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.”
There's a huge story that's not getting a lot of attention, with all of the…
Out of the blue last Thursday, China's commerce ministry announced that starting on December 1st,…
Jesse Beltran is a retired firefighter paramedic, who is the former President of the International Center…
For years, Tore Maras has been infiltrating and recording the Zoom calls of seditious Federal employees…
I'm trying to figure out what an "Unmanned female staffer" is... TRANSCRIPT Jesse Watters: Fox…
View Comments
You are the one who is not letting your guest talk in my opinion - answer they mean us harm never trust them end of.
He's consistently confused millions of people. The only reason there is any clarity in this interview is because Alec pushed for clarity. Otherwise it would have been just another interview where at least half of the viewers come away convinced that he was talking about actual viruses.
I even have an email from a Canadian member of provincial parliament, Randy Hillier, dated July 2021 who told everyone that "Dr. David Martin lists many patents in this video, all publicly available going back to 1999 showing the Novel Coronavirus was known for two decades."
Full interview with Reiner Fuellmich, 2 years ago, can be found on Bitchute by typing in Dr. David Martin.
Title: There is No Variant-Not Novel, No Pandemic (122 minutes)
One of my favorites.
very succinct Jay I have thought that from day one
It's here, it's the 4th most-popular video in the nearly 13-year history of my website: https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/there-is-no-variant-not-novel-no-pandemic-dr-david-martin-with-reiner-fuellmich/
Wow! Thanks Alexandra
Read the Transcript. You're just Not comprehending his words, which he chose wisely.
Where did he get the idea that "they were very clear to stipulate that there was no disease" when covid stands for coronavirus DISEASE?
Does anyone know of any lawsuit he's been involved in that put forward the no-virus argument, as he claimed to Alec? He posted on FB in March about Griner v. Biden et al (Utah), but based on the titles of the exhibits that was a full-on yes-virus case, which seems to have been tossed out due to lack of standing.
Interesting that he made clear that he'll continue with his obviously-confusing language and bizarrely denied ever even implying that any virus exists.
Christine, as I perceive Dr. David Martin's style of presentation, it requires focus, and rewind, listening a few times over what he's saying. I can follow his reasoning, after I've listened to a number of his presentations.
The thing is, with discernment, that when my mind cannot grasp the core of what's being presented, that I've got a choice, to either dismiss what I've heard in a reaction of anger, or frustration, or to admit to myself that I've got no grip on it, and accept that fact. Meanwhile waiting a bit, and give it another go. I'm quite patient, and arriving at an understanding of what seemed gibberish at first is more common than not.
Have you looked into Bechamp's work, developed in the same time when Pasteur's work was published with the germ-theory? They both were French scientists.
Bechamp's work is based on the terrain-theory: first there's a weakened condition, causing the appearance of substances (how is still a question to me) that begin to work on the decaying procedure, in an attempt to get rid of a body losing life force energy.
Exactly the same happens in plants, attracting a plague, mold or a parasite, when its good health is out of balance. Be it due to too much rain, frost, or heat, in short, conditions where the elements water, fire, air, and earth aren't in balance.
Nature takes care of itself by means of growth, sprouting, blossoming, fruit bearing, and decay when something is out of balance, even the compound of the soil influences the nutrient - absorption of all vegetation, in a forest or allotment. There's no thought present in nature, of malevolence. It simply IS.
Pasteur's work was welcomed, with the conclusion that from than on, it was factual truth that germs cause diseases And thus germs were declared as "the enemy". A great opportunity for the medical industry, to create the weapons used to fight the enemy: drugs and vaccines.
In my perception, that conclusion was guiding scientists, and designers, into one of the most succesful revenue models. With humanity included in it. Eugenics started from the moment the invention of the microscope was realized. What better timing can we find in the discovery of life's building blocks, the cells of a living body, for a thought about total control of life as a lofty pursuit.
With an evergrowing curiosity to discover ever smaller particles of what's taking part in a living organism. In a mind utterly going its own way, for selfish reasons, without a heart connection, the idea to tinker with such particles, in order to control the world population, is rather predictable. It's allowed by our free will conditions, but it's an obsession to play God, and winging it, unseen by Earthlings down below.
Correction. This statement of mine, in a comment of yesterday "first there’s a weakened condition, causing the appearance of substances (how is still a question to me) that begin to work on the decaying procedure, in an attempt to get rid of a body losing life force energy."
isn't correct, now I've thought about it a bit.
The appearance of substances, and one example is the work of the white bloodcells trying to absorb pathogens, reducing inflammation, trying to get rid of the cause of aches and pains. The fact that a body creates inflammation is a sign of health, in the sense that the immune system is strong enough to respond, activating the natural defence system of the body.
That's how an attempt is made to return the body to good health, by releasing the "bad stuff". The entering of that "bad stuff" in the bloodstream, in order to be released, filtered by the kidneys, and the liver, is part of the process of detoxification, causes a feeling of sickness, nausea, headache, and tiredness.
The kidneys, and the liver are working overtime, the liver is the landfill of the body, isn't it? The ruler of our vitality at the same time.
In that light, one can say that getting sick, is a response of the physical body and the immune system, showing a sign of good health.
It's becoming a serious concern when the body doesn't have the life force energy to respond in this way, for that condition will detoriate further, preventing the restoration of good health, of wellbeing.
As human beings, we've got our thinking abilities, and imagination, potentially steering our physical condition in a conscious way. With the freedom of choice.
And that's where we, as humanity, are different from how plants grow up, and lose substance after forming the seeds, according the laws of nature, or the cosmic laws of evolution.
Alec is focused on public perceptions while Dr Martin in focused on legal precedents and procedures but Alec is working to get Dr Martin to move to his side of the argument that he is presenting but as Dr Martin again and again states the two sides are at differing ends of a spectrum which Alec will not let go of and is trying to force Dr Martin to accept. Alec is too rigid and is inflexible, he is the one always interrupting Dr Martin. Alec needs to ease up on his focus because he is very unprofessional in this video and shows his demand to be followed rather than to be in balanced give and take in the narrative.
Alec has Sponsors to answer to, perhaps that's why he pulled Dr. Martin back into the Same point that was already answered twice, "The Model is wrong," point.
1:07:45 Alec looks for more questions from the audience...but starts in again his harping after reviewing his screen.
” to make human life more unattainable, so that they could have greater control, . . . “?
“Current thinking is that global industrial businesses will replace a complex industrial ecosystem that took more than a century to build. The current system was built with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of energy the world has ever known (oil), in cheap abundant quantities, with easily available credit, and seemingly unlimited mineral resources. This replacement is hoped to be done at a time when there is comparatively very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt, not enough minerals, and an unprecedented world population, embedded in a deteriorating natural environment. Most challenging of all, this has to be done within a few decades. It is the authors opinion that this will not go according to plan. “?
https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
" to make human life more unattainable, so that they could have greater control, . . . "?
“Gail Tverberg says:
The bottom 90% represent the workers of the world, unfortunately. Getting along without them would be difficult. Who would mine the minerals of the world? Who would pick up the trash? Who would pick the crops that need to be picked?”
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2023/06/02/models-hide-the-shortcomings-of-wind-and-solar/comment-page-2/#comments
That was interesting until the world's two biggest egos with no sense of humor got triggered against each other. Then...crosstalk and tiresomeness with little information and yammering. (FYI everybody....yammering means to talk continuously for a long time in a way that is annoying to other people. Just sayin'.)
PS...Do you remember ancient SNL and Dan Ackroid, "Jane, you ignorant slut..." ? I felt like that's what these 2 guys really wanted to say to each other for the last 30 minutes.
Alec, like me is frustrated with David's explanations of the issue at hand. David is conveyed the issue of reductionism. A living system is exactly that, a system, which has no cause and affect. Yet, punch me in the nose, and the nose will likley bleed. This is hugely a semantic debate, which is largley contextual. David from my point of view needs to simplify things. He got very close when he spoke of pathogenic molecules. The same way carp are foreign to our ecosystem and are predatory to our fresh waters, enough of anthing that maybe shouldn't be there in the first place will wreck havoc on a system. Carp is a cause, but in a living system, carps to be infective to our ecosystem needs an ecosystem to overwhelm its constituents.
I think David needs to explain things, at least from my end, the context of the terms in play. And Alec may need to find a better means to draw out that explanation from David.
Looks Alec got 3rd jab and Alec’s mind is diluted! Unbelievable!
Go Dr. Martin!
You should listen to dr David Martin, I think you're trying to pigeon hole him. You're missing the details. If you want your info spoon fed to you then thats where the problem is! LISTEN TO EVERY DETAIL