▪︎ 新冠病毒是針對人類的戰爭行為 - David E Martin博士（重發-中文自設）

I am Brian Rose. My guest today is Dr. David Martin, the American author, professor, and researcher. You are the founder and CEO of MCAM, which provides research and advice to over 160 countries regarding finance, patents, and trades. You were the central figure in the documentary film, Plandemic II, which we live-streamed here on our digital freedom platform to over 2 million viewers, the largest live broadcast of a documentary film in history. In the movie, you expose the elaborate web of deception and lies by governments, corporations, and regulators that caused the COVID-19 pandemic. And you also appear in the latest installment, Plandemic III, The Great Awakening. Ultimately, you believe COVID was a pre-planned act of biological and chemical warfare perpetrated on the human race. And you said exactly that in the European Parliament during the recent international COVID summit in Brussels. David, welcome back to London Real. Hi, I'm so happy to see you, Brian. It's great to be here. And man, what a beautiful suit you've got on. Some great things never change. Well, that's a beautiful tie. And the man that consistently pulls off the bow tie is a strong man indeed. We'll definitely get you over to London and we'll go down to Savile Row and maybe you can teach me a thing or two. How's that? There you go. David, I couldn't be more excited to speak to you. I just uploaded a 20 minute piece of you speaking in front of the EU. And I highly recommend everybody go watch that when we're finished. I think it's probably the single most important, most prescient, most potent description of the entire pandemic. And you break down everything that you've been talking about for 20 plus years. And you take us all the way back to 1965 when this whole thing started. And, you know, I had a couple of flashbacks back to Plandemic 2, but you didn't go all the way into it in Plandemic 2 because it was probably so much information and it was early days. But what you said recently in front of the EU, along with the emotional content, for me, it's the most powerful thing I've seen in years. And I was curious, how would you describe, you know, what you said? Because I think the average person watching us right now has no idea of the detail that you can break down as far as the traces of what happened to us the last few years. You know, Brian, a lot of people have asked how I do research. And in the case of not only the coronavirus situation, but in the case of anthrax and in the case of conotoxin, in the case of an enormous number of other things, including the Ebola campaign during the mid-2010s. The difference between what a lot of people do and what I do is I watch the thing as it unfolds. You made reference in the opening to the fact that we advise 160, right now, 168 countries. What I receive inside of our corporate structure is the innovation disclosures, contracts, records of procurement, all kinds of things. And that goes into the Cuisinart of our data. It's how we make our global equity indexes that are traded. It's, you know, it's how we do our business. And so we don't look for things. We actually have a system that flags things. I can set flags for all sorts of things. I can set flags for violations of laws. I can set flags for all sorts of either themes or content or actors or whatever. And in the early 2000s, and a lot of people don't know this, but in the early 2000s, when we were asked to look into the anthrax outbreak, which most people don't even remember. I mean, when we talk about September 2001, everybody thinks about planes and towers. But the global fear in September of 2001 and the thing that was exploited to pass what ultimately became the PrEP Act in 2005 was the anthrax outbreak that allegedly happened at the end of the month. And because of the cognitive dissonance of did planes really fly into towers, people forget that the real terrorist attack was actually anthrax. And the problem about forgetting that is people also forget that several years after the alleged investigation, we were able to definitively and unequivocally and without censorship say the United States Department of Defense attacked America. There you go. It's not hard. And the problem is by the time that statement was made, kind of like UFOs are real, gender isn't real, all of the crazy other things that people say, the problem is by the time you get to the conversation where people admit, oh, my gosh, the U.S. really did anthrax to itself. People have forgotten the story. And so in many respects, COVID is amnesia 2.0. That's how we should describe it. Because this was another U.S. did it to itself. And the Wall Street Journal just this past week, and this part cracked me up through this amazing FOIA request, which allegedly was something they fought long and hard for. You know what they found? What you and I talked about nearly three years ago. But if you're looking for the whodunit as a forensic investigator versus you're observing the crime as it unfolds, you have two very different perspectives. And what I really did at the EU Parliament is said, hey, slow the tape down. Let's get all the facts on the table. Coronavirus, COVID-19, the whole thing was premeditated. It was murder. It was active terrorism by a state against the world. Let's call it what it is. And let's not pretend like maybe there's a more complex explanation for, I don't know, the facts. And the facts are, Here's the bad news. For 58 years, the United States, the UK, in collaboration with researchers around the world, planned to use coronavirus to instill the most tyrannical reform of society that this generation has ever seen. And they did it purely premeditated to make sure that we were cowed into submission. And the bad news for them is there's a lot of people that didn't take the knee. It's just incredible. When you start going through the dates, and maybe just take us back to some of these dates, 1965,1967,1990, where these events, and when you do it, it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. And again, the beautiful thing about your work in Pandemic II is that there was no emotion. There was no opinion. It was all facts. It was published documents where you can literally show and as you walk us right up to 02 and right us up to 2020, you literally have specific mentions about exactly what's going to happen that document what you just said. Because a lot of people will hear what you just said and be like, OK, here's another one who's making these claims. But you can document every single thing you're saying. Well, and not only in the EU Parliament speech, I actually put every single reference in. There's not a single thing I said that's not referenced with the source document behind it. So you can read it. Do it yourself. Go read it. Read the document. Draw a different conclusion. But let's go back to 1965 because it's important to do this. And remember that 1965 is only a few years, less than two decades from when we even had the idea of what DNA and RNA even were. Remember, it was 1953 that we figure out DNA. So when I talk about 1965, we're talking about a 12-year-old technology that we don't even understand where researchers in the United States started guessing that this thing that they decided to call coronavirus was interesting because they actually saw it associated with people that had various kinds of colds and influenza-like illness and so forth. And they also found out that you could play around with it and get it to change its targets really quickly, which is a really interesting kind of... Is that a good thing to know or is it a bad thing to know? It sounds like gain-of-function research. But what happened between 1965 and 1967 was a violation of, at that time, in the U.K., Nuremberg Standards and in the United States, a violation of our biological and chemical weapons laws dictated in Section 18 of the U.S. Code. What specifically we did was we took what was allegedly pathogen samples from the United States and in 1967 and in 1968, we infected Britons who were healthy. Just let that chill just for a minute, like a rosé on a hot summer afternoon. Right? That's a... Oh, my God. What did you just say? I said it. We broke the law. We knew that we had something that made people sick. We shipped it from the United States to the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom infected British citizens with a U.S. pathogen allegedly to see if we could do it. Now, by the way, in 1967 and 1968, nobody in Great Britain was sitting there going, I wonder if we've got a treatment for it. They were first trying to see if they could infect people with the thing, right? That's kind of an important point to make because the waiver of biological and chemical weapons laws in the United States and the waiver of the Nuremberg Standards in the U.K. are based on whether you're doing research for the purpose of benefiting therapies, not seeing if you can infect people. And this is one of those little nuances that if anybody bothered to read the law, they'd go,Oh, my God. What he's saying is actually true. We can research for the purpose of treatment, but we cannot research for the purpose of going, what if we can take a biologic sample from the United States and make people in the U.K. sick? And that's 1967, 1968. That's not kind of, you know, a couple of weeks before COVID. That's before most of us were born. Not me, not you, but most of the people who are watching, this is before you. And what's important about that is if you go back and you look at the research, and this was primarily the United States and the U.K., primarily throughout the 70s going into the early 80s, what they found was that this crazy thing that they had labeled coronavirus was engineerable to all sorts of specifications. You could make people sick. You could target different tissue. It was kind of a Darwin's grab bag of what you could do with the thing. And then in the 1980s, farmers,and specifically farmers of pigs and breeders of dogs started realizing that this coronavirus thing that they were talking about was associated with gastroenteritis in little baby pigs and little baby dogs. And so there was a move in the 80s to see if there was a way to come up with a vaccine. And in 1990, a company that none of us have ever heard of might start with a P, might be followed by another consonant, but a company that allegedly was, you know, a master of no expertise at all in coronavirus decided to patent a vaccine And what's important about the vaccine that Pfizer patented in 1990 was it was RNA for the spike protein. So when I hear somebody come along and tell me that they had Operation Warp Speed, this rapid discovery of the way we're going to inject people in 2020, I sit back and go, hmm, warp speed that only took 30 years of failed trial after failed trial after failed trial, which included as recently as 2018, a series of publications that said coronavirus and the vaccine concept cannot coexist. And they cannot coexist because the coronavirus model had been so manipulated, so contorted, so subject to gain-of-function research that you could never get a vaccine to immunize a population against infection with this thing. It would have never been possible. And by the way, for everybody who does the follow the science mantra, the science, unambiguously says in thousands of publications, proceedings and patents, vaccines do not work on coronavirus. That is the science. And by the way, nothing about COVID-19 has changed the science because we now know that every injection that was ever given to anybody failed to stop infection or transmission at all. So my little observation about the 30-year scientific history is unfortunately backed up by the fact that even this go-round, we haven't been able to immunize a population against anything. And so,Brian, the point of all of this legacy is that it was 30 years and it was Pfizer. It wasn't another company. It wasn't GlaxoSmithKline. It wasn't Sanofi Aventis. It wasn't those. It was Pfizer who had a mandate from what became World Health Organization, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, the NIAID, all of the DARPA funding. Pfizer was the lead horse in the race because they, in fact, owned the race. So is it a surprise that Pfizer is allegedly a dark horse in 2020 that comes out with this instantaneous ability to respond to something that they had 30 years of failed trials to produce and never once succeeded? You know, these are things where, unfortunately, the evidence is self-evident. It's just mind-blowing, these facts. But it gets even better with your narrative. Walk me through, say, another 10 years, especially as we get up to 2002 and some of the stuff going on in Chapel Hill because this story gets even more interesting. It's kind of like the Bible. It gets even more interesting. Yeah, well, so 1990, we find out that dogs and pigs still get sick. And, in fact, when you inject them with the Pfizer vaccine, they die. So there's that problem. And it's really unfortunate by the way, if a side effect of a thing that's supposed to make you healthy is death, it does feel a little awkward to try to pitch it as a solution. And not surprisingly, Anthony Fauci, because by this time, you'll recall in the 1980s, he got the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed 1986 with President Reagan. And if we go back and look at what his dream was, in fact, he stated it. He misspoke on camera. He said invariably within his career. He meant inevitably. But invariably within his career, he was going to produce a universal vaccine. He was going to try to use HIV scare back in the 1980s to be the animating impulse to get the public to fall for a universal vaccine. And he thought, and researchers at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill verified that you could take the coronavirus model and use it as a vaccine vector. Now, let me unpack what that means because a lot of people don't know what that term means. Because of the nature of the product that we call the coronavirus, and I'm not going to get into is there or isn't there, what I'm saying is the object identified as coronavirus has a series of proteins on the outside of it which actually connect with the cell. And that instructs the cell to allow the contents of that thing to actually get into the cell. Now, what makes that particularly interesting is that because it can be so precisely engineered, if you were going to deliver another agent, whether that other agent was a vaccine, whether that other agent was a therapeutic, if you were going to deliver another agent using this particle, the coronavirus model, as a way to deliver a thing was actually a plausible idea, so plausible that Anthony Fauci in the early 1990s figured out that he was going to use the coronavirus model as a vaccine for HIV. So in other words, you're going to take the coronavirus, put HIV in it, and that was going to be the vaccine. So that's a pretty dark thing I just said. I said it in a fairly light way, but it's a pretty terrifying thing when you hear what I just said. He was going to use coronavirus as the delivery agent for HIV. But there was a tiny problem. GlaxoSmithKline and others had this drug called AZT, which was being used to allegedly treat and really kill AIDS patients. And AZT had 7 years of patent life left on it. So what Anthony Fauci did was he actually decided to let the whole HIV vaccine thing go on ice for a little while, while the 7-year remaining patent life of AZT and the extortionary pricing that came with that patent came at the expense of the lives of AIDS patients. And what they did was from the late 1980s technically up until nearly 2000,1999, they allowed AZT to run out its patent extorting health care across the world billions of dollars to kill AIDS patients. And then they decided to pick up the injection program at UNC Chapel Hill in 1999. And they funded a guy named Ralph Barrett and his collaborators at UNC Chapel Hill. And between 1999 and 2002, they developed what they called an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus. Now, if you listen to what I said about the vaccine vector, now it makes sense, right? Why do you want an infectious replication defective? Well, infectious means you want the thing to make the cell sick and you want to introduce it, but you don't want it to then propagate like the other viral models do, which says that once inside your cell, you make more of them and then they go out and they infect other people. So this idea was to build a bullet that carried a bullet inside of it. Think about it as a bunker-busting round in the military. You have a pre-charge that blasts the thing open and then you have a secondary charge that does the lethal work, right? Same thing, just on a very small scale. So this was a bunker-buster. Coronavirus was going to be the bullet that pierced the cell wall to drop the other toxin in. And in 2002, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill patented the infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus and succeeded in making it target heart and lung tissue. Now, just let that chill for a moment again, right? Remember, we're talking about researchers that said, it's making dogs and pigs sick. Let's see if we can take that same thing and see if we can target the heart. Let's see if we can target the lungs. And if you had an outstanding question in your mind like, are these good people just misguided? Listen to this sentence one more time. Target the heart. Target the lungs. Does that sound like the place where you'd set an immunologic target? Does it sound like you'd want to go ahead and make sure that vascular tissue and respiratory tissue are your primary target? I don't know about you, Brian, but the beating in my heart and the breathing in my lungs is something that I kind of want to leave pretty unmessed with. But that's not what they did. They actually targeted the heart and the lungs and they filed the patent on it in 2002. And what makes that particularly important is we did not have SARS. 1.0. Forget 2.0. We did not have the SARS outbreak in 2003 until we had already built the bullet and started shooting it. We never had SARS. There was no such thing as COVID-1 or COVID-2. We never had those things. We had a weapon that was dispensed in a population. That's what we had. And by 2003, when the world was allegedly going to fall into the throes of all the pharmaceutical companies that were going to come up with vaccines, which by the way, 2003. This is important. And every fact checker has tried to disprove this and unfortunately, the facts are as they have been stated. In April of 2003, the CDC filed a patent on what they called SARS coronavirus isolated from humans. It took them 4 years to get that patent issued. It took them bribing the patent office to get it issued after the patent examiners twice rejected it as an illegal patent. All of the things I said in Plandemic 2, all of the things that are absolutely documented and all of the things that fact checkers, which by the way, is the only fact they checked out of Plandemic 2, got wrong. Because the facts are, if you go to the United States Patent Office record right now, you can see that everything I said is absolutely true and the original documents are absolutely there as we put in the movie. But here's the point. Two days after the CDC filed their patent, not got it, filed it. Two days later, a company called Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, company that none of us have ever heard of, nobody saw the funding for it, nobody seen anything about it. Two days after the CDC filed a patent on allegedly discovering the gene for SARS and the entire DNA sequence that actually was the underlying alleged coronavirus isolated from humans. Two days later, the vaccine patent was filed on SARS. Now, in what world could you, in the space of two days, go from allegedly identifying the existence of a thing to not only filing a patent on the vaccine for it, but having data on the research of the vaccine for the thing that was patented two days earlier. Now, people say, Dave, that sounds like a conspiracy theory. I'd like you to drop the word theory because it's not a conspiracy theory when it is in fact a criminal conspiracy. It was a criminal conspiracy. There is no question that Sequoia Pharmaceuticals could not have invented a vaccine for a thing for which a patent had only been filed two days prior. That's a conspiracy which is a criminal conspiracy. And that involves the CDC participating in a racketeering and domestic terrorism and global terrorism exercise to release a known toxin into a population to justify the acceptance of a vaccine. Tiny problem. By 2007, it turns out Sequoia's vaccine didn't work because you know what happened when it got injected into living things? They died. Didn't work. But what's fascinating about this whole story is then you actually recognize that in 2005, and this is the probably the crowning achievement of the EU speech, which also fact-checkers on YouTube have decided to tell me and tell everybody in the world can't be true. But it is on Ralph Baric's downloadable CV at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill right now. You can go online, pause the video, confirm what I'm saying. In 2005, Ralph Baric made a presentation sponsored by DARPA and the MITRE Corporation, M-I-T-R-E, the MITRE Corporation. And in that presentation, his title of his presentation was biohacking a coronavirus as an enabling technology for biowarfare. Now,I've been told that I'm misunderstanding that he was really talking about coming up with treatments for a thing. Brian,I don't know for you, I don't know if the average UK listener or viewer has a hard time understanding the English language, but let me unpack something. If it was treatments for coronavirus, I wouldn't have an argument. But if you say that your speech is coronavirus, biowarfare enabling technology, I don't know which part of that phrase is creating the problem for fact-checkers. Biowarfare enabling feels to me like you might be enabling biowarfare. But apparently,I've got it wrong. I'm misunderstanding the innocent Ralph Baric who happened to not only make that presentation, but then receive a black contract at the UNC Chapel Hill Lab, which stood side by side with the NIAID to allegedly then come up with research that subject to the gain-of-function moratorium in 2014 was given a waiver because he was funded. So funded research got a waiver mysteriously, even though the public was told that we actually put a moratorium on gain-of-function research. But since he was already funded, he was getting funding, therefore, he was allowed to keep doing it, so that by 2016, he could write the following sentence. The Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 spike protein is poised for human emergence. Let's just dial back to, I don't know, December of 2019, when allegedly we were supposed to believe that some poor schlep in a wet market in Wuhan bought a dog or a civet or a pangolin or a bat or whatever the heck they bought, they took it home, they cooked it up and became patient number one. Well, isn't it fascinating that in 2016, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill was so prescient, so unbelievably prescient that they must have had a crystal ball to guess of all the places on earth where you might have an outbreak of this dangerous thing. Isn't it fascinating that they published and then went on several of the colleagues patented the spike protein poised for human emergence in 2016? And is there any chance that when Anthony Fauci in 2017 said to President Trump, you will have a pandemic on your watch, is there any chance that he might have known that you were going to have a pandemic on your watch,right? People sit there and this is the part where I know it's a big word, but parsimonious is a good word to look at right now. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the explanation. You know, we've spent the last three years going, no, seriously, that couldn't have, they couldn't have really planned this, right? We wouldn't have governments in collusion with this. We wouldn't have the UK and Canada and Saudi Arabia and Austria and the US, we wouldn't have them all working together on this, would we? And we wouldn't have like China in on it too, would we? Well, the answer is yeah, all of them were in on it and every single document proves that this is not an oops, something escaped the lab, never was and never will be. This was the United States government funding in the United States and in China the weaponization of the spike protein associated with coronavirus for the desecration of humanity and for the disruption and ultimately the desecration of our liberties. That's what it was, period. It's just so hard to believe and it's so hard to believe that they left such a blatant paper trail. I mean, you're literally quoting these specific words, intentional release and it's there in paper. I mean, the mafia covered up better than this. I mean, most criminals cover up much better than this, probably because they worry about being prosecuted. I mean, do you ever think about this? This is poor. Yeah, and I think, Brian, you're spot on to something and I want to remind everybody that Plato figured this out a long time ago. He said that there is a time in civilization. He used the term temple robbers and grave robbers and other things We don't have temple robbers anymore. We have tyrants that are called presidents and prime ministers. But it's the same thing. But one of the points he made, and I think this is really important for us to discuss as a humanity, is that you're familiar with serial killers, right? Somebody kills somebody that's murdered. Somebody kills a couple people. You go, wow, that's a mass shooting. There are definitely Americans. And then you get to, I don't know, 10 or 15. At some point, you get to the number of deaths and you start going, I'm not outraged about this anymore. I'm fascinated with it. And sociopaths and serial killers do something almost universally, which is at some point, they start leaving totems behind, right? They leave a little flower or they leave a little note or they leave something that taunts the rest of the world because they're getting off on this idea that they're smarter than. And I would say that coronavirus since 19, certainly since 1967, has been that. It has been sociopaths who say, I wonder if we get away with it. And that's the first murder. And then we got away with it. I wonder if we could get away with a bigger thing. I wonder if we could, I don't know, make a thing that made people in Asia sick in 2002 going into 2003. I wonder if, I wonder if we could get people to fall for this idea of allegedly a universal vaccine. I wonder if we could do that. I wonder when we wrote the decade of vaccines in 2010 as the World Health Organization and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Dr. Chris Elias and Anthony Fauci and Dr. Gao at the CDC, a part of the World Health Organization. I wonder if we said that by September 2020, the world would have a universal vaccine in 2010. And then when we recited that to get the world to accept a universal vaccine, the same authors in September of 2019 said that to create the sense of urgency, we would have an accidental or an intentional release of a respiratory pathogen. I wonder if the same authors writing the same mandate published by the same organization across a decade. I wonder if they could possibly be serious when they say we will conduct a global experiment with the accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen. And by the way, the image that they have on the page of that is a coronavirus picture. I wonder if that might be the explanation for why COVID-19 happened. And I've been told that I'm reading into something. I'm not reading into anything. I'm reading the thing. I'm reading exactly what they said. And there is a problem when you hear the word accidental or intentional release. And the problem is the word release. That means somebody somewhere planned to distribute the thing. That's what the word release means. They did not say accidental leak. They didn't say a terrorist bad actor did biological warfare. They said an accidental or intentional release. Their words, not mine. And this is where you're exactly right. The audacity of the crime paralyzes us to go, holy shit. We are actually now living in a world where we know that 8 to 9 million people were murdered by the allied governments. Murdered. And we're fine with that. One day there'll be a Netflix series. There'll be this guy in a bow tie doing an investigation and people go, I wonder if that was inspired by Dave Martin. Listen. The whole thing is so egregious that we are paralyzed as a civilization to consider that that is what our governments have become. But the newsflash is I have actually recited their words, not my opinion. Besides the power motive, there's also that financial motive. And you said something in that EU speech that was something you also emphasized. And the fact that they were saying that in order to get the, I think it was the investor's attention, you would have to get the media to propagate this, to get the public to ultimately uptake the vaccine. I might be paraphrasing. You know I'm morally obligated to quote Peter Daszak when people ask me this question because if you're going to listen to the admission of the crime, it's best to get it straight from the criminal. And in late 2014, published in February of 2015 for all the fact checkers who want to fact check the statement, Peter Daszak at the National Academy of Sciences made the following statement, and I am reading it directly from his paper. Until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public's understanding for the need for medical countermeasures such as a 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. By the way, that is evidence in any crown court in the world. That is premeditated murder. That is premeditated international terrorism. And it is financial racketeering in every civilized country on earth. And to date, there is not a single prosecutor who has used the admission of the crime to prosecute the crime. Nowhere. Not in Australia, not in Canada, not in the UK, nowhere in the EU. No one has used the admission of the criminal as the basis for criminal prosecution. Which part of investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process sounds to you like Johns Hopkins' bullshit cover story of public health? And the answer is it never was about public health. It was always about the money. And not surprisingly, the event 201 in October of 2019 preceding the alleged outbreak of coronavirus by two months was funded not by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, not by the World Economic Forum, and not by Johns Hopkins University even though their logos were listed as sponsors. The actual funding for that program was done by Dustin Moskowitz, who was Zuckerberg's co-founder of Facebook. So is it any wonder that Facebook was in on the shutting down of this message from the outset because the guy who wrote the check for the domestic terrorism was a co-founder of Facebook. And we don't ever hear his name conveniently. You can't find except my rants, you can't find his name mentioned anywhere except for the fact that Open Philanthropy, his equivalent of the Gates Foundation, was the check writer that actually put this whole snowball in motion. Event 201 is another audacious move, which is again hard to even comprehend that you would stage something like that publicly, full well knowing that it was only a matter of time before this happened. Again,that is... Two months. Yeah. Two months. And ultimately, this then comes down to what we've witnessed of this,you know, $100 billion, $200 billion payday that a lot of these actors now benefit from. So it looks like... And I think we used to play these games a little bit on Wall Street, where in a long enough timeline, if you introduce all these random issues in volatility, and then have all these solutions as in financial products, then you just... It's gonna make a lot of money. Now,the exact details of when it happens or how it plays out, and maybe it's probability weighted, like you said, maybe Fauci had to wait and write out the AZT and then it was gonna come, but you know in a long enough timeline, everybody gets paid. Is that what's happening here? Well,there's no question. I mean,remember that Pfizer had no economic interest in an animal vaccine for coronavirus,right? That was not interesting, which means that the high probability is that they were just a stooge, and the wink-wink, nod-nod is, hey,do this for us, set the process in motion. And when it comes around to...