Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Seth Holehouse is a TV personality, YouTuber, podcaster, and patriot who became a household name in 2020 after his video exposing election fraud was tweeted, shared, uploaded, and pinned by President Donald Trump — reaching hundreds of millions worldwide.
Titled The Plot to Steal America, the video was created with a mission to warn Americans about the communist threat to our nation—a mission that’s been at the forefront of Seth’s life for nearly two decades.
After 10 years behind the scenes at The Epoch Times, launching his own show was the logical next step. Since its debut, Seth’s show “Man in America” has garnered 1M+ viewers on a monthly basis as his commitment to bring hope to patriots and to fight communism and socialism grows daily. His guests have included Peter Navarro, Kash Patel, Senator Wendy Rogers, General Michael Flynn, and General Robert Spalding.
He is also a regular speaker at the “ReAwaken America Tour” alongside Eric Trump, Mike Lindell, Gen. Flynn.
Welcome to man in America. I'm your host, Seth Holehouse. Today we have a visionary whose discoveries have treated numerous diseases, a global finance expert, a man who's brought powerful white collar criminals to justice and invented life changing medical technologies. These all describe my guests today, doctor David Martin. So why does this man who's worked with Congress and governments all around the world think that COVID nineteen wasn't a freak accident of nature or a lab leak, but a plot years in the making?
Speaker 1:And what criminal patterns has he seen before that are showing themselves again on the world stage? And most importantly, I wanna ask him the question that's on everyone's mind. Why is President Trump continuing to push the vaccine even as people are dying from it? So let us welcome Doctor. David Martin.
Speaker 1:Thank you so much for joining us. I'm so honored to have you on my show.
Speaker 2:Seth, it's a it's a delight to be here, and it was a delight to make your acquaintance down in Texas. What a beautiful evening we had together, and thanks for taking this time.
Speaker 1:Oh, absolutely. Thank you very much. So, David, tell us your story. How did you go and how did you become one of the leading voices in this fight for freedom? You know, what is it that caught your attention and made you realize that something was off with this whole pandemic?
Speaker 2:Well, I'm a veteran of fights for liberty and the cause of humanity. So the good news is when you're called into action, you take action. Seth, you know that for for several decades now, I have been very instrumental in bringing visibility to things that are overt and covert operations that are done to harm humanity. And it's something that's been part of my life for as long as I've been around. So the the good news is it it goes back quite a ways.
Speaker 2:Very few people know, but my journey into this started in 1983, my first congressional testimony ever, which is is something where people go back and go, wow. '83. And and, you know, I've been involved
Speaker 1:I wasn't alive then.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Well, there you go. I I I have been very active in trying to bring visibility to a couple really key things. Number one is a government cannot work if it's built on fallacies, lies, lack of transparency. We cannot have a democratic system.
Speaker 2:We can't have any system of government if it relies on secrecy and lies to keep itself in power. Something fundamentally I hold, and quite frankly, I've spent my entire life making sure that people who think that that's the way that you govern realize that when they fall asleep at night, I want them to know that there's the little scratching sound, which is I'm coming. And I I want that to be ever present. So back in 1983, that was that was my first congressional hearing where I was asked to comment on the selective service legislation, where I was actually advocating for the fact that I think, as an American, we have a duty to serve our country. And I thought that it was an important message to deliver as, at that time, a teenager.
Speaker 2:So got started in this early than than was unfortunately in Central America during the Iran Iran contra scandal. I spent way too many evenings and weekends uncovering where black ops and covert operations were essentially using the cover story of the war on drugs to build a black ops funding operation for The United States to fund various campaigns and conflicts across The Middle East and Central Asia. I was involved in some of the inquiries into that. And then since then, I have been constantly involved in monitoring a number of things where the United States government, agencies associated with government, and corporations who are actually the, you know, kind of the benefactors for the government are engaged in things that are fundamentally antithetical to our values as Americans and antithetical to the principles of humanity. And so having done that for the last, you know, going now into the fourth decade of of my involvement in this, the answer is really simple.
Speaker 2:I don't have an off switch. I think that if we, the people ask for a better humanity, if we want to form a more perfect union, it is incumbent on us to be alert, to be informed, and to take action.
Speaker 1:So, I mean, it sounds like you've been going head on or or at least exposing what a lot of us are now only understanding to be the deep state, the shadow government, military industrial complex.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. But but I I would encourage people to set that cover story aside for a moment and realize that probably the biggest lie that we've been told is that truly since 1604, we've been subject to a far more insidious thing than the military Industrial complex, and that is the drug dealing complex. Our entire nation was built on the British East India Company and the Virginia Company. Those are two companies set up in England in the 1600s, and they were set up to do what?
Speaker 2:They were set up to traffic opium and to traffic tobacco, to traffic sugar. Our country is a story of drug dealing. Our country is a story of the mercantile excesses to which we would go to essentially addict populations to things that harm them. So whether it's tobacco or opium then, whether it was sugar in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, whether it is the modern pharmaceutical story, even the story of the military industrial complex is a cover story for the drug dealing, which is in fact the core of the foundation that has rotted underneath this great country. And if we really want to address this, we have to stop pretending to fall for the second order and third order cover stories and realize we have a problem.
Speaker 2:And our problem is that we have actually accepted a social fabric that is built on addiction, is built on anesthetizing ourselves and making ourselves unconscious to the pain that we experience in our lives and in our society. And we have to start owning the fact that until we have the ability to say it's the pharmaceutical industrial complex, it's the drug dealer, you know, complex, it's, listen, if you're Pfizer and you're killing a child with an mRNA strand, or you're a drug cartel leader in Mexico City, you are no different. You are allowing the illusion of the manipulation of people's lives and humanity for profit to be something for which you have total contempt for the humanity that we all seek to see. And until we can have the real conversations about it, the fact of the matter is we've been in the drug dealing business since sixteen o four, and we are still in it today. That's what this economy is built on.
Speaker 2:That's what our entire government and our entire corporate structure of America was built on. And the minute we embrace the fact that we're drug addicts and we've got a drug war, that's where we need to start the problem.
Speaker 1:So whether it was in the sixteen hundreds or now, if you trace up I mean, is it the British crown? I mean, who who's running this? Who's behind the scene? Who's the odds behind the curtains with what's happening?
Speaker 2:Well, so the behind the curtain is remember that that it wasn't until eighteen o five where we finally had the Rothschild admission where, you know, bay Baron Nathan on Rothschild famously said, you know, he who controls the coin of the realm controls the the realm, and I control the coin. Now the the fact of the matter is that's been an old story. And the old story is that we have propped up puppet governments that go back as far as we can we can certainly research even into the Greek and Roman era, where it is in fact patrons who support the people who ultimately become allegedly the leaders. And we haven't had probably a representational democracy certainly in the last two and a half thousand years. So the notion that we're somehow broken, in the modern era is is ridiculous.
Speaker 2:I mean, it's nice to pat ourselves on the back and walk around lamenting the failure of government now. But the fact of the matter is, until we understand that public service was probably last seen on this planet somewhere around Cyrus the Great, where where you actually have the notion that a leader is not somebody who stands in front with the loudest voice, but is the, in fact, the one who's leading the charge, who's actually defending the village, who's actually giving life and limb and fortune for the benefit of the people. That's what leadership is. And unfortunately, what we've adopted in our modern narrative of leadership is that it's the person with the loudest voice, the biggest bullhorn, and the biggest checkbook. And the fact is that when we turn that into what we call leadership in government, it's corrupt to its core, and it will always be corrupt to its core.
Speaker 1:Gosh. Well, that I think that really goes straight to the heart of the issue we're gonna be talking about today, but I have a few questions kinda leading up to that. You know, one is so I I recently watched Plandemic two indoctrination.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And male, my my family watch it too. You guys, you have to watch this.
Speaker 2:Merry Christmas.
Speaker 1:Exactly. It's like, yes. You know, it's like, well, you've either got Biden's dark winter or the the truth, which might be even more scary, but Yeah. I'd rather have the truth. Can you tell us just a little bit about your journey of discovering, through the patent database, some of the story behind how we got to where we are now?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So I started monitoring this in 1999, My first official briefing on the coronavirus situation itself is a published document in 02/2003. I happened to keep a copy of it handy on shows so that I can actually show people what the first document looked like. This was a document that released the entire discovery of what was happening with violations of biological and chemical weapons around the period of time that was when most people remember in 02/2001, the anthrax scare. In 02/2001, there was a very bizarre situation that occurred, which was the US military ordered 300,000,000 doses of ciprofloxacin from Bayer.
Speaker 2:Ciprofloxacin is the drug that's used to treat anthrax poisoning, And anthrax is a disease that most commonly is seen among hide tanners, leather workers, because that's where bacillus anthracis spends most of its time. Now you can imagine how weird it would be if in the February, you see the US military buying 300,000,000 doses of a drug that is available primarily for treating, I don't know, anthrax poisoning in hide tanners in India. There's not a huge demand in most parts of the world for anthrax treatments because there's not a huge demand for hide tanning. I don't know, maybe you are, maybe Seth, you've got your hide tanning special thing, and I'm now speaking to the hide tanning association of America.
Speaker 1:I raise chickens. That's about as far as
Speaker 2:I've gone to far. But when you see something like that and then and then, obviously, September 28 comes around 02/2001, and we suddenly have this alleged release of anthrax. There's no question that when you see event horizons that don't make sense on the horizon, what you're doing is heightening your acuity to say, watch for what comes next. And so we came across that government contract as part of our normal business activities, because when you have an unusually large international order of a then coming off patented pharmaceutical, that didn't make any sense. Obviously, in February, it started making sense because, obviously, as we now know, the anthrax that was allegedly meant to harm and kill Americans was in fact a product of the bioweapons programs in The United States.
Speaker 2:So the bummer is somebody knew it was coming. Somebody actually prepared for it to come, and then it came. The tragedy, Seth, is that the same methodology is used every time. And and the bad news is we watch it every time. And the good news is that we know what to watch for every time.
Speaker 2:And so beginning in 02/2002, I started briefing the United States Congress intelligence agencies and law enforcement on pathogens that were clearly emerging as front runners for bioterrorism against the population. 02/2003 is when we started specifically focusing in on coronavirus because of the 02/2002 patent that was issued or sought by at the time, sought by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which was the very first patent on the recombination amplification of the pathogenicity of coronavirus. Specifically, and Seth, this is the part that's chilling. And it's really chilling. We have to acknowledge that, you know, it's offensive to hear that this actually was was done.
Speaker 2:But Anthony Fauci and NIAID, working in partnership with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, specifically sought to engineer what they called an infectious replication defective coronavirus. What that means in plain English, and by the way, it is gain of function, whether we want to call it that or not. What they did was they were trying to build something which would make a individual sick, but be less likely to be transmitted to others. That's the definition of a bioweapon. That was patented by UNC Chapel Hill in 02/2002, and the next year, we had the first outbreak of SARS two thousand three.
Speaker 2:Now you tell me. Am I drawing a conclusion given the fact that coronavirus had been circulating in animal populations for millennia? And what it did before humans messed with it is it infected the gastroenteritis triggered internal organs of animals and specifically dogs, pigs, and other vertebrates. It was a GI problem. It was gastroenteritis.
Speaker 2:It wasn't a pulmonary and it wasn't a cardiac problem until humans turned it into that in the late 1990s and early 2000s. And so the reason I gave rise to this as a significant strategic threat was because it was very clear that The United States was beginning a program that was to weaponize coronavirus. And that's when I started this in 02/2003.
Speaker 1:So the, you know, 3 and a half million or or ever so, you know, million dollars given to the Wuhan lab and that whole the whole idea that, you know, think that most people think they hear the narrative, they think that, oh, we gave a few million dollars to Wuhan. They made this over there. They they let it go. This process started in The United States with
Speaker 2:probably
Speaker 1:much more much more money being given to it over the years. And was that still under Fauci's direction? Because wasn't he in charge of distributing all that money?
Speaker 2:Yeah. A hundred and $91,000,000,000. That's the real number. Dollars 191,000,000,000. And Fauci after 02/2003 had the additional undisclosed amount of DARPA funding, which for the biodefense program, which actually also funded the work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which was the increased weaponization of coronavirus, included in 2013 a very, very chilling additional piece of the overall conspiratorial plan.
Speaker 2:And that was in 2013. Allegedly, if we are to believe the public record, there were six minors in China who contracted what is now described as the symptoms of COVID-nineteen. Now the bummer is it was in 02/2013. The alleged coronavirus associated with that particular outbreak in 02/2013 was called the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus one or WIV one. WIV one was allegedly isolated in Wuhan, uploaded to a server, and then reconstructed in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Speaker 1:Was that under Ralph Barack?
Speaker 2:Ralph Barack. Funded by Anthony Fauci and subject to the October 2014 gain of function moratorium in which UNC Chapel Hill received a letter from NIAID saying that the grant was a gain of function grant and saying that they should keep working on it even though it was subject to the moratorium. So, you know, this is in Anthony Fauci's own writing that he's in fact, telling UNC Chapel Hill, hey. We've got this moratorium. It's in place, but wink, wink, nod, nod.
Speaker 2:It's not in place for you. Keep making this weapon happen. In 02/2015, the work was done to actually get the coronavirus from Wuhan Institute of Virology to a place where in 2016, as much as I hate to say this, they published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that SARS coronavirus is now poised for human emergence. Their words. Gosh.
Speaker 2:Their words, not mine.
Speaker 1:And you also had because, you know, one thing I've looked into a lot is the Chinese Communist Party's role in this. I think it was 02/2015 or 02/2016 that the People's Liberation Army published a book. I think it was 261 page book about how a weaponized coronavirus was the best way to wage war on The United States and bring because they need our farmlands. They can't drop a nuke and destroy all of our resources like they've done to their own country. So do you think that this this decades long plan was interwoven with the Chinese Communist Party?
Speaker 1:And then how
Speaker 2:Oh, absolutely. But remember, once again, and this comes back to my central premise, China is as much theater as The United States is theater. The Chinese Communist Party is a convenient decoy to allow people who have mercenary interests in making sure that they keep their control over the whole world. They've just decided since 1999, since the accession of China into the World Trade Organization, they've just decided that China is currently their agent provocateur. The the the idea that this is somehow a nefarious, you know, plot by China to take over the world is as much an illusion as somebody's alleged plot to take over America.
Speaker 2:The fact of the matter is people who have mercantile interests in the outcome have decided that the empire is going to shift. They have decided that the empire that they can manipulate the most is the Chinese Communist Party right now. And from 1999 until the present, they have been doing everything they can to start stacking the deck in favor of China and in opposition to The US hegemony since the second world war. The problem that we have is holding on to the illusion that the flag flying over your head has anything to do with the real actor. This is not a state war China v America.
Speaker 2:This is actually a corporatocracy. And by the way, the corporatocracy without question includes the likes of the Amazons the Pfizers and the Moderna's and all of those, the boroughs welcome. You know, it includes those players, but it includes the financial players, like the BlackRocks and the state streets and the people who are actually the aggregators of capital. And the problem we have is we're still having conversations as though we are somehow in the latter part of the 1800s and still believe that the Westphalia notion of drawing lines on maps matters. This is about the people who control the supply of goods and services, the people who control the supply of resources.
Speaker 2:And listen, let's face the facts. The facts are that Russia, China, and India entered into agreements starting in 02/2008 to build their alternative to the US dollar. They could not have done that if it weren't for the collaboration of United States corporations who had bet against The United States. When we think about 02/2007, the global financial crisis of two thousand eight, and then the economic collapse of two thousand eleven, we are foolish if we're not looking at the fact that $40,000,000,000,000, and just for those of you who are out there calculating with your calculators, 40,000,000,000,000, 3 times the total GDP productivity of the actual production of The United States, Three times that, were bets made against America by investors who were moving $40,000,000,000,000 out of our pocket and into the pocket of the Chinese Communist Party. That's what 2011 was.
Speaker 2:And if we start actually realizing that we're pretending that somehow or another this is a new problem, it's not a new problem. We were asleep. We were buying our Starbucks. We were shopping at our Whole Foods. We were doing all
Speaker 1:two of things.
Speaker 2:And and we were asleep while the the actual takeover happened. And, unfortunately, you know, few of us I mean, the good news is I'm on I'm on video in 02/2007 saying all this. So the retrospective scope is at least convenient because I called it, but that's what happened.
Speaker 1:So in Dallas, in in the conversation we're having, you talked about social security running out, I think in 2028. Yeah. And and the catastrophe that awaits with that. How does that tie into all this? Can you explain that a little bit?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Well, there's there's a there's a practical reality that's objectively true. And then there's Dave Martin's theory on the motivation. So let's start with the practical reality. When Social Security was set up, it was supposed to be a safety net.
Speaker 2:And it was supposed to be a means by which seniors and people with various disadvantages were not left on the side of the road by our society. And it sounded like a laudable goal, it probably had some laudable merit to it. The problem is from the 1970s forward, Social Security became a bit of a Ponzi scheme, which was we took money in in the present to pay off the obligations that we had already made. But But then we started borrowing against the trust fund, and we started using the trust fund as a slush fund. And by the 1980s, it became very clear that the design of Social Security, which was a long dated asset pension management program, had been hijacked by then congress and the White House to be the piggy bank that you could rob with the promise that one day you'll pay it back.
Speaker 2:But like all piggy banks that you rob, you don't keep the other half of Yeah. And so what happened was we we ran into a little problem. And the big the the big version of the little problem was when we started in the early two thousands to realize that the actuarial projections, which is the calculation that you make if you're an asset holder, you make calculations on how you're gonna fulfill your obligations. In the early two thousands, we realized we had a problem. And the problem was that we were going to run out of money or we were going to have to increase the Social Security tax.
Speaker 2:Now imagine if you're the Bush administration, you've just gone through 09/11, and you drop the bomb that says, hey, we need to increase Social Security tax by 10%. That goes over like a lead balloon, as you can well imagine. And so when we could have fixed this, not only did we choose not to, but we did something that's even worse. And here's the death knell of Social Security. In 02/2001, the patriotic thing to do is get a second mortgage on your house and spend money to help prop up the economy.
Speaker 2:So everybody went out, got second mortgages on their house, paid off their credit cards, and then wound up loading up their credit cards, Now turning their real estate into essentially an ATM of consumer debt. The reason why we had the global financial crisis in 02/2008 is because that debt came due and it turns out people didn't pay. And so there was an enormous financial failure. But here's where the problem comes in. The problem is much of the investments that were meant to support long dated assets like pension programs, like social security, like Medicare, and like Medicaid, those programs were in fact buying assets, were junk bonds.
Speaker 2:They were credit default swaps. They were derivatives. They were all kinds of other things. And when that market collapsed, any hope of surviving as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid's trust fund went to zero. And by the way, by 2011 was the last time we could have fixed the problem.
Speaker 2:By 2011. Those of you counting here, this is 2021. So, we're we're ten years over the edge of the cliff, and we're like the Wile E. Coyote running past the clouds and hoping that we don't look down because we know what happens when we look down. We actually fall, and there's an anvil above us that lands on our head.
Speaker 2:We don't wanna have that happen. But here's here's the interesting challenge. And this is the fact. The fact is that we know the Social Security trust fund runs to zero in 2028. And that's assuming that we don't have any more manipulations of of fixed income prices that the central banks don't actually continue to keep rates artificially low.
Speaker 2:None of those assumptions, by the way, even have a chance of holding. So what I just said is the tooth fairy. It won't happen. We're gonna run out before 2028. Here's the big problem.
Speaker 2:We have 86,000,000 Americans right now for whom Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is the primary source of livelihood. That number could go to 120,000,000 by the time we get roughly to 2028. Now's the problem, and this is where we go into the theory. Dave's theory is that we don't want 120,000,000 Americans over the age of 65 in 2028. And I don't think it's much of a theory.
Speaker 2:I don't think it's much of a reach to suggest the fact that when the CDC and the FDA with no justification whatsoever decided that we start injecting people at 65, which by the way, was the first alleged population of interest, despite the fact that there was not a single shred of empirical evidence to suggest that age had anything to do with infectivity or illness. What did have something to do with infectivity and illness was other concomitant problems, heart disease, you know, diabetes, all these other kinds of But age wasn't that. But the fact that they went after age tells me that the reason why I have a hunch that this was an intentional harming of the 65 population is because 65 is only relevant in the social security paradigm. So if you bump off people who allegedly have lived a full life, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you know, we're going to call it an unfortunate thing, but decreasing that population, I don't think is an accident. And I think the likelihood is by 2028, we are going to sit back and go, oh my gosh, did that really happen?
Speaker 2:And the answer is not only did it really happen, it was designed to happen because we needed to shrink the beneficiary pool by 2028. And that is real because it's another form of gerrymandering. Wow. It turns out that if you kill the 65 population, Seth, you know where, you actually get to redistrict. Think about it.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Think about who votes, which side of which which ticket.
Speaker 1:Exactly. I remember seeing all the nursing home stories in Yep. California. You know, in New York City, very blue city. I used to live there.
Speaker 1:Where's your conservative population? Well, wherever there's gonna be people that are sixties, seventies, eighties plus. Yep. So maybe that was just the beginning step.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, it is a travesty that we don't talk about this, but there is no question that the reckless mistreatment of senior citizens that took place under the Cuomo administration in New York, that took place in New Jersey by Phil Murphy, the horrible things that were done by Gavin Newsom in California. These were willful acts of indifference towards senior citizens. That's the reason why when I talk about this as my theory. And by the way, I'm saying it's a theory. I'm not telling you that it is, you know, that somewhere there's chapter and verse that some nefarious plan has in the notebook that says this.
Speaker 2:But the fact of the matter is, if you are going to solve the Social Security problem, and just political political expediency one zero one, Seth, if we're gonna solve this problem, we got one of two options. And by the way, the Social Security Administration themselves says this. We can either increase the Social Security tax right now 15% and decrease benefits by 20%. That, by the way, is how you get to twenty thirty. You heard what I said.
Speaker 2:Increase tax by 15%, decrease benefits by 20% today just to survive to twenty thirty. Now politically, is that more or less acceptable than creating the cover story of a pandemic that allegedly killed off grandpa and grandma?
Speaker 1:So do you think that you think that a lot of politicians are aware of this?
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:Really?
Speaker 2:And I think a lot of politicians know that they can't handle the notion that maybe the public, if they were told the truth, would actually be able to have their moment of grief. Because let's face it, what I'm saying is an unfortunate reality. But the fact of the matter is we live in a world where politicians are more than happy, more than happy to get elected in the next cycle, but who are unwilling to deliver the painful message that says, guess what? Promises made in the nineteen forties and nineteen fifties are broken promises. We didn't make them, but we are the stewards of their failure.
Speaker 2:And now as responsible human beings, we are going to do the right thing, which is to confront these issues head on and trust Americans to actually be responsible and say, okay, we'll take an ounce of pain. Listen, go back to the second world war. And I tell people this repeatedly because it's a part of history we've failed to understand. We chose to have less tires on the road. We chose to consume less gasoline because it was patriotic to make sure resources were available for the war effort.
Speaker 2:Americans are willing to do the thing they're called to do if if they see that it is done equivalently, if they see everybody is shouldering some of the burden and having some of the pain. We are a people who are willing to make sacrifices for the common good, but we have to be told the truth. And it can't be sacrifices for some, but oh, by the way, if we're elected, it doesn't apply to us. It's gotta be sacrificed across the board. We can handle the truth, and the tragedy is our elected officials are unwilling to embrace that.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So do you think that's why a lot of politicians are not talking about deaths from the vaccine? And even Trump perhaps is not talking about not pointing towards the deaths from the vaccines?
Speaker 2:Well, there's there's no question because if if we were in any other situation, I mean, think back to every other product liability case. We had a couple, what was it, AMC Gremlins, I think it was, that had their gas tanks that blew up and we shut down the entire line of cars. We had H5N1 vaccines and we had, you know, eight hundred
Speaker 1:or nine
Speaker 2:hundred deaths and injuries, and we shut down the entire program. The fact is that as much as the CDC and the FDA try to hide behind what they reportedly say is the error in the VAERS database, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, What they don't seem to realize is that by saying that there are errors, they are violating the 1986 act. Most people don't know this. In fact, I haven't heard anybody except me talk about this. The 1986 act, which shields manufacturers from liability
Speaker 1:Which was under Reagan. Right?
Speaker 2:Reagan Reagan's nineteen eighty six, National Vaccine Childhood Vaccine Protection Act. If you go back and read that, what you find is that the manufacturers of vaccines are required to keep VAERS accurate. That's actually a statutory requirement. So if they're telling you that it's not accurate, they're admitting to violating the law. Nobody's talking about that.
Speaker 2:And and I mean, even the people who are fighting mandates aren't talking about that. And I'm sitting there going, are you crazy? Read the law. You cannot, on the one hand, say you're gonna get the indemnity shield, And on the other hand, say VAERS can't be trusted because VAERS is a statutory requirement. And that's the quid pro quo in getting the immunity.
Speaker 2:If the VAERS is wrong, then the immunity is pierced because it's the manufacturer's legal responsibility to make sure VAERS is accurate. I mean, and these are the simple things. These are simple things. But even the people who say they're awoke are not paying attention to the simple self evident violations of the process. And that is a topic of an entire different conversation.
Speaker 2:But the point is that when you have somebody like president Trump making the statements he's making, I'm gonna be the first person to go out on a limb and say he was duped. Because there's no question that Alex Azar, who was by the way, put in by the Bush administration to make the PREP Act a mirror of the liability shield that the 86 act was. So let's get really clear. It was Reagan in '86. It was Bush in 02/2005.
Speaker 2:These are the ones that handed the pharmaceutical industry the gate pass.
Speaker 1:Complete immunity.
Speaker 2:Complete immunity. And so for anybody who sits there going, oh, this is a Biden problem, you know, we have to take a tough pill here. Republican presidents are the ones that gave the pharmaceutical industry the hall pass.
Speaker 1:Even even the republican hero of of Reagan.
Speaker 2:No question. So so, I mean, it's a tough pill to swallow, but we have to swallow it. There it is. But the point the point is that what we know is Alex Azar was put in place to actually get the PREP Act to give liability to adult medical countermeasures, which is what was childhood under the '86 act. And then 02/2017 comes along, and the guy who Trump appoints to be the Department of Health and Human Services secretary, let's remember this.
Speaker 2:When he was appointed, he was being investigated for criminal antitrust violations, collusion and price fixing. And his his criminal charges in Mexico were for tripling the cost of insulin to diabetics in Mexico. That's the guy who Trump put in place to run the criminal racket that became COVID nineteen. Listen carefully to what I'm saying. This guy was under investigation for antitrust law violations.
Speaker 2:He was ultimately liable for his work at Eli Lilly where he price fixed and price manipulated the cost of insulin to diabetics. That's the guy who Trump put in the position of running the emergency.
Speaker 1:So how could Trump how could Trump have done that? Would he Well Was he
Speaker 2:Good old fashioned or Good old fashioned manipulation. The benefactors who write the checks are the ones who make the appointments. I am not suggesting in anything I'm saying that Trump had a list of 10 potential candidates, and he kinda got them on The Apprentice and then interviewed them and and figured out, yeah. You're fired. You're fired.
Speaker 2:I'm not suggesting that at all. As a matter of fact, I'm certain that he had no idea that when he signed that appointment, I'm sure he had no idea that Alex Azar was under investigation for antitrust violations, because that's not good optics. Just isn't good optics.
Speaker 1:So Do think that's maybe why Trump also go ahead.
Speaker 2:Oh, go ahead.
Speaker 1:I would say, do you think it's also why Trump had Fauci as and Burks, who has her own, you know, you know, checkered past? Is that why they were in the front? Because I remember watching and thinking, why does Trump have Fauci with his history of AIDS and all this? Why is he the front person of this?
Speaker 2:Well and and and let's face it. I mean, Fauci tried unsuccessfully to get vaccines patented from his own laboratory, and the the patent office actually schooled him in the fact that he did not understand what a vaccine was, and they rejected his patent. So this guy is not just an epic fail as a doctor, as a researcher, and by the way, has zero, zero experience in respiratory pathogen diseases. There's he had no credibility. So the the notion that he was America's Doctor for a respiratory pathogen program, that's like saying that I've got a chiropractor, and what I need is neurosurgery.
Speaker 2:You know what? If I have a back problem, I'm happy to go to a chiropractor. But guess what I'm not gonna do? If my brain is open, I don't think I need a neck adjustment. I need my brain closed.
Speaker 2:The fact is, Anthony Fauci had no credential. He was put in that position to show that he had in fact executed the coup d'etat on the presidency. This was the pharmaceutical industry having photo ops to say the president of The United States has been marginalized and emasculated, and he is standing behind Fauci. He's standing behind Birx. He's standing behind Alex Azar.
Speaker 2:And the fact of the matter is Trump to this day does not understand that not only was he played, but this was a coup in which he had the coup leaders in his inner circle.
Speaker 1:So there's a lot of folks that make sense this by saying that Trump by using Operation Warp Speed and by rushing the vaccine out, that that he averted what was originally a plan for five to ten years worth of lockdowns as they held the dangling carrot of the vaccine that he was forced with this scenario where it's like, okay, they're five years of lockdowns, everyone's dying from that, or using, you know, Operation Warp Speed or rushing a vaccine out.
Speaker 2:Yeah, well, that's because somehow or another, back in the spring of twenty twenty, we decided to listen to Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, and we decided to take a computer gamer, no kidding, a guy who does epidemiology by computer games, and we decided to let him tell tell us how many people were gonna be dead. Now I'm not diminishing people. Please don't misquote me. But I'm not diminishing that there are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of seven or eight hundred thousand people who died of some form of influenza like illness across the last two years. I am not saying that that did not happen.
Speaker 2:What I am saying is that Neil Ferguson's two million bodies in the streets did not happen. Yeah. Didn't happen. And it didn't happen because the bioweapon that was engineered, if we go back and read the ingredient label on the bioweapon, it says infectious replication defective. Now, Seth, the problem with that is they told us what it was.
Speaker 2:They told us that they were making a thing that made you sick, but was hard to transmit. We had to look all over the place to come up with these BS stories of transmission, and not one of them has been empirically shown to be the case. As a matter of fact, when the study was actually done on asymptomatic transmission, Not only did we not find evidence of transmission, we could not find the provenance of the infectious agent, meaning that allegedly I got sick, I gave it to you. You can test whether I did give it to you because there's a fingerprint of my stuff on the thing that you get if in fact it was transmitted. Tiny little problem.
Speaker 2:We can't find any evidence that that transmission actually happened. Now part of the reason for that is the RT PCR can't do it. It's technically impossible. So you can't have a thing that is verified because we literally aren't measuring it. So there's that problem.
Speaker 2:But the deeper problem is when it was actually sequenced, we found out that transmission wasn't happening. And it's a bummer to tell people that the science, which allegedly is the thing we're supposed to worship, the science can't find the story to back their own story, and we're supposed to buy it.
Speaker 1:And and and, you know, with with Trump because I think it's this has become such a divisive issue among his base. And I see comments all over the place. Have one side, they're like, he's a vaccine salesman, and I he's would he'll never get my vote again. The other side are like, look. He he this is a wartime.
Speaker 1:He's a wartime president. He had to make sacrifices. I'm trying to be objective and really understand what was happening. So even now, with all the information that we have access to, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't have some people that are telling him this is what the VAERS data is saying. There is evidence of people whereas with Owens a couple of days ago, he said no one's died from the vaccine.
Speaker 1:And he also said that the people going to the hospital are the unvaccinated. So why do you think is it because maybe if he speaks out a little bit against it, the media is going to blame him for any unvaccinated death? Or why do you think he's in this situation?
Speaker 2:Well, because, I mean, I'll return to my previous definition of leadership. Leadership is saying the truth. If you're not capable of saying the truth, then you're not a leader. And the fact of the matter is there is not a single possibility that president Trump could possibly make the statement no one has died from the vaccine because in the clinical trials themselves, there were abnormal numbers of deaths in the vaccine population. Now, remember that you weren't allegedly considered vaccinated until post fourteen days after receiving a shot first time, by the way, in any vaccine trial where we allowed people to die from a shot, but it didn't count because it happened within fourteen days.
Speaker 2:The fact of the matter is that Trump is lying, and we need to call it what it is because integrity requires that we call it what it is. People died. Pfizer has a memo that they actually had published that said that there's an acceptable death rate in their vaccine program. Now an acceptable death rate in any of the product would not be tolerated, but an acceptable death rate in a vaccine program is tolerated. The fact of the matter is, if Trump ever read the VAERS statute, as I pointed out earlier in the 1986 act, he would realize that there is a requirement for that to be correctly reported.
Speaker 2:The fact that Pfizer will not release the data on their adverse events and deaths, and they're pretending to need fifty five years to do what took less than one hundred and twenty days for the FDA to review. The fact of the matter is people are bearing the evidence, and everyone knows it. This is a willful act of the malicious harming of Americans. This is a willful act of domestic terrorism, and I have been more than happy to hold the possibility that Trump was very poorly advised. But I'm running out of patience on that story very quickly.
Speaker 2:And I think a lot of people who would like to be able to support Trump in other ways are running out of patience on that story. Because the fact of the matter is you do not promote a thing that is known to harm and kill young people, old people to create myocarditis in the youth. You do not promote that and still have any modicum of ethical bones in your body. You cannot do that. It is incompatible.
Speaker 2:And we need to actually have the integrity of saying that.
Speaker 1:And do you think that for him, because I think Operation Warp Speed seemed like such an accomplishment to get this out there, that and he, you know, even if he was deceived at that time, that maybe he just, it's it's just too much to accept the truth and to face and to admit to people that he was involved in what could have become a a very real threat and and, you know, murderer of humankind of many people.
Speaker 2:You know, there I've I've raised this issue several times, and I'm glad you brought it up because I think there is a genuine need on behalf of those of us who actually have an advocacy for humanity to have a bit of humility and humanity, and realize that when people have done things that are horrific, in this case, in quite literally, resulting in the loss of human life, and the premeditated loss of human life. Let's face it. Remdesivir, which is the drug that a lot of people are being forced to take in hospitals, is killing people.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Remdesivir was killing people in previous clinical trials, which is the reason why it never got approved. Yeah. It got didn't get approved because it was killing people. By the way, Ralph Baerick, one of the co investigators on the invention of remdesivir. So conveniently Imagine that.
Speaker 2:Murder in chief running times two. But the fact is that we have a situation where each and every one of these particular programs has been administered in a way where the conscience of an individual is seared to a point where if you actually had to step up and take responsibility and accountability for the actions that you took, the results would be tragic. And so this is the way in which evil works to blackmail good people is that makes the admissibility of your accountability so painful that you actually double down on the evil. This is like a kid. You know, it's it's like a kid who goes, you know, into the Oreo jar before dinner, still has the crumbs on their cheek and swears that it's not an Oreo.
Speaker 2:You know, you you got you got the dust on your face. You got the milk dripping off your chin. You got the little white gooey stuff stuck between your teeth, you swear, no. I didn't have a cookie. Right?
Speaker 2:That's where we are. And and quite frankly, this is Trump's Oreo jar. He he's got the cookie crumbs on his face and saying he's not eating the cookie.
Speaker 1:And I and I everything that I've seen this is why it's been very difficult for me because everything that I've seen up until now with Trump, he's protected the second amendment, you know, the free speech seventeen seventy six commission. And he's, you know, put a thorn into the CCP's side. Like, single thing I've seen has made me very confident in him as a leader. And so I just I hope that whatever things he's battling personally that he can come forward and address this in the right way, because, you know, I think our country needs him in some form. And if he's losing the support of people because of this, I think that it's taking us down a very bad path.
Speaker 2:Well, he received in the February. He received a very, very clear statement drafted by yours truly that actually said, if you want to have a chance at winning the election, you have to stop supporting the coup attempt. I mean, that letter is a letter that I wrote, and I know that it was requested by a member of his family delivered to him. I know he knew it. And my point was, if you want to win the election, what you need to do is actually point to the short guy that's in front of you in this podium and go, by the way, this domestic terrorist is the reason why we almost lost our country, and I'm holding this domestic terrorist accountable.
Speaker 2:Now convenient thing is it would have been very easy to have secret service of the FBI there and arrest him and cuff him, and we would have been out of this nonsense a long time ago. But for reasons that can only be described as patronage, because it turns out that it is bad, bad, bad for business. If you're going into an elected position, it's bad for business to be on the wrong side of the drug dealers because, let's face it, drug dealers are the largest endorser of political campaigns in America.
Speaker 1:Biggest lobbyers by almost doubled. What? Twice the oil
Speaker 2:and gas triple. By close to triple now. So so the fact of the matter is if you hold the drug dealers accountable, they hold you accountable, and you don't get elected. And that has got to stop because Trump's morality was for sale for 30 pieces of silver, and he has sold American lives to the drug dealers.
Speaker 1:Yeah. That's a heavy it's a heavy thing to to even explore. I mean, now do you think that there could have been any kind of NDA or something that would have stopped him from speaking in a certain way about what's happening with these vaccines?
Speaker 2:You know, I try as best I can to stick with the evidence that I have in my possession. What I do know is that on the September 19, when he signed 2019, when he signed the executive order that included the mandate for vaccines that included a recombinant technology, recombinant gene technology. In September of twenty nineteen, Seth, there was not a single reason for that to be an executive order. There's a lot of things wrong. Remember that during that period of time, we did have another emergency use authorization going on.
Speaker 2:And people forget this. We had another EUA, and that EUA was on the opioid crisis. Now it turns out that the same people who were making billions of dollars getting people addicted and killed by opioids held the patents. Listen to what I'm saying. They held the patents on a non addictive formula so that no one could make the non addicted formula.
Speaker 2:Gosh. That's a live EUA that was live in February. If the president was caring about humanity, he could have made an emergency use authorization to force the production of non addicting opioids because that information was known by the government. That information was known by the media, and not a single person was taking action on that. But instead, on September 19, he signs an executive order that mandates a vaccine urgent platform.
Speaker 2:In September of twenty nineteen, there was nothing on the horizon in September of twenty nineteen. And the only reason that executive order was put on his desk is someone paid him to sign it.
Speaker 1:Is that the executive order that ties into the CRISPR technology?
Speaker 2:That's the executive order that ties into the mRNA platform, which is exactly what Anthony Fauci told congress in February. So before there's a Wuhan anything, before we've heard of anything happening in China, we were told this was for the mRNA vaccine platform. That's what the executive order was for. That's exactly what was said 12/04/2019. And that gives rise to the economic interests of CRISPR, because it turns out that if you start putting mRNA into people, you're gonna have to find technologies that are gonna clip it out.
Speaker 2:And the only way you're gonna do that, because as many times as people tried to do it before, it never succeeded because the church always got in the way. Morality always got in the way. We needed to find a way to get the church and morality out of the picture. And we needed to make sure that we could edit the human genome and have nobody comment on that from a moral or ethical standpoint, and God forbid, have a religious objection. So what do we do?
Speaker 2:We actually manufacture the agent of delivering the altering chemistry, the mRNA platform, And then lo and behold, mysteriously, in December of twenty twenty, we give two women the Nobel Prize for CRISPR. During the pandemic created to get CRISPR into mainstream without the objection of the church, who had objected for it for a decade before.
Speaker 1:And so can you explain this a little bit what CRISPR is?
Speaker 2:CRISPR is a very simple gene editing process, which goes into the genome and allows you to clip what are called palindromic repeat series. That's where the CRISPR acronym comes from. But what it's looking for is sequences inside of the genome that allow certain genes to express. What the goal of CRISPR is, is to modify humans so that we can edit them to either have features that we do like or take out features that we don't like.
Speaker 1:So we can play God?
Speaker 2:Not play God. Just thumb our nose in the face of God. This is this is actually pure contempt for everything that we've called divinity.
Speaker 1:Gosh. So do you think and and this is an understanding where Trump was at with all this, and he talked a lot about the invisible enemy that he's up against. And do you think that there there he is in some ways trying to fight up against this cabal, this, you know, the the corporatocracy that's ruling the the the world? Do you think that he's still trying within the limited means that he has within the bounds of this war to fight to save potentially a lot more deaths in the future?
Speaker 2:You know, I know that that was certainly the position that I aspired to hold. And if that sounds like it's watered down, it is. I wanted this to be an answerable in maybe there's a multi level chessboard, and this is a move on one level to save a move on the other level. But here's the problem with that story. The problem with that story is what has happened to the military.
Speaker 2:You do not allow the Department of Defense to issue a self inflicted harm order to the Department of Defense, where you take military men and women, people who are trained advanced fighting forces, Navy SEALs, special forces, you know, special air wings in the Air Force, you do not take our best defense and sidelighten them by forcing them to take a kill shot. You do not do that if you're playing for the same team. You would never do anything. And by the way, the the current secretary of defense is a traitor, and we need to call it what it is. You do not weaken your own army so that a foreign party can take advantage of that weakness.
Speaker 2:We have fewer special forces. We have fewer marines. We have fewer defensive postures than we had six months ago and eight months ago. And we did it for what? We did it because we were trying to force people to take a jab that would ultimately harm their fighting force readiness.
Speaker 2:I wrote a piece for the Department of Defense, and it was circulated internally, which actually suggested that in addition to the vaccine injury question, which is actually a very significant problem, we were doing what was called battlefield softening. In other words, we were self inflicting onto our defense forces, a means by which fewer of them could potentially rise to the defense of this country. And we did that intentionally. And no empire in human history has survived an internal military fighting force softening. And we did it to ourselves.
Speaker 2:So this is not something I can look at and just kind of innocently go, it's just an error in judgment and there's a chessboard play that there's, listen, this is corruption at its core. This is evil at its core, and we, the people, have to be able to actually call it what it is. This is the expression of evil. And against that expression, we have to have the voice of truth, and we have to have the forces of good. I've lost your audio.
Speaker 1:Sorry. Am I okay now?
Speaker 2:Just got it back.
Speaker 1:Okay. Great. So we're gonna soon, we're gonna transition over for the q and a session on Rise TV. But I wanna just ask one final question to some of this part of the conversation, which is where do you see this heading? Where are we going, and where does the hope lie?
Speaker 1:Because it's a pretty grim picture sometimes.
Speaker 2:So I'm not a fan at all of hope. I think it is a disgusting metaphor that allows us to defer reality. So I'm gonna go with the I am certain, I am certain of a present where we, as people of courage, we have people of faith, we have people of morals, we have people of values, have the opportunity to let this be the clarion call that wakes us into action. The great news is we're having this conversation, Seth, because you had something stir within you, which woke you up to say, this is a conversation I must share. I had something in me that woke up and said, this is information I must share.
Speaker 2:This is a moment where the evidence shows that people who do have a moral compass, people who do have a voice, people who do understand what leadership is, and who do understand what it means to put the lives of others before their own. This is a moment where we in fact are standing up. And so the great news is I don't have hope for a future, have certainty for a future. Because the fact is that we are now coming into the Christmas season. And listen, we tell the Christmas story like many other stories so freaking wrong because we're trying to make it a hallmark greeting card.
Speaker 2:Remember, remember that king Herod sought to kill every child. Remember that. No different from the puppet in chief Biden seeking to kill and maim everything under the age of five so that he can actually continue this reign of domestic terrorism. And it was in that moment that what happened? It was in that moment that wise men from the East came and found a stable.
Speaker 2:And in that stable, they found a mother and they found a child, and they actually realized that there was something so much bigger, so much more transcendent than any of the forces of darkness. And listen. We're talking about the whole Roman empire killing off every child. You think that was a bad day to be alive? You better believe it.
Speaker 2:But guess what? It was into that moment that our incarnation story happens. We have to start telling our own truth. And our own truth is the light will always prevail against the darkness. This is the absolute certainty, not the hope, the certainty that we, in fact, are going to prevail.
Speaker 1:You know, I've asked that question a lot, and I can tell you that's the only time that an answer has ever brought tears to my eyes. So thank you very much for sharing that. Well,
Speaker 2:there's your Christmas sound bite, everybody.
Speaker 1:Yeah. There we go.
Speaker 2:Few seconds. Yeah. And we'll turn that into our Merry Christmas soundbite.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Merry Christmas from from from doctor Martin. So we are gonna going to transition over to Rise TV now. So for those of you that are watching, if you wanna ask your own questions, it's a much more intimate setting. We've already got a lot of questions we've been collecting from folks who are watching, which is great.
Speaker 1:We've got about a half an hour, so maybe a tad longer if we can stretch Dave out a little bit. But there's a link in the description below if you want to get get a free trial. And even if you just come over for the interview and then you run away, it's okay. But I think you'll probably end up staying because it's got some great Yeah.
Speaker 2:Well, and let me just put a pitch in here, people. It takes a lot of time and resources to do what Seth is doing. So do yourself and him a Christmas favor. And actually make this worth your while because I know it's worth all of our while to do our part. So stay longer and and make sure that you've put something in Seth's stocking.
Speaker 1:Thank you, David. And before we hop over, where can people find you? And if people wanna find you, support you, harass you, where can they get you?
Speaker 2:Yeah. The best place to go is fullyliveacademy.com. That's all one giant word, fullyliveacademy.com or davidmartin.world. Those are the two places to find me.
Speaker 1:Okay, great. Great. So for those of you that joined us on Rumble, thank you very much. This video is gonna stay up on there for you to share with your friends and family. Some very important messages in here.
Speaker 1:It was not been an easy discussion from, you know, some angles, but I think that the avoidance of difficult topics has gotten us to where we are right So
Speaker 2:Exactly right.
Speaker 1:And I so I thank you, David, for just speaking very candidly about things. So we're gonna hop over to Rise TV. Rumble, thank you all so much for for sticking with us. And, Kate, are we over on the Rise only? Okay, great.
Speaker 1:Alright. So, David, I have to say this has been a fabulous interview, and I hope to have you on more often.
Speaker 2:I look forward to it. Next time, we'll do it face to face so that we can be sitting across the table.
Speaker 1:That I'd like. Yeah. That I'd really like. Well, if you're ever in the countryside of Ohio, I've got a studio set up.
Speaker 2:You know, I know my way through Ohio. I made the trip to Indiana from Pennsylvania and from Virginia, so there's not a back road in Ohio I don't know.
Speaker 1:Oh, well, good. Well, I'm very close to 70, so I'm sure that you've driven past.
Speaker 2:I've spent way too many times on 70.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Great. So we're gonna jump into some of these questions. This is this is always my favorite part of the interview because, you know, we've got really, really intelligent people watching, and they've got this fantastic question. So, okay, so here's our first question from Judy M, who also donated $50 during the interview, which is amazing.
Speaker 1:So thank you, Judy. And she has a question, which is I've wanted this too. Why wasn't Fauci arrested for lying to Congress on gain of function?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So that's a beautiful question. And as as people who are familiar with my work, know I am extremely critical of Rand Paul. On four occasions, Rand Paul has had the opportunity to deliver the knockout blow, he hasn't, because he has in his possession the October 2014 letter, which very clearly says that NIAID knew that Ralph Baric's research was gain of function. And every single time Rand Paul has had Anthony Fauci before Congress, he has had in his possession the evidence of Anthony Fauci's lie, and he has failed to deliver the knockout punch every single time.
Speaker 2:Now if you go and watch Rand Paul's behavior, you see why. Because Rand Paul turns the public sparring match into a go out and fund me campaign for his campaign. It is phenomenal theater to keep pretending like you're standing for the truth. But here's the truth. Rand Paul is not standing for the truth.
Speaker 2:Rand Paul is raising money. And the fact of the matter is I know he has in his possession that letter, and he has not once dropped it in front of Fauci. If you're a prosecutor and you have the smoking gun and you do not use it, you are a coconspirator with the criminal.
Speaker 1:It's a good answer. Yeah. It it's it's interesting because that's something I oftentimes come back to is that I look at DC. It's it's just kabuki theater. It's bread and circuses.
Speaker 1:It's not Yep. There's just nothing. Yeah. So that's a that's a good answer. Now what do you think that I saw recently that, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's been very outspoken against the vaccines and things.
Speaker 1:She it was revealed, and I'm not sure if this was real or fake, but she owns stock in the vaccines. Have you heard anything about that?
Speaker 2:Well, I do know that there's an enormous number of of people who are in the environment, who are elected officials, who have a financial interest in the outcome. One of the things that I've shared with people, and a lot of people have a problem with this, and the good news is I talk about the problem. Know, Seth, I ran the CNBC IQ one hundred, which is the top US equity index, and it has been since 2015. Not surprisingly, companies like Pfizer are in that index. And there are people who actually manage money with an index that I create, and I create that index, and it is a measure of the economy.
Speaker 2:Many people have asked me, but, Dave, isn't that a moral conflict? And the answer that I give is yes. It is a very huge moral conflict, which is the reason why I use my resources to make sure I speak out against unethical behaviors in all corporations. I speak out against mining companies that actually take advantage of third world countries. I speak out against energy companies who violate the integrity of environmental laws.
Speaker 2:I speak out against all the countries because as a shareholder, I take my responsibility as a shareholder to try to bring my voice into those organizations. And it turns out that you can only bring your voice into the organization if you are in fact a shareholder in it. The other thing is I do not short the market. I'm a long only investor, meaning that I will not take advantage of the damage that my words might do, which means I could suffer losses for my morality. And guess what I've done?
Speaker 2:I've done that. So let's be clear. Owning a stock if you're using it for a prophetic voice is not a wrong thing.
Speaker 1:That's a very good point.
Speaker 2:Owning a stock and having a voice and using that voice is actually part of the system we're in. And there is no such thing as a moral dollar in this country. So anybody who wants to stand on a high horse and go, well, I'm not in. If you have a four zero one k, if you bought an ETF, you are in Pfizer and probably Johnson and Johnson and probably AstraZeneca and probably a bunch of other things. The fact of the matter is we are all participating whether we're conscious of it or not.
Speaker 2:And what we need to do is increase our consciousness so that our voice can be heard. That's the reason why I live in the conflict, because I'm part of a system which involves a monetary system that, in fact, was built, as I said, in sixteen o four on drug dealing and has never been free from it since.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Good answer. So Scott Monson asked so another question I've wondered about. Why are the Nuremberg codes not protecting us from medical tyranny? And how can we get on board with the efforts that Yep.
Speaker 1:Maybe ongoing with regard to the Nuremberg Code?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So so let's get something clear. The United States is not a party to the Nuremberg Code. We are not a party to the International Criminal Court. Everybody who pretends like any of those things are helping is absolutely doing nothing but swindling people out of money.
Speaker 2:The fact of the matter is under 21 code of federal regulations, section 50 dot 23 and dot 24, we have the only US statute that enshrines a part of the Nuremberg Code. And the part that's relevant is the section of the code, the first section of Nuremberg Code, which is you cannot be coerced into taking an experimental medical, practice. Now if your job is under threat, if your employment is under threat, if you're going to school is under threat, if anything is under threat, that's coercion. That's a violation of the Nuremberg Code, and it's a violation of 21 code of federal regulations section 50 dot twenty three and twenty four. Here's the problem.
Speaker 2:Not a single listen to me carefully. Not a single lawsuit in this country has litigated that code. Not one. So if you want to actually have the Nuremberg code applied, it is enshrined in the 21 code of federal regulations section 50.2324. And if you wanna do it, we are now two years into our request to have public get together to in fact fund a case where we go after this on a violation of the 21 code of federal regulations.
Speaker 2:So far, no one, not a single attorney in America has decided to take that case. Not one.
Speaker 1:Why do you think that? Why wouldn't they have?
Speaker 2:You know what? I hate to say this, but a lot of things that we're calling awoke and a lot of things we're calling activists are in fact using this as their biggest fundraising opportunity to date, and solving the problem is bad for business. Like drug dealers that we deal with. Not curing disease, we're getting people dependent on it. And similarly, a lot of alleged good people, alleged, you know, activists, this, that, a lot of those individuals are sitting on their hands recognizing that COVID was the best fundraiser they could ever have, and they do not stop it.
Speaker 1:Gosh. That makes sense, unfortunately. So I have a great question from Anne Marie who also donated $20. So thank you,
Speaker 2:Anne Marie. Thank you, Anne Marie. You're an amazing person. Thank you.
Speaker 1:And she asked another great question. What's what's Obama up to? Like, what is Obama's involvement in all of this?
Speaker 2:Well, Obama was a stooge when he was selected. And if you haven't read my book, Coup de 12, the enterprise that bought the presidency, Give it to yourself for Christmas or give 10 of them to your friends for Christmas because it is actually the backstory of the Obama election. Obama was, among other things, not a president. He was nothing but a cardboard cutout, which happened to be what is in intelligent circles called a canvas. And that means somebody who has so little substance to them that you can paint anything on the surface and make them whatever you want.
Speaker 2:Obama, unfortunately, has maintained a position almost invisibly in the intelligence community and in the international stage of essentially cutting deals that are directly harming the future of America. But that's no different from what he was doing when he was president. Remember that he was the president that was allegedly elected to resolve conflicts in The Middle East, and he amplified the killing. And I've never heard the left talk about how he became the drone killer in chief. For some reason, they don't like to talk about that.
Speaker 1:They
Speaker 2:don't like to talk about the fact that he expanded the number of contract boots on the ground while allegedly diminishing our men and women in uniform. The fact of the matter is every story that Obama told was a cover story. If you wanna read the whole story, read coup de twelve and, you know?
Speaker 1:I'm going to buy. Is that I hate to ask. Is it on Amazon? Is that where I should buy it?
Speaker 2:You can you can get it a lot of places, but it's, it's it's a book that if you read, you'll you'll never forget it. And and KUDA twelve, the enterprise that bought the president, so you'll find out way too much about Obama, including the opening chapter.
Speaker 1:Okay. Well, I'm gonna have to get that. Kate, I'm gonna I'm gonna buy you that for Christmas. I have a great question from Maureen's wife, and it's probably a very pertinent question. She says, for those of us who will continue to refuse the jab, but have family who've been jabbed, what advice do you have?
Speaker 2:So I stay very, very far afield of topics where I know others are more equipped to deal with it. I think Doctor. Zelenko's protocol, I think Doctor. Christiane Northrop's protocol, and I think Doctor. Sherri Tenpenny's protocol are the things that have been advocated, and they have reported a considerable amount of success with it.
Speaker 2:So I highly recommend that. I know that here in Virginia, where I happen to live, there's a wonderful man by the name of Doctor. Mitchell Fleischer. And Doctor. Mitchell Fleischer Center for Integrative and Restorative Medicine, here in Virginia.
Speaker 2:I know he has been very successful in dealing with people post injection. I know there are great people who are doing that, and that's where I advise people to look.
Speaker 1:Okay, great. And actually, this coming Tuesday of next week, I'll be interviewing Doctor. Brian Artis, who's also got a lot of information.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely. Brian and I had a conversation, I know that he's doing a lot of great work. There are a number of people, but I try to make sure that I point people in the direction of people who can do direct help.
Speaker 1:Great. So here's another question from Michael who asks, and I remember you talking about this actually at Dallas, it's very good question. What are your thoughts about RFK Jr? Is he really fighting for us, and what are your thoughts on his book, which I think is called The Real Anthony Fauci, right?
Speaker 2:Yeah. One of the axioms that I have tried to live by is if I don't have a lot of nice things, I try not to say much. But what I will say is this. I think that that Robert Kennedy is a person who has an enormous, enormous heart. I think he is desperately working to bring visibility to some of the darker sides of what industrial and pharmaceutical abuses have been in this country.
Speaker 2:I do not necessarily share many of the values that he seems to endorse. And what I find very problematic is that the legal actions that he has taken have ignored the law that I have articulated. I have spent a lot of time talking about it. I was asked to be an editor and reviewer for the book, that came out, and I was quite disappointed to see the degree to which a lot of information that I think is extremely important was not included in that book. That's an editorial decision.
Speaker 2:But, you know, if you've got knockout blows, kind of like I say about Rand Paul, if you got knockout blows, you deliver the knockout blow. You don't, you know, you don't hold the the punch back. But listen, I do know that he my best statement I can make is this. Bobby Kennedy is doing a great amount of work to increase the public discourse around topics that are very relevant. The path that he's taken and the path I take are different paths.
Speaker 2:But I do not diminish and I will not disrespect the fact that because we come out at different points means that there's something inherently right or wrong. And what I won't do is I won't cross the line and say that somebody is, you know, working for one side or the other. If I have evidence of that, I say it. If I don't, I keep my mouth shut.
Speaker 1:Very good answer. Here's a question from makes you wonder. Is it possible that Moore would have died if Trump didn't comply with the vaccine?
Speaker 2:No. No. The death is a domestic terrorism act. The actual manipulation of statistics, which by the way, going back to March and April of twenty twenty, COVID as a disease doesn't exist. We have to be really clear on this.
Speaker 2:And SARS coronavirus does not cause COVID-nineteen. The fact of the matter is there is unfortunate realities in the scientific literature that show that people who tested positive for the virus never had a disease, and a huge number of people who allegedly had the disease never tested positive to have exposure to the virus. The notion of causation is an illusion that is based on propaganda, not on science. Were there people who died of influenza like illness? Yes.
Speaker 2:Were there abnormal numbers at various points in terms of how we were treating people? Yes. Did we create a fear environment in which a lot of people probably accelerated their otherwise untimely demise? Yes. But was there a virus that caused the disease?
Speaker 2:The answer is and will always be no. This is in fact a domestic terrorism campaign. It was promoted as such and specifically and remember, and I read this quote everywhere because I will not be on a show and not read the quote. In 02/2015, March of '2 thousand '15, Peter Dashick, the guy who allegedly is the guy who investigated the bat cave, said, and I'm quoting, we need the public to accept a pan coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype.
Speaker 2:We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process. That is from the guy who allegedly is the investigator in chief of a random act that happened in China in 02/2019. And if you do not believe that a bank robber standing on the steps of a bank holding a bag of money and a gun, if you don't believe he's a bank robber, the problem is not the bank robber. The problem is you.
Speaker 2:This is an admission that this was an act of domestic terrorism. It was premeditated. It was announced in February, published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science in February. And anyone who actually disputes that this was a premeditated act of murder is failing to read the evidence by the murderers themselves.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I remember that was the quote that you opened up with
Speaker 2:Yep.
Speaker 1:At the presentation. Yeah. This this is where do you think if this whole plan goes as they want the people that orchestrated the you know, with the vaccines, whatever the cause is gonna be that with them, the lockdowns, everything, where do you think that we would end up, you say, in 02/1930?
Speaker 2:Well, what is desperately required by 02/1930 is we need to have a controlled demolition of the economy, which means we also have to have some means by which we control the behavior of a population, and the highest probability is to have some form of electronic surveillance and commodity community scoring, social scoring kind of system. The fact of the matter is where they want it to go is they want it to go where we have a universal platform upon which our identity lives and upon which our commercial transactions exist. To get the public to accept that, we need to actually have the gateway drug of things like vaccine passports and mandates and all sorts of other things. This is already a restraint of trade. It's illegal.
Speaker 2:And the question is, are you as citizens of this country going to allow elected officials to go into the next election cycle? So 2022, are you going to allow anyone to go to congress or to the senate without making a commitment to blowing up this agenda. Because if you don't make this the issue, then 2030, when you do not have access to the economy, when you do not have access to theaters and restaurants and grocery stores, this is on you. This is the issue that needs to be the litmus test for anybody seeking an elected office. And if they are not willing to make a not only commitment to do, but an evidence set of sequence steps to say, when I get to congress, I am going to blow up the corporate immunity in the prep act.
Speaker 2:I'm gonna blow up the corporate immunity in the 1986 act. I'm gonna blow up the digital currency and surveillance acts. I'm gonna blow those up. If you are electing a person who has not made that commitment, get them out of office. We have four years to fix it, and you have right now, a year to figure out who to vote for.
Speaker 2:So make sure that you make this an issue. In every town hall, in every conversation, do not let anybody go to congress that hasn't made the commitment to humanity.
Speaker 1:So that's a a very good answer, and it actually leads into a very good question from makes you wonder, which is what can we do? What can the the average person, the average citizen, how can we combat this?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So listen. The first thing to do is go to those two websites I talked about before, fullyliveacademy.com or davidmartin.world. Go to the link that says attorney general link, download that four page draft indictment, and send it certified mail to every elected official that you have. That includes your attorney general, that includes your US attorney, which is the Department of Justice representative in your state, and that includes all of your members of Congress in the Senate.
Speaker 2:Every single one of those people need to receive from as many people in this country as possible the exact same criminal indictment document. And the reason why we drafted it is so that we know that every single elected official is on notice, that this is a criminal act of domestic terrorism, and failure to act is complicity. Remember, we cannot hold people accountable for that which they do not know. But once we know they know it, that's why you send it certified mail. Once we know that they know it, now we can hold them accountable.
Speaker 2:And every death of every child, every death of every senior citizen, every death of everybody who's received an injection and died, every death is on their hands the moment they have that document. So go to those sites, download those documents and send them by certified mail to everybody who's in public accountability. Can make a difference.
Speaker 1:Michael, who actually had donated already, donated another $10 and said, thank you so much. Said that we sent our certified mail to the AGs today.
Speaker 2:That's it. That's what we need to do. Before you stuff a stocking, stuff an envelope.
Speaker 1:There you go. There you go. So Daniel Stair asks, could Omicron be the end of the COVID scan and safely lead us to herd immunity?
Speaker 2:So Omicron is the common cold. It doesn't exist. If you look at the most recent published symptoms, it's runny nose, watery eyes, cough, sore throat, and maybe fever. Seth, I don't know about you, but that describes kinda once every three years I have
Speaker 1:I've had Omicron since I was Yeah. Probably born.
Speaker 2:I think I've been having Omicron every about three or four years. Listen. Omicron is is is another fallacious illusion. The fact that we went from I mean, let's let's let's play the math by this. We went from it being discovered November in South Africa to it became the dominant variant.
Speaker 2:I don't know how many of you are going to the townships in South Africa right now, and I don't know how many of you are hanging out with people in South Africa. But if you believe the absolute crock of you know what that you have to believe, to think that for a moment that we have somehow now 73 of the infections in America are courtesy of a South African variant, that, by the way, they couldn't even get the schedule right because it turns out that on the eleventh, there was a person in, I think it was Brussels, who had been in Egypt before the eleventh who also had Omicron, which was allegedly invented in South Africa on the November 7. So how it got from the Southern Tip Of Africa to Egypt somehow in time to get on a plane to go to to Europe, I'm not sure exactly how that works, but Omicron is another propaganda fear campaign to try to get more sleeves rolled up. Every single variant that you're gonna hear about is nothing more than that, and we are not going to get to herd immunity. We are in fact at herd stupidity.
Speaker 2:There is a massive number of people who hear that they're supposed to be afraid, and then they line up to get tested, and they line up to get injected, and they line up to do anything else. The only herd behavior is lemmings going over cliffs and buffaloes going over mesa lines. We do not need any herd anything. We are people. We need to stand together, and we need to be inoculated from fear so that we cannot be influenced by the propaganda.
Speaker 1:Great answer. So actually, other person, so water mystic said, we just sent to our AG and US attorney of Phoenix after your presentation in Dallas. So this is great. You're reaching these people. And so Mikhail had donated or Michael had also asked, what can people do to detox?
Speaker 1:Is there an antidote if they receive the jab?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'd go back to my previous recommendation. All of those amazing people are doing great work. And, you know, Mitch Fleischer and Zelenko and, you know, the whole crowd, great people.
Speaker 1:Yeah, another question actually from Scott Monson, and we're nearing the end of our run here.
Speaker 2:I've got to jump here in a Okay,
Speaker 1:why is it we'll make this our last question. Why isn't Johnson and Johnson listed on your AG letter as a dependent?
Speaker 2:Because Johnson and Johnson did not participate in the mRNA criminal conspiracy. Remember that the actual criminal conspiracy has two very important threads. The first and most opaque one is that the lipid nanoparticle, which is the delivery agent for both the BioNTech Pfizer injection as well as the Moderna injection, Both of those rely on technology that came out of the University of British Columbia from the companies Arbutus and Acuitas Pharmaceuticals. Those two companies were the ones that actually created the vector through which this particular injection can be delivered. And so the government of Canada and the government of the United States entered into a collusive deal to select the Pfizer BioNTech and the Moderna platform as the front runner.
Speaker 2:Johnson and Johnson did not participate in that. And Johnson and Johnson did not get a front runner position, which was actually you know, essentially bestowed upon Pfizer and Moderna by Anthony Fauci. Now, I am not suggesting that Johnson and Johnson is above participating in the racket, but I will also tell you that Johnson and Johnson has had greater transparency in their clinical trials data than either Moderna or Pfizer. So the fact of the matter is, and by the way, they got penalized for it, as you just saw, the US government has decided that they're going to, you know, put a recommendation that maybe we don't allow people to consider themselves, injected if they've taken the J and J, jab. But the fact of the matter is J and J is a certainly a participant in the campaign, but the criminal conspiracy is without question the companies that got the mRNA pass to to literally to kill people with a technology that they knew was gonna kill people.
Speaker 1:That makes perfect sense. Well, David, before we end, is there any last message that you have for everyone watching?
Speaker 2:Well, Seth, I'm a huge fan of making sure that people understand that knowledge is not intimidating. It's not terrifying. Being equipped and armed with information is actually part and parcel of being a member of any part of civil society, but certainly in a democracy, education is without question a prerequisite to have the rights and benefits afforded by a democracy. I'm really grateful that people have taken the time to listen to this conversation. I know that sometimes it gets a little geeky and I am wearing my mistletoe bow tie if you look closely.
Speaker 2:At least it's seasonal, so you can officially say you were here when. But most importantly, I want to say the following. Seth, I love the fellowship that we were able to have when we met down at Doctor. Artis's place. It's always delightful to see that so many great people are willing to stand together and cut through the illusions that used to keep us apart and develop friendships, relationships, and collaboration, which are based on a fundamental assumption that says that we are standing together for a common cause.
Speaker 2:And as we go into this Christmas holiday, I would like to thank you for the work you're doing. I'd love to thank your family for being able to tolerate the craziness of the schedule that it entails. I'd love to thank your community for standing with you. And most importantly, I would love to thank each and every one of you who have participated and have listened and have supported this. I want to thank you for recognizing that together we can actually stand against any darkness that might come because the light will always, always, always dispel the darkness.
Speaker 2:And if we can't at Christmas see that, then we've already lost. And the fact of the matter is this Christmas, like every Christmas before and everyone to come, it will be on this night that the incarnate light is again born. So thank you all. And Seth, have a beautiful, wonderful Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Speaker 1:Thank you so much. And thank you for everything that you are doing. I hope that we can see each other soon. I'm sure our wives would love to get together as well. Indeed.
Speaker 1:Talk about Indeed. What's happening in Australia. So Yeah. Have a wonderful holiday, David. Thank you again for coming on.
Speaker 2:You're most welcome.
Speaker 1:I definitely would love to have you come on again. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 2:Very good. Take care.
Speaker 1:Take care. Bye bye.