Site icon Forbidden Knowledge TV

Dr David Martin: Clarifying the Viral Narratives

Dr David Martin joined Alec Zeck of The Way Forward podcast about the fundamental misconceptions that have been built into our sciences and how these have now been compounded by a domestic and international racketeering and terror campaign known as “SARS-CoV-2” and “COVID-19” and how these deliberate confusions erupt around the conversations about the existence and the nature of “viruses”.

I’m reminded of when Clif High said that we would be digging ourselves out of the lies and misconceptions built into our sciences for at least a century once the imminent collapse of the Khazarian Mafia is complete.

Alec asks David, “What is your take on SARS-CoV-2 and viruses, in general?”

To which David replies, “As for SARS-CoV-2, there is no question in my mind that people who had every intention of disrupting and harming humanity and people who had every intention of building things that would ultimately toxify the environment, to make human life more unattainable, so that they could have greater control, used a series of biological weapons creation efforts to create a branded terror campaign.

“The branded terror campaign was a campaign that included the term, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, which was the term that was necessary, because they had declared SARS-CoV-1 ‘eradicated’ and it kinda a sux if you’re going to try to sell a fear narrative to say that the thing thing we declared ‘eradicated’ is back, because that would suggest that the science that had declared it ‘eradicated’ was wrong. And obviously, you can’t do that, if you’re trying to run a terror campaign.

“So, SARS-CoV-2 was a branding campaign conducted during the month of February in 2020. The ICTV, which is the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses, published on March 2, 2020, their official brand that said that there was a ‘novel pathogen’. That novel pathogen was going to be branded ‘SARS-CoV-2’, so that we were ethnically – allegedly, ethnically sensitive to the Chinese – and that there was a quote ‘disease’ – in their words – ’caused’ – in their words – by this thing.

“They branded the disease ‘COVID-19’ but they were very clear to stipulate that there was no disease; it was a set of symptoms and those symptoms were commonly associated with influenza-like illness and have been associated with influenza-like illness for 55 years. So, this idea that this was a novel disease was a branding campaign.

“And so, let’s stipulate for this conversation that the entirety of the last 4 years was a premeditated act of domestic and international terrorism and most importantly, the perpetrators admitted to that very fact in 2015. They said they were going to make an event where the media hype would drive the public to demand a medical countermeasure called a ‘vaccine’.

“So, the unambiguous nature of what this is: it was domestic and international terrorism, it was collusion, it was racketeering. Back in 2015, they actually stipulated that they were going to commit the crime in 2015 and they executed the crime on schedule.

“The second piece of your question is actually a much more difficult one, simply because we’re dealoing with a piece of terminology that has morphed since it was introduced in the 14th century. Insofar as ‘virus’ means, in proto-Italian ‘poison’, do I believe there are poisons in the world, the answer, unambiguously is ‘Yes!’ and the reason is because I’ve had poisons injected into me and I know that the poison has had an effect that was the desired effect.

“So, insofar as do we believe that there are poisons? Absolutely, there are and there is absolutely no question that poisons are, in fact, sometimes accidental and sometimes intentionally introduced to cause incapacitation or death.

“Insofar as is there a micro particle coming up into the 18th century – is there a micro particle involved in the causation of disease that we then, now rebrand – and by the way, once again, it’s branding – we rebrand a virus and then, we try, through the cunning use of language to subtly replace the actual multi-century use of that term, which is ‘poison’ – which there is – for a causative agent of anything, the answer is, ‘Absolutely not!’

“Causation, which was invented in 1663 very specifically; causation is an illusion of the intellectually lazy. The idea that we can identify, out of the plurality of conditions in the universe, every single factor that creates the condition giving rise to a thing is as hubris-filled and delusional as the Council of Nicaea was in the 4th century, trying to pretend that they could take the infinite of the Divine and dictate, in a couple paragraphs, the sum total of what it meant to have religion.

“This idea that we can be reductionist to the point of stupidity, where we decide that we are going to pick the ontology and the frame in which we’re going to understand nature – and then have the audacity of saying, ‘We’re gonna get to causation’ – is beyond the pale of idiocy. And it’s important for people in this conversation to understand, that when Gottfried Leibniz in 1663 published his dissertation, which gave us modern regression, it’s important to realize that in the same year, two important things happened:

“We were actually doing heretic witch-burning and heretic trials in Europe and the guy who wrote the fundamental mathematics behind which causation, regression is derived was a Lutheran being sponsored by Catholics in a town where people were being burnt for being Lutheran. So, let’s be abundantly clear: that there was a tiny motivation for a guy to come up with an explanation for causality, which he was commissioned to do by Catholics so that he didn’t get himself burned at the stake by the exact same people who are paying him.

“And if we actually understood that causal regression is derivative of that and every single thing we call medicine and science right now is a direct derivative of a fallacy that was established and published in 1663 – if we understood that, we’d be having a different conversation.”

Alec then drills down and says, “Just to be clear here, so when we’re talking about a ‘virus’, I’m not talking about the previous definition of ‘poison’, I’m talking about a tiny, replication-competant, obligate, intercellular parasite consisting of a genome surrounded by a protein coat that is an infectious particle.”

David replies, “100% bullshit. Everything you just said, for a simple reason: Beginning in 1768 and moving up until its codification in 1869-1870, we took a world that, once upon a time was described largely through natural philosophy and frequencies and we decided to turn it into a world defined by chemistry. And here’s where the problem kicks in: When Mendeleev created what we now refer to as the Periodic Table, he took upon himself the idea that, somehow or another, chemistry was the descriptor of life. And every word you just used to describe what we think we call viruses today, is derived from a chemical-mediated model of a system that, by definition is not chemical.”

Contributed by

Contact

Exit mobile version