He scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
we are approaching the new year ladies and gentlemen and uh yeah I've been
yelling all day in the basketball gym again and what yelling apparently does
to my voice now is it makes it lower so I apologize for this I'm not going to
talk very much I'm going to try and give it a little bit of a break but this is
what I sound like tonight so you're just gonna have to deal with it my name is
Jonathan Couey I used to be a patch clamp physiologist back when I was an
academagician I spent about 20 years doing this the recordings that you make
require you to make a giga-ohm seal a giga-ohm resistance seal and so I
decided to name the stream giga-ohm biological high resistance low noise
information brief welcome to it if this is your first time here I think I have
something on my glasses um we are fighting what I have been trying to
characterize as a Scooby-Doo for American audiences this makes a lot of
sense for other audiences maybe not so much but the gist of it is is that a
bunch of teenagers and their dog have been you know led to believe that
they're solving a big mystery and in the cartoon of course that's what they
really do oftentimes saving small towns from villains that have been scamming
them with monster costumes by catching the monster in a trap and then taking
off their mask we reveal that the rich guy in the town has actually been
ripping everybody off and it's not too far away from that except we've been
fooled into believing that we we needed to solve a mystery a mystery of where
the virus came from or who's responsible for the virus and we feel
somewhat successful at least let me say that the vast majority of people that
that are skilled television watchers feel very successful in having solved
the mystery of the novel virus they're pretty sure that millions of people have
died from it they're pretty sure that millions more have been saved from it
and they're pretty sure the gain of function research is the source of the
virus and even if it wasn't the likelihood of that that the next one is
going to come from gain of functions pretty high because a virus is
definitely going to come again and it's this faith in a novel virus that we are
really trying to break and the reason why I think it's important to be rather
semantically precise is because what we are declaring is that there is a
possibility space a huge realm of possibility that is not considered when
you tell the story of a novel virus for which everyone is vulnerable and we need
to lock down and all this other stuff that they did and so in a lot of ways it is
true there is no virus and that's the reason or that's the foundation for how
this happened but it's more than no virus it's also the fact that they
actually murdered people in order to raise the alarm in order to create a any
vent be it conflated numbers or not an event was created in many different
places on earth in February March and April of 2020 and these local high
casualty events were misconstrued as evidence of spread and so it is not
sufficient to explain what happened in 2020 is saying that there was nothing
there were lots of things that happened lots of data points that need explaining
and so you can't come to this argument without a hypothesis explaining those
data points and so my hypothesis is and I don't think it's that different than
sometimes what you hear out of these no virus people I think that they've been
trying to mislead us about the potential for pandemic in bad caves in
laboratories in animal passage in genetic stitching for many years and I
think now they've all agreed to push and pull on a train and make believe that
this is the source of a pandemic that we just experienced in all agree not to
question the possibility of a worst-case scenario and not to question the
presence of a virus that millions of people were killed by and as long as you
don't question that as long as you don't question the potential worst-case
scenario of a gain-of-function laboratory bioweapon then you are part of this
narrative that is hurting us toward giving up the sovereignty of our
children and I'm afraid that many of the people that were involved behind the
scenes on the internet the intellectual dark web the various people that came
out at different times questioning different parts of the narrative have
always been very careful not to dispel the illusion of consensus not to dispel
the enchantment of the novel virus but to leave it hanging there as sort of an
unquestioned reality and that's what we're describing as that faith in a
novel virus and that's why I think the train you know the the guy who's
faking stopping the train in Italy or wherever he is doing that the idea of a
coordinated effort of lots of people dressed up really nice with lots of
sophisticated mimes and and techniques and and and props could really make you
think that they were involved in stopping and starting the train and in
this case the faith in the novel virus has led us to believe that we've all had
the same experience over the last four years that we all got on this train in
2020 and we rolled it out of the station and that seemed like people were lying
and then before you knew it in the background people were talking about
laboratory leak but Fauci was yelling about it and either what side you took
eventually you've come to the conclusion that wow maybe what we
experienced was a lab leak and maybe it could come again I mean maybe that
explains why they covered it up and that's how they get you into this new
world order that's how they get you into this new world order where
transfection by and transformation by DNA transfection by RNA become pretty
much the norm where experimentation on your children pretty much becomes the
norm because personalized medicine can't be randomized control trial and so
basically in 10 or 15 years when your kids take their kids to the doctor there
won't be anything to trial because they'll just be given stuff to people
based on their whatever the AI computer says is the is the right combination of
drugs or even RNA and DNA transfections that will fix them I'm a little bit
exaggerating there but I'm exaggerating in a way to try and emphasize what a lot
of the people behind the scenes think is inevitable and if you think this is
inevitable then you have to audition to be a leader in this new era of biology
new era of personalized medicine so these people are actually auditioning for
leadership roles after the metamorphosis of our society occurs that's how you
can tell that's really what's happening we have been witnessing the audition
process over the last three years have who can best shepherd the TV watching
masses into this new world order from either side of the aisle you want to
compete for the the politician side where you stick to that you know whole game
you want to do the social media side and the podcast side and that side and
everybody's auditioning for the new world order what's coming and when it
comes the the internet will be limited by digital ID and all of these people of
course will be happy to do it or have some excuse why it's okay and then it'll
almost all be over don't be surprised how many of these people actually go
along with it the whole way so I'm gonna escape out of here and I'm going to play
this movie it is on 1.5 speed we are watching Alex Zeck and David Martin
talk about all things pandemic this came out I believe in July 21, 2023 I
promise I'm gonna try very very hard not to stop the movie as much as I
possibly can and in fact I hope that I'm gonna take a lot of notes and stop it
only a couple times because I'd like it to be over in about an hour so here we
go ladies and gentlemen let's just do this
welcome everyone to another episode of the way forward I hope others there's
like 50 or so people tuning in live right now probably have a few more
trickling but I hope you're also tuning in to the end of covid because that
material that we've compiled is extremely important to ensure that we're
properly informed on what happened over the last three and a half years so we
can share this nonsense does not happen again I'm really looking forward to
this conversation with Dr. David Martin David how's it going it's great to be
here Alec thank you for having this this venue yeah thanks for being here so I
heard from from little birdie that you've been on an expedition to Antarctica
before I have I have indeed and not only did I go on an expedition to Antarctica I
was the one that was asked to be the primary content provider for the
expedition and among other things I had the phenomenal joy of meeting a
very tall beautiful Australian woman on the ship who came up to me after one of
my extremely poignant conversations with the group and said I'm clearly the
alpha female in this boat you're clearly the alpha male I should find you
attractive but I don't and in a few weeks time that woman and I will be
celebrating our anniversary we've been together now for eight years and so yes
not only did I go to Antarctica but I came home with the woman with whom I am
navigating this amazing thing called life and having a great time doing
awesome that's incredible not many people can say they met their partner in
Antarctica so now as a matter of fact I don't know if there's anyone who can't
actually not that I know it's not it's not a common pickup line and it's
certainly not a common place to have that pickup line side but now you know it's
a fascinating she she was as as many people know Kim is is aluminous being
and what she was meaning to say was that if I kind of got my shit straightened
out I would be far more attractive than the morose philosophical soul that I
was that she heard speaking and it turns out that having a beautiful Australian
companion to help make life joyful is a great way of not being as despondent
so there you go she was right up over into deeper into a heart space at that
point then now I listen I've done a lot of things around the world and I've seen
a lot of the unfortunate experiences of what we have come to accept as humanity
and whether that plays out in the microcosm of at that time a very a very
challenging relationship or whether it comes on the back of dealing with
genocide in Papua New Guinea where you know we win a conviction against one of
the largest corporations ever found guilty of genocide only to have it
overturned because of jurisdictional issues you know when you keep seeing
how corrupt the system is and how prolific that corruption is sometimes it
has a way of getting under your skin yeah and Kim met me at a period of my life
where I think I was overloaded with the with the amount of corruption going on
so anyhow it's been a lot more fun to be with a person who her soundtrack is
80s music her favorite thing to do is dance and it just makes life a little bit
more more enjoyable at every turn that's awesome incredible quick question on
Antarctica too were you able to circumnavigate the continent in that trip
no we were we were in we flew out of Chile we were in the military transport
from from Punta Arenas in southern Chile at the Straits Magellan and what we did
was we went down the that very long ismess that's on Antarctica down past
deception island the active volcano down there which very few people know about
across the Antarctic circle and went down to the edge of the ice and then came
back so that long prominence that you see on the maps of Antarctica we we kind of
traversed as far as the ice would let us go were they pretty restricted on where
you could go to like so-called authorities I guess well there's no real I
mean listen we we got off the plane in a military base which you know allegedly
according to the official charter that established Antarctica there's not
supposed to be any military bases there we got off on a military base on military
aircraft so there is that little oops about the official narrative and we were
told not to take pictures of the airbase I have many of them including a C-130
that was stuck in the ice but beyond the actual point of departure there was
really no security anywhere ever I mean we met two Brits at Port La Croix who
are stationed at the weather weather observation station where lightning
strikes are recorded but besides that they were the only two people that we
encountered anywhere on any of the continental Antarctica well yeah I have a
lot of fascination with Antarctica trying to figure out the the true nature of
this realm if you will try to figure out what you know it's it's I'll tell you
that the answer is on the on the cruise we had the gentleman from Australia who
is twice crossed unaided cross the point-to-point and Arctic set the record for
the fastest unaided crossing and you know it's fascinating when you talk to
Jeff about his experience there's a whole lot of things about the
conversation where you just sit there you know kind of going first of all I
wouldn't want to spend that much time in sub 40 below sub 60 below temperatures
but like the Arctic explorations you know if you go back and you look at the
Arctic explorations there's an enormous amount of things that happen when you
are in that kind of austere environment where orientation becomes a challenge
you know a lot of things just become a challenge and so I think like a lot of
places on earth you know the more you know if you're really honest with
yourself the less you know because you actually have more questions than you
get answers which is kind of my approach to life is you know keep exploring
because there's always a deeper question that you didn't think to ask yeah that's
kind of the you know let me let me preface this by saying and this will kind of
lead to the rest of our conversation I was a statist I was an army officer I you
know went to West Point I believe that my wife's autoimmune conditions that she
previously have that she no longer has any trace of now for seven years were
caused by in part by Epstein bar virus and all these things I'm saying
contextually because when you set aside your preconceived notions and simply
explore what is true obviously you're gonna have some bias there yeah you find
that we meaning the human race don't know shit yeah lack of better time you
we don't know shit and I am very wary of both authorities and especially
authorities who claim with a level of certainty to know that X thing is D
thing and this is how X behaves and how this is what X produces and this is the
phenomenon that is caused by X etc etc so so I want to just jump right in I
think I'll ask just a very direct question what is your take on SARS-CoV-2
and viruses in general so two separate things that the the question of SARS-CoV-2
is 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 a
branded terror campaign was a campaign that included the term SARS-CoV-2 which
was a term that was necessary because they had declared SARS-CoV-1
eradicated and it kind of sucks if you're gonna try to sell a fear narrative to
go the thing that we said was eradicated is back because that would suggest that
science that 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 was the
International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses published on March the 2nd
2020 their official brand that said that there was quote a novel pathogen that
novel pathogen was going to be branded SARS-CoV-2 so that we were ethnically
you know allegedly ethnically sensitive to 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 elimination of symptoms that are not years so so this idea that it
was quote a novel disease was a branding campaign and so let's stipulate for this
conversation that the entirety of the last four 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 for for that the the unambiguous nature of what this is it was
domestic and international terrorism it was collusion it was racketeering 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 dealing with a piece
of terminology that has morphed since it was introduced in the 14th century
so far as virus means in Proto-Italian means poison do I believe there are
poisons in the world the answer is unambiguously yes and the reason is
because I've had poisons injected into me and I know that the poisons had an
effect which was the desired effect so insofar as do we believe there are
poisons absolutely there are and there's no question that poisons are in fact
sometimes accidental and sometimes intentionally introduced to cause
incapacitation or death yeah in so far 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 we then 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 fourth 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
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 fourth
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 going to get to causation is beyond the pale of idiocy
and it's important for people in this conversation understand that when
Gottfried Liebens in 1663 published his dissertation which gave us modern
regression it's important to realize that in the same year two important
things happen we actually were doing heretic
witch and heretic burning 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 were paying him and if we actually understood that
causal regression is the 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
got it so just 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 competent obligate intracellular parasite consisting of
a genome surrounded by a protein coke that is an infected all bullshit 100
percent bullshit everything that 100 percent bullshit 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
agree and here's where the problem kicks in when men to live created the 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 use 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 so in so far as do those words exist
yes i mean when i got my piece of the thing does the thing exist do the
things that so that is the common definition of
viruses in virology do those things exist as physical
particles and is there proof that they cause disease
well see that's the problem that the the causal question
is by its definition let's let's set that aside then is there is there
sufficient proof that those exist in the fluids of a sick person
there was once again can we measure something in something
the answer is if we're looking for a thing we can find a thing
anywhere that's the nature of regression based science
regression based on a clause i'm sorry genuine question is there proof that
Santa Claus exists there's no question i can go to a shopping mall right now
well not right now but i can go to a shopping mall in december
and if a Santa Claus is defined by a fat man in a red suit then the answer is
yes they come okay if Santa Claus is defined as a man who comes down your
chimney and delivers presence and flies on a
i think that's called jeffrey Epstein yes yeah i got you but is there in in that
case then what we're talking about is things the existence of
right but here's probably that that's where we get trapped and that's where we
will not get trapped in this conversation because here's the thing
if i'm looking for the higs boson i can go out and i can create a multi-billion
dollar device i can smash what i call high energy
particles into an observation screen i can derive from it a bug splat
and i can say look i found the alleged god particle except for the fact
that when they did that and spent billions of dollars of things looking
for a thing what they found was something other than what they were looking for
and so they decided to go back and fix the machine
and allic this is where the problem lives if i decide to tear the world apart
and try to look for the smallest atomic particle i can find
it anywhere so is there a thing somewhere
the answer is of course there are there are tons of particles and if we
destroy nature and take it down to its destructive limits
i can find anything in anything that's the problem the problem is in 1663 the
disputation on separation which gave rise to the entirety of regression
science said that the way to understand the world is to take it down
particle by particle to get to the smallest particle and no
no surprise we get to this thing we call a virus and we go oh there's a particle
in it's with sick people yeah but is there's some proof that they
actually exist as concrete things i can actually
find the dimension of a definition which i can say look i found the thing i'm
saying the dimension no what do you mean by that
because every observation is based on the preconditions of the moment in
which that observation is formed and as the observer you are defining the
analyte the observation condition and you're that you're defining your own
sense of verification that you found the thing you were looking for so
what you were looking for is a phallus correct so i i'm well aware that like
when we talk about the application of the scientific method when we're looking
at an observed natural phenomenon and attempting to ascertain what is the
cause of that observed natural phenomenon there is it's yes i agree it's
almost leaning on futile i completely agree because there's so many factors
that are at play but when we're talking about a thing
as if it is a concrete thing and then assigning terms like
biological weapon or how are we messing with that biological weapon is that
is defined under 18 us code section 175 okay now does that mean it exists
who knows what it means is there's a legal definition for it
okay there's not a legal definition for virus
just like there now is about a dozen definitions for vaccine
and by the way none of them i thought i would just interject here for a second
so um i don't really know how to how to
vocalize really how shocking this video is
um how obvious it should be that neither of these two i though i i
actually commend allic for trying a little hard he's
trying but he's he's missing something absolutely
gigantic
i want you to think about the fact that you
absolutely positively have not heard the words remdesivir
medazalam ventilators antibiotic steroids do not resuscitate
orders financial incentives who you haven't heard
anything about this and i realized last night
actually this morning after reviewing my video from yesterday which is just
an absolute jog or not of a video i realized that there's one thing
there's one thing that they accomplish with this
one really weird thing that they accomplish here
with this thing that they always do it they always do the same thing
they always say that the root cause the justification
for the vaccines is the virus
that's so not right but they say it all the time
actually christine massy said it that why do you why do you
perpetuate the the core narrative upon which
the justification for these for everything is based all the lockdowns
everything is based on the virus no no it's not
it's actually based on people following orders
people being scared people being made to be frightened made
to use these things and made to believe that this were that these were the
choices don't use antibiotics steroids don't really work
make sure that you realize that nobody needs to be resuscitated if you pick
them up and if you go to their house with an ambulance
make sure you use medazalam on those old people in the uk
and make sure you keep giving remdesivir to everybody and don't worry it doesn't
hurt them at all none of the none of the
potential decline in the well-being of your patients could possibly be due to
the administration of remdesivir and alic
zak in america this is one of the biggest plays there was
another really huge thing is the opioid epidemic right
nobody's ever going to mention that in this video either not even once that just
say that some of those deaths might be used to pad the
covid numbers why not say all of them
are we in such a state of normalization of the
opioid epidemic that they don't count as excess deaths
seriously are they already part of the average
because i think when people are 40 years old and they die of a acute
overdose of a of a pharmaceutical grade opioid that that's that's pretty
significant and that's not really something that we should be including
in our normal statistics which is really what jessica hockett is
is really
is the point that she's making when she says she doesn't like all-cause
mortality because all-cause mortality is a mathematical model
mathematical projection of a pattern and the more
data you feed to it in theory the better the prediction can become but it is
still in a lot of ways all-cause mortality tends to
let's say normalize i guess that's the best word it normalizes
let's say unnecessary causes of death
you know all the
all the ways that young adults die all the ways that
that that people die in an unintentional way now if you throw
in something like opioids where the street is flooded with them
and all of these vulnerable people are vulnerable to them
and those people were not expected to die but now year-on-year they are dying
if you feed the last five years into that model and make a projection of all
cause mortality essentially all those opioid deaths every year start to
become part of the average and only those opioid deaths which clear that
all-cause mortality prediction become excess deaths
and so it can be used to their advantage of course
just like the predictions of the model can be of the model of
viral spread was used to their advantage and they just said that you know these
are the worst case scenarios and we've got to avoid them and look we avoided
them
but i want you to notice this because i would be willing to bet that we can
leave this they'll just leave this list here
and we'll put little tally marks every time they mention anything we could
even just go we could just use the word protocol
they can just mention protocols and that would already be good what else
should we have here on this list that they're never going to touch
in in an hour and 20 minute interview they're never going to touch any of this
and so what they're doing is essentially trying to make the inverted or the
i don't know if it's an inverted argument but it's an incorrect argument
that the idea of the novel virus and it that it was isolated and that it was
purified is the reason why we have all these pandemic measures all these
things happened and what they're lying about and why the shot is coming out
that is that is wrong the reason why we got away with this is because of all
of these things right here
all of these things that caused the excess deaths during 2020 and 2021
that then was misconstrued as a spreading pathogen instead of spreading bad ideas
and so the bad idea is not the pathogen well maybe it is in a way
but you need to explain the ramifications of that and not focus at all costs and in a lot of ways
you know the the martin guy makes some some pertinent arguments but it's not like how michael
yead makes the pertinent argument where you can just say you know i'm not smart enough
and i don't have access to the kind of laboratory procedures that are necessary to really get down
to the nitty gritty about whether or not there are really viruses or not or what's there at that
size scale but i know that these things happened and these things allowed people to lie about the
existence of a pandemic that's what i know and that's what i know they don't ever say that's what i know
they'd never say they just don't say this stuff they don't say that there was no evidence
why don't they say there was no evidence of spread how come that doesn't ever come out of their
mouths let's go let's listen it's got to be better right it's got to be better
going all the way back to pestor who falsified his own data on his anthrax vaccine so let's
be abundantly clear even when we started falling vaccines vaccines we were lying then so we're
still lying now but the issue is actually on his a dozen definitions for vaccine and by the way
none of them going all the way back to pestor who falsified his own data on his anthrax vaccine
so let's be abundantly clear even when we started falling vaccines vaccines we were lying then so
we're still lying now but the issue is actually one where historical relevance and the language
definition is simple. If what I'm saying is that I have taken a fragment of a living
system, ricin, as a wonderful example, it's plant-derived, right? There's nothing about
ricin that is harmful to humans when it's in long pods hanging from trees. But I can
take something from those long pods, I can synthesize it, I can purify it, I can spray
it into a subway system, and I can kill people. That is a biological weapon. That is a weapon
derived from biology.
Great. And with respect to viruses, though, you're saying that there's not sufficient
proof that they exist as entities, yet, as an example in your speech of the European
Parliament, you said, and I quote, we've been engineering this pathogen for 56 years in
1966. The very first model was used as a transatlantic biological experiment. SARS-1
O3 came from a laboratory in Chapel Hill, infectious replication, defective clone of
a coronavirus, et cetera, et cetera. So how do we wrestle with you first saying that
there's no proof of these things?
And this is the point, Alec, and this is why I said that, you know, the last time this
conversation meaningfully took place, probably, was somewhere between...
And the bill, the 1660, proved that they exist as entities, yet, as an example in your
speech of the European Parliament, you said, and I quote, we've been engineering this pathogen
for 56 years in 1966. The very first model was used as a transatlantic biological experiment.
SARS-1 O3 came from a laboratory in Chapel Hill, an infectious replication, defective
clone.
Okay.
I think you heard it right that one's this one right infectious replication defective
clone I think is what was just said there so apparently that's something that
he said in the parliament at some point I'm just gonna play it again one more
time to make sure that we heard it right
a clone of a coronavirus etcetera so how logical do viruses that is a
biological weapon that is a weapon derived from biology great and with
respect to viruses though you're here saying that there's not sufficient proof
that they exist as entities yet as an example in your speech the European
parliament you said and I quote we've been engineering this pathogen for
fifty-six years in 1966 the very first model was used as a trained biological
experiment SARS-1-03 came from a laboratory in Chapel Hill that's
a infectious replication defective clone of a coronavirus etcetera etcetera so
how do we wrestle with you first saying that there's no proof of these things
and this is this is the point I like and this is why I said that you know the
last time this conversation meaningfully took place probably was somewhere
between the Council of Nicene and the Council of Kaldia in the fourth and
fifth centuries that the problem that you have in this conversation is we're
not having a conversation about apples and apples what I'm referring to
there is I'm using the terms associated with the documents that I'm reciting
that is not David Martin's position that is actually the reported document that
is no different from saying that I'm actually quoting 18 us but you say we
would say we which is implying that you are a part of that which is implying
that it's not that's a colloquial we we are responsible as a human race for
allowing things to happen you just described the fact that you served in
the military I would know more suggest to you that as a member of the military
you are the we collectively which in fact are there's a shitload of things
that are done by the military that I have nothing but contempt and have
absolute reprehensible its sensitivities around but if I actually said we I mean
that as a nation we fund and we support a military that has been used sometimes
for very beneficial purpose and sometimes for horrible purposes and the
collective we is a statement of accountability which all of us are
responsible for every single person who funded NIH that's every taxpayer in
America paid for the weaponization of nature when you when you say that though
what do you mean by weaponization of nature as as an example very simple let
me finish real quick as an example I've done a deep dive as a doctor's Tom
Cowan doctor Andy Kauffman doctor Amanda Volmer doctors Martin Sam Bailey
Dr. Stefanos Koglio and several others into the so-called gain of function
experiments and they're based in again unproven pseudoscientific presuppositions
using models whether so you agree that there's not sufficient proof that they're
actually weaponizing a virus so purification of an agent of harm or
death is in fact a weaponization as defined by 18 us code yeah but what is
I'm not saying and this is the trap that Tom Cowan and others get into and
Tom Cowan took this cute little pot shot but once again has zero integrity in
having an honest conversation about what this is about I'm having an honest
conversation with you right now it's a very simple conversation and the
conversation is this if you derive a synthetic process stimulated by a
chemical you found in a naturally occurring phenomenon that synthesis
chemical on the ceiling or meaning the nucleic acids plated by honest into and
Tom Cowan took this cute little pot shot but once again has zero integrity in
having an honest conversation about what this is about this is having an
honest conversation with you right now it's a very simple conversation and the
conversation is this if you derive a synthetic process stimulated by a
chemical you found in a naturally occurring phenomenon that synthesis
chemical on the ceiling or meaning the nucleic acids well as series that are
that are that are known as by itself is the issue it's the assembly of a model
of nucleic acid symbol a molecule that form a molecule that is in fact pathogenic
the molecule is pathogenic in so far as we know from the gain of function
research that was done we know that you can take open reading frames which is
just another name for a molecule you can put that molecule into a living system
and you can create with that molecule a inflammation of a living system does
that mean that it has the ability to replicate no it doesn't as a matter
fact they patented replication defectivity because they knew it wouldn't
replicate so the issue is a very simple one if you read the exact nature of the
study particularly the ones from 1999 to 2002 what you have is a very clear
piece of evidence it says molecules sampled and then modified by humans turned
into a thing that was pro-inflammatory and created in the case of rabbits
cardiomyopathy and rabbits when we look at these experiments though David as an
example for during the end of covid doctors Mark and Sam Bailey go into
extensive details on exactly what happened with ferrets and so-called
gain of function experiments and it's just a series of passages and then
grinding up nasal tissue from a ferret and injecting it into another ferret
and then finding sequences that are different and claiming ah this is proof
of a of a weaponized and a more lethal more pathogenic and a slightly altered
variant of a virus and those are the things that see this is where this is
where the problem is gain a function is a term that has been highly highly
misrepresented from the standpoint of two different parts of this conversation
one is the idea that we're going to create this hyper virulent thing okay so
we talk about that in i have to get infections in hospitals that some
are another whether it's mrsa whether it's cmv whether it's any of these
things which are allegedly going to be amplified by the use of various types
of drugs or antibiotics we're creating what we call superbugs okay so there's a
theory there's a class of study that says that by intervention with one or
more therapeutic agents we are amplifying the pathogenicity of something
and that's a pathogenicity that that words have meaning here what do you
know that's what i'm saying there's a whole school of thought that's talking
about this amplification effect that's a very very there's tons and tons and
tons of research on this idea that somehow another by treating one thing
you're amplifying the virulence or pathogenicity of another
yeah what are you referring to because you've often spoke about these things
as if they are well established now Alec what i and this is you know listen
my role in this entire program just like my role in doing bioweapons
inspections in 2003 and 2005 and other times for the united states government
my role is really simple my job is to actually publicly bring light to
facts that stand in controversy to the official narrative
the official narrative and the facts that are presented by me
are the point not what those facts are the facts are that scientific
publications stated that there was the development of a pathogen
now i'm not saying there was or was not i'm simply saying that if you're going
to pretend like this thing mysteriously came out of a wuhan wet market
and in 2016 you actually say the same thing was isolated and prepared for
human deployment you cannot say those two things and get away with it
my role and my very public role in this situation has been to restrain from
stating my opinion ever my opinion is not known by you
or by anyone else for a simple reason it is because my opinion has not been
asked for and i have not offered it what i have done is i've supplied evidence
to say that the official narrative is falsifiable
by their own record so with that though do you think that um
here let me let me frame this in the best way that i can
if the facts are coming from a place of completely of being completely
unproven if there's a legit facts are coming from a place of being completely
unproven why is it not um important to raise awareness to the reality that
there's actually because because you're unwilling just like everybody else is
unwilling to actually question the fundamental problem that's not true
DNA I question it all the time no i'm saying i'm saying causality you
use you have written and posted frequently about causality
and i actually challenge causality at it's fundamental i'm the only person
you've ever heard talking about 1663 gothary leavens until this
presentation you didn't even know about it you don't know about the fact that
the heresy goes back to the schism that actually set apart the
eastern orthotics church whether jesus was one being or two being the
act of the matter is we can go back and i do this by the way
because part of the thing that i do in the presentations that i make all over
the world i'm willing to go back and i'm willing to challenge
every single foundational assumption and ask the question
have we considered the implication of that particular
underlying assumption can you step step back for a moment and just go okay what's
the assumption behind that don't i have you have you questioned the
the implication of the underlying assumption that there is a pathogenic
disease-causing particle being passed from person to person publicly
absolutely i've done it many many times in fact i've got a years worth of
videos doing that in fact i said that at the very beginning my first video was
this was actually a disease of numbers not a disease of anything
this was a propaganda warfare my engagement with the propaganda warfare
was to show that the propagandists themselves had their own falsifiable
evidence and the public wasn't talking about it so my role in this was not to
discuss the merits of science because there has not been science
listen very carefully there has not been science in the united states since
1798
yeah i agree with that but it also depends on what you classify as science because
no it doesn't because science it does it's very nature
no science by its very nature is the thoughtful introspection of observation
that becomes serialized to start deriving generalized conclusions
it is not and it never will be the promulgation of a dogma such that it
supports an industrial complex and since 1798
every single thing that has been branded science
and by the way i could go back earlier because technically in 1663 the charter
in london that established the royal academy linked the pursuit of science
to the pursuit of colonial industry so i could go back to 1663 and say that
that's where it got hijacked but 1798 in the united states when
thomas jefferson was cowed into this idea that we were going to use
intellectual property as the basis for our economic hegemony in the united
states and the formation of the patent system that decision
hijack science permanently in the united states
yeah when i talk about science i'm saying the study of natural phenomena
and the natural science we would vigorously agree on that point
and natural science tries to explain and predict nature's phenomena based on
independence and that would be employing the scientific method
and the scientific method is attempting to determine what is an interesting
statement that he made there that's in 1798 and the establishment of the
patent system um things have been screwed up
as an interesting statement for him to make and you know that he does work
in some respects on intellectual property according to his long resume
um it is just really extraordinary all of us is responsible for the
weaponization of nature is actually something that he said quite strongly
uh a few minutes ago um so entire america is to blame all of the
western countries are to blame for the existence of this virus
it's a pretty bold statement it's a very bold statement
um replication and competence was patented i don't know about that it would
be great if anybody in the audience wants to be a
hussluth and look that up um or maybe ask david martin about that what what he
means by that i know that robert uh sorry uh
brough barrick has had a number of papers talking about the um t r s
regions of the sub-genomic RNAs which are basically these
well they're these places where the if you get rid of this uh
this little place then uh recombination can occur
and so you can remove those little heads on the sub sub-genomic RNAs so that
the RNA polymerase can't find them anymore
and so then actually you can't get recombination
and this explanation is really interesting because it kind of
suggests an alternative molecular mechanism by which recombination would
occur in a coronavirus and it kind of suggests that the sub-genomic
RNAs can contribute to recombination which is of course
one of the many ways you can get it in competent particle in their cartoons
um so if we just accept some of this stuff as much as we can
um he talks about gain of function and then he tells a really long drawn out
story about how this has to do with iatrogenic infections
and treating those in a hospital and how they can generate
evermore pathogenic pathogens which is kind of funny because
again he's he's very good at wrestling with this guy and and and
making statements which Alec is almost like okay i agree with that i
well he is i agree with that i agree with that i accept that
okay that's fine and so in a lot of ways where he's
trying to catch him um david is able to just kind of sidestep and say that well
i've never given you my opinion and i'm fighting from a legal perspective and
so i don't care about science and i don't have a hypothesis
and wow isn't that a really interesting statement
very similar to what we heard last night about not having a
hypothesis but just refuting one and so if
Alec is also really at this stage where he's just refuting a hypothesis
and that's what makes it so easy for david martin to just dance with him
he can give him an affirmative answer and then and then talk his way out of it
in the next ten sentences and so he's managed to put down a lot of the
a lot of the narrative right the idea of gain of function has an all but
at albin question. Alec tried to question it but then
david martin steamer old him as far as i can tell he almost made him agree that
that's that's what's happening
it's pretty extraordinary really i find him to be quite uh
quite an interesting uh character in the show is the cause of an observed natural
comments and that's where you that's where you and i would have a
disagreement because i don't think we're ever looking at causes what we're
trying to do is understand the interaction between systems
causality is always going to be a dangerous slope that i will refuse to get on
simply because causality is the ultimate hubris
of humanity we think that we understand multi-dimensional
agree that we have no clue at the so so the idea that the scientific method
has to then have its natural reduction to causality i think is
absolute horseshit well i mean that is the scientific
method though it's a well it's not what it is
it's a bastardization of an industrial scientific
method i agree but it is not what the scientific method is
the scientific method is a series of observations so for example i'll give
you an actual example of this for many many many years
we have used hepatocytes to do drug toxicity studies
and the bummer is that liver cells outside of the human body die quickly
and so a biological engineer in the university of Virginia came up with
that idea that maybe we don't understand hepatocytes very well
and that was a good observation he was just making a hypothesis we don't
understand hepatocytes so what he said was hey maybe if what we do is we wash
those hepatocytes with a natural flow that mimics blood flow we would get a
different response from those cells not surprisingly
by mirroring the conditions in which hepatocytes naturally live
what happened was the company hemosteer which is a company here in charlesville
figured out how to keep hepatocytes alive now that's a really important thing
but the guy who actually came up with the idea was a biomedical engineer
and his entire proposition was around shear forces his theory which by the way
there was a lot of merit in his theory was that the actual
pulsatile flow across a cell stimulated something in the cell that mimicked
the pulse of the heartbeat great theory and he was right
by pulsing the medium across the cells he was able to get hepatocytes to keep
growing but he wasn't looking at the electrical charge
of red blood cells now if you've ever taken multivariate
statistics which i used to teach what you find is that there's an interesting
problem you can have a perfect model once again drawn out of this regression
causality question and you can conclude oh my gosh
he was right the shear force of the flow across the membrane of the cell was the
reason why hepatocytes lived and if he stopped asking the question
he would have causally concluded a right answer
if by definition of right we mean could we get hepatocytes to keep living
but i said hold on a minute doesn't blood as it flows across the cell
have charged particles and isn't their electromagnetic field that's created
by the pulsing of blood across the same membrane
and it turns out that if you actually put a charged particle across there
you also found out hepatocytes grew now what's the point
the point is through the lens of a biomedical engineer
he actually did science did the scientific method and concluded
correctly if by definition of concluded correctly we mean we got
hepatocytes to grow he was right but here's the problem he had never asked
the question is there a charge particle is there an
emp or an emf element to the exact same phenomenon it turns out
that that was also correct and here's where causality fails
causality is only as good as the length of time we stay at the question
because we will get to the place where we're pretty damn convinced we figured
it out and then what we'll do is we'll reify that into dogma
and then we'll build businesses around it and we'll build all kinds of other
things around it and god help us if somebody comes along and says
maybe it was shear force maybe it was electrical yeah i don't disagree with
anything that you said there i don't know that's what i'm saying that's the
problem the problem is that the minute we go to the regression
end which is we now have causality we have blinded
ourselves for sure so let me interrupt real quick though to ask a very direct
question when you say that there is a biological weapon
yes and you're now saying that you don't think there is a biological weapon or
do i don't know i didn't say that there's actually a biological weapon it is a
biologically derived toxin okay so okay so what is the application of this
biological weapon according to you then the application is injected into people
it is actually a pro-inflammatory pro-oncologic trigger
to actually harm so the biological weapon is coming in the form of injection
that's correct okay so is there okay okay i don't disagree with that is there
a biological weapon that is being spread from now person to person
never has been never has been okay oh i think we can agree on that okay
so david then my question is um given what you just stated there don't you
think it's important to clarify that publicly because here's my problem
listen i went up to capital hill and i sat down with senator ron johnson
who at the time was the only senator who was even willing to consider that
maybe there was a potential that there was a crime being committed
this is very very very very important
i sat with my wife in ron johnson's conference room
and i laid out the entire evidence that this was a racketeering crime
there's no question about it it is and by the way that's not an allegation
that's their own admission they have admitted that this was a racketeering
crime the fact is that every single piece of the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act have been violated there is no question about what i just said
not zero that is an open and shut case and ron johnson and his staff produced a
series of graphs that said look these are excess deaths
i said based on what and he said well the cdc says that these are excess
deaths i said i understand that that's what the cdc says
i said but did you read the footnote by the way i'm answering your question
did you read the footnote under the graph this is not did you go in a deep
exploration of statistics did you read the footnote under the graph
no did any of the staff read the footnote under the graph
no and here's the problem allak in an ideal world you and i would vigorously
be on the same page wouldn't be a great to have a symposium where we actually
beat people senseless around the stupidity of regression
which by the way every person learned in ninth grade
wouldn't be great if we actually realized that the eight and a half by eleven
sheet of paper that you have in front of you with your notes on it
wouldn't it be great to know that that was a Pythagorean ideal that was a
constant blinding of the optic nerve so that we actually have to see the
irrational proportion of eight and a half by eleven so that we can never
actually understand the printed word on a page wouldn't be great to go back and
realize that the paper cabal figured out how to constrain what we think
our knowledge is wouldn't be great to realize that in the 1440s when
they arrested the printing press we actually put
sharp metallic objects into the black ink so that we could blind the optic
nerve to be able to read with greater fatigue so we read less instead of
red more because vellum and red here's the problem allak if we're
serious about the question you're asking then the answer is you're damn straight
i'd love to go back and do that but you know how many people pay attention
you know how many people pay attention to the untested hypothesis
that comes from hey why did we have asymptomatic spread well we had asymptomatic
spread because we have original sin i don't know i don't think i like that
person david let me interrupt it let me interrupt i've had several people in
the comments saying that you're not really letting me talk and i'd appreciate
you letting me talk so i'll i'll say you're just a
david symptomatic spread well we had asymptomatic spread because we have
original sin i have original sin i don't know if it's great i like i'll be
first in david let me interrupt it let me interrupt
original sin and we had asymptomatic spread because we had original sin
what is that what is that instead of red more because vellum and red here's the
problem allak if we're serious about the question you're asking
then the answer is you're damn straight i'd love to go back and do that but you
know how many people pay attention you know how many people pay attention to
the untested hypothesis that comes from hey why did we have asymptomatic spread
well we had asymptomatic spread because we have original sin
i have original sin i don't know i disagree i like that but first in
david let me interrupt it let me interrupt i've had several people in the
comments saying that you're not really letting me talk and i'd appreciate
you letting me talk so i'll say you're asking you're asking question you're
getting the answer and that's the problem what's the problem
the question and the answer is not a soundbite
and that's where the problem is your own listeners are proving the point
in what respect because i'm actually asking the direct question you are
going to answer the fundamental asymptomatic questions
that are the reason why we are blinded into the belief of pandemics
and pathogens then you have to go back to some roots that none of us but then
why do you talk to with okay time out then why do you talk about them as if
they are well established concrete things when you don't i simply don't operate
no i'm simply offering the evidence that the propaganda was a lie
the evidence that the propaganda was a lie but the evidence of the propaganda
was a lie extends to there is no proof you're talking about falsifying
their unproven hypothesis and i'm not i'm talking about falsifying
their narrative and those are the two different things that is the subtlety
we're missing okay so what's the difference between falsifying their
narrative and falsifying the idea that there is a microscopic
submicroscopic intracellular parasite that is being passed from person the
person causing that's a very simple that's a very simple question
there is no crime in having a wrong thought
there is a crime in having a wrong act and the difference between your
conversation and questions and my reality is i am focused on defining and
holding accountable the crime the crime is an act where you have the evidence
of a thing and then you lie to the public and you seduce the public in your
course the public into taking something that is meant to harm and destroy them
that is a criminal act it is not a crime to think wrong
it is a crime to do wrong yeah so my response to that would be
David if there is no proof of the alleged cause necessitating the need for any
of the health measures that were implemented over the last three and a
half years don't you think it's important to highlight the fact that
there was no proof of the alleged cause in the first place
but we just got through saying it you see
we just got through saying it that the cdc's answer was look at these excess
deaths and so neither one of these super geniuses can figure out where those
excess deaths came from or what the cdc is doing to generate them
they can't come up with the idea that killing people with opioids
could create excess deaths that could be called excess deaths
that's all you need are excess deaths they just told you the answer
it doesn't matter where they came from because nobody's connecting the two
nobody's doing what john bodeman is doing nobody's trying to do what jessica
hocket is doing nobody's trying to connect
the excess deaths numbers to the excess bodies
20,000 people dying in new york city in four weeks
at 150 pounds a body is 3 million pounds of human meat that needs a disposal
where the hell did that go how many freezer trucks is that
none of these people are trying to do that math none of these these two guys
are thinking at all about
remdesivir medazalam ventilators antibiotic steroid misuse
do not resuscitate orders financial incentives to
rework death certificates opioid deaths they've never mentioned protocols and
they've never they've said no evidence of spread
so that's nice no evidence of a spreading pathogen
but the overarching theme of these no virus people is very specific because
massy said it the other day on that video which was much older than this one
that the the foundation of this underlying whole fiasco is the virus and the fact that
they claim to have isolated or purified it or sequenced it
and that is not the foundation of the narrative
the foundation of the narrative is the people were murdered and those people
are called excess deaths and that excess deaths is called evidence of a new
cause of death
and so where they got the numbers to shuffle is super important like
it is actually the way that they justified the shot
the bio weapon whatever you want to call it
the transfections are being justified because of the excess deaths
not because of the story of the virus the excess deaths are being explained
by the story of the virus but without those excess deaths the story of the
virus would be nothing without the excess deaths the story of the virus
would be nothing
and so that's the magic of the no virus position
that's where you see that they're broke because how long are we into this
video already we are we are 41 minutes into their
discussion and they have never used the words anything about protocols
nothing about PCR nothing i mean come on
you might say to yourself yeah but Alec knows all of that stuff but he's not
saying it he's letting this guy talk about
about 1963 and 1798 and and 1963 Royal Academy and
and all of us are responsible for the weaponization of nature
i guess that's including Alec um 1663 the causation is when somebody
wrote some thesis about modern regression and that's how we got into
causation is he gonna say that you can't know
anything now because that's the foundation of broken
science is that you can't know anything because p values never tell you
anything and you just have to keep asking questions over and over
nothing can ever be known for sure that's the broken science part that we
can never learn anything and move forward
and these two guys are clowning exactly that line
only on a more philosophical note there's no DNA
everything's a lie i don't believe anything anymore
i can i ride a bike but i don't believe i can balance i don't i don't believe
it's happening i've already done that i that's my first video that i did
publicly what did you say in that video that this was a
statistics game of terror and the promulgation of terror
no i'm saying literally no no there was no sars there was no covid 19 i said
it very clearly you said that there is no sars covid
two for yep and i said there's no covid 19 very clear
okay so then david i mean i'm just asking direct questions based on
your own public statements so yeah but that's the problem out of context i
can find a thing that i can say and go well you said this on one day put it
in context and you will not okay so what is what is the context in of saying
it uh this is during your speech the european part of the coronavirus as a
model of a pathogen was isolated and as a model of a pathogen don't jump over
that don't jump over that okay but but when you say that you're
unpalented and that's exactly what this conversation does i said as a model of
a pathogen does that mean that david martin said it was a virus no does it
mean that david martin exists says it exists no do you think it's important to
publicly clarify what the model means then though david because most people
who are not understanding of the lack of validity of virology are going to hear
you say model and it's going to completely go over their head
so that's right the reason why precision he's right is right is right i am very
precise and what i do i do with great care
and when i say as a model of a pathogen that is no different from me saying
that in 1953 watson and krick developed a model of dna
dna does not exist i don't disagree with that it doesn't i don't disagree
i know you don't that's why we're vigorously agreement alex the reason
we're having this conversation is to show the fact that we have to be
actually precise david precise one over model as though that's not in my
sentence david but when we're talking about being
precise there's a reason that a number of people hold your
statements to be conflicting and confusing so being precise they're not
actually reading my statements they're reading your opinion of my state no
i'm talking about literally listening to your statements which was the whole
point of me bringing you on here i'm trying to get clarity and i do have a
little bit more clarity that you don't think that there is a thing
spreading from person to person that's i appreciate that this is this is the
point i never suggested that there was one david my point is though that when
we're talking you're saying that it's important to be precise correct i
agree with you so then let's stick to the precision
of what i said david your public statements are confusing david oh they're not if you
listen to them they're not if you read my material they're not
david i've i watched no less than six videos of yours and there are several
documents you didn't watch okay david but when people do you expect that
everyone needs to watch all of your videos in a way because i build on a
theme i don't agree with that but also clarify
what you mean by saying model okay well i can make that very simple the model
is a very simple thing we actually have under what's called the general
atomic theory we have a model that says a proton and a neutron form the basis of
what we call a nucleus around which electrons oh my gosh that is bullshit
i have a whole business that is actually proof that that doesn't exist
but the whole world assumes that atomic matter is somehow the building block
of everything okay totally there are no atoms there never
have been in the never will be there's no i would say there's no proof of them
but yes i'm sorry i would say there's no proof of them but yes
like no fair no they don't exist we have a construct
that says in a phase of an observation we think we see energy organized in a
particular way but an atom is no different from Santa Claus
no different i can give you the conditions under which you can observe
it and i can also give you the conditions under which you can observe it
so the whole reason why we have quantum theory is because we were wrong about
atoms we were wrong that's just that simple so we have a whole mathematics
to justify the preservation of a wrong model
the model of an atom then gives rise to the model model
of a thing that we call a nucleic acid now nucleic acids do not exist
they actually are representations of charged energy that actually
finds itself bound into in phases a phase condition that assembles into a
particular form wow but if we actually went and said
does guanine look like it's purple and cytosine look like it's green and does
urusil look like it's yellow and does whatever
you know what make up your own silly stories i got a i got a
i got a compliment allic like uh
the stupid the stupid complicated is being rolled out and weaponized right
before our eyes like it's spectacular
our model of atoms is incomplete and imperfect
therefore atoms don't exist and since atoms make up nucleic acids nucleic
acids don't exist and then he proceeds to tell us what nucleic acids really are
but they don't exist so our models because they're
imperfect mean that the whole concept doesn't exist
and that's exactly where the the virus no virus argument has been weaponized
because we know that there are signals at this
size scale we know that tissues communicate with each other
we know this we know it we just also know that it's very
exceedingly difficult to study that size scale to study those molecules
it's very difficult but we can just assume and if you listen to the good
parts of a meta a meta biota lecture from nathan wolf around
2011 you can hear him describe this plethora
of genetic noise that's found at this size scale
and how he wanted to explore it for new forms of life new forms of pathogens
new viruses that was the whole basis for meta biota's
existence is this mythology that in this size scale
exists pathogens rather than genetic noise
from all of the living things on earth that all use
DNA RNA and proteins to exist that are all pattern
integrity based on DNA RNA and protein as best we can tell
our best is our imperfect models can describe
we are all pattern integrity made of DNA RNA and proteins
in concert in constant flux and the intersection of
electrostatic energy
and viruses are not those things viruses are not patterned
integrity and so they can't behave like them
they can't do the things that they've been attributed to having done
and so david martin very deftly agrees very deftly dodges the main
thing which is what have you been doing for the last three years
four years five years then what are you up to with all these
pattern talks and stuff like it's it's because
he hides behind this legal thing
and he's hiding behind the fact that they can make quantities of this stuff
and they can make people sick
and so again if you spend an hour talking about the virus and whether
there was a virus and whether there's a replicating pathogen or not
you never talk about remdesivir madazalam the proto calls the lack of
antibiotics the misuse of steroids opioid epidemic and all the other ways
and that the excess deaths were generated so that the cdc could justify
the ends
and the disingenuous argument that the no virus people have been making is that
the pandemic measures were justified based on pcr tests
were justified based on sequences and were justified based on
on asymptomatic transmission that's wrong
they were justified based on the event that jessica hockett has been
investigating for the last year and a half or two years now
the mass casualty event in new york city the mass casualty event that happened
in northern italy the mass casualty event in spain
and in parts of china and in iran
wake up ladies and gentlemen that is the way that they justified this
and they justified it by creating the bodies that they needed
not by sequencing sahomish county man
not by doing drive-through pcr by the 25 000 people per day that
is all secondary to the fact that they needed to murder people
and they did so that they would have something to point to
to say there's the excess deaths
think about this very carefully what i'm saying because these last two days
videos this is not a very good video it's kind of boring it's kind of
extraordinarily boring
but the conclusion that you can come to with the parallels between what we're
hearing in this video and what we heard yesterday and that brief little
diatribe by the two people on medical doctors for covid ethics
international that we're questioning mary holland we hear the same thing
we don't have a hypothesis we're just refuting one
and they think that the the primary reason why all this happened is because
people claim to have sequenced purified had isolated rather and purified a
virus and that's wrong the reason why this happened is because
excess deaths occurred and those excess deaths were misconstrued as
evidence of a pathogen and they use the molecular biology to
to convince everybody that that's indeed what happened
but they needed the excess deaths not the pcr's not the sequences
not the culturing they needed the excess deaths understand that
if they just would have said a mysterious ammonia is just spreading
and pneumonia is spreading around the united states and all these people
died it would be just fine and it would have worked just as
well
but maybe they wouldn't have been able to generate the panic that they needed
in order to get all these dumb things to happen
these murders to occur but we're still not there
alice still not mentioned one person that was killed by the protocols that
weren't necessary still hasn't mentioned one detail about
those protocols on any continent still hasn't mentioned all the other ways
that in his own country of america
the excess deaths were generated
definitely not limited to remdesivir not limited to ventilators
not limited to misuse or lack of use of antibiotics
not limited to old folks homes being riddled with people that are having
pneumonia untreated not and not limited to
the opioid epidemic but including all of those and more
smash mouth we're not stopping anymore this is done
your own little boxes that look like lego sets and then go look this is what it
looks like well no it doesn't and that's never been what it looks like
we have no frickin clue what it looks like because it doesn't exist
so now we get to the we have a model of dna now how did we get the model of
dna we got the model from an x-ray crystallography that actually showed a
quadri helix not a double helix system so figure that one and the process time
out the process for x-ray crystallography itself is riddled with
endless unproven assumptions so so so find the myriad of ways in which
we think that we have and then we took that by the way and we stole it from the
people who actually did it and then we were awarded the Nobel prize to the
guys that didn't really do it so setting all of that aside what i mean by
model is this a model like a belief system
no different model belief system i would totally agree that
model is nothing more than the reification of a belief system that is
asked to be unquestioned totally agree with that
totally agree you could substitute the word dogma
and it would be the same thing
you can substitute the word belief and it would be the same thing
you could substitute the word religion and it would be the same thing
every single one of those things is when you are told by a person and authority
stop asking a question so what i mean by model
substitute belief substitute dogma substitute religion substitute anything
you want is nothing more than the fact that we are told not to ask a question
because the model can't be questioned just like the belief can't be questioned just like
religion can't be questioned and the fact of the matter is anything that is too weak to stand
against questioning is not worth the human's effort and i got last part one more time anything
you put next to it whether you think it's science whether you think it's religion whether you think
it's faith if it can't be questioned it's not worth the brain power that you apply to it yeah but then
if it is an unproven unfounded belief system do you think it's important to question that belief system
especially why not let me finish let me finish yeah yeah no that's good it's a great question yeah
yes because i i've said this before on my show i have no problem with people having beliefs i
believe so many of which are completely unproven i recognize that but the point is when there is a
belief system that is not rooted in uh repeatable and observable yeah incidents in reality this is
this is a model this is a belief system that has no basis has no merit an actual whether it be
scientific or just observational experiences yeah and then it is then weaponized upon the
entire human population i think it is imperative that we attack the root of that belief system and
attacking the root of that belief system here because david i don't think you disagree with this
everything that has happened over the last three and a half years much of what underpins
allopathic medicine literally dethings that underpin all of the vaccine program around the world
is this completely pseudoscientific unproven idea that not only diseases passed via the flue
of a sick person but there are these obligate intracellular parasites that exist that replicate
inside of a hostel and it's important i think to shed light on that because that would then say
all of these measures are completely fraudulent and as we have in in germany a man by the name
of marvin haban used exactly what i'm describing here to win in court in germany showing that there
is no proof of the alleged cause necessitating the need for these health measures and they let him
off so this idea that we have to argue on their playing field in order to win is just not true
we can show that there's no proof of the alleged thing and necessitating the need for any of this
and and this is where it's probably helpful for you and your audience to know my bias which comes
from my lived experience okay i grew up in a very very austere religious environment
very austere and i was rejected from that environment as a heretic
i actually have physical and lifetimes of damage done to me for actually doing exactly what you said
why don't you just go ahead and and go after the the fundamental belief and and tip the whole
thing over we know what i've spent my life doing that i did that in the conflict regions of both
the pacific and african i've done that a lot of places around the world and i have physical
scars on my body for doing that that's fair okay so i'll tell you what i'm not going to do
i'm not going to repeat something that i've done for a lifetime and found out that doing
that thing for lifetime actually caused me physical and psychological harm that i do not have any
chance of recovering from now and when i say recovery i'm not saying that i need to recover
from it it's part of my life i know what it's like to actually have physical harm done to my physical
being because of a belief system i grew up that way i know what that's like and i'm not suggesting
for a moment else it sounds like he was abused as a kid or something and i can't really tell what
he's saying um he grew up at a very religious family and the family rejected him so does he
not talk to his brother that works at the cdc anymore i'm not really it's a recent interview
it's from july of this year not that reason like and by the way i applaud you i applaud tom i applaud
you know a ton of people who are actually saying hey our mission right now is to shine a light on
these other issues that's fine and guess what you know what i've never done i have never once
told somebody to not do what they were called to do but let me be abundantly clear on what i
am doing what i am doing is i am showing that in this case of the domestic and now international
terrorism resulting in the death of american citizens and citizens in the world that a group of
people conspired through a criminal conspiracy conspired to violate the anti-trust laws of the
united states and anti-trust laws of the world and it conspired to create an act of global terrorism
for the sole purpose of administering what was going to be a toxin into the arms of billions
of people for the sole purpose of their self enrichment and for the sole purpose of them obtaining
control for which they have done nothing but terrorize the population to acquire and my mission was
singular and is that that does not deprive you or tom or anyone else of the mission that i
equally think is important however that's very clear i would say very clearly is if you are going
to pick on the question of terrain versus pathogen or whatever you decide you're pick on
then have the integrity of asking the question all the way back to the beginning
because we have at a fundamental human problem right now this notion that somehow
another even in tom's terrain theory bullshit we've got another problem which is he's not testing
the assumption that goes back to we still have a fundamental picture of humans where we have
not done a good job of defining how we're going to emancipate ourselves from this question of
causality i gotta stop you there because i talk with tom on a weekly basis and that's not true
well if you read his material including his book he actually goes into causations all through his
book and he's not i don't see him questioning why equals mx plus b in any of the things he does
and what i'm saying is if you're going to question the fundamentals then question all of them
tom absolutely question i can't express how ridiculous it is that he is saying
that if you're going to question the the tenets of reality then you got to go all the way back to our
the notion that we can find causality or identify it and also throw that out so he wants you to accept
a notion that you can know nothing there's no useful knowledge you cannot make progression
in knowing which is essentially what has broken science
you can say it's p values and it's the use of p values to to prove things or to say that things
are real or to see a significant difference but in the end what it's really about
is this idea that we need to keep doing experiments because we never really learn anything from the
experiments now it's true the way that we do experiments in reductionist biology and we design
experiments with p values and then we use those p values as significant building blocks in our
theories that is an incorrect way to build understanding
but to say that we can't and we don't understand causality in reality in physics
in chemistry and that that causality at that level of understanding is not useful even if
the level of our understanding is incomplete even if we don't understand what atoms are we know a
lot about how chemistry works and we know a lot about how reactions will occur and those are
foundations of understanding that are lying are that exist within causality
and so his argument is is that because we can't know exactly what atoms are and that's
models completely based on conjecture and probably not real then everything we know about chemistry
is based on that that's as dumb as saying that the pandemic is based on PCR tests or is based on
sequencing the PC the pandemic was based on dead people chemistry is based on mixing things
together and getting the same thing to happen all the time we're predictable reactions
where the amount of things and moles and stuff like that actually calculate out pretty well
if we don't understand what atoms are that still doesn't mean that we can't that that does not
negate the fact that we can predict very accurately the outcome of chemical reactions to the gram
to milligram the nanogram based on the starting materials that understanding may be flawed by the
fact that we don't understand the atoms and our model of atoms is wrong but that doesn't change
the knowledge that we have in chemistry and this discussion of the idea that we have to go all
the way back to causality and mitt we don't have any his absurd
since all of them but that's like a separate point from here so one thing i will say that's
but that's the point point is there's nothing that deprives you or tom or anybody else of doing
the things that they're doing but you know i didn't take tom's videos and take potshots and say that
i'm going to lampoon an effort that's he's doing i'm not doing that well david i'll speak for myself
here without bringing other people at all for myself when you're here talking with me saying
that you agree with us falsifying their unproven ideas you agree with that you've established that
on this question yes but then when you speak publicly again just to address the people in the chat i'm
trying to make the argument that it's not the narrative alone if they only hyped it up it wouldn't work
there had to be people dying and there were people dying
because they were mistreated because there was a financial incentive to mistreat them
because there were orders to mistreat people and then those people were counted as part of the
narrative and then people saw those numbers people saw those bodies people saw the people
on the ventilators people put people on remdesivir those people died
and when those people died that started a narrative about numbers if people also fixed the numbers
made the numbers grow bigger whatever those numbers convinced people
it wasn't the threat it wasn't the tick it was the culmination it was the sum total of all of it
but i assure you if there was not the number of people dying in new york city
and this big spike that the that the pbs news hour could point to and say look guys it
it looks like uh oh balls it looks like uh it looks like we're we're having some rise in cases
over the last two days and it looks like they're going up really fast so you know projected models
say that we're going to have a gigantic pandemic and for like three weeks they were able to say that
for three weeks another five thousand people were dead in new york city so they could keep
projecting and keep projecting and then extend the lockdown and then before you know it they
were paying attention to other places and other cities and the numbers weren't coming in
and now we're five weeks in and the numbers are still not coming in
but they're telling us that the that the curve is going to go up and up and up
wow look at my graphics today i'm just killing it
it's all about the worst case scenario it's all about these projections it's all about this blindness
and for some reason they're stuck on foyer requests they're stuck on isolation and purification
instead of on murder and the most important thing to understand and i can't stress it enough
the most important thing to understand is that this shtick was uniformly stuck to by them
for nearly three years they didn't deviate from it they stuck to it from the beginning
from the very beginning from like february and march these people were on the same shtick
that there's no viruses no viruses that means that nobody's really dying and we don't need to talk
about it and that was wrong people were being killed and they were blaming it on the imaginary
virus and so why not use both of those arguments why not say that they're not isolating anything
they can't culture anything they're probably can't sequence anything the pcr tests don't mean
anything and they're using remdesivir and they're using vents incorrectly and all of these people
that are dying are being called the new virus but instead they stop at isolation and purification
and then they do loop de loop de loop de loop de loop de loop de loop and they're still doing it
right now they're still there and now they're talking about whether we should even think to
to think that we can think of the cause of anything for those who are unfamiliar now
thank goodness that you've clarified what we're talking about when we say viral model or when
you're talking about literally one of your quotes stars one and oh three came from a laboratory in
chapel hill right though these are the type of statements that's a true statement that was a
toxin created in chapel hill it's amazing how he cuts him off correct correct like he doesn't let
him get the whole statement out it he covers up what he's saying it makes it hard for people to
hear him it's really impressive can you show me that there was a toxin created in chapel hill but
in the 2002 document very clearly says human respiratory target okay so with that though human
respiratory target when you say SARS-1 the implications of saying SARS-1 when we're talking about being
precise with speech that's reifying the virus belief system rather than saying why are we using
this word reify all the time in this podcast it's like the third time they've used it i don't
understand why they use that word all the time allegedly or this was delivered exclusively via
injection my point is the way that it's coming across for those who have not done the work to
look at the foundational so-called evidence of virology is it's reifying this idea that there is
a particle being passed from person to person and it's not helping to dispel more myths surrounding
that and your observation is correct and that is not my mission my mission is a criminal mission
not a scientific mission that's fair okay um i have a few more questions by the way Alec thank
you this is the kind of conversation we should be having agree that actually the right conversation
because it should be the legitimate and honest conflict of perspectives that ultimately gives
rise to a perspective that at the end none of us came in with that's the right way to advance
it might be a civilization yeah no i i think it's important to have these conversations and that's
why i'm going there i will say i still think that what you say i think the most important thing is
not his necklace but the fact that his the word on his shirt is upside down i don't i don't know
i don't know what that that would be but upside downwards are now never good they publicly
given what you're expressing here is very confusing for people who have not looked into
this stuff yeah but but that's the nature of courtrooms and that's a nature of legal systems i have to
live inside of legally defined terms like 18 us code i have to live inside a 21 CFR 50 you know
what that's like inside he has to live inside of legal codes he's not a lawyer i don't think i
just did it's weird that he's he's talking like this he's pretending like somehow has an independent
consultant for the last 25 years he's got to stick to certain norms out of a command and control
system in the military you know damn good and well that you can't just go well i don't think
that the concussive round of that grenade has the velocity that it says in the mill
spec so i'm not going to use it if you're told you're going to use that particular grenade guess
what you do you fucking pull the pen and throw it and the fact of the matter is you're you're
not in nobody's interested in whether or not you agree with the nature of the mill spec of that
ordinance you are asked to deploy that ordinance and that's what you are there to do so the issue
is a different one we don't necessarily have the time or the space and certainly i do not have
the time or the space or the patronage or anything else to get into every one of the topics that i
would love to cover yeah i do it's not going to be one of the topics it's a foundational topic
i spend a week every year with a group of interested people where we go through the
opening assumptions on every one of these things and guess what anybody's welcome to come to it
why why are you okay quick question though why are you attempting to debate from inside their
paradigm though instead of just showing i'm not debating inside their paradigm i'm actually
pursuing a criminal case okay that's not debating but again referring back to the situation with
marvin hattle and in germany there is precedent that arguing the position that there is no proof
of the alleged cause that necessitate the need for any of this stuff is a valid position and it
is the fundamental but not valid in any u.s court not valid in any u.s court every one of the court
efforts that have been made around that have been actually dismissed outright they've shown me examples
that they've been dismissed outright site specific ones listen every one of the cases that said that
there was no cause for the emergency authorization and there are gene didarian is the one that you
should reference because she's the one that actually this is a true step in lock and prove this important
step in lock of one in court in germany on his measles case i said in the united states there's
not a single case in the united states where the merits of this were even willing to be considered
by the court who's tried who's tried to come well we did in federal court and we were actually
dismissed for standing so did you say that there's no proof of the existence or pathogenicity of
sarsko b2 directly that's correct that's in the case read the federal case and we submitted that
in the federal court in utah okay i'd be interested stipulated that viruses exist and it's stipulated
that vaccines work and that's stipulated in a footnote so that's stipulated by a federal judge
okay and so according to david martin in federal law or state law of utah
viruses exist it is stipulated in law or court decision court law so has an interesting um
it's an interesting problem an interesting variable i have another set of questions regarding the
covid summit so um was this summit you're talking about like having to speak with the
language inside these courts where it makes you know it is using the language that they use
that they accept right so with this summit that occurred at the european european parliament um
was this actually an official gathering of the european parliament well in so far as the MEPs
of the european parliament where the hosts and the venue was the european parliament yes
was it a sitting of the full parliament absolutely not the full parliament was not impaneled for this
it was a european parliament event and there are tons of european parliament events that's the
nature of the european parliament where members of parliament as official sponsors and hosts
pulled parliament events so it was officially an eu event it was officially an european union
parliament event meaning that it followed the protocols of a MEP calling the meeting publishing
the meeting and being broadcast as a meeting of the european union but it was not a full
seating of the parliament yeah but i guess the the better question is um was this meeting held in
an official capacity by an official governing body or was it outside by the members of parliament
who hosted the event yeah but there's a difference between me inviting some congressmen and senators
to my house and having a discussion with them versus literally having an on-the-record hearing
that is everything everything in the MEP's jurisdiction is an on-the-record event in the european
union that's the nature of the european union bylaws okay um so and there there are more events
coming up this summer and i'm going to be participating in them as well well from what i've read it was
not an official or sanctioned event by the european parliament that's not true that's not true it was
an official sanctioned event by the european parliament absolutely as a matter of fact i have
the documentation that was all of the official materials we had to submit for eu review before
our slides were put up in our slides were officially okay so here they're debating something i don't
think they're meeting my uh meeting of the minds here
alic is trying to ask whether the parliament approved it like voted and approved it or whether
it was a meeting at the parliament which is what david is arguing so any group of european parliament
members can have an event that is of a parliament event where they invite people to talk about
something and then they can publicize it and they can use a room at the parliament they can use
a lecture hall and they can invite people and it's an official thing but it wasn't a meeting that
was called by the parliament like you know congress voted with a majority to say hey we're
gonna have hearings on this and that's what alic is asking him and that's what david martin is
pretending not to understand emblazon with the eu parliament logo because of that okay so whoever
is doing yes like the ron johnson meetings as good as other fact checkers
um okay and let me see what else i have we might have some questions from the audience
um
i guess more like speaking back to this this issue of using their language and attempting to argue
inside their paradigm again especially with the likes of the world health organization the cdc
uh bill gates the chair of davian several others talking about the next one
yeah and the majority of the health freedom movement holds the belief that there is indeed
pathogenic particles being passed from person to person do you think that that's an issue
so i think for example the i think there's no question that anthrax is a good example
was a domestic terrorism attack and i think real people in case of one person who i know
died from inhalation anthrax it's not a belief system it's a fact
okay there's no question that the tokyo subway bombing which was something that i had the
privilege of being part of the investigation team on there's no question in my mind that somebody
got into the air ducts in the tokyo subway system and murdered people with an aerosolized agent
and there's no question that the aerosolized agent was derived from a natural substance yeah
what we're talking about are we going to have another distribution of another thing which will
be used as the component that why no for another distribution of another weapon the answer is yes
okay so what i'm talking about though is there's a distinct difference between a transmissible
particle that replicates inside the host where it then causes illness and then
that's when you're fixed when you fix the church what do you mean by that what i said now on two
occasions that's a doctrine the doctrine is that there is an agency through which the transmission
of illness or death or in the case of the church shame and conviction is transmitted by virtue of
nothing that you do nothing that you say nothing that you can do nothing that you can say it just
happens and as long as we believe in a world where our picture of humanity is that humans
are a virus that transmits bad things to generations as long as we hold that belief in any part of
our system we're screwed so why is it okay wow that is unbelievable
that's really funny um wow that much of the health freedom movement has these unfounded
unproven beliefs especially as oh god there's so many things that the hell i'm talking specifically
to this one oh yeah i know but but but you have the luxury of looking at one thing i have the
luxury of looking at the whole thing i have the luxury of looking at the fact that i talk about
say it isn't i talk about the belief in illusion but i'm talking about the fact that most of the
health freedom movement turn covid into a money making scheme okay in what capacity well fundraising
donations program so is is david martin on the health freedom team is he talking also about
robert melon and all these other people who are making all this money is he is he seriously
who is he calling out here that the health freedom movement turned it into a money making scheme
who's the health freedom movement before covid
who is fighting for vaccine injured people before covid or were they still fighting about the
fact that viruses don't exist as a way of fighting it are you really fighting it then
you know are you really i mean don't you think then what you would be doing is fighting for
vaccine injured people on the basis that they were injected for something that doesn't exist
instead of fighting for what arguing that some guy in in germany who didn't want to take his measles
shot went to court and got away with it and you're sure that that court case is about the virus not
existing or the sum total the decision of the court which included also the idea of being
previously infected and also the idea that it's not really around that much anymore and also
many other claims or is it really just that that court case very specifically proved that there
was no measles see that's the also the joke that's happening here neither of these two is really
arguing from a totally genuine perspective and neither of them is arguing about the whole
picture of what really happened the real nuts and bolts of the fraud
and it's it's extraordinary it's extraordinary how much energy and time they wasted how
we are actually a little bit dumber for having shared this together tonight
I agree with that I'll tell you what if you profited from covid I don't care which side you're
on you're part of the racket so do you think people should not be compensated for their labor
to raise awareness I think they shouldn't be compensated for anything other than the direct
costs of actually moving information from point a to point b yes absolutely and I think that if
you are compensated for it you're part of the problem so raising awareness to true information
do you think people shouldn't be compensated for that I think for direct costs yes and for nothing
else okay that's a point of uh difference between us but again but that would be something that I
would actually say you know show me a person who's done what I've done globally on their own dime
with zero outside support David but what I'm asking though is very specific do you think
that's a point the point is if you want to solve the problem Alec listen you're picking one thing
I'm saying if you want to fix the problem I got a ton of problems that need fixing and I will go
after all of them but what I'm not going to do is I'm not going to say that one issue is the issue
that is the only issue that deserves attention the fact of the matter is we have got a human
condition problem and that human condition problem includes opportunism it includes propaganda
it includes distractions it includes all kinds of things and I'm more than happy to go out and
agree with them yeah I'm not going to pick a bandwagon that says that if you don't do this one
and and by the way it comes back to my bias I told you this my bias is I grew up in a world
where for the sake of a belief system in a god a child was worthy of being beaten
you know what I'm never going to do I'm never going to pick a belief system that is preeminent
you know why because I've seen where that cancer ends and it ends on my body and here's my reality
my reality is as soon as I hear somebody tell me that this is the most important issue there's a
four-year-old boy in me that feels lemon thorns going through my flesh and guess what I'm not going
to do I'm not going to be part of that system so you may think that this is the most important
thing and god bless you if you do because I'm glad that something motivates you into action and
I'm celebrating that every day but if you think that your cause or anybody thinks their cause
is the most important cause then my four-year-old memory feels lemon thorns ripping my skin apart
and I'm not going to participate in any system where we actually think that we can pick the topic
around which the proof texting of are you in or are you out is the determinant of whether
you're contributing to civil society because if you've decided that issue is I know I know I don't
do that first off first off I don't do that second off what I'm talking to ask me to do
something that's outside of my remit my remit is not to debate viruses my remake is to hold people
accountable for criminal acts that they perpetrated on society that's my remit you do yours I'll do
mine and I will respect yours but don't despair because you are this is fantastic
where did that all looks like he flipped a switch and he suddenly felt attacked and he had to say
wow I mean wow better or worse here brother like what I'm saying is literally taking your
statements right that are public statements that are one of them or the prosecution of crime
David you keep interrupting me dude I'm trying to every time for the prosecution of crimes
you are trying to pull me into your dogma and I will not dogma it's not dogma point me to dogma
Alec you know what you haven't offered an alternative hypothesis
they've criticized the existing incumbent lie that's not true you do that during the end of
covid we absolutely do that during the end of covid i've done it so you don't tell me how you're
dealing no tell me how you're doing this conversation around it try to tell me how you do
it's on valence excitation of of neutron frequencies you're not talking about that we present we actually
know we do we talk about that you actually come because I read it okay you do that during the
covid we absolutely do that during the end of covid i've done it no you don't
it's like tell me how you're dealing no tell me how you're doing this conversation around it
trying to tell me how you're doing this conversation about valence excitation of
of neutron frequencies you're not talking about that we present we actually know we do we talk
about that you actually come because I've read it really you've read all of you yes and the fact
is very simple the fact is really simple i'm not criticizing your efforts what i'm not saying is
you didn't do anything to i gotta tell you i i want to watch this at full at normal speed because
i'm starting to think that this is fake i'm starting to think that this feels really bad
and i need to see it at regular speed because i'm starting to feel like i'm getting fooled
um i don't know how i do that why can't i see that sorry let me just get yeah that's fine
wow this is really strange this i don't know why this went so south here i'm sorry i got to do this
opportunism it includes propaganda it includes distractions it includes all kinds of things
and i'm more than happy to go after all of them yeah i'm not going to pick a bandwagon that says
that if you don't do this one and and by the way it comes back to my bias i told you this my bias
is i grew up in a world where for the sake of a belief system in a god a child was worthy of being
beaten you know what i'm never going to do i'm never going to pick a belief system that is
preeminent you know why because i've seen where that cancer ends and so his parents his men and
night parents that took him to New Zealand to build windmills and stuff as part of charitable
organization and charitable work beat him i think that's what he's saying is this this is what you're
hearing right where for the sake of a belief system in a god a child was worthy of being beaten
wow you know what i'm never going to do wow i'm never going to pick a belief system that is
preeminent i've never heard of many nights beating their kids where that cancer ends and it ends
on my body and here's my reality my reality is as soon as i hear somebody tell me that this is
the most important issue there's a four-year-old boy in me that feels lemon thorns going through
my flesh and guess what i'm not going to do i'm not going to be part of that system so you may
think that this is the most important thing and god bless you if you do because i'm glad that
something motivates you into action and i'm celebrating that every day but if you think that
your cause or anybody thinks their cause is the most important cause then my four-year-old memory
feels lemon thorns ripping my skin apart and i'm not going to participate in any system
where we actually think that we can pick the topic around which the proof texting of are you
in or are you out is the determinant of whether you're contributing to civil society because if
you've decided i don't do that issue is i'm out time out i don't do that first off first off
i don't do that second off what i'm talking about then don't ask me to do something that's
outside of my remit my remit is not to debate viruses my remit is to hold people accountable
not to debate viruses perpetrated on society didn't he debate it now for one hour and 14
minutes that's weird that's my remit you do yours i'll do mine and i will respect yours but don't
disparage mine because you are better because it's not about that i'm not saying who's better
or what in the world i'm saying is literally taking your statements right that are public
statements that are really one of them or the prosecution of crime david you keep interrupting
me dude i'm trying to every time for the prosecution of crimes you are trying to pull me into your
dogma and i will not wow it's not dog what in the world
allak you know what you haven't offered an alternative hypothesis
that you can criticize the existing incumbent lie that's not true you do that during the end of
covid we absolutely do that during the end of covid i've done it so you don't
yes i tell me how you're dealing no tell me no we're not going to turn this conversation around
and try to put it back on me i'm asking you valence excitation of of nutrient frequencies
you're not talking about that we present we actually know we do we talk about you actually
don't because i've read it okay really you've read all of you so yes and the fact is very simple
the fact is really simple i'm not criticizing your efforts what i'm not saying is you didn't do
anything to support the criminal investigation i'm not i'm not interested in doing that i'm trying
to get this this this segment is called clarifying the viral narrative because i'm trying to get
clarity on where you're coming from so and i'm very clear on where i'm coming from and i'm
clear about the context in which i'm coming david again let me reemphasize here first off
neutral frequencies baby when i'm trying to get out what i'm trying to say one and two
all i'm trying to do is get clarity on where you're coming from this whole time because the things
you say publicly seem to for a large number of people not just myself
reify the existence of pathogenic viruses it's like the fifth time they've said reify
david in your communication on multiple occasions i have several quotes here
coming from multiple videos they seem to reify this idea that disease is transmitted from person
to person and you're sitting here telling me never once i've implied it david
i have provided written evidence of written publications aleck and quoting a thing is not a
belief it is merely quoting a thing okay bobby would say that about his book we're at an uh at an
impasse here then no we're not we're actually celebrating the fact that you are on a mission
and i respect it and what i do not appreciate is the vitriol that the whatever dogmatic position
you're representing oh here we go appreciate the fact that what's happened is you've elected to
tear down i mean calling it a dogmas insulting aleck he's very mad because he thinks he's fighting
the dogma of viruses so if you say that his dogma of terrain theory or his dogma of there is no
viruses or his dogma of of cellular like waste material um cells taking a poop is is his like
it's extraordinary it's extraordinary the work that i'm doing where not once have i torn down
the work others are doing and what am i tearing when what we're tearing down your work during
you had people wagering on how quickly you would quote destroy me that was your community
when you're twin i know i know that you had no problem so seriously i can't tell you how much
i think that this is a joke i think it's actually a joke like they're arguing and it might be that
that that um the david is playing the role and but it really feels a lot like when when
when kevin mccarron and and paul cattrell went at it in our early streams and pretended to
argue with each other it it really feels like these two are setting you know it's like when
sam harrison and sam harris and bret weinstein have been arguing over the last few months or
or purported to argue it's the same way that tim pool and sam cedar argue on on the youtube
these guys are it's some kind of interesting interaction where nothing ever happens nothing
ever gets done but more importantly the words remdesivir the words protocols mandazalam ventilators
antibiotics steroids do not resuscitate orders financial incentives opioid epidemic
none of those things ever came up in this entire conversation not even once not once
the same exact way that massy talks about it the same exact way tom kawan talks about it the same
exact way they all talk about it the thing that you have to accept is that they didn't
isolate or purify the virus and the whole basis of everything is purification isolation and
sequencing of a virus and that is wrong hey the whole basis for this is the mass casualty events
that were orchestrated around the earth publicized and used as evidence for spread of a pathogen
that scared everybody into behaving like idiots for three years
and so you don't need to fight about that when you can fight about the murder
and you can bring attention to the murder and show that there's no mathematical reason to talk about
a novel spreading pathogen and maybe later we'll figure out that these people have been lying
or very much misconstruing their molecular data but if you do it the other way around
where everybody's got to accept the entire model of of viral pathogens is wrong before they have
to accept that everybody was murdered when one is very concrete very easy to justify there's all
kinds of evidence for it and and there are people that have been trying to to go down that avenue
for years and these people won't talk to them these people don't want to interact with them
because these people are not yet willing to accept the premises of their whole life which is that
none of this stuff is real apparently and that you if you haven't read farewell to virology and
then kowtow to the New Zealand wonders then we won't talk to you but even David Martin said
it here very very well just like I said it yesterday you guys don't offer any alternative
and then they were talking about neutron frequencies what in the world
I just got to say I think we're making a lot of progress here I think we're really starting to
see past this nonsense and I if this was a long hour before it started to really break down and
before I really started to see it for what it is but it really feels like they're going to turn
the cameras off and you're going to find out that they're in the same house and they're going to
have a scotch and he his wife his his funny spunky Australian wife is actually sitting in the other
room drinking with Alex wife that's what I think the time out you're saying that I waged war
against you is that what you're implying that's no question you actually set it out right you lie
public about the fact that I did I correct that did I correct that publicly but it didn't stop
the vitriol and it didn't stop the fact that all over Twitter and all over social media you
and your quotes are the ones that were actually used to allegedly wager how quickly you would
carry a look on any of there there have been several so-called no-virus people that have
distanced themselves from me because I'm calling them to communicate more kindly and more effectively
and more lovingly so that's all I'm doing right now what I'm saying is very simple no you're
are the ones that were actually used to allegedly wager how quickly you would carry a look on any
of there there have been several so-called no-virus people that have distanced themselves from me
because I'm calling them to communicate more kindly and more effectively and more lovingly so
that's not all I'm doing interesting I wonder who those no-virus people are that don't want him
to be so nice thing right now what I'm saying is very simple no you're you're you're making claims
about me no put my comments into the context that I am doing and then tell me what is inconsistent
what you're trying to do is you're trying to write my comments into a different conversation
and what I'm holding you accountable for is I am pursuing a legal case and that is my pursuit
I am not pursuing a question of science because that is not what I am pursuing and if that is the
topic that we are going to talk about then I'm more than happy to go into that but not in the context
of what I'm doing right now because my focus is singular and that is there was crimes committed
resulting in the death of humans I agree with you I will disagree with you need to be prosecuted
and that is what I'm doing okay and what I am saying is I agree with you but the way you communicate
reifies the existence of the fundamental thing that necessitates the need for all these things
and leads to the development of these products that are killing people and you just stated a
causal statement and what I'm saying is I'm not going to sit here and pretend like you're right
or wrong because I'm telling you what I'm doing and you are deriving from it that I'm
reifying a system and what I'm doing is I'm simply saying I'm using their evidence to hold them
accountable okay all right well I don't have much else to say David thank you for joining me
I agree I think I trust Alec just a little bit more in this theater than I do David Martin but in
the end I don't trust either of them I think that this is a this was a a WWF battle between two
people that essentially have shared a table before maybe even a game this out beforehand and it
escalated at the very end I think because they had planned to end it that way and that's why it
also felt a little weird that all of a sudden David Martin just kicked it all up they're probably
looking at the same chat there's probably several people helping them do this there's
probably a script and then they said okay let's end it let's wrap it up right here David your Q is
now that's what I see here I see fake and I think it's just another another brick in the wall I
think it's another one of these performers who is basically preserving this narrative one way or
another by talking around it even if David said some combinations of words that made Alec a little
happier it's very very impressive because the no-virus people are completely against the faith
but they are also really not willing to test it in any meaningful manner
it's a great game of chess ladies and gentlemen if you think that you know who's fighting and
who's free or wrong chances are very good that most of the arguments that you've seen have been
staged most of those arguments are people that are working together or working for competing
interests who are working together to do the train narrative to turn these these excess deaths these
mysterious excess deaths into a mysterious virus by avoiding doing the math of subtracting all
of the other known causes of death here if you don't do the math then there's room for a mystery
virus if you do the math there's no room for a mystery virus so you don't need to talk about
isolation you don't need to talk about lab leaks you don't need to talk about any of that stuff
but the point is is that during the pandemic they've been faking the need to talk about that
stuff faking the need to debate about what novel treatments are necessary faking the need to
debate about what novel vulnerabilities there are what novel mechanisms could result in severe
covid what all different things can happen from this Swiss army knife of spike proteins and these
debates were used by many different people who stayed out of each other's way to make sure that
they'd ever crossed the line and encroached on each other's books and debated about everybody
being vulnerable to the novel virus debated about how accurate PCR was or whether they were
overcycling it debated about what early treatments were relevant hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin
debated about who should use steroids when debated about these protocols debated about
the financial incentives and all of these stories very casually or sorry very coordinatedly
rolled out and orchestrated so that they didn't encroach on each other
fooled us into believing that there was a pandemic fooled us into believing
that all of them through their hard work and dissidents saved us from the pandemic
saved us from the shot saved us from disaster from these bad guys but nobody was saved
nobody's talking about the people that were murdered and nobody was saved from the shot
because everybody that spoke out about the shot that had any impact at all came out too late
and everybody that came out early enough was systematically censored and silenced
not given new social platforms not interviewed by Tucker Carlson about their cancellation on
LinkedIn but actually silenced there are three different scenarios that they want you to think
you need to argue about and all of them starred in 2019 with a leak or an accident or a batcave
and then a pathogen made of RNA and lipoprotein was able to make trillions and trillions and
quadsillions of copies of itself and infiltrate almost every living human lung on the planet
and although we made some mistakes the illusion of consensus is that millions of people died
and millions more were saved the illusion of consensus and the faith in the novel virus
includes asymptomatic transmission and the fact that we work on gated function because we have to
and these people have been feigning a resistance to this for three and a half almost four years now
feigning a resistance to this
because none of them are able to add up everything none of them are able to present you the whole
picture all of them are stuck on one thing you could be stuck on ivermectin for a whole year
and that would have gotten you lots of traction in social media you can be stuck on hydroxychloroquine
for a year and that will give you lots of traction in social media if you start talking about the
opioid epidemic and how it contributes to excess deaths nowhere crickets if you start talking
about how remdesivir they want happens they get you to talk about venom in this shots and now
you're discredited and now nobody talks about remdesivir anymore
the conflated background signal is the thing they don't talk about the protocols is the
thing they don't talk about and they have to not talk about it because they are taking everything
away this is for all the marbles don't forget it it's for all the marbles stop transfection
and humans because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary
i'm sorry i'm for it for all these exhausted streams i'm going to keep doing them i'm going to try
and move up earlier during the day try to get in before back so i'll practice because i'll have a
little more energy and because it'll be better for me because i'll get to go and maybe hang out with
my wife before we go to sleep rather than three hours after she falls asleep so anyway thank you
for joining me this has been giggle and biological where we understand that intramuscular injection
of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb
we understand that transfection and healthy humans is criminally negligent and we understand
that viruses are not pattern integrity and therefore the fidelity with which we are told
that they are understood is a lie and that's very different than saying that there are no viruses
because they can make RNA in quantity and they can't spray it and they can't transfect people
and transfection can make people sick so anyway i'll see you guys thanks for joining me
Goodnight Ohmies