The Blog

2021-

2021-10-05 c
AS OBVIOUS AS TAN LINES ON A STRIPPER III

“We made SARS. And we patented it on 19/4/2002, before there was any alleged outbreak in Asia”
David E. Martin testifies at the German Corona Inquiry Committee July 9th, 2021

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Dr. David E. Martin

[...]

Reiner- So I think it’s best if you introduce yourself. I know you’re the chairman of M-CAM International Innovation Risk Management, but that doesn’t tell a whole lot of people what you’re really doing.

David- Yeah, well, from a corporate standpoint, we have since 1998, been the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. So in the majority of the countries around the world are underwriting systems which include the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records, etc.

We have the ability to not only track what is happening and who is involved in what’s happening, but we monitor a series of thematic interests for a variety of organizations and individuals as well as for our own commercial use. Because as you probably know, we maintain three global equity index funds, which are the top performing large cap and mid-cap equity index funds worldwide.

So our business is to monitor the innovation that’s happening around the world and specifically to monitor the economics of that innovation. The degree to which, you know, financial interests are being served. Corporate interests are being dislocated, etc. So our business is the business of innovation and its finance. But obviously, from the standpoint of this presentation, as you know, we have reviewed the over 4000 patents that have been issued around SARS coronavirus.

And we have done a very comprehensive review of the financing of all of the manipulations of coronavirus which gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the betacoronavirus family. And so what I wanted to do is give you a quick overview, timeline wise, because we’re not going to go through 4000 patents on this conversation. But I have sent to you and your team a document that is exceptionally important. This was made public in the spring of 2020.

Reiner- Yes.

David- This document, which you do have and can be posted in the public record is quite critical in that we took the reported gene sequence, which was reportedly isolated as a novel coronavirus indicated as such by the ICTV, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses of the World Health Organization. We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel and reviewed those against the patent records that were available as of the spring of 2020.

And what we found, as you’ll see in this report, are over a hundred and twenty patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy. There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless very subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded, but there was no single identified novel coronavirus at all. As a matter of fact, we found records in the patent records of sequences attributed to novelty going to patents that were sought as early as 1999.

So not only was this not a novel anything, it’s actually not only not been novel, it’s not been novel for over two decades. But let’s take a very short ... and what I’ll do is I’ll take you on a very short journey through the patent landscape to make sure people understand what happened. But as you know, up until 1999, the topic of coronavirus vis-à-vis the patenting activity around coronavirus was uniquely applied to veterinary sciences.

The first vaccine ever patented for coronavirus was actually sought by Pfizer. The application for the first vaccine for coronavirus, which was specifically this spike protein. So the exact same thing that allegedly we have rushed into invention. The first application was filed January 28, 2020 twenty one years ago. So the idea that we mysteriously stumbled on the way to intervene on vaccines is not only ludicrous, it is incredulous.

Because Timothy Miller, Sharon Albert, Paul Reed and Elaine Jones on January 20th, 2000, filed what ultimately was issued as US patent 6372224, which was the spike protein [of the] virus, a vaccine for the canine coronavirus, which is actually one of the multiple forms of coronavirus. But as I said, the early work up until 1999 was largely focused in the area of vaccines for animals.

The two animals receiving the most attention were probably Ralph Baric’s work on rabbits and the rabbit cardiomyopathy that was associated with significant problems among rabbit breeders and then canine coronavirus in Pfizer’s work to identify how to develop as spike protein vaccine target candidates giving rise to the obvious evidence that says that neither the coronavirus concept of vaccine nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest.

With respect to the spike protein's behavior is nothing novel at all. As a matter of fact, it’s twenty two years old based on patent filings. What’s more problematic and what is actually the most egregious problem is that Anthony Fauci and NIAID found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines, and so SARS is actually not a natural progression of a genetic modification of coronavirus.

As a matter of fact, very specifically, in 1999, Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill specifically to create and you cannot help but lament what I’m about to read, because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19th, 2002. And you heard the date correctly, 2002 where the NIAID built an infectious replication, defective coronavirus. They were specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words, we made SARS.

And we patented it on April 19th, 2002, before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which, as you know, followed that by several months. That patent issued as US patent 7279327. That patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we knew that the ACE [Angiotensin Converting Enzyme] receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the S1 spike protein and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen was not only engineered but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies, taking computer code and turning it into a pathogen or an intermediate of the pathogen.

And that technology was funded exclusively in the early days as a means by which we could actually harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine. So it gets worse. We were my organization was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations in the very early days of 2000. You’ll remember the anthrax events in September of 2001.

And we were part of an investigation that gave rise to the Congressional inquiry into not only the anthrax origins, but also into what was unusual behavior around Bayer’s ciprofloxacin drug, which was a drug used as a potential treatment for anthrax poisoning. And throughout the fall of 2001, we began monitoring an enormous number of bacterial and viral pathogens that were being patented through NIH, NIAID, USAMRIID, the US Armed Services Infectious Disease Program, and a number of other agencies internationally that collaborated with them.

And our concern was that coronavirus was being seen as not only a potential manipulatable agent for potential use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate. And so our first public reporting on this took place prior to the SARS outbreak in the latter part of 2001. So you can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here 20 years later, having 20 years earlier pointed that there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to coronavirus.

But after the alleged outbreak and I will always say alleged outbreak, because I think it’s important for us to understand that coronavirus as a circulating pathogen inside of the viral model that we have is actually not new to the human condition and is not new to the last two decades. It’s actually been part of the sequence of proteins that circulates for quite a long time.

But the alleged outbreak that took place in China in 2002 going into 2003 gave rise to a very problematic April, 2003 filing by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And this topic is of critical importance to get the nuance very precise, because in addition to filing the entire gene sequence on what became SARS coronavirus. Which is actually a violation of 35 US Code Section 101, you cannot patent a naturally occurring substance.

The 35 US Code § 101 violation was patent number 7220852. Now, that patent also had a series of derivative patents associated with it. These are our patent applications that were broken apart because they were of multiple patentable subject matter. But these include US Patent 46492703 P, which is actually a very interesting designation. The US Patent 776521 that is 7776521. These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus, but also covered the means of detecting it using RT PCR.

Now, the reason why that’s a problem is if you actually both own the patent on the gene itself and you own the patent on its detection, you have a cunning advantage to being able to control one hundred percent of the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its detection, meaning you have entire scientific and message control. And this patent sought by the CDC was allegedly justified by their public relations team as being sought so that everyone would be free to be able to research coronavirus.

The only problem with that statement is it’s a lie. And the reason why it’s a lie is because the Patent Office, not once but twice rejected the patent on the gene sequence as un-patentable because the gene sequence was already in the public domain. In other words, prior to CDC filing for a patent. The Patent Office found 99.9 percent identity with the already existing coronavirus recorded in the public domain and overrode the rejection of the patent examiner.

And after having to pay an appeal fine in 2006 and 2007, the CDC overrode the Patent Office's rejection of their patent and ultimately in 2007 got the patent on SARS coronavirus. Though every public statement that CDC has made that said that this was in the public interest is falsifiable by their own paid bribe to the Patent Office. This is not something that’s subtle. And to make matters worse, they paid an additional fee to keep their application private.

Last time I checked, if you’re trying to make information available for the public research, you would not pay a fee to keep the information private. I wish I could have made up anything I just said, but all of that is available in the public patent archive record, which any member of the public can review, and the public payer, as it’s called, the United States Patent Office has not only the evidence, but the actual documents, which I have in my possession.

Now, this is critically important. It’s critically important because fact checkers have repeatedly stated that the novel coronavirus designated as SARS-CoV-2 is in fact distinct from the CDC patent. And here’s both the genetic and the patent problem. If you look at the gene sequence that is filed by CDC in 2003, again in 2005 and then again in 2006, what you find is identity in somewhere between 89 to 99 percent of the sequence overlaps that have been identified in what’s called the novel subclass of SARS-CoV-2.

What we know is that the core designation of SARS coronavirus, which is actually a clade of the betacoronavirus family. And the sub-clade that has been called SARS-CoV-2 have to overlap from a taxonomic point of view, you cannot have SARS designation on a thing without it first being SARS. So the disingenuous fact checking that has been done, saying that somehow another CDC has nothing to do with this particular patent or this particular pathogen is beyond both the literal credibility of the published sequences.

And it’s also beyond credulity when it comes to the ICTV taxonomy, because it very clearly states that this is in fact a subclade of the clade called SARS coronavirus. Now, what’s important is on the 28th of April and listen to the date very carefully, because this date is problematic.

Three days after CDC filed the patent on the SARS coronavirus in 2003, three days later, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, a company that was set up in Maryland, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, on the 20th of April 2003, filed a patent on antiviral agents of treatment and control of infections by coronavirus CDC filed three days earlier and then the treatment was available three days later. Now, just hold that thought for a second.

Reiner- Who is Sequoia Pharmaceuticals?

David- Well, there we go. That’s a good question, because Sequoia Pharmaceuticals and ultimately Ambling Pharmaceuticals became rolled into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crucell N. V. and Johnson and Johnson.

Reiner- Well.

David- So ask yourself a simple question, how would one have a patent on a treatment for a thing that had been invented three days earlier?

Reiner- Yeah.

David- The patent in question. The April 28th, 2003 patent 7151163 issued to Sequoia Pharmaceuticals has another problem. The problem is it was issued and published before the CDC patent on coronavirus was actually allowed. So the degree to which the information could have been known by any means other than insider information between those parties is zero.

It is not physically possible for you to patent the thing that creates a thing that had not been published because CDC had paid to keep it secret. This, my friends, is the definition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion. This is not a theory. This is evidence. You cannot have information in the future, to form a treatment for a thing that did not exist. (read more)

______________________

Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL,
______________________