The recently launched Global Health Project released a video — “The Oath” — in which physicians describe the effect on doctors, patients and the healthcare system of silencing dissent during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Global Health Project last week released a video titled “The Oath,” in which physicians describe the effect on doctors, patients and the healthcare system of silencing dissent during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The filmmakers also called on doctors to commit to making foundational changes so that what happened during the pandemic never happens again.
The film features six doctors — Elizabeth Lafay, D.O., Steven Klayman, D.C., Timothy Stonesifer, D.O., Molly Rutherford, M.D., MPH, Michael Turner, M.D., and Amy Offutt, M.D. — who said they are “saying what tens of thousands of silenced medical professionals from all over the world have not been able to say.”
Throughout the video, they respond to a series of questions.
Responding to the first question, “When did you begin to have doubts?” they described how they lost faith in institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Lancet and the pharmaceutical companies as they saw well-respected doctors silenced, articles retracted and corrupted clinical trials exposed.
It became clear the agencies were not acting in the public interest, Turner said, because “they’re captured, they’re paid off, they’re corrupt.“
In response to the second question, “How have people been harmed?” they discussed spiking levels of anxiety and depression that began with the fearmongering at the start of the pandemic.
Lafay described working in the ER during the early days of the pandemic when the hospitals emptied out and there were few COVID-19 patients — but many people arriving with “horrible, debilitating anxiety and depression.”
People stuck at home in front of the television absorbed the message “Stay home, don’t be with your family, don’t be with your friends. Isolate, hibernate,” Offutt said. “It’s really taken its toll.”
“People are fearful and I think that was the goal, to make people fearful and be forced into taking this vaccine,” Klayman added.
They said many people no longer trust the medical profession because doctors have been silent on what happened and that many doctors felt they could not speak out.
As the names of pharmaceutical giants such as Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, GSK (formerly GlaxoSmithKline), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and others flashed across the screen, Lafay said:
“It’s really tough because we’re all owned at this point. It’s easier for me to come on camera maybe and say some things like this because I am an independent practitioner now. If you don’t have your [own] practice, then you really can’t help people.
“And I think that is where a lot of [practitioners’] fear comes from, the fear of not being employed.”
But there are larger moral issues at stake, too, Klayman said, adding: “Are you going to give in to what is wrong? Or are you going to fight for what is right?”
Offutt said she thought “fixing the broken system” begins with rebuilding the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors used to spend more time with patients, she said, but then, “It became a business, and I was just one of the employees.”
“There is uniformity and conformity that’s encouraged, and the decision-makers at the top usually are not physicians, and this is a big problem, right?” Turner asked. Instead, they are lawyers looking to minimize risk and accountants looking to maximize profits.
When doctors work for these corporations, Lafay said, insurance and pharmaceutical companies are calling the shots:
“We don’t really have a voice anymore. We’re not really making choices that are best for our patients. We’re checking boxes.
“Unless we fight for the doctor-patient relationship and work to maintain privacy and decision-making that is based on an individual patient scenario, then that will be lost. The art of medicine will be gone, and we may as well be replaced by artificial intelligence.”
The doctors said in order to heal, you should “own your health” — eat well, get sunshine, move around, connect in person and to other people.
“I think doctors who maybe did some things that they regret should come out and acknowledge what they did and assure patients that they’re going to learn from it and change,” Rutherford said. “And then I think we need the truth. We need to investigate, why did all of this happen and how can we keep this from ever happening again?”
Turner said people from across the political spectrum and all walks of life are starting to come together around principles such as “accountability, honesty, respect, self-determination, bodily autonomy, freedom.”
“There’s an awakening going on, so it’s exciting and we’re gonna come out the other side,” he said.
The video closes with the oath:
“I solemnly swear to listen to my patients, respect their wishes, and together make the best choices for that individual and to do no harm.”
Video marks launch of Global Health Project
The video release marked the launch of the Global Health Project, an organization hoping to raise awareness of the coercive power exerted on society by global health agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic and to build a movement to create a better system.
The group began as a conversation among physicians and health researchers about what happened during the pandemic and how to make sure it doesn’t happen again, Andrea Nazarenko, Ph.D., a spokesperson for the organization, told The Defender.
The group hopes the video will open the door for conversation, Katarina Lindley, D.O., family physician and another group spokesperson, said.
A doctor might hear the physicians’ stories and say, “That’s exactly how it happened to me,” she said. Or, patients can go to their doctors and raise these issues with them.
Lindley also said that statements by global leaders, the World Health Organization’s proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations, and other evidence point to the fact something like the COVID-19 pandemic can happen again, and if it does, the Global Health Project wants to build an informed and connected public. She continued:
“So our hope is that by sharing these stories, by empowering the public as well, we want them to question things … when new things come along. And if they feel in their gut something is wrong, they need to trust their gut, then they really become advocates for themselves, for their family, for their friends.
“And I’m hoping that physicians will remember why they took the Hippocratic oath … And there’s lots of things that we need to start questioning that maybe we didn’t question before.”
While the changes they are talking about are systemic, Lindley said it starts in the doctor-patient relationship.
When someone’s car breaks down, she said, they usually try to find a good mechanic by asking friends and shopping around.
“I think when it comes to medicine and healthcare, we kind of almost need to do the same thing. Shop around … interview your doctor. Even if you have insurance and you’re assigned to a doctor, you don’t have to accept the doctor.”
People can find doctors who are independent, who have “stepped away from the matrix, as I call it,” Lindley said, so they can build great relationships with patients.
Nazarenko added:
“Ultimately, what we experienced during the pandemic was traumatic. We are suffering from collective trauma at a societal level. Just like any other trauma, this trauma will not disappear by ‘moving on’ and ‘forgetting about it.’ Trauma must be processed.
“Unfortunately, what we are facing right now is the mainstream narrative telling us to ‘forget about it,’ to ‘just move on,’ and to ignore our feelings (‘just let it go’). This is medical gaslighting at a population level. In any other relationship, we would identify this as the behavior of an abuser.
“If we want to move on and create a world of togetherness, we need to talk about it. We don’t all need to agree on everything — but we need to have the conversation.
“Silence leaves us vulnerable to this happening again. They separated us for a reason. This video is about bringing people together again and engaging in authentic conversations.”Jun 6, 2023 
Covid RoundtableCovid Roundtable A study published yesterday in JAMA Network Open suggests that 70.4% of nearly 850,000 US household COVID-19 transmissions originated with a child.
A team led by Boston Children's Hospital researchers gave smartphone-connected thermometers to 848,591 households with 1,391,095 members, who took 23,153,925 temperature readings from October 2019 to October 2022. Fevers were a proxy for infection.
Of all readings, 57.7% were from adults. Most households (62.3%) reported temperatures from only one person, while 37.7% included multiple participants taking 51.6% of all readings. Most children were 8 years or younger (58.0%), and more females than males participated in each age group.
Younger kids more likely to spread virus
A total of 15.8% of readings met the criteria for fever, making up 779,092 fever episodes. The number of fever episodes predicted new COVID-19 cases, which the researchers said lends validity to using fever as a proxy for infection. Of these cases, 15.4% were considered household transmissions, the percentage of which rose from 10.1% in March to July 2021 to 17.5% in the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 variant wave.
Among 166,170 households with both adult and child participants (51.9% of households with multiple participants), there were 516,159 participants, 51.4% of whom were children. In these households, 38,787 transmissions occurred, 40.8% of which were child to child, 29.6% child to adult, 20.3% adult to child, and 9.3% adult to adult. The median serial interval between the index and secondary cases was 2 days.
Of all households transmissions, 70.4% began with a child, with the proportion fluctuating weekly between 36.9% and 87.5%. Pediatric transmissions reached a high of 68.4% the week of September 27, 2020, and fell to a low of 41.7% the week of December 27, 2020 (0.61 times less frequent). The next high was 82.0% the week of May 23, 2021, which stayed stable until June 27 (81.4%) and then declined to 62.5% by August 8 (0.77 times less frequent).
The percentage of household transmissions beginning with a child then rose to 78.4% by September 19, hovering there until November 14 (80.3%) and then dropping to 54.5% the week of January 2, 2022 (0.68 times less frequent). By March 6, the proportion rose to 83.8%, fell to 62.8% the week ending July 24 (0.75 times less frequent), and then climbed to 84.6% the week of October 9.
Children aged 8 years and younger were more likely to be the source of transmission than those aged 9 to 17 (7.6% vs 5.8%). During most of the pandemic, the proportion of transmission from children was negatively correlated with new community COVID-19 cases.
In-person school contributed to transmission
"More than 70% of transmissions in households with adults and children were from a pediatric index case, but this percentage fluctuated weekly," the study authors wrote. "Once US schools reopened in fall 2020, children contributed more to inferred within-household transmission when they were in school, and less during summer and winter breaks, a pattern consistent for 2 consecutive school years."
The researchers said the finding that pediatric COVID-19 transmission was negatively correlated with new community cases during most of the pandemic is consistent with that of a previous study.
Once US schools reopened in fall 2020, children contributed more to inferred within-household transmission when they were in school, and less during summer and winter breaks.
"When the incidence of COVID-19 increases, adults in the community are at higher risk of infection; this may increase the likelihood that adults become the index case in a household transmission and explain the negative correlation we observed," they wrote. "Also, when the COVID-19 incidence is low, overall use of nonpharmaceutical interventions might decrease, leading to increased incidence of non–SARS-CoV-2 pathogens which may be more common in children."
The authors concluded that children had an important role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and that in-person school also resulted in substantial spread. "Future work could validate the inferred transmissions from a participatory network with onsite visits or other contract-tracing outreach for additional data collection and laboratory confirmation," they wrote. "Any system that leverages digital technologies must make every effort to ensure equitable access."Jun 5, 2023 Covid Roundtable We will now discuss how the LNPs are constructed and how they behave in the body. The engineering of these molecules must keep the capsule stable during transit but also allow it to dissolve quickly once injected.
If the LNPs are too stable, they may move throughout the body to distant organs instead of disintegrating locally at the injection site as intended. Other properties of the LNPs also affect the likelihood of adverse events, such as their electrical charge and their tendency to cluster.
Summary of Key Facts:
- The lipid nanoparticle (LNP) capsule contains the active ingredient messenger RNA (mRNA).
- The LNP is formed by lipids “teaming up” together to form a ball.
- LNP molecules offer great potential as a delivery vehicle, however, the design of the LNP can cause harm.
- The LNP capsule can cluster with other LNPs or fall apart after injection, potentially causing clotting.
- If the LNP capsule falls apart, loose strands of mRNA can circulate in the blood.
- Because the mRNA is negatively charged, loose mRNA in the blood can cause clotting if it clusters with positively charged molecules.
- The LNP capsule lipids also have properties that may cause clotting or trigger the immune system to overreact.
- Researchers knew about these possibilities before the vaccines were authorized.
- The regulatory agencies knew about the possibility of harmful effects before they were even injected into the body.
- The possibility of multiple boosters causing harm was also known before authorization.
- As time passes, we are learning more about the possible mechanisms behind these adverse events.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) authorized a novel vaccine product based on laboratory studies and animal models, then applied these findings to humans. In addition, most of the mRNA research prior to the pandemic used intravenous (IV) injection directly into the bloodstream, not intramuscular (IM), as vaccines are typically delivered.
Various design challenges had to be overcome to create a vaccine built on a repurposed cancer-fighting platform, but some of these useful features of the LNP may be the flaws potentially contributing to adverse events.
LNP Design Features
The LNP is a capsule comprised of four different lipids carrying the mRNA inside.
Imagine a drop of oil descending into a glass of water. The oil does not disperse in the water—it stays together. This is how the LNPs stay together to carry the mRNA to a cell membrane where it can be absorbed.
Certain features of the lipids cause them to organize into the LNP capsule shape. The tail of the lipid is hydrophobic, meaning it does not mix with water because it has a neutral charge. The head of the lipid is a phosphate that has an electrical charge, making it hydrophilic. These features cause them to organize themselves.
The lipids gather together—tails pointing in and heads pointing out—creating a ball, as pictured below. When the polyethylene glycol (PEG) adheres to a lipid, the PEG-lipid helps to stabilize the molecule, encouraging it to form smaller LNPs and preventing it from adhering to proteins in the blood.
In the center of the LNP is the RNA, which has a negative charge. When you add up the negative charge of the RNA and the positive charge of the phosphate heads on the lipids, the LNP net charge is mostly neutral, if not slightly negative.
The PEG-lipids help keep the LNP from breaking apart. Once inside the cell, however, the LNP needs to split open to release the mRNA cargo. The cone-shaped configuration of the LNP can help this process.
The amount of PEG-lipids can affect particle size and zeta potential. Zeta potential is the electrical charge that develops around the surface of a particle. The zeta potential is important because it determines whether the LNPs tend to disperse or clump together. A high zeta potential—positive or negative—helps the nanoparticles disperse and float freely.
In addition, certain other PEG modifications affect how fast the kidneys and immune system clear the LNPs. If it takes a long time to clear the LNPs, they can circulate longer in the blood and create the potential for adverse events.
LNP Design Dilemmas: Stability Versus Fragility
The LNP design dilemma had serious implications: whether to create a stable LNP capsule that does not fall apart readily or a more fragile capsule that breaks down quickly. This design challenge affects how the capsule behaves in the body.
A highly stable capsule is useful for mRNA gene therapy, which is how this technology was originally developed. For gene therapy, the mRNA needs to be stable enough to reach its intended target and either produce a missing protein or turn off a harmful gene.
For vaccination, however, the opposite effect is desired: the LNP needs to be less stable so it will dissolve quickly at the injection site and release the fragile mRNA immediately. Otherwise, it will allow the LNP to travel throughout the human body to an unintended organ or tissue.
The biodistribution studies covered in Parts 1 and 2 tell us that the LNP mRNA design failed this “dual mission impossible.” Dispersion to distant organs peaked within about 48 hours. The effect of expressing spike protein on cells in these organs in humans is unknown, so simply adopting LNPs designed for gene therapy for direct usage in mRNA vaccine delivery will likely prove to be a significant mistake.
LNP Design Features Affect Clotting
In addition to the challenge of creating a stable LNP that breaks down quickly at the injection site, the LNP design may also cause clustering leading to clotting. If the LNP falls apart, the charges on the lipids and the loose mRNA may promote interactions with other substances in the blood.
These two factors may explain the potential for “thromboembolic” events. Thrombotic events involve the formation of a clot (thrombosis) in the bloodstream. Formation of the clot itself or its movement to another site (embolism) may block the flow of blood.
LNPs Can Cluster and Cause Clotting
When the LNPs diffuse into the blood system, the tiny particles can increase in size based on the Ostwald ripening phenomenon. This is a process in which small crystals dissolve in solution and then redeposit, forming larger clusters.
The diameter of arterioles, small blood vessels connecting arteries and capillaries, varies from 8000 to 60,000 nanometers (nm). A typical COVID-19 mRNA vaccine LNP is 60 to 200 nm. If the size of the clustered mRNA LNP particles increases to 5000 nm and above, LNPs could block blood vessels and cut off blood flow.
When thromboses occur within blood vessels, blood flow to critical organs can be obstructed. This includes the heart, lungs, kidneys, intestines, and even the brain.
For example, an autopsy review of 25 unexpected deaths that occurred within 20 days of COVID-19 vaccination found eight cases of thrombotic events, including five with “myocardial infarction,” two with “pulmonary embolism,” and one with “deep vein thrombosis.” (pdf)
Have human studies been conducted to assess the degree to which the LNPs cluster? To our knowledge, nothing has been published.
The LNP Can Fall Apart
If the LNP falls apart, two components, the capsule and the mRNA cargo, may cause interactions that promote clotting due to the electrical charge on each component.
The charge controls where the particles travel in the body. For instance, a positively charged LNP capsule can target the lung; a negatively charged LNP can target the spleen; while an LNP with an intermediate charge (such as mRNA COVID-19 vaccines) has a greater tendency to travel to the liver, as was seen in the preclinical biodistribution studies.
The potential for negatively charged free mRNA to cause problems was also seen with the adenovirus vector vaccines made by Astra-Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson, which caused blood clots in some people with a genetic predisposition.
Similarly, if the negatively charged mRNA slips out of the LNP carrier, it could theoretically lead to clotting due to its negative charge.
Could the challenges of maintaining a strict “cold chain” (freezing temperature required for vaccine stabilization from manufacturing to injection) have introduced the potential for LNPs to fall apart prior to injection?
“When the LNPs are frozen and thawed,” according to biotechnology consultant Christie Grace, “the [mRNA] can slip out, charges can start interacting with the human body and [potentially] cause clots.”
Dr. Ko, a South Korean professor of pharmacy who has written dozens of articles on LNPs, agrees that the molecules can break down and separate if pH and temperature are not carefully controlled.
What happens if the LNPs disintegrate in the vial before injection? What testing has been done to evaluate exposed mRNA (not lipid nanoparticle encapsulated mRNA) interactions in the blood?
LNP Engineering Can Alter Clotting
Nanoparticle interactions can be helpful or harmful. For example, nanoparticles can be engineered to help the blood to clot, which is useful for those with clotting disorders. On the other hand, if LNP interactions with other substances in the blood cause clotting, this is harmful.
What was known about the potential of LNPs to affect clotting before the pandemic?
In 2020, Faizullin, et al. reported: “We observed pronounced changes in both clot morphology and kinetics of fibrin clotting in the presence of artificial liposomes.” In other words, previous research on LNPs noted that clots looked different and fibrin behaved differently with LNPs.
Fibrin is a part of the human body’s natural clotting cascade. Binding to fibrin accelerates the normal clotting process. Faster fibrin clotting has been observed in laboratory studies using blood from patients with COVID-19. This clotting tendency may be due to the presence of the spike protein’s S1 subunit. Thus, the LNP mRNA vaccine may promote clotting either due to the design of the LNP, the presence of the spike protein’s S1 subunit, or both.
‘Immune Overdrive’
Finally, the mRNA was engineered to help it sneak past our natural immune defenses. This clever design feature may have a fatal flaw.
Our immune system looks for special patterns to detect invading microbes. One of these patterns is foreign RNA. To avoid being detected before the vaccine has a chance to work, one part of the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA—uridine—was replaced with N1-methylpseudouridine.
However, if the immune system never notices, then we do not get the intended benefit. Adjuvants, such as aluminum, are added to vaccines for this reason—to wake up the immune system. Once stimulated, the immune system ramps up its production of antibodies and memory T cells.
The lipids used to create the LNP capsule may also stimulate the immune system via the same pattern detectors used to find harmful invaders. Although this may make them an effective adjuvant for the vaccine, mouse models suggest that LNPs may put the immune system into “overdrive.”
The EMA noted in its report that the innate immune system ramps up immediately after injection, peaks at six hours, then returns to baseline nine days later. An article in Cell also discussed the innate immune system in the context of vaccine adverse events (AEs). The authors noted that “frequent booster immunizations may increase the frequency and/or the severity of the reported AEs.”
What Was Known Prior to Authorization?
Early research on LNPs suggests the following issues were well-documented before the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized:
1) Off-target travel throughout the body is determined by the charge of the LNP.
2) The innate immune system is triggered by LNPs that could run the risk of causing an over-reaction.
3) The cationic (positively charged) lipid particles are linked to immune stimulation.
4) The mode of delivery matters (via muscle or bloodstream), affecting where the LNPs travel.
5) The LNPs were specifically designed for the uptake by the lymphatic system, as discussed in a previous Epoch Times article.
These effects were known prior to FDA authorization and strongly suggest that more testing should have been done in humans.
Carrasco et al. appear to agree with our concerns about the need to better understand biodistribution in humans. They noted that “A specific and important application of these new insights is in the reduction of systemic distribution and off-target expression after IM vaccine delivery.”
Knowledge about charged particle trafficking throughout the body is limited and primarily based on intravenous (IV) injections; only one study published prior to the pandemic explored how an intramuscular injection would affect LNP dispersion.
A 2021 Nature article sums up the importance of careful design. They note, as did the EMA, that negatively charged LNPs concentrate in the liver following injection. “This undesirable systemic off-target expression of mRNA-LNP vaccines could be minimized through appropriate design of the ionizable lipid and LNP.”
Pulling back the curtain on the LNP design, we see that several features intended for stealth delivery of mRNA to the cell have set the stage for a wide range of adverse events which should have been anticipated through testing, and prevented through cautious policy.Jun 5, 2023 Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis is attacking former President Donald Trump for “turning the country over to [Dr. Anthony] Fauci in March 2020” but DeSantis was praising the chief public health official at the same time in previously unreported quotes, saying Fauci was “really, really good and really, really helpful” and “really doing a good job.”
In other comments, the Florida governor said he deferred to Fauci’s guidance on COVID-19 restrictions and later cited his guidance when communicating the policies he was putting in place early in the pandemic in the state of Florida.
“You have a lot of people there who are working very, very hard, and they’re not getting a lot of sleep,” DeSantis said on March 25, 2020, at a briefing on Florida’s response. “And they’re really focusing on a big country that we have. And from Dr. Birx to Dr. Fauci to the vice president who’s worked very hard, the surgeon general, they’re really doing a good job. It’s a tough, tough situation, but they’re working hard.”
In one of his first appearances as a candidate for the Republican nomination for president, DeSantis attacked Trump for following Fauci’s guidance during the Covid pandemic. Fauci served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases until retiring in 2022. He played a key early role in crafting the administration’s response to the pandemic, but often was criticized and sidelined by then-President Trump.
“I think [Trump] did great for three years, but when he turned the country over to Fauci in March of 2020 that destroyed millions of people’s lives,” DeSantis said last Thursday. “And in Florida, we were one of the few that stood up, cut against the grain, took incoming fire from media, bureaucracy, the left, even a lot of Republicans, had schools open, preserved businesses.”
“If you are faced with a destructive bureaucrat in your midst like a Fauci, you do not empower somebody like Fauci. You bring him into the office and you tell him to pack his bags: You are fired,” DeSantis said Tuesday at one of his first campaign events in Iowa.
Bryan Griffin, a spokesman for DeSantis, told CNN he initially followed guidance from Fauci but changed course and didn’t look back.
“Like most Americans, the governor initially assumed medical officials were going to serve the interests of the people and keep politics out of their decision making. When it became clear that this wasn’t the case, the governor charted his own course and never looked back,” Griffin told CNN in an email. “Governor DeSantis would’ve fired Anthony Fauci.”
In a news conference on Tuesday, DeSantis also acknowledged mistakes early in the pandemic.
“And what I’ve said about it is it was a difficult situation and we didn’t know a lot,” he said. “So I think people could do things that they regret. I mean I’ve said there are things we did in those first few weeks that I pivoted from.”
Though Fauci did help craft the administration’s Covid response, Trump was often critical of Fauci as he attacked his own administration’s pandemic guidelines. Trump began criticizing Fauci early in spring 2020, retweeting calls to fire him in April of that year and in May blasting comments Fauci made against reopening schools. In July 2020, the White House’s deputy chief of staff for communications, Dan Scavino, posted a cartoon on Facebook that showed Fauci as a faucet flushing the American economy for his COVID guidance.
In spring 2020, Fauci was provided with around-the-clock security after he began receiving escalating threats after his providing guidance to Trump for the country to remain as locked down as possible to help control the spread of the virus, which to date has claimed more than a million lives in the US.
DeSantis, like Trump, later broke with Fauci over reopening Florida in July 2020, but he didn’t begin regularly harshly criticizing Fauci until spring 2021.
Trump urged reopenings by May 2020 and DeSantis was one of the first to put in place plans to do so – for which Trump praised the Florida governor at an October 2020 rally.
Last week, DeSantis’ campaign’s rapid response account and a spokesperson also shared a video from a Republican congressman that attacked Trump for praising Fauci, which used comments from March and February 2020, the same time DeSantis himself was praising Fauci.
But DeSantis’ attacks rewrite history, according to a CNN KFile review of public appearances by DeSantis in 2020 as Trump began harshly criticizing Fauci much earlier than DeSantis. And in at least 10 different instances at press briefings in April and March, DeSantis cited Fauci or mentioned his guidance when discussing his own support for restrictive policies like closing beaches and putting in place curfews.
Speaking at a news briefing on March 21, 2020, DeSantis made similar comments praising Fauci.
“The president’s task force has been great,” DeSantis said. “I mean, you’ve called, you know, we’ve talked Dr. Fauci number of times, talked to, you know, the surgeon, US surgeon general number of times, VP, you know, they’ve been really, really good and really, really helpful.”
At other press briefings in March 2020, DeSantis also cited Fauci’s guidance on mobile testing, individual testing, and how long the timeline on COVID might be.
“I would defer to people like Dr. Fauci,” DeSantis said on March 14, 2020. “I think Dr. Fauci has said nationwide, you’re looking at six to eight weeks of where we’re really gonna be having to dig in here.”
On March 25, 2020, DeSantis cited Fauci’s guidance on isolating.
“So please, please if you’re one of those people who’ve come from the hot zone, Dr. Fauci said yesterday, you know, you have a much higher chance being infected coming out of that region than anywhere else in the country right now. So please, you need to self-isolate. That’s the requirement in Florida.”Jun 2, 2023 Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Dr. David E. Martin is the founding CEO of M∙CAM Inc. M∙CAM is the international leader in intellectual property-based financial risk management. From auditing patent quality for governments and patent offices to providing state-of-the-art actuarial risk management systems and solutions to the largest banks and insurance companies, M∙CAM has established a global standard in patent quality and commercial validity assessment and management.
During the International Covid Summit held in the European Parliament on 3 May, Dr. Martin testified as to the history and origins of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein and its “vaccine.”
At the Summit, more than 30 international experts and EU parliamentarians testified, exposing a wide range of aspects of the covid “pandemic.” You can watch the full 8-hour session on YouTube uploaded in two parts HERE (part 1) and HERE (part 2). Or, if the videos are removed from YouTube you can find them on Rumble HERE.
A list of all presentations with timestamps can be found HERE. Dr. Martin’s testimony begins at timestamp 12.56 of part 1. We previously published articles on a press conference held after the Summit HERE and Dr. Jessica Rose’s testimony HERE. Below is Dr. Martin’s testimony followed by the transcript.
Notably, Dr. Martin’s testimony is being publicised in some media across the world but no Western corporate media have had the courage or integrity to report on it. For example, The Standard (Hong Kong) published a report ‘US ‘intentionally released Covid virus in Wuhan’ EU summit told’. And, although perhaps an independent media outlet, Today News Africa published a report ‘Dr. David Martin Claims Covid-19 Pandemic Was Pre-Meditated Domestic Terrorism, Speaks at European Parliament Summit’.
How much longer can outlets such as the BBC and its Trusted News Initiative network delude themselves that the cat has not been let out of the bag?
As mentioned in his testimony at the International Covid Summit, Dr. Martin has been speaking about the origins of SARS since 2006. But, until the covid era, it had been to small groups of people. Early in the “pandemic,” his wife encouraged him to “get in front of the camera” and talk about the information he had to a wider audience. In other words, make the information available to us, the general public. His interviews and presentations can easily be found in independent media, including ourselves, and on social media sites that are not being actively censored. For those who may have missed them, below is a small sample of interviews with Dr. Martin:
- Dr. David Martin Discussed Justin Trudeau’s Illegal Monopoly, BigPharma, CRISPR Technology, Tracking and the New World Order (video on Rumble) HERE
- Dr. David Martin Uncovers Groundbreaking Information Regarding the Actual Origins of covid-19 (video on Rumble) HERE
- Dr. David E. Martin: It’s Much Worse Than You Think ~ Massive Government/University Corruption And The Creation Of Covid (video on Rumble) HERE
- Dr David Martin discusses the University of British Columbia’s role in developing the lipid nano-particle technology used to deliver the spike proteins in the injection (video on Rumble) HERE
Transcript of Dr. David E. Martin’s Testimony at the International Covid Summit III held in the European Union Parliament on 3 May 2023
It is a particularly interesting location for me to be sitting today, given that over a decade ago I sat in this very chair right here in the European Union Parliament.
And at that time, I warned the world of what was coming. During that conversation that was hosted at the time by the Green and EFA and a number of the other parties of the European Unions, various representations, we were having a conversation on whether Europe should adopt the United States policy of allowing for the patents on biologically derived materials. And at the time, I urged this body and I urged people around the world that the weaponisation of nature against humanity had dire consequences.
Tragically, I sit here today, with that unfortunate line that I don’t like to say, which is “I told you so.”
But the fact of the matter is, we’re here not for a reprisal on past decisions. We’re here to actually, once again, come to the face of the human condition and ask the question: Who do we want to be? What do we want humanity to look like?
And rather than seeing this as an exercise in futility, which is very easy from time to time when you’re in the position I’m in, I actually see this not as an exercise in futility. I see this as one of the greatest opportunities that faces us because we now have a public conversation, which is now front and centre in people’s minds. When this was an esoteric conversation about biological patents, nobody cared. But when that conversation came home, then it became something people can care about.
So, I’m actually quite grateful for this opportunity. I thank the Members of Parliament for hosting this. I thank all of the translators whom I apologise to in advance. I will use terminology that is probably very difficult to translate, so my apologies.
And I’d also like to acknowledge the fact that many of you are aware of my involvement with this in large part due to the amazing work of my wonderful wife, Kim Martin, who encouraged me at the very early days of this pandemic to get on front of the camera and talk about all the information that I had been sharing among very small groups around the world. And it was in fact her encouragement that put me in a place where many of you have heard what I have to say. Ironically, the world that I came from that used to be very popular, my CNBC and Bloomberg presentations which were televised on mainstream media around the world, was an audience that I lost. I can confidently say covid diminished my fame. But I can also confidently say that I’d rather stand among the people with whom I’m standing today than any of the folks that were part of that previous world. So, this is a much better place to be.
My role today is to set the stage for this conversation in a historical context because this did not come in the last three years. This did not come in the last five or six years. This actually is an ongoing question that probably began here in Europe in the early stages of the mid-1900s but certainly by 1913/1914, this conversation started right here in Central Europe.
The pandemic that we alleged to have happened in the last few years also did not happen overnight. In fact, the very specific pandemic using coronavirus began in a very different time.
(We’ll try to advance the slides here with one of these things. There we go.)
Most of you don’t know that coronavirus as a model of a pathogen was isolated in 1965. Coronavirus was identified in 1965 as one of the first infectious, replicable viral models that could be used to modify a series of other experiences of the human condition. It was isolated once upon a time associated with the common cold.
But what’s particularly interesting about its isolation in 1965 was that it was immediately identified as a pathogen that could be used and modified for a whole host of reasons. And you heard me correctly, that was 1965.
And by the way, these slides are public domain. You’re welcome to look at every single reference. Every comment that I made is based on published material. So do make sure that you look at those references.
But in 1966, the very first COV coronavirus model was used as a transatlantic biological experiment in human manipulation. And you heard the date – 1966.
I hope you’re getting the point of what I’m saying. This is not an overnight thing. This is actually something that’s been long in the making. A year before I was born, we had the first transatlantic coronavirus data-sharing experiment between the United States and the United Kingdom.
And in 1967, the year I was born, we did the first human trials on inoculating people with modified coronavirus.
Isn’t that amazing? 56 years ago, the overnight success of a pathogen that’s been 56 years in engineering. And I want that to chill with all of you. Where were we when we actually allowed in violation of biological and chemical weapons treaties? Where were we as a human civilization when we thought it was an acceptable thing to do to take a pathogen for the United States and infect the world with it? Where was that conversation? And what should have been that conversation in 1967? That conversation wasn’t had.
Ironically, the common cold was turned into a chimaera in the 1970s. And in 1975, 1976 and 1977, we started figuring out how to modify coronavirus by putting it into different animals – pigs and dogs. And not surprisingly, by the time we got to 1990, we found out that coronavirus as an infectious agent was an industrial problem for two primary industries: the industries of dogs and pigs. Dog breeders and pigs found that coronavirus created gastrointestinal problems, and that became the basis for Pfizer’s first spike protein vaccine patent filed – Are you ready for this? – filed in 1990.
Did you hear what I just said? 1990.
Operation Warp Speed. I’m sorry. Where’s the warp? And the speed?
Pfizer 1990, the very first spike protein vaccine for coronavirus.
Isn’t that fascinating? Isn’t it fascinating that we were, we were told that: “Well, the spike protein is a new thing, we just found out that that’s the problem.” No! As a matter of fact, we didn’t just find out it was not “just now” the problem, we found that out in 1990 and filed the first patents on vaccines in 1990 for the spike protein of coronavirus.
And who would’ve thought Pfizer? Clearly, the innocent organisation that does nothing but promote human health. Clearly, Pfizer, the organisation that has not bought the votes in this chamber, and in every chamber of every government around the world. Not that Pfizer. Certainly, they wouldn’t have had anything to do with this. But oh yes, they did.
And in 1990 they found out that there was a problem with vaccines. They didn’t work.
You know why they didn’t work? It turns out that coronavirus is a very malleable model – it transforms and it changes, and it mutates over time. As a matter of fact, every publication on vaccines for coronavirus from 1990 until 2018, every single publication concluded that coronavirus escapes the vaccine impulse because it modifies and mutates too quickly for vaccines to be effective. And since 1990 to 2018, that is the published science ladies and gentlemen. That’s following the science. Following the science is their own indictment of their own programs that said, it doesn’t work.
And there are thousands of publications to that effect, not a few hundred. And not paid for by pharmaceutical companies. These are publications that are independent scientific research that shows unequivocally – including efforts of the chimaera modifications made by Ralph Baric in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill – all of them show vaccines do not work on coronavirus. That’s the science. And that science has never been disputed.
But then we had an interesting development in 2002. And this date is most important because in 2002, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill patented, and I quote, “an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus.”
Listen to those words … “Infectious replication, defective.” What does that phrase actually mean? For those of you not familiar with the language, let me unpack it for you.
“Infectious replication defective” means a weapon. It means something meant to target an individual but not have collateral damage to other individuals. That’s what infectious replication defective means.
And that patent was filed in 2002 on work funded by NIAID’s Anthony Fauci from 1999 to 2002. And that work, patented at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, mysteriously preceded SARS 1.0 by a year.
[Dr. Martin gasps as if he’s hearing it for the first time, and then asked as if he was another person:]
“Dave, are you suggesting that SARS 1.0 wasn’t from a wet market in Wuhan? Are you suggesting it might have come from a laboratory in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill?”
No, I’m not suggesting it. I’m telling you that’s the facts. We engineered SARS. SARS is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. The naturally occurring phenomenon is called the common cold. It’s called influenza-like illness. It’s called gastroenteritis. That’s the naturally occurring coronavirus.
SARS is the research developed by humans weaponising a life system model to actually attack human beings. And they patented it in 2002.
And in 2003, giant surprise, the CDC filed the patent on coronavirus isolated from humans in violation, once again, of biological and chemical weapons, treaties and laws that we have in the United States. And I’m very, very precise on this.
The United States likes to talk about its rights and everything else, and the rule of law and all the nonsense that we like to talk about. But we don’t ratify treaties about, I don’t know, defending humans. We conspicuously avoid that, we actually have a great track record of advocating for human rights and then denying them when it comes to actually being part of the international community, which is a slightly problematic thing.
But let’s get something very clear. When the CDC in April of 2003 filed the patent on SARS Coronavirus isolated from humans, what did they do? They downloaded a sequence from China and filed a patent on it in the United States.
Any of you familiar with biological and chemical weapons treaties knows that’s a violation. That’s a crime. That’s not an innocent, “oops.” That’s a crime.
And the United States Patent Office went as far as to reject that patent application on two occasions until the CDC decided to bribe the patent office, to override the patent examiner to ultimately issue the patent in 2007 on SARS Coronavirus. But let’s not let that get away from us because it turns out that the RT-PCR, which was the test that we allegedly were going to use to identify the risks associated with coronavirus, was actually identified as a bioterrorism threat, by me, in the European Union-sponsored events in 2002 and 2003 – 20 years ago. That happened. Here in Brussels and across Europe.
In 2005, this particular pathogen was specifically labelled as a bioterrorism and bioweapon platform technology. Described as such, that’s not my terminology that I’m applying to it. It was actually described as a bioweapons platform technology in 2005. And from 2005 onwards, it was actually a biowarfare enabling agent – that’s official classification from 2005 forward.
I don’t know if that sounds like public health to you, does it?
Biological warfare enabling technology – that feels like not public health, that feels like not medicine, that feels like a weapon, designed to take out humanity. That’s what it feels like, and it feels like that because that’s exactly what it is.
We have been lured into believing that EcoHealth Alliance and DARPA and all of these organisations are what we should be pointing to. But we’ve been specifically requested to ignore the facts that over $10 billion have been funnelled through black operations, through the check of Anthony Fauci and a side-by-side ledger where NIAID has a balance sheet, and next to it is a biodefense balance sheet equivalent dollar for dollar matching that no one in the media talks about. And it’s been going on since 2005.
Our gain of function moratorium. The moratorium that was supposed to freeze any efforts to do gain-of-function research. Conveniently, in the fall of 2014, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill received a letter from NIAD saying that while the gain-of-function moratorium on coronavirus in vivo should be suspended, because their grants had already been funded, they received an exemption.
Did you hear what I just said?
A biological weapons lab facility at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill received an exemption from the gain-of-function moratorium so that by 2016 we could publish the journal article that said SARS coronavirus is poised for human emergence – in 2016. “And what,” you might ask, “Dave, was the coronavirus poised for human emergence?”
It was WIV-1. Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus One. Poised for human emergence in 2016 at the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Such that by the time we get to 2017 and 2018, the following phrase entered into common parlance among the community, “there is going to be an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen.”
The operative word, obviously, in that phrase is the word “release.” Does that sound like a leak? Does that sound like a bat and a Pangolin went into a bar in the Wuhan market and hung out and had sex? And, lo and behold, we got SARS-CoV-2. No! “Accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen” was the terminology used. And four times in April of 2019 – seven months before the allegation of patient number one – four patent applications of Moderna were modified to include the term “accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen” as the justification for making a vaccine for a thing that did not exist.
If you have not done so, please make sure that you make reference in every investigation to the premeditation nature of this. Because it was in September of 2019 that the world was informed that we were going to have an “accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen” so that by September 2020 there would be a worldwide acceptance of a universal vaccine template. That’s their words right in front of you on the screen.
The intent was to get the world to accept a universal vaccine template. And the intent was to use coronavirus to get there.
Let’s, let’s read this because we have to read this into the record everywhere I go:
“Until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present and at the emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, he said, we need to increase the public understanding for the need for [MCMs] medical countermeasures, such as a pan-influenza or 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.”
Sounds like public health? Sounds like the best of humanity?
No, ladies and gentlemen! This was premeditated domestic terrorism stated at the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2015, published in front of them. This is an act of biological and chemical warfare perpetrated on the human race, and it was admitted to, in writing, that this was a financial heist and a financial fraud. “Investors will follow if they see profit at the end of the process.”
Let me conclude by making five very brief recommendations.
Nature was hijacked. This whole story started in 1965 when we decided to hijack a natural model and decide to start manipulating it.
Science was hijacked when the only questions that could be asked were questions authorised under the patent protection of the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, and their equivalent organisations around the world. We didn’t have independent science. We had hijacked science.
And unfortunately, there was no moral oversight in violation of all of the codes that we stand for. There was no independent, financially disinterested independent review board ever empanelled around coronavirus. Not once, not once, not since 1965. We do not have a single independent IRB ever empanelled around Coronavirus. So, morality was suspended for medical countermeasures.
And ultimately humanity was lost because we decided to allow it to happen.
Our job today is to say …
No more gain of function research, period!
No more weaponization of nature, period!
And most importantly, no more corporate patronage of science for their own self-interest unless they assume 100% product liability for every injury and every death that they maintain.May 30, 2023 Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable The head of the World Health Organization warned that the world must prepare for the next pandemic, which could be “even deadlier” than the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a meeting of the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday, director-general Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus sounded an alarm that the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over.
“The threat of another variant emerging that causes new surges of disease and death remains,” Tedros said. “And the threat of another pathogen emerging with even deadlier potential remains.”
However, the WHO recently declared that the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer a health emergency.
“When the next pandemic comes knocking — and it will — we must be ready to answer decisively, collectively and equitably,” he added.
“We cannot kick this can down the road,” Tedros said in an address to the WHO’s member states. “If we do not make the changes that must be made, then who will? And if we do not make them now, then when?”
Despite issuing these dire warnings, Tedros applauded the recent decision by WHO member states to draft a pandemic treaty while also approving a budget increase, which was approved after the organization made a commitment to budget and finance reforms, according to Reuters.
Tedros also called for updated negotiations on the International Health Regulations, the treaty outlining preparedness and responses to health crises, “so the world will never again have to face the devastation of a pandemic like COVID-19.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has to date killed almost 7 million people worldwide, according to the WHO, with almost 1.13 million deaths in the United States.
More than 80,000 people died of coronavirus infection in New York alone.
The WHO has identified “priority” contagious diseases — these are likely to cause the next pandemic because of their potential to spread across a region and because there are few, if any, measures in place to counter their spread.
These diseases include Ebola, Marburg, Middle East respiratory syndrome, severe acute respiratory syndrome, COVID-19, Zika and — perhaps most terrifying — something called “Disease X.”
Disease X is the WHO code for a disease caused by a germ that hasn’t even been discovered yet.
“It is not an exaggeration to say that there is potential of a Disease X event just around the corner,” Pranab Chatterjee, a researcher at the Department of International Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, told the National Post.
Public health experts agree that the next pandemic is likely to be zoonotic, i.e., a disease that originates in animals before “spilling over” to infect humans.May 24, 2023 Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable Covid Roundtable 
