This is not the Dr, David Martin that advocates Covid and financial Conspiracy theories
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is "Bad" Science?
- Thread starter dybmh
- Start date
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
I should have removed the irrelevant ones from the list. The point remains that he is not an unqualified idiot.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
He is a confirmed COVID liar.
What else does one need to know?
He has cried wolf so much that anything he says about COVID is at best suspect.
The above is areal doctor, but . . .
Who is the real Dr, David Martin?
Research reveals #2 Financial Conspiracy theorist with no qualification is science or medicine, As far as Covid Science goes he is an unqualified conspiracy idiot.
Financial analyst David Martin misrepresents studies and patent applications to promote the baseless claim that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon
At the moment, investigations are still underway to determine where SARS-CoV-2 originated and how it came to infect humans. Both the natural and lab leak hypotheses rely on circumstantial evidence that can’t prove nor disprove either theory. However, no credible evidence indicates that the virus...Financial analyst David Martin misrepresents studies and patent applications to promote the baseless claim that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon
"Is at best suspect?" Your being too kind, Dr Martin is wooden headed Pinocchio with a nose a yard long.
"Bad" science par excellence.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
It is my opinion that you owe Pinocchio a huge apology.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Like the Reuters "fact-checkers" who failed to debunk his claim, you mean?
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The above is areal doctor, but . . .
Who is the real Dr, David Martin?
Research reveals #2 Financial Conspiracy theorist with no qualification is science or medicine, As far as Covid Science goes he is an unqualified conspiracy idiot.
Financial analyst David Martin misrepresents studies and patent applications to promote the baseless claim that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon
At the moment, investigations are still underway to determine where SARS-CoV-2 originated and how it came to infect humans. Both the natural and lab leak hypotheses rely on circumstantial evidence that can’t prove nor disprove either theory. However, no credible evidence indicates that the virus...
healthfeedback.org
Financial analyst David Martin misrepresents studies and patent applications to promote the baseless claim that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon
David Martin covid summit (Brave browser)
Dr. David Martin, a financial researcher and businessman, made a startling assertion at the European Parliament’s International COVID Summit III on May 3, 2023, claiming that the COVID-19 pandemic was a pre-meditated act of domestic terrorism. He presented evidence supporting his claims and highlighted the historical context of the pandemic.
Key Points:
COVID-19 was first isolated in 1965: Dr. Martin stated that COVID-19 was first isolated in 1965, more than 50 years ago, and that it was recognized as a pathogen with the potential for modification and utilization in various contexts.
Coronavirus research continued throughout the years: Dr. Martin emphasized that coronavirus research continued throughout the years, including the modification of the pathogen in animals such as pigs and dogs. He also highlighted that Pfizer filed the first patent for a spike protein vaccine for coronavirus in 1990.
The virus was identified as a potential tool for biological warfare: Dr. Martin characterized the virus as a “financial heist” and a “financial fraud” in which the scientific community was manipulated. He also stated that the virus was identified as a potential tool for biological warfare.
Dr. Martin’s presentation was met with skepticism: Some critics questioned Dr. Martin’s expertise in the field of biology and medicine, while others praised his presentation and the information he shared.
Reactions and Responses:
Some experts questioned Dr. Martin’s credibility: Some experts in the field of biology and medicine questioned Dr. Martin’s credibility and expertise in the field.
Others praised Dr. Martin’s presentation: Some individuals praised Dr. Martin’s presentation and the information he shared, citing his expertise in patents and his ability to provide evidence to support his claims.
The European Parliament did not sponsor the event: It was clarified that the event was a private, non-government related event and that the views presented did not represent those of the European Parliament.
Conclusion:
Dr. David Martin’s claims at the European Parliament’s International COVID Summit III sparked controversy and debate. While some experts questioned his credibility and expertise, others praised his presentation and the information he shared. The event highlighted the ongoing discussions and debates surrounding the origins and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Now you have reached just plain denial.
You did forget to advise what direct to aim my tin foil hat.......
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You 'forgot' the link to the source...
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
*Staff edit* The CDC deleted the page that Reuters used to support their allegation against Martin.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Wrong, you can't link to a browser search response.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I do it all the time.
But then, I am not trying to hide my source....
So you have no objective standard for truth, you say.
I guess you find that very handy.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Not with Brave. It's referenced with the results I posted.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, I didn't say that. It's a heuristic that can be used to identify ideas that are unpopular but true.
Virtually all reliable academic scientists seriously question competence
Whateverist
Active Member
You're wrong about how I feel about science. There is very little to criticize but what there is needs to be said. I'm not a fundy believer but neither am I a rabid atheist who believes anything incompatible with science simply must be wrong. Science doesn't know everything and so can't rule out anything just because it can't account for it. Why is anyone so eager to take religious beliefs so literally, especially when they have no investment in them?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Funny.
I do not have any problem linking to results from brave browser searches...
The information refuting David Martins claims are easy to find I cited several.