The Plandemic: How the Government Manipulates COVID-

19
A Special Interview With David Martin, Ph.D.
By Dr. Joseph Mercola

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Welcome, everyone. This is Dr. Mercola helping you take control of your health, and we're
continuing in our coverage of this “Plandemic” with Dr. David Martin, and I suspect many of
you have heard of who he is. But for those of you who haven't he'll describe his background
briefly in a moment. But he, in my view, has done the best job of really uncovering the paper
trail for two decades that led to where we're at now. This includes government grants, patents,
funding, the whole nine yards. That this just didn't just happen a year and a half ago. So, he's
covered it. He's covered it so well, so eloquently. He was featured in Mickey Willis' “Plandemic
2.” I'm not sure if that's the exact title, but it's the second version after [crosstalk 00:00:49]-

David Martin:
Yeah, “Indoctrination.” That's right.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah. If you've seen that you know a lot of his work, and we will reread some of that here and
give us some good updates, hopefully. But I'm just really excited to have him because he's just an
enormous fountain of information. So, welcome and thank you for joining us today.

David Martin:
You are most welcome. Thanks, Joe. It's lovely to be here.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Okay. So, if you can briefly describe your history, which sounds like you were really working
for the federal government as one of their people and you're on all over mainstream media and
really well-accepted as an expert in your field. So, just briefly condense that so that we can
understand your history and then how and why you made the transition about two years ago?

David Martin:
Well, yeah, back in 1995 when I finished my doctorate at the University of Virginia, I joined the
medical school faculty in radiology and orthopedic surgery, but most notably then I was running
the first medical device clinical trials organization for the University of Virginia, a company
called IDEAmed. What we did then was we did medical device clinical trials for FDA
submission. So I had a very long tradition of working with FDA clinical trials. Did a lot of work
in diagnostics and therapeutics of a variety of forms. And in 1998, when I started M.CAM, which
is the company that I also founded and have operated since then, we began working very closely
with finding ways to bring intellectual property into conventional finance.

David Martin:
So, our background, in addition to the medical background was figuring out ways to bring
innovation to the marketplace and dropping the cost of capital so that innovative companies
could get much less expensive capital. It was through that, Joe, that an interesting hole opened
up. That was we were starting to audit the United States Patent system. We were asked to do that
by Congress. And quite alarmingly, we found an enormous number of patents on biological and
chemical weapon violations. Now, that was not something we were looking for. I let people
know this was not something we set out to find. This is something that landed in our lap.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

How did you identify these? Was it some type of digital scanning system or was it a manual
review?

David Martin:
Yeah, so I developed a technology a decade earlier called Linguistic Genomics, which is a means
by which you can look at unstructured text data and find the metaphoric meaning inside of what
is being communicated. As you can imagine, if people of ill intent are trying to do something,
they often hide what they're doing in plain sight, but they use language that is not conventional.
So when you find a patent, for example, on a blast-resistant pathogen from a rocket-propelled
grenade, did you hear what I just said? A blast-resistant pathogen from a rocket-propelled
grenade. Does that sound like it's a common way to inoculate a population or does that sound
like it sounds?

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Sounds like it sounds. A bioweapon.

David Martin:
Yeah. And so, finding a number of bioweapons patents, we started taking into account some very
serious things. And I published once a year, I have a copy of the book here. I published once a
year, the literal global phonebook of every biological and chemical weapon violation.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Wow.

David Martin:
That took place anywhere in the world, and it is the who's to it. It's the who, it's the where, it's the
who funded it, it's what their addresses are. It was actually quite an interesting document that
was what was used by U.S. law enforcement, intelligence communities and elsewhere around the
world to track things that were being done inappropriately. And it was in fact, in 1999 when we
started detecting that there seemed to be an alarming event around coronavirus, which we're
going to get into.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

So, was this report directed towards governmental agencies primarily?
David Martin:
That's exactly right. It was in addition to being directed at government agencies. It was also
shared with law enforcement around the world to try to neutralize this into not a single party kind
of information disclosure. As a matter of fact, at its peak of circulation we had the regular
updates recorded at the Library of Alexandria in Egypt as a neutral party holding this
information. So that posterity would know that we built laws around the prohibition of biological
and chemical weapons with the full intention of breaking those laws routinely, and having a
published record of the who did it, when they did it and who financed it was very important.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Okay, so I interrupted you with a question and you were beginning to tell us about this transition
to the coronavirus that you identify.

David Martin:
Well, in 1999, Anthony Fauci's NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases)
saw the possibility of using coronavirus as a possible vaccine vector. He actually thought that
there would be a way to co-op nature to be able to be used as a way to inoculate a population.
And at the time, the disclosed rationale for this was to try to come up with an HIV (human
immunodeficiency virus) vaccine. As you're familiar he was obsessed about HIV as well as
influenza vaccines. And as a result, what he was looking for was to see if there was a way to
make – and now I'm quoting from the funded research, “An infectious replication defective
recombinant coronavirus.” Now, it's important for you guys to realize that this was 1999. This
was not... We hadn't had SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) yet. We didn't even know
SARS was a thing. But in 1999, that project got funded by NIAID. In 2002, the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hills Ralph Baric and his colleagues filed a patent on recombinant
coronavirus, and a year later the world got SARS.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah. So, I just want to take a step back because you alluded to the Fauci's involvement with
HIV. I just want to wonder if you can give a brief comment on that because Robert Kennedy's
written a book about him called “The Real Tony Fauci” that highlights his nefarious strategies in
the '80s. I mean, he was put into office, longest applied office for 50 years, and set up NIAID.
And basically killed hundreds of thousands of peoples with this promotion of AZT
(azidothymidine).

David Martin:
Yes.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

So, this pattern that we're seeing with coronavirus is actually a repeat of previous behavior.

David Martin:
Yes, and as a matter of fact, when he joined NIAID as its director in 1984 appointed by the
Reagan administration, it's important to realize that at the time we were transitioning from
largely an STD (sexually transmitted diseases) environment in which syphilis and gonorrhea and
those types of STDs were the things that we were concerned about, obviously, herpes and things
like that. HIV became, as you well know, a political and social hot potato because it was
associated in many respects with lifestyle branding, and as a result it became a political issue to
essentially identify a class of the population that could be the basis for research without
consideration. The notion by Anthony Fauci was people with HIV already had made decisions
that somehow entitled them to less humanity. And as a result, the clinical trials around
developing both management techniques as well as potential treatments became quite
fashionable, but it was done in a very reckless fashion, and numerous people died in clinical
trials, and by the way, still are.

David Martin:
As recently as September of 2020, when the NIAID Advisory Committee met, Anthony Fauci
reported on several clinical trials involving three different continents not specified, where in
phase one trials the alleged proposed treatment was "unsuccessful" and there were loss of life
involved in these trials. So, the fact of the matter is he hasn't stopped this. This was something
that he started in 1984. But he has literally been obsessed about this HIV situation as a platform
to essentially use humans that he determines to be some form of subhuman for clinical trials.
And it is a horrific blight on the United States medical establishment that we have been willing
to allow this to go on in the name of science, in the name of health promotion, since 1984,
without any significant disruption or check.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

All right. Well, thank you for that historical perspective because it's so important and most
people have no clue that this is repeat behavior for his motives [crosstalk 00:10:00]. So, when I
interrupted you with a question, you were starting to explain how this developed in the late '90s
with Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. This is even before we had the
first coronavirus epidemic.

David Martin:
Yeah, the first outbreak, as you know is late 2002 going into 2003 in China. So, SARS as a thing,
was not a thing until we made recombinant infectious replication-defective coronavirus. And it's
so critical that we understand that I'm not drawing a causal relationship. I'm making an
observation that humans and what we call coronavirus seem to cohabitate this earth for hundreds
of thousands of years. And then we manipulate that in 1999, we do a number of things to actually
start playing around with putting it into different animals, and in different human cell line
models. And then in 2003, we have SARS. Like a lot of other things it's an observation worth
noting.

David Martin:
What makes the observation more problematic, obviously, is this was happening during the
unfortunate results of the 2001 anthrax attack, which as you know came out of federal labs. The
whole notion that somehow or another we had domestic terror by bioweapons from some sort of
bad actor became very clear that this was not a bad actor, per se, this was medical and defense
research gone bad that got into the public and real people really died. But as you know, Joe, the
real benefit, if you will, for the anthrax attack was the passage of the PREP (Public Readiness
and Emergency Preparedness) Act. [crosstalk 00:11:49].

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

It persists till today. That's persistent [crosstalk 00:11:52]-

David Martin:
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Because we didn't have in the 1986 act something that covered
medical countermeasures. What we had was childhood vaccines. Inside of the PREP Act, we
now have the effective carte blanche removal of liability to manufacturers of medical
countermeasures, and that carte blanche liability needed an event horizon to create it, and it turns
out that the anthrax scare was the raison d'être to actually get that coverage expanded to medical
countermeasures.

David Martin:
I think most people don't understand that the '86 act is really not overly relevant in the
coronavirus situation simply because this is a medical countermeasure under the PREP Act. And
as a result, the breadth of coverage and the accountability for responsibility, including the PREP
Act, does not have a VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) requirement. So,
there's a lot of things that are inside of the PREP Act that made pharmaceutical companies much
more capable of instilling terror in the population, coercing a population into taking an untested
measure, and doing so with absolute impunity.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Now, so you were compiling this information. And at the time, it sounds like you're still working
for the federal government. And I'm wondering if you can, I guess – I want to go into more detail
what you've compiled because you've only touched the surface of the paper trail. So, maybe you
do that, and then in your response help us understand when you made the transition away from
the federal government to informing the public?

David Martin:
Well, I've always seen that my role as the person who actually took the time and effort to
aggregate all of this data. I've always seen a public interest as part of our mission. And so, we did
not work for the federal government. The federal government was a beneficiary of the
information we provided as were a number of other organizations. As you and your listeners can
go back and review, I testified in Congress for the very first time on the audit of the United
States Patent System back in the early 2000s. Did a lot of work with the Senate Banking
Committee. We were a contractor for the United States Treasury to break open a lot of white
collar criminal activity around intellectual property and its abuses, and tax fraud. So, we've had a
number of engagements where we were contracted by the federal government to do projects. But
the work on bioweapons was something I did because I felt, as a citizen of the world, it was
absolutely essential that we have public visibility into the violations of biological and chemical
weapons laws and treaties.

David Martin:
And as a result of that, in the mid-early and mid-2000s, the Bush administration asked me on
several occasions to be part of both individual delegations as well as groups of delegations in the
biological weapons conventions programs around the world. And so, I was in Slovenia for the
EUROTOX Conference. I was in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Tehran for the National
Genetic Engineering and Bioengineering conferences that were about the proliferation of these
technologies in the early and mid-2000s. And I was doing all those things at the request of the
federal government.

David Martin:
But always, as a public citizen, my goal has always been to make sure that information that we
have is shared with the authorities who are in fact charged with accountability. Now, as you well
know, the bad news is when other people are doing it we're more than happy to go off and do
investigations. When we're doing it, there seems to be a little bit of a blowback, and in 2005 and
2006, a lot of what I uncovered turned out to be the Bush-Cheney administration's abuses of a
number of things around the wars in the Middle East. And this "War on Terror," which was kind
of like Reagan's War on Drugs.

David Martin:
The fact of the matter is we were just using conflict as a convenient way to move money around
without really having a whole lot of evidence or justification. And so, some of what I uncovered
was not warmly received by the Bureau, by intelligence agencies and whatnot. But by and large,
without exception from 2001 until the present situation, the information that I have provided has
been used in international law enforcement and intelligence operations, and it has been warmly
received, which is the reason why this one stands out so remarkably because all of a sudden no
one not in the U.S., none of our allies. None of the people who are not really our allies seem to
be willing to look at the fact that beginning in 2016 we started seeing very alarming language
being used, which was “coronavirus poised for human emergence.” Now, I'm not a-

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Where were you seeing this, in the patents?

David Martin:
This was in patents, but it was also in scientific publications.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Okay.

David Martin:
And when you start referring to a coronavirus allegedly poised for human emergence after the
World Health Organization has declared SARS eradicated, there's something desperately wrong
with that picture. As I have said many, many times, and I can't help myself. I have to remind
your listeners that the biggest alarm bell was published February 12, 2016, when Peter Daszak,
the veterinarian-in-chief who has been the money-laundering agent to get coronavirus research
after the gain of function moratorium here in the U.S. moved over to China said, "To sustain the
funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for
medical countermeasures, such as a pan-influenza or a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is
the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to
get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process."

David Martin:
That statement made in 2015, published in the spring of 2016 set off alarm bells very loudly
within my organization because when you actually have somebody who is promoting gainer
function research, and clearly blurring the line on what is even legal because at that time it was
illegal to conduct this kind of research in the U.S. Saying that we needed, "Media to create the
hype. And we need to use the hype to our advantage and investors will follow if they see profit at
the end of the process." Joe, that doesn't sound like public health to me. That sounds like
organized crime. That sounds like racketeering, and we need to raise this issue.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah. So, especially in conjunction with the earlier information you uncovered at the patent
history. Maybe you can take in this direction is it really provides a very powerful evidence. It
would have likely stand up in a court of law of the motivation behind this and the deep historical
records that support that.

David Martin:
Well, listen, from 2002, which is when we have the recombinant coronavirus patent filed by
UNC, Chapel Hill. The 4,000-plus patents that were filed on the genome, on vaccines, and on
detection since 2002 is quite alarming because you don't file patents on something that you don't
intend to commercialize. I mean, it's just not a thing. We don't have an enormous number of
patents on a number of other pathogens, but for some reason coronavirus becomes this target,
which is commercially, exceptionally rich. And what we find is that a couple things were quite
problematic. In 2003, April 28th of 2003, and I want you to listen to the date really important
because the April 23rd, 2003 CDC patent on the genome of the SARS coronavirus, which is
actually something that I've talked about before. Somehow or another, five days later, Sequoia
Pharmaceuticals got a $935,000 grant and filed U.S. Patent 7151163. So this is five days after
allegedly the coronavirus has been isolated. Five days later, they file a patent on the treatment of
a thing that had been discovered five days earlier.

David Martin:
Now, call me old-fashioned, but that doesn't sound like my bowtie speaking. That sounds like an
inside job because you cannot have a disease identified, a pathogen identified, and a cure for it in
five days’ period of time when all of the information was held from the public because when the
CDC filed its patent on the genome of coronavirus, it paid to keep that patent secret. So,
somebody somewhere knows that this thing was going to turn out to be a moneymaker. Dana
Farber had a monoclonal antibody patent system that came out of three NIH (National Institutes
of Health) grants. Their patent 7750123 on the monoclonal antibody for SARS-CoV treatment
took place in 2003. We have the January 6, 2004 Bioterrorism Conference where the promise of
coronavirus as a bioterrorism tool becomes popularized, and all of a sudden we have an
enormous number of new treatments being patented. And before long, we have over 4,000
patents and patent applications filed.
David Martin:
Joe, 4,000 patents and patent applications on a thing where quite literally we're saying it's new.
We're saying it's novel. But if we go back in history, we realize that Pfizer filed the first S1 spike
protein vaccine patent on coronavirus in 1990, 30 years ago. So, even what we're being told is
new, whether it's the pathogen, whether it's the vaccine, whether it's the mechanism of blocking
the vaccine using the spike protein, regardless of what part of the story we look at, the patent
record is full of thousands, not hundreds, thousands of patents where commercial interests
funded by NIAID and funded by the National Institutes of Health have been building the
economic cabal around coronavirus. This is not a new thing, hasn't been a new thing. And
regrettably, we're being told continuously that somehow or another there's something novel about
this experience despite the fact that every single part of what we are told is being detected with
PCR and everything we're told that we are intervening with the injections. Every single one of
those things has been known and isolated for over 30 years.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah, that's just, it's just so outrageous. Can you compare the number of patents and patent
applications with coronavirus, which is over 4,000 to any other pathogen. I mean, what's number
two or does this exceed all other pathogens combined?

David Martin:
Oh, this is an order of magnitude more. I mean, we're not even in the same ballpark. So, when
we had Ebola outbreak, for example, it got a lot of national attention. When we had H1N1, if you
remember all the bird flus and the avian influenzas and all of those sorts of things. We've had an
enormous number of other pathogens that have been identified and have been worked on with
respect to diagnostics and therapeutics. Coronavirus runs away as a commercial boom for the
industrial and the funding complexes that have supported its promotion. That's why it's so
important for us to go back and look at the fact that whether it is the SARS coronavirus, whether
it is coronavirus generally, which throughout the '90s was almost exclusively a veterinary
concern. It was for dogs. It was for rabbit cardiomyopathy. It was things that were actually
involved in veterinary sciences. From then until now, the proliferation of proprietary controls
around SARS coronavirus probably exceeds at least by two or three times most other pathogens.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Okay, that's good for perspective. So, I wanted to delve back bit to Fauci because I know you're
not a big fan of his as am I. Fauci, with respect to the whole process of the system that's evolved,
which started with HIV, of course, and that he's got these principal investigators at all the major
universities and Pharma that he assigns in the 50 years he's been in office over $1 trillion in
grants, so that these grant money from the federal government, ultimately the U.S. taxpayer, get
recycled into creating these patents and patent rewards and compensation and whole structures
that reward these people and provide a clear motivation for their behavior. So, that's a poor
description of it, but I'm sure you can describe it in far more articulate terms.

David Martin:
Well, a terrible thing happened in 1980. A law called the Bayh–Dole Act, which was a law
signed into law, which allowed the beneficiaries of federal grants to file patents on the work
that's derived from federally funded research was passed allegedly to support the notion of
entrepreneurship and the development of the biotech and the high-tech industries in the United
States. The principle of the Act was this notion that somehow or another, we would benefit our
economy by having our scientists become first and foremost entrepreneurs rather than publish
their research [crosstalk 00:26:34]-

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Which sounds rational, absolutely.

David Martin:
It sounds like a brilliant idea, sounds like a lovely idea, and it was the worst piece of legislation
we could have possibly done for the future of health care in the United States because what it did
was it brought the United States Patent Office, the FDA and CDC into an unholy trinity where
effectively what they did was they served as the bench science department for private
pharmaceutical concerns. So, essentially, what happened is we outsourced the basic research that
used to be the responsibility of industry, we outsourced it to the private sector. And the private
sector wound up becoming this unbelievably insidious funding loop. Because here's what
happens.

David Martin:
Corporations, Pharma, lobby to get people elected. Once they're elected, the lobbyists flow
surprisingly an enormous amount of money into the various NIH programs. In the case of NIAID
itself, since Fauci took over, $191 billion has gone through his fingers. Now, is that because he's
successful? No, as a matter of fact, objectively, if you look at it, National Institute for Allergy
and Infectious Disease on his watch, allergies and infectious diseases have increased over 60
times.

David Martin:
And somehow or another, he's still the CEO of a failed company that's gotten $191 billion to
solve a problem that is getting worse every single year. If it was a company, we would have fired
him. But the problem is, it's not a company. What it is, is a money-laundering agency, which
actually moves public funds through the hands of a federal agency into the research laboratories,
which ultimately are going to conduct research then licensed back to the benefactors, which are
the pharmaceutical companies that paid to get people into office in the first place.

David Martin:
So, this is a revolving door problem, and the Bayh–Dole Act created an insidious incentive that
said that the only research that was going to be conducted was going to be research that
ultimately would flow back to the pharmaceutical industry and create juggernauts where the risk
of R&D was taken by the public and the benefit for that R&D was taken by the private. That's a
horrible thing, and that is exactly what Fauci has run.

David Martin:
It's amazing to realize, and Joe I've mentioned this in the Fauci dossier that I published, that
during this pandemic, Congress and the Congressional Budget Office asked for an accounting of
NIH owned patents where they had potential commercial interest in the drugs that were being
produced. Do you realize that Anthony Fauci lied in that federal filing by failing to disclose any
of the NIAID commercial patents associated with anything to do with any of the work he's
doing? Not a single disclosure. That is constructive lying to Congress. And he submitted, in the
fall of 2020, he submitted a report to Congress at Congress's request to be accountable for the
public funds that he benefits from, and his response was to lie and say there wasn't any.

David Martin:
The evidence is stacked a mile long because inside of the patent filings with the exception of the
illegal acts of Moderna in their 141 patents that have been issued. Moderna stands alone as the
only recipient of NIAID funding that fails to comply with the law and fails to disclose the federal
government interest in their intellectual property. Despite that, and this is where it becomes
important. Despite the fact that everyone knew that Moderna failed to disclose the federal
government interest in its research Anthony Fauci picked Moderna to be the front runner for an
untested, commercially unsuccessful and entirely unproven mRNA vaccine technology in the
spring of 2020.

David Martin:
There was no rational justification for that, and there would have been less rational justification
given the fact that Moderna is on record as having violated the federal law, the Bayh–Dole Act
141 times at the time they were picked to be the winner. This is a known, known fact, and it was
overlooked entirely and not a single law enforcement agent anywhere in the United States has
decided that having a criminal organization supply a product sounds like a bad idea.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah. So, thank you for explaining that so well. Many people ascribe the nickname to Fauci as
“Teflon Tony” because he's so effective at displacing, not displacing, but deflecting the
accusations directed at him. So, I wonder, there's not many people better qualified to answer this
than you and it is pure speculation. I mean, but you can't criticize Fauci for not being
spectacularly slippery and sophisticated in his strategies to evade detection. So my guess is that
he is a billionaire, a multi-billionaire, probably, because of his relationships with industry and his
ability to effectively cover these assets. Do you have any thoughts on that? I mean, it's probably
a powerful motivation, but it's pure speculation. There's probably no evidence, and he would hide
it.

David Martin:
Joe, I think it's a fascinating question. I think many of us probably forget that if you, as an
unelected and the highest paid public servant in the federal government, if you have the ability to
stand in front of the president and dictate the future of the country. It's not money you're after, it's
actually something else.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Okay, perfect. What is it?

David Martin:
I think that this is pure 100% unadulterated, sociopathic tyranny. I think this is a guy who clearly
has a contempt for humanity that is probably unrivaled by most, if not all, historical figures.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Wow.

David Martin:
And the fact of the matter is, if you have the audacity – I mean, let's face it, and Joe you know
this. You know this from your own experience. There's a thing called the False Claims Act by
the Federal Trade Commission. False Claims Act is when you promote something that doesn't
have at least two independent peer-reviewed clinical trials to justify your claims of either safety
or efficacy, and everybody in the health care industry knows what this thing is. In April of 2020,
the Journal of the American Medical Association official publication said that face coverings and
masks should not be worn by a general population because there was, "No evidence that they
actually provided any benefit."

David Martin:
As a matter of fact, the only randomized clinical trial that was done by CR McIntyre actually
stated that wearing cloth face coverings increase the risk of influenza-like illness. So the only
study we had was it was potentially bad for you. But in contempt for the Federal Trade
Commission Act, suddenly we were all supposed to put on a thing, which quite literally the data
said not to do. Now, when you have the audacity to not only change your own policy, which he
has now admitted to lie, but he goes one step further, and says that the lie was justified. Those
are definitional criteria for sociopathic behavior.

David Martin:
When you not only don't see the error of your ways, but you actually celebrate the corruption
that says, "I can have contempt for the truth, and I can do it in the best interest of some sort of
self-serving agenda." And the fact of the matter is like Ralph Baric who if you go on to Google
Earth, you can see he lives in a modest home. This guy has a modest lab when you look at the
pictures of his lab at UNC, Chapel Hill, he has a modest lab. But all of a sudden you realize that
he is invited to be what? The guest of honor here, the guest of honor there, he doesn't need
billions of dollars to live a billionaire's lifestyle. Ralph Baric and Tony Fauci share a common
objective, which is they both have a desire to be most powerful and have 100% immunity from
public accountability. And the fact of the matter is most billionaires would aspire to the control
and power those guys have because it turns out they have something money can't buy. They have
something that can only be acquired through fear and blackmail, which is exactly what they
actually trafficking.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah, well, that is brilliant. I don't really think I've ever heard it put that
way before my perspective, but it makes perfect sense. So, thank you for sharing your
observations and assessments, that's great. But clearly there are financial motivations.

David Martin:
Oh, yes, absolutely.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

And not necessarily to them. But I think the sociopathic behavior might be more relevant as an
explanation, but I'm wondering if you can walk us through the tens, and more likely hundreds of
billions of dollars that are going to accrue to the vaccine manufacturers, and what's more
egregious and unbelievable beyond sociopathic behavior is that any and every injury and death
will never be compensated for. I mean, to me that is one of the most egregious criminal
behaviors that they instigated in this. And then, on top of that they are mandated by
unconstitutional executive orders to get this vaccine.

David Martin:
Well, remember that under 21 Code of Federal Regulations, section 50, about 23 and 24, no one
can be forced or coerced into a clinical trial of an experimental, even medical countermeasures.
So it's not legal to do it. That's very clear. It's black and white, and this clinical trial does not end
until 2023 in the first best instance. So, there is no such thing as an approved or even authorized
use of a thing that can be compelled on the population. That doesn't mean that people aren't
trying to do it.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Excuse me to interrupt, and compounding that to make it even worse is they eliminated all the
controls of this trial. Go on.

David Martin:
So, there is not a clinical trial. That's why if we go back and we look at the 21 Code of Federal
Regulations, we see that we have a number of things that fail. We did not have an independent
investigational review board. We did not have any of the statutorily required approval processes
for the protocol. And the companies themselves made determinations about modifying the
protocol midstream. We do not have a clinical trial on this particular injection.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Right. Totally agree.

David Martin:
It's just really pure and simple. And so, once again, violating the Federal Trade Act. All right,
somebody in law enforcement, somebody in the legal community should actually bring them up
on the same thing that they throw against clinicians time and time again. There's not a
chiropractor, an osteopath anywhere in this country that hasn't had some sort of False Claims Act
shakedown from the Federal Trade Commission. But you know what's fascinating? The federal
government is doing the same violation. They're telling you a thing works. They're telling you a
thing is curative. They're telling you a thing is therapeutic, and they're violating the Federal
Trade Act, and no one is doing a single thing.

David Martin:
But back to your question. What we have is a situation where the deaths are actually considered
to be acceptable. I want you to hear that word. Let that settle in, “acceptable death.” I don't know
Joe, what world do you have to come from to find that term even remotely speakable. I think the
utterance of that phrase is horrific. The idea that we think it is acceptable to have enough deaths
to justify an intervention, which has not been proven, has not been tested, and for which a
clinical trial was disrupted and interrupted so the clinical trial could never happen. We are killing
people willfully, and we are doing it with impunity in the name of what we call a love affair with
science.

David Martin:
The only problem is we've desecrated science in the process, too. Because it turns out that when I
did randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trials, you know what I had to do? I had to
keep the populations blinded. I had to keep the placebo controlled for the whole clinical trial.
And the reason I had to do that is because that's what the statute requires. This entire process has
been willful acts of harm to humanity. And the only hope, by the way, that we have is a very
small note in the Department of Justice opinion that took place under the Trump administration
that says that if this was based on felony acts, then the entire emergency use authorization and all
its benefits would collapse.

David Martin:
In other words, if we can show that racketeering, that lying to Congress, that the public coercion
under Section 802 of the Patriot Act, if we can show that any felony has occurred, which by the
way you know in the Fauci dossier, I outline dozens of evidence of these felony violations. Any
one of those would bring this entire thing to its knees because the moment the PREP act
protection falls away from Pfizer, and Moderna, and Johnson and Johnson, and AstraZeneca, and
others, the moment that protection collapses, I can guarantee you who will not be promoting a
vaccine. If they are liable for a single injury or death they'll pull the plug on what they know to
be unsafe. That requires law enforcement to do its job. And somewhere there has to be a
prosecutor who's willing to do their job.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah. Well, that would make logical rational sense. And you are very well-studied in this and
really have a deep, clear thinking process going on. So, I want to ask you the obvious question is
what is it that co-opted or captured the federal regulatory agency responsible for this obvious
violations of multiple criminal behaviors, why are they not engaging? Is it because industry
captured them or there's some other reason that you believe might be a contribution?

David Martin:
Well, people have talked for years about what's happened at the federal judiciary where the
benches have been stacked by people of limited qualification or ideological affiliation or fill in
the blank. People have been finger-pointing all along. But the fact of the matter is that the
problem is that back when the picture behind me, which by the way is Cornwallis in Washington.
I just happened to fly the flag of liberty and the flag of pharma, and I'm letting you decide
[crosstalk 00:42:26].
David Martin:
The interesting thing is that we have a situation where you and I were taught when we were in
school that we had three legs of the government. We had the legislative, we had the executive,
and we had the judiciary. And the fact of the matter is that somewhere along the line in probably
the 1980s we started having the judiciary undermined while none of us were paying attention.
Where courts were routinely being co-opted for political objectives. And when you have the
executive branch of the government willfully violating laws and making sure that they can be
done with impunity. I mean, go back to Iran-Contra, and people forget that, but those were
felonies, those were laws being broken.

David Martin:
And when we have an executive that says that those crimes can be done with impunity, and then
when we go in, and we start doing other things, like we start doing financial fraud, and we start
covering up the fact that we're robbing the Social Security Administration, and we're doing all
sorts of things. What we do is we undermine the judiciary to the point where right now I
genuinely do not think we have three tiers of government. I don't think there is a Department of
Justice.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

So, they've effectively collapsed the judicial branch?

David Martin:
That's correct. The judiciary is functionally gone. And whether it happened with the various
election scandals, which go back to hanging chads once upon a time. You guys remember the
hanging chads conversations in Florida during Bush's election? I mean, when we allow the
judiciary to be an arm of the executive then what happens is we've actually lost the three-tiered
structure of government. And as a result, the system collapses. And what's happened is because
the judiciary was the only thing that had – and Joe, this is really important. The judiciary was the
only thing that was explicitly independent.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah, that's right.

David Martin:
We don't allow judges to get sponsorship in campaign finance. We don't allow judges to be
elected. We appoint them, we go through an approval process. We do all sorts of things to try to
make sure the judiciary is independent. So, the only risk to the pharmaceutical industry, the only
risk to an executive out of control was the judiciary. So, by collapsing the judicial system in the
United States, we have effectively made the government a servant of its benefactors. And that is
industry and not just any industry. As you know the most lucrative sponsor of government right
now is the pharmaceutical industry by almost twice what is paid by Big Oil and defense
combined.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Wow. That is one of the best analysis that I've ever heard as to the explanation of why this was
allowed to happen, but it makes perfect sense.

David Martin:
Yeah, I mean, if you follow the money, this is not even an open question. This is a willful act.
And not surprisingly, how was it done? It was hidden under the guise of the War on Drugs. How
funny? How funny that drug companies actually use the marketing the War on Drugs to pull this
off?

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah. So, that really helps a lot. I think it provides a framework for people to easily comprehend
and understand what has happened and why it's happened. So, I'd like to, and if you want to fill
in more details you can. I mean, you have such a wealth of information you can go on for five to
10 hours and not even skip a beat. I get that. But I want – I can't wait to hear your assessment or
predictions of what's going to happen as a result of this collapse of the judicial branch because it
looks like they've got everything in place for the implementation of global tyranny. I can't see
anything stopping it, and I can't wait to hear your expansion on that on that concept because I
think that's the key issue that everyone needs to understand.

David Martin:
Well, there is a tiny fly in the ointment.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Okay, let's hear it.

David Martin:
The fly in the ointment is 2000 and probably '28 best case scenario, 2027 in a more worst case
scenario. You have to have currency to buy off politicians. You have to have money to
politicians work. And what unfortunately took place was that during the last decade and a half,
and we can go back to certainly 2008 for most people's memory, so I'll try to keep it civilian. The
fundamentals happened before this. But back in 2008, when we had the Global Financial Crisis,
what most people failed to understand was we instituted a policy then, which was going to
functionally bankrupt our entitlement program in 2028. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
officially empty the trust fund, according to the most recent study that was done by the actuaries
at Social Security ministration. They say in 2033, but that assumes that we have a 21% reduction
in benefits starting now. You know that that's not happening. So, the best math we have is that
the annuities and pension programs of the United States functionally run out of their trust fund in
2028.

David Martin:
Now, what does that mean? Well, one of the things that people overlook is there's an unholy
alliance between the insurance company and what we call health care. Insurance companies are
long-dated asset holders. These are the people who have to have money today to cover issues in
the future. That's what a long-dated asset holder is. And the problem is that the Fed and the
European Central Bank and other central banks have suppressed the value of the return on funds
so that the funds are running out of money faster than expected. In other words, what's
happening is that 2033 window is shrinking. Now, you know as well as anybody else that for a
politician to stand up and say, "I'm going to abolish or significantly alter Social Security," is the
death knell to any political aspiration. Tiny problem. Whether they say it or not, the trust fund
runs out of money in 2028.

David Martin:
Now, here comes the kicker — so does the pharmaceutical industry. Because it turns out that the
money that's going into that system is actually paying for the drug dependency of this country.
And if we go all the way back to 1604 to the establishment of the British East India Company,
and the establishment of the Virginia Company, we'll realize that the 400-plus year tradition that
we have running where we have built nation states on the back of drug trade is coming to its end.
And the good news for all of us is it's going to end around 2028 because we have a convergence
that they didn't figure out how to cover up.

David Martin:
The convergence is that the people with the money, the big pharmaceutical players are the
beneficiaries of a system that is going to bankrupt itself by virtue of their actions. This is the
Brontosaurus that ate too much because it was the biggest dinosaur. And the great news is they
have the brain the size of a pea, just like the Brontosaurus. They are not smart. They're huge.
And the best thing we have going for us furry humans is that we actually are nimble. Now, does
that mean that we are not going to have an ounce of pain through the process? Absolutely not.
There is social disruption that we can't even imagine that's on the horizon in 2026, 2027, and
2028, because as we see 86 million people lose what they thought was going to be their
retirement funds.

David Martin:
As we see 86 million people lose what we thought were going to be the things we were entitled
to receive so that we could actually have that sunset of the American Dream. When we see that
number now go to 100 million people and the 100 million people are more sick because of what
we've injected today. They are more impaired by virtue of the medical countermeasures being
used today. Those people who are going to require greater health care then are going to be faced
with a bankrupt system incapable of supporting their life and their livelihood. And that is the
death knell of this story.

David Martin:
The great news is, Joe, we're having this conversation in 2021. The best news about this is we
have time if people of good conscience get together and say, "We're not going to let that
apocalypse arrive because we have time to start building communities that actually care for each
other. We have time to start building accountability structures. We have time to start doing
things that bring our social fabric together so that when that system designed in the 1930s
collapses, we can come back to a rational view of what life and liberty and the pursuit of
happiness is." Because until we can reclaim the sovereignty of our health, we cannot celebrate
the sovereignty of our life.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay, that's interesting. I've got some questions on it because if you look at the World Economic
Forum, which many people believe is leading up this conspiracy trend. Obviously, they've had
many times addressed the Great Reset. So, I agree with your mathematical inevitability of the
collapse. It just cannot be sustained.

David Martin:
No.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

But they can change things and according to the World Economic Forum and everything I know
that they're projecting is they are going to implement these CBDCs, the Central Bank Digital
Currencies and have the Great Reset, and essentially use this, and essentially abolish the dollar,
so it doesn't matter. We're going to do a reset, press Ctrl+Alt+Delete.

David Martin:
You know the bad news about Klaus Schwab is he's a terrible historian. I love the nefarious
actions of our Dr. Evils that are out there in the world.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

He couldn’t be a more perfect [inaudible 00:53:16], the absolute perfect bond villain.

David Martin:
Yeah, I mean, but like a good [James] Bond villain, he's actually ignorant of history. The reason
why I'm so optimistic that the Great Reset doesn't have a chance at all to succeed is, oddly
enough, the same reason why the picture behind me is the picture behind me. Cornwallis didn't
lose to Washington. What happened was there were just too many privateers that made
conducting a war from Britain in the United States financially unfeasible. And King George
realized that he had a war on too many fronts, and he had to close one of those fronts. I mean,
people forget that Napoleon was doing some pretty nasty things in the Mediterranean. He was
doing some pretty nasty things in the Atlantic. And it turns out that the same thing is going to
happen to Klaus Schwab because the digital currency illusion is the most bizarre and pathetic Dr.
Evil plan anybody's ever concocted.

David Martin:
All you have to look at is the internet failures and the power outages that have already happened
across this summer to realize that there is no way that the public is going to ever embrace a
system that can be annihilated by something as simple as electromagnetic pulse, or an
electromagnetic disruption, or a service disruption. The fact of the matter is as much as people
like Klaus Schwab likes to live in their underground lairs under volcanoes with their submarines
or whatever he likes to do. The fact of the matter is the digital currency craziness is merely one
of those fantastical illusions that unfortunately has a single point failure. We live in a world
where actors of both anarchist intent, and very, very laudable privateers and pirates are more
than happy to make sure that digital currency never sees the light of day because they will, in
fact, hack, crack and disrupt every system that's out there.

David Martin:
And so, I look at the whole Great Reset as – it's great theater. It sells books. It does, in fact, make
you the caricature of the Dr. Evil. I mean, you couldn't ask for a more perfect Austin Powers
kind of looking – all he needs is a cat with no hair, and you've got it. But the fact of the matter is
the entire illusion is being run because they're out of ideas. And the best thing that you can ever
see people is when the incumbency is out of bad ideas they try desperately to force you into a
behavior that you would not otherwise accept. All you have to do is just say no. Just don't play
along.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

I would agree. But I'm wondering there are many people who've studied this very carefully and
contend that one of the ulterior motivations for implementation is plandemic is a depopulation
strategy.

David Martin:
There's no question that's the case.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

So, along those lines, and I really want to hear your thoughts on the likelihood of anyone who
receives the COVID jab dying prematurely quickly within the next few years. I mean,
theoretically, there's a potential that the majority of people who got the shot are going to be dead
in a few years. So, I'm wondering your thoughts on that, and I'm wondering if, in fact, it is a very
highly effective depopulation strategy, and resulting in loss of perhaps half the population or
more if that impacts what you just said.

David Martin:
So, you're on to a very good point. And so, let's unpack the legs of the stool here. First of all, if
you've made financial promises to senior citizens, or people who are going to be senior citizens,
the fewer promises you have to keep the better. So, the financial interest for depopulation is a
compelling and a very thoroughly compelling argument. I spent an entire hour on this at my
lecture that I gave at the Church of Glad Tidings in Yuba City. If people want to go online, they
can see that.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

We'll put a link to it.

David Martin:
I'm sorry?

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

We'll put a link to it.
David Martin:
Yeah, in that show, I actually went through the 1914 forward life insurance cabal that is actually
running an enormous amount of what's happening right now. I've gotten to that in nauseating
detail, and it turns out that there's an economic incentive to get a lot of people dead before 2028.
There's an economic incentive. It's also a political incentive. If you have people over the age of
65 who have taken this shot who are already health compromised in one way or another, the
likelihood that we've accelerated their loss of life is exceptionally high. If we look at the previous
lipid nanoparticle and mRNA trials that were done in animal studies, we actually are not going to
be surprised to see a mass-casualty event.

David Martin:
So there is no question that what's being done, jumped over animal trials for a very important
reason. We've been told it was to save time, but it wasn't to save time. It was actually to put this
particular pathogen into humanity, so that a lot of people suffer, and ultimately die of effects that
we could have picked up if we had done it the traditional way, which is seven to eight years of
safety studies before we decide to put it in the arms of humans. That's not what we did. And if
we look at the safety data out of animal studies on mRNA, and on the lipid nanoparticle from
Acuitas and Arbutus, there is no question, Joe, that there is going to be a fatality increase because
of this.

David Martin:
Now, what percentage of the population is going to be a function of something that we do not
discuss? Because as you are very aware, but your viewers probably not as much, there is a
technology called CRISPR, which is the camel’s nose that's been under this tent. And the
CRISPR technology, which I've spent a lot of time looking at. We just did a couple shows with
the several thousand CRISPR patents include a number of patents on clipping the effects of
vaccines from people. So, there is a high probability that we're building a pathogen set that then
goes into people so that we can introduce a more expensive technology, which allows us to then
go fix the thing that we harm, which means that there's probably going to be an economic class
distinction about whether you live or whether you die.

David Martin:
Now, I am not going to opine on the quality of life. Because if you are constantly dependent on
CRISPR this and then vaccine that and then CRISPR this and then vaccine that, that's not much
of a life. But the fact of the matter is I think we already see that the CRISPR approvals that have
happened in the last even few weeks are pointing out the direction that we're planning on going
here. What you are saying though, and I want to come back to this because the depopulation
question is not a theoretical. This is something that has been explicitly part of an agenda since
the Eugenics Office was started by the U.S. government in 1914 funded by Andrew Carnegie in
collaboration, surprisingly, with Booker T. Washington, who's a great patron saint of people who
don't want to read history.

David Martin:
But the fact of the matter is the getting rid of undesirables is actually something that's been
around for 100-plus years here in the United States. This is a campaign that includes that, and the
fewer people that live to Social Security benefit, and the fewer people who live to the full
maturity of their life insurance policies are quite problematic with respect to this particular reset.
But I want to point out something that is something I mentioned a few months ago and seemed to
be lost on a lot of people. We were told there were excess deaths. We were told that this whole
coronavirus thing and COVID thing led to excess deaths. But there's a tiny technical problem. If
you want real numbers, go to the people who are the real beneficiaries of death. And who are
they? They're life insurance companies. I've got a nasty little secret to tell all of you who believe
CDC's (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) numbers. We were told that more people
died in 2020 than were supposed to die except for a tiny little problem that fewer life insurance
claims were paid.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Smoking gun, the smoking gun.

David Martin:
Who's numbers are you going to believe?

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

The smoking gun.

David Martin:
Whose numbers are you going to believe? Are you going to believe the CDC who's trying to
pump and dump this terror campaign of people dying, and therefore you need to have your mask
on, you need to socially distance, you need to vaccinate? Are you going to believe those numbers
or are you going to believe the numbers of the people who actually pay claims when real human
life ends? And it turns out that if you look at the audited financial statements of the world's
largest life insurance companies we can find no excess death evidence.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

That's a really powerful point.

David Martin:
Now, here's the question. Is COVID so damn smart that it only kills the uninsured? Is that what
we're supposed to believe?

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

That's right. No. Yeah, that's brilliant. So, I'm wondering if you would care to speculate as to the
range of lethality of the vaccine within a three-to-five-year time period?

David Martin:
Well, here's where it becomes a little hard because what we have is something that was not
actually tried. Remember that what we've done is introduced as an alleged vaccine against a
pathogen called SARS-CoV-2, we've introduced the synthetic computer simulation of the S1
spike protein. Now, what is so important about that? Let's start with the legal problem. The legal
problem is that when we say we have a vaccination against a virus, but we're not doing anything
to vaccinate against the virus, what we're doing is we're injecting a simulated code to have the
body produce a pathogen that then we hope the body will recognize and then build an immune
response to.

David Martin:
So, this is a ridiculous proposition in the first place. But the vaccine itself has nothing to do with
SARS-CoV-2, it has everything to do with the spike protein. And it's been mislabeled and
misrepresented by every single clinician who's ever injected anybody with this thing because it
does not protect you against a virus, it actually makes you stimulate a protein associated with one
of the proteins associated with the model of the virus. And you followed all that you got a Ph.D.
in genetics right there.

David Martin:
But here's the thing. What we don't know is we don't know whether or not the spike protein is
going to have secondary effects that are also undesirable. We've already seen the concern that
came out of the Booster review where the FDA's own scientists were concerned about
myocarditis, they were concerned about Guillain-Barré syndrome, they were concerned about
other adverse events. But what we know from a decade of research in dogs and in rabbits is we
know that the spike protein is associated with increased cardiac and vascular and respiratory
tissue damage. So, it is likely that we don't even have – Joe, at this point in time, it's likely we
don't even have an idea other than we know the systems that we're going to watch fail.

David Martin:
We know we're going to have cardiomyopathy. We know we're going to have vascular damage,
and we know we're going to have lung disorder. But what we do not know is whether those are
lethal or they are simply morbidity events, meaning that your quality of life will functionally
reduce to the fact that you will require some almost consistent palliative care. And what we'll
have is probably a mix of actual deaths.

David Martin:
But the concern I have more egregious to the death as much as it sounds harsh when I say this, I
think the malingering morbidity, which is the ongoing nature of people who require around-the-
clock medical care is going to be a drain that will infect our economy so deeply that we may not
recover. Because if we have people who have to stay at home with children who are sick, if we
have people who have to care for elderly parents who are sick, if we have people who are caring
for a spouse or a family member who are sick, that means that we do not have the ability to enjoy
life and liberty. And the fact is that I think we're going to have a bigger morbidity than mortality
event.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah, that's an interesting speculation. Especially, in light of the fact that the strong predictions
are that they are going to approve this COVID jab, for infants, this year, which is one of the most
reprehensible criminal behaviors in the history of medicine.
David Martin:
Yeah.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

It's just disgusting.

David Martin:
But bear in mind that this was this was something Congress approved in 2015. And people, you
got to remember, these things matter. You need to be paying attention to what happens with your
congressmen and women. You need to be paying attention to what happens in the Senate because
we have been funding a universal infant pan-influenza vaccine program in Congress since 2015.
Anthony Fauci has asked for more appropriations every year. They decided to turn the influenza
authorization into a coronavirus authorization, but the fact of the matter is they are trying
desperately to get this as an approved dependency that every single infant gets injected with at
birth. And this is part of the official records of NIAID and the official records of Fauci's
testimony in Congress. See, people before you knew the name Fauci was worth listening to he
was sitting in front of congressmen and women advocating for a universal childhood influenza
vaccine. And guess what Congress did? They appropriated it.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah. It's so reprehensible because there's absolutely no clinical justification for this. It's even
less clinically indicated in hepatitis B vaccine.

David Martin:
Yeah, I mean, that you're exactly right. There's not a shred of evidence that says that this is
anything other than an economic grab to make sure the public is permanently dependent on
genetically modified injections.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah. Okay, I can't thank you enough. Deep expression of gratitude for your incredible insights
into this window, and we've got to continually expose that brilliant information you're having. I
would really like you to expand on what I think is clearly the conclusion, and the most important
point here, which is what are we going to do? Hopefully, we can continue to educate, inspire and
catalyze a large segment of the 80 million people in United States who have failed and refused to
get the jab. So, I think we have to maintain this core of people who are insulated from the
devastating morbidities you just described. So, I'd like to hear in detail as much as you want to
expand on as to what you believed to be the community solutions that need to be implemented
now while we still have some time to perform an effective alternative to global tyranny.

David Martin:
Well, listen, it starts with conversations like this, Joe. The fact of the matter is you and I have not
had the pleasure of meeting each other and whether or not we have entered into lockstep on
ideologies or anything else is neither here nor there. What we have to do is we have to engage in
respectful conversation where the best and brightest of our minds can actually have open
dialogue. It's not surprising that one of the first things they did to implement this plandemic is
separate people. And if you want to start I'll tell you exactly where to start. Invite somebody over
for dinner and cook a homemade meal that doesn't have genetically altered ingredients in that
meal.

David Martin:
The first thing to do is start informing yourself. Live in a way that says that this is something that
matters and I have gone through and I just finished a course that a lot of people have taken on,
integral accounting asset management, which is understanding the all in cost of what you're
doing. If you have 11% of your retirement funds in Pfizer, can you actually say you're against the
jab? I mean, let's start really addressing things people. Let's not pretend like we can turn a blind
eye towards “Well, but we like the investment returns we're getting.” If you actually are against
the thing be against the thing.

David Martin:
The point is we have to start being conscious first because the minute we start being conscious
we are going to make decisions that say, “We're going to choke off the money supply to the
perpetrators of this evil.” And we need to see that as a first step. As a community, we need to
actually look at the labels of the food that we put into our mouths because it turns out that the
genetic engineering that's happening in our food, which now 70% of what is sold in a grocery
store, according to the most recent study that General Mills just published, 70% of what's sold in
a grocery store is genetically engineered, 70%. Guess what? Get rid of the artificial sweeteners,
get rid of the soft drinks, get rid of the things that are harming you, and start making the life
decisions today, which actually show that you're actually concerned about this so that you're not
waiting for a solution in the form of a tablet or a supplement or something else.

David Martin:
Start living correctly now, but do it in community, and community is not, let's all move into a
commune somewhere. What I'm saying about community is get to know your neighbor. Engage
in respectful dialogue with people who disagree with your point of view. Begin the process of
having those conversations. And then what happens out of that is natural networks of economies
are built. I have spent two decades of my life rebuilding post-conflict countries around the world.
I've done work in 128 countries directly, many of which have gone through civil wars, many of
which have gone through genocide. And what I have found, Joe, in every instance is the first step
is to build micro-economies.

David Martin:
Micro economies are things that say as simple as if you have a car that you're not using, let
somebody else rent the car. It doesn't have to be an Uber. Use local resources more effectively.
Because what will happen out of this is that we'll start realizing that the promise of America, and
the promise for humanity was not a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot. The promise
of America was people being able to transport themselves, and having an extra seat at the table.
That's what the promise of America was. That's what Thanksgiving was about. That's what all of
these things are about.
David Martin:
We need to go back to what our real roots are because the fact is that we have built an illusion
that says our success is defined by how much we consume for our singular benefit rather than
how much do we steward so that everyone has the ability to experience the best and brightest?
Do we all need a boat? Do we all need a car? Do we all need a tiller for our garden? Do we all
need? No, we don't. What we need is the best used optimally.

David Martin:
So simple. But this is going to require a conscious shift in how we see our world. You all do not
have to have a multimillion-dollar system that can understand the meaning of patents and do all
that kind of thing. You need to know that there's a bald guy with a bowtie that is more than
happy to share it with you whenever and however you need it. We don't need 10 of me. We need
the one of me. And we don't need the 10 of Joes, we need the one of Joes, but what we need is
we need to be in a world in which we see and value the values that people bring to the table and
we reciprocate the values that we can share.

David Martin:
The fact is we have a very unique moment in human history, and it probably is as close to the
story of Joseph in Egypt as you can get. You know the seven fat years and then the seven skinny
years? Well, guess what? We have a couple years of fat years left. You know what we should be
doing? We should be investing in our networks of relationship. We should be investing in our
networks of community. We should be building those resilient fibers that hold us together
because we know that there is a famine coming. And we are in the unique position right now
ladies and gentlemen to actually do something about it.

David Martin:
So, start with yourself. Make sure that what you put into your body is aligned to your health.
Make sure that what you do with your body is aligned to your health. And then as you do that
invite other people into living a life that in fact models that behavior so that we start building
communities of consciousness. And as we build those communities, we will start building
currencies of consciousness. Those currencies are going to be the ability to create the micro, the
organic Uber in your town, right? Wouldn't it be nice to actually know that you could borrow a
car that wasn't vaccine? That you weren't going to have shedding of a freaking God knows what
spike protein. Wouldn't it be great to be the first organic Uber in your town, the first organic
Grubhub in your town? There are a bunch of ways that we can solve these problems, and we can
do it using the market. We can do it using our consciousness, but we need our consciousness, we
need our community, and we know our currency to be organically aligned to humanity again.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Oh, it's great. That's exactly what I was looking for. Couldn't agree more with respect to
optimizing your health, and that's what I've been preaching for over nearly a quarter of a century.
And helping people understand and that really helped hundreds of millions of people around the
world. But the fly in the ointment in what you described, and definitely – I'd like you response to
this and then we can sign off – is that in my view this is the most effective propaganda campaign
in the history of humanity. And it has created a massive global psychosis that has brainwashed
the population so that dialogue you encourage us to have with our neighbors in their community
is almost physically impossible. It has progressed to the point where they could have someone,
their parent or their sibling die with the jab in their arm and believe it was just a coincidence.
That is how bad it is. So, how do you address the most effective propaganda campaign in history
that ever existed?

David Martin:
So, there's probably no better question to end on Joe. How do you ever convince people who
bought propaganda to change their mind? Because the decision to buy it wasn't rational.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Absolutely.

David Martin:
Therefore, we cannot appeal to rationality to change it. But I'll tell you what you can do. You can
actually live, and the funny thing about living is, I don't know if you remember the movie “When
Harry Met Sally,” but there's a beautiful scene in that movie where they're out at a restaurant-

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yes, a classic.

David Martin:
And the classic iconic scene where you know the end of it. “I'll have what she's having.” The
point is that that's the answer. The answer is live without constraint, without fear. And before
long, what you'll find is people are going to say, "Hold on a minute, you mean you're not afraid?
You mean, you're not doing something?" I think here's the problem. We see the short-term
reflexive effectiveness of propaganda, and we think we've lost, but we haven't lost. Because it
turns out people like me, people like you, I'm still traveling the country. I'm going all over the
place. I'm doing things, I'm meeting with people. God forbid, I'm shaking hands, I'm doing
selfies, I'm interacting with humanity. And it turns out that people are starting to go, "Well, but
aren't you afraid?" I don't have to answer that question. The evidence is my life.

David Martin:
Listen people, propaganda cannot stand against the truth of a life well lived. It can never stand
against that truth. What we're trying to do is the wrong energy. We're trying to confront with
rationality and irrational reflex. But what we need to be doing is being persistent in showing up
and living in a way that people look at and say, "I'll have what he's having. I'll have what she's
having." This is your “Harry Met Sally” moment. This is that restaurant scene. This is your
moment to be a person who outlasts the half-life of the propaganda reflex. And I've seen way too
many people try to engage energetically in the debate where they enter into conflict and what it
does is it destroys their well-being, it destroys their life, and they walk away being the miserable
angry one. Well, don't be the miserable angry one. Be the one at the table who is the one worth
looking at and going, "I'll have what he's having. I'll have what she's having." Live a life that is
desirable and you'll see propaganda become emasculated instantaneously.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
So, the refinement of your early recommendation, engage in dialogue with people in your
community is to do not engage with those who have drunk the Kool Aid. You just can't because
you are speaking – you are hitting a head against a brick wall.

David Martin:
That's exactly right.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

It won't work. You’re wasting time and effort. It's going to be highly counterproductive.

David Martin:
When they hear a picnic in your backyard, and they see lights well past the bedtime curfew. All
the time while Governor Northam here in Virginia was telling us that we could not have
gatherings. What we did was we continued our workshops. We had people in our house, we had
our table full of 15, 20, 25 people, and our official policy was if you signed up for our workshop,
for the moment you were in our home we adopted you as family because the legal exemption in
Virginia was if you were family then you actually didn't count. So, what we did was we actually
adopted everybody for the week or the four days or the five days. If anybody knocked on the
door, we just had one of the most inclusive, gender-neutral, socially acceptable, panchromatic,
you name it. We had every kind of cousin, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child, granny. We had
everybody and it was all family. And we actually went through the entire shutdown having a
table full of fellowship. And you know what? Everybody in the neighborhood said, "I'd love to
have what they're having."

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Yeah. Well, I don't think there's a better point to end on. I can't thank you enough for sharing
your insights. I don't think I've ever heard a more brilliant compilation of explanations and
practical implementations of what to do in these challenging times. I mean, you've covered it
from end to end. So, I'm just grateful that someone like you exists who's used his intellectual
resources for the benefit of people.

David Martin:
Joe, it's an honor to be with you and I'm looking forward to the day that we get to break bread
together and spend some time in each other's company.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:

All right. Well, thanks so much, and we'll definitely connect.

David Martin:
Very good.