[Source]

Comment: Let’s assume that global warming is really happening. Then ask a question what is causing it. Some will say, “The level of CO2, pollution, human activitiy.” Others will say, “Solar activity, because we have measured simultaneous increase in surface temperatures on other Solar System planets, as well.” I have also heard that everything that happens is a subjective product of our interpretation and imagination based on our unique, individual experiences, beliefs, and desires. Or, is it all propaganda to justify the offshoring of our real economy and our jobs to China, so that the investors can cut their cost and max up their profits? Who is right and who is wrong? We cannot answer this question just by sticking to our opinion alone, unless we design a research project and scientific experiments to confirm one of these hypotheses and to reject the other three. And then, maybe all of them are true at the same time. But this is just an academic point.

In fact, the argument between Alec and David was misguided. It was based on wrong assumptions. It is irrelevant here whether viruses exist or not. I have collected and watched all David’s public statements, including his speech at the European Union, and nowhere he is touching this aspect of the pandemic. Instead, he is quoting patents, documents, and public statements of different officials that prove something else:
1. That the “thing” that is making us sick was planned, pre-meditated, and deliberately engeneered by humans;
2. That those who created it, those who financed it, and those who used it have committed crimes by violating existing treaties and laws.
Alec is obviously “fishing” for a stick to hit David with. He uses arguments about science, then he jumps on an unrelated legal issue whether or not David’s participation in the EU event was indeed a real EU event, which is an entirely different topic. This is how trolls operate because their goal is to corner you and destroy your credibility. Their goal is not to establish the truth on any specific topic.

I am glad that this conversation has taken place publicly and I agree with Dave on the topic of benefiting from spreading “the truth”. I have been following and documenting most of the “independent” work on this “pandemic” that is countering the “official narrative”. Originally, the stated goal of many of these initiatives was “to raise public awareness” about the views held by the opposition. However, with time passing by, more and more of these activists began to limit their public reach by requesting money in exchange for access to their messages and opinions. And yet, they still maintain that people have the right to share and seek information freely. This is counterproductive and incosistent with their initially stated goal. If you do it out of patriotism or out of a commitment to scientific truth, or out of your sense of moral and legal integrity, or out of your love for humanity, do it in a spirit once highlighted by president Kennedy, who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” When money becomes involved, we see the corruption and collapse of our health care system and our education system, and our justice system, and our political system, and our law enforcement system. Just look at the media. All media outlets that take money from the governments or the “elites”, or their viewers, or their publishers (e.g., monetization) start publishing what their sponsors want to hear. That’s the end of “the truth”.

Related:

• Tom Cowan’s reply to this debate
• Discussing The Covid Summit at The European Parliament: May 10th, 2023 With David Martin and Others
  Comment: “Infectious (and) replication defective” does not mean “nothing”. This is an assumption made by an old school, properly educated medical doctor. In fact, David Martin is quoting somebody else and that somebody else may have had a different interpretation of “infectious, replication defective”. Just like they redefined the term “pandemic”, when they needed to use fear as a tool to coerce people to accept the measures, including the so-called “vaccines”. It is irrelevant what Dr. Cowan thinks, it was relevant what the authors of that patent thought. The “thing” was created and released. It exists. The “nothing” argument could have been a deception. Or, a terminology.used by uneducated and incompetent authors of this document. Or, they meant what David Martin is suggesting. “:Nothing” means nothing here. It is an empty assumption.
  – Also:
  Mr. Cowan, dr. Bridle is not leading the “anti-vax movement”. This is a shameful accusation worthy of a troll whose goal is to destroy the reputation of dr. Bridle. He is talking about the Covid-19 mRNA “vaccine”, which BTW is not a vaccine, it does not protect from infection and does not prevent transmission. It is something else..
  – Also:
  “Why would one be infectious and the other not?” Because “one” is a complete and active virus and “the other” is an inactive (“dead”) fragment of a virus destroyed by your immune system that is still remaining in your body after an infection you had three months ago and you recovered from it. The RT-PCR test cannot differentiate between the two – this is what dr. Bridle said. You are twisting his words. Why? Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technology and Nobel Prize winner, was talking about it.
  – (I stopped watching this obvious manipulation here, so no further comments on this video.)
• Dr. David Martin – Documenting Coronavirus Gain of Function Research at the Covid Summit in Brussels, Belgium – May 2023