Dr David E. Martin At CPAC - The International Covid Summit 2024

Dr David E. Martin At CPAC - The International Covid Summit 2024 - TRANSCRIPT:

Show more

TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:
I don't know if I should thank you or curse you, ICS.

Somewhere along the line, that little event that was just referenced in Brussels certainly has been the shot heard around the world. And I'm joking, it's a blessing.

The number of places I've gone since that presentation where I'll be wandering through a city street or be in an airport and have people come up and tell me that that video is the reason why a family member did not get the shot, did not die, did not something else is one of those rare moments in human history where you find out that your life matters.

Your life matters.

And I really deeply thank the ICS for having that event.

Who would have known that that video would be the one that actually literally was heard around the world, 4 billion people, 4 billion people, half the world's population has downloaded and watched that, and I am so humbled to stand here today and offer to each one of you another contribution.

And I don't know how that one will go.

You know, it may be this room, it may be a hundred people beyond this room, and here's the thing, it doesn't matter.

I got off the stage, and this is an anecdote you need to know, I got off the stage in Brussels and I called my wife who was generous enough to wake up at 2 o'clock in the morning in Charlottesville, Virginia to watch my speech, and she goes, how do you think it went?

I said it was terrible.

She goes, terrible?

She goes, why?

I said, well, I had a half hour of content and I only had 15 minutes to deliver it.

She said, I just want you to watch, just watch. She goes, it was long enough to deliver your message and short enough to be watched.

Just watch.

And when it tipped past a billion, I had to eat a lot of crow at home.

Because it turns out that it was the 15 minutes that the world needed at that moment.

Which brings me to today's presentation, and before I leave this slide, I want us to take a look at the image on the left.

The image on the left was the service badge that was given to the investigators and the prosecutors at Nuremberg.

The reason why you don't know that badge is because it's been buried.

And I think we need to bring it back.

I think we need to bring back the badge of honour that we all wear that says we were there standing in the gap for humanity when nobody else was able to do that. And I think that service badge is something I want to bring back.

So, I figured somebody who knows somebody on Etsy can probably get one of those made.

Now, before you get lost in the eye chart of this graph, I want to point out the fact I was asked to make a very different presentation, and this will be a very different presentation. If you need to have my Peter Daszak, you know, quote from 2015, look at all the other content.

Today it's going to be about the legislative erasure of human and civil rights.

And we have to start in 1904 with Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was at the time a justice in the Supreme Court and famously in 1905 was associated with the most horrific piece of jurisprudence in this country, certainly in the history of the United States.

And that was the Jacobson case, because Jacobson is actually the root of this tree

The root of the tree that bore the fruit of COVID.

Because Jacobson was the first time that the Supreme Court ruled that individual liberties had to be sacrificed for what was called the public health common good, and I want to submit to you today, we're at CPAC and we should have a room full of politicians and unfortunately, they're not here, but they need to hear this message.

Until we have legislative reform that actually repeals Jacobson, we will have more of these moments.

But it's not just Jacobson we have to go after because it's not just the ruling that was the Supreme Court case in Massachusetts. The ruling that actually put in place this idea that mandatory injections are part of a public health policy was actually solidified by, are you ready for this, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.

And yes, I'm naming names.

And by the way, if you think I'm just throwing those names out willy-nilly, I'm not.

They are who is in fact running the World Health Organization's current antitrust and corruption campaign, which is about to go to a vote for the treaty.

This is about an illegal racketeering conglomerate who wants to actually have a uniform liability-free permit to kill humanity at will.

And it is the Rockefeller Foundation and it is the Wellcome Trust who I'm calling out directly. Now a lot of you like to pick on the Gates Foundation and I do too.

But let's go to the pros.

These are the people who, are you ready for this?

And if we look at this graph, I mean, start with the Helsinki Accords, right, where you sit back and say, well, hold on a second.

Once upon a time, didn't we say we weren't going to do human experimentation without informed consent?

Didn't we agree that that was something that we thought was probably a good idea?

Well, here's a tiny little problem.

A tiny little problem is, we actually said that we were going to actually, in 1948, prohibit experimentation on humans at all costs.

But at exactly the same time, 45 U.S. Code section 46-C created an exemption.

And the exemption said that if you were a prisoner, if you were an orphan, if you were in the military service or in any part of the federal service, you actually did not have to receive informed consent.

Isn't it fascinating that on the heels of Nuremberg, we decided to take the public who serve our country and say they can be exterminated for the benefit of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.

And they wrote into the law an absolute exemption from any prosecution, total immunity from any prosecution for any crime ever, including murder.

You think we have a problem in COVID? We have a problem because we decided that we would make an exemption at the exact same time we said the Nuremberg Convention actually had merit.

We made an exception that said the people who serve our country can be slaughtered.

That's not an America that's the land of the free and the home of the brave.

That's genocidal, homicidal maniacs.

That's what that is.

When you actually move forward to the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendment, the drug efficacy amendment, we actually gave drug companies a pass on killing people in clinical trials.

Most of us don't even know about that amendment.

When the government unilaterally decided in its own expediency to exempt people from the need for informed consent, that act went into place so that we could exempt ourselves from the murder of over 20,000 orphans who were subject to clinical trials.

Isn't that cool?

We murdered orphans.

Sound familiar?

Anybody?

Does it sound familiar?

So what we're doing right now, by the way, the National Research Act of 1974, people, these are important pieces of legislation.

We have to get it repealed.

The National Research Act of 1974, after the Belmont Report, very clearly stated that it was in the national interest of public health to actually exempt organizations from having any liability for accidental deaths and accidental adverse events from clinical trials. Does that sound like something we should probably actually go back and reexamine if we had anybody on the legislative side of this particular organization or any other organization that actually cared about humanity?

Shouldn't we be having this conversation?

Or am I the only one that thinks we should do something?

And how about the absolute waiver of informed consent in the 21st Century CARES Act signed in 2016? An absolute waiver of informed consent. This from the country that said that we were going to investigate the crimes of Nazi Germany.

Who did that?

The Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.

That's who did it.

And let's stop hiding behind the fact that the reason why this event is not on the main stage is because those donors who actually include donors to this organization are unwilling to have this conversation.

And I might not get invited back to a place like this, but I don't care, because the fact of the matter is, we have to have people who have the courage to call out genocidal crimes when they're happening and while they're happening.

And they are happening here at the Gaylord right now.

Now, somewhere I'm going to advance this slide. Oh, there you go.

I do want to remind people, and I really do want to remind people, that this criminal conspiracy is actually not a theory.

We have, right now, in the United States, an ongoing and active bioweapons program where we have now 68 pathogens under development and in various phases of distribution for the next pandemic.

People talk about disease X.

I want you to put a scientific notation next to X.

It's X to the 68th power.

It's not disease X.

It's diseases X.

We don't know how many genetic modifications have been made, but I do know that there are over 9,000 patents already filed on the genetic modification of 68 pathogens that the Department of Defense in the United States is currently having bioweapons investigations on right now.

So X to the 68th power, people.

Feel good about this and remember, COVID was just one of them.

In 2005, Ralph Baric, Peter Daszak, Anthony Fauci agreed that COVID was going to be the biohacking bioweapon of choice.

Never forget that.

That's 2005.

It was their language.

That's who said it, not me.

And this, my friends, is the piece that I said if I ever made it to CPAC, I'd put in a CPAC audience.

This is the letter that every investigation in Congress still can't find.

Rand Paul still cannot find this when he's got Anthony Fauci across the table from him.

This is the letter sent from Anthony Fauci's NIAID in October of 2014.

This is the letter that specifically went to UNC Chapel Hill, specifically talking about the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 program.

Anybody guessing where that happened? 2014 Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus program.

That's the letter that said not only is the University of North Carolina authorized to continue its gain-of-function research, and by the way, they use the term gain-of-function research, but it goes one step further.

The middle line that I have highlighted changed the protocol to say it was authorized to go in vivo.

That means put it in living systems.

That was not part of the original grant.

So they didn't just do gain-of-function research, they put it into living systems in 2014, which gave rise to the 2016 publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that said, and I quote, the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 is poised for human emergence. Poised for human emergence.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we are serious about ending this tyranny, we have to go back to the roots of the tree in 1904.

We have to go back to the 1926 FDA Act.

We need to go back to the 1960s Research Acts, the 70s Research Acts, the 21st Century Cares Act.

We have to go back there and make it abundantly clear that the United States government and all civilized governments on earth must stop gain-of-function research if they expect any compliance on anything ever again.

Ever. I'm only putting this slide up for you so that you can take a picture of it, because every statement I make is backed up by the references.

So, I'm going to give you five seconds to snap a photo before you lose this shot, but remember that this started in 1913 officially.

By 1924 and 1925, it was Hitler that highlighted how much he appreciated the Carnegie, Rockefeller eugenics research that the United States government was paying for.

Did you hear what I just said?

In the 1920s, Hitler celebrated the U.S. Eugenics Office, because it was giving him good ideas.

Isn't it interesting?

We love to throw rocks through the glass houses that we live in, but somehow or another we forget that we gave Hitler the idea, and that was Carnegie and Rockefeller, and he made reference to it, and they made reference to their collaboration with him.

Where was that trial in Nuremberg?

Oh, that's right, it wasn't.

We wanted to hang the people who had the evidence of this crime.

That's what we wanted to do, and that's exactly what we did.

Nuremberg was gutted.

Read this, “no one shall be subject without his free consent either to medical or scientific experimentation or to physical mutilation, except in his own interest or in the case of emergency.”

Could you help me understand, what is your own interest when it's not your interest?

You read that, somebody's going to just decide what's in your interest, isn't that great?

And it's not going to be you.

And that, by the way, is actually the letter that supported what became that 1964 Act.

And how about this one?

In the 21st Century Cares Act, when we've decided that in the interest of public health, informed consent isn't important if the government determines that it's not important. Signed into law in 2016.

This is not the fox guarding the hen house.

This is actually the ax-murdering fox in the hen house actually murdering the chickens, and we let the fox in the hen house to murder the chickens.

This is not an allegation, this is an accusation.

And until we're serious about legislative reform, we're going to have more of these.

Which brings me back to this …

I had the dubious distinction, and I'm one minute away from finishing, I know that, but I had the dubious distinction in 2001 to point out that the Bayer purchase of 300 million doses of ciprofloxacin in May of 2001, and those of you good with math will realize May came before September that year.

Anybody have a problem with that?

The 300 million doses of ciprofloxacin, the drug that's used to treat anthrax poisoning, because obviously we all remember that great summer of 2001 when we were all tanning hides because that's how you catch anthrax.

Remember the great buffalo hunt of 2001 when all of America went out and shot a buffalo and learned how to tan a hide that year, remember that one?

We bought 300 million doses of ciprofloxacin in May before the September anthrax attacks.

We did that because we needed to pass the PrEP Act.

The PrEP Act extended immunity shields for vaccine manufacturers to adult injections as long as they were called medical countermeasures, and this was important because we were killing our servicemen and women with the anthrax injections and we called it Gulf War Syndrome.

Yes, I said it, and I know I'm not supposed to because I'm at CPAC, but I don't care, I just said it.

But, the fact of the matter is we were killing people and we needed to get exemption from immunity of prosecution. We needed to make sure that we actually got that to the adults, not just to the kids.

And so we got that immunity passed in 2005 with the PrEP Act.

And yes, that was George Bush that signed that one into law and advocated for it.

So, let's get really clear on who did it.

And we had COVID so that we could get to the global health treaty.

There was no, this whole pandemic nonsense, the compulsory injections, all these other things had nothing to do with any infectious disease.

It had everything to do with the objective that is coming up this spring.

If we, the people, want liberty, we have to go back and water the tree of liberty and we need to put an axe to this tree.

END TRANSCRIPT

Show less