In this interview, we continue our coverage of the COVID āplandemicā by speaking to David Martin, Ph.D., who has done a phenomenal job uncovering the paper trail behind the virus now known as SARS-CoV-2. As it turns out, this is not a novel virus at all, as patents and government grants detailing key features of the virus go back two decades.
ā¢ In the early 2000s, David Martin, Ph.D., founder of M-CAM International, started finding large numbers of patents that violate biological and chemical weapons laws
ā¢ In 1999, Dr. Anthony Fauci funded research to create āan infectious replication-defective recombinant coronavirus.ā In 2002, Ralph Baric, Ph.D. and colleagues at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, filed a patent on recombinant coronavirus, and within a year, we got the worldās first SARS outbreak
ā¢ Since 1999, at least 4,000 patents involving coronavirus have been filed, including patents detailing key features of the so-called ānovelā SARS-CoV-2 virus
ā¢ The 2001 anthrax attack, which came out of medical and defense research, led to the passage of the PREP Act, which removed liability for manufacturers of emergency medical countermeasures
ā¢ The funds for entitlement programs and pensions will dry up by 2028, at which point the drug industry will go bankrupt as well. With a burgeoning population that is sick from the COVID jabs, we need to prepare new systems to care for each other
The Plandemic: How the Government Manipulates COVID–
19 – A Special Interview With David Martin, Ph.D.
By Dr. Joseph Mercola
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Welcome, everyone. This is Dr. Mercola helping you take control of your health, and we’re continuing in our coverage of this āPlandemicā with Dr. David Martin, and I suspect many of you have heard of who he is. But for those of you who haven’t he’ll describe his background briefly in a moment. But he, in my view, has done the best job of really uncovering the paper trail for two decades that led to where we’re at now. This includes government grants, patents, funding, the whole nine yards. That this just didn’t just happen a year and a half ago. So, he’s covered it. He’s covered it so well, so eloquently. He was featured in Mickey Willis’ āPlandemic
2.ā I’m not sure if that’s the exact title, but it’s the second version after [crosstalk 00:00:49]–
David Martin:
Yeah, āIndoctrination.ā That’s right.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah. If you’ve seen that you know a lot of his work, and we will reread some of that here and give us some good updates, hopefully. But I’m just really excited to have him because he’s just an enormous fountain of information. So, welcome and thank you for joining us today.
David Martin:
You are most welcome. Thanks, Joe. It’s lovely to be here.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay. So, if you can briefly describe your history, which sounds like you were really working for the federal government as one of their people and you’re on all over mainstream media and really well–accepted as an expert in your field. So, just briefly condense that so that we can understand your history and then how and why you made the transition about two years ago?
David Martin:
Well, yeah, back in 1995 when I finished my doctorate at the University of Virginia, I joined the medical school faculty in radiology and orthopedic surgery, but most notably then I was running the first medical device clinical trials organization for the University of Virginia, a company called IDEAmed. What we did then was we did medical device clinical trials for FDA submission. So I had a very long tradition of working with FDA clinical trials. Did a lot of work in diagnostics and therapeutics of a variety of forms. And in 1998, when I started M.CAM, which
is the company that I also founded and have operated since then, we began working very closely with finding ways to bring intellectual property into conventional finance.
David Martin:
So, our background, in addition to the medical background was figuring out ways to bring innovation to the marketplace and dropping the cost of capital so that innovative companies could get much less expensive capital. It was through that, Joe, that an interesting hole opened up. That was we were starting to audit the United States Patent system. We were asked to do that by Congress. And quite alarmingly, we found an enormous number of patents on biological and chemical weapon violations. Now, that was not something we were looking for. I let people know this was not something we set out to find. This is something that landed in our lap.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
How did you identify these? Was it some type of digital scanning system or was it a manual
review?
David Martin:
Yeah, so I developed a technology a decade earlier called Linguistic Genomics, which is a means by which you can look at unstructured text data and find the metaphoric meaning inside of what is being communicated. As you can imagine, if people of ill intent are trying to do something, they often hide what they’re doing in plain sight, but they use language that is not conventional. So when you find a patent, for example, on a blast–resistant pathogen from a rocket–propelled
grenade, did you hear what I just said? A blast–resistant pathogen from a rocket–propelled grenade. Does that sound like it’s a common way to inoculate a population or does that sound like it sounds?
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Sounds like it sounds. A bioweapon.
David Martin:
Yeah. And so, finding a number of bioweapons patents, we started taking into account some very serious things. And I published once a year, I have a copy of the book here. I published once a year, the literal global phonebook of every biological and chemical weapon violation.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Wow.
David Martin:
That took place anywhere in the world, and it is the who’s to it. It’s the who, it’s the where, it’s the who funded it, it’s what their addresses are. It was actually quite an interesting document that was what was used by U.S. law enforcement, intelligence communities and elsewhere around the world to track things that were being done inappropriately. And it was in fact, in 1999 when we started detecting that there seemed to be an alarming event around coronavirus, which we’re
going to get into.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
So, was this report directed towards governmental agencies primarily?
David Martin:
That’s exactly right. It was in addition to being directed at government agencies. It was also shared with law enforcement around the world to try to neutralize this into not a single party kind of information disclosure. As a matter of fact, at its peak of circulation we had the regular updates recorded at the Library of Alexandria in Egypt as a neutral party holding this information. So that posterity would know that we built laws around the prohibition of biological and chemical weapons with the full intention of breaking those laws routinely, and having a
published record of the who did it, when they did it and who financed it was very important.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay, so I interrupted you with a question and you were beginning to tell us about this transition to the coronavirus that you identify.
David Martin:
Well, in 1999, Anthony Fauci’s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) saw the possibility of using coronavirus as a possible vaccine vector. He actually thought that there would be a way to co–op nature to be able to be used as a way to inoculate a population. And at the time, the disclosed rationale for this was to try to come up with an HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) vaccine. As you’re familiar he was obsessed about HIV as well as
influenza vaccines. And as a result, what he was looking for was to see if there was a way to make ā and now I’m quoting from the funded research, āAn infectious replication defective recombinant coronavirus.ā Now, it’s important for you guys to realize that this was 1999. This was not… We hadn’t had SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) yet. We didn’t even know SARS was a thing. But in 1999, that project got funded by NIAID. In 2002, the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hills Ralph Baric and his colleagues filed a patent on recombinant coronavirus, and a year later the world got SARS.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah. So, I just want to take a step back because you alluded to the Fauci’s involvement with HIV. I just want to wonder if you can give a brief comment on that because Robert Kennedy’s written a book about him called āThe Real Tony Fauciā that highlights his nefarious strategies in the ’80s. I mean, he was put into office, longest applied office for 50 years, and set up NIAID. And basically killed hundreds of thousands of peoples with this promotion of AZT
(azidothymidine).
David Martin:
Yes.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
So, this pattern that we’re seeing with coronavirus is actually a repeat of previous behavior.
David Martin:
Yes, and as a matter of fact, when he joined NIAID as its director in 1984 appointed by the Reagan administration, it’s important to realize that at the time we were transitioning from largely an STD (sexually transmitted diseases) environment in which syphilis and gonorrhea and those types of STDs were the things that we were concerned about, obviously, herpes and things
like that. HIV became, as you well know, a political and social hot potato because it was associated in many respects with lifestyle branding, and as a result it became a political issue to essentially identify a class of the population that could be the basis for research without consideration. The notion by Anthony Fauci was people with HIV already had made decisions that somehow entitled them to less humanity. And as a result, the clinical trials around developing both management techniques as well as potential treatments became quite fashionable, but it was done in a very reckless fashion, and numerous people died in clinical
trials, and by the way, still are.
David Martin:
As recently as September of 2020, when the NIAID Advisory Committee met, Anthony Fauci reported on several clinical trials involving three different continents not specified, where in phase one trials the alleged proposed treatment was “unsuccessful” and there were loss of life involved in these trials. So, the fact of the matter is he hasn’t stopped this. This was something that he started in 1984. But he has literally been obsessed about this HIV situation as a platform
to essentially use humans that he determines to be some form of subhuman for clinical trials. And it is a horrific blight on the United States medical establishment that we have been willing to allow this to go on in the name of science, in the name of health promotion, since 1984, without any significant disruption or check.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
All right. Well, thank you for that historical perspective because it’s so important and most people have no clue that this is repeat behavior for his motives [crosstalk 00:10:00]. So, when I interrupted you with a question, you were starting to explain how this developed in the late ’90s with Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. This is even before we had the first coronavirus epidemic.
David Martin:
Yeah, the first outbreak, as you know is late 2002 going into 2003 in China. So, SARS as a thing, was not a thing until we made recombinant infectious replication–defective coronavirus. And it’s so critical that we understand that I’m not drawing a causal relationship. I’m making an observation that humans and what we call coronavirus seem to cohabitate this earth for hundreds
of thousands of years. And then we manipulate that in 1999, we do a number of things to actually start playing around with putting it into different animals, and in different human cell line models. And then in 2003, we have SARS. Like a lot of other things it’s an observation worth noting.
David Martin:
What makes the observation more problematic, obviously, is this was happening during the unfortunate results of the 2001 anthrax attack, which as you know came out of federal labs. The whole notion that somehow or another we had domestic terror by bioweapons from some sort of bad actor became very clear that this was not a bad actor, per se, this was medical and defense research gone bad that got into the public and real people really died. But as you know, Joe, the real benefit, if you will, for the anthrax attack was the passage of the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act. [crosstalk 00:11:49].
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
It persists till today. That’s persistent [crosstalk 00:11:52]–
David Martin:
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Because we didn’t have in the 1986 act something that covered medical countermeasures. What we had was childhood vaccines. Inside of the PREP Act, we now have the effective carte blanche removal of liability to manufacturers of medical countermeasures, and that carte blanche liability needed an event horizon to create it, and it turns out that the anthrax scare was the raison d’ĆŖtre to actually get that coverage expanded to medical
countermeasures.
David Martin:
I think most people don’t understand that the ’86 act is really not overly relevant in the coronavirus situation simply because this is a medical countermeasure under the PREP Act. And as a result, the breadth of coverage and the accountability for responsibility, including the PREP Act, does not have a VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) requirement. So, there’s a lot of things that are inside of the PREP Act that made pharmaceutical companies much more capable of instilling terror in the population, coercing a population into taking an untested
measure, and doing so with absolute impunity.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Now, so you were compiling this information. And at the time, it sounds like you’re still working for the federal government. And I’m wondering if you can, I guess ā I want to go into more detail what you’ve compiled because you’ve only touched the surface of the paper trail. So, maybe you do that, and then in your response help us understand when you made the transition away from the federal government to informing the public?
David Martin:
Well, I’ve always seen that my role as the person who actually took the time and effort to aggregate all of this data. I’ve always seen a public interest as part of our mission. And so, we did not work for the federal government. The federal government was a beneficiary of the information we provided as were a number of other organizations. As you and your listeners can go back and review, I testified in Congress for the very first time on the audit of the United States Patent System back in the early 2000s. Did a lot of work with the Senate Banking Committee. We were a contractor for the United States Treasury to break open a lot of white
collar criminal activity around intellectual property and its abuses, and tax fraud. So, we’ve had a number of engagements where we were contracted by the federal government to do projects. But the work on bioweapons was something I did because I felt, as a citizen of the world, it was absolutely essential that we have public visibility into the violations of biological and chemical weapons laws and treaties.
David Martin:
And as a result of that, in the mid–early and mid–2000s, the Bush administration asked me on several occasions to be part of both individual delegations as well as groups of delegations in the biological weapons conventions programs around the world. And so, I was in Slovenia for the EUROTOX Conference. I was in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Tehran for the National Genetic Engineering and Bioengineering conferences that were about the proliferation of these
technologies in the early and mid–2000s. And I was doing all those things at the request of the federal government.
David Martin:
But always, as a public citizen, my goal has always been to make sure that information that we have is shared with the authorities who are in fact charged with accountability. Now, as you well know, the bad news is when other people are doing it we’re more than happy to go off and do investigations. When we’re doing it, there seems to be a little bit of a blowback, and in 2005 and 2006, a lot of what I uncovered turned out to be the Bush–Cheney administration’s abuses of a
number of things around the wars in the Middle East. And this “War on Terror,” which was kind of like Reagan’s War on Drugs.
David Martin:
The fact of the matter is we were just using conflict as a convenient way to move money around without really having a whole lot of evidence or justification. And so, some of what I uncovered was not warmly received by the Bureau, by intelligence agencies and whatnot. But by and large, without exception from 2001 until the present situation, the information that I have provided has been used in international law enforcement and intelligence operations, and it has been warmly
received, which is the reason why this one stands out so remarkably because all of a sudden no one not in the U.S., none of our allies. None of the people who are not really our allies seem to be willing to look at the fact that beginning in 2016 we started seeing very alarming language being used, which was ācoronavirus poised for human emergence.ā Now, I’m not a–
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Where were you seeing this, in the patents?
David Martin:
This was in patents, but it was also in scientific publications.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay.
David Martin:
And when you start referring to a coronavirus allegedly poised for human emergence after the World Health Organization has declared SARS eradicated, there’s something desperately wrong with that picture. As I have said many, many times, and I can’t help myself. I have to remind your listeners that the biggest alarm bell was published February 12, 2016, when Peter Daszak,
the veterinarian–in–chief who has been the money–laundering agent to get coronavirus research after the gain of function moratorium here in the U.S. moved over to China said, “To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan–influenza or 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.”
David Martin:
That statement made in 2015, published in the spring of 2016 set off alarm bells very loudly within my organization because when you actually have somebody who is promoting gainer function research, and clearly blurring the line on what is even legal because at that time it was illegal to conduct this kind of research in the U.S. Saying that we needed, “Media to create the hype. And we need to use the hype to our advantage and investors will follow if they see profit at the end of the process.” Joe, that doesn’t sound like public health to me. That sounds like
organized crime. That sounds like racketeering, and we need to raise this issue.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah. So, especially in conjunction with the earlier information you uncovered at the patent history. Maybe you can take in this direction is it really provides a very powerful evidence. It would have likely stand up in a court of law of the motivation behind this and the deep historical records that support that.
David Martin:
Well, listen, from 2002, which is when we have the recombinant coronavirus patent filed by UNC, Chapel Hill. The 4,000–plus patents that were filed on the genome, on vaccines, and on detection since 2002 is quite alarming because you don’t file patents on something that you don’t intend to commercialize. I mean, it’s just not a thing. We don’t have an enormous number of patents on a number of other pathogens, but for some reason coronavirus becomes this target,
which is commercially, exceptionally rich. And what we find is that a couple things were quite problematic. In 2003, April 28th of 2003, and I want you to listen to the date really important because the April 23rd, 2003 CDC patent on the genome of the SARS coronavirus, which is actually something that I’ve talked about before. Somehow or another, five days later, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals got a $935,000 grant and filed U.S. Patent 7151163. So this is five days after allegedly the coronavirus has been isolated. Five days later, they file a patent on the treatment of a thing that had been discovered five days earlier.
David Martin:
Now, call me old–fashioned, but that doesn’t sound like my bowtie speaking. That sounds like an inside job because you cannot have a disease identified, a pathogen identified, and a cure for it in five daysā period of time when all of the information was held from the public because when the CDC filed its patent on the genome of coronavirus, it paid to keep that patent secret. So, somebody somewhere knows that this thing was going to turn out to be a moneymaker. Dana
Farber had a monoclonal antibody patent system that came out of three NIH (National Institutes of Health) grants. Their patent 7750123 on the monoclonal antibody for SARS–CoV treatment took place in 2003. We have the January 6, 2004 Bioterrorism Conference where the promise of coronavirus as a bioterrorism tool becomes popularized, and all of a sudden we have an enormous number of new treatments being patented. And before long, we have over 4,000
patents and patent applications filed.
David Martin:
Joe, 4,000 patents and patent applications on a thing where quite literally we’re saying it’s new. We‘re saying it’s novel. But if we go back in history, we realize that Pfizer filed the first S1 spike protein vaccine patent on coronavirus in 1990, 30 years ago. So, even what we’re being told is new, whether it’s the pathogen, whether it’s the vaccine, whether it’s the mechanism of blocking the vaccine using the spike protein, regardless of what part of the story we look at, the patent
record is full of thousands, not hundreds, thousands of patents where commercial interests funded by NIAID and funded by the National Institutes of Health have been building the economic cabal around coronavirus. This is not a new thing, hasn’t been a new thing. And regrettably, we’re being told continuously that somehow or another there’s something novel about this experience despite the fact that every single part of what we are told is being detected with PCR and everything we’re told that we are intervening with the injections. Every single one of those things has been known and isolated for over 30 years.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, that’s just, it’s just so outrageous. Can you compare the number of patents and patent applications with coronavirus, which is over 4,000 to any other pathogen. I mean, what’s number two or does this exceed all other pathogens combined?
David Martin:
Oh, this is an order of magnitude more. I mean, we’re not even in the same ballpark. So, when we had Ebola outbreak, for example, it got a lot of national attention. When we had H1N1, if you remember all the bird flus and the avian influenzas and all of those sorts of things. We’ve had an enormous number of other pathogens that have been identified and have been worked on with
respect to diagnostics and therapeutics. Coronavirus runs away as a commercial boom for the industrial and the funding complexes that have supported its promotion. That’s why it’s so important for us to go back and look at the fact that whether it is the SARS coronavirus, whether it is coronavirus generally, which throughout the ’90s was almost exclusively a veterinary concern. It was for dogs. It was for rabbit cardiomyopathy. It was things that were actually involved in veterinary sciences. From then until now, the proliferation of proprietary controls
around SARS coronavirus probably exceeds at least by two or three times most other pathogens.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay, that’s good for perspective. So, I wanted to delve back bit to Fauci because I know you’re not a big fan of his as am I. Fauci, with respect to the whole process of the system that’s evolved, which started with HIV, of course, and that he’s got these principal investigators at all the major universities and Pharma that he assigns in the 50 years he’s been in office over $1 trillion in grants, so that these grant money from the federal government, ultimately the U.S. taxpayer, get
recycled into creating these patents and patent rewards and compensation and whole structures that reward these people and provide a clear motivation for their behavior. So, that’s a poor description of it, but I’m sure you can describe it in far more articulate terms.
David Martin:
Well, a terrible thing happened in 1980. A law called the BayhāDole Act, which was a law signed into law, which allowed the beneficiaries of federal grants to file patents on the work I think that this is pure 100% unadulterated, sociopathic tyranny. I think this is a guy who clearly has a contempt for humanity that is probably unrivaled by most, if not all, historical figures.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Wow.
David Martin:
And the fact of the matter is, if you have the audacity ā I mean, let’s face it, and Joe you know this. You know this from your own experience. There’s a thing called the False Claims Act by the Federal Trade Commission. False Claims Act is when you promote something that doesn’t have at least two independent peer–reviewed clinical trials to justify your claims of either safety or efficacy, and everybody in the health care industry knows what this thing is. In April of 2020,
the Journal of the American Medical Association official publication said that face coverings and masks should not be worn by a general population because there was, “No evidence that they actually provided any benefit.” David Martin:
As a matter of fact, the only randomized clinical trial that was done by CR McIntyre actually stated that wearing cloth face coverings increase the risk of influenza–like illness. So the only study we had was it was potentially bad for you. But in contempt for the Federal Trade Commission Act, suddenly we were all supposed to put on a thing, which quite literally the data said not to do. Now, when you have the audacity to not only change your own policy, which he has now admitted to lie, but he goes one step further, and says that the lie was justified. Those are definitional criteria for sociopathic behavior.
David Martin:
When you not only don’t see the error of your ways, but you actually celebrate the corruption that says, “I can have contempt for the truth, and I can do it in the best interest of some sort of self–serving agenda.” And the fact of the matter is like Ralph Baric who if you go on to Google Earth, you can see he lives in a modest home. This guy has a modest lab when you look at the pictures of his lab at UNC, Chapel Hill, he has a modest lab. But all of a sudden you realize that he is invited to be what? The guest of honor here, the guest of honor there, he doesn’t need
billions of dollars to live a billionaire’s lifestyle. Ralph Baric and Tony Fauci share a common objective, which is they both have a desire to be most powerful and have 100% immunity from public accountability. And the fact of the matter is most billionaires would aspire to the control and power those guys have because it turns out they have something money can’t buy. They have something that can only be acquired through fear and blackmail, which is exactly what they
actually trafficking.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Mm–hmm (affirmative). Yeah, well, that is brilliant. I don’t really think I’ve ever heard it put that way before my perspective, but it makes perfect sense. So, thank you for sharing your observations and assessments, that’s great. But clearly there are financial motivations.
David Martin: Oh, yes, absolutely.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
And not necessarily to them. But I think the sociopathic behavior might be more relevant as an explanation, but I’m wondering if you can walk us through the tens, and more likely hundreds of billions of dollars that are going to accrue to the vaccine manufacturers, and what’s more egregious and unbelievable beyond sociopathic behavior is that any and every injury and death will never be compensated for. I mean, to me that is one of the most egregious criminal
behaviors that they instigated in this. And then, on top of that they are mandated by unconstitutional executive orders to get this vaccine.
David Martin:
Well, remember that under 21 Code of Federal Regulations, section 50, about 23 and 24, no one can be forced or coerced into a clinical trial of an experimental, even medical countermeasures. So it’s not legal to do it. That’s very clear. It’s black and white, and this clinical trial does not end until 2023 in the first best instance. So, there is no such thing as an approved or even authorized
use of a thing that can be compelled on the population. That doesn’t mean that people aren’t trying to do it.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Excuse me to interrupt, and compounding that to make it even worse is they eliminated all the controls of this trial. Go on.
David Martin:
So, there is not a clinical trial. That’s why if we go back and we look at the 21 Code of Federal Regulations, we see that we have a number of things that fail. We did not have an independent investigational review board. We did not have any of the statutorily required approval processes for the protocol. And the companies themselves made determinations about modifying the protocol midstream. We do not have a clinical trial on this particular injection.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Right. Totally agree.
David Martin:
It’s just really pure and simple. And so, once again, violating the Federal Trade Act. All right, somebody in law enforcement, somebody in the legal community should actually bring them up on the same thing that they throw against clinicians time and time again. There’s not a chiropractor, an osteopath anywhere in this country that hasn’t had some sort of False Claims Act shakedown from the Federal Trade Commission. But you know what’s fascinating? The federal
government is doing the same violation. They’re telling you a thing works. They’re telling you a thing is curative. They’re telling you a thing is therapeutic, and they’re violating the Federal Trade Act, and no one is doing a single thing.
David Martin:
