@noisebloom -
I have a reason to type out a portion of what I consider to be easily Top 3 videos on this issue and that is a patent trail presented by a Dr. David Martin. Here is the video:
https://rumble.com/vjsy1p-a-manufac...artin-with-reiner-fuellmich-7921-mirrore.html
It's 1h 22m 47s long and this is a paraphrase of the first 24m.
This Martin dude is way beyond reproach. That becomes obvious very quickly through listening to him speak. The jab may be many things and one is racketeering that is irrefutable.
Kinda long, but here goes...
Patent Trail
A patent trail has been chosen because of the truth it provides and its irrefutable nature.
Dr. David Martin, Chairman of M-CAM International Risk Management, has an extensive knowledge of patents related to the Covid nightmare. M-CAM is the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. The underwriting includes the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records, etc.
From the standpoint of this presentation, M-CAM has reviewed the over 4,000 patents that have been issued around the sars coronavirus and 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 beta coronavirus family.
According to the following substantial report (205 pages):
https://www.covidtruths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-FauciCOVID-19-Dossier2532.pdf
There are over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy. The patent records date back as far as 1999. Covid can be shown to not be a novel coronavirus for over 20 years. the cv itself as a pathogen of interest wrt the spike protein’s behavior is 22 years old, based on patent filings. So, it is not novel at all. Timothy Miller, Sharon Klepfer, Albert Paul Reid, and Elaine Jones on 1-28 filed what ultimately issued as US Patent 6372224 which was the spike protein virus, a vaccine for the canine coronavirus.
In 1999, Anthony Fauci funded research at UNC-Chapel Hill specifically to create an infectious replication defective cv. This comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19, 2002 where the NIAID (The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) built an infectious replication defective cv. It was specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words, we made SARS and we patented it on April 19, 2002, before there was any alleged outbreak in Asia which followed that by several months.
That patent issued as US 7279327 clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that it is known that the ace receptor, the ace2 binding domain, the s1 spike protein, and other elements of what has come to be known 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. That technology was funded exclusively in the early days as a means by which we could actually harness cv as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine.
Unfortunately, it gets worse.
M-CAM’s concern was that cv was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate. M-CAM’s first public reporting on this took place prior to the SARS outbreak in the latter part of 2001. Martin expresses how disappointed he is to be sitting here 20 years later having 20 years earlier pointed that there is a problem looming on the horizon with respect to cv.
There was an alleged coronavirus outbreak in China in 2002 and into 2003. It was not really an outbreak because cv 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 protein that circulates for quite a long time.
But the alleged outbreak that took place in China in 2002 into 2003 gave rise to a very problematic April 2003 filing by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 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 cv (which is actually a violation of 35 USC Section 101 - you cannot patent a naturally occurring substance), the 35 USC 101 violation was Patent #7220852. Now that patent also had a series of derivative patents associated with it. These are patent applications that were broken apart because they were of multiple patentable subject matter. But these include US patent 46592703p, US Patent 776521. These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS cv, but also covered the means of detecting it using rtpcr.
This is a problem because 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 100% 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 the public relations team as being sought so that everyone would be free to be able to research cv.
There is a serious problem with that statement because it’s a lie. The reason why it’s a lie is because the patent office not once but twice rejected the patent on the gene sequence as unpatentable because the gene sequence was already in the public domain. In other words, prior to the cdc’s filing for a patent, the patent office found 99.9% identity with the already existing cv recorded in the public domain. Also, over the rejection of the patent examiner and after having to pay an appeal fine into 2006 and 2007, the cdc overrode the patent office’s rejection of their patent and ultimately in 2007 got the patent on SARS cv.
So, every public statement the cdc has made that said 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. Obviously, nobody trying to make information available for the public research would pay a fee to keep the information private.
All of the above information is available in the public patent archive record which any member of the public can review. The public pair as it’s called at the US patent office has not only the evidence but the actual documents which are in Dr. Martin’s possession. This is critically important because factcheckers have repeatedly stated that the novel cv, designated as SARS cov2, 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 the cdc in 2003 and again in 2005 and then again in 2006, what you find is identity in somewhere between 95-99% of the sequence overlaps that have been identified in what’s called the novel subclade of SARS cov2. What we know is that the core designation of SARS cv which is actually the clade of the beta cv family and the subclade that has been called SARS cov2 have to overlap from a taxonomic point of view. One cannot have SARS designation on a thing without it first being SARS.
The disingenuous factchecking that has been done saying that somehow or 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 cv.
The following is extremely concerning. On April 28, 2003, three days after the cdc filed the patent on the SARS cv, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, a company that was set up in Maryland, filed a patent on antiviral agents of treatment and control of infections by cv. In other words,
the Cdc filed three days earlier and then the treatment was available three days later.
It just so happens that Sequoia Pharmaceuticals became rolled into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crouselle, and J&J!
A simple question begs for an answer. How would one have a patent on a treatment for a thing that had been invented three days earlier?
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 cv 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 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 inform a treatment for a thing that did not exist.
This is a RICO case. And the RICO pattern, which was established in April of 2003 for the first cv, was played out to exactly the same schedule when we see the SARS cov2 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?
