Dr. David Martin provides crystal clear and unmistakable evidence of the sinister plans for global genocide through an unexpected lens – U.S. patents

In this eye-opening documentary, Dr. David Martin provides crystal clear and unmistakable evidence of the sinister plans for global genocide through an unexpected lens – U.S. patents. This two-part docuseriesserves as a wake-up call, urging audiences to reevaluate the consequences of blindly accepting what they’ve been told without questioning the implications. Sit back as Dr. David Martin unravels the tightly woven fabric of a clandestine agenda that transcends borders. You can read the transcript below.

NOTE: HERE'S THE LINK TO PART 2. You must register to watch it. The trailer for PART 2 is at the end of this article (below the transcript). Also, some of the text of the transcript is bolded for emphasis.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. David Martin:

I have a lot of information on a lot of things, and I do my best to try to find a rational way to get that information into the hands of the public. We have to get really clear on the facts because there's facts and then there is the media hype that was created.

Three TV Newscasters:

“The original source of the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 is believed to be bats.”

“Experts suspect that bats could be the likely host”

“Well, here's something we do know: the animals that carry coronaviruses, particularly bats, are the creatures at the center of this coronavirus outbreak.”

Dr. David Martin:

I think the whole thing has been very well orchestrated to set a number of little bread crumbs out there, and all of them distract from the central problem. And the central problem is a colluding set of conspirators in both public sector and in industry.

ABC Newscaster:

“The race for a vaccine, Pfizer and Moderna showing positive results from that, doesn't potential vaccines around the world now in human trials.”

Dr. David Martin:

So why aren't we allowed to question the definition of vaccines despite the fact that it is a violation of the legal definition? Why weren't we allowed to question the suppression of commercial proven published alternatives? Why weren't we allowed to question any of the antitrust cases? Why weren't we allowed to question a single one of those things?

And the answer is because it was a foregone conclusion we were going to get the…

Stephen Colbert (The Late Show):

…vax-scene.

Dr. David Martin:

This is one of those things where you sit back and you go, the audacity of the crime is what's surprising. The crime is not Moderna and Pfizer, they're just the arms dealers. The crime is actually what allowed them to become arms dealers and why on earth we actually have declared war on humanity. That's the crime.

I'm Dr. David Martin. I'm the founder of MCAM. I'm the founder of Purple Bridge Management Quant Fund. I'm now the founding chairman of Ross Energy. Prior to that, I was assistant professor of radiology and orthopedic surgery at the University of Virginia. I was the founder of the first clinical trials program for medical devices at the University of Virginia in the 1990s at the medical school there. My background is in biology, psychology, sports medicine, orthopedics, and radiology. Got my PhD from the University of Virginia, master's from Ball State University, my undergraduate from Goshen College in Indiana, and have been working in various aspects of services to the federal government going back to the 1980s. So I've been kind of in this race for a long time.

If we go back and look at my first briefing to intelligence and law enforcement agencies on what we call coronavirus, my first briefing was in 2002. My first published briefing was in 2003.

And the reason why we had this information is because my company, MCAM, beginning in 1998, had all of the patents and patent applications from patent offices around the world which fed into a system that we used to score intangible assets for banking. And one of the things that we did was we started tagging very interesting anomalies in the data where we started seeing things that appeared to be potentially violations of biological and chemical weapons laws not only in the United States but around the world.

And it is because of that that we became aware of the work at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill when Ralph Baric filed the patent on an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus in 2002.

Now, that would not have been something that would have drawn my attention had it not been for the fact that in the 1990s, because of the treaty restricted technology transfer work we had been doing across the entire decade of the 90s, we had about 64 pathogens that we were monitoring. And we had system alerts in our data systems to say if anything shows up just flag it, right? So we weren't looking for something, we were just aware that if something would show up in the data we'd want to have a look at it.

And what made this particular patent application so bizarre is that when you take a step back and examine it, it actually wasn't a virus. It was something that was designed using a viral model but it was specifically to be using a viral model as a technology. So this whole idea of SARS or SARS COV actually doesn't exist in nature at all. This was something that was developed and engineered to be a mechanism of taking something that historically has been a pathogen that targets the gastrointestinal system, it targets sometimes like a lung condition like a cold or a cough or a flu-like symptom which is dated back to the 1950s. But now all of a sudden you have this guy who's having a target heart tissue, target other tissues and you sit there going why would you do that why would you take something that maybe makes you have diarrhea or makes you have sniffles and then have it target the heart?

And the reason why I'm saying this is that this thing that we have been told we should call SARS-CoV-2 as it is the derivative obviously of what we call SARS-CoV-1, neither one of those things is a naturally occurring phenomenon. These things are engineered technologies using some of the information encoded in what we call a coronavirus but that technology is used for human defined purposes. It is not something that we caught from a bat.

And so my concern was, and by the way I raised this concern when in the spring of 2019 Moderna filed 4 patent applications which had been previously rejected, and in those patent applications they made reference to an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen.

This is an April of 2019. This is before the China virus, right? When you sit back and ask yourself the question: why would a company that has never made a commercial product ever, why would a company that has never had any expertise in respiratory pathogens amend patent filings that have been rejected to include the language accidental or intentional release of respiratory pathogen if somebody wasn't preparing to release a respiratory pathogen?

So, the point is, there was no surprise. The only thing I can say after October of 2019 when we had Event 201, and after the middle of September 2019 when the World Health Organization said that they were going to conduct a worldwide exercise with an accidental or intentional release of a lethal respiratory pathogen, which is what they said. The only surprise I had was how audacious it was that the criminals were actually telling the public that they were going to do it, and nobody in the public cared.

But here's where the problem kicks in. It turns out that if you go back and look at data from Wuhan, people died in Wuhan before December of 2019. I don't know if that comes as a shock, but it's a city, and people died in the city just like people die in nursing homes and they die in cities all over the world. And this whole story of the Wuhan virus falls apart very quickly when you realize that we have not yet had in the ICTV, which is the International Community the Taxonomy of Viruses, we have not yet had in any other independent review evidence of a collective pathogen. Do we know that people died in Wuhan? Yes. Do we know they died of an atypical pneumonia? Yes. Do we know that they died of atypical pneumonia that appeared to be associated with some of the people working at the Wuhan Institute of Technology? Yes.

But here's the kicker: why was it that the same Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill, the same Ralph Baric who said that in 2016 the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus-1 (WIV1) was poised for human emergence in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, why is it that he's the guy we asked to confirm whether this was actually man-made or from nature? Why would we ask the perpetrator of the crime to cover his own tracks?

Conveniently, nature backed itself into a story we published in 2016 and we're supposed to believe that? We're supposed to believe that randomly a bat and a pangolin and a civet and a God knows what all else got together in December, went to a wet market, and started infecting people? That's the story we're supposed to believe.

There was no December event in Wuhan – just like there was no any other event anywhere else. The thing that was killing people was a weapon that was being distributed; it was not a transmissible thing.

And how do I know that? I know that because the engineering for SARS 1.0, which by the way as you'll recall killed almost no one but was supposed to be a virus that was to take down the world, and SARS 2.0 has the same modification which is infectious but replication defective – the thing that was in the patent:

And why is replication defective important? It turns out for a virus to achieve what the viral model dictates, it has to go into the cell, it has to replicate, and then it has to be transmitted. But if you take out its replication capability, you know what it isn't anymore? It's not a virus; it's a weapon.

When you say in September 18th of 2019 the accidental or intentional release of a lethal respiratory pathogen, let's just slow it down for a minute. You go, hold on a minute, release is a really dangerous word in that sentence. That's not oops it leaked, right? Release is actually a term that implies intention; it implies distribution. It doesn't imply that somehow or another something just got away.

We have to get really clear on the facts because there's facts and then there is the media hype that was created. And I encourage everybody who doesn't listen to this carefully to go back and relook at that Event 201 video. The script in that video is the same thing as the script in December, right? Suddenly there's an outbreak of a thing, and it's coming from China, and it's a respiratory virus, and it happens to be coronavirus, and you're going to have to get N95 masks, and you're going to have to do social distancing, and we're going to go after misinformation and disinformation. All of that is in the October 2019 desktop exercise, and lo and behold, they recite the exact same script in 2020.

If you go back and you ask the question, did we always know there was going to be a vaccine? The answer is absolutely yes. When you already say the vaccine has to win, you're not going to consider a treatment, you're not going to consider any other protocol. It has to be a vaccine. Then what you have to do is violate the antitrust laws in the United States and the competitiveness laws of Europe because what you have to do is you have to suppress all alternatives. Because under the 2005 Prep Act, the only way to get an emergency use authorization of a medical countermeasure is to prove that there are no meaningful alternatives.

But here's where they screwed up. In 2016 and 2017, the CDC and the FDA collaborated on a standard document for what a vaccine clinical trial was supposed to do. And this was actually a very traditional definition of vaccine. And for some reason in the spring of 2020, we did two things.

One is we changed the goal posts. We said a vaccine had nothing to do with transmission or infection; it had to do with allegedly the reduction of hospitalization or the severity of disease after the second injection. That already violates everything about what a vaccine clinical trial was based on their own published rules. This is not Dave Martin's opinion – their published rules.

And you start going OK hold on a minute. So we changed what the definition of a vaccine was. We mislabeled it. This by the way is a clear and compelling Federal Trade Commission deceptive medical practices case, because you should actually hold the entirety of the system liable for lying to the public about even what the thing is.

Up until April of 2020 both at BioNTech and at Moderna it said that mRNA injections were (and I'm quoting from their financial statements): experimental gene therapies classified as such by the FDA. Not kind of – that's where they were classified.

Now people say, “Dave don't say experimental gene therapies.” Why not I'm reading it from their SEC filings in their 10K's and in their 10Q filings with the SEC. That's not my opinion – it's their words.

But if you actually told the public hey guys we'd like you to take an experimental gene therapy you know what would happen? Everybody would say hell no.

But if you actually say well, we're going to call it a vaccine, which by the way never ever has there been a change in the legal definition of what a vaccine is, so we change allegedly what we mean when we say vaccination to mean it might help you not be as sick which by the way there was no basis for that assumption. We have no evidence of it.

And then you go back and you say well in the clinical trial we also are not going to say that you actually are immunized until 14 days after the second injection which is really interesting you realize then that all of a sudden all of the cases of COVID in 2020 are actually people in the clinical trials, but they weren't immunized until after the second injection. So they were considered unvaccinated when they had adverse events like death, like anaphylaxis, like all the things you expect inside of the post 14 day injection period of time.

And many people say: “well yeah but those aren't really adverse events because according to the adverse event thing you can't count on those things.” Well that's because in 2018 the definition, clearly, of the adverse event following immunization which is officially legally defined term, that term was changed to mean the only thing that can be counted as an adverse event (and by the way this is one where if you go look it up it's bone chilling to hear what I'm saying), they changed the definition of an adverse event to be only a thing that the literature had already shown as potentially caused by the injection.

Now let's stop and unpack that for a minute. If in 2018 we change the definition of adverse event following immunization and we change it so the only thing that can be counted is the thing that's already published in the literature as a potential adverse event and then we use an agent that has never been used, what did we just do? We created an environment in which the manufacturers could lie telling the legal truth.

Here's where we have a little tiny problem Moderna and Ralph Baric entered into a material transfer agreement which Ralph Baric in his own words has said was the transfer of the sequence for the injection. Was the vaccine gonna win? Absolutely because this never was about a disease. This never was about an infection. This was never even about a virus. This was about creating the media hype that they told the world they were going to do in 2015 and the world was asleep.

I did what became a multimillion viewed video where I actually laid out the entire sequence of this. I published a thing called: “The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier.” In that I had thousands of patents which proved that all of this was actually premeditated. All of this was architected. All of this was engineered. All of that information was out there.

We tried to get in front of attorneys general, we tried to get in front of US attorneys, we tried to get in front of the congressman and senators, and everything – we tried to get in front of people and to a person everyone who formally reviewed that information concluded that yes a crime is being committed and they will not prosecute it.

Well clearly the edits of the Moderna patents were self-evident, right? When you suddenly throw in the words: accidental intentional release of respiratory infection. That's kind of one of those things we go: WHAT? Like they're saying that they're gonna release respiratory pathogen that's what they're saying in the patent application. So I thought that would get people's attention because it should.

And I don't know, when the same people say they're going to release a lethal respiratory pathogen in published material in 2019 (September 18 2019), you'd think that somewhere along line somebody go yeah that's an admission of a crime.

But I also right after the ICTV, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, published their paper on the novelty of SARS-CoV-2, my company mcam published a report on all of the patents that were the things that were declared novel in SARS-CoV-2 going back to the early 2000s. And under patent law, there are two criteria for what we call novelty. Novelty is supposed to be an inventive step, something that somebody couldn't have anticipated, couldn't have, you know, conceived of based on the prior information that was out there. And then non obviousness which means that you're supposed to not be able to put that thing together with something else. So if everything that the ICTV said was novel was already issued in not a few but hundreds of patents then the legal definition of novelty even failed.

And so, I thought somewhere along the line I'd at least get an antitrust, you know, US attorney or attorney general, and there are a few, there aren't many, but I would at least get one antitrust guy to go, “That sounds like collusion, that sounds like premeditation, that sounds like a violation of Section 8 to the Patriot Act which is domestic terrorism, that sounds like something.”

And it turns out that everybody behind closed doors agreed. John O'Connor in Oklahoma, one of my favorite conversations, where you sit back and you go, “Dude, here's all the evidence,” he brings his team in, there's all the evidence, and he goes, “Well, I got to wait to see how the primary goes.” So let me get this straight. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna allow people to be murdered while you wait to see how the primary goes.

Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida met with me and Zev, we sat down, went through all this. I said here's the crimes. Governor DeSantis said, “Hold on, let's see what happens with the Florida election.”

These are not the oops, these are not the maybes, these are not the… this is coordinated. It is a coordinated attack on the judiciary, it's a coordinated attack on the legislative, and it's a coordinated attack on the executive so that the public suffers.

What we know is that in October of 2020, the Congress asked NIH to go through the entirety of its patent holdings and declare to the public whether it had a financial incentive anywhere in this entire injection scheme. And according to that filing in Congress, there was allegedly no financial interest between NIH and any of the vaccines. Well, that's a patent lie and we had published the evidence of that. And lying to Congress, by the way, is actually also a crime which I thought might be a prosecutable offense back in the old days, when I believed that we actually had laws that we cared about. But it turns out that not only were they lying but we had two elements of the lie.

NIH, CDC, the FDA, and UNC Chapel Hill and its affiliated research institutions had all of the patents on the mRNA and the cDNA platforms. So they had those patents on what we know went into the injection. There was nothing about those patents that wasn't included in the injection. But we also know that University of British Columbia and what became Arbutus and Arcturus Pharmaceuticals that had the lipid nanoparticle, which is how we got the RNA into the injection into the person.

We know that those patents were actually actively being challenged for validity in the Patent Office by Moderna and BioNTech. They were trying to get out from under the licenses that they already had. These were not licenses that somehow mysteriously were granted in 2020. These were licenses that predated this by one, two or three years and the Patent Office was actively considering the invalidation of the lipid nanoparticle patents which we had published and every one of those things was a pre-pandemic event.

So all of this fight about who was going to win the horse race to get to the vaccine was happening a year, two years before the pandemic. So we didn't even have to guess who the winner was going to be. We knew that Moderna and BioNTech were the inside runners. We knew they were going to get the contracts from what ultimately became Operation Warp Speed. These were things that were foregone conclusions and you knew who the people were because they were already fighting over who was going to win.

So they lied to Congress about the patents that the CDC, NIH, and its funded entities had. They lied to Congress about whether they had a relationship with Arcturus and Arbutus, which conveniently are Canadian firms which made nothing but copious, copious, copious profits on the back of, I don't know, a thing that accidentally came into being.

And by the way, we have a presidential candidate, Vivek, right now, is the guy who funded Arbutus and Arcturus. So we have a Republican candidate for president who is using for his campaign money he made on his not so publicly disclosed interest in every shot that was delivered. I wonder how that would play if I don't know somebody at a town hall would ask an inconvenient question like, “Hey Vivek, tell us about the money you made on the back of Arbutus and Arcturus Pharmaceuticals. Why don't we actually have that conversation?” Well, we don't have that conversation because the public is #1 uninformed and when it is informed they are too incredulous to believe that the things I just said happen to be true.

Well, so let's unpack the 5G thing because that's something that I've tried to encourage people to look at actual 5G data. Anybody who wants to believe that 5G is a new phenomenon that somehow or another proliferated across the globe somewhere in 2018 and 2019 when the United States Department of Defense sold the frequency – needs to go back and look at the underlying fact which is the US Department of Defense has had 5G all over the world for years and has found it to be not sufficient for their requirements which is why they sold it commercially.

And as much as people say, “Well, but 5G just started.” No, it didn't. 5G was sold as unusable spectrum by the Department of Defense and carriers bought it not from the FCC, not from an authorized auction, they bought it from the unused frequency that the DoD was giving up. So even the 5G narrative falls apart on its face because we are pretending like because it went into civilian use it hadn't been used before.

I think the whole thing has been very well orchestrated to set a number of little breadcrumbs out there, to allow anybody, anywhere to go, “It's this, it's that, it's something else,” and all of them distract from the central problem. And the central problem is a colluding set of conspirators in both public sector and in industry knew by 2015, and Peter Dashik, by the way, said it outright:

“We are going to get the public to understand the need for a medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. We need the media to create 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.”

The media hype was a programmed hype, and during the entirety of COVID what did we have? We had the breadcrumb of 5G, we had the breadcrumb of SARS-CoV-2, we had the breadcrumb of UFOs, we had the breadcrumb of transgender, we had the breadcrumb of men can have babies, we had the breadcrumb of BLM. Are you kidding?

This was not some co-emergence of social issues that all came about randomly at the same time; this was a destruction of the public confidence narrative which allowed everybody to jump on a bandwagon so that nobody talked about the real crime. And the real crime was something which in 2005 unambiguously stated that the synthetic coronavirus was going to be, and I quote, “a biological warfare enabling technology.”

I don't know where the mystery is because if that is the quote from the perpetrator themselves, why are we trying to figure out: “Why, I wonder, did nature conspire? Did bats get the wrong place? Did a wet market go a little sideways? Did the Chinese Communist Party do something?”

Read the freaking evidence. The evidence is unambiguous. That's how Zev Zelenko became Doctor Z and Zelenko and everything that people know about him, his protocol came from the published work of Ralph Barrick, who was the guy who realized that zinc ionophores and the use of zinc and vitamin D and something like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, which actually opened up the zinc pathways into the cell, Ralph Baric published that paper. The guy who made the weapon published the countermeasure in the early 2010s.

Wouldn't it be logical for the guy who made the weapon to actually have a countermeasure on the off chance that he got the weapon that he was making, right? This is not a giant surprise, in fact, not at all. And it's comical that Zev Zelenko was allegedly a controversial figure for reading Ralph Baric's science. When he went to treat Donald Trump, he wasn't pulling a rabbit out of his hat going, “I think this might work.” He was actually using the data that came from the guy that made the bomb. And his work, by the way, saved thousands of people's lives, while Governor Cuomo was killing people in nursing homes and in hospitals with ventilators.

But once again, we should have recognized that when treatment was being suppressed, and by the way, not hypothetical treatment, published treatment, when that was being suppressed, we should have gone, “Hold on a minute, it sounds like there's a racket here. Somebody's suppressing real treatment options and they're suppressing it so that they can justify an emergency medical countermeasure that can only be authorized if there are no treatment options.”

How funny is it that Johns Hopkins University, that's right, named for Johns Hopkins, the guy who actually popularized hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of malaria, how ironic is it that the very institution funded by the Rockefeller Foundation to celebrate Johns Hopkins, how ironic is it that that Johns Hopkins University was able to turn on its own namesake and say hydroxychloroquine is dangerous? That school has its name because hydroxychloroquine is safe, that's why it has its name.

The CDC used to be before it became the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the US Malaria Suppression Program in Atlanta, GA, which did what? Advocate for the distribution of hydroxychloroquine.

This is one of those things where you sit back and you go, the audacity of the crime is what's surprising, not the existence or absence of a disease or the existence of the absence of a pathogen. The thing that's shocking, truly shocking, is how audacious the criminals are and how blind the public is to reading the information that is right in front of their face. In preference, they're trying to find a motivation for how bad people in government could possibly do anything as bad as what I've just described.

So I think there's a lot of problems in terms of how we have been conditioned to take on information. And I think that as a society, we have been conditioned to accept a fear-based narrative without question. You'll recall, as I will, and I'm dating myself, but you'll recall when we were told that we should crawl under school desks in elementary school and hide under our desks in the event of a nuclear attack from Russia. Now you'll remember those desks, they had a wooden top, they had a little metal casement, and then four metal stands. And somehow, as children, we were conditioned to say that in the event of a nuclear blast we were going to somehow be saved under our desks.

Really? Does anybody know anything about radiation? Does anybody know anything about how nuclear weapons work? Because hiding under a desk merely means that your corpse is preserved so when the Pompeii diggers come back to dig you up, they'll find nice little encapsulated children huddled under melted metal desks. It'll be phenomenal, and it'll be great for a museum somewhere. What a nonsensical thing to do. But why did that practice become ubiquitous across the country? It was to instill fear, allows you to respond to an authoritative impulse, and I can guarantee you every single person who is a parent over the age of 40 knows that they were conditioned to accept, be afraid, set any logic aside, and if the authority tells you to do it in fear, do it.

And by the way, if you were like me being a little smartass because I was in elementary school, when you pointed out how stupid that was, you know what you got? Sent to the principal's office. See, this programming has been around for a long time and we pretend like it's, “Oh my gosh, how did this happen in 2019?”

Now come on, we have been habituated into the belief that if the people in authority who architect the fear tell you (A) to be afraid and then (B) what to do when you're afraid, then you do it. And if we as a society stop living in the fear narrative, the signal couldn't transmit.