COVID Vaccine mRNA Code is a Bioweapon Developed via a Digital Simulation | Dr. David Martin with Mike Adams | 2021 SEP 01
OPENING [1:42]
Mike Adams: You are considered a hero among our
viewer base, and I can’t even count how many hundred videos are on this
platform, brighteon.com, of your interviews with other people like Stew Peters,
Reiner Fuellmich, and many others. People just love the clarity with which you
explain things. This is the first time which you and I have been able to speak,
could you give us just a bit of a background? How is that you have come to be?
Like, what’s driving you, because you’re a fascinating guy.
Dr. David Martin: I grew up in a very religious
environment so my apologies if it offends people, but I use a lot of religious
metaphors. When I was quite young, I had a very interesting experience of
reading The Parable of the Talents, which is a very simple story until
you actually sit with it. Then, it becomes very complicated because the story
says that a master gives a servant 5 talents, another one, 2 talents, another
one, 1 talent. They go off. They come back. The guy that got 5 made it 10. The
guy that got 2 made it 4 and the guy that got 1, buried it in the ground
and delivered the one talent back and the master was very upset. I read that
story when I was a very young boy and I remember having a sense that there was
a knowing, maybe a voice, maybe a something that said you’ve been entrusted
with more than 5.
You know Mike, I think a lot of us know that at some early
age, we made a really unfortunate decision and that is to step away from what
we were really put on this planet to do. And that was to fit in, whether it was
to fit in socially, whether it was to fit in within our community, whether it
was to take the job that we had to take instead of the one that we would have
loved to do. Somewhere along the line, I think a lot of us have walked away
from what we were put here to do. I am very, very fortunate. I consider myself
very blessed to actually have never forgotten why I came, and the great news is
I have followed that path into 168 countries. I have been able to make impacts
all over this globe and I am constantly reminded in gratitude that I have
entrusted with much.
Adams: Wow! Absolutely! I really resonate with that
message. Much of what you just said was part of my prayers yesterday. On one
hand, it’s easy to think, “Oh dear God, why are we being censored and silenced
and persecuted as we simply seek to help people, but on the other hand, “Thank
you God for giving us the ability to understand what’s happening and to help
others.”
Martin: Yeah.
Adams: It is a responsibility, and we have to be humble in
it knowing that we’ve been granted this cognitive ability to grasp what’s going
on but with it comes all this responsibility. You can’t walk away from it.
Martin: Yeah, yeah. And that’s why I’ve often said to
people that my work is not about manifesting courage. I think it’s much more
courageous to cover up a lie than to stand naked in the truth. The great news
is that you don’t have to remember something that you told somebody the day
before. You don’t have to remember what fact you omitted. You know if you stand
in the truth is the least courageous, most solid foundation you could ever
stand on. So, I remind people everyday that what I’m doing is actually the
easiest thing to do because it’s the right thing to do and it’s the truthful
thing to do.
Martin: Once again, incredible words of wisdom. I’ve
had many people ask me things like, “Aren’t you panicked — Aren’t you afraid?”
Well, I’m concerned about a lot of other people. I am not panicked, not at all.
I’m working the problem. I’m working towards solutions. That’s it.
DR. DAVID MARTIN’S BACKGROUND [5:58]
Martin: Yeah, exactly. So, my formal training which
kind of in a conventional worldview gives me credentials. My training was in
biology, psychology, and physiology. Undergraduate, graduate school in
physiology. Doctorate in orthopedics, sports medicine, and exercise physiology.
I was on the medical school faculty at the University of Virginia. Probably
most notably in the early 90’s I set up the first medical device clinical
research organization, submitting clinical trials to the FDA. So, I have had a
decade of FDA interactions being on advisory panels, submitting a number of
clinical studies, doing one of the very largest medical device clinical trials
in FDA history. So, I have the credentials that say I can speak about these
things. During that exact same time in the mid-90s, I started doing an enormous
amount of forensic work on, specifically, the area of biological and chemical
weapons. In 1999, going into 2000, I started briefing a lot of law enforcement
agencies and became an asset for the United States government, travelling to a
lot of places around the world, talking about what was going on with biological
and chemical weapons globally. So, you know whether that was the Islamic
Republic of Iran where I was sent in 2005 to go to a conference in Tehran on
this topic, whether it’s Bled, Slovenia, you know, all over the world, I have
been actually asked by our government to go and examine what’s going on. So,
it’s fascinating that against that backdrop, the very person who they’ve sent
to the nether worlds of the world to look after the United States and our
allied interests, when you find the U.S. doing things it shouldn’t be doing,
the exact same perspective is very unwelcome.
COVID Vaccine mRNA Code is a Bioweapon Developed via a
Digital Simulation [8:11]
Mike Adams: Absolutely. Thank you for that brief
history of your involvement, because that leads me to the first question I want
to ask you today, given the breaking news on Monday with the FDA issuing
apparently two different letters, from what I understand, one extending the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization),
the other granting approval
to Comirnaty. But there’s a lot of confusion and it seems like there was
deliberate conflation of that by the FDA. What is your analysis of what the FDA
has done this week?
Martin: Yeah, so it’s actually interesting. They
approved a unicorn, and that’s metaphoric. Comirnaty doesn’t exist. There is an
enormous amount of the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine material. And I’m going to use
that term. I’m not going to give it what they want me to give it, which is the honor
of calling it a vaccine. But the vaccine material that they’re promoting, they
have an enormous amount of stockpiled material that they have built running and
to 23rd August, when they issued this very bizarre approval, because the
approval is actually for the future production of what they’re calling this
Covid-19 vaccine. However, if you actually look at the letter that Pfizer had
and if you look at the official publication from the FDA, it’s very
interesting. The section on where it can be manufactured and when it can be
manufactured is redacted, which is unusual, given the fact that an approval
letter is supposed to be a public announcement that makes these things visible.
They’ve redacted the ‘what can be manufactured and where it can be manufactured
and when it can be manufactured’.
The EUA extension in that document itself specifically made
reference to the EUA with respect to children between 12 and 15 years of age,
because it was very important that inside of the approval, you know,
quasi-approval letter, it was abundantly clear that they could not state, for a
whole host of reasons, but they could not state that there was an approval
granted to the age of 12. And that’s a really important distinction. So, 12 to
15 is not subject to the approval. But ironically, as you’ve pointed out, the
Emergency Use Authorization has been extended across the already manufactured
injection. So, when the mainstream media suggests that this approval has
suddenly put what is sitting in freezers around the world into an approved
status, that’s actually not true. That material is still under the EUA. There
are still manufacturing guidelines that were not required for the EUA that
would be required for a full approved product. So, there’s a bunch of nuance
inside of the approval, which is, in fact, as you’ve indicated, a kind of
approval backpedaled into an extended EUA. Now, we all know that the political
reason for this was very straightforward. With school starting, there is a rush
by the current administration to try to get kids and school mandates pushed
through. But we need to understand that, albeit the political expediency
driving the ship, this entire process has done a number of things that
explicitly violate the 1986
Act which gave manufacturers liability protections. And it’s important to realize
that the document that came out of the FDA on August 23rd does not grant
Pfizer-BioNTech the full benefit of the ’86 Act, because there are a number of
active studies ongoing. So, there is an open investigation status to this
trial. It doesn’t close, by the way, until sometime in 2023. So, we’ve got two
more years of data collection for safety and efficacy. And so, there’s a very
bizarre thing, Mike, where they got the headline they wanted, but they don’t
have the substance behind the headline.
Adams: Well, it’s fascinating, though, that the
entire media then says, ‘Pfizer is approved’, the corporations and the
policymakers inside those corporations say, “Boom, it’s approved. Everybody
must take it now,” and so on. So, they’re gaslighting, right? Gaslighting the
nation with this false status. But there’s something fascinating about this.
Under the law, at least as I understand it, and this is my question to you, the
fact that they granted full approval to Comirnaty, doesn’t this then
effectively nullify the Emergency Use Authorization of all the other vaccines,
because EUA authorization is contingent upon there being no approved
intervention?
Martin: Yeah. So, this is where they don’t eat their
own dog food, Mike, you’re exactly right. If you look at the conditions that
give rise to the authorization of a vaccine and we do need to unpack the
vaccine thing, because I refuse to fall for the bait that this is what it is.
But let’s stay with the abstraction for a moment. A mandate for any EUA has to
live inside of ‘no clinical alternative’. Now, we know that they stacked the
deck, the FDA refused to consider any meaningful alternative to any vaccine. So,
all of the work on all of the other compounds that had shown promise, including
NIAID’s own research on ciprofloxacin with SARS, all of the evidence was
suppressed, so that the only path forward was vaccines and that we know from
the public record.
There’s no question that the absence of an alternative was
born from a manufactured absence. The reason why we don’t have an alternative
is because we said there was going to be no alternative, not because science
dictated that. So, we need to be clear on that. But you’re exactly right. The
moment there is an approval, then the EUA protections for Johnson & Johnson
and for Moderna would cease to exist instantaneously. Which is the reason why
we have this very bizarre — is it really an approval? or is it really an
extension of an EUA? And what they did was something that the law does not
allow. There are no provisions that say, “We can have our cake and eat it, too.”
We either have an approved vaccine, in which case Moderna and J & J need to
be shut down immediately because the EUA doesn’t support it, or it is still an
EUA, in which case we don’t have a full approval. The problem is, nobody is
supposed to read their own documents from their own hand, where you can see the
self-evident nature of this lie.
Adams: This is a really critical point that you’ve
just hit upon. I want to get to that in a second, but first, to add to it, I
did interview Robert F Kennedy, Jr. yesterday who indicated they had planned to
sue
the FDA yesterday or the day before, based on a fraudulent approval,
bypassing so many of the necessary steps. However, because of the FDA’s bizarre
strategy, trying to thread the needle on this, you know, have your cake and eat
it, too, this has even thrown Children’s Health Defense for, you know, a
curveball, so to speak. And they’re now trying to re-strategize, ‘How do we sue,
wow do we challenge this legally when the FDA is not even following its own
laws and internal regulations? But the bigger point is that isn’t this also
indicative of what’s happening across human civilization — the complete
abandonment of reason and rationality and process?
[15:53]
Martin: Mike,
you knew this when you were in, I don’t know, eighth or ninth and tenth grade —
I certainly encountered the same thing — when we were told that the government
has three legs that keep checks and balances on us. We have the executive, we
have the legislative, we have the judicial. In this particular case, I’ve been
pointing out that in the case of the FDA and the CDC, they have decided that
they unilaterally pre-empt all of those three branches, because what they’re
doing is in clear violation of federal statutes. If we go back to the arguments I made at the
very beginning of this pandemic, we clearly have antitrust laws that were the
prerequisite for the pandemic to exist. If we didn’t have antitrust violations,
which are things like funding the pathogen creators in Wuhan, funding the
pathogen creators at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, which are
well-documented and very strong evidence-backed allegations. So, we have a closed
shop that’s actually building the weapon. Then we have a captured regulatory
environment which has interlocking directorates, which are essentially insiders
both trading on and benefiting from inside information. Not surprisingly,
leading to Anthony Fauci’s very famous interview where he told the world that
Moderna was going to be the front-running horse in the race, even though
Moderna had never once produced a safe product anywhere in human history. So, we
have the known front-runner being a company that has never produced a product
that has ever entered into human distribution, kind of an interesting jump
before we even knew what the pathogen was. We have a whole bunch of these
pieces of the puzzle that are established that this was based on a crime.
As I’ve often stated, the bioweapons case is open and shut.
In January, a foreign entity, in the form of China, uploaded a computer
simulation of a virus, not a biologic sample, not a specimen. They uploaded a
computer-generated sample of a pathogen. Now, here’s why that’s important.
Under the biological
and chemical weapons laws in the United States, if you provide the means of
manufacturing a bioweapon, something you know to harm humanity, you have
already violated the law, period. That’s not in my opinion, that’s what the
law, by definition, states. So here we have a whole bunch of laws that were
broken. And Mike, all along the way, there has been a willful contempt for the
legislative branch because we have laws, those laws are clearly on the books,
and they’ve been clearly violated. And there’s no provision, anywhere, that
says that those laws don’t apply during an emergency. So, we have that as part
one.
But then part two, equally important is that we now have these
extrajudicial, extra legislative, and extra-executives, these, these bodies,
the CDC and the FDA, who are essentially saying, ‘We are going to willfully
break the law.’
[19:05]
Adams: Well, right, and what’s disturbing to me about
this is that for most of our lives, we’ve lived in a nation where there was a
social construct, or a social contract, of really self-imposed honoring of the
limits of certain branches of government. Now, what a lot of people don’t realize
is that a document, the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of
Rights, the document has no magical powers itself. It is, of course, people’s
faith in that process and in that construct, which was really self-imposed
restrictions on the exertion of power that has made society more balanced and
sustainable. And yet, as you’ve just said, that has been abandoned, completely
thrown out.
Now, even the CDC asserts that it has power over every
rental contract in America, because people are involved in rent and people
might spread the virus – well, people are involved in everything. Does the CDC
proclaim itself to be the dictator of all human activity?
Martin: Yeah. And the answer, unfortunately, to that
question is yes. Somehow or another, the CDC has found itself mysteriously
inside the interstate
commerce clause . Because as you probably know, most of your listeners
probably know, that the one thing that made America work from a legislative
standpoint is the commerce
clause. And that’s why almost every law that we have, somehow or another,
is written into something that says, “because it affects interstate commerce,
therefore, that’s where the provision of law lives.”
The funny thing is that what the CDC is doing is it’s
actually taking the very fundamental legal structure that makes the Federated
States work, which is the commerce clause, and assuming that it lives inside of
that protection, which says, ‘We by fiat can make any determination, we can
tell you where you can go. We can tell you what you can sing or not sing. We
can tell you how you can assemble. We can tell you how you can fly. How you can
drive. How you can this, how you can that.’
And they have absolutely no legal authority to do that. And
they have been given carte blanche permission to walk over the rights of every
American. To have impunity for every one of the commerce laws and not a single
case has brought up the fact that all of this is predicated on criminal acts
done by that organization. This is organized crime. That’s what it is.
[21:34]
Adams: Well stated, well said. So then on that, why
aren’t State Attorney Generals such as Paxton in Texas or Schmitt in Missouri,
why aren’t they perhaps issuing criminal indictments against CDC officials, or
do you think that they might at some point?
Martin: Well, what I know so far – and you mentioned
two, there are about five that are at least circling the wagons – but the
problem is that AGs have a very interesting political tightrope that they walk,
and I think most of us don’t examine the humanity of people who sit in those
roles.
Attorney General positions are very frequently seen as
political testing grounds for whatever comes next, and an awful lot of people
who are sitting in positions of Attorney General have an eye on a governorship.
They have an eye on a Senate seat, possibly a Representative seat. So, a lot of
people use the Attorney General position as a posture to get to the next level.
And my concern is that the reason why a lot of AGs are sitting on their hands
is because they’re actually worried about their own political futures for
taking action that they should take today.
Now, that’s a tragedy, because the fact of the matter is, as
you stated, there are two different bodies that could take action. We have AGs
in the states and they certainly could group together to take an antitrust case
forward. They’re doing that against Facebook and Google already, so we could do
that again.
The other thing we could actually rely on is the U.S.
Attorneys that sit in the districts, or the federal district of the judicial
system around the country or we could actually have the, you know, US Attorney
for – you know, fill in the blank, Central California or the U.S. attorney for
any one of the federal districts – they could bring prosecutorial power to this
situation.
But we’ve got two problems. The first problem, and this is
the one that’s most troubling to me, is that I have had conversations with an
enormous number of these individuals. And when I bring up antitrust law, their
eyes glaze over. They don’t even know the felonies that are being committed. So,
the tragedy is we have justice being blind and this is not the kind of blind
justice we want. This is blind justice, as in they don’t know what they’re
looking at. That’s a big problem. Justice should be blind from the standpoint
of equanimity. It shouldn’t be blind from the standpoint of willful ignorance.
And we have a huge problem on the willful ignorance side.
But the other side of it is that they also know that to
stand up against the U.S. Department of Justice, which is where they would meet
their opposition, they are ill-equipped. Almost every AG’s office, almost every
U.S. Attorney’s office, is ill-equipped to handle a case that ultimately would
have the U.S. DOJ on the other side of it. And there is no question that our
current DOJ is unwilling to uphold the laws of this country.
[24:39]
Mike Adams: That’s a very powerful statement. I’m
glad you said that. It leads me to the question to you where there’s been a
paradigm shift in minds, consciousness of so many people around the world and I
want to bring your attention to Australia and New Zealand in particular, where
the people, the citizens of these many nations, and this includes Canada, the
United States, UK, France, Germany, Spain and so on, the citizens who once saw
their government as their protectors are now coming to realize that, at least
in this context, in this overreach of power right now, that their governments
are acting more like, really, terrorists or enemies or oppressors.
Australia, I think, is the best example. In New South Wales
state, you’re only allowed one hour of exercise. If you’re going to have a
visitor to your home, you have to register with the government to have
permission for a visitor.
These were unthinkable even 18 months ago, but they are here
now. So, what do you think this means for, you know, is a tipping point about
to be reached? The governments are no longer seen as protectors by the
increasing number of people. What are your thoughts on that?
Dr. David Martin: Well, I’ve said many of us failed
to take note of these things as they were introduced. Australia is a wonderful
example. I’m going to unpack it because as you probably know, Mike, I had the
good fortune of living there with my wife Kim and my daughter Sienna for a
couple of years.
We lived in New South Wales, and we lived in Victoria. What
we found was that during the period of time from 2016 to 2018, for reasons that
were not entirely transparent, the Australian government was passing laws that
were very clearly draconian control and suppression laws about the ability to
surveil their citizens, the ability to actually intrude into personal
computers, into cell phones and all sorts of things.
All these surveillance tools, all under the name of what we
did back after 2001, after 9/11, where we saw things like the Patriot Act and we saw
other things get into legislation which in fact marched in on the civil
liberties. But in Australia, it was more draconian.
The fact is that in Australia, what effectively were like
the sedition-type laws were extended to any time you say something nasty about
the government, no matter what it is. You could just be upset, you could be
frustrated, you have a legitimate concern. It wouldn’t matter. And they
extended it, Mike, back then to the press. They made it abundantly clear that
they were going to chase any media source that actually was even investigating
the government.
So, this was 2016, ’17 and ’18. I hosted a cyber-security
conference in Melbourne in 2017. And you would not believe the number of
egregious violations of human rights that were clearly spoken and nobody raised
their hand.
So, what frustrates me is most of us kind of did nothing
when we saw all of these liberties undermined. And now we’re harvesting from a
tree that was planted years ago and we’re saying, ‘Oh my gosh, we don’t like
the pears, we don’t like the apples.’
Well, guess what? They planted those apples and pears, and
we did nothing. And so, in the case of Australia, if you look at how many laws
allow the government to do — warrantless search and seizure, the ability to
hack into your personal information, the ability to control your movement, all
of those things are not an overreach of the law.
It’s actually where the law went and the public didn’t know
it was going there until now it’s being enforced. And that’s a real wake-up
call for all of us. We must have greater vigilance over what we think are
incrementally irrelevant steps that the government takes, only to find out
after the fact that these are architected to build a pathway to get to this
level of organized crime.
[28:47]
Adams: There are many people who say that Australia
has fallen and that the people no longer have any means to take back their
country. Of course, they also gave up their gun rights, we call it Second
Amendment, but gun rights in Australia, many years ago.
There are many people including myself and this is my own opinion,
perhaps not yours so I am not speaking for you, but in my opinion, it appears
that countries like Australia are preparing for mass executions of dissenters
or people who don’t go along with the agenda.
And I know to some people that might sound like a pretty
crazy statement, but you know what, things that sounded crazy 18 months ago are
not that crazy anymore because a lot of them are happening. But where do you
think this is ultimately going with Australia or New Zealand?
Martin: Well, bear in mind that Australia lost its
sovereignty to China many years ago. And I say that both literally and
metaphorically. You can’t go into an airport in Australia and not see —
particularly in places like Melbourne — as many signs in Chinese as you see in
English. That should tell you something.
When you go to look at the real estate market, you see that
the vast majority of real estate in the major investment markets are being
acquired by the Chinese. But that’s just the last icing on a cake that started
with the dependency that the Australian government allowed to unfold, where
somewhere between 70 and 80 per cent of the entire export interaction with the
world from Australia happens to be with one counterparty, China.
When the only money you’re making, the only thing that’s
supporting your GDP, is a single country, guess whose wills you bend to? You
bend to that country.
And I’ve said this, by the way, in Australian audiences,
much to the chagrin of the government there, that Australia was taken over a
long time ago. It’s only now that we’re seeing the evidence of it.
But let’s go to that second part of your question, which is
a much more dark question. And that question is, what’s really the agenda?
Well, the fact of the matter is, and I’ve made this
statement very, very frequently, you cannot manufacture a bioweapon and not say
that you’re trying to kill people. That’s what a bioweapon is for.
And the weaponization of the coronavirus, which officially
started in 1999 when Anthony Fauci came up with this brilliant idea that he
could come up with an ‘infectious,
replication defective’ – and those are the actual words used – form of
coronavirus.
And he paid researchers at the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. He paid researchers there to invent a pathogen that did not exist.
That’s the reason why I’m very careful with the language that I used.
You’ll notice I’m not saying a virus and I’m not saying a
vaccine for good reason. We are not talking about a virus; we are talking about
an engineered pathogen.
We are not talking about a vaccine. We are talking about the
introduction of a computer-simulated code in the form of mRNA, but it’s a
computer-simulated code not to stimulate your immune system, but to turn your
body into a factory producing S1 spike proteins similar to those found in
coronavirus.
Slow that tape down and listen to it again. Exactly what I
said. You’re not injecting a piece of a virus. You’re not injecting a viral
fragment. You are injecting a code to make your body produce a pathogen. And
then you’re hoping – and that’s all you’re doing – you’re hoping that the
pathogen your body produces also elicits an immune response.
But this is structurally so important for people to
understand: the code that is injected into your body, between January 12 and
January 20 of 2020, that code was uploaded from a simulated server that was a
simulation of the spike protein mRNA. And it was given to the Vaccine Research
Council and Kizzy
Corbett said, the doctor who made this stuff at the various CDC, and I’m
quoting from her interview with Francis Collins: ‘It’s really cool because you
don’t even need much of a lab. You build one of these on your computer at
home.’ That’s an admission of biological warfare.
[33:39]
Adams: This is extraordinary what you’re laying out,
and yet it’s also extraordinary, the cognitive dissonance that so many
mainstream doctors have, where you explain that to them, as you just did, and
they will say, ‘No, that couldn’t be,’ or all kinds of justifications or
excuses for not believing that.
But you ask them, ‘What is the antigen target that’s
described by the mRNA instructions?’ And they’ll have to admit, ‘Oh, it’s the
spike protein subunit.’
And then you ask them, ‘What are the vascular effects of the
spike protein subunit?’ And if they’ve done any research, ‘Well, it causes
widespread vascular damage.’ So how can you not realize that these are
instructions to tell the body to build pathogenic particles that will cause
harm? How can they NOT see that?
[34:30]
Martin: Well, it’s willful ignorance in this case,
because what they know is that because of the regulatory capture and the most
recent form of this probably can be laid at the feet of Obama, but we cannot
put it at Obama’s feet alone because this has been going on during the Bush administration,
it was going on preceding that.
So, we can’t make this an Obama-only story, but we can
certainly say that Obamacare and the union federation and consolidation of
healthcare into managed care structures certainly crescendoed with what happened
with Obama.
But I want to go back to 2001, because this one lays at the
feet of George Bush and in 1986 lays at the feet of Ronald Reagan. We’ve got to
remember that there’s equal opportunity for accountability on this thing. And
we have to be honest with it, because this is not one party or the other that
got it right. This is actually a fundamental failure of our government system.
But let’s go back and do exactly what you said. What has
happened is that we have, in fact, turned healthcare, in the main, in America,
into essentially, the retail front door of the pharmaceutical industry.
Go to any clinic, go to any doctor, go to any physician
anywhere and try to get out the door without being told that you need something
for something. And I don’t care what the something is. You know, I’m 54. I
cycle a lot, I have an unbelievable passion for vitality, I have a commitment
to nutrition, I actually have a commitment to getting, are you ready for this –
sun, solar exposure.
I’m actually a guy who, God forbid, I researched vitamin D
as a part of my clinical research back in the early ‘90s. The reason why I’m a
big fan of getting some sun is because I actually see the good that it does.
I am all about vitality. And the number of times I’ve had to
fire my internal medicine doctor, which, by the way, the only reason I even
have an internal medicine doctor is because as the CEO of a corporation, I had
a board that insisted that they insure me for what was called a key man
insurance policy.
I sat down with this physician, and he lost his mind. He
lost his mind about where I travelled. Didn’t I know that there’s malaria
there? Didn’t I know there’s cholera there? Didn’t I know there’s tuberculosis
there?
And my response was always the same. ‘And there are people
there, and I work with the people that are there.’ I joke about it, but that’s
the problem. The problem is if you see the world through the lens of, ‘it’s out
to get you’, right? And it’s the disease that’s going to get you. It’s the
chemical that’s going to get you, it’s this that’s going to get you, it’s that.
If you see the world as organized in a framework that’s out
to get you, then it’s not surprising that you can then sell the public on this
illusion that somehow or another everything’s out to get you and you need to
take 10,000 different things to actually protect you from the thing that’s
going to get you.
My view is simple. I think we are, in fact, a mysteriously,
wondrously complex, beautiful organism. And I think we have been, once again
using metaphors that I grew up with, created in an image, in a likeness of God.
You know what? I don’t have a vaccine port somewhere on my
body. I didn’t come with a catheter to inject or pull out. I don’t have this
colostomy bag option just in case, I actually have a sphincter that works.
That’s what I have.
[38:23]
Adams: Well, I’m glad you mentioned the psychological
profile of what people are going through. I’m going to ask you about that in
the context of your book, Lizards
Eat Butterflies. I also want to remind our viewers that this is
an interview with Dr. David Martin and your website is https://www.davidmartin.world/. Let’s
get to that in just one minute.
I had one more follow-up question for you about Australia
and the current communist Chinese takeover of that entire region
I lived for one summer in Manly, Australia, in 1988. I was
still not out of high school at the time, but I spent a summer there with my
father, who was doing work for Qantas Airlines, a computer analyst guy.
And in talking with the locals there, I learned that there
was a Japanese invasion that was happening at that time. And then later on, I
learned that that was because the real estate bubble in Tokyo, in particular,
allowed the counterfeit creation of real estate assets that provided liquidity
to Japanese citizens who then took that, quote, “money.”
They leveraged it, and they were mass purchasing real estate
throughout Australia and the Philippines and other areas. Now, then, the Tokyo
market, the Nikkei collapsed in 1989. I don’t remember which day exactly. And
then this entire invasion collapsed also. Suddenly, they had to sell everything
and by the way, even, in that time, the Japanese were purchasing Hollywood
studios.
Martin: Oh yeah and the were purchasing iconic
buildings across Manhattan.
Adams: Exactly. So, my question to you, sir, is
there’s been a lot of talk that the Chinese communist regime is actually also
propped up on a financial bubble. A lot of it’s just bluster and that there
could be even, perhaps, a political revolution or an economic collapse in China
that would collapse this expansionary colonization effort. What are your
thoughts on that?
Martin: When China was entering into the World Trade Organization,
I was asked by the Chinese government to be an accession adviser. All that
means is you’re a foreign individual who can provide insight into what’s going
on.
And the great news is that it put me in a lot of inside
meetings of the Chinese Communist Party. I had the good fortune of meeting some really
remarkable and amazing people.
I’ve always found that wherever I am in the world, I’ve
always encountered good people and I’ve sometimes encountered really bad
people. So, I’m not good at throwing countries, by classification, under the
bus.
But what I’ll tell you is this: China has a difference than
Japan, for a very notable exception. And that’s why I tried to warn people. I
did a speech that you can actually find on the Web in text form, it used to be
on video, called Ten Years Hence and it was a speech I gave at the
University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business.
It was my assertion that the Silk Road was going to
re-emerge. Interestingly enough, that particular speech was one of the most
downloaded business school speeches in U.S. history and it turns out that I was
asked to do a reprise of it, to do an assessment of how well I predicted ten
years forward, ten years later, and to the line in the speech, everything came
true. Which is actually an interesting piece of insight. But what I said then
was actually really, really important and it really addresses this point.
The reason why what happened in Australia with Japan versus
what’s happening in China with the Chinese interactions in Australia is that
inside of the Australian economy is an internal countervailing force, which is
very dangerous, and that is that China has come to rely on coal and steel.
And a lot of coal and steel. And an enormous
amount of the economy of Australia is based on the exports that they make. If
and when there’s any perturbation in the supply chain of either energy or steel
into China, Australia will literally go bankrupt in the instant that happens.
But that’s where the acquisition of land and the acquisition
of real estate in Australia is quite dangerous, because if what happens is you
have a supply agreement with a counterparty who has both political and economic
gain from collapsing you, this time, you don’t just create a real estate
problem in Australia, you create an existential problem where literally the
economy of Australia can collapse entirely.
The reason why that is immune from the health of the Chinese
economy is for the following reason: China, through its Belt and Road
initiative has built so much of its own effective World Bank control.
What do I mean by that? What I mean is that if you go to the
Maldives right now for holiday, the bridge that links the man-made island on
which the airport operates to the capital, that bridge is built by, and owned
by, and controlled by, China.
If you go to the ports in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in parts
of India, those ports are owned by and controlled by – you guessed it – China.
If you go to Congo-Brazzaville in southern Africa, you’ll see that 60 per cent
of the fields in the agriculture sector are owned by China.
What China has done is it’s actually created its own version
of the World Bank. And if you go back and think about John Perkins Confessions
of an Economic Hitman, where he talks about how the World Bank grew its
footprint so that it effectively took over the world, which gave rise to organizations
like the World Economic Forum and others, what you find is China’s done that on
its own.
And now they have somewhere in the order of 86 or 87
bilateral agreements which say that even if they fail, they’re kind of still
propped up with their alliances in all these trading partners.
So, I’m more concerned about China over the long haul, even
though it may experience these boom-bust cycles, because there is a lot of
funny money, that’s very true. The downside of it is they’ve plugged that funny
money into assets that they own around the world and that gives them an edge
that Japan never had.
Adams: Right. Very good points in that and it also I
think emphasizes China’s licking their lips looking at Taiwan so they can have
a deep seaport access to the Pacific and also, I think, their influence on South
American and Central American nations so they can have ports right on this side
of the planet.
I’ve got to ask you this, then I want to talk about your
book for a second. The complexity of this intertwined global society, as
society becomes more complex, it becomes more vulnerable to single point
failures and what you just described with Australia, exports of coal, China’s
dependence on that, but also, depending on its exports coming to the United
States, the U.S. being the consumption country but then that being dependent on
the U.S. federal reserve fiat currency money printing system which is spiraling
out of control and I could give many more examples. You’re good at projecting
10 years into the future and more. It’s hard for me to that this system is
sustainable.
Martin: Exactly right. If you want both a kind of
tour de force worldview and then a little bit of depression because you’re
feeling too good some weekend, go read the 200+ blogposts I have on Inverted Alchemy, you can get there
from https://davidmartin.world/ but my
Inverted Alchemy blogposts go back to 2006 or 2007, or something like that. I
lay out the architecture of how we found ourselves over the edge of the cliff.
You’re exactly right, this is not sustainable. And the great news is the last
chance we had to make it sustainable was 2011. So, think about the wonderful
old Wile Coyote cartoons, you know, when you’re running off the edge of the cliff
and as long as you keep your feet doing the whirly thing, you can run past the
clouds and it’s amazing. But the problem is there’s a lookdown moment.
Unfortunately, Mike, for all of your listeners and viewers,
that bad news is, I’m going to tell you, the lookdown moment is 2028. I’m not
guessing at that. It IS 2028. The evidence of the treasury’s most recent
statement guarantees what I just said.
When you have people buying treasuries the day they’re
issued at par plus a fee, what you know is you’re admitting you’re never going
to repay them. That’s what you’re admitting and that’s exactly what happened
with Jackson Hole conference.
So, the good news is this isn’t Dave’s opinion, this is
actually official Fed policy, the wheels fall off the bus in 2028.
Now, I think there’s going to be some wobbling of the wheels
before then, but the wheels off the bus. Here’s why:
They fall of the bus because Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid rely on acquisition of the very instruments that we now know are illiquid.
When we hit 2028, we have an actuarial, that means the way we manage money for
future obligations, we have an actuarial cliff that we cannot now solve because
there is no asset that generates enough return to fulfill the promises we’re
making today and those promises break in 2028, without exception. We can’t
print our way out. We can’t do anything else. Our last chance to fix this thing
was 2011 and we walked past 2011 without giving a rip.
Adams: Well, if you say we can make it to 2028, I
would call you an optimist because I’m observing…
Martin: All I’m saying is the body stops twitching in
2028.
Adams: [laughing] I got it.
Martin: I’m not suggesting that it doesn’t get pretty
nasty between here and there.
Adams: But what I hope people realize and I know our
listeners are very good at this, but the masses in particular are not very good
at looking at future ramifications of present-day conditions. So, what you are
saying, by definition, if we lose the economic production and distribution
efficiencies of long supply lines and international trade, then by definition,
the current global population cannot even be fed, period.
Martin: Nope. You’re exactly right.
Adams: And yet, we have politicians running around
and saying all we need is more food aid to Africa, all we need is more money
printing, all we need to do is pay people to stay home. These are insane ideas.
Martin: Yeah, because we’ve already seen the GDP
contraction. The ‘real’ GDP if we actually really measured GDP, is far worse
than it is. And as I did on a show just yesterday, I talked about the fact that
you know, we have 50% of the workforce right now, according to the latest
statistics from Bureau of Labor Statistics, 55% of the workforce, it says, that
they’re looking for a different job. Take half of the workforce out of the
economy and just think about what that does to the GDP.
[50:22]
Adams: It’s extraordinary. But let’s transition that
to the psychological status of the American people, well, people all over the
world and your book, Lizards Eat Butterflies, you talk about self-help
addiction in that book. So, my opening question for you on that and thank you
for spending time with us, is that people seem psychologically fragile to a
degree that I’ve never witnessed in my life. What’s going on?
Martin: This is what I would call the metastatic
conclusion, using the cancer metaphor. This is the metastatic conclusion of a
pathology that I would describe as looking to someone or something other than
yourself to save you.
If your worldview is: ‘I don’t really have to be accountable
because there is a something or a someone that’s watching over my shoulder,
that’s looking out for me, that’s going to do whatever I’m going to do, right?’
If our view of the world is that we are somehow broken,
futile and incapable of managing our own situation, so there has to be a
godfather, a parent, a whatever, there’s got to be an out there, out there
looking after us, that cancer is now terminal.
We have to take accountability for what we do. We have to
take accountability for how we live. And we have to examine the stories that
got the cancer into our system in the first place.
And what Lizards Eat Butterflies does, is it actually
uses a beautiful metaphor contrast. Because we’ve all heard about one day,
following Deepak Chopra’s caterpillar to butterfly BS. But let’s follow that
whole thread for a moment. Caterpillars eat the equivalent of about 78,000
pizzas across the space of about 2 days so that they can actually get energy to
lay eggs, to then go into to larval state, to then go into to pupil state, then
goes into their chrysalis and everything else. You go all the way through this
thing and what happens is, almost all of them die.
Gluttonous caterpillars are eaten by birds, they are killed,
they overeat, they die, they do all kinds of other things. Very few of them
ever make it to egg layers. And few of the eggs ever make it to butterflies.
Here’s the little problem. The problem is we have a bad
metaphor. The metaphor of a butterfly makes us all think that one day we’re all
going to get our colorful wings and float off into some sort of trans-human BS transcendence
and the problem with that is we’re really more like lizards.
What’s a lizard? Well, a lizard kind of grows and then it
outgrows its skin. It goes through a mangy period, and it doesn’t look like
it’s ready to pick up anything. It’s not going to go out to clubs, and it looks
kind of crappy. Then, one day, it finds some rocks and that it rubs up against
or a tree or branch or whatever else and it gets all that crap off. And all of
sudden, it’s kind of sexy and fast and it runs around, and it grows some more
and it goes through the [inaudible]. But it always stays a lizard. The good
news and bad news is, Mike, you know, our life is about growing, finding the
bits that don’t serve us anymore, finding the tree or the rock that scrapes
that bit off and emerging the shiny new version of ‘us.’ And ‘us’ again and and
‘us’ again.
We’re not floating away on some sort of Disney, made for
Hollywood, happy ever after sappy ending. We are made for being smart, being
intelligent and my favorite metaphor of all, when a lizard looks at a wall it
doesn’t see an obstacle, it runs up the wall. And at the top of the wall, it
looks at the ceiling and goes, ‘Ah, I can do that.’ And it runs across the
ceiling.
Somehow or another, lizards are smart enough to realize that
obstacles don’t exist. They are merely opportunities to change your
perspective.
So, the entire book is a celebration of the intelligence of
lizards aspiring for all of us to find the fact that we are accountable for our
own lives. And it’s done with all of the blame, your mom, and you know,
whatever happened in your life. I don’t dismiss the importance of gaining
experience in life. But I can guarantee you, how you showed up today is on you,
not on somebody else. So, lizards is a plea with the universe to have people
reconsider the stories their telling that trap them into the butterfly story
which are going to end being giant fat caterpillars that are doing nothing but
eating pizzas and then being eaten by birds.
Adams: Yeah, exactly. I’m going to remember your book
every evening. I have a glass door. I live in very pristine rural area where we
use no pesticides whatsoever, so we have amphibians and reptiles. We have
geckos that climb on the glass door, and they wait for the light to come on
inside and then they eat the moths. In Chinese, we call them bì hŭ, there’s a large bì
hŭ, there’s a tiny bì hŭ, then there’s treefrogs and other frogs that hang out. And your
right, they just go to the wall, they put their feet out and they’re just
sticking around. It’s great to watch. I really appreciate nature. But a finally
question on this, again thank you for your time today. I’ve had so many people
over the years, say things, when I’m warning about something that’s coming,
probably the number one criticism is sort of from the new age angle, where
people say, stop talking about it, you’re making it happen, what you should do
is sit in a room and meditate on pretty things and then that will come true.
That’s what they tell me.
Martin: Yeah, listen. I’ve been around that as you
can well imagine. There was a period of time where I was somewhat of an
aspirational icon by some of those crowds. The bad news is I actually wore a
bowtie or a suit and talked to bankers so they always figured I was some sort
of controlled opposition where I could hang out with hippies and hanging out
with Morgan Stanley the next day. That never worked for them. But I’ll tell you
what, when Joseph was in Egypt and the famine had started, you know who his
brothers came to? His brothers came to a guy who had figured out how to plan
ahead. I am not about warning people of some sort of impending doom, I’m
actually alerting people to the fact that we have the benefit of knowing now
how to prepare for what’s coming. And I think that the contrast that I would
have with all of the new agers who think you manifest your nonsense in front of
you, there’s a tiny news flash. That may be true in a macro sense. But what I
would say to you is that insofar as you have an insight, insofar as you have
vision, insofar as you have perception it is your accountable responsibility to
act and to alert and to advise and to make abundantly clear that we are not
surprised by that which comes and hits us.
We are merely willfully ignorant of that which we chose not
to watch and when that comes to visit us, it is on us not on the system that
warned us.
So, for me, I’m always about saying, I am not manifesting a
future that is unfolding in front of me, I’m actually having the advantage of
foresight so that I can be prepared for the famines and the abundances that lie
ahead.
Adams: Amen to that. Right. Well, that’s probably the
best way to conclude this interview. I’ve had a great time. This has been
fascinating. I love your mind. I could talk with you for hours. I hope we get a
chance to talk again.
Martin: I’d love to do that and some day we’ll sit
down together and do it in a studio and have a real conversation. That would be
wonderful.
Adams: That sounds perfect. Yes. Next time you’re
headed to Austin, we’ll have that studio ready for you.
Martin: Sounds great.
RESOURCES:
Dr. David Martin's Fauci/COVID-19 dossier documenting the following
crimes:
35 U.S.C. § 101
18 U.S.C. §2339 C et seq. – Funding and Conspiring to Commit Acts of Terror
18 U.S.C. § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of Domestic Terrorism resulting in death of American Citizens
18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Lying to Congress
15 U.S.C. §1-3 – Conspiring to Criminal Commercial Activity
15 U.S.C. §8 – Market Manipulation and Allocation
15 U.S.C. § 19 – Interlocking Directorates
35 U.S.C. §200 - 206 – Disclosure of Government Interest
21 C.F.R. § 50.24 et seq., Illegal Clinical Trial
The Commercial Actors
Dr. David Martin's SARS CoV Patent Corpus Literature Review reveals over
120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel
coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy
0 comments:
Post a Comment