I somehow have never heard of Dr. David Martin. He’s promotes, with a lot of detail and references, the ‘Covid was a gain of function USA bio warfare creation’.
Nick Hudson of Pandata disagrees. I’ve never seen a debate between the two. Denis Rencourt is from what I understand (I may be wrong) in agreement with Hudson.
I wonder if anybody on this site has any knowledge or opinion about who is right? Or any links with the two debating the topic?
thanks
Everyman
Nick Hudson:
“Please absorb this. If you believe Covid was a bioweapon, you are sorely misled. It was a nothing-burger inflated into a crisis by the very worst specimens that humanity has ever produced.”
David Martin quotes all sorts of patents going back I think to 2002. The fact that gain of function research was going on funded indirectly by US funds contrary to the ‘ban’ on this research seem to me indisputable However, that fact they were researching this, does not necessarily mean that Convid was the cause of the plandemic. If one accepts that, then they are both right.
For what it’s worth, my view is Rancourt is a very astute and independent researcher. I’ve listened to the Germ Warfare interview and one other long one (I forget where) on his findings. The research was so consistent across the globe that I think it would be impossible to refute his no viral outbreak findings.
There may be some debate to be had, on why so many died say in Germany, but not in Belgium. For me this debate is also already settled and I still look forward to Nuremberg 2.
Hi folks, Denis Rancourt always has something useful and controversial to say and he doesn’t disappoint in the linked video - thanks for that @Everyman. Four things he missed as far as I am concerned
the change from respiratory to vascular symptoms
the uneven distribution of jab material via lot numbers - some shown to be harmless, and some shown to be lethal
the impact of environmental pollution on the numbers
the impact of the introduction of 5G technology which appear to have similar symptoms as covid and covid jab side effects.
Without going through his 168 page report I can’t say for certain that he hasn’t looked at these but he didn’t raise them with Jerm in the interview.
The failure to include analysis of these 4 elements doesn’t necessarily invalidate his findings it just makes it harder to be certain. It possibly leads to a combination of factors whereby the immune system can be weakened and become open to infection from say bacteria within the environment and/or within the jab or chemical pollution in the air or “electro magnetic smog”. ( Zach Bush pointed to these factors early on as shown in videos originally posted here by Rhis! ) These factors also open the door to the no-virus camp, I can’t be sure from the video how far DR agrees with this camp.
As to patents I agree with @PatB - their existence doesn’t impact on whether a virus called coronavirus was to blame. A patent merely allows the holder to develop an idea without others taking the credit or profit, it doesn’t mean that the idea is pursued or is successful in anyway, afaik.
’s presentation at the EU and whether I think it contradicted mine, which immediately followed it. /1
The history Dr Martin presented of 60 years of morally bereft tinkering with coronaviruses is illuminating. But the main thing people should be talking away from listening to both presentations is that the dangerous thing—the thing that drove excess mortality these past three years—was not a virus, but the propaganda, censorship, deterioration of standards of care and collateral damage occasioned by the broader policy response, including “vaccination”. Pandemic preparedness is a perverse agenda. It’s good that
helped push this presentation to 20 million views, but his attribution (millions of death with Covid) is misleading. All the power structures leading to the policy response need to be dismantled. They were the cause of the damage here. /2
Our immediate attention should be on detailing the WHO’s power grab via the International Health Regulation amendments. Longer term and more broadly, decentralisation is the goal we should be pursuing and educating people about. /3
So basically they agree on no plandemic and the causes of excess mortality. The disagreement is on did the ‘pathogen’ come from a lab in Wuhan. On this I’m firmly with Rancourt. It took me a while to come off the fence and I don’t dispute all the patents, research, bio labs, etc, but I no longer believe there was any ‘new’ corona virus.
Late edit: After Rhis’s experience and death, I thought had better set the record. I don’t deny people are getting sick from something, but IMHO, not from a novel corona virus.