Ask Dr. Drew - David Martin: The Pandemic Was A “Biological Weapon of Genocide” w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 249

Starting point is 00:00:00 And welcome, everyone. We are delighted to be here today. We had some trouble getting back from Europe, so we had to cancel yesterday, and Dr. David Martin kindly agreed, and Dr. Kelly as well, Dr. Kelly Victory, agreed to push until today, so we are very privileged to have both of them with us. This should be a very interesting conversation. Stand by. After the little ad break, I'm going to play for you the tape that caught my attention while we're speaking to Dr. Martin today. Dr. Martin received a Master's in Science from Ball State, a doctorate from the University of Virginia. He has said some very provocative things about the virus, including at the European Parliament. He alleged that COVID-19 was premeditated and that the virus itself was a biological weapon of genocide. He's going to talk about his history following, fighting, working with this coronavirus, or something similar, for many years. Reminder, we've got Viva Frye in here on Friday, Li-Ming Yan on Tuesday, and Ivor coming on Wednesday.

Starting point is 00:01:00 We'll be right back with Dr. David Martin after this. Our laws as it pertains to substances are draconian and bizarre. We'll be right back with people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say.

Starting point is 00:01:52 I got a lot more to say. There are three steps to great-looking, glowing complexion in the summer. Of course, apply sunscreen, stay hydrated, and use the amazing skin care products from our friends at Genyacel. Most retinol creams are not recommended for sunlight, but Genyacel's Ultra Retinol uses a powerful plant extract retinol. It's an alternative called Bacuchiol, which helps the skin stay hydrated, smooths out fine lines without harsh side effects, and it is safe to use outside under your sunscreen. Genyacel works so well, you can see the results in this unplanned live moment on our show when the Redness Repair Cream repaired my skin in just minutes right before your eyes. And Susan and I love GenuCell so much, we created our affordable bundles at up to 72% off of our favorite products

Starting point is 00:02:32 at GenuCell.com slash Drew. And just for the summer, every subscription includes a customized summer spa gift box absolutely free. I know I'm a snob about the products I use on my face. Everybody knows it. Every time I go to the dermatologist's office, they're just rows and rows of different creams. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced.

Starting point is 00:02:52 All kinds of products that you can all find at Genucel.com. See what's in our bundles. Get ready to show off your summertime skin. Go to Genucel.com slash Drew. That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com slash D-R-E-W Genucel dot com slash drew that's g-e-n-u-c-e-l dot com slash d-r-e-w genucel.com slash drew and remember to use the code drew at checkout for extra savings i want to share with you a teeth whitening system that goes beyond merely enhancing your smile primal life organics real white teeth whitening system offers convenience and rapid results without harsh chemicals. Light, blue light for whitening,

Starting point is 00:03:26 red light for gum and oral hygiene, and you can just do both if you wish. Works naturally, promoting gum healing, tooth remineralization, gives you a brighter and a healthier smile. Again, no peroxide involved. Consistent usage yields remarkable results. Take this opportunity to transform your smile

Starting point is 00:03:44 and at the same time, optimize your oral health. Aim for five times a week for the best outcomes. Discover more about this remarkable teeth whitening system and other products at drdrew.com slash primal today. That again is drdrew.com slash P-R-I-M-A-L. Be sure to use that link for 60% off. D-R-D-R-A-W dot com slash P-R-I-M-A-L. Do it today for 60% off. Over a decade ago, I sat in this very chair right here in the European Union Parliament.

Starting point is 00:04:17 And at that time, I warned the world of what was coming. We were having a conversation on whether Europe should adopt the United States policy of allowing for the patents on biologically derived materials. And at the time, I urged this body and I urged people around the world that the weaponization of nature against humanity had dire consequences. Tragically, I sit here today with that unfortunate line that I don't like to say, which I told you so. And here we are. Dr. David Martin joins us. Dr. Martin, welcome. Thank you for being here today. Dr. Drew, it's an honor to be here. Thank you. So I want to start with, I want to hear your history with the virus, how you were able to get to the point where you could say, I told you so. And then what is it about you and your training that, because I want to anticipate criticism here,

Starting point is 00:05:25 and I'm wondering if you could also address what your training and background is such that you're in a position to have evaluated these sorts of things. Yeah, well, there's probably two threads that are worth pulling, Drew. The first is that in the early 1990s, I ran the clinical trials program for the University of Virginia Medical School, where we established in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the first ever medical device contract research organization for clinical trials to submit to the FDA. And so my medical school appointments, which were in orthopedic surgery and radiology at the time, were the academic reason why I was there, but the business reason I was there was to run clinical trials.

Starting point is 00:06:08 So my expertize professionally was doing clinical trials for the FDA. So I kind of know what I'm doing there. And the companies that we worked with included Siemens and GE and Picker and and Diagnostic Systems Labs and all kinds of companies, Beringer Mannheim, others, where our work was to evaluate medical technologies and medical claims. So I have a background in the sciences. In fact, my PhD was the first kinematic assessments of how to look at soft tissue and MRIs. So it's a very geeky subject, but that's what I was doing for my PhD as well. The other arm of this is that in the 1990s,

Starting point is 00:06:53 I had a company called Mosaic Technologies and we did treaty restricted technology transfer. And specifically what that means is that we went into countries around the world who were prohibited from exporting offensive military technology. And our job on behalf of the United States government was to review technologies that had military origins, but find ways for those to be used in civilian applications.

Starting point is 00:07:19 And many of those, by the way, were in healthcare applications, telemedicine, various imaging technologies, et cetera. And it was in the late 1990s that I became very involved in looking at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and Fort Detrick and other programs where we saw an enormous amount of things that appeared to blur the of biological and potentially chemical weapons treaties and laws here in the United States under 18 U.S. Code. And it was beginning in that period of time, the late 1990s, and specifically in 1999, that we encountered a very concerning piece of information. And that was the work that was done at the University of North Carolina on Chapel Hill, where in the decade preceding from 1990 until 1999, the Pfizer patent on the coronavirus vaccine, which was established

Starting point is 00:08:15 largely for veterinary applications using a spike protein vaccine platform for veterinary sciences. In 1999, a project was done at UNC Chapel Hill where trans species modifications of a chimera of coronavirus was being done. And it was specifically being done to target the heart tissue in rabbits. And it specifically created cardiomyopathy in rabbits. And it was that that attracted Dr. Anthony Fauci and NIAID's research dollars, which gave rise to a very alarming patent that was filed in 2002 at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, which actually patented an infectious replication defective clone derived from the coronavirus model. And this is quite alarming because the words infectious replication defective not only suggested, but the patent went on to quite literally describe the use of coronavirus not as a descriptor of a pathogen, but a biologically

Starting point is 00:09:30 derived substance that could be used both as a vaccine vector, but could also be used as a biological weapons agent. And in 2002, that patent was filed. The publications around that were back in 2001 and in 2002. And that gave rise to a series of modifications of coronavirus, which precede SARS 1.0. And when SARS 1.0 came out— Can I stop you? I'm going to stop you right at SARS 1.0. I want to make sure I'm clear on a couple of these things. When you're saying you use this infectious replication defective virus as a vaccine vector,

Starting point is 00:10:09 I'm not quite sure what you're saying there. I get that it could be used as a weapon. So how is it used as a vaccine vector? The idea was to use the surface proteins associated with the coronavirus entity itself as a means of getting other things into the cell. It turns out that one of the things that makes the membrane proteins of the cell respond to the virome of coronavirus, which is what the coronavirus lives in, is that the protein shell that contains what we're calling this pathogen, that shell interacts with the cell membrane and increases the cell's willingness to take whatever the cDNA or RNA information that is inside of that protein packet.

Starting point is 00:11:00 It's what essentially delivers the information into the cell. And so what made this very interesting... This is the ACE receptor function, right? This is the same binding site that SARS-2 is using? That's exactly right. The spike proteins and the ACE2 receptor and a few other receptors, there are actually four or five, meaning what we call open reading frame sections of that model that become very amenable to being taken into a cell. And the whole notion

Starting point is 00:11:35 was that this thing would become a ideal candidate to deliver HIV. That was the stated and expressed interest by Anthony Fauci back in 1999 and 2000. So the idea of using this viral model as a technology is alarming to say the least when we don't fully understand that the duration of this thing already had gotten from gastrointestinal disease, which is where the vast majority of animals experience coronavirus associated problems. All of a sudden, we're now targeting human hearts and human lung tissue to the point where we had the same researchers talk about the opportunity this had to infect human lung tissue. These kinds of statements where you're actually talking about the possibility of amplifying

Starting point is 00:12:36 an animal pathogen and making it available for human infection is at best alarming and at worst a violation of the law. And what creates the kind of giant red letter day for us was in fact that 2002 patent filing that precedes the outbreak allegedly of SARS. Because we did not have SARS until we had the infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus. Dr. Justin Marchegiani SARS 1. Dr. Tim Jackson And the history is what it is. Dr. Justin Marchegiani SARS 1, correct? Dr. Tim Jackson So it leaves us in this bizarre situation where

Starting point is 00:13:16 the winter two point of 2002 and the spring of 2003, which is when we have the first outbreak of SARS is preceded not by one or two patents, but Drew, it was preceded by over 15 patents on variations of the coronavirus package that would be used for various technical applications. Now, I have been very frequently, and I'll address this head on. I mean, having been a biological weapons inspector for the United States officially in 2002, again in 2003, and then representing the United States interests at the first biological weapons and biological research program that was hosted in Tehran in

Starting point is 00:14:06 2004. You know, a lot of people sit there and go, okay, well, hold on a minute, biological weapons, we didn't know this was about biological weapons. Well, the problem is, ever since the 1950s, the late 1950s, even though the United States passed laws against biological weapons, we decided that it would be in our national interest to research biological weapons, allegedly so we could come up with countermeasures. But Dr. Drew, this is where we have a moral and ethical problem because in 2005, what happened was Ralph Baric, the same guy who came up with the infectious replication defective clone, Ralph Baric made a presentation funded by the MITRE Corporation and DARPA. And in that presentation, he titled his presentation, Biohacking Coronavirus Biological Enabling Warfare Technology.

Starting point is 00:15:08 And I don't know how you can spin a title of a presentation, Biowarfare Enabling Technology, and not derive from that the conclusion that that's a biowarfare program. This was not about medical countermeasures. This was not about medical countermeasures. This was not about coming up with treatments. This was not coming up with this idea of, hey, is there a way that bad actors would do this? This was specifically stating that we were doing it. And not by implication, it quite literally was the presentation that was made. And therein lies the problem. You can't hide behind the admission that not only was this a biological weapons program as stated as such, this is not me implying anything. It's actually right off of

Starting point is 00:16:00 Ralph Baric's professional CV and right off of the MITRE official documents of the meeting at DARPA. This was a biological weapons program and our allies knew about it. When I was in Slovenia in 2008, when I was in Tehran in 2004, these were topics that were in conversation at that time, along with, and viewers need to remember that this all came out in large part, because we'll remember in September of 2001, the United States was attacked allegedly by anthrax, only to find out that that anthrax was released by the United States military. And the year preceding that particular alleged attack, the United States Defense Department received authorization from the FDA to get ciprofloxacin, drug for inhalation anthrax, approved with not a single clinical study establishing its safety or efficacy. efficacy, only a note that says, if anyone has any questions, they should ask Colonel Friedland, who is actually the U.S. military's person on inhalation anthrax. And that was a year before the anthrax attacks. So all of this is happening against the backdrop of an explicit and admitted

Starting point is 00:17:19 program of biological weapons using natural and modified pathogens. So I want to bring Kelly in here in just a second, but I'm going to wrap up with one quick question, which has got three parts to it. One is you keep referencing we and us were going after these things. Who exactly was us in 2002 for you, number one. Number two, one of the things that got my attention when you were speaking to

Starting point is 00:17:46 the eu parliament was you said i've been going after this or i've been fighting this since for over 20 years so a who is us what have you been doing to fight and then how have people been responding since that video went out what kind of what kind of reception or attacks have you been streaming? So three questions and then we'll bring Kelly in here. So sorry it's all lumped into one. No, it's okay. That's fine. We and Us is my company, MCAM, which is a subsidiary of Mosaic Technologies. We're the ones that do the international review of intellectual property and we're the ones that have underwritten intellectual property for the world's financial institutions for the last now 25 years.

Starting point is 00:18:29 So that is the we. MCAM had a specific mission that included a program called Innovation Literacy, and that innovation program specifically had an allocation of resources that we applied to recording, archiving, and publishing every vital and chemical weapons treaties worldwide. And so the WE has been doing this since our first official publication that was submitted to the United States Congress, to the European Union, and to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in 2002, and every year since, we have maintained the only active archive worldwide of every nation-state

Starting point is 00:19:15 actor and every commercial or corporate or private actor who has violated the Geneva and subsequent conventions on biological and chemical weapons. So what we have done, and your point about 2012, is beginning in October of 2002 at the presidency of the European Union that was held by Denmark during that period of time, I was asked to go to Aalborg, Denmark, and make a presentation on the status of the European Union's, what was called the European Commission's Patent Initiative. And in that program, I discussed the fact that there was a huge amount of patent activity in Europe, including the amendment of the European patent laws, which were allowing for patents on living systems or living derived systems.

Starting point is 00:20:05 And we were suggesting then in 2002 that it was a bad idea. And then in 2012, in response to the breast cancer gene patent lawsuits here in the United States, which we helped take all the way to the Supreme Court, ultimately overturning the myriad genetics patents on breast cancer gene diagnostics, what we were doing in 2012 was actually stating to the European Union that there had been a number of violations of biological and chemical weapons laws and of the patent statutes affecting innovations around those particular technologies. And that was the reference I made in my presentation to the European Union Parliament.

Starting point is 00:20:45 And in terms of how people have been responding to this, this is the last piece of my little diet, my little triplicate there. Well, according to a lot of social media statistics, that video is now the most watched video in the history of the internet with over 3 billion views. So, um, I, I have been, uh, amazed at how viral to your point that it, it, it definitely got viral. Um, it made it around the world. I think in part, we have to be careful with our enthusiasm about it because in part there was, and I must point to the Carter Center, who I don't have a lot of use for, but I think they made a point that's worth acknowledging, which is as an American

Starting point is 00:21:35 making that presentation in Europe, there's a lot of the world who is misattributing what I'm saying as a U.S. bashing exercise. And part of that sharing, according to the Carter Center, was based on anti-American sentiment. And I want to be very clear on the fact that this is not a pro or anti-America message. This is a very clear message that the world needs to pay attention to the fact that right now in the United States, we have active biological weapons programs on a number of pathogens. And as a society, this is a conversation we should be having. I'm not saying that we're the bad guys or the good guys. I'm simply saying that it's an important conversation. What I'm trying to tell you is that there is a certain degree of global embrace of an American saying America might have something it needs to look at.

Starting point is 00:22:39 So, you know, I think their point is fair. I don't agree with them, but I actually think that the point is worth noting. Yeah, not only that, but we do, you know, before we're going to start pointing fingers elsewhere, which we do need to, we haven't yet begun to talk about China. But we do need to clean up our own shop before we insist other people do so in their own countries. But Dr. David E. Martin is here. I follow him at Dr. Martin World, at Dr. Martin World, Dr. Martin World,

Starting point is 00:23:09 founder and chairman of MCAM Inc. We're going to bring Dr. Kelly Victory in here with Dr. Martin right after this brief message. We'll be right back in about a couple minutes. A lot of you have been asking for more information

Starting point is 00:23:19 about how to counter the adverse effects of the spike protein from COVID infections and the COVID vaccine. The spike protein is not your friend, let's just say that. So I'm glad we have the wellness company Spike Support Formula as a sponsor, especially since renowned internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, who's also chief scientific officer of the wellness company, is one of its champions. There's some very intriguing research around natokinase,

Starting point is 00:23:43 which might be a way to take on the spike protein listen to this so start if you would with talking about natokinase how you got to that and where you see its application so with the viral infection or the vaccines the spike protein stays within the body and it's found in the heart the brain the vital organs and it's causing problems the japanese have been using this for heart and vascular disease now for 20 years it's safe it is a form of a mild blood thinner that it dissolves the spike protein nearly completely spike support formula is the only product on the market containing natokinase dandelion root and a host of other antioxidants all showing promise in helping you protect yourself and your family to order order this unique, specially formulated supplement,

Starting point is 00:24:26 go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is drdrew.com slash TWC. Use code DREW at checkout for 10% off today. I suspect you've seen Susan and I gushing over Paleo Valley products. We love the taste and how well they fit into a paleo-based nutrition regimen. They're delicious, and we use them for travel all the time. But there's more. We are huge fans as well of Paleo Valley's grass-fed bone broth protein.

Starting point is 00:24:51 It comes in three flavors, unflavored, vanilla, and chocolate. It's a powder you can add to really anything. We add it to coffee literally every day. Smoothies, baked dishes, just hot water dissolves really easily. The bone broth protein is made with 100% grass-fed and finished bones that are free from pesticides or antibiotics and are slow simmered to extract as much collagen as possible. As we age, collagen breaks down. That's what wrinkles are. And research shows that there are significant benefits to adding a collagen source in your diet. I don't think it's too much to say it's changed our lives. And Susan is now reporting

Starting point is 00:25:23 that after drinking the bone broth for a few weeks, her hair is stronger and longer and nails are stronger too. Try it for yourself. You can order at drdrew.com slash paleovalley and use Dr. Drew at checkout to save an additional 15%. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If this episode ends here, the rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv there's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk benefit calculation it is the mandate

Starting point is 00:25:55 public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population this This is uncharted territory, Drew. Boy, those public health mitigation procedures are still having... I was talking to someone recently who was dealing with 13-year-olds, and they'd been so severely traumatized through all this. But Dr. Victory, welcome back to the show. People were abuzz over on Restream. I know they're very anxious to see you looking and doing so well. You can give them an update if you wish, but it's a pleasure to have you here. I give you Dr. David Martin.

Starting point is 00:26:34 Thank you, and thank everybody for their well wishes. It's meant the world to me, and I have no question it's why I'm doing as well as I am. So updates to follow, but keep the prayers coming. Dr. Martin, thank you for being here. I've been so looking forward to this conversation and I appreciate your willingness to flex your schedule to accommodate our schedule change. It would have been a crime. I know our viewers have really been looking forward to this as well. Before I get into the weeds and Drew can always trust me to get into the weeds on things,

Starting point is 00:27:06 and I certainly will go to China. I am the heat-seeking missile here. But before I start, I want to amplify something that Drew started with, which was your background, your pedigree. A lot of times we get criticism from people who say, oh, this person isn't a vaccinologist, or they're not an infectious disease expert expert or they're not an epidemiologist. And I would submit that you have far better experience, far deeper experience in the intricacies and nuances of the regulatory process, what's expected of the FDA, what the normal procedures are, and furthermore,

Starting point is 00:27:45 how procedures may have been breached in the process of this pandemic debacle. So we're going to get into that. I want to start right out of the box with gain of function. Yes. You know, people, you're talking about, you know, weaponization of things. And, you know, I'm going to call the phrase that most people are more familiar with and have become familiar with during the pandemic, which is gain of function. Despite the fact that, as far as I'm concerned, Anthony Fauci perjured himself on multiple

Starting point is 00:28:16 occasions by denying that that was going on, when you take a pathogen, whether it's a virus or a bacterium or anything else capable of creating illness or disease, and you enhance its pathogenicity, you enhance its lethality, that is the definition of gait of function. with President Obama about, I was a strong supporter of the moratorium that was placed under his tutelage in 2014 on gain-of-function research because it was deemed to be so dangerous. So start with that. Do you have any question that this constituted gain-of-function? And just talk a little bit about what happened here with regard to this. So Kelly, I am a very outspoken critic of Rand Paul because I'm a kind of a prosecutor. I actually studied law at the University of Virginia too. A lot of people don't know that, but I'm a huge fan of delivering the evidence when you have it. And in October of 2014, the University of

Starting point is 00:29:27 North Carolina Chapel Hill received a letter from Anthony Fauci's NIAID saying that Ralph Baric's research, and by the way, if you want to look at it, I have it up on my Twitter feed. It says this research is gain of function and it says gain of function. It doesn't say anything else. It says it's gain of function. And not only does it say it's gain of function, but Kelly, it gets worse. They actually modified the gain of function grant and authorized it to be used in vivo. Now that's a Latin term.

Starting point is 00:30:00 Not everybody's familiar with that, but a lot of gain of function research is done with computer simulation or in laboratory models or in petri dishes or in what have you. But this particular gain-of-function was not only not subject to the moratorium, the last sentence and the last paragraph on the first page of that letter says that since the grant is already funded, you can keep doing the moratorium research. It says it right on the page that, once again, I put up on my Twitter feed. So people who sit there going, well, are you reading into something? No, I'm not reading into something. It actually says it's a gain of function study. You are authorized to keep going during the moratorium because we already funded you. Now, I don't know what kind of moratorium that is,

Starting point is 00:30:49 but what I also know is the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill knew that what they were doing was in violation of the moratorium because in a very interesting article, and I just had it here because I figured I might anticipate your story, right? This particular article, SARS-like WIV1-COV poised for human emergence, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of

Starting point is 00:31:13 Sciences from research that was subjected to review in September of 2015. So for those of you paying attention, during the moratorium, at the end of this paper, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill violated its own institutional protocol by impaneling two institutional review boards. One that review ethics of the study and two, which reviewed the ethics of violating the law with respect to the moratorium. And by the way, that's not me hypothecating this. The paper actually says that they reviewed the illegal presumption of doing the research that was in fact subject to the moratorium. And they published that they decided that it was OK to violate the moratorium. So this isn't a close call. This is Anthony Fauci lying. And Rand Paul has had that piece of paper every time Fauci has been

Starting point is 00:32:12 opposite him in the Senate. And not once has Rand Paul held the piece of paper from NIAID and said, Anthony Fauci, you said it was gain of function on coronavirus with, are you ready for this? The WIV1 coronavirus. Kelly, by now you should be asking, well, what on earth is WIV1? Well, ladies and gentlemen, let's pull the cover back on that. That's Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1, which was reassembled during the gain of function, what's the definition of a thing? This is them using their own language and saying in October, 2014, we know there's a moratorium. We know we're violating the moratorium. We know we're violating it because there's money in violating it. We know we're doing it in North Carolina and we know we're doing it on the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1. How much more do you need to prove that this was not some sort of nonsensical

Starting point is 00:33:33 lab leak or accident or anything else? There is zero chance that a 2016 publication that says that the Wuhan virus is poised for human emergence leaves us with any doubt that humans built this, that humans deployed it, and that the United States and China acted in collaboration to unleash hell on earth. You're 100% and we're going to continue with you leading us down this path. I got kicked off every social media platform for saying that this was lab created back in early in March of 2020, because it was irrefutable then the data are unassailable. We have the, we have the evidence. So now, okay. So now you've connected that Anthony Fauci specifically tells Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, my alma mater, by the way, that they can continue with gain of function research, which he calls it that because they were fundamentally grandfathered in. They'd already gotten the grant. They they break the law and they cover up to make it. You know, they acknowledge that they are, but that they've made a decision to do it now enter peter daszak and eco health alliance lead us how it goes from chapel hill over to you know ground zero in wuhan yeah so that that's that's where this thing gets a little bit of of problematic with respect to what has been

Starting point is 00:35:05 reported versus the evidence. The evidence is that somewhere around 2012 or 2013, there were samples allegedly taken from three to five, and depends on whose data you look at, but three to five miners in the Guangdong province of China who had a very, very nasty response allegedly to exposure to bat guano, which is these people were in a cave shoveling bat shit, literally, and got some sort of respiratory problem that was quite, quite severe. Glassy lungs, all the kinds of things we associate with quite bizarre and idiopathic forms of pneumonia. And what was allegedly sampled was prepared by the laboratory of Zhengli Shi, who was a virologist who collaborated with Ralph Baric

Starting point is 00:36:00 for many years and had numerous collaborations on both black projects through DARPA, as well as NIH funded projects through NIAID. And they have been collaborating for quite some time. And what happened was that according to Ralph Barak's own written admission, which we got not, I mean, somewhat surprisingly, he actually wrote to the Financial Times editor who was trying to do a story on this, and I received a copy of that communication. But Ralph Baric says that what he did was he actually uploaded the sequence from Wuhan and reproduced and amplified that sequence at the UNC Chapel Hill Lab. So the actual work that was done in 2014, 15 and 16, funded by the UNC Chapel Hill grants that were NIAID and DARPA grants,

Starting point is 00:36:54 both of which were in the eight to $10 million per year range, led to a project that DARPA was proposing where they wanted to look at the propensity of coronavirus to be ready to jump species. And this is where EcoHealth Alliance becomes a very muddied water because, while it is true that they in fact got new grant funding associated with the coronavirus research that has received a lot of attention, the $3.6 to $3.7 million of the grant that everybody in the media talks about. What has been ignored is over $41 million

Starting point is 00:37:31 of State Department, DARPA, and NIAID funding, which actually was collaborations with Daszak, Barak, and Zhengli Shi, where they were exchanging model pathogens and model chimeras back and forth between the United States and China and co-publishing and co-acknowledging each other's work in both China and in the United States. What we know without any question is that the spike protein sequence that was given to Moderna in a material transfer agreement predating the outbreak of the pandemic, as we were told in 2019, was a material transfer agreement from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. It was not a sample from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And that is in their own published documented evidence.

Starting point is 00:38:27 So that's, okay, so this is a perfect segue because I want to, let me just tee this up. I'm sorry, I want to make sure, I'm not sure I'm getting what the implication of that is before you go on to the next part. What is the implication of those observations? Could you hear that at all, guys? Yeah. So in September 18th, 2019, the World Health Organization got together and published in a thing called the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, published a statement that said that we were going to actually have a respiratory pathogen release. And that respiratory pathogen release, this is their words straight out of their document, would by September 2020 lead the world to accept a universal vaccine.

Starting point is 00:39:17 On the 19th of September, the White House signed what became the precursor to Operation Warp Speed, which was a day later when Donald Trump signed the executive order that put in place a rapid response vaccine production mandate as part of an executive order that was for both pan-influenza and experimental new pathogen vaccine production. That took place on the 19th of September, 2019. We have event 201 in October of 2019. And then in November, a month before patient one, allegedly in China, there is a material transfer agreement between the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill's Ralph Baric and Moderna transferring a sequence of a spike protein associated with the Wuhan virus coronavirus

Starting point is 00:40:10 for the production in Ralph Baric's written statement to the Financial Times, where he says that the information he transferred was for the Moderna injection, predating patient one. So, yeah, so the, and this is very clear, I think it's critically, that's where I was going with this, that the timeline of events makes it irrefutable that this was not, you know, we're led to believe, remember everybody, January 2020,

Starting point is 00:40:43 we're led to believe there's this quote, novel, never been seen before, pathogen out there, this novel virus. And that's why it's so scary and nobody knows what to do about it. They not only knew what to do about it, they'd already had a documented material transfer to wait for it, a big pharma company to create a vaccine for this thing. And at the exact same time, correct me if I'm wrong, this thing. And at the exact same time, if I correct me, if I'm wrong, Dr. Martin, at the exact same time, Pfizer miraculously comes up with the precise formulation for a vaccine using the exact

Starting point is 00:41:17 same thing. So talk, what's the likelihood of that happening? And Kelly, yeah. And Kelly and Dr. Drew, let's, you know, sometimes parsimony is the most important thing. If the simplest answer is the answer, then it's the answer. And in this case, not only is what I'm saying all documented, but what makes it slightly worse is that Anthony Fauci in his own email about the whole lab leak versus natural hypothesis specifically stated that the reason why he did not want Ralph Baric anywhere in the room during those discussions is, quote, because he was too close to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If you were doing an investigation into a crime, wouldn't you want the person who actually had the best evidence to be your lead investigator? How ridiculous is it to say that Ralph Baric was disqualified from being in the lab leak conversation, but on February 2nd, he was qualified to be the guy that makes up the story that this is a quote

Starting point is 00:42:22 novel pathogen because for the ictv the world health organization's international committee on taxonomy of viruses he was the person who was the person stipulated to say that this thing was not made in his lab isn't it convenient isn't it convenient that the guy who actually decided that this was novel is also the guy who had the patents filed on the thing and didn't want the public to know he had already patented it. It's mind boggling. And the evidence train, unfortunately, in this case, is so thick that what has happened is we have been overwhelmed by all of the alleged conspiratorial and contingency stories rather than looking at the evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. And the evidence said that Anthony Fauci knew it wasn't novel. Ralph Baric knew that he had patented the methodology and the UNC Chapel Hill labs knew that they had signed the material transfer agreement and assigned, by the way, the 2002 patent that I mentioned,

Starting point is 00:43:33 they had assigned it in 2018, a year ahead of time, they had assigned it back to NIH in an unprecedented and undocumented consideration move, which has never been done before. So all of this is at least a year premeditated, all of it. So when I have said many, many times, Dr. Martin, during this pandemic, that I believe that the entire purpose of the pandemic was to make mRNA a household word, to make people believe that this platform was tried, tested, very safe, and it is so useful to many people for lots of different applications. Now, so I've always assumed it was about making mRNA universal itself because it can be used

Starting point is 00:44:22 for lots of different things and there it's very, there's a lot of money in it. You said, you used the phrase universal vaccine. When you say universal vaccine, that that was their goal. Do you mean specifically mRNA or what do you mean by universal vaccine? Unpack that. Well, that's a beautiful question. And let's go to my favorite quote that I refuse to do a show without quoting, which is Peter Daszak. This is published in in February of 2016. But the statement was made in 2015 during the gain of function moratorium. And this is a quote from the criminals themselves. This is not Dave Martin's opinion. This is their quote. Until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold,

Starting point is 00:45:10 it is often largely ignored. Now listen to this carefully. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding for the need of medical countermeasures such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process. Now, what do I mean by coercion, by domestic terrorism, by any of the things I'm saying? Well, what I mean is that this is a crime that was admitted to being perpetrated on America

Starting point is 00:45:58 and the world by the people who perpetrated the crime. And they even told us it would be the media hype that would get the public to accept the need for the medical countermeasure. We would need to use that hype to our advantage and quote, investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process. Now, Dr. Drew, Dr. Kelly, certainly in my medical training, did you ever in any medical school day in your life get told that the first goal of public health is to make sure investors profit at the end of a media hyped process? Is that part of our standard medical training? And Dr. Drew, listen, your work and the patent work in opioid crisis is something that I can't leave this opportunity without commenting on because I, for years, tried to highlight the Sackler family's abuse of country is the opioid crisis, and the public doesn't know this. But what they don't know even worse is that the Sackler family patented non-addictive formulas of opioids so that they could not be produced. Okay?

Starting point is 00:47:18 So this is not an accidental oops. This is criminals acting in a criminal fashion to harm people. It is not an accident. This is not an epidemic or a pandemic. But I'm glad you brought the opiate crisis up because I keep looking at that as a model for what happened during COVID in sense that the playbook was exactly the same. But there's two components. But there are two components. One is a completely Machiavellian business organization saying things like investors will respond is simply factually true. It's Machiavellian as hell, but it's true. All right. But the key ingredient, the key ingredient is an evangelical group of physicians who go out and persuade the regulatory organizations and the state medical societies, the professional societies, that this is the answer. They see themselves as wearing white hats and coming to save the world. They don't see themselves as criminals at all. They see themselves as saving the world.

Starting point is 00:48:25 And so I'm wondering if these people don't, you know, look at the landscape of what's out there in viral research and think it's inevitable that something gets out. It's inevitable that there's a disaster. We must come up with these vaccine platforms and we're going to save the world. And the drug companies merely stand right behind them and say, yes, you will.

Starting point is 00:48:44 That's right. That's exactly right. When in fact, both are completely out of line. And Drew, I agree, but we have to add a couple other pieces, which unfortunately blow up the justification side of this. Remember that side-by-side with NIAID's funding, side by side with that was DARPA's funding since 2005 of a biological weapons technology platform. You cannot put that genie back in the bottle. That is a statement that they made. It is a statement that they made. But that's maybe where, I agree with you, maybe that's where the evangelical physicians are

Starting point is 00:49:22 coming in. They know that, they see that, And they're thinking, oh, we have to have these countermeasures. We must come up with these gigantic universal platforms, and we've got to figure out a way to get there. And then they become Machiavellian in their way of getting there. Okay. But I want to go back because I think that they're right. Go ahead, Jeff. All I was going to say is I think you're right, but my issue here, and this is where I have been outspoken and singular on this particular issue.

Starting point is 00:49:52 You cannot take the 2015 statement of the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and you cannot spin that into anything other than a violation at the time of the Patriot Prohibition on on coercion. The reason why the public is going to accept this is because of the media hype, not because of the facts, not because of the evidence. We're going to use the media hype to accept it. And let's get clear on a second thing. The first funding for Moderna flagship ventures, which is a mysterious organization. That's a whole nother show, but flagship ventures co-funded Moderna and CRISPR at the same time. Kelly, it's not just about MRNA. This is about ultimately editing genes in the long play. And I've said this many

Starting point is 00:50:40 times. This is not about MRNA. This is about ultimately getting the public to accept CRISPR and shutting up the Catholic church, which was the largest opposition to gene editing up until COVID. And the only way you get the camel's nose under the tent is get mRNA, create the problem, get CRISPR to be a solution. And the Catholic church has painted themselves into a corner saying that this was God's will. So a couple of things. First, because I just think you hit the nail on the head. The part of that quote from Peter Daszak that I find chilling is the word hype. He didn't talk, Drew, about that's why it's not just Machiavellian.

Starting point is 00:51:21 He didn't talk about the importance of the mainstream media and continuing to expose the facts and continuing to educate the public. He said- That's exactly right. It's hype. That is the word that is chilling. It is the fear mongering, the fear porn. Keep it ginned up. Keep people with the hype. It's the hype that will drive this. That is what I find chilling about that particular quote. Now, David, because I think a lot of people don't understand the connection you're making here with CRISPR and the Catholic Church and that. So unpack that a little bit for everybody, because I think that's a critical component for people to understand.

Starting point is 00:51:59 I threw a very loaded grenade into there, i i'm sure i offended somebody but let's go back many many years ago this is the early days of of my of my work um in medical sciences where gene editing was something that was in uh kind of the front and center of people's minds and specifically if if people go back and look i'm sure there's a wik Wikipedia entry somewhere on Dolly the sheep, right? The very famous, can you turn a gene edited being into an incarnated structure? And lo and behold, scientists in the UK figured out how to do that. And then they played hopscotch around the world, finally found a place in Singapore where they could gene edit all kinds of things. And the Catholic church came out with a massive, massive backlash against humans playing God.

Starting point is 00:52:47 And so there was this huge wave led by the Catholic Church and then adopted by many evangelical churches and other causes that said, no, that's a step too far. It's a step too far to edit the genome called humanity. And there were all kinds of fear porn around designer babies. Drew, I think you even did a show a long time ago where that topic was at least tangentially mentioned. But the idea was that if you're going to get is you have to get a plausible reason for gene editing to be accepted. And it turns out that by putting a spike protein, which is a foreign entity, a scheduled toxin, according to the United States Code of Federal Regulations, by getting that toxin into people, what you can do is you can actually do pro-oncogenic behavior.

Starting point is 00:53:48 And it's specifically, let's talk about what that is. The pseudouridine in the shot is a pro-cancer agent. And so what you do is you create a shot, you get people to take it. That shot then becomes ubiquitous. And now you need to edit the problem that you wrote into the human gene. And lo and behold, we justify CRISPR. So this is the backdoor way of getting CRISPR accepted in mainstream. And by the way, Open Philanthropy, the company that funded Event 201, was the founding funder of the CRISPR technology in the Northeast.

Starting point is 00:54:26 Their first investment was CRISPR, not COVID. So the reason I'm saying this is because their money spoke their own behavior before they ever were outed. They had bet that this was the way to get CRISPR in. And Drew and Kelly, they got a CRISPR EUA before vaccines were approved. So again, I think the critical question for me to you, David, would be, okay, the universal vaccine, the ability to modify the human genome, is it your, do you have a theory and maybe about why they would want to do that? Clearly, you know, we always have the follow the money and money is a, you know, very potent driver. I don't for the, for the world, I believe that

Starting point is 00:55:17 that's all it is. That's, this isn't just about money. I think it's about way more than, than money in my mind, but I'd love to hear your theories about it. Dr. Martin, before you answer that, I just want to quickly just interject. If people want to learn about CRISPR as a great sort of little historical book, nonfiction book called Codebreaker about the evolution of this technology, and let's remind ourselves that that technology was taken by a chinese scientist and actually used without any consideration or understanding that there was something ethically at issue here and when he was confronted with his misadventure he was confused

Starting point is 00:55:57 angry uh you couldn't imagine why we wouldn't just forge on with this. So it's an interesting also cultural sort of commentary on how China see these things very differently than we do. But go ahead, Dr. Martin. Answer Kelly's question there. Yeah. Well, so if we look at the full arc of what is the motivation, anytime people decide to mislead the public, there are a host of motivations and most of them are based on worldviews. There's a worldview that summarizes the entirety of the human experience as a, there are too many of us.

Starting point is 00:56:41 We are, to quote the line from The Matrix, we are a virus. We need to be somehow contained or controlled. My wife and I do an enormous amount of work with people all over the world. We actually suggest that maybe there's a different worldview, and that worldview is that we actually are an amazing creation. Humanity is an amazing, amazing ecosystem. And if we learned how to dance with the world, we'd actually get along perfectly fine. And it is, in fact, our abject failure to understand our role in the ecosystem that's the problem, not that there are too many of us or there are too

Starting point is 00:57:25 few or anything else. But listen, if you have a worldview that says that there is overpopulation, a need to contain the number of people on the planet, a need to contain a certain style of consumer-based lifestyle or whatever else, the fact of the matter is there is an enormous amount of morality that can justify the loss of a few for the benefit of the many, which is the public health expediency model that we've seen in the last several years where we don't have any problem with a world that says down the road, a dependency on CRISPR gene editing will be a way to amplify the human experience. I'm reminded in 2003 of a statement made by Aubrey de Grey, who's an anti-aging specialist who talked whimsically about a world where we don't need children anymore, because we will have some chemically enabled or technologically enabled immortality. And I sit there thinking to myself, I don't want to imagine a world like that, but that doesn't mean there aren't people

Starting point is 00:58:38 who have that worldview. But let's be very clear about this particular situation. And let me be abundantly clear because the money does matter. In 2020, we had fewer, listen to me carefully, fewer deaths during the pandemic than we had in 2021 with the injection. We had fewer dollars paid out in life insurance benefits during the unmedicated phase of the pandemic than we had the following year. Every single economic indicator shows that we did not have some sort of global pandemic, whether you're using the official death counts from morbidity and mortality weekly, whether you're using economic data from life insurance companies, which is something I've covered for a long time. Ed Dowd's done some great work in this space too. If you look, what you will find is

Starting point is 00:59:49 that in this particular instance, it really was about the money. But the money was about getting investors to invest in a digital health future where humans will be audited for their compliance with digital medicine. And that creates the ultimate consumer. And if people die in the process, it's a cost of doing business. And it is not something we're going to concern ourselves with. And we will make up data that is not actually real. Listen, life insurers have no motivation to lie about how

Starting point is 01:00:26 many claims they paid. But why is it that in 2021 with medical countermeasures, life insurers paid $3 billion more, $33 billion of claims more for what was allegedly a medical countermeasure that was allegedly going to save lives. And during that same period of time, death rates went up, not down. This is not about a, you know, well-meaning oops. This is not about somebody overlooking a thing. This is about economics to create a new form of medical dependency called digital medicine and digital humanity. That's what it's about. No, and I'm cognizant of the clock winding down here, but I certainly wholeheartedly agree. I've said many, many times, this is not mistakes my government made. This is lies my government told me. And the question is, was it purely motivated by money?

Starting point is 01:01:27 Or I think you are spot on that this is the ultimate, the consummate control mechanism. It's a way to hold people, to make us all puppets. And the question is, is there a way out of it? I guess that's, I would leave you with the question. Can enough people say not only no, but hell no, and say, we can turn this around. We will take your digital currency. We will not take your social score, whatever it is. You will not control me. Or in your mind, is the horse out of the barn?

Starting point is 01:02:15 No, I'm a big fan of, I guess, naive optimism because I've done very large projects that have brought justice in a very long horizon, whether it was tax frauds in the early 2000s, which my company was very instrumental in breaking up, whether it was repatriating land that mining companies had stolen from indigenous communities in the Pacific. I mean, I've taken on a lot of impossible tasks and I have won so many of them that I am not at all concerned that we can't take this one on, but we can't take it on if we don't have the right conversation. And the reason I'm so grateful to both of you for this conversation is the public conversation is not about who done it.

Starting point is 01:02:51 The public conversation needs to be about what is the criminal conspiratorial structure of how the public sector and the private sector have hoodwinked the public to harm it while enriching themselves. This is no different from the conversations that took place at the turn of the last century in 1904 to the period in 1911, when we had the Anderson Commission and the Peugeot Commission who investigated J.P. Morgan and said, hey, it's not right that one guy controls 86% of the GDP of a country. That's not

Starting point is 01:03:24 right. That's not American. And what we need to be doing is having the right conversation. If we did not understand what went wrong with opioids in that, he did not understand what went wrong with COVID in that EUA. If we keep thinking this is symptom level control, then we lose. But if we understand that this is a fundamental structure that the public can do something about, and if we have a thoughtful conversation about what that problem is, we the people can take our nation and the world's ethical lead back. But we have to have the right conversation to get there. Well i i appreciate you leaving us on an optimistic because i i was thinking like you're thinking of the uh the the martin luther king

Starting point is 01:04:11 quote drew you know the the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice um and i choose to believe that it's a great quote i i'm i'm naively optimistic as well i gotta admit um kelly you holding up okay you want to are you uh yeah i'm fine no i'm good you're doing good dr martin do you have you got a couple because there's we have so many calls lined up here i wonder if you want to take a couple of questions from the twitter spaces you're up for that yeah that's fine. First, though, me. First, I have a couple of quick questions. I didn't quite get who Flagship Ventures was. If you could review that little piece of history again, number one. And then number two, when did you come to this synthesis of the problem?

Starting point is 01:05:09 How did you arrive here and when did that happen? Well, as a lot of people know, I was having calls as this whole nonsense around what was going on in China was happening with a number of my friends in Australia and around the world. And my wife, Kim, without whom, by the way, most people wouldn't know anything other than what I did for CNBC and Bloomberg and all of those things. My wife, Kim, said, hey, there's this thing called Facebook Live. You should do one of your calls and just do it live. And so we literally sat down. She put a cell phone up in our living room on a tripod and then started yelling at me, how many are you keeping? Oh my God, more people are watching. And my God, more people are watching. And it turns out that three weeks into it, we had 500,000 people watching in March of 2020. So the reason why people know

Starting point is 01:05:58 that we're talking about this in this form is because my wife, Kim, had the audacity of putting a camera in front of my face and saying, hey, do what you do. And so that's what I did. But I actually brought this particular topic of coronavirus as a bioweapon risk to our first intelligence briefing in May of 2002. So that's how long I've been doing this. We have a record. One of one of the most important pieces of this history is while other people are trying to research origins, know, governments, trying to alert people. And the fact of the matter is we found out very quickly that you are not welcome when what you're pointing out is a crime being done by the very country that you're trying to alert to the crime. I had this very same experience during the opioid crisis. I was screaming about it from mid nineties on and was repeatedly crushed by regulatory organizations,

Starting point is 01:07:10 professional societies, department of mental health, state medical science, same, same playbook, same thing, same exact stuff. Yeah.

Starting point is 01:07:16 All right. Very quickly. I'm going to try to get some, get some calls up here for, for okay with that. This is fail i think go ahead and uh unmute yourself you're on with dr cali victory myself and dr david martin oh wait a minute now can i i'm having trouble caleb getting people to up here

Starting point is 01:07:42 uh already there he there is okay unmute yeah this is I wonder if it's my platform here again yeah it's it's a spaces the they're there they just got to unmute I'm gonna run my run my animation again as a reminder i'm gonna try again with philip k yes philip k let's try you and if there you are hey dr drew how are you hey man what's happening not much not much uh i just wanted to make a statement uh and a question at the same time. 9-11 was a gift to the globalists and to the national security establishment. And I'm one of

Starting point is 01:08:31 the first responders who was there. This represents, to me, another 9-11 in the sense that a lot more people died. Although not in a confined space. So you have to ask yourself,

Starting point is 01:08:51 what has to happen for justice to occur for the American people and the world? And I think until we take a real serious look at this on a scientific basis with real debate and real American leadership behind it. We're never going to get to the bottom of it. And guys like Fauci are going to get away with many cancer murders. Phil, let's frame it this way. And thank you for the service on 9-11.

Starting point is 01:09:18 You're welcome. That's much appreciated. And David, I think he's asking a question that I was actually kind of floating in my head, which was, you're saying we have to have the right conversations. Can you flesh that out a little more? Because I think that's what he's asking about. Well, yeah. Remember that, and I use the example of the real terrorist attack on September 28th and 29th of 2001 too, which is the anthrax attack. Remember that the anthrax attack brought us the PrEP Act, which is the basis for the adult EUA

Starting point is 01:09:54 medical countermeasure nonsense. We didn't discover the need for that. The US government created the requirement for it, and then the world sucker punched into saying, oh my gosh, we need to prevent bioterrorism, agreed to suspend civil liberties. So the point that the caller is making is actually a good one. But here's where I think we have the problem. I think we're not looking at what's happening behind the scenes. If you look right now at the International Health Treaty at the World Health Organization, and you ask the question of the sovereignty question of whether or not we're signing away our sovereignty with respect to the World Health Organization,

Starting point is 01:10:36 there is an enormous amount of outcry about that treaty for good reason. But what we're not doing and what we should be doing is questioning the very nature of the World Health Organization, because the World Health Organization has absolute criminal immunity from any action whatsoever. There is no criminal prosecution afforded any part of the World Health Organization, period. And we cannot live in a world where human organizations are granted immunity. Drew, you know this from the opioid crisis. We cannot have a world where manufacturers can kill people and just pay a fine. We can't do that.

Starting point is 01:11:19 Phil's comment is spot on, but we need to be talking about the structural problem. And if corporations are given immunity from liability, and if governments are afforded the ability to grant that immunity, that has to stop because we will have nothing but these kinds of situations over and over again, and our civil liberties will ultimately be the price we pay for it. Where do we have these conversations? You've again said we need to have the right conversation. Now you've sort of framed what the conversation is, where should the conversation be?

Starting point is 01:11:52 Well, listen, if we use the playbook of the Clayton Act, which was the antitrust law that was passed in 1913, which is the last time the public said enough with corporate irresponsibility. The last time we did it was 1913. But if we look at where those conversations happen, they happen in congressional hearings that were demanded by the public, essentially a grand jury style conversation in Congress. And we still have the ability to do that, but we don't do it. We let it be somebody else's job. And we pretend that Rand Paul or Ron Johnson or somebody else is ability to do that, but we don't do it. We let it be somebody else's job. And we pretend that Rand Paul or Ron Johnson or somebody else is going to do it. And the fact is, we, the people, need to be leading that particular conversation.

Starting point is 01:12:34 And we need to be demanding that our voice is actually part of the structure of it rather than merely the observer. Don't you think if we remove, if you remove, hang on for a second, Drew, if we removed the blanket immunity that has been granted to the pharmaceutical companies and the vaccine manufacturers, that alone, if we said, great, you are accountable for every single adverse event, don't you think that by itself would have changed the entire trajectory of this pandemic? Oh, absolutely. But remember, Kelly, we gave up our civil liberties in 2004 because we were told to fear a terrorist who actually turned out to be our defense department, right? We need to be smarter than that. We need to actually recognize that we, the people have to actually own our accountability for complacency. And when we get surprised by the criminal conspiracy,

Starting point is 01:13:32 we must look in the mirror first and say, hold on a second. Were we asleep at the watch when this happened? Yep. Yep. And, um, yeah, clearly I, I understand what you're. And Caleb, jump in. And we had just interesting news. I think this is just brand new news that was an interesting sort of

Starting point is 01:13:56 tidbit that runs afoul a bit of what we were just talking about. Caleb? Yeah, I just actually read this, that the Supreme Court blocked, I think it was like 30 minutes ago to an hour, that they blocked the settlement from Purdue Pharma. They had, I guess, trying to declare bankruptcy with a settlement worth $6 billion, but the Supreme Court blocked it. So I don't know what the next steps are, but there might be some justice done at some point. Well, but that's a great one. And listen, I sat in CNBC editorial meetings for years trying to get the story of the non-addictive formulas for opioids to be a newsworthy story. And let's be very clear on the fact that none of the Justice Department, none of the AGs, none of the cases are arguing the criminal conspiracy which gave rise to murder.

Starting point is 01:14:50 This was death of people. This was not an economic harm. This is people in Connecticut and Ohio and Kentucky who are dead because a corporation decided to kill them. This is actually not something we should be settling for a financial settlement of a couple billion dollars. Well, now we have governments actively contributing to that by not allowing, particularly in states like California, not allowing practitioners to treat the people

Starting point is 01:15:18 with the addictions now that have been generated from these substances. So there's duplicity all over the place. There's plenty of responsibility to sort of pass around. You've been very generous with your time, Dr. Martin. We've gone well beyond what we promised we would do. And Kelly, I don't want to wear you out neither. But I'll sort of give last words to each of you.

Starting point is 01:15:41 Kelly, maybe you first. Well, truly, I just, I so appreciate you being here, Dr. Martin. I was aware of your work before your really riveting testimony before the European Parliament. But if anyone hasn't watched that testimony in full, it's definitely worth doing. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the work that you are doing. It is critical for people with the understanding that you have of the regulatory process and all of these agencies, which is far beyond my understanding. So thank you for what you're doing and please keep up the good fight.

Starting point is 01:16:19 Thank you, Kelly. And I want to just say it is such an honor to share this conversation with all of you and the viewers who are watching and who will watch. This is something where we have, without doubt, an opportunity to do some self-examination and to recognize that our democracy and every democracy requires an informed and engaged electorate. And the fact of the matter is, you know, one of the things that I benefit from is is having somebody who actually keeps me accountable every day. My wife, who has the ability to say, hey, I think you talked over somebody's head or you made something too complicated. And I benefit from not only her inputs every day, but I benefit from each of these conversations. And what I would welcome from any and all of you who are listening, whether it's on Twitter, whether it's on other social media, wherever it is, make sure that if you're left with questions. One of the commitments I made was to make sure all of the statements I made are referenced. And if you go to our YouTube channel, Butterfly of the Week, you'll see that every single presentation we made has all of the source documents referenced in every presentation.

Starting point is 01:17:38 So don't take my word for it. Be an independent consumer of information. Do your own research. Come to your own research come to your own conclusions and together we can have the right conversation that will change the future of this situation we've had some very interesting conversations and uh susan doesn't david's description of his relationship with his wife the operation sounds familiar sounds very familiar good for you good on on you, David.

Starting point is 01:18:12 It sounds very familiar because she and Caleb threw the camera up during the coldest hours of the pandemic. We should help people understand these things. Just start talking to people. So here we are. Again, I've learned so much. Very interesting talking to so many people. And I feel like, David, we should again again, bring you back in a few weeks. And you alluded to at least two topics that you said were an entire show unto themselves. And I agree. And so I think we maybe make an effort to do that. But just to wrap things up, what do you recommend for people as if they are convinced as you ask them to read their references and draw their own conclusions if they are convinced what are the first things

Starting point is 01:18:52 they should do do we have specific recommendations yeah we we we set up several uh now actually almost two years ago we set up a platform called ProsecuteNow.io, which unfortunately was hacked and destroyed. It is coming back. It will be announced on my Twitter. We're hoping to have it up in the next couple of days. Every single person, regardless of where they live on earth, on that site had the ability to pick the state that they live in that would download a draft criminal indictment and a draft disclosure to any elected official. It automatically sent it to elected representatives, governors, attorneys general, et cetera. And what we were able to do was send out several hundred thousand letters requesting AGs and others to take action. The great news is that that system

Starting point is 01:19:47 having been destroyed is being reborn. It will be back up again. So I would encourage you and I'll share it with you guys so that you can share it across your network. But Prosecute Now has all of the evidence, all of the federal criminal statutes. It has the United States federal case that we brought in Utah. It has all of those resources so that if you want to inform anyone from a school board member to an employer to anybody else of what this situation is about, all the evidence is there. It's put in a form that allows you to actually use it and share it and deploy it. And listen, I'll leave you with this observation. The reason why the media hype, back to Kelly's earlier observation,

Starting point is 01:20:35 the reason why the media hype was so effective was the monotonous drone of fear porn. Every day, how many COVID cases, how many deaths, how many this, how many that. Listen, we need to use the same repetition technology to our advantage. We need to share this conversation. We need to share conversations like this. We need to share the great work of people like Peter McCullough. We need to share the great work of the late Zev Zelenko. we need to share that work frequently so that just like the fear porn drove bad behavior, the opportunity to be fully educated can in fact drive good behavior.

Starting point is 01:21:14 We have to use repetition and recitation. And so do yourself a favor and do your community a favor and share the messages so that they can be as loudly heard as the other side's message we will leave it at that prosecute now as soon as it becomes available i'm sure you will let us know and uh martin thank you kelly and i will see people tomorrow at three o'clock pacific for viva fryer and kelly see you next wed. See you all then. I'll see you next Wednesday. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician,

Starting point is 01:22:01 but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me. Call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.

Ask Dr. Drew - David Martin: The Pandemic Was A “Biological Weapon of Genocide” w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 249

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.