Dr. David Martin Calls For The Destruction Of The Criminal Organization Known As WHO

Next slide. And I’m also not going to sugarcoat this. This is a criminal cartel. We are acting as though there’s some sort of redeemable quality somewhere in some esoteric layer that somehow or another the World Health Organization must have some salutatory benefit. Well, I’m going to tell you. Since its formation in the 1940s, the World Health Organization has been nothing more than a criminal cartel that has a sole and singular intent.

And I will show you the document that proves what I’m saying. This is not an allegation. This is actually provable by their own words, in their own hand. And they use a four step process to execute every one of their nefarious plans. They begin by planning an exercise, then they go to the business of funding that exercise. Then they create the rationale for the thing that they’re going to do, and then they deploy and profit from it.

And in violation of 15 US Code Section 19, which for those of you listening, coincidentally started with the Clayton act, in the same year that the World Health Organization in the United States. 1913, the same year the World Health Organization’s progenitors also started. So I find it fascinating that we passed the Clayton act in 1913 and we set in motion 110 years ago the Criminal conspiracy, which we now call the World Health Organization 110 years later, and in violation of TFU or TEFU.

I don’t know even how to say it. The TFEU, the treaty, allegedly for the functioning of the European Union, which I think needs to now be called the Treaty for the dysfunctional European Cabal. Article 101 unambiguously lays out the conditions that this was never a public health anything. It was Zurich. That shows us that in the year of the death pandemic of the globe, life insurance companies paid $30 billion less in claims.

Now, if there’s a medical professional or a social professional or anybody else who wants to debate that we could develop a virus, cunningly, that could find out your bank account, your insurance policy statements, and whether you’re paid up on your premiums. That’s a big ask. It turns out that the data is unambiguous. We did not have a pandemic. We had genocide, and we need to call it what it is.

Next slide. When I say we planned it, let’s make sure we understand exactly the not so fine print of the fine print. And I want to call your attention first to the right hand column of this slide. This is the 2011 data that the World Health Organization, the welcome Trust Path, and the Gates foundation did on their wonderful worldwide program for a malaria vaccine for children under the age of six months of age.

And in their clinical trial, it’s helpful to point out that they murdered 66 children in the vaccine group and then cunningly used the term control for a control group in which they murdered 28 children. Now, the reason I said murdered and the reason why I use that term is because it’s exactly what it was. Because it turns out that this control group was not a saline injection. It was not some sort of innocuous, innocent thing.

It was actually a cocktail of other known pathogenic disease carrying injections. The control group was known to kill people, and the experimental control group was actually, theoretically, maybe going to kill people. And what we did was we actually went ahead and murdered them all. And cunningly, under Article Five, Section 13, which I’ve put on this slide, I want you to understand why I said at its formation in 1947, when the who was funded and founded, it was funded and founded by people intent to commit a crime because of their own language.

Section 13 of Article Five ends with the following statement. Immunity from personal arrest or detention, blah, blah, blah. Immunity from legal process of every kind. Now, if you didn’t intend to commit a crime, why would you need to give yourself permanent and absolute immunity from every form of prosecution and its worst even investigation for prosecution of every kind. People sit there and pretend, well, that’s like diplomatic immunity.

Do you realize this isn’t even meeting the standard of diplomatic immunity? This is a criminal organization who set in motion their own law to protect themselves against crimes they knew they were going to commit. And when I say they knew they were going to commit, I mean they knew it because their first director general, none other than Dr. Rene San, who happened to be in the hospitality of the Germans in Dachau in 1940.

Earlier in 1947, mysteriously, with the largest of the Rockefeller foundation, was nominated to become the first director general of the WHO. And within five short years, Rene sand decided to authorize the real purpose of the who in writing by then Director General Dr. Brock Chisholm, who advocated for population control as its primary objective. Does that sound like public health to anyone in this room? This is not public health.

This is the advancement of the same genocidal program that began with the Carnegie Foundation’s funding of the Eugenics office at Cold Spring Labs in the United States in 1913 under the philanthropy philanthropy of Andrew Carnegie. People, stop fooling yourself. We debate the leaves on the tree of what we call this pandemic thing, but we’re not going to the root. This was an organized crime racketeering entity set up to give itself first absolute immunity, and then execute its plans to make sure it controls who lives, who dies, and who gets any chance at life.

And if you think that I am somehow inflating numbers, let me be unambiguous. Under every treatment of tax provision, if I were to tell you that there is an 88% controlling interest of any organization, you might conclude that that actually aggregates into a controlling interest. And it turns out that if we look at the foundation donations to the World Health Organization, 88% of those come from a single organization, the Gates Foundation.

That constitutes a violation of every competitive law in Europe and every competitive law in the United States. This is absolutely not only not an independent, charitably funded donation, but more importantly, under the tax laws on both sides of the Atlantic, this constitutes directed donations, which specifically are forbidden and do not have any place, anywhere in the charter of the World Health Organization or any of the UN affiliated organizations.

When I say this is a crime, I mean it’s a tax crime, a racketeering crime, a money laundering crime, and now the crime of racketeering leading to murder and global terrorism. Next slide. I told you that the second thing after they plan it, is they fund it. And why don’t we use the criminal’s language in their own words? Because it’s the best way to say it. When they actually planned the release of the use of a biologically modified chimera associated with the model derived from coronavirus, they actually said the following.

To sustain the funding based beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding for the needful medica countermeasures, such as a pan influenza or pan coronavirus vaccine. Now, let me pause for just one moment and remind you that the crisis that they were speaking of was a crisis of diminishing funding. There was no health crisis. This was a crisis of their coffers were starting to run dry.

That’s the crisis. And let’s read on. 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. That is officially the statement made by the conspiratorial cabal that by that time was the decade of vaccines put in motion in 2011 by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board of the World Health Organization.

And it was the funding base for Peter Dashik’s partnership with the chimeric production of pathogens both in North Carolina and in Wuhan. So don’t tell me that we have to do an investigation into where this came from. The criminals have admitted to it in their own words. Next slide. And now we get the fun one that no one in Congress is willing to address, which is the elephant in the room on October the 21st, 2014, despite the multiple conversations between Senator Rand Paul and Anthony Fauci, where we’ve been told that Rand Paul has done everything he can to put Fauci on the ropes, he has had in his possession the letter that you see on the left, and it is the letter, conveniently, on NIAID letterhead sent to the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which unambiguously states that during the gain a function moratorium, which, by the way, if we use the word moratorium, feels like that means you’re supposed to stop.

Why don’t we go ahead and look at two pieces of this letter? First, the second bullet under Project one, which, by the way, was not part of the original grant. This was to look at the novel functions of the virus pathogenesis in vivo. You know what that means in living systems. The grant was supposed to be clinical simulations and models, but this grant was modified with this letter to say we were going to authorize gain of function research during the moratorium in living systems.

And then we love the last paragraph of this letter, which conveniently says, as your grant is currently funded, this pause is voluntary. How many times have you met a voluntary moratorium? And the best part about it is that if we look at the very last line, or continue to conduct the applicable gain of function research until the end of the currently active budget period. But here comes the problem.

You know who is supplying the budget? An indefinite term, unlimited amount contract from DARPA and from NIH. Isn’t it convenient to have a perpetually funded project that needs to stop when the money runs out? When you find out that there is no point where the money runs out, because there is no end to the thing that has no end. Unless you think that I’m making an allegation, which I’m not.

I’m making an accusation, let’s be clear. And there’s a big difference. I’m not alleging anything. They actually went to the trouble of telling us that it was going to be the Wuhan virus that was going to get us, as you see on the right hand side of the screen, published in 2016, March 14 of 2016, the SARS, like Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus one, and I quote, is poised for human emergence.

Does that sound like we’re just surprised that something in Wuhan went a little haywire in December of 2019? Or does it feel like we were told, look at Wuhan and look at coronavirus, and look at what we’ve been doing to manipulate coronavirus in Wuhan and at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Lo and behold, we’re going to go ahead and tell you that we’re ready to release it in 2016.

Next slide. We’re almost done. And then they created it. Now, all of you know that I am criticized globally for my use of the term biological warfare. I do that because I am credentialed to do that. I happen to be for the United States government in the early part of the latter part of the person who was sent around the world to look at the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons.

I’m acutely familiar with the definition of what a biological warfare agent is in the 18 US code, the Criminal Code of violations of biological and chemical weapons. And so my assessment is, in fact, professional and right. And the reason for that is I’m the one credentialed to make that determination for the United States government for many years. That’s why I say it. But let’s pretend for the moment that I’m just a nut job.

Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about. So why don’t we look at what the criminals said themselves? Shall we? In 2005, at a conference sponsored by DARPA and the Mitre Corporation, Ralph Barrick, the architect of the lethal Strand that has been injected into millions and billions of people’s arms, that Ralph Barrick was sponsored to present the following. And let’s go ahead and use his words, presentation. Synthetic coronaviruses, biohacking, bio warfare enabling technologies.

Does that sound like a public health distribution program? Does that sound like something that is accidentally misinterpreted to mean something else? Or does biological warfare enabling technologies sound like not countermeasures or pandemic preparedness? It sounds to me like biological warfare enabling technologies. And the reason why I have that hunch is what followed was he received, next to his NIAID grants, non competitive DARPA grants, in matching funds for over $140,000,000 of aggregate funding going into his and his related programs on synthetic biological warfare enabling technologies.

So do I have a problem calling the injection a biological warfare enabling technology? Absolutely not. Because that’s what they called it. And we know that they knew they called it that on September 18, 2019, because on September 18, 2019, the racketeering co conspiring cabal of interlocking directorates, also known as the World Health Organization, said that they were going to conduct an experience for the world that was going to be a rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen.

The lethality in that statement is the problem. They didn’t say we’re going to maybe get a little bit of sniffles going around. They said we were going to actually have the promulgation of a deadly agent. And the stated reason? In September 2020, the progress indicator is that the world would accept a universal vaccine. Not we’ll look at other options of treatment, not we’ll have a look at what might be early intervention, as Dr.

McCullough has so clearly advocated for in many, many instances. Not that we stated on September 18, 2019, we were intending to kill, and we were intending to kill to create the fear that would drive people to accept something that without coercion, no one would have accepted. And that’s published by the criminal racketeers. Next slide, and there’s only two to go if you’re following, deploy and profit from it.

We were told investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process. And lo and behold, guess what they saw profit at the end of the process. 2022. $100 billion for Pfizer of Public funds. Moderna after lying to the Congress in October of 2020 when they were asked to actually verify whether NIAID was promoting an injection that would enrich NIAID, where Anthony Fauci and the entire team at NIH said that they had no financial interest in their recommendation, they receive a back payment royalty of $400 million for the first payment of the royalty, $400 million more than any Institute of Health has ever received in a single payment for a single invention in the history of American medical research.

And lo and behold, what do we receive after that? A request from the World Health Organization to expand its budget by 11% to make sure that the people who profited from it donate to it. And guess what they just did they laundered the money right back. That’s what they did next. And now you get the final slide. This is not a public health crime. This is actually not a constitutional crime.

This is a criminal act done by a criminal institution established to enable criminal behavior since its foundation in 1947. That is what this is. And we should not be debating the merits of democracy or liberty or anything else, as irrational as that would be if we stood at a bank robbery and debated the merits of printing dollar bills. The problem is not the dollar bills, it’s the bank robber.

And the problem here is not health, and it’s not public health, and it’s not the suppression of information and the suppression of dissident views, and the absolute unconscionable treatment of physicians around the world and academicians around the world who spoke out against this. That’s not the crime. The crime is that we had criminal racketeers who conspired and developed a, quote, emergency. The same criminal racketeers planned, manufactured, and did all agency capture to make sure that you were told that you would use terms that they tell you to use.

Vaccine, face mask, health, social distancing, none of which had ordinary use definition. So we just used them. Criminal racketeers price fixed with interlocking directorates, where known competitors came together, and fixed prices in direct collusion, in violation of both European Union standards and in violation of both the Sherman and the Clayton act in the United States. These were crimes. It was organized crime, and we should treat it as such.

Criminal racketeers publicly lied under oath, and this resulted in the death and destruction of liberty, and most importantly, the death and destruction of the integrity of well meaning people who sit here today doing everything they can within their power, to try to treat the calamities created by this catastrophe. I will not for a moment denigrate the multiple contributions of amazing academic and medical professionals who’ve tried desperately to step into the gap and stop the corrupt outcomes of these crimes.

But I will, without doubt, say the following, until we treat this as a criminal conspiracy of criminal racketeers resulting in global terrorism for the purpose of profiteering and murder. Until we have that conversation, we’re having the wrong conversation. Because we are not here to debate the merits of a modified agreement for a criminal racketeering organization. We are here to end the criminal organization itself. This is my call to every single person on this planet.

Don’t just limit the power of the who, destroy the who. Thank you very much. .