Dorothy you are not in Kansas any more.

The source is "covid truths" so you know it's true!
 
@efromm why are you badgering @Rit4lin for not doxing himself? what has that to possibly do with you're insistence that we, the readership of this influential thread, simply take your intuition about bill gates' plan to reduce the human population by massive amounts as truth? What gives you the right to insist that anyone on this forum publicly declare their actual identity and post their address. Do you some how feel that because you did so that gives your unsubstantiated claims more truth value?

If you want to argue that bill gates is evil because he made billions by creating a choke hold on business applications and probably retarded real computing innovations and seriously derailed a world wide information democratization.... hell I am on board...fuck these billionaires and the pretense that they somehow deserve the oodles of money they have siphoned off the public weal.

But that is not what you are doing, what you are doing is bullying,
 
Last edited:
fiftyseven said:
From Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion for the majority
iu


Section 101 of the Patent Act provides: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful ... composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101.

We have "long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception[:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Mayo, 566 U.S., at ___, 132 S.Ct., at 1293 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Rather, "`they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work'" that lie beyond the domain of patent protection. Id., at ___, 132 S.Ct., at 1293. As the Court has explained, without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would "tie up" the use of such tools and thereby "inhibit future innovation premised upon them." Id., at ___, 132 S.Ct., at 1301. This would be at odds with the very point of patents, which exist to promote creation. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 100 S.Ct. 2204, 65 L.Ed.2d 144 (1980) (Products of nature are not created, and "`manifestations... of nature [are] free to all men and reserved exclusively to none'").3

In their majority opinion in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the Court had “long held” that nature was not patentable. Merely isolating DNA does not constitute patentable subject matter. In their patent, the CDC made false and misleading claims to the United States Patent & Trademark Office by stating that, “A newly isolated human coronavirus has been identified as the causative agent of SARS, and is termed SARS-CoV.”4 No “causal” data was provided for this statement.

When they filed their patent application on April 25, 2003 their first claim (and the only one that survived to ultimate issuance over the objection of the patent examiner in 2006 and 2007) was the genome for SARS CoV.

While this patent is clearly illegal under 35 U.S.C. §101, not only did the CDC insist on its granting over non-final and final rejections, but they also continued to pay maintenance fees on the patent after the 2013 Supreme Court decision confirmed that it was illegal.

In addition, the CDC patented the detection of SARS CoV using a number of methods including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). With this patent, they precluded anyone outside of their licensed or conspiring interest from legally engaging in independent verification of their claim that they had isolated a virus, that it was a causative agent for SARS, or that any therapy could be effective against the reported pathogen.

It is important to note that the CDC’s patent applications were also rejected in non-final and final rejections for ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for being publicly disclosed prior to their own filing. In the first non-final rejection, the USPTO stated that the CDC’s genome was published in four Genbank accession entries on April 14, 18, and 21, 2003 with identity ranging from 96.8% to 99.9% identical sequences.5 Dr. Fauci knew, and failed to disclose evidence that the CDC patent was illegal, based on work he had funded in the years leading up to the SARS outbreak.

After seeking an illegal patent, petitioning to override the decision of an examiner to reject it, and ultimately prevailing with the patent’s grant, the CDC lied to the public by stating they were controlling the patent so that it would be “publicly available”.6 Tragically, this public statement is falsified by the simple fact that their own publication in Genbank had, in fact, made it public domain and thereby unpatentable. This fact, confirmed by patent examiners, was overridden by CDC in a paid solicitation to override the law.

While not covered under 35 U.S.C. §101, Dr. Fauci’s abuse of the patent law is detailed below. Of note, however, is his willful and deceptive use of the term “vaccine” in patents and public pronouncements to pervert the meaning of the term for the manipulation of the public.

In the 1905 Jacobson v. Mass case, the court was clear that a PUBLIC BENEFIT was required for a vaccine to be mandated. Neither Pfizer nor Moderna have proved a disruption of transmission. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the court held that the context for their opinion rested on the following principle:

“This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state...”

The Moderna and Pfizer “alleged vaccine” trials have explicitly acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the capacity to produce an S1 spike protein endogenously by the introduction of a synthetic mRNA sequence. Therefore, the basis for the Massachusetts statute and the Supreme Court’s determination is moot in this case.

Further, the USPTO, in its REJECTION of Anthony Fauci's HIV vaccine made the following statement supporting their rejection of his bogus "invention"

(see attached image)

3 Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013) 4 U.S. Patent 7,220,852
5 USPTO Non-Final Rejection File #10822904, September 7, 2006, page 4.
6 https://apnews.com/article/145b4e8d156cddc93e996ae52dc24ec0

View attachment 85811
Click to expand...
 
FiftySeven said:
@efromm why are you badgering @Rit4lin for not doxing himself? what has that to possibly do with you're insistence that we, the readership of this influential thread, simply take your intuition about bill gates' plan to reduce the human population by massive amounts as truth? What gives you the right to insist that anyone on this forum publicly declare their actual identity and post their address. Do you some how feel that because you did so that somehow that gives your unsubstantiated claims more truth value?

If you want to argue that bill gates is evil because he made billions by creating a choke hold on business applications and probably retarded real computing innovations and seriously derailed a world wide information democratization.... hell I am on board...fuck these billionaires and the pretense that they somehow deserve the oodles of money they have siphoned off the public weal.

But that is not what you are doing, what you are doing is bullying,
Click to expand...
Whilst I appreciate the support, I don't think it's needed here Fifty. I've explained it all to the individual, yet it appears that he doesn't care to read my posts to him. What he was expecting from posting in a thread that has a history of people being challenged for their views, I don't know.

I think it's best to not engage anymore with - what I am viewing as - emotionally manipulative behaviour, and to simply ignore him and let him vent as he desires. If I saw his baseless attacks and labels of 'fact checking nazi' being of any significance, I would have asked another Staff member to look into it.
Thank you though, I appreciate it.
 
Dystopian

What a morning relaxing to my computer with two cups of coffee before chores.

I go into cbssports and see that 33 year old former NFL receiver Demaryius Thomas died “from a medical issue.” Hmmm.

I’m in Telegram and someone posted a 4m video of a nurse in New Zealand. She talks about how the hospital is full of vaccinated patients. Young people, heart issues. But no one is talking about it. She mentions a 30 year old guy who appeared in excellent health, but has a heart ailment. Dimer test is performed and “it is off the charts.” Doctor says he wished he did not perform the test. Person interviewing nurse asks why and she says now the doctor has to follow up.

I internet search for the video and see it was posted on youtube. I go in, but it says, “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s community guidelines.” I see that it is on bitchute. (You can all guess that I prefer bitchute to youtube. At least bitchute allows people to watch a video of a nurse sharing what she is seeing in a New Zealand hospital.)

Watch another video, a portion of which is a collage of video snippets of athletes around the world collapsing. It includes other jab-damaged folks, one, a woman crying out that they are being censored. The narrator of the video suggests googling “collapsed” (something like that) and says it will return a lot of hits. (I didn’t see much.) But on duckduckgo, I see a link to a recent gateway pundit article saying 300 athletes have collapsed in the past year, many of which died.

Back to Telegram. I’ll share the text…

Word is coming out of Slovenia that, if verified, will cause an unimaginable world reaction. On Saturday 20 November, the Chief Nurse of the University Medical Center, Ljubljana Clinical Center, (pictured above, who deals with the administration of vaccine vials and manages everything, quit her job, went in front of TV cameras and took out vaccine bottles.

She showed the gathered journalists the codes on the bottles, each with the final number 1, 2, or 3 in the code, and then explained the meaning of these numbers:

Number 1 is placebo, saline.

Number 2 is the classic mRNA “vaccine”

Number 3 is an RNA stick containing the ONC gene, related to adenovirus, which contributes, among other things, to the development of cancer.

For these who get jabbed from vial whose code ends in the number 3, she says people who received them will have soft tissue cancer within 2 years.

She said that she had personally witnessed the vaccinations of all politicians and tycoons and that they all received the preparation number 1

The media has been told to absolutely bury this story and fierce efforts at containing this information are underway right now.

More details as they become available.

Is this true? I don’t know and I do some mild sleuthing. This site contains a video purportedly of the nurse talking, but it has English subtitles and I don’t know what she is actually saying.

https://welovetrump.com/2021/11/24/...-of-mrna-covid-19-jab-true-or-misinformation/

(Yeah, the site name is welovetrump, but I sure don’t think I do.)

My, the times we are living in. The 1970’s were way better!

slovenia.jpg
 
Oh yeah, I forgot this gem. (More of the kind of truth censored by msm, youtube, facebook.)

heart_issues.jpg
 
I just came across this by accident. A bit more detail on the guy in icu who was given ivermectin after the judge ruled to allow it.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horo...ght-hospitals-killing-patients-on-ventilators

Sun Ng, a contractor from Hong Kong, was visiting his grandchildren in October when he caught COVID-19. Ng was admitted to Edward Hospital in Naperville, Illinois, on Oct. 14 and was placed on a ventilator several days later. Like thousands of other patients, the hospital offered Ng no viable hope of survival but bitterly fought the use of ivermectin, even with the family's own doctor, at their own cost, and with their own liability. Ng's daughter, Man Kwan Ng, sued the hospital in DuPage County Circuit Court for the right to have Dr. Alan Bain administer a regimen of ivermectin.

According to a court affidavit, at the time Ng was "in the same state for many, many days … critically ill," and a nurse suggested that Dr. Ng "stop all this aggressive care and let [her father] die naturally." On November 5, after Ng was on a ventilator for three weeks, DuPage County Circuit Court Judge Paul Fullerton ruled in favor of the family and allowed Dr. Bain to administer 24mg doses of ivermectin from Nov. 8 through Nov. 12. The result? Within five days, he was able to breathe without the ventilator and on Nov. 16 walked out of the ICU. By this past Sunday, Ng was breathing without supplemental oxygen on a regular hospital floor.

Shockingly, the lawyers had to go through five different appearances in this case just to save this man's life from a hospital that senselessly blocked lifesaving treatment. Originally, the judge dissolved his order because the doctors lied and said the patient was getting better. Then they blocked Dr. Bain from administering the ivermectin because he wasn't vaccinated. According to reporter Mary Beth Pfeiffer, Judge Fullerton overruled the hospital again because he had testimony from a hospital doctor who estimated that "someone in his condition being on a ventilator like that has a 10 or 15 percent chance of survival."

Ralph Lorigo, the lawyer on this case, told me that the patient was able to extubate himself from the ventilator, yet the hospital is still appealing the decision! How dare this man live! "You shouldn't have to have a lawyer to come out alive," said Lorigo in an interview with TheBlaze.

Shockingly, the hospital attorney, Joseph Monahan, said, "We continue to strenuously object to the false science narrative that is being given to the court without basis."

Lorigo told me that he has been retained on 129 cases dealing with ivermectin denials, but in the vast majority of them he can't even complete the court filings before the patient passes away. However, in the cases where he had time to fight it and win in court, he almost always succeeds in saving the patient. "Of all the cases I won and the patient was able to go through the full course of ivermectin, the patient is home and healthy," declared Lorigo.
 
This is too relevant to the preceding post to not share (last two paragraphs, primarily).

(This document is incredible.)
https://www.covidtruths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-FauciCOVID-19-Dossier2532.pdf

18 U.S.C. § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of Domestic Terrorism resulting in death of American Citizens

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover "domestic," as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

Dr. Anthony Fauci has intimidated and coerced a civilian population and sought to influence the policy of a government by intimidation and coercion.

With no corroboration, Dr. Anthony Fauci promoted16 Professor Neil Ferguson’s computer simulation derived claims that,

“The world is facing the most serious public health crisis in generations. Here we provide concrete estimates of the scale of the threat countries now face.

“We use the latest estimates of severity to show that policy strategies which aim to mitigate the epidemic might halve deaths and reduce peak healthcare demand by two-thirds, but that this will not be enough to prevent health systems being overwhelmed. More intensive, and socially disruptive interventions will therefore be required to suppress transmission to low levels. It is likely such measures – most notably, large scale social distancing – will need to be in place for many months, perhaps until a vaccine becomes available.” 17

Reporting to the President that as many as 2.2 million deaths may result from a pathogen that had not yet been isolated and could not be measured with any accuracy, Dr. Fauci intimidated and coerced the population and the government into reckless, untested, and harmful acts creating irreparable harm to lives and livelihoods.18 Neither the Imperial College nor the “independent” Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (principally funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation)19 had any evidence of success in estimating previous burdens from coronavirus but, without consultation or peer-review, Dr. Fauci adopted their terrifying estimates as the basis for interventions that are explicitly against medical advice.
Insisting on vaccines while blockading the emergency use of proven pharmaceutical interventions may have contributed to the death of many patients and otherwise healthy individuals.21

Using the power of NIAID during the alleged pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci actively suppressed proven medical countermeasures used by, and validated in scientific proceedings, that offered alternatives to the products funded by his conspiring entities for which he had provided direct funding and for whom he would receive tangible and intangible benefit.


21 https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/
 
Last edited:
And finally. Just giving a child a voice.

hide_1.jpg hide_2.jpg
 
o2b said:
Oh yeah, I forgot this gem. (More of the kind of truth censored by msm, youtube, facebook.)
upload_2021-12-15_18-48-6.png
Click to expand...
upload_2021-12-15_18-50-33.png
However, this unsubstantiated claim actually came from Steve Kirsch, an independent speaker unaffiliated with the FDA, a YouTube video of the meeting shows.
CLAIM: Experts with the Food and Drug Administration revealed that the COVID-19 vaccines are killing at least two people for every person they save.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. FDA experts did not say this, and strongly refuted this false claim in an email to The Associated Press. A speaker who is not affiliated with the FDA made these statements during the open public hearing portion of a Sept. 17 FDA vaccine advisory panel meeting.
THE FACTS: A 15-member panel of outside experts advising the FDA on vaccines held an eight-hour stre
In the days after the meeting, social media users and bloggers began misattributing several statements from the livestream to FDA panelists, when they were actually made by independent speakers during a public comment period.“FDA Panel Member Says COVID Vaccines are Killing More Than They’re Saving During Youtube Livestream,” read a headline on a blog post shared widely in conservative Facebook groups.

“FDA experts reveal the Covid-19 Vaccines are killing at least 2 people for every 1 life they save as they vote 16-2 against the approval of booster shots,” an Instagram post claimed.


Abby Capobianco, an FDA press officer, confirmed that none of the comments in the open public hearing session came from FDA employees or advisory committee members.

“The open public hearing portion of the meeting is open to anyone who is interested and signed up per themeeting announcement,” Capobianco told the AP in an email. “FDA does not screen remarks from speakers during the open public hearing portion of the meeting in advance.”

Kirsch, an entrepreneur with a background in banking technology who is funding research into COVID-19 treatments unrelated to vaccines, claimed in the meeting that “the vaccines kill more people than they save.”

To support his argument, Kirsch referenced data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a CDC- and FDA-run database of unverified reports of adverse events that occur after receiving a vaccine. The VAERS system does not determine whether a vaccine caused the events that are reported.

Kirsch’s claim is not supported by data, according to Capobianco, who said the FDA “strongly disagrees with the analysis Mr. Kirsch put forth during the VRBPAC meeting, as we believe the data from VAERS that he referenced were not properly interpreted. This is due to the limitations of VAERS itself, as well as the limitations regarding certain private patient information that is not available to individuals outside of FDA and CDC.”
Click to expand...
It's like "randomly pick one" of your posts and see how clearly false it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
^
So you quote chronic deceivers.

I'd love for you to "randomly pick one" of my posts that ends up being about a jab victim and have you show me how clearly false it is.

Of course, you'd never "randomly pick" one of them, would you? Your batting average (read: level of participation) on that subject is zero.

My, isn't that interesting?

Actually, perhaps you can "randomly pick" this one.

https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021...e-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-data-to-the-public/

FDA says it needs 75 years to fully release Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine data to the public.
USA – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it now needs 75 years to fully release Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine data to the public – twenty years more than it originally agreed on November 15.
...
Aaron Siri, a lawyer working on the case, said in a blog post: “If you find what you are reading difficult to believe – that is because it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure,” Siri said.
 
this is an ongoing freedom of information act case, The FDA never "said it needed 75 years" though 55 years seems ridiculous. It agreed to process and release the requested information on their timetable. Is that acceptable? I would say no and would point out that it is still being deliberated in court. The suing party seems legit and sincere https://phmpt.org/
https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/fa7203bc
plaintiff's request involves more than 329,000 pages and that reviewing and redacting these records will be a time-consuming process. The FDA proposed a schedule to process and release 500 pages a month, a rate that they argued is consistent with FOIA request processing schedules. At that rate, the FDA would complete the release of the documents in slightly over 55 years
The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) is a group of doctors and scientists who submitted a request for access to the data used by the FDA to grant Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine a license.The FDA's request was made in a filing as part of PHMPT's FOIA litigation.
The PHMPT argued that the FDA should release these documents before March 3, 2022. Hence, the agency would be release 80,000 pages per month to meet the proposed deadline.
According to a joint status report filed by DOJ lawyers, the FDA cannot hand out the materials in their entirety. "Confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech, as well as personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical studies, must be redacted." The FDA argued in the joint report that the plaintiff's request involves more than 329,000 pages and that reviewing and redacting these records will be a time-consuming process. The FDA proposed a schedule to process and release 500 pages a month, a rate that they argued is consistent with FOIA request processing schedules. At that rate, the FDA would complete the release of the documents in slightly over 55 years
However, the FDA and PHMPT presented a joint report to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman has scheduled a scheduling conference for December 14 in Fort Worth to discuss the timing for processing the documents.
The FDA told the court that it has 329,000 pages of information responsive to the FOIA request and that it plans to provide 500 pages per month to allow for exempt content redactions. At that rate, the FDA would complete the release of the documents in slightly over 55 years
Click to expand...
 
also, Aaron Siri does not represent PHMPT he has only commented on the case on social media and on Fox news
 
The jab is given through Emergency Use Authorization. We are in the midst of a test and we the people are the tested.

Especially given these circumstances, the idea that the people ought be kept from this information for 55 years is diabolical.
 
FiftySeven said:
@efromm why are you badgering @Rit4lin for not doxing himself? what has that to possibly do with you're insistence that we, the readership of this influential thread, simply take your intuition about bill gates' plan to reduce the human population by massive amounts as truth? What gives you the right to insist that anyone on this forum publicly declare their actual identity and post their address. Do you some how feel that because you did so that gives your unsubstantiated claims more truth value?

If you want to argue that bill gates is evil because he made billions by creating a choke hold on business applications and probably retarded real computing innovations and seriously derailed a world wide information democratization.... hell I am on board...fuck these billionaires and the pretense that they somehow deserve the oodles of money they have siphoned off the public weal.

But that is not what you are doing, what you are doing is bullying,
Click to expand...
Sweet now I’m a bully. If your gonna play fact checker then let’s play fair. I said watch the vid. I left it to the reader to go look and decide for themselves. I’m not afraid to dox myself why should anyone be afraid to be who they are? Why hide? I have nothing to fear. Admins need to admin. Not fact check members. When you take that position you become neutral. Your no longer just a regular poster. I’ve been watching how this place has been changing. I’ve seen quite a few attacks on folks that likes trump. And in the end these folks bail. Because they get the same shit here that they get in real life no reason to come where your not welcome. You have your opinions and I have mine. And I’ll leave you to yours.
 
I have been asked to not engage in this particular confrontation. Trump away.
efr.JPG
 
Last edited:
o2b said:
And finally. Just giving a child a voice.

hide_1-jpg.85994
Click to expand...
this is being vehemently denied by Ottawa Public Health https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-pu...hild-s-death-after-covid-19-vaccine-1.5695477

https://twitter.com/OttawaHealth/st...hild-s-death-after-covid-19-vaccine-1.5695477
of course the follow up tweets and comments clearly demonstrate how much distrust there is in Public Health officials, which in it self is shocking. The disinformation accusations is severe. I always come back to the axiom of who is benefits most from spreading disinformation. For that I rely on my boomer knowledge...upload_2021-12-21_18-35-23.jpeg
 
My words are in blue, excerpts in black.

Appendix A
The Diabolical Covid Jab Scourge

Introduction
Entire books could be written on all things Covid and how to limit a write-up to these few pages has been daunting to say the least.

The flow begins by demonstrating massive criminality, continues on with a quite brief description of corporations, then vaccines in general, and then returns to Covid highlighting some of the more severe areas of concern.


Criminality/Racketeering
Due to concerns over patent activity dating back at least as far as 1999, Dr. David Martin’s company M-CAM -

"has been monitoring possible violations of the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (the Geneva Protocol) 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction (the BTWC)".[1]

Among its findings:

The National Institute of Health’s grant AI23946-08 issued to Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (officially classified as affiliated with Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID by at least 2003) began the work on synthetically altering the Coronaviridae (the coronavirus family) for the express purpose of general research, pathogenic enhancement, detection, manipulation, and potential therapeutic interventions targeting the same. As early as May 21, 2000, Dr. Baric and UNC sought to patent critical sections of the coronavirus family for their commercial benefit.[2] In one of the several papers derived from work sponsored by this grant, Dr. Baric published what he reported to be the full length cDNA of SARS CoV in which it was clearly stated that SAR CoV was based on a composite of DNA segments.

“Using a panel of contiguous cDNAs that span the entire genome, we have assembled a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV Urbani strain, and have rescued molecularly cloned SARS viruses (infectious clone SARS-CoV) that contained the expected marker mutations inserted into the component clones.”[3]

On April 19, 2002 – the Spring before the first SARS outbreak in Asia – Christopher M. Curtis, Boyd Yount, and Ralph Baric filed an application for U.S. Patent 7,279,327 for a method of producing recombinant coronavirus. In the first public record of the claims, they sought to patent a means of producing, “an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus.” This work was supported by the NIH grant referenced above and GM63228. In short, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was involved in the funding of amplifying the infectious nature of coronavirus between 1999 and 2002 before SARS was ever detected in humans."[4]

Martin elaborated on this during a presentation he made to German Attorney Reiner Fuellmich and others.

In 1999, Anthony Fauci funded research at UNC-Chapel Hill specifically to create - and you cannot help but lament what I am about to read because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19, 2002 - the NIAID built an infectious replication defective coronavirus. 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 as you know followed that by several months.

Related to this creation of a gain of function coronavirus targeted for human lung epithelium:

The 1st vaccine ever patented for coronavirus was actually sought by Pfizer which was specifically this s-spiked protein, the exact same thing we allegedly have rushed into invention. The first application was filed January 28, 2000, 21 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 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.

This gives rise to the obvious evidence that neither the coronavirus concept of a vaccine nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest with respect to the spike protein’s behavior is anything novel at all. As a matter of fact it’s 22 years old, based on patent filings.[5]

A bit later in his presentation, Martin provides more explosive information sufficient to demonstrate that the pandemic, so-called, is in fact a plandemic, thanks to, as Martin describes:

Together with CDC, NIAID, WHO, academic and commercial parties (including Johnson & Johnson; Sanofi and their several coronavirus patent holding biotech companies; Moderna; Ridgeback; Gilead; Sherlock Biosciences; and, others), a powerful group of interests constituted what we would suggest are “interlocking directorates” under U.S. anti-trust laws.

As to the explosive information:

In addition to filing the entire gene sequence on what became SARS coronavirus 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 coronavirus, but also covered the means of detecting it using rtpcr (Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction).

Now the reason that’s a problem is 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 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 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 coronavirus recorded in the public domain and 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 coronavirus.

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. 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 pair as it’s called at the US 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 factcheckers have repeatedly stated that the novel coronavirus, 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 in 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 coronavirus which is actually the clade of the beta coronavirus family and the subclade that has been called SARS cov2 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 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 (International Committee On Taxonomy of Viruses) 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, 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 Fullmich:
Who is Sequoia Pharmaceuticals?

Martin:
Well, there you go. That’s a good question because SP and ultimately Ablinx Pharmaceuticals became rolled into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crouselle, and J&J.

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?

The patent in question, the April 28th 2003 patent, 7151163, issued to SP, 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 to patent a thing that treats 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 inform a treatment for a thing that did not exist.

Fullmich:
This could well blow up into a RICO case ultimately.

Martin:
It is a RICO case. It’s not it could blow up to it, it is a RICO case. And the RICO pattern, which was established in April of 2003 for the first coronavirus 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.[6]


[1] https://www.covidtruths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-FauciCOVID-19-Dossier2532.pdf, p. 2.

[2] U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/206,537, filed May 21, 2000

[3] https://www.pnas.org/content/100/22/12995

[4] https://www.covidtruths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-FauciCOVID-19-Dossier2532.pdf

[5] A manufactured illusion. Dr David Martin with Reiner Fuellmich 7/9/21 (Mirrored)

[6] A manufactured illusion. Dr David Martin with Reiner Fuellmich 7/9/21 (Mirrored)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top