The following was transcribed by someone I know. The information contained herein is not speculation. It is highly detailed and reveals the many lies we've been told about the current "pandemic." If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, skip to the last bit. The whole point of the fake pandemic was to get people vaccinated. We know that. But I wanted to post this here in case anyone needs further proof we were lied to all along. The virus is the vaccine. I've heard reports of many people simply falling dead in their homes. We're talking about fairly healthy men and women in their 30s and 40s with no previous health issues. It's very odd. Could be connected to the vaccinations. That's what I'm hearing. Stay vigilant.
As an added note, I think there is something much larger than the vaccine thing happening right now. It's taking so much attention, though. Something else much bigger is going on. I guess we'll find out what it is eventually. See https://www.bitchute.com/video/fNNvZwJ2IzuP/ for full video Dr. David Martin is the founding CEO of M∙CAM Inc., since 1998 the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. That includes all patents and patent applications, federal grants and procurement records, e-government records, etc. He has reviewed over 4,000 patents issued around the SARS coronavirus. He has the ability to track what is happening and who is involved and monitor schematic interests. His business is to monitor business innovation happening around the world. Overview timewise: We have reviewed the over 4,000 patents that have been issued around SARS coronavirus and have done a very comprehensive review of all the financing and all the manipulations of coronavirus which gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta coronavirus family. We took the reported gene sequences that were reportedly isolated as novel, indicated as such by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). 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. What we found were over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was entirely a fallacy. These was no novel coronavirus at all. There are patents on novel coronavirus as early as 1999. Before 1999, patents relating to novel coronavirus were uniquely applied to veterinarian sciences. The first vaccine patent concerning coronavirus was sought by Pfizer and was specifically for spike protein. It was filed Jan. 28, 2000, patent #6372224, a spike protein vaccine for canine coronavirus. So the idea that coronavirus is novel is not only incredulous, it is ludicrous. More problematic is that Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines. So SARS is not a natural progression of a genetic modification of coronavirus. In 1999, Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) (April 19, 2002 patent application) where the NIAID built an infectious replication defective coronavirus specifically targeting human lung epithelium. In other words, we made SARS and we patented it before there was any alleged outbreak in Asia, which followed that by several months. That patent, U.S. patent 7279327, clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing that we know that the ACE 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 lab using nothing more than gene sequencing technology taking computer code and turning it into a pathogen or an intermediate. 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. It gets worse. My organization was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations in the early 2000s. We were part of a Congressional inquiry into not only anthrax origins, but also unusual behavior around Bayer’s siprofloxacin drug, which was used as a potential treatment for anthrax poisoning. Throughout the fall of 2001 we began monitoring enormous numbers of bacterial and viral pathogens being patented through NIH, NIAID, USAMRIID, the U.S. Armed Services Infection Resource program, and other international agencies that collaborated with them. Our concern was that coronavirus was being seen, not only as a potential manipulative agent for potential use as a vaccine vector, but also was clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate. Our first public reporting on this took place prior to the SARS outbreak in latter 2008. You can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here 20 years later, having 20 years earlier pointed out that there was a problem looming on the horizon with the spector of coronavirus. But after the alleged outbreak — and I will always say alleged outbreak — because I think it’s important to understand that coronavirus as a circulating pathogen inside of the viral model that we have is not new to the human condition. It’s not new the last two decades. It’s part of the sequence of proteins that circulated for quite a long time. The alleged outbreak that took place in China in 2002-03 gave rise to a very problematic rise in an April 2002 filing by the US CDC — and this topic is of critical importance to get the nuance very precise — because, in addition to filing the entire gene sequence on section 101, you cannot patent a naturally occurring substance. The 535 code 101 violation was patent 7220852, which also had a series of derivative patents associated with it. These patent applications were broken apart because they were of multiple patentable subject matter. These include US patent 46592703p, which is an interesting designation. U.S patent 776521. These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus, but also the means of detecting it using R2PCR. The reason that’s a problem is you actually both own the patent on the gene itself and the patent on its detection. You have a cunning advantage to be able to control the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its detection. Patent office found 99.9% identity with already existing coronavirus recorded in the public domain and over the rejection of the patent examiner and after having to pay an appeal fine in 2006-07, the CDC overrode the objection and ultimately in 2007 got the patent on the coronavirus. Every public statement that the CDC has made that this was made in the public interest is falsified by their paid bribe to the patent office. This is not subtle and to make matters worse, they paid an additional fee to keep this application private. Last time I checked, if you’re trying to make information available to the public, you would not pay a fee to keep the information private. All of that is available in the public archive record which any member of the public can review. This is critically important because fact checkers have repeatedly stated that the novel coronavirus, designated as SARS-CoV-2, is distinct from the CDC patent and here’s both the genetic and patent problem. If you look at the gene sequence that is filed by CDC in 2003, 2005 and again in 2006, you find identity in somewhere between 89-99% of the sequence overlap that has been identified in what’s called the novel subclade of SARS-CoV-2, which is actually the clade of the beta virus family and the subclade that is called SARS-CoV-2 has to overlap from a taxonomic point of view. You cannot have a SARS designation and a thing without it first being SARS. So the disingenuous fact checking that has been done in saying somehow or another CDC has nothing to do with this particular patent on this particular pathogen is beyond both literal credibility of the public sequences and also beyond credulity when it comes to the ICTV taxonomy because it clearly states that in fact it is a subclade of the clade called SARS coronavirus. What’s important is that on April 28 — and this date is problematic — three days after the CDC filed the patent on the SARS coronavirus in 2003, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, a company set up in Maryland, filed a patent on antiviral agents on treatment and control of infections by coronavirus. CDC filed three days earlier and the treatment was available three days later. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals later became rolled into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crucell and Johnson & Johnson. So ask yourself a simple question: How would one have a patent on a treatment on a thing that had been invented three days earlier. The patent in question, 7151163, has another problem: 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 inside information between those parties is zero. It is not physically possible for you to patent a thing that treats a thing that had not been published because CDC had paid to keep it secret. This is the definition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion. This is not a theory. This is evidence. You cannot have information in the future and form a treatment for a thing that did not exist. This is a RICO case and the RICO pattern in April 2002 played out exactly the same schedule when we see SARS-CoV-2 show up, when we have Moderna getting the spike protein sequence by phone from the vaccine research center at NIAID prior to the definition of the novel subclade. How do you treat a thing before you actually have the thing? It gets worse. In June 5, 2008, around the time DARPA actively took coronavirus as a biological weapon, Ablynx filed a patent on what we have specifically been told is a novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 virus. They specifically target the poly beta cleavage site for SARS-CoV-2, the novel spike protein and the ACE2 binding domain which is allegedly novel to SARS-CoV-2 and all of that was patented June 5, 2008, and those patents in sequence were issued Nov. 24, 2015, #9193780, after gain of function moratorium and after MRSA outbreak in the Middle East, but what you find is that in 2016-17, 2019, a series of patents all covering, not only the RNA strand, but also the sub components of the gene strands were all issued to Ablynx Sanofi. And then we have Crucell and multiple others all identifying in patent findings ranging from 2008-2017 every attribute that was allegedly unique, published by single reference publications, the paper routinely used to identify the novel virus. Unfortunately, if you take what they report to be novel, you find 73 patents issued between 2018-19 which have the elements allegedly novel in SARS-C0V-2. So the clinically novel components of the clinically unique, clinically contagious — there was no outbreak of SARS because we had engineered ALL of the elements of that and by 2016 the paper that was funded during the gain of function moratorium that said the SARS that was poised for human emergency written by none other than Ralph Barrett, was not only posed for human emergency, but was patented for commercial exploitation. 73 times. Barrett has made a lot of money doing this. So those who want to live in the illusion that somehow or another that’s the end of the story, be prepared for a greater disappointment because somebody knew something in 2015-16 which gave rise to my favorite quote during this entire pandemic by Peter Daszak (president of EcoHealth Alliance) Feb. 12, 2016: “We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pandemic 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.” Peter Daszak, who was independently corroborating the Chinese non-lab leaks. non-theory, because there wasn’t a lab leak. There was an intentional bioweaponization of spike protein to inject into people to get them addicted to a pan coronavirus vaccine. This has nothing to do with a pathogen that was released and every study that’s ever been launched to try to verify a lab leak is a red herring. 73 patents on everything clinically novel. This is nothing new. 73 patents all issued before 2019. I’m going to give you the biggest bombshell of all to prove this was not a release of anything. Patent 7279327 on the recombinant nature of that lung-targeting coronavirus was transferred mysteriously from UNC-CH to the NIH in 2018. Here’s the problem with that: Under the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. government already has march-in-right provision. That means that if the U.S. government has paid for research, it is entitled to benefit from that research at its demand or whim. So explain why in 2017 and 2018 suddenly the NIH has to take ownership of the patent it already has rights to held by UNC-CH. And how did it need to file a certificate of correction to make sure it was legally enforceable? Because there was a typographical error in the grant reference in the first filing. So they needed to make sure not only did they get it right, but they needed to make sure every typographical error contained in the patent was correct. On the single patent required to develop the vaccine research institute’s mandate which was shared between UNC-CH in November 2019 and Moderna in November 2019, UNC-CH, NIAID and Modern began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine a month before an outbreak ever happened. So it’s all about the money. The script for this was written Jan. 6, 2004. Moderna wrote the script. At a conference called SARS and Bioterrorism, Moderna introduced the notion of what it called “The New Normal” — proper noun, which is the language that became the branded campaign adopted by the WHO, the global preparedness monitoring board which was the board upon which the Chinese director of the CDC, Bill Gates’ Dr. Elias Zerhouni of the Gates Foundation, and Anthony Fauci sat together on that board of directors. The first introduction of The New Normal campaign, which was about getting people to accept a universal pandemic and influenza coronavirus vaccine, was adopted Jan. 6, 2004. It’s been around quite a long time. It was very clear that Moderna knew it was going to be placed in the front of the line with respect to development of a vaccine. In March 2019 — and this is a very important date — because in March 2019 for reasons that are not transparent, they suddenly amended that series of rejected patent filings. It’s very bizarre behavior. They amended a number of patent filings to specifically make reference to an intentional or accidental release — Sorry, wrong term — “deliberate” release of coronavirus in March. They amended four failed applications to begin the process of a coronavirus vaccine development. And they began dealing with a very significant problem they had, which was they relied on technology that they did not own. Two Canadian companies, Arbutus Biopharma and Acuitas Therapeutics, owned the patent on the lipid nanoparticle envelope that’s required to deliver the injection of the mRNA fragment. Those patents had been issued in Canada, the U.S. and around the world. Moderna knew it didn’t own the rights and began to negotiate with Abutus and Acuitas to get the resolution for the lipid nanoparticle patented technology available to be put into a vaccine. And we know that in November 2004, they entered into a cooperative research agreement with UNC-CH with respect to getting the spike protein to put inside of the lipid nanoparticle. So they had a candidate vaccine before we had a pathogen allegedly running around. What makes that problematic besides the self evidence, is that we know from 2016-2019, at every one of the NIAID advisory council ward meetings, Anthony Fauci lamented the fact he could not find a way to get people to accept the universal influenza vaccine, which is his favorite target. He was trying to get the population to engage in this process. What becomes very evident, Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, UNC-CH and others, specifically by March 2019, in the amended patent filings, we see for Moderna there is an epiphany: What if there was an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen. What makes that particular phrase problematic is that is exactly recited in the book “A World at Risk” which is the scenario put together by the WHO in September 2019. So months before there is an alleged pathogen, it says we need to have a coordinated global experience of a respiratory pathogen release which by September 2020 must put in place a universal capacity for public relations management crowd control and the acceptance of a universal vaccine mandate. That was September 2019 and the language of an intentional release of a respiratory pathogen was written into the scenario that “must be completed by September 2020.” Any assertion that this pathogen is somehow unique or novel falls apart on the actual gene sequences which are published in the patent record and more egregiously falls apart because we have Peter Daszak himself stating that we have to create public hype to get the public to accept the medical countermeasure of a pan coronavirus vaccine. And what makes that most ludicrous is we know the WHO declared coronavirus a dead interest. It said we had eradicated coronavirus as a concern. So why, having eradicated it in 2007 and 2008, did we start spending billions of dollars globally on a vaccine for a thing that had been eradicated — by declaration — in 2008. It falls into the zone of incredulity, to say the least. We have to stop falling for the mainstream narrative in our own line of questioning because the fact of the matter is this was seen as a highly malleable bioweapon. There is no question that by 2005 it was unquestionably a weapon of choice. And the illusion that we continue to see is very well-meaning people getting trapped in a conversation about whether we’re having a vaccine for a virus. The fact of the matter is, we’re not. We’re injecting a spike protein mRNA sequence, which is a computer simulation. It’s not derived from nature. It’s a computer simulation of a sequence which has been known and patented for years. And what we know is that that sequence is reported across, you know, the very reliable phone conversations that took place between Moderna and the vaccine research center by self-report, where, I don’t know, if you were on a phone call and you heard “attcecc, etc.,” is there any chance you might get a letter, a vowel or a consonant dropped here or there. The ludicrous nature of the story that this is somehow a preventative flies in the face of 100% of the evidence because the evidence makes it abundantly clear that there has been no effort by any pharmaceutical company to combat the virus. This is about getting people injected with the known-to-be-harmful S1 spike protein. So the cover story is if you get an expression of a spike protein you’re going to have some sort of general symptomatic relief, but the fact of the matter is there has never been an intent to vaccinate an entire population as defined by the vaccination universe. Let’s review just for the record— when Anthony Fauci tried desperately to get some of his synthetic RNA vaccines published, he had his own patents rejected by the patent office. and I want to read what the patent office told him when NIAID’s own Anthony Fauci thought he could get a MRA-like vaccine patented as a vaccine: “These arguments are persuasive to the extent that an antigenic peptide stimulates an immune response that may produce antibodies that bind to a specific peptide or protein. But it is not persuasive in regards to a vaccine. The immune response by a vaccine MUST be merely more than some immune action. The (?) recognizes the term vaccine to be a compound which prevents infection. Applicant has not demonstrated that the claim meets even the lower standard set forth in the specification, let alone the standard definition for being operative in regards. Therefore it is not patent ability.” So Anthony Fauci himself was told by the patent office that what he was proposing as a vaccine does not meet the patentable standard, the legal standard or the clinical standard. The sad and sober irony to that: I raised these issues beginning in 2002 after the anthrax scare. The tragedy is that we’re now sitting in a world where we have hundreds of millions of people who are being injected with a pathogen-stimulating computer sequence which is being sold under what the patent office, the medical profession and the FDA’s clinical standards would not suggest is a vaccine. But by using the term, we are now subjecting hundreds of millions of people to what was known by 2005 as a biological weapon. There is no such thing as the Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma variant. This is a means by which what is desperately sought is a degree to which individuals can be coerced into accepting something they would not otherwise accept. There have not been any published studies on what has been reportedly the Delta variant. There has not been a population or not calculated, which is the actual replication rate. What has been estimated are computer simulations. But unfortunately, if you look at GISAID, the public source of uploading any one of a number of variations, what you’ll find is that there has been no ability to identify any clinically altered gene sequence which has then a clinically expressed variation. And this is the problem going back to the very beginning of what’s alleged to be a pandemic. We do not have any evidence that the gene sequence alternation had any clinical significance whatsoever. There has not been a single paper published by anyone that has actually established that anything novel since November 2019 has clinical distinction from anything that predates November 2019. The problem with the 73 patents I described is that they all contain what was reported to be novel in December 2019 and January 2020. So the problem is that even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic pneumonias or that there are some set of pathogen-induced symptoms, we do not have a single piece of published evidence that tells us that anything about the subclade SARS-CoV-2 has clinical distinction from anything known and published prior to November 2019 in 73 patents dating to 2008. This is where we see an enormous amount of response and reflexive behavior to media hype. There is NO — and I’m going to repeat this — There is NO evidence that the Delta variant is somehow distinct from anything else on GISAID. The fact that we are now looking for a thing doesn’t mean that it is a thing. Because we are looking at fragments of things and the fact is if we choose any fragment I could come up with “variant Omega” tomorrow and I could say I’m looking for this substrand of DNA or RNA or even a protein and I could run around the world and go, “Oh, my gosh! Fear the Omega variant.” The problem is, because of the nature of the way we currently sequence genome, we don’t have any point of reference to actually know whether or not the thing we’re looking at is in fact distinct from clinical or genomic sense. So if you look at the papers (as I have) that isolated the Delta variant and ask the question: is this anything other than the selection of a sequence in a systematic shift in an already disclosed other sequence, the answer is it’s just an alteration in when you start and stop what you call the reading frame. There is no novel anything. If you look at the patented sequence and look where they are “clipped,” you will have the same thing or a different thing based on nothing more than where you decide to clip. The patent application actually says it’s an artificial sequence, meaning it is not a sequence that is rule-based in nature. It’s not a sequence that is manifest for a particular natural derivative protein or RNA sequence that was isolated. Every one of these is an artificial synthetic sequence. If you go back and look at each one (which we’ve done), what you’ll find is sequences are contiguous in many instances, but are overlapping in others where it is merely a capricious determination that says something is or is not part of an open reading frame. The reason why that’s important is, because if we are going to examine what ultimately is being injected into individuals, we need the exact sequence, not a kind of or similar to. We need the exact sequence, and if you look at the FDA’s requirement for reasons that cannot be explained, the exact sequence that has gone into what is amplified into the injection seems to be elusive — seems to be something someone cannot state with100% certainty the sequence is “X.” The problem that presents is, as much as we are told there are clinical trials going on, we have no way of verifying that a complete sequence has been, is or could be manufactured into what ultimately becomes the lipid nanoparticle that is the carrier frequency for which the injection is delivered. It’s important for people to understand that as far back as 2002 and all the way through the patent filings in 2003 and the weaponization filings that began in 2008, in every one of these instances, fragments are identified, but without specificity. So we don’t have direct terminal ends of the fragments. We have fragments with hypothecated gaps into which anything can be placed and that’s the reason why I find the fact-checking around the patent situation to be most disappointing. Because the reason why fact-checkers, along with their general lazy attributes, the reason why fact-checkers are not actually checking facts when it comes to patent matters is because the actual sequences are not represented in digital form that makes it easy to do this comparison. We literally had to take images of submitted typed paper and then code those in to do our own assessment. You cannot do this on the EPO’s patent site or U.S. patent data. You actually have to go in and reconstruct the gene sequences by hand and then you compare them to what has been uploaded to the public servers and that’s where you find that the question of novelty is something that was not addressed. This was a manufactured illusion. The question is — if something we’re looking for is something we’ve decided is worth looking for, then we’ll find it. And the good news is we’ll find it in a bunch of places. And if we’ve decided we’re no longer looking for a thing, it’s not entirely surprising when we don’t find it (concerning the seasonal flu) because we’re not looking for it. The fact is, whether it’s the RT-PCR test that we decided that there are fragments that have been submitted to the FDA to try to figure out what was the gold standard to get the emergency use authorization and what fragment of SARS-CoV-2 was officially the official fragment that was the comparative standard, and the problem is you can’t get a single standard. So the question becomes in a world where there is no single standard, what is it you actually find? Because if I’m looking for... why don’t I just read this: If I’m looking for ccgeettg, do I add the next strand g or do I go no, no, no, the next bit is gttag and cg.” The point is, where I choose to start and stop, I can actually say I found it. Or I didn’t find it. And I didn’t find the match that I projected onto the data because I chose to look at the data in a way that I could not find the match. Influenza did not leave the human population. Influenza was a failed decade-long pan influenza vaccine mandate that was desperately, desperately, desperately promoted by governments around the world. They failed and they decided if influenza doesn’t deliver on the public promise of getting everyone injected, let’s change the pathogen. We’ve got tons more to come. You need to create the illusion of demand and there is nothing right now that creates the illusion of demand more than the urgency of an event you have manufactured. We have to realize that part of the reason it was so easy to monitor and track the particular campaign of coercion and terror is because we’ve done it before. When I came to solving for the anthrax outbreak, remember, while we had hundreds of thousands of military people in the Middle East allegedly getting even for events of September 2001, we had two postal inspectors investigating anthrax. So the largest alleged bioweapon attack on U.S. soil and we had two postal inspectors. You can’t genuinely believe that two postal inspectors are the crime-stopping, mind-binding powerful individuals in the universe. Now I have nothing against postal inspectors, but I can guarantee you that if I was investigating a bio-terror attack, I would not have the post office having two postal inspectors as its crack team doing the investigation. It was disingenuous and Congress knew it. That’s why we publish an intelligence briefing (M-CAM) on every violation of biological and chemical treaties that people have signed around the world. It tells you who and where and who’s funding, so for us it wasn’t hard to figure out that this was not a public health crisis. This was an opportunist marketing campaign to address a stated objective. It’s the easiest thing to describe because they’re the ones who said it. And the reality is they said they needed to get the public to accept a pan coronavirus vaccine in countermeasure. And they needed the media to create the hype and investors would follow where they see profit. You do not have anything else you need to rely on to explain the events of the last 20 months than the actually statement of the actual perpetrators. If someone is holding a bag of money outside a bank, I make the crazy assumption that maybe they’re a bank robber. Similarly, if I have somebody who says we need to use the media to hype a medical countermeasure, which is the injection of a synthetic recombinant chimeric protein developed off a computer simulation, if I’m actually going to listen to the motivation for why that might be being done, I will listen to the person doing the manipulation, who says investors will follow where they see profit. I don’t need more explanation. Interview with Stew Peters: SP: Aren’t there risks with every vaccine? DM: It’s not a risk when you know putting a known ... and listen very carefully because this is where the RNA story falls apart. People think that a piece of the SARS coronavirus was turned into a vaccine. That is not true. A computer simulated synthetic chimeric computer-generated code uploaded by the Chinese in January was given to Moderna to put into an injection. So that your cells, in the case of the RNA vaccine, so that your cells would produce the S1 spike protein synthesis — not the actual virus the way we used to do vaccines. This was a computer code uploaded by the Chinese into U.S. manufacturing to inject a pathogen stimulant into the American population. Let’s get really clear. This was preplanned. There are patents dating back to 2002. This is a planned genocide. We have Peter Daszak in Fauci’s emails on Feb. 6 and 7. Daszak on the record stating that we need a cover story that distances him and the Chinese from this pathogen. That’s in the public record. SP: Who are the investors? DM: He’s talking about Moderna, Pfizer, NIAID and the CDC. And remember, the first patent for S1 spike protein was issued in 1990 to Pfizer and we’re being told this is some new thing.
0 Comments
|
A nameless warrior“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” - John 8:32 Archives
February 2022
Categories
All
|