David Martin

David Martin’s “malleable” reality: the no-virus movement doesn’t exist but imaginary viruses do

by Christine Massey FOIs | May 13,2023

It’s almost as if some of the Virus Pushers Against Clotshots are in a competition to see who can come up with the most ridiculous “virus” narrative.

In recent months, we’ve had Sabine Hazan claim that “science is a story” and Sasha Latypova opine that humans can’t function without viruses because they are vital and necessary – except when they make people sick!

Weeks later Sabine asserted that “science is a mantra” and that finding RNA in poop is basically the same thing as isolating a “coronavirus”. Her host Del Bigtree concluded that they’re now in so deep that there’s no point in going back to test any of Sabine’s claims with “archaic” scientific methodology.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “science” consultant Jay Couey has been cultivating a fantasy world with his beloved Scooby-Doo and 4 imaginary “endemic coronaviruses, attracting influential adherents such as Reiner Fuellmich.

Robert Malone recently tweeted that the imaginary “SARS-COV-2” has been “isolated… from over 10,000 people” at an institute (IHU) in Marseilles that was facing criminal charges in 2022, and that “yes, this virus exists”. He then blocked some of the people who had the sense to challenge him on this.

(I emailed Robert and asked for the science that he relies on for this claim, and was surprised to get a response. But all he told me was that “this was provided in testimony at the European Parliament by a leading IHU investigator yesterday”. This appears to refer to the same European summit that will be discussed below. I’ve asked for more details but not heard back.

David Martin

David Martin in Europe

On May 3rd, David Martin gave a presentation to some people calling themselves “the European Parliament”, at what is apparently their third (!) International COVID Summit.

David’s presentation was really interesting because despite having acknowledged the absurdity of virology on numerous occasions, and even agreeing (at the 1:48:30 mark here) to support the Settling the Virus Debate challenge, Martin had a lot to say about “malleable coronaviruses”.

David Martin

There is a lot to unpack here, but as a fairly simple example of the problems with David’s presentation, at the 18:40 mark in the video recording, David showed a slide containing references to some of the “science” he relied upon to back up his “coronavirus” assertions. The first cited paper was published in 1966 and is called:

Preliminary Communication, by D.A. J. Tyrrell and M. L. Bynoe.

I have to wonder if David actually read this rather sketchy “preliminary communication”, and if so, why he cited it. Its quality and rigour can be indicated pretty clearly with a couple of quotations:

If 1 or more volunteers got colds the specimen was taken to contain a virus…


…rhinoviruses were… readily recognised by their effect on diploid cells…

So as usual, the investigators did not use any valid independent variables (purified particles). And since they didn’t have any proper independent variables it was impossible to implement adequate controls.

Instead the authors implemented the usual circular/backwards reasoning wherein certain effects were interpreted as evidence that they had been caused by “a virus”, along with some especially unnatural procedures.

For example, to test for causation of cold symptoms, the authors intranasally inoculated people with unspecified amounts of mixtures that involved at minimum:
nasal washings + isotonic phosphate-buffered saline + nutrient broth + a cell line (monkey kidney, or human diploid, or human foetal kidney, or a cell line derived from cervical cancer) + organ (human-embryo nasal or tracheal epithelium).

For each nasal-washing/cell/organ concoction, if 1 or more out of the 6 volunteers who were inoculated with it got sick, that was counted as a success and they concluded that a virus was in the nasal washing! Because science.

And they only did this testing with the nasal washings that had failed to produce the sought-after breakdown effect in a highly convoluted procedure involving both tissue and organ cultures. You can’t make this stuff up.

The next study that David cited is here. More useless “viral” cell cultures, and indirect “virus” tests, no science showing the existence of any “virus”.

“Coronavirus” science was never disputed?

At the 23:15 timestamp, after discussing “coronavirus vaccine science”, David asserted that that science has never been disputed“.

This is strange given that there are now many people around the world recognizing that there is no science whatsoever involving any alleged “coronaviruses” and they have never been shown to exist. And with no “coronavirus” science (or any “virus” science at all) to be found anywhere, clearly there can be no “coronavirus vaccine” science.

The perpetrators need to be held accountable, 100%. But can we not do this accurately and lawfully, based on their actual crimes?

Working within the official storyline that features imaginary viruses might seem the easier way to go about this, in the short term. But in the long term this will reinforce and legitimize, in court records and in people’s minds, the pseudoscience and dogma that enabled the “virus”-based carnage that we are trying so hard to stop and prevent.

Haven’t you seen the patents?

As for the patents that David is well-known for discussing: the devil is in the details, as they say.

Please have a look at the methods described in the “SARS virus” patent and you’ll find the same-old monkey cell nonsense that we see in the “SARS-COV-2 isolation” studies, and additional procedures carried out in an effort to “identify” (assume, actually) the cause of the observed effects that occurred in the unnatural, useless cell cultures.

The additional procedures included PCR tests that don’t test for a virus (as David Icke calls them) and the “point and declare” electron microscopy method (also known as the McCullough method) wherein tiny particles are “just known” to be a virus, even if they look just other tiny things that aren’t thought to be viruses.

In the methods, you’ll also find some pretty ridiculous/cruel/horrific/pointless/unscientific/invalid/unnatural procedures carried out on defenseless mice… because as usual, there is no valid independent variable or proper controls.

Because virology isn’t a science.

David Martin

Also, I will point out a few things that David himself has highlighted in his Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier, where he discusses patents that allegedly involve “viruses”.

Page 2:

Throughout this document, uses of terms commonly accepted in medical and scientific literature do not imply acceptance or rejection of the dogma that they represent.”

David Martin

Page 2:

“…Dr. Baric published what he reported to be the full length cDNA of SARS CoV in which it was clearly stated that SAR CoV was based on a composite of DNA segments.   


“Using a panel of contiguous cDNAs that span the entire genome, we have assembled a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV Urbani strain…”

David Martin

Page 5:

“In their patent, the CDC made false and misleading claims to the United States Patent & Trademark Office by stating that, “A newly isolated human coronavirus has been identified as the causative agent of SARS, and is termed SARS-CoV.”  No “causal” data was provided for this statement

David Martin


What do FOI responses from “health” institutions tell us?

The official responses from institutions align with what is seen in study after study: there is no proper independent variable for drawing conclusions about a “virus”. These institutions have no samples of alleged “coronaviruses”, they know of no one who does, they hold no scientific records.

A big thanks to Michael Speth aka Monky Science Reports and “Mr. Hobbs” (and one other man who may not wish to be named) for their assistance with the following:

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention re the alleged 2003 “SARS-COV-1” and all “common cold coronaviruses” – the CDC confessed to having no record of any having been isolated/purified from any bodily fluid/tissue/excrement by anyone, anywhere, ever:

New Zealand‘s Ministry of Health confessed to having no record describing the isolation/purification of the alleged 2003 “SARS-COV” or any “common cold coronavirus” from any clinical sample, by anyone, anywhere, ever, but wasn’t willing to admit such. Instead they falsely implied that the man who made the request had asked for things he had not asked for.

The crown research institute of New Zealand, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, equated isolation/purification with culturing and confessed to having no record re purification of “SARS-COV-1” (or any “virus” on NZ’s “Immunisation Schedule”) from any clinical sample, by anyone, anywhere, ever, and ignored a query re isolation of any “common cold coronaviruses”:

Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “virus” of any kind having been found in and purified from any bodily fluid/tissue/excrement taken from any diseased human on Earth, by anyone, anywhere, ever, period.

Peterborough Public Health and Thomas Piggott, the man who acts as Medical Officer of Health, have no record describing anyone on Earth finding and purifying any alleged SARS virus (or any H5N1, H1N1, MERS, Ebola, or SARS-COV-2 “virus”) from the bodily fluids/tissue/excrement of any diseased human, ever… or any study that in Thomas’ opinion proves the existence of any of those alleged “viruses”:

Brighton and Hove City Council confessed to “Mr. Hobbs” that they have no records for “SARS-COV-1” or any of the other alleged common-cold-associated coronavirus:

Nottingham City Council/Public Health confessed to “Mr. Hobbs” that they have no records for “SARS-COV-1” or any of the other alleged common-cold-associated coronavirus:

Public Health at Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council confessed to “Mr. Hobbs” that they have no records for “SARS-COV-1”:

Leicestershire County Council in the UK confessed to “Mr. Hobbs” that they too have no record of for “SARS-COV-1” or any of the other alleged-common-cold associated coronavirus having been purified from any patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet:

Derby City Council in the UK confessed to “Mr. Hobbs” that they no have no record of “SARS-COV-1” or any of the other alleged common-cold-associated coronavirus having been purified from any patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet:

Hertfordshire County Council in the UK confessed to “Mr. Hobbs” that they have no record of “SARS-COV-1” or any of the other alleged common-cold-associated coronavirus having been purified from any patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet:

Rutland County Council in the UK confessed to “Mr. Hobbs” that they have no record of “SARS-COV-1” or any of the other alleged common-cold-associated coronavirus having been purified from any patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet:

December 14, 2021:
London Borough of Bromley confessed to “Mr. Hobbs” that they have no record of “SARS-COV-1” or any of the other alleged common-cold-associated coronavirus having been purified from any patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet:

January 2022:
Derbyshire County Council in the UK  confessed to “Mr. Hobbs” that they have no record of “SARS-COV-1” or any of the other alleged common-cold-associated coronavirus having been purified from any patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet:

London Borough of Lambeth confessed to “Mr. Hobbs” that they have no record of “SARS-COV-1” or any of the other alleged common-cold-associated coronavirus having been purified from any patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet:

Reactions to David Martin’s presentation

Saeed Qureshi, analytical chemist:

His objective is noble, i.e., to prove that fraud has happened, which I agree with.


However, unfortunately, the fraud is unrelated to the virus or its genetic modification, the so-called bioweapon, which he emphasizes. But, unfortunately, this is where his misunderstanding is, and of the medical profession. The reason is that they all are reading the virus existence and isolation from the literature, as it is intended to be read – which is the fraud part, i.e., some computer drawing so-called RNA/gene are considered a virus (or from an actual virus). But, of course, nothing of this sort is correct, and that is the fraud.


Furthermore, if he likes to win his case (I hope he is honest about it), it would be much easier and quicker for him to seek a physical sample of the virus and or its RNA or spike protein. No one can provide this – guaranteed. The fraud will be exposed. However, if he keeps himself busy and involved in assuming that the virus has been isolated, genes (or their modified version) as the literature implies, then there is no hope of proving the fraud. This is how “medical scientists” got fooled and remained so, and the so-called research continues without any proper diagnosis and or treatment. The fraud continues. My book explains this aspect in great detail.”

Jeff Strahl, tireless researcher:

David Martin is now pushing that idea, that the original four were isolated in the mid ’60s, and then inculcated in animals and engineered into entities which can be used as weapons. The people who *need* a virus present in order to push their interests will hang on to the virus as desperately as someone clinging from the outside on to a window sill of a place more than 20 floors above the ground.

Michael Bryant,
investigative reporter:

“Haven’t you seen the patents? You think these people are going to waste $550 just to keep a million dollar money laundering scheme going? ”

Dr. Tom Cowan has made some comments on David’s presentation at the European summit, as well as on those made by some of the other well-known presenters, in his most recent webinar:


Subscribe to Christine Massey’s “germ” FOI Newsletter

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Contact Us

Subscribe to get our latest posts

Privacy Policy


© 2024 FM Media Enterprises, Ltd.

Subscribe to get our latest posts