Kim Iverson (00:00:49):
Hello, everyone. Welcome to the show. Happy St. Patrick’s Day. David E. Martin has been uncovering corruption his entire career. His company m c m, has been trusted since the late 1990s by various governments to investigate biological and chemical weapons, treaty violations, massive tax evasion cases, patent laws, and more. He spent over 20 years scouring through data, looking for clues of violations and corruption. But the biggest scandal he has uncovered was what he says is the creation of SARS Cov two in a lab, a lab right here in the United States, and he detailed his findings in the widely censored film, pandemic two. Hi, David, welcome to the show,
David Martin (00:00:46):
Kim. It’s lovely to be here. Thanks for having me.
Kim Iverson (00:00:49):
Happy St. Patrick’s Day, by the way. I said
David Martin (00:00:52):
Thank you.
Kim Iverson (00:00:53):
I see at least you’re not wearing red. See, you’re
David Martin (00:00:54):
Wearing I see.
Kim Iverson (00:00:56):
Wearing you
David Martin (00:00:56):
Green, so there you
Kim Iverson (00:00:57):
Go. Yes. I’m, I’m wearing the appropriate and after this I’m gonna have a green beer, but yeah, so I’ve got, I’ve got, like, I, I did my ancestry, you know, the D n a I know a lot of people are worried about doing that, but I, I was, I was given it as a gift and did it, and I’m, I’m like 16% Irish, so I got, oh,
David Martin (00:01:15):
Well, there you go,
Kim Iverson (00:01:20):
There. Right, exactly. David, I really wanna talk about all of this corruption that you’ve uncovered throughout your career. Can you give us, first of all, what your company, m c that was, that’s been hired to investigate all of this corruption? Can you explain to us first what your company is and who these entities are that hire you for these various different investigations?
David Martin (00:01:44):
Yeah. Well, M C M is actually the outgrowth of a predecessor company. I also founded Mosaic Technologies, which is where all this stuff starts. Mosaic Technologies throughout the decade of the nineties was responsible for what was called treaty restricted technology transfer. And what that means is that we went into countries that were prohibited from exporting offensive military technologies and found civilian uses for technologies developed in defense labs around the world. So, for a decade of the nineties I often tell people I, it was like the Q Lab in the James Bond movie. You know, you get to go in and you get to see all the things that go boom, and you get to see all the things that do all sorts of nasty things and see if there’s any ways that civilian technologies could come from that. So things like the detectors for, for various forms of cancers radio tracers for nuclear medicine materials that allow our cell phones to work today.
David Martin (00:02:42):
Those were all things that, that, that decade long work was technology transfer out of defense labs into civilian use. And that’s, that’s what we spent the decade of the nineties doing. And then in the late 1990s, specifically, 1998, M Cam was formed to be the basis around which innovation could be used in banking. Many people are very familiar with what’s going on with the Silicon Valley Bank collapse in 1999. My company was actually brought into Silicon Valley Bank to review whether or not what they were doing was actually legal banking. So our, our, our company M C M, has been really at the forefront, and we are the only ones globally to actually provide an underwriting mechanism to take innovation into regulated banking. And that’s what we’ve been doing for the last, now 24 going on 25 years. And because of that,
Kim Iverson (00:03:39):
So who, who hired you for Yeah, to, to go in and look at, like SVB for example?
David Martin (00:03:45):
So those are all federal contracts. That’s organizations like the Department of the Treasury. We’ve worked as a sole source contractor to the office of large and medium sized business compliance for the Internal Revenue Service. I always tell people that when you’re a tax collector, you’re a friend of no one
Kim Iverson (00:04:35):
Got it. So how do you go from looking at weapons intelligence or weapons tech and seeing how that transfers maybe to civilian tech, to banking and tax fraud?
David Martin (00:04:48):
Yeah very simply everything that is done in secret lends itself to being abused and corrupted. When you have treaties, for example, that were signed at the end of the Second World War, that encourage countries like Japan, Eastern Europe, Italy, and others to hide the things that they’re doing. And when, as the United States government, throughout the whole Cold War, we were hiding what we were doing. Companies that are involved in hiding things, hide financial fraud, hide treaty violations, hide trade violations, hide all kinds of things. And so when you start looking behind the curtain in a lot of these covert and, and military and other kinds of operations, you start finding behavior that would make the skin on the average American or the average citizen in the world crawl. It’s, it’s shocking the degree to which laws are being violated. And so it’s not surprising that when you have illegal trade transactions, you’re gonna have illegal finance transactions. If you’re gonna have illegal finance transactions, there’s a high probability you’re gonna find tax fraud. And so in 1998 and 1999, the United States Treasury realized we had data that no one else had. And because we did, coming from countries all over the world, we were an arm for the United States Treasury Department to investigate and ultimately hold accountable an enormous number of companies for their illegal activities.
Kim Iverson (00:06:22):
So you were able to look at all of this data, and so you’ve been so let’s talk about the tax fraud. I know that you’ve mentioned that you’ve uncovered some of the biggest tax fraud scandals in the US in in US history. What was the biggest one?
David Martin (00:06:39):
Well, the biggest one was a thing, ironically, that was built around a proposal that was launched by the major accounting firms and the large, large US corporations back in the late 1990s, where companies started to realize that they could defraud the federal government in partnership with US universities by doing this thing called Intangible Asset Donation. And what that means to the average person is that a company, whether that company was a large chemical company, an energy company or a manufacturing company, would donate worthless patents, things that they were never going to use. They would donate it to a large university, take a massive tax deduction for it, sometimes in the neighbor of hundreds of millions of dollars of tax write-offs. And then the university would defraud the federal government by saying that they had received a hundred million dollars from a company, and the federal government would match that with real taxpayer dollars.
David Martin (00:07:39):
So this fraud involved companies and universities colluding to defraud the federal government out of billions of dollars. Wow. It got so bad, Kim, that by 2003, our company name became a verb in the i r s companies were threatened to be M Cammed
Kim Iverson (00:08:53):
What happened to those companies and those universities?
David Martin (00:08:57):
Well, the universities got away SCO free. And that goes to a conversation we’ll have about Coronavirus, because the fact of the matter is, this has been a criminal conspiracy with universities for decades, ever since the 1980 by Doll Act. And we can get into that in a later conversation. But the fact of the matter is universities have been criminally, criminally complicit in defrauding the federal government for now the past 40 years. And the, the companies themselves many of them had to pay very large tax penalties. In one case, treble damages, meaning that they had willfully defrauded the federal government and as a result had to pay three times the liability, which was a very big number. But yeah, we, we were able to hold a bunch of the companies accountable, but the universities have never, ever been accountable for their participation in this fraud.
Kim Iverson (00:09:50):
Wow. And that just goes to show, I mean, that’s, that’s the problem, right? Is that people aren’t being held accountable for the fraud that they’re committing. Correct. correct. So I would imagine though, with you going after these various companies and these universities that you are not a friend to many of them, they don’t view you as a friend. You as an enemy,
David Martin (00:10:07):
Let’s say, you know? Yeah. Jesus was criticized as being friends of tax collectors. So I feel like I’m in good company. But no one
Kim Iverson (00:10:37):
Were you targeted? Did you ever find that you, you felt repercussions for these types of, for uncovering this type of corruption?
David Martin (00:10:44):
Not, not kind of very explicitly. Our, our company was blacklisted by a lot of corporations. We were targeted by a number of federal agencies. We had physical and actual harassment, and we had a number of times when our corporate assets were actually frozen by federal regulators because they thought that we were actually acting on behalf of someone else rather than doing the contracted job that we were hired to do. This was the most bizarre thing in the world. We were actually under publicly disclosed treasury contracts, and there were people in the federal government that thought we were probably going after companies for other reasons. And the, and the fact of the matter is we were legitimately just doing the contracted work. But, but this goes to a, a much darker problem that we have in our government, which is we think that we have this elected government, we think we have this representational government, but the fact is that the government that we have is in fact the hand maiden of the people who put them in power. And the people who put them in power are the corporations and are the big donors who are the financiers of those corporations. And so if you go after them, it becomes an existential threat. And anytime you’re a threat, you know, people with a lot of resources like to go after you. And so we had three very difficult years during the mid two thousands where what we were uncovering was politically unacceptable in the minds of the people who were running the show.
Kim Iverson (00:12:19):
But the, so the treasury hired you to do this, was did the treasure, were they ever the ones that came back after you and said, Hey, you’re, you know, you guys are off? Or is it, or was it different federal agencies?
David Martin (00:12:32):
No, it’s, it is, as weird as this sounds, I actually have private correspondence between the head of the large and medium sized business compliance organization at the I r s who sent on personal letterhead, as well as the general counsel for the Criminal enforcement division of the I r s two personal notes sent to me saying that they, a, in their personal capacity, appreciated the work we did, and that they recommended that we sue the treasury for disrupting our business. So, so this is, get this right. This is the people who actually work for the people who hired us, recommending that we sue the people who hired us because of what they were doing to damage our business. So and when you have the head of criminal enforcement at the I r s writing on his personal behalf a recommendation that says, we know you’re doing the right thing. We know the I r s is doing the wrong thing. We know the treasury’s doing the wrong thing. And you are right when the head of criminal enforcement is sending you that letter, you know how bad the system is.
Kim Iverson (00:13:42):
How is that possible? So the people that are working there, and they’re in charge there, and they’re saying, wow, the the entity, the government body that we’re working for is not doing the right thing. How is that possible? I mean, aren’t they running it or who’s really running it if it isn’t them?
David Martin (00:13:58):
Now, Kim, you just hit the white hot core of every single conversation we’re gonna have, because there are, in many organizations in the federal government, really good people, people who took their oath of office very seriously, people who actually are genuinely public servants. And I will not ever throw every one of them under the bus, but the question you’re asking is the right question. When the individual working for an organization knows that what is being done is wrong, what is the recourse that anybody has them on the inside or citizens on the outside to get justice when the very structure itself is run by people who will not be held accountable? And that goes for the Department of Defense, it goes for the Treasury Department, it goes for the State Department, and most recently it goes for the Department of Health and Human Services. Tons of people know that crimes are being committed, but the problem is when the justice system refuses to hold anyone accountable, then you’re left in this awkward position where it takes a courageous person to go, Hey, you know what? Our organization’s wrong, what you’re doing is right, and you’re still going to suffer the consequences of the organization being wrong. And, and we have, we have countless, countless pieces of evidence of that happening through a number of agencies. But clearly this one from the Treasury was one of the funniest ones because when the head of criminal enforcement says it, and they’re saying, by the way, my organization is running the crime, right? It’s kind of a pretty hopeless situation.
Kim Iverson (00:15:43):
Does the buck stop with the Treasury Secretary? Is that, where is the, is that where they’re getting their direction? Because obviously that position is appointed by the president. Is that person then really running the show politically has a political agenda? Obviously they’re an unelected official cabinet member. Are they the ones that are the driving force behind the decisions that are then being made by then the careerists that are there and the careerists are just trying to do their daily job doesn’t matter who’s in charge. Yeah. Yeah. So who does the buck stop with then?
David Martin (00:16:15):
Ask question? Well, the answer, the answer really is that secretary level positions at the cabinet are political favors. They’re not real. Right? When, when Alex Azar was appointed by Trump to become the head of Department of Health and Human Services, while he was under active criminal investigation at Eli Lilly for price fixing the diabetes medicines in Mexico, I mean, listen to what I just said, like that’s not, that’s not a kind of a, well, you can kind of see it one way or the other. I mean, this guy was under investigation for criminal racketeering from Lilly at the time. He was appointed to be de director of the Department of Health and Human Services, a secretary level position. And he’s, by the way, the architect of the Covid 19 craziness. If you go back and ask yourself, how did a criminal investigation subject become Department of Health and Human Services Director, the answer is, Trump didn’t make that appointment.
David Martin (00:17:17):
A political donor put him there to do the job. Just like every other cabinet level position. I would, I would go as far as to say, I doubt that there are many, if any, presidents who actually really chose their cabinet. These are political favors given to donors who actually are the ones that get to dictate to whom what role is given. And if we think for a moment that this is the best and brightest, all we have to do is look back to, to Alex Azar and ask yourself, is it really ideal to have a criminal racketeering investigation person become a cabinet secretary? Is that, is that a good idea? Are the optics of that good? Of course not. But we didn’t have that conversation because we weren’t welcome to, because this was not a public appointment. This was a political favor to a donor.
Kim Iverson (00:18:13):
Yeah. let’s talk about anthrax and the anthrax investigation that you did. Yeah. How did you get in on the Anthrax investigation?
David Martin (00:18:23):
Well, a couple things. First of all, I pointed out in May of 2001, and, and, and most people, by the way, Kim, forget that the Anthrax scare of September, 2001 was the real domestic terrorism event of 2001. We, we talk about 9 11, but we don’t talk about 9 28, and we should, we should be talking about the Anthrax scare, because that’s when the Department of Defense actually attacked the American people and killed American citizens with a bioweapon called anthrax. That’s a terrible thing, and we don’t ever talk about it. But what came to our attention in the spring of 2001, so this was months before the Anthrax alleged outbreak was a purchase order by the Department of Defense for 300 million doses of Ciprofloxin. Now, Kim, most people don’t know, but Cipro was the drug that you used to treat anthrax poisoning. Now, anthrax, as a practical matter, is a disease that affects Hyde Tanners. You heard what I said, hide Tanners like people who work with leather,
Kim Iverson (00:19:36):
Right?
David Martin (00:19:37):
Right. Now, I don’t know, I don’t know in what universe we were expecting 300 million people to be suddenly tanning hides in the great buffalo hunt of 2001. Like what the heck that was about? Mm-Hmm.
David Martin (00:20:42):
And I happened to have, because of my background with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and my work at the various forts that do bioweapons programs, I happened to know where the Anthrax lab was because I happened to be in the anthrax lab. That’s how I knew where it was. So I knew that the weaponization of anthrax was happening. And so when, when it started being circulated in late September, I knew what it was. And ironically, at that point in time, several senators reached out to me and said, listen, we think that this might be an inside job, and we think that Bayer as a corporation might be involved in it, and we think that the Department of Defense might be involved in it. So what do you know? And what ensued was over the next two years, we provided all the evidence for the fact that this was an inside D O D job.
David Martin (00:21:36):
We provided that to the Congress, we provided that to a number of investigators. And as you know, finally after years of hand ringing and trying to figure out the who done it, we finally named a US person affiliated with the Federal labs, who actually was the person who was blamed for the Anthrax outbreak. Now, the fact is, and anybody looking at history knows that the anthrax outbreak was not an act of lone wolf. It was a plan so that we could pass the Prep Act. And the Prep Act was necessary to essentially suspend constitutional protections when there was a bio emergency, which is what we’ve just lived through. I warned that that would happen in 2003, in 2004, as an official participant in the Bioweapons investigations in Slovenia, when I was asked by the United States government to go over, and that was by the office of the president to go over and be a representative for the OX Conference in Slovenia. When I was over there, I talked about the fact that we were preparing for self-inflicted bioweapons attacks on the United States. And I was briefing that, and obviously one year later, not surprisingly, we had the coronavirus selected by DARPA and by Mire to be the technology for bio warfare which is what we’ve just lived through.
Kim Iverson (00:23:07):
Yeah. And I definitely wanna get to that, but I first want to kind of discuss some of these other corruptions Yeah. That you’ve uncovered throughout your career. So you’re, you’re basically, you’re getting hired by all of these governments or by politicians to uncover corruption. And then when you do, I mean, with the Anthrax one, was anybody held accountable?
David Martin (00:23:31):
No.
Kim Iverson (00:23:32):
So what in the world is happening? You, you keep getting hired to uncover the corruption and then the corruption, you uncover it, you give them the evidence, all this testimony happens. It, it’s all, so why are people and entities not being held accountable? I mean, this is when the world is happening.
David Martin (00:23:48):
Yeah. So, so that’s
Kim Iverson (00:23:51):
A, are they doing these investigations just for, you know, for like, what would be the reason for even doing the investigation if they’re not going actually hold people accountable?
David Martin (00:24:00):
Well, remember that this goes back to at least the 1980s. You know, Nancy Reagan had the war on drugs while we were doing Iran Contra, right? When we were, we were trading in cocaine, sending weapons to Iran you know, arming the Iraqi government and then saying we were having a war on drugs. Like, seriously, I mean, when you think about all of the moving pieces, there is the optics of concerning ourselves with the truth. And then there’s the reality that says, when you get too close to the bone, and remember, I brought up a very, very important sacred cow. The university funding systems in the United States rely on federal agencies, which are captured agencies, which money, launder money to universities, which then support state budgets, support all sorts of other things. If you actually were serious about ending corruption, I don’t think there’s a single state university in the country that would stay open.
David Martin (00:25:06):
Hmm. Do you really want to see every university closed down? And the answer is, if you’re asking me, yes, if it is part of a criminal conspiracy, I wanna see it closed. But if you are an elected official from, I don’t know, the state of North Carolina, do you really want the answer? Do you really want to do the investigation? No. What you want to do is you want to pretend that there was an investigation, and as soon as you get the information that gets a little too close to home, you shut the investigation down, and then you discredit the person who you hired to do it. And I have lived through that time and time and time again. There is no question in every single investigation, whether it’s s e c fraud, whether it’s tax fraud, whether it’s biological weapons fraud, whether it’s trade and, and the trafficking in military technologies, fraud.
David Martin (00:25:56):
Every single one of these, what they want to do is they wanna find out if somebody could get caught, right? So my role in many instances has been almost this, this bizarre, can he find our crime? And when I do, and then I provide the evidence for the crime, then all of a sudden I’m the person who’s on the outs, because I actually, God forbid, suggested that maybe it was an inside job. Remember in 2002 when I said Anthrax was an inside job, everybody told me I was crazy. And now we know in every public record everywhere that the damage was done by the United States against US citizens. Was anybody at DARPA ever held accountable? No. Was anybody at any of the federal labs ever held accountable? No. And these are murders, Kim. This is not, this is not a light thing. This is actually murder. Not a single person has been held accountable for that.
Kim Iverson (00:26:58):
Well, it’s just like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You know, no one’s been held accountable for that either. Why do you keep getting hired then? It seems like you’ve been hired over and over, and not just by the US government, but also at the request of was it the Swedish government that hired you to go in and look at patents at the European Union?
David Martin (00:27:16):
Yeah. We’ve, we, we
Kim Iverson (00:28:12):
Yeah. So let’s, let’s talk about this Swedish delegation to the European Union that hired you to Yeah. Examine software patents because I think that the examination of patents definitely goes into the covid patents that we’ll be talking about here. Absolutely. so when were you hired, and again, why, why do you continue to be hired in this, in this situation, the Swedes? I’ve always really thought that Nordic systems and the Nordic governments, or the least corrupt out of the corrupt governments of the world, were they genuine when they hired you? I mean, do you find instances where governments are genuinely wanting you to look and find something and they actually mean it, it’s not just an illusion. Was this one of, of those situations?
David Martin (00:28:56):
Yeah. And so Denmark in 2003 and four and Sweden during the same period of time were pretty convinced that Microsoft and Siemens and other large corporations had pretty much hijacked the patent system. And what they wanted to do was they wanted to point out that in the European Union, it was illegal to file patents on things like software and a whole bunch of other things. You couldn’t file file patents on biologics and a whole bunch of things. Shortly after that, the Indian government was very interested in hiring us to go after patents on of all things Bosma Rice, which a Texas corporation affiliated with the Bush family was very in instrumental in. And in those instances, we were, were hired to both investigate the breaking of patent law in the European Union, and then also come up with proposed recommendations on how to deal with it.
David Martin (00:29:53):
In the case of Denmark and Sweden, and to a lesser extent, India, all three of those contracts were legitimate. They were real efforts that really were about helping people uncover the truth, hold the, the people in violation of law accountable and bust up those monopolies. And we did it. By 2006, we had done an enormous amount of work to reform the patent system of Europe. We actually got a huge number of the patents that were software patents thrown out of Europe. We held the European Patent Office quite accountable for a number of the abuses that they had done. And so, in truth, that one was legitimate, and that one really worked. In the case of the Bosma rice patent, we were able to get rice back into the hands of the people who really had the indigenous rights to that, which are the people in India.
David Martin (00:30:43):
We were able to do those things. We were able to work against Starbucks to allow Ethiopia to have the rights to the naturally unc caffeinated versions of coffee, yuge, chafe, and Hara. Two, two things that the Starbucks organization had decided they were going to take rights to. We were able to get Ethiopia back to the table as a legitimate participant in international trade around those types of coffees. So we have had successes, and that’s, I think, part of the reason why you know, your question’s a good one. Right? How many times do you go back to the well and try to fight a thing? You know, in, in the last decade, we were very instrumental in fighting Rio Tinto against the genocide that they perpetrated in mining organizations throughout Papua New Guinea and, and the Solomon Islands. The good news is we got the, the Rio Tinto Organization to have to rescind their equity in an unprecedented move where a giant mining company, a giant global mining con conglomerate, had to walk away from their equity holding because they had actually perpetrated crimes in the area that they were operating.
David Martin (00:31:55):
And so we have had wins. That’s, that’s why it’s easy to look at it and go, God, you’re batting average sucks. And the answer is yes, it does. I, I strike out a lot, I miss a lot. But it doesn’t change the fact that humanity, if it’s not going to have courts and it’s not gonna have advocates, there needs to be somebody who goes, Hey, let’s take a shot. Let’s try to make it work. And that’s in fact what we’ve been doing. So, you know, I can go to communities around the world where I can say, you know, there’s Indian rice farmers that are in business because I exist. There are companies, inden, Denmark, and Sweden that are in business because I exist. You know, there, there are people now doing their own alluvial mining in Papua New Guinea because I exist. I do have some wins. And that’s, I think why I keep doing it, even though at times it feels futile.
Kim Iverson (00:32:53):
Do you have any wins in the United States?
David Martin (00:32:58):
In, in, so in the tax fraud situation, we ultimately won for the American people. We got Congress to close the loophole on what had created the tax fraud. Now that turns out that it’s great for the American citizen because we actually got corporations held accountable and we closed the loophole. In the case of the s e c, we got the elimination of what’s called pooling of interest accounting, where literally there were over 3000 registered lobbyists against me, and it was 3000 lobbyists to Dave Martin, and we got the law changed. So yes, we do have some wins. Most of them have come through congressional activity, not through judicial activity. And I’m a huge critic of the judicial system in the United States, cuz I don’t think we have a judiciary, I don’t think that we have a free and fair judiciary that allows the citizens to have their, their concerns. Redressed I don’t think that exists in this country, but I do know that I have been able to prevail in some very large legislative wins. And in both of those cases, in both the s e C and the I r s cases, we’ve changed the law and one for the American people.
Kim Iverson (00:34:17):
It’s interesting that you point out the judiciary because so many of us point out Congress, you know, many of us look at Congress or the Executive branch and say, these two branches are just not working for the American people. And you’re pointing out the branch that so many Americans would look at and say, well, we could get it done at least through the courts if we can’t get it done through Congress.
David Martin (00:34:37):
No.
Kim Iverson (00:34:38):
And you’re saying the opposite?
David Martin (00:34:40):
No. As a matter of fact, the, the, the from the Supreme Court on down, the government checks and balances system, which is supposed to be in place, has been inaccessible to the citizens of the United States. And certainly during the last three years, we’ve seen the evidence of that time and time again, no court, and I include Florida and, and a lot of people go, but what about face masks in Florida? And the answer is, they did the right thing, almost, almost. But the fact of the matter is, the actual crimes that were perpetrated by government agencies on the citizens of America have never been held to any account in any court anywhere in this country. And even the attempt to try to get a court to hear these things has been thrown out on procedural matters. We don’t have a single justice anywhere in this country that has had the DC of hearing a case. So, you know, you can sit there and, and talk to the, you’re blue in the face about the fact that we’re supposed to, under the Bill of Rights, we’re supposed to under the constitution, have equal protections. We don’t, the judiciary is entirely, entirely captured by the corrupt political appointments that make the judges judges, and that appointment system is broken beyond repair.
Kim Iverson (00:36:04):
Yeah. That has been my big criticism about the Covid wins. It’s great that we have these wins but the wins are not real wins. They’re all on technicalities. They’re just, oh, well this agency didn’t didn’t say everybody had to be mandated, so therefore it is Right. Arbitrary, capricious rather than actually going on the merit of the mandate itself. Right. Correct. Many of us just want the mandate thrown out because we’ll say, well, the vaccine doesn’t work. How could they possibly push this on us? And that’s never the ruling. It has never been in that way. Yeah, and you’re right, when it comes to, for example, even Trump’s Trump’s team and their their challenges on elections, you know, none of those, all, all of those cases were, were denied by judges based on, on procedural ma It wasn’t on the actual subject matter.
Kim Iverson (00:36:50):
And that, and that’s, that’s the unfortunate part, is whether, whether something happened or didn’t happen, the American people deserve the date in court to find out and we’re not getting it. That’s correct. On a variety of different subjects where we could put a subject to rest. Right. You just say, okay, that has now been put to bed. We know the truth on it, or we don’t. And we just con we continue to never get to the truth when it comes to the judicial system. So that’s unfortunate to find out that and I know there’s a deeper dive there that I could do at a later time really digging into the judicial system and why it is not working for the American people. But let’s now, so you, you’ve, you’ve spent your entire career examining data, examining patents. What led you to examine the Covid patents for so for Coronavirus? And were you hired by an agency to begin looking at those or was this something you did on your own? No,
David Martin (00:37:43):
No. A very alarming patent was applied for by UNC Chapel Hill in 2002. And just to make sure your viewers and your listeners remember SARS as, as what we call sars didn’t exist then we, we didn’t have SARS until the winter of 2002 going into the spring of 2003. That’s SARS 1.0. Mm-Hmm.
David Martin (00:38:46):
Well, heart and lung, if you go back to 1990, when Pfizer filed its first patent on the first coronavirus vaccine, that vaccine was for dogs and pigs because it used to be that coronavirus infection was a gastrointestinal problem. But in 2002, after a decade of work, Ralph be at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, figured out how to make what was called an infectious replication defective clone. And that was the tool that was going to be used by Anthony Fauci, funded by his, his organization, N I A I D. That was going to be the gain of function tool that was going to then be the envelope into which we would insert mRNA, which would then activate a infection and harm to the cell that’s being targeted. And when that particular patent was filed in 2002, I knew that we had a problem. Because when you announced to the world that you have taken a pathogen that was allegedly a problem for dogs and pigs, and you now make it a targeted pathogen for humans and not just any old human, it’s not just a gastrointestinal version of this, this was specifically optimized to go after heart and lung tissue.
David Martin (00:40:11):
That’s a weapon. That’s not, that’s not a, that’s not a interesting study That is actually the development of a weapon. And, and then you use the term infectious replication defective, that’s even more the admission that that’s a targeted thing because the way we think of the viral model is that I get sick and then I passed the sickness onto, you remember when we were kids, people had chickenpox parties where everybody got chickenpox. Right. These ideas that these things get infected, then we infect other people. This was to build a weapon to target an individual. And that was filed in 2002 before we ever had sars. My contention has been and remains that we invented the weapon that became sars, that that never came from an animal never came from some sort of transfection across or transmutation from a zoonotic source. This was humans building a weapon where we were turning biology against humanity.
Kim Iverson (00:41:20):
Okay. So you had been involved in monitoring biological and chem chemical weapons since the early two thousands. So can I ask you, is it typical, let’s say if we have a, a bomb, is it typical for the government to then patent the bomb?
David Martin (00:41:41):
No. So that we
Kim Iverson (00:41:41):
Would have a patent on that weapon? Yeah,
David Martin (00:41:44):
No, it, it’s actually fairly unusual. Although the Department of Defense did patent a rocket propelled grenade, and I’m not making this up, an actual rocket propelled grenade that could shoot an aerosolized pathogen across a population. Now, in case you’re wondering, delivering an immunization by rocket propelled grenade is not how you do public health. That’s a weapon, right? When you put an R P G with a pathogen in it and you create are, you are ready for this, this is actually in that patent blast resistant pathogens, meaning that they can survive the explosion. So they still are virulent when they spread across a population that’s actually a real US patent. Now, it shouldn’t be because it’s a violation of every biological chemical weapons law that we have, but that doesn’t stop it from being in the patent record. Wow. It is very unusual. It is very unusual to file patents on it, but more problematic, that particular research was selected by N I A I D as the pathway through which we were going to build a viral vaccine model. In other words, we were going to use the virus itself as a vaccine. Ah, and then tragically in 2005, the same researcher Ralph Barrick, announced that this was bioweapons platform technology at a conference sponsored by darpa.
Kim Iverson (00:43:21):
So what is the motivation are, are you saying the motivation for even going down this path to begin with? Because this does sound very you know, Dr. Evil type thing,
David Martin (00:44:09):
So Kim, what I love about your question and what I love about the vast majority of Americans’ logic is we sit there going clearly nobody actually really wanted bad things to be done. And I have some bad news for every American right now, whether it’s the war on drugs in the 1980s, whether it is the alleged war on AIDS in the 1990s, whether it is the alleged war on terrorism in the two thousands, and whether it’s alleged war on biology and carbon in the 2000 tens. The bad news is that our government fully intends to harm its citizens. And I hate to be the bearer of that bad news, but let’s get real. It’s time for us to actually stop pretending. Like if they say it outright and they tell us that that’s what they’re doing, we should try to understand maybe they didn’t really mean what they were saying.
David Martin (00:45:04):
So let’s get really real. When Ralph Barack says cor synthetic coronavirus is a platform technology for a bioweapon that is not a public health research project. A bioweapon is a weapon, it is not a public health research project. And when you see in their papers that they say they’re going to use it and they’re gonna deploy it so that the public accepts a universal vaccine, you’re not sitting there going, oh, hold on a minute. So this was an accident thing and we didn’t really mean to do it. No, they actually said they are going to deploy an agent, a respiratory pathogen, so that the public will accept a medical countermeasure that is self-inflicted harm. And we can sit there till the cows come up and go, well, they didn’t really mean that, did they? But then let’s listen to what they actually say. And this is a quote from Peter Daik, the collaborator with Ralph Barrack in 2015, and this is his language in front of the National Academy of Sciences. He says, to increase the public understanding for the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan 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. Does that sound like public health to you?
Kim Iverson (00:46:40):
I guess it is. It is
David Martin (00:46:42):
Mission of domestic terrorism,
Kim Iverson (00:46:43):
Right? That’s right.
David Martin (00:46:44):
That’s an admission of domestic terrorism. That’s not public health. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process. And we’re sitting in here pretending to go, well, but they didn’t really mean that. No, they really did.
Kim Iverson (00:46:58):
It’s just hard to imagine. That’s why it, it is our natural inclination to say, well, they must have been doing this for some good purpose. Because it’s difficult for us to imagine, I guess we each as American citizens or just as citizens of the world under any government probably needs to come to the realization that our government views us as soldiers in the military, essentially. Yes. We’re no different than That’s exactly right. We are paws in the military and we know that the military has done extensive experimentation on soldiers without them even knowing. Right. There’s actually a big case where many of them were, were experimented on throughout even World War II from the 1922 to 1975, there was thousands of soldiers who were experimented on who then sued the government for this and without them knowing many of them died. And so if we come to the, if we understand, I suppose, that the, that this is something that government has knowingly done to soldiers.
Kim Iverson (00:47:55):
Yes. That, that they view all of us. And that’s why we have a draft, for example, a draft as we are all viewed as soldiers. They can just call us up at any time and say, you’re, you’re now, it’s your time to die. You’re gonna have to go off and die now. And so I think if we just it, but it is, it’s, it’s against our intuition. We just wanna believe that oh no, they’re doing it for the, the greater good. There must be some good reason for this. But at the end of the day, what is really, we’re all paws in the milit in the soldier. We’re all soldiers in the military and we need to kind of come to terms with that. And, and,
David Martin (00:48:28):
And the Patriot Act made it illegal to terrorize or coerce the population into doing something it would not otherwise do. And Ralph Barrack and, and Anthony Fauci and Peter Daik admitted directly, not by implication, admitted directly that they would attack US citizens with a pathogen they made so that those citizens would take a vaccine that they would never have otherwise taken. That is not my allegation. That is their publicly published quotes in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And we sit here to this day debating on whether or not it was China or whether it was something else. Listen, we’re trying to find the bank robber, but we’re only going to find the bank robber provided that we don’t look at the guy with a ski mask on and a gun holding a bag of money at the bank steps. We’re trying to find the other guy.
David Martin (00:49:32):
And, and, and my point and my frustration in all of these things, and you asked a great question at the beginning of this interview where we talked about, well, why, why hasn’t, like, why haven’t any of these things stuck? And the answer is, look in the mirror. Every single one of us, I’m telling you something which is unambiguous. You cannot deny that Ralph Barrack said synthetic coronaviruses were a bioweapons technology, not a public health threat. A bioweapons technology. And N I A I D funded that program with darpa, Peter Daik said we were going to use the scare of this to create the media hype so that the public would accept a vaccine that’s not guessing. Whether there was a wet market or guessing whether there was something in Wuhan. That’s the criminal admitting to the crime. And we are sitting here to this day, good people of goodwill and good intent who are sitting there with the evidence smacking us in the face. And to this day, not a single member of Congress, not including Rand Paul or Ron Johnson, not a single governor or ag, no one has been willing to look at the evidence because what they don’t want to confront is we did this to ourselves. We don’t want to deal with that because we want the the band to keep marching and playing on.
Kim Iverson (00:51:00):
Well, and in fact Congress just unanimously passed that they want to declassify Covid Intel, COVID Origins intelligence the bill, right? Which was written by Senator Josh Hawley points to the Wuhan lab saying, we wanna know everything about what was going on in that lab. Was China involved in this at all?
David Martin (00:51:19):
Absolutely. Because we can go back to the 2016 publication that said the spike protein from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was poised for human emergence in a pathogen built by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in Ralph Barrack’s lab. And in his own acknowledgement, and I have the paper right here. Cool thing about this is, I don’t even have to guess. It actually says, are you ready for this? And I’ll, I’ll, I’ll read you my favorite line outta this paper because it says, in acknowledgements we thank Dr. Jen Lee, she of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to the bat, C o V sequences and the Plasma Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one spike protein.
David Martin (00:52:09):
She sent it to us and then we built the weapon in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Now why is that important and why is it important that we have this precise conversation? That is because the Department of of Energy actually did the politically astute thing. And this is really cool, when they came up with what they called a low confidence interval, that this was a lab leak from Wuhan, they came up with that because they know the answer. The answer is, this wasn’t a lab leak from Wuhan, was the Wuhan Institute of Virology involved? Absolutely. But what you’ll see in all of the documentation, including the recent past bill in Congress, is nobody’s bothered to include North Carolina in that list. Nobody’s bothered to include Ralph Berick in that list. And he’s the one who actually said in 2015, during the gain of function moratorium, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology Spike Protein was poised for human emergence.
David Martin (00:53:14):
He’s the one that said the bomb was loaded and delivered, but we’re not asking the question, Hey, is he under investigation? Is UNC Chapel Hill under investigation is Anthony Fauci under investigation? And Robert Redfield, as recently as just last week, said, without equivocation US taxpayers paid for the development of this pathogen. He didn’t, he didn’t hide that at all. And this is the C d C director saying we did it. And you know what it’s like saying aliens in exist, you know, people can hear it and they just go, oh, I must have misheard that. It must be Wuhan. And then they go back and do the stupid Wuhan investigation. Listen, if we’re serious about this, what we need to do is we need to go to UNC Chapel Hill and we need to arrest the people who are perpetrating this particular crime. We need to go to DC and arrest fauci for perpetrating this crime. And we need to go to wherever Daik is hiding and arrest him cuz they’re the ones that admitted to the crime in public.
Kim Iverson (00:54:25):
Why would China be involved in this? What would be their motivation? So if this, so what I’m kind of gathering from this is that this wasn’t a biological weapon for necessarily warfare, but this was a biological weapon for industry, for vaccine industry to then be able to mass vaccinate populations, right. Which would be beneficial for numerous different vaccine company pharmaceutical companies, including maybe Chinese ones. Is that, is that what I’m hearing?
David Martin (00:54:55):
Well, in part, but there’s a bigger problem in China that China doesn’t want to admit. And that is that China, as you probably know, has had a one child policy for many decades. And that one child policy has resulted in way more men than women. Because as awkward as it is for us to admit, in many cultures, male children are preferred over female children. And in China that was epidemic. And what was very clear by the late 1990s and early two thousands when I was spending an enormous amount of time with the state council in China, it was very clear that the leadership there knew that they had probably somewhere between 86 and a hundred million excess men. And when you have 86 to a hundred million excess men, you have an existential problem as an economy. Because what you find is that those people are going to spend not only all of their wealth, but they’re gonna spend all their heritable wealth, meaning that they’re gonna spend all of their parents’ wealth, their grandparents’ wealth, they’re gonna do it all in one generation.
David Martin (00:56:03):
And it turns out that you need to find a mechanism to turn manufacturing from an export market to a made for China market. And what I have said many times is that the Chinese government was opportunistic, COVID served as a perfect cover for them to effectively nationalize production, where all of a sudden western companies go, well we’re not gonna do business here anymore cuz Covid i’s there. And no kidding, they walked out of their factories. And it turns out that the Chinese did what? Well, they walked back into the factories and turned them on and did what turned it into domestic production. This was probably one of the most opportunistic nationalizations of international corporate infrastructure ever done. And we don’t talk about it. We don’t talk about it because we can’t talk about the gender issues associated with male selection in those communities where all of a sudden we’re supposed to be only talking about inclusivity, but we’ve got some awkward things we have to talk about.
David Martin (00:57:10):
Like if there’s a one child policy girls get opted away from and boys are referenced, right? You know what the bad news is that comes back to haunt us. Those socially awkward conversations are the conversations we’re not having. And the fact is that Chinese government used the Covid story for the inversion from export to domestic production. And everybody who’s talked about though I don’t know what’s in it for China, isn’t looking, what’s in it for China, is to try to placate domestic consumption requirements of 86 million men who are evolutionary cul-de-sacs, who will never procreate. They will never have a partner, they will never have an opportunity to ever have progeny. And because of that, the Chinese government has been desperate, desperate to try to figure out how to make sure they get gadgets and gizmos and stuff to say their empty soul that doesn’t have the chance of ever having children. And that awkward conversation is a conversation we should be having because we should actually concern ourselves with what it’s like to have that many men now alone in the world where the only thing they have to do is consume their way into the grave. It’s a human tragedy we should be talking about. You know, who talks about it? Nobody.
Kim Iverson (00:58:35):
Yeah. Well there’s no doubt that China, out of all the nations in the world benefited it seemed from Covid V Right? Their GDP was the only one go up when everyone else was, was tanking, China was, was profiting. And that always was eyebrow raising to me thinking, you know, there’s something, something going on there that is very odd. Yeah. And the fact that, you know, in the early days of Covid, they would show people on their, on the, the media, the news media, you know, convulsing almost and falling down. We know Covid doesn’t do that to people, you know, now we know. But in the early days it was this total fear mongering to make, to get people to lock down and lock down hard. They would show up in the bubble suits, they would literally padlock people into their homes. I mean, it was very, very, it was, it was frightening. Extremely frightening. And as you’re mentioning done on purpose, but it looks like many nation, at least the United States and China were in on this. Were there other nations that were in on this?
David Martin (00:59:32):
Well, there’s no question that Germany has been in on this from the very beginning. I would say Israel has very clearly been in on this from the very beginning. Because you don’t have, I mean, listen, let’s, let’s, let’s be indelicate here for a moment. Think of the marketing failure. This is to suggest that a German biotech company would be invited to be the first ones to inject a Jewish population.
Kim Iverson (00:59:54):
I know it, it’s does anybody
David Martin (00:59:56):
Else, anybody else have a creepy problem with that?
Kim Iverson (00:59:59):
It it totally nuts. And the Israeli government admit it. They were like, well, we’re experimenting on our people I mean, it was just the most bizarre thing to see, I mean, was that they would allow the experimentation on them,
David Martin (01:00:10):
Right? And, and I mean, listen, as a market test, wouldn’t you at least raise your hand if you’re in that room going, Hey guys, isn’t the optics on this a little bad? Should we really be letting a German biotech company investigate? Its, its new newfangled business on, on our population. The, here’s the facts. The facts are that Pfizer Moderna, the companies that own Pfizer Moderna, including large shareholders like BlackRock, were all participating in the controlled rollout of this craziness. And we can sit back and we can kind of think, oh my goodness, maybe there was this or that, or the other pathogen. But even Newsweek, I mean, remember the Scott Atlas’s op-ed in Newsweek this week said all of the Covid story was based on a lie. He’s the one that came out and said, you know, we’ve tried to come up with this excess death story, but it turns out that excess deaths didn’t start until we started injecting people.
David Martin (01:01:09):
Well, that’s a tiny problem, because if we have a world in which the whole thing was a racket to run the shareholder interests of Pfizer and Moderna through the roof, while cascading an entire damaging swath across the entire globe of death and destruction from the shot, from the injection, from Remes Avir, from all of the things that were done, we have one of the largest, largest genocidal criminal conspiracies in human history. And we’re pretending that it was justified under the ages of some nonsensical public health crisis. And there wasn’t one. It was all fearmongering. And remember, they told us they were going to do it until the public accepts the need for a medical countermeasure, such a Pan coronavirus vaccine. We will use the media to create hype. They didn’t hide their intentions, they didn’t hide anything. They told us what they were gonna do. And we, the people continued to this day to pretend like that statement wasn’t made
Kim Iverson (01:02:16):
As every single news organization put a death ticker on the side of every screen, right? For all of 2020. We sat there watching the death numbers go up. That was absolutely a fear mongering tactic. Well, David thank you for I, I think enlightening us a bit more about this. I know many people watched Pandemic two that you were in, but this really helps break it down even further for us, I believe. And it’s very, and, and now, you know, of course when that came out, people were still kind of in denial. But now more, more and more people are realizing, okay, you know, all of the things that were considered conspiracy theories throughout this pandemic, even just when I was saying in the early days, the vaccine doesn’t stop the spread. I was watching the Israeli data saying, you know, they’re talking about jabbing their population now for the fourth time it’s not working.
Kim Iverson (01:03:07):
Yep. And it was, that was considered a conspiracy theory here. Like, oh, you know what, of course it does take the jab, stop being a grandma killer. And now we see as time has gone on and now, you know, and then saying, oh, the vaccines cause myocarditis. That was considered a conspiracy theory. We’ve now seen over and over that all of these theories are actually true. And I’m hoping that the, the problem, I mean, what you’re saying is just so outrageous that people don’t wanna believe it because Right. If we have to believe that, if we, then we ha it, it’s just like the, with the CIA documents coming out, that, that start really pointing the finger more and more that the CIA off an Amer a sitting American president. It’s like it’s so egregious that to even believe it, you have to then question everything you thought you knew about your government and about your country, about our freedom, about our democracy. Everything we’ve been taught would be a lie if these things are true. And that is very difficult for most of us to swallow.
David Martin (01:04:05):
Well, and remember that as recent as, as early as 2010 going into 2015, that that period of time we knew that pseudo uridine, which is the eight, the ingredient in the injection, we knew that it was pro oncogenic, meaning it would turn on cancers.
Kim Iverson (01:04:23):
Yeah.
David Martin (01:04:23):
That’s not a, we’re seeing,
Kim Iverson (01:04:25):
That’s a theory. A lot of cancer that’s
David Martin (01:04:26):
Actually published medical science, we knew that it would hit the myocardial tissue and create all sorts of problems there. That was published science. We knew that that particular ingredient in the injection was going to disrupt the conductive properties of the heart tissue. We knew that that was published science, but it is actually one of those things where a known ingredient added to the injection for the mRNA was willfully added, knowing that it would kill people, not that it might harm people, that it would kill people. And that information is a publicly published kind of set of information. And we are still pretending like, well, maybe they tried their best. No, they did not try their best. This was not an emergency. This was a act of terrorism. And it resulted in the industrial profits that were forecast when Peter Daik said that was what they were gonna do. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process, their quote, not mine.
Kim Iverson (01:05:37):
And isn’t it just convenient that of course, after the, what you’re saying with the, with this causing cancer and with this causing myocarditis, isn’t it convenient now that there’s an discussion of an mRNA for cancer and that there’s discussion right, of mRNA for heart inflammation? Isn’t it just convenient?
Kim Iverson (01:06:00):
Well, David, thank you for uncovering more corruption. Maybe at some point there will be deeper investigations into this that do actually lead to people being held accountable. But I’m not gonna hold my breath on that, especially considering the history that you’ve laid out for us of corruption just being ignored when it’s been uncovered. So that is unfortunate. I, I do believe history repeats itself. So I am not gonna hold my breath that these people will be held accountable. But I think the more of us that are aware of a and open our eyes to it, maybe we can make change in Congress and then maybe there can be congressional shifts and, and laws and changes that could be made to actually prevent this sort of thing from happening again. That would be my hope. So thank you for this conversation really insightful. You’re most welcome. Really appreciate it. Where can people find you? I know you have a YouTube channel and is that also on Rumble, or is that you should be on Rumble?
David Martin (01:06:56):
I, David Martin World. David Martin World on YouTube. I’m on Twitter, I’m on Facebook, I’m on everything. I have done my best to make sure that I dodge the landmines and stay up on every platform. So I’m anywhere you can find me and also David martin.world and my wife and I have all of our information up at the fully live academy.com site so you can find us. And we’re all over the place. And we are, we are both people that love other human beings. So wherever I am and wherever I see you you know, I’m always delighted to actually connect with people and something that we’re gonna continue to do. I always say that Anthony Fauci told us early on that, that we would no longer shake hands because that would be a public health risk. So my philosophy is we hug, make it even more, more problematic for those nasty little pathogens.
David Martin (01:07:54):
So yeah, we, we, we try to make sure that we stay connected to people. And Kim, the one big difference between all the past and now is we’re having this conversation, right? This, you and I haven’t had this conversation, and as I remind people time and time again, we don’t know what is going to be the moment that catalyzes the change, but there’s a high probability that this might be it. And I live forever in the, in the certainty that one of these days, one of these conversations is going to be the one that breaks the log jam. And so here, here’s to hoping that this is the one,
Kim Iverson (01:08:34):
Maybe it is. Thank you, David.
David Martin (01:08:37):
You bet.