. This is actually murder. Not a single person has

been held accountable for that. Well, it's just like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. No one's

been held accountable for that either. Why do you keep getting hired then? It seems like you've been

hired over and over and not just by the US government, but also at the request of, was it

the Swedish government that hired you to go in and look at patents at the European Union?

Yeah. We are, like I said, I've gotten convinced that what this is, is essentially a counter intel

operation, which is people think they're hiding a thing, and then they want to find out if their

thing that they're trying to hide can be found. This is not really a genuine, meaningful investigation.

This is actually an attempt to see whether or not the covert operation is really all the way covert.

So in many respects, we have an outstanding treasury proposal for a much larger tax fraud

that has been outstanding since 2012, and we have not pursued it because I'm not playing that game

anymore, because it's just a game. If we're not going to get serious, then I'm not going to waste

my time. Yeah. So let's talk about this Swedish delegation to the European Union that hired you

to exam software patents, because I think that the examination of patents definitely goes into

the COVID patents that we'll be talking about here. So when were you hired? And again, why

do you continue to be hired? In this situation, the Swedes, I've always really thought that Nordic

systems and the Nordic governments are the least corrupt out of the corrupt governments of the

world. Were they genuine when they hired you? I mean, do you find instances where governments

are genuinely wanting you to look and find something and they actually mean it? It's not

just an illusion. Was this one of those situations? Yeah. And so Denmark in 2003 and 4, and Sweden

during the same period of time, were pretty convinced that Microsoft and Siemens and other

large corporations had pretty much hijacked the patent system. And what they wanted to do was they

wanted to point out that in the European Union, it was illegal to file patents on things like

software and a whole bunch of other things. You couldn't file patents on biologics and a whole

bunch of things. Shortly after that, the Indian government was very interested in hiring us to

go after patents on, of all things, Basmati Rice, which a Texas corporation affiliated with the Bush

family was very instrumental in. And in those instances, we were hired to both investigate

the breaking of patent law in the European Union and then also come up with proposed recommendations

on how to deal with it. In the case of Denmark and Sweden, and to a lesser extent, India,

all three of those contracts were legitimate. They were real efforts that really were about

about helping people uncover the truth, hold the people in violation of law accountable,

and bust up those monopolies. And we did it. By 2006, we had done an enormous amount of work

to reform the patent system of Europe. We actually got a huge number of the patents that were software

patents thrown out of Europe. We held the European Patent Office quite accountable for a number of

the abuses that they had done. And so in truth, that one was legitimate and that one really worked.

In the case of the Basmati Rice patent, we were able to get rice back into the hands of the people

who really had the indigenous rights to that, which are the people in India. We were able to do those

things. We were able to work against Starbucks to allow Ethiopia to have the rights to the naturally

uncaffeinated versions of coffee, Yirgitcheffe and Hararcheffe, two things that the Starbucks

organization had decided they were going to take rights to. We were able to get Ethiopia back to

the table as a legitimate participant in international trade around those types of coffees.

So we have had successes. And that's, I think, part of the reason why, you know, your question's a good

one, right? How many times do you go back to the well and try to fight a thing? You know, in the last

decade, we were very instrumental in fighting Rio Tinto against the genocide that they perpetrated

in mining organizations throughout Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The good news is

we got the Rio Tinto organization to have to rescind their equity in an unprecedented move,

where a giant mining company, a giant global mining conglomerate, had to walk away from their

equity holding because they had actually perpetrated crimes in the area that they were operating.

And so we have had wins. That's why it's easy to look at it and go, God, your batting average

sucks. And the answer is, yes, it does. I strike out a lot. I miss a lot. But it doesn't change the

fact that humanity, if it's not going to have courts and it's not going to have advocates,

there needs to be somebody who goes, hey, let's take a shot. Let's try to make it work. And that's,

in fact, what we've been doing. So, you know, I can go to communities around the world where I can say,

you know, there's Indian rice farmers that are in business because I exist. There are companies in

Denmark and Sweden that are in business because I exist. You know, there are people now doing

their own alluvial mining in Papua New Guinea because I exist. I do have some wins.

And that's, I think, why I keep doing it, even though at times it feels futile.

Do you have any wins in the United States?

So, in the tax fraud situation, we ultimately won for the American people. We got Congress to

close the loophole on what had created the tax fraud. Now, that turns out that it's great for

the American citizen because we actually got corporations held accountable and we closed the

loophole. In the case of the SEC, we got the elimination of what was called the tax fraud

system. In the case of the SEC, we got the elimination of what's called pooling of interest

accounting, where literally there were over 3,000 registered lobbyists against me, and it was 3,000

lobbyists to Dave Martin. And we got the law changed. So, yes, we do have some wins. Most of

them have come through congressional activity, not through judicial activity. And I'm a huge critic

because I don't think we have a judiciary. I don't think that we have a free and fair judiciary that

allows the citizens to have their concerns redressed. I don't think that exists in this

country. But I do know that I have been able to prevail in some very large legislative wins.

And in both of those cases, in both the SEC and the IRS cases, we've changed the law and won for

the American people. It's interesting that you point out the judiciary because so many of us

point out Congress. Many of us look at Congress or the executive branch and say these two branches

are just not working for the American people. And you're pointing out the branch that so many

Americans would look at and say, well, we could get it done at least through the courts. If we

can't get it done through Congress, and you're saying the opposite. No, as a matter of fact,

from the Supreme Court on down, the government checks and balances system, which is supposed

to be in place, has been inaccessible to the citizens of the United States. And certainly

during the last three years, we've seen the evidence of that time and time again. No court.

And I include Florida, and a lot of people go, but what about face masks in Florida? And the answer

is they did the right thing. Almost, almost. But the fact of the matter is the actual crimes

that were perpetrated by government agencies on the citizens of America have never been held to

any account in any court anywhere in this country. And even the attempt to try to get a court to hear

these things has been thrown out on procedural matters. We don't have a single justice anywhere

in this country that has had the decency of hearing a case. So you can sit there and talk

till you're blue in the face about the fact that we're supposed to, under the Bill of Rights,

we're supposed to, under the Constitution, have equal protections. We don't. The judiciary is

entirely, entirely captured by the corrupt political appointments that make the judges.

Judges and that appointment system is broken beyond repair.

Yeah, that has been my big criticism about the COVID wins. It's great that we have these wins,

but the wins are not real wins. They're all on technicalities. They're just, oh, well, this

agency didn't say everybody had to be mandated, so therefore it is arbitrary and capricious,

rather than actually going on the merit of the mandate itself. Many of us just want the mandate

thrown out because we'll say, well, the vaccine doesn't work. How could they possibly push this

on us? That's never the ruling. It has never been in that way. You're right when it comes to, for

example, even Trump's team and their challenges on elections, all of those cases were denied by

judges based on procedural. It wasn't on the actual subject matter. That's the unfortunate part,

is whether something happened or didn't happen, the American people deserve the date in court

to find out, and we're not getting it on a variety of different subjects where we could put a subject

to rest. We just say, okay, that has now been put to bed. We know the truth on it or we don't.

We continue to never get to the truth when it comes to the judicial system. That's unfortunate

to find out that. I know there's a deeper dive there that I could do at a later time, really

digging into the judicial system and why it is not working for the American people. Let's say

you spent your entire career examining data, examining patents. What led you to examine the

COVID patents for coronavirus? Were you hired by an agency to begin looking at those, or was this

something you did on your own? No. A very alarming patent was applied for by UNC Chapel Hill in 2002.

Just to make sure your viewers and your listeners remember, SARS, as what we call SARS,

didn't exist then. We didn't have SARS until the winter of 2002 going into the spring of 2003.

That's SARS 1.0. But in the spring of 2002, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

filed a patent on what was called an infectious replication of SARS-1.0.

An infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus. Now, let's unpack that sentence.

Infectious replication defective. What does that mean? That means it's not coming from nature. It

means that we're building a thing that is supposed to target human cells. We're going to build it in

such a way that we can put a switch inside of that thing to activate, to harm the human cell.

And what human cells were being targeted? Well, heart and lung. If you go back to 1990,

when Pfizer filed its first patent on the first coronavirus vaccine, that vaccine was for dogs

and pigs, because it used to be that coronavirus infection was a gastrointestinal problem.

But in 2002, after a decade of work, Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

figured out how to make what was called an infectious replication defective clone.

And that was the tool that was going to be used by Anthony Fauci, funded by his organization, NIAID.

That was going to be the gain-of-function tool that was going to then be the envelope into which

we would insert mRNA, which would then activate an infection and harm to the cell that's being

targeted. And when that particular patent was filed in 2002, I knew that we had a problem.

Because when you announced to the world that you have taken a pathogen that was allegedly a problem

for dogs and pigs, and you now make it a targeted pathogen for humans, and not just any old human,

it's not just a gastrointestinal version of this, this was specifically optimized to go after heart

and lung tissue, that's a weapon. That's not an interesting study. That is actually the development

of a weapon. And then you use the term infectious replication defective, that's even more the

admission that that's a targeted thing. Because the way we think of the viral model is that I get sick

and then I pass the sickness on to you. Remember, when we were kids, people had chicken pox parties

where everybody got chicken pox, right? These ideas that these things get infected, then we infect

other people. This was to build a weapon to target an individual. And that was filed in 2002 before

we ever had SARS. My contention has been and remains that we invented the weapon that became SARS,

that never came from an animal, never came from some sort of transfection across or transmutation

from a zoonotic source. This was humans building a weapon where we were turning biology against humanity.

Okay, so you had been involved in monitoring biological and chemical weapons

since the early 2000s. So can I ask you, is it typical, let's say if we have a bomb, is it

typical for the government to then patent the bomb? No, that we would have a patent on that weapon.

Yeah, no, it's actually fairly unusual. Although, the Department of Defense did patent a rocket

propelled grenade, and I'm not making this up, an actual rocket propelled grenade that could shoot

an aerosolized pathogen across a population. Now, in case you're wondering, delivering an

immunization by rocket propelled grenade is not how you do public health. That's a weapon, right?

When you put an RPG with a pathogen in it, and you create, are you ready for this? This is actually

in that patent, blast resistant pathogens, meaning that they can survive the explosion, so they still

are virulent when they spread across a population. That's actually a real US patent. Now, it shouldn't

be because it's a violation of every biological chemical weapons law that we have, but that doesn't

stop it from being in the patent record. It is very unusual. It is very unusual to file patents on it.

But more problematic, that particular research was selected by NIAID as the pathway through which

we were going to build a viral vaccine model. In other words, we were going to use the virus itself

as a vaccine. And then tragically, in 2005, the same researcher, Ralph Baric, announced that this

was bioweapons platform technology at a conference sponsored by DARPA.

So what is the motivation? Are you saying the motivation for even going down this path to begin

with? Because this does sound very Dr. Evil type thing to create. What would be the motivation,

besides being a weapon, right? If you're wanting to create a weapon, you're going to attack another

nation, and you want to do it using the biological weapon of a virus or something. I could understand

that. That to me, though, would be odd to patent it and put it out there in the public. Like you

mentioned, that's why I'm asking, do they do this regularly with other weapons? So do you believe

the motivation was actually almost a benevolent motivation, though not something we want, but one

that is like, well, we've got to mass vaccinate people. And so we've got to do it through this

virus, and this will help save lives. I mean, was that their thinking?

So, Kim, what I love about your question, and what I love about the vast majority of Americans'

logic is we sit there going, clearly, nobody actually really wanted bad things to be done.

And I have some bad news for every American right now. Whether it's the war on drugs in the 1980s,

whether it is the alleged war on AIDS in the 1990s, whether it is the alleged war on terrorism in the

2000s, and whether it's alleged war on biology and carbon in the 2010s, the bad news is that our

government fully intends to harm its citizens. And I hate to be the bearer of that bad news,

but let's get real. It's time for us to actually stop pretending like if they say it outright,

if they say it outright, and they tell us that that's what they're doing, we should try to

understand maybe they didn't really mean what they were saying. So let's get really real.

When Ralph Baric says synthetic coronavirus is a platform technology for a bio weapon,

that is not a public health research project. A bio weapon is a weapon. It is not a public

health research project. And when you see in their papers that they say they are going to use it,

and they're going to deploy it so that the public accepts a universal vaccine, you're not sitting

there going, oh, hold on a minute. So this was an accident thing. And we didn't really mean to do it.

No, they actually said they are going to deploy an agent, a respiratory pathogen so that the public

will accept a medical countermeasure. That is self-inflicted harm. And we can sit there until

the cows come home and go, well, they didn't really mean that, did they? But then let's listen to what

they actually say. And this is a quote from Peter Daschick that collaborated with Ralph Baric in

2015. And this is his language in front of the National Academy of Sciences. He says,

to increase the public understanding for the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan-corona

virus 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. Does that sound like public health to you?

I guess it is. That's an admission of domestic terrorism. That's an admission of domestic

terrorism. That's not public health. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of

the process. And we're sitting here pretending to go, well, but they didn't really mean that.

No, they really did. It's just hard to imagine. That's why it is our natural inclination to say,

well, they must have been doing this for some good purpose because it's difficult for us to imagine.

I guess we each as American citizens or just as citizens of the world under any government

probably needs to come to the realization that our government views us as soldiers in the military,

essentially. We're no different than we are pawns in the military. And we know that the military

has done extensive experimentation on soldiers without them even knowing. There's actually a big

case where many of them were experimented on throughout even World War II from the 1922 to

1975. There were thousands of soldiers who were experimented on who then sued the government

for this and without them knowing, many of them died. So if we understand, I suppose, that

this is something the government has knowingly done to soldiers, that they view all of us.

And that's why we have a draft, for example, a draft as we're all viewed as soldiers. They can

just call us up at any time and say, it's your time to die. You're going to have to go off and die now.

And so I think if we just, but it is, it's against our intuition. We just want to believe that,

oh no, they're doing it for the greater good. There must be some good reason for this. But

at the end of the day, really, we're all pawns in the military, we're all soldiers in the military.

And we need to kind of come to terms with that. And the Patriot Act made it illegal to terrorize

or coerce a population into doing something it would not otherwise do. And Ralph Baric and

Anthony Fauci and Peter Daschick admitted directly, not by implication, admitted directly,

that they would attack US citizens with a pathogen they made so that those citizens would take a

vaccine that they would never have otherwise taken. That is not my allegation. That is their

publicly published quotes in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And we sit here

to this day, debating on whether or not it was China or whether it was something else. Listen,

we're trying to find the bank robber, but we're only going to find the bank robber, provided that

we don't look at the guy with the ski mask on and a gun holding a bag of money at the bank steps.

We're trying to find the other guy. And my point and my frustration in all of these things,

and you asked a great question at the beginning of this interview where we talked about, well,

why hasn't, like, why haven't any of these things stuck? And the answer is look in the mirror,

every single one of us. I'm telling you something which is unambiguous. You cannot deny that Ralph

Barrack said synthetic coronaviruses were a bio weapons technology, not a public health threat,

a bio weapons technology. And NIAID funded that program with DARPA. Peter Daschick said we were

going to use the scare of this to create the media hype so that the public would accept a vaccine.

That's not guessing whether there was a wet market or guessing whether there was something in Wuhan.

That's the criminal admitting to the crime. And we are sitting here to this day, good people

of good will and good intent who are sitting there with the evidence smacking us in the face.

And to this day, not a single member of Congress, not including Rand Paul or Ron Johnson,

not a single governor or AG, no one has been willing to look at the evidence because what they

don't want to confront is we did this to ourselves. We don't want to deal with that because we want

the band to keep marching and playing on. Well, and in fact, Congress just unanimously passed

that they want to declassify COVID origins intelligence, the bill, which was written by

Senator Josh Hawley points to the Wuhan lab saying we want to know everything about what was going

on in that lab. Was China involved in this at all? Absolutely, because we can go back to the 2016

publication that said the spike protein from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was poised for human

emergence in a pathogen built by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in Ralph Barrack's

lab and in his own acknowledgement. And I have the paper right here. Cool thing about this is I don't

even have to guess. It actually says, are you ready for this? And I'll read you my favorite line out

of this paper because it says in acknowledgments, we thank Dr. Zhang Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute

of Virology for access to the bat COV sequences and the plasma Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one

spike protein. She sent it to us. And then we built the weapon in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Now,

why is that important? And why is it important that we have this precise conversation? That is

because the Department of Energy actually did the politically astute thing. And this is really cool.

When they came up with what they called a low confidence interval, that this was a lab leak from

Wuhan, they came up with that because they know the answer. The answer is this wasn't a lab leak

from Wuhan. Was the Wuhan Institute of Virology involved? Absolutely. But what you'll see in all

of the documentation, including the recent past bill in Congress, is nobody's bothered to include

North Carolina in that list. Nobody's bothered to include Ralph Baric in that list. And he's the one

who actually said in 2015, during the gain of function moratorium, that the Wuhan Institute of

Virology spike protein was poised for human emergence. He's the one that said the bomb was

loaded and delivered. But we're not asking the question, hey, is he under investigation? Is UNC

Chapel Hill under investigation? Is Anthony Fauci under investigation? And Robert Redfield, as

recently as just last week, said without equivocation, US taxpayers paid for the

development of this pathogen. He didn't hide that at all. And this is the CDC director saying,

we did it. And you know what? It's like saying aliens exist. People can hear it, and they just

go, oh, I must have misheard that. It must be Wuhan. And then they go back and do the stupid

Wuhan investigation. Listen, if we're serious about this, what we need to do is we need to go

to UNC Chapel Hill, and we need to arrest the people who are perpetrating this particular crime.

We need to go to DC and arrest Fauci for perpetrating this crime. And we need to go

to wherever Daschk is hiding and arrest him, because they're the ones that admitted to the

crime in public. Why would China be involved in this? What would be their motivation? So if this,

so what I'm kind of gathering from this is that this wasn't a biological weapon for necessarily

warfare, but this was a biological weapon for industry, for vaccine industry, to then be able

to mass vaccinate populations, which would be beneficial for numerous different vaccine

company, pharmaceutical companies, including maybe Chinese ones. Is that what I'm hearing?

Well, in part, but there's a bigger problem in China that China doesn't want to admit.

And that is that China, as you probably know, has had a one child policy for many decades.

And that one child policy has resulted in way more men than women, because as awkward as it is

for us to admit, in many cultures, male children are preferred over female children. And in China,

that was epidemic. And what was very clear by the late 1990s and early 2000s, when I was spending

an enormous amount of time with the State Council in China, it was very clear that the leadership

there knew that they had probably somewhere between 86 and 100 million excess men. And when you have

86 to 100 million excess men, you have an existential problem as an economy, because what

you find is that those people are going to spend not only all of their wealth, but they're going to

spend all their heritable wealth, meaning that they're going to spend all of their parents' wealth,

their grandparents' wealth, they're going to do it all in one generation. And it turns out that you

need to find a mechanism to turn manufacturing from an export market to a made for China market.

And what I have said many times is that the Chinese government was opportunistic.

COVID served as a perfect cover for them to effectively nationalize production,

where all of a sudden, Western companies go, well, we're not going to do business here anymore

because COVID is there. And no kidding, they walked out of their factories. And it turns out

that the Chinese did what? Well, they walked back into the factories and turned them on and did what?

Turned it into domestic production. This was pretty much the same thing that happened in

the Chinese government when they were doing domestic production. This was probably one of the most

opportunistic nationalizations of international corporate infrastructure ever done. And we don't

talk about it. We don't talk about it because we can't talk about the gender issues associated with

male selection in those communities where all of a sudden we're supposed to be only talking about

like if there's a one child policy, girls get opted away from and boys are preferenced.

You know what the bad news is? That comes back to haunt us. Those socially awkward conversations

are the conversations we're not having. And the fact is the Chinese government used the COVID story

for the inversion from export to domestic production. And everybody who's talked about

they, well, I don't know what's in it for China isn't looking. What's in it for China is to try

to placate domestic consumption requirements of 86 million men who are evolutionary cul-de-sacs,

who will never procreate. They will never have a partner. They will never have an opportunity to

ever have progeny. And because of that, the Chinese government has been desperate, desperate to try

to figure out how to make sure they get gadgets and gizmos and stuff to sate their empty soul

that doesn't have the chance of ever having children. And that awkward conversation is a

conversation we should be having because we should actually concern ourselves with what it's like

to have that many men now alone in the world where the only thing they have to do

is consume their way into the grave. It's a human tragedy we should be talking about. You know who

talks about it? Nobody. Yeah. Well, there's no doubt that China out of all the nations in the

world benefited, it seemed from COVID, right? Their GDP was the only one to go up. When everyone else

was tanking, China was profiting. And that always was eyebrow raising to me thinking,

you know, there's something going on there that is very odd. And the fact that in the early

days of COVID, they would show people on the media, the news media, you know, convulsing almost and

falling down. We know COVID doesn't do that to people. Now we know. But in the early days,

it was this total fear mongering to get people to lock down and lock down hard. They would show up

in the bubble suits, they would literally padlock people into their homes. I mean, it was very, very,

it was frightening, extremely frightening. And as you're mentioning, done on purpose. But it looks

like many nations, at least the United States and China were in on this. Were there other nations

that were in on this? Well, there's no question that Germany has been in on this from the very

beginning. I would say Israel has very clearly been in on this from the very beginning because

you don't have, I mean, listen, let's be indelicate here for a moment. Think of the marketing failure

this is to suggest that a German biotech company would be invited to be the first ones to inject

a Jewish population. I know it. Does anybody else? Does anybody else have a creepy problem with that?

Totally nuts. And the Israeli government admitted they were like, well, we're experimenting on our

people. I mean, it was just the most bizarre thing to see was that they would allow the

experimentation on them. Right. And I mean, listen, as a market test, wouldn't you at least

raise your hand if you're in that room going, hey, guys, isn't the optics on this a little bad?

Should we really be letting a German biotech company investigate its new, newfangled business

on our population? Here's the facts. The facts are that Pfizer, Moderna, the companies that own

Pfizer, Moderna, including large shareholders like BlackRock, were all participating in the

controlled rollout of this craziness. And we can sit back and we can kind of think, oh, my goodness,

maybe there was this or that or the other pathogen, but even Newsweek. I mean, remember that Scott

Atlas's op-ed in Newsweek this week said all of the COVID story was based on a lie. He's the one

that came out and said, you know, we tried to come up with this excess death story, but it turns out

that excess deaths didn't start until we started injecting people. Well, that's a tiny problem,

because if we have a world in which the whole thing was a racket to run the shareholder interests

of Pfizer and Moderna through the roof while cascading an entire damaging swath across the

entire globe of death and destruction from the shot, from the injection, from remdesivir,

from all of the things that were done, we have one of the largest, largest genocidal criminal

conspiracies in human history and we're pretending that it was justified under the ages of some

nonsensical public health crisis. And there wasn't one. It was all fear-mongering. And remember,

they told us they were going to do it until the public accepts the need for a medical countermeasure,

such a pan-coronavirus vaccine. We will use the media to create hype. They didn't hide their

intentions. They didn't hide anything. They told us what they were going to do. And we, the people,

continue to this day to pretend like that statement wasn't made. As every single news

organization put a death ticker on the side of every screen for all of 2020, we sat there

watching the death numbers go up. That was absolutely a fear-mongering tactic. Well, David,

thank you for, I think, enlightening us a bit more about this. I know many people watched

pandemic two that you were in, but this really helps break it down even further for us, I believe.

And it's very, and now, you know, of course, when that came out, people were still kind of in denial,

but now more and more people are realizing, okay, you know, all of the things that were

considered conspiracy theories throughout this pandemic, even just when I was saying in the

early days, the vaccine doesn't stop the spread. I was watching these real-time, and I was

watching the Israeli data saying that, you know, they're talking about jabbing their population

now for the fourth time. It's not working. And that was considered a conspiracy theory here,

like, oh, you know, of course it does. Take the jab. Stop being a grandma killer. And now we see,

as time has gone on, and now, you know, and then saying, oh, the vaccines cause myocarditis. That

was considered a conspiracy theory. We've now seen over and over that all of these theories

are actually true. And I'm hoping that the problem, I mean, what you're saying is just so outrageous

that people don't want to believe it. Because if we have to believe that, if then we have, it's

just like with the CIA documents coming out that start really pointing the finger more and more

that the CIA offed a sitting American president. It's like, it's so egregious that to even believe

it, you have to then question everything you thought you knew about your government and

your country, about our freedom, about our democracy. Everything we've been taught would

be a lie if these things are true. And that is very difficult for most of us to swallow.

Well, and remember that as early as 2010 going into 2015, that period of time, we knew that

pseudo-uridine, which is the ingredient in the injection, we knew that it was pro-oncogenic,

it would turn on cancers. That's not a theory. That's actually published medical science.

We knew that it would hit the myocardial tissue and create all sorts of problems there.

That was published science. We knew that that particular ingredient in the injection

was going to disrupt the conductive properties of the heart tissue. We knew that. That was published

science. But it is actually one of those things where a known ingredient added to the injection

for the mRNA was willfully added knowing that it would kill people. Not that it might harm people,

that it would kill people. And that information is a publicly published kind of set of information.

And we're still pretending like, well, maybe they tried their best. No, they did not try their best.

This was not an emergency. This was an act of terrorism. And it resulted in the industrial

profits that were forecast when Peter Daschick said that was what they were going to do. Investors

will respond if they see profit at the end of the process. They're, quote, not mine.

And isn't it just convenient that, of course, after what you're saying with this causing cancer

and with this causing myocarditis, isn't it convenient now that there's a discussion of an

mRNA for cancer and that there's discussion of mRNA for heart inflammation? Isn't it just convenient?

Well, David, thank you for uncovering more corruption. Maybe at some point there will be

deeper investigations into this that do actually lead to people being held accountable, but I'm

not going to hold my breath on that, especially considering the history that you've laid out for

us of corruption just being ignored when it's been uncovered. So that is unfortunate. I do believe

history repeats itself, so I am not going to hold my breath that these people will be held

accountable. But I think the more of us that are aware of it and open our eyes to it, maybe we can

make change in Congress. And then maybe there can be congressional shifts and laws and changes that

could be made to actually prevent this sort of thing from happening again. That would be my hope.

So thank you for this conversation. Really insightful. I really appreciate it. Where can

people find you? I know you have a YouTube channel. I know you have a YouTube channel.

And is that also on Rumble? Or is that you should be on Rumble?

David Martin World. David Martin World on YouTube. I'm on Twitter. I'm on Facebook. I'm on everything.

I have done my best to make sure that I dodge the landmines and stay up on every platform. So

I'm anywhere you can find me. And also DavidMartin.World. And my wife and I have all of our information

up at the FullyLiveAcademy.com site. So you can find us and we're all over the place. And we are

both people that love other human beings. So wherever I am and wherever I see you,

I'm always delighted to actually connect with people and something that we're going to continue

to do. I always say that Anthony Fauci told us early on that we would no longer shake hands

because that would be a public health risk. So my philosophy is we hug, make it even more problematic

for those nasty little pathogens. So yeah, we try to make sure that we stay connected to people.

And Kim, the one big difference between all the past and now is we're having this conversation.

Right? You and I haven't had this conversation. And as I remind people time and time again,

we don't know what is going to be the moment that catalyzes the change. But there's a high

probability that this might be it. And I live forever in the certainty that one of these days,

one of these conversations is going to be the one that breaks the logjam.

And so here's to hoping that this is the one. Maybe it is. Thank you, David. You bet.

Well, guys, I hope you've enjoyed this show, this St. Patrick's Day. Hopefully every time he said

the word corruption, you took a shot of like green liquor or green or took a sip of your green beer

or something. Really appreciate you spending your St. Patrick's Day with us tonight. I'm going to go

and have my green beer now. And actually, our sponsors for tonight's show are perfect for St.

Patrick's Day. Field of Greens and Birch Gold. It's almost as if it was planned. Let's talk about

Field of Greens first. I don't believe that there are any four leaf clovers in the formulation, but

I do drink my Field of Greens every day and I enjoy it. I really do. I know a lot of green drinks

taste, you know, they can kind of taste nasty, but Field of Greens does not. It tastes for me

like ice green tea with lemon. I mix it into ice water and it's just a great, a really great way

to get all of your fruits and vegetables into your daily diet without having to chomp down on all

those fruits and vegetables or go out there in your own field of cloverly greens, picking all of the

different things that they put into this to make sure you get all of your nutrients. You don't have

to do that. You could just take the simple powder, mix it into your drink, sprinkle it onto your food,

and you're good to go. To get yourself 15% off your first order, go to www.fieldofgreens.com

and use the promo code Kim. Now, Field of Greens is all organic. There's no extracts. These are real

freeze dried organic fruits and vegetables and they are selected specifically to ensure that you

get all of the best nutrients so that you get the most for your money. So go to www.fieldofgreens.com,

use that promo code Kim to get 15% off your first order. Now, let's talk about a pot of gold because

we all want one of those on this St. Patty's Day and Birch Gold can actually help you have that.

You can literally get yourself a pot of gold by going to birchgold.com slash Kim and getting your

free info kit and the Birch Gold representatives will send you that info kit. They'll also call

you up. You could talk to a specialist and they can walk you through how you yourself can get your

hands on a pot of gold. They can actually send you real gold and silver and other precious metals

or you could invest in an IRA in precious metals. You can either open one up or maybe convert your

existing 401k or IRA into that IRA in precious metals and this month in this month only by March

31st, if you have one of the qualifying purchases, they will actually ship to your door a free safe

that you could keep your pot of gold in. So that is for qualifying purchases. Now through the end

of the month, go to birchgold.com slash Kim and get all the information you need to get your hands

on some gold this St. Patrick's Day. All right guys, that is it for tonight. Have a great evening.

Hopefully you guys have one more green beer on my behalf. Drink it with me because that's what I'm

going to go do right now. Thank you so much for watching. Have a great weekend and I will see you

guys on Monday with another great show. Same time, same place. See you then. Good night.

you

you

you