Sunday, May 26, 2024
HomeCOVID-19Dr David Martin on the Covid vaccine racket – Part 1

Dr David Martin on the Covid vaccine racket – Part 1


UNREMARKED by the mainstream media in the UK, Dr David Martin made social media headlines earlier this summer with the explosive dossier of evidence he presented to the international Corona Investigative Committee headed by Reiner Fuellmich, a senior German lawyer specialising in exposing corporate swindles. Neville Hodgkinson reported on the ‘Twenty-year genetic trail behind Covid’s creation’ and on the racketeering and corruption that led to the manmade coronavirus being unleashed for TCW Defending Freedom here. 

In a long and fascinating interview last week with the US host Mike Adams, Martin (whose training was in biology, psychology and physiology and who has a doctorate in orthopaedic sports medicine and exercise physiology) tells of what motivates him in his quest to uncover the truth about Covid, ‘vaccines’ and their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration, and gives a searing account of how both the FDA and the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have unilaterally pre-empted all three branches of US government, executive, legislative and judicial.

You can watch the interview in full here.

Over the next days we are publishing edited extracts from it. In this first, Martin and Adams discuss the FDA’s (fraudulent) approval of the Pfizer BioNTech Covid 19 ‘vaccine’ to be named Comirnaty, or as Martin describes it, ‘vaccine material’, and why and how this approval has been misinterpreted for 12-15-year-olds. He explains the captured regulatory environment of interlocking directorates, ‘which are essentially insiders both trading on and benefiting from inside information’, describing it as criminal.

Dr David Martin: I was on the medical school faculty at the University of Virginia [and] set up the first medical device, clinical research organisation, submitting clinical trials to the FDA. I have had a decade of FDA interactions on advisory panels, submitting a number of clinical studies, doing one of the very largest medical device clinical trials in FDA history. So I have the credentials that say I can speak about these things. During that exact same time in the mid-90s, I started doing an enormous amount of forensic work on, specifically, the area of biological and chemical weapons. In 1999, going into 2000, I started briefing a lot of law enforcement agencies and became an asset for the United States government, travelling to a lot of places around the world, talking about what was going on with biological and chemical weapons globally. So, you know, whether that was the Islamic Republic of Iran where I was sent in 2005 to go to a conference in Tehran on this topic, whether it’s Bled, Slovenia, you know, all over the world, I have been actually asked by our government to go and examine what’s going on. So it’s fascinating that against that backdrop, the very person who they’ve sent to the nether worlds of the world to look after the United States and our allied interests, when you find the US doing things it shouldn’t be doing, the exact same perspective is very unwelcome. 

Mike Adams: Thank you for that brief history of your involvement, because that leads me to the first question I want to ask you today, given the breaking news on Monday with the FDA issuing apparently two different letters, from what I understand, one extending the EUA [Emergency Use Authorisation], the other granting approval to Comirnaty. But there’s a lot of confusion and it seems like there was deliberate conflation of that by the FDA. What is your analysis of what the FDA has done this week? 

Martin: Yeah, so it’s actually interesting. They approved a unicorn, and that’s metaphoric. Comirnaty doesn’t exist. There is an enormous amount of the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine material. And I’m going to use that term. I’m not going to give it what they want me to give it, which is the honour of calling it a vaccine. But the vaccine material that they’re promoting, they have an enormous amount of stockpiled material that they have built running and to 23rd August, when they issued this very bizarre approval, because the approval is actually for the future production of what they’re calling this Covid-19 vaccine. However, if you actually look at the letter that Pfizer had and if you look at the official publication from the FDA, it’s very interesting. The section on where it can be manufactured and when it can be manufactured is redacted, which is unusual, given the fact that an approval letter is supposed to be a public announcement that makes these things visible. They’ve redacted the, ‘what can be manufactured and where it can be manufactured and when it can be manufactured’. 

The EUA extension in that document itself specifically made reference to the EUA with respect to children between 12 and 15 years of age, because it was very important that inside of the approval, you know, quasi-approval letter, it was abundantly clear that they could not state, for a whole host of reasons, but they could not state that there was an approval granted to the age of 12. And that’s a really important distinction. So 12 to 15 is not subject to the approval. But ironically, as you’ve pointed out, the Emergency Use Authorisation has been extended across the already manufactured injection. So when the mainstream media suggests that this approval has suddenly put what is sitting in freezers around the world into an approved status, that’s actually not true. That material is still under the EUA. There are still manufacturing guidelines that were not required for the EUA that would be required for a full approved product. So there’s a bunch of nuance inside of the approval, which is, in fact, as you’ve indicated, a kind of approval backpedalled into an extended EUA. Now, we all know that the political reason for this was very straightforward. With school starting, there is a rush by the current administration to try to get kids and school mandates pushed through. But we need to understand that, albeit the political expediency driving the ship, this entire process has done a number of things that explicitly violate the 1986 Act which gave manufacturers liability protections. And it’s important to realise that the document that came out of the FDA on August 23rd does not grant Pfizer-BioNTech the full benefit of the ’86 Act, because there are a number of active studies ongoing. So there is an open investigation status to this trial. It doesn’t close, by the way, until sometime in 2023. So we’ve got two more years of data collection for safety and efficacy. And so there’s a very bizarre thing, Mike, where they got the headline they wanted, but they don’t have the substance behind the headline. 

Adams: Well, it’s fascinating, though, that the entire media then says, ‘Pfizer is approved’, the corporations and the policymakers inside those corporations say, ‘Boom, it’s approved. Everybody must take it now’, and so on. So they’re gaslighting, right? Gaslighting the nation with this false status. But there’s something fascinating about this. Under the law, at least as I understand it, and this is my question to you: the fact that they granted full approval to Comirnaty, doesn’t this then effectively nullify the Emergency Use Authorisation of all the other vaccines, because EUA authorisation is contingent upon there being no approved intervention? 

Martin: Yeah. So this is where they don’t eat their own dog food, Mike, you’re exactly right. If you look at the conditions that give rise to the authorisation of a vaccine – and we do need to unpack the vaccine thing, because I refuse to fall for the bait . . . this is what it is. But let’s stay with the abstraction for a moment. A mandate for any EUA has to live inside of ‘no clinical alternative’. Now, we know that they stacked the deck, the FDA refused to consider any meaningful alternative to any vaccine. So all of the work on all of the other compounds that had shown promise, including NIAID’s own research on ciprofloxacin with SARS, all of the evidence was suppressed, so that the only path forward was vaccines and that we know from the public record. 

There’s no question that the absence of an alternative was born from a manufactured absence. The reason why we don’t have an alternative is because we said there was going to be no alternative, not because science dictated that. So we need to be clear on that. But you’re exactly right. The moment there is an approval, then the EUA protections for Johnson & Johnson and for Moderna would cease to exist instantaneously. Which is the reason why we have this very bizarre . . . is it really an approval, or is it really an extension of an EUA? And what they did was something that the law does not allow. There are no provisions that say, ‘We can have our cake and eat it, too.’ We either have an approved vaccine, in which case Moderna and J & J need to be shut down immediately because the UA doesn’t support it, or it is still an EUA, in which case we don’t have a full approval. The problem is, nobody is supposed to read their own documents from their own hand, where you can see the self-evident nature of this lie. 

Adams: This is a really critical point that you’ve just hit upon. I want to get to that in a second, but first, to add to it, I did interview [anti-Covid vaccine activist and founder of Children’s Health Defense] Robert F Kennedy Jr yesterday who indicated they had planned to sue the FDA yesterday or the day before, based on a fraudulent approval, bypassing so many of the necessary steps. However, because of the FDA’s bizarre strategy, trying to thread the needle on this, you know, have your cake and eat it, too, this has even thrown Children’s Health Defense for, you know, a curveball, so to speak. And they’re now trying to restrategise, ‘How do we sue’? How do we challenge this legally when the FDA is not even following its own laws and internal regulations? But the bigger point is that isn’t this also indicative of what’s happening across human civilisation, the complete abandonment of reason and rationality and process? 

Martin: Well, Mike, you knew this when you were in, I don’t know, eighth or ninth and tenth grade – I certainly encountered the same thing – [when] we were told that the government has three legs that keep checks and balances on us. We have the executive, we have the legislative, we have the judicial. In this particular case, I’ve been pointing out that in the case of the FDA and the CDC, they have decided that they unilaterally pre-empt all of those three branches, because what they’re doing is in clear violation of federal statutes. If we go back to the arguments I made at the very beginning of this pandemic, we clearly have antitrust laws that were the prerequisite for the pandemic to exist. If we didn’t have antitrust violations, which are things like funding the pathogen creators in Wuhan, funding the pathogen creators at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, which are well-documented and very strong evidence-backed allegations. So we have a closed shop that’s actually building the weapon. Then we have a captured regulatory environment which has interlocking directorates, which are essentially insiders both trading on and benefiting from inside information, not surprisingly, leading to Anthony Fauci’s very famous interview where he told the world that Moderna was going to be the front-running horse in the race, even though Moderna had never once produced a safe product anywhere in human history. So we have the known front-runner being a company that has never produced a product that has ever entered into human distribution, kind of an interesting jump before we even knew what the pathogen was. We have a whole bunch of these pieces of the puzzle that are established that this was based on a crime. 

As I’ve often stated, the bioweapons case is open and shut. In January, a foreign entity, in the form of China, uploaded a computer simulation of a virus, not a biologic sample, not a specimen. They uploaded a computer-generated sample of a pathogen. Now, here’s why that’s important. Under the biological and chemical weapons laws in the United States, if you provide the means of manufacturing a bioweapon, something you know to harm humanity, you have already violated the law, period. That’s not in my opinion, that’s what the law, by definition, states. So here we have a whole bunch of laws that were broken. And Mike, all along the way, there has been a wilful contempt for the legislative branch. Because we have laws, those laws are clearly on the books and they’ve been clearly violated. And there’s no provision, anywhere, that says that those laws don’t apply during an emergency. We have that as part one. But then part two, equally important is that we now have these extrajudicial, extra legislative and extra-executive, these, these bodies, the CDC and the FDA, who are essentially saying, ‘We are going to wilfully break the law.’

Adams: Well, right, and what’s disturbing to me about this is that for most of our lives, we’ve lived in a nation where there was a social construct, or a social contract, of really self-imposed honouring of the limits of certain branches of government. Now, what a lot of people don’t realise is that a document, the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, the document has no magical powers itself. It is, of course, people’s faith in that process and in that construct, which was really self-imposed restrictions on the exertion of power, that has made society more balanced and sustainable. And yet, as you’ve just said, that has been abandoned, completely thrown out. Now, even the CDC asserts that it has power over every rental contract in America, because people are involved in rent and people might spread the virus – well, people are involved in everything. Does the CDC proclaim itself to be the dictator of all human activity? 

Martin: And the answer, unfortunately, to that question is yes. Somehow or another, the CDC has found itself mysteriously inside the interstate commerce clause. Because as you probably know, most of your listeners probably know, that the one thing that made America work from a legislative standpoint is the commerce clause. And that’s why almost every law that we have, somehow or another, is written into something that says, ‘because it affects interstate commerce, therefore, that’s where the provision of law lives’. The funny thing is that what the CDC is doing is it’s actually taking the very fundamental legal structure that makes the Federated States work, which is the commerce clause, and assuming that it lives inside of that protection, which says, ‘We by fiat can make any determination, we can tell you where you can go. We can tell you what you can sing or not sing. We can tell you how you can assemble. We can tell you how you can fly. How you can drive. How you can this, how you can that.’ 

And they have absolutely no legal authority to do that. And they have been given carte blanche permission to walk over the rights of every American. To have impunity for every one of the commerce laws and not a single case has brought up the fact that all of this is predicated on criminal acts done by that organisation. This is organised crime. That’s what it is. 

Adams: Well stated, well said. So then on that, why aren’t state Attorney Generals such as Paxton in Texas or Schmitt in Missouri, why aren’t they perhaps issuing criminal indictments against CDC officials, or do you think that they might at some point? 

Martin: Well, what I know so far – and you mentioned two, there are about five that are at least circling the wagons – but the problem is that AGs have a very interesting political tightrope that they walk, and I think most of us don’t examine the humanity of people who sit in those roles. Attorney General positions are very frequently seen as political testing grounds for whatever comes next, and an awful lot of people who are sitting in positions of Attorney General have an eye on a governorship. They have an eye on a Senate seat, possibly a Representative seat. So a lot of people use the Attorney General position as a posture to get to the next level. And my concern is that the reason why a lot of AGs are sitting on their hands is because they’re actually worried about their own political futures for taking action that they should take today. Now, that’s a tragedy, because the fact of the matter is, as you stated, there are two different bodies that could take action. We have AGs in the States and they certainly could group together to take an antitrust case forward. They’re doing that against Facebook and Google already, so we could do that again. 

The other thing we could actually rely on is the US Attorneys that sit in the districts, or the federal district of the judicial system around the world . . . or around the country. And we could actually have the, you know, US Attorney for – you know, fill in the blank, Central California or the US attorney for any one of the federal districts – they could bring prosecutorial power to this situation. But we’ve got two problems. The first problem, and this is the one that’s most troubling to me, is that I have had conversations with an enormous number of these individuals. And when I bring up antitrust law, their eyes glaze over. They don’t even know the felonies that are being committed. So the tragedy is we have justice being blind and this is not the kind of blind justice we want. This is blind justice, as in they don’t know what they’re looking at. That’s a big problem. Justice should be blind from the standpoint of equanimity. It shouldn’t be blind from the standpoint of wilful ignorance. And we have a huge problem on the wilful ignorance side. But the other side of it is that they also know that to stand up against the US Department of Justice, which is where they would meet their opposition, they are ill-equipped. Almost every AG’s office, almost every US Attorney’s office, is ill-equipped to handle a case that ultimately would have the US DoJ on the other side of it. And there is no question that our current DoJ is unwilling to uphold the laws of this country. 

Tomorrow’s extracts focus on what Mike Adams describes as a ‘paradigm shift in the minds and consciousness of so many people around the world’.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Kathy Gyngell
Kathy Gyngell
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @kathygyngelltcw on GETTR and is back on Twitter.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.