David Martin, PhD, spoke at the WAPF Wise Traditions Conference 2021 November 5, 2021 - WEAPONIZATION OF CORONAVIRUS: WHEN NATURE IS CONSCRIPTED TO HARM. This presentation is an absolute "must-see."
Dr David E. Martin was interviewed by German Lawyer Reiner Fuellmich in July 2021, discussing "The Many Patents of the Medical Crisis".
A transcript is below with reference numbers to the specific patents, should you wish to review them:
Dr David Martin | Dr Reiner Fuellmich - July 9, 2021
The Fauci Dossier that is referenced:
R: David, I'm sorry you have kept you waiting. it's my fault. are you still there?
D: yes I am
R: oh great. nice to see you again
D: good to see you as well
R: so I think it's best if you introduce yourself. I know you're the chairman of MCAM International Innovation Risk Management. but that doesn't tell a whole lot of people what you're really doing
D: 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 our 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 in the indices which are the top performing large cap and mid-cap equity indexes 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 - you know, corporate interests are being dislocated etc. So our business is the business of innovation and its finance - foreign finance industry of social innovation.
R: okay I got that.
1. Creation and Patenting of SARS
D: yeah so obviously from this 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 beta coronavirus family. and so what I wanted to do was 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.
yes 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 120 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 it's not been novel for over two decades!
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-a-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 s-spike protein. So the exact same thing that allegedly we 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 Reed and Elaine Jones on January 28, 2000 filed what ultimately was issued as u.s patent 6372-224 which was the spike protein 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 Barrack'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 spike protein vaccine target candidates giving rise to the obvious evidence that says 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 uh novel at all. As a matter of fact, it's 22 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, you know, lament what I'm about to read - because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19, 2002. And you heard the date correctly 2002 - where the NIAID built an “infectious replication defective coronavirus” that was specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words, we made SARS. And we patented it on April 19, 2002 before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia which as you know followed that by several months.
That patent issued as u.s patent 7279327; that patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we knew 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 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.
I'll let you translate that because that's a lot of material
[R translates the previous into German for the conference attendees]
2. CDC Criminal Racketeering and Collusion
Okay. It gets worse. [Laughter]
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, u.s amrit, the u.s 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 manipulable 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 Center 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 u.s code section 101 violation was patent number 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 u.s patent 46592703P which is actually a very interesting designation, u.s patent 776521. 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 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 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 unpatentable because the gene sequence was already in the public domain. in other words, prior to 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 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. so 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. 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 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 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 CDC in 2003 again in 2005 and then again in 2006 what you find is identity in somewhere between 89 to 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 taxonomy 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 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 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 28th of April 2003, filed a patent on “anti-viral 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. who is the core pharmaceuticals? well there you go, that's a good question because Sequoia Pharmaceuticals and ultimately Ablynx Pharmaceuticals became rolled into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer Crusell and Johnson and Johnson. Wow. 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?
Yeah the patent in question, the April 28 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 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.
This could well blow up into a RICO case ultimately.
That it is a RICO case. it's not “could blow up into”, 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 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? yeah it's going to get worse here
Oh no. it can't get worse
3. SARS-CoV2 Portions Already in 73 Previous Patents
Oh, it does. In the 5th of June 2008 which is an important date because it is actually around the time when DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Program in the United States, actively took an interest in coronavirus as a biological weapon. June 5th 2008 Ablynx which as you know is now part of Sanofi, filed a series of patents that specifically targeted what we've been told is the novel feature of the SARS COV2 virus. and you heard what I just said. this is the fifth of June 2008. they found what specifically they targeted what was called the poly basic cleavage site for SARS COV, the novel spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain which is allegedly novel to SARS COV2. And all of that was patented on the 5th of June 2008 and those patents in sequence were issued between November 24th of 2015 which was u.s patent 9193780. so that one came out after the gain of function moratorium. that one came after the MERS outbreak in the middle east.
But what you find is that then in 2016, 2017, 2019 a series of patents all covering not only the RNA strands but also the sub components of the gene strands were all issued to Ablynx and Sanofi. and then we have crew cell. we have Rubios Therapeutics. we have Children's Medical Corporation. we have countless others that include Ludwig Maximilians Universitat In Munchen, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University Of Iowa, University Of Hong Kong, Chinese National Genome, Human Genome Center in Shanghai all identifying in patent filings that ranged from 2008 until 2017 every attribute that was allegedly uniquely published by the single reference publication: “The novel bat coronavirus reveals natural insertions at the s1, s2 cleavage site of the spike protein and possible recombinant 3 origin of the COV2 virus”. the paper that has been routinely used to identify the novel virus. unfortunately, if you actually take what they report to be novel, you find 73 patents issued between 2008 and 2019 which have the elements that were allegedly novel in the SARS COV2. specifically as it relates to the poly basic cleavage site, the ACE2 receptor binding domain and the spike protein. so the clinically novel components of the clinically unique, clinically contagious... you know where I'm going with this.
Okay 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 that the SARS coronavirus was poised for human emergence written by none other than Ralph Barrick was not only poised for human emergence but it was patented for commercial exploitation 73 times. Ralph Barrack I think I saw a video clip with him giving a speech in which he explicitly told the audience that you can make a lot of money with this.
4. Planning the Pandemic
Yes you can. And he has made a lot of money doing this. oh so for 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 and 2016 which gave rise to my favorite quote of this entire pandemic. And by that I'm not being cute. My favorite quote of this pandemic was a statement made in 2015 by Peter Daszak. The statement that was made by Peter Daszak in 2015 reported in the national academies of press publication February 12, 2016 and I'm quoting: “We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical measures such as a pan corona virus 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 - the person who was independently corroborating the chinese non-lab leaked non-theory because there wasn't a lab leak. this was an intentional bioweaponization of spike proteins 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. and there's really nothing that is new in this. Nothing. Zero. 73 patents on everything clinically novel 73 all issued before 2019.
And I'm going to give you the biggest bombshell of all to prove that this was actually not a release of anything because patent 7279327, the patent on the recombinant nature of that lung targeting coronavirus, was transferred mysteriously from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to the National Institutes of Health in 2018. now here's the problem with that. under the Bayh-Dole act, the u s government already has what's called a “march in right provision”. That means if the u s government has paid for research they are entitled to benefit from that research at their demand or at their whim. so explain why in 2017 and 2018 suddenly the National Institutes of Health have to take ownership of the patent that they already had rights to, held by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill? And how did they need to file a certificate of correction? To make sure that it was legally enforceable. Because there was a typographical error in the grant reference in the first filing so they needed to make sure that not only did they get it right, but they needed to make sure every typographical error that was contained in the patent was correct on the single patent required to develop the Vaccine Research Institute's mandate which was shared between the University Of North Carolina Chapel Hill in November of 2019 and Moderna in November of 2019 when UNC Chapel Hill NIAID and Moderna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine a month before an outbreak ever happened.
you have all the evidence? Right?
Okay. So it's all about money?
5. The Intentional Release of the Pathogen
It has always been about money. And just to answer a question that was asked slightly earlier. The script for this was written first January 6 2004. January 6 2004 WHO wrote the script before a conference called “SARS and Bioterrorism: Bioterrorism, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Antimicrobials, Therapeutics And Immune Modulators”. Merck introduced the notion of what they called the “new normal” - proper noun. The new normal, which is the language that became the branded campaign that was adopted by the World Health Organization, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, which was the board upon which the chinese director of Center for Disease Control, Bill Gates's Dr. Elias of the Gates Foundation, and Anthony Fauci sat together on that board of directors. But the the first introduction of the new normal campaign which was about getting people to accept a universal pan influenza/pan coronavirus vaccine was actually adopted January 6 2004. So it's been around quite, quite a long time.
I'm not going to labor many more points other than to say that it was very clear that Merck knew that – sorry, that Moderna knew that it was going to be placed in the front of the line with respect to the development of a vaccine in March of 2019. And this is a very important date because in March of 2019, for reasons that are not transparent, they suddenly amended a series of rejected patent filings which was a very bizarre behaviour. But they amended a number of patent filings to specifically make reference to an intentional or accidental release. I'm sorry, their term, deliberate release of coronavirus. So in March they amended four failed patent applications to begin the process of a coronavirus vaccine development and they began dealing with a very significant problem that they had which was they relied on technology that they did not own. Two Canadian companies: Arbutus Pharmaceuticals and Acuitous Pharmaceuticals actually own the patent on the lipid nanoparticle envelope that's required to deliver the injection of the mRNA fragment. And those patents have been issued both in Canada and in the US and then around the world in their world intellectual property equivalents. Moderna knew that they did not own the rights and began trying to negotiate with Arbutus and Acuitis to get the resolution of the lipid nanoparticle patented technology available to be put into a vaccine. And we know as I made reference to before that in November they entered into a research and cooperative research and development agreement with UNC Chapel Hill with respect to getting the spike protein to put inside of the lipid nanoparticle so that they actually had a candidate vaccine before we had a pathogen allegedly that was running around. What makes that story most problematic beyond the self-evident nature of it, is that we know that from 2016 until 2019 at every one of the NIAID advisory council board meetings Anthony Fauci lamented the fact that he could not find a way to get people to accept the universal influenza vaccine, which is what was his favourite target.
He was trying to get the population to engage in this process and what becomes very evident with Peter Daszak uh eco health alliance unc chapel hill and others and then most specifically by march of 2019 in the amended patent filings of Moderna, we see that there is an epiphany that says: “what if there was an accidental or an intentional release of a respiratory pathogen?” And what makes that particular phrase problematic is it is exactly recited in the book A World At Risk which is the scenario that was put together by the World Health Organization in September of 2019 - so months before there's an alleged pathogen - which says that 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 of 2019. And the language of an intentional release of a respiratory pathogen was written into the scenario that quote “must be completed by September 2020”.
This was the text where Mrs Brundtland was heading this commission isn't it?
Well this is the global preparedness monitoring board's unified statement there there are a number of people who have taken credit and then backed away from credit for it. But yes you're right.
Am I right too when I say that also the ACE2 receptor that it was already described in the patents before 2019?
Yes we have 117 patents with specifically the ACE2 receptor targeting mechanism for SARS coronavirus. So because they always say this is the new thing with the virus, no it's not new. and it has not been even remotely new. it's in publications going back to 2008 in the weaponization conferences that took place in slovenia in Europe all across Europe and all across the DARPA infrastructure. we've known about that since 2013. its isolation and amplification and this the amendment that merck did to this. The rejected patent applications.
So was it only about the fact that it's like deliberately, you know, put into the environment or something? Or did they add anything else?
Well so these were fake. there were four failed patent applications that were essentially revitalized in march of 2019 and it was Moderna - I misspoke - I spoke about merck - it was Moderna. and I tried to correct that. I'm sorry that that didn't come through. but it's Moderna patent applications that were amended in march of 2019 to include the deliberate release of a respiratory pathogen language. those had not been rejected for some reason. they were just not. they were just sitting there basically. no they do processes similar to other pharmaceutical companies where they evergreen applications and continually modify applications to enjoy the earliest priority dates available. but that's why you have to go back and look at the amendment of the application records to find out when the actual amendment language was put in place. but yes, I mean the the fact of the matter is and like I said I'm not going to belabor all of the patent data, but 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 then more egregiously falls apart in the fact that 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 the fact that as we know World Health Organization had declared coronavirus a you know, kind of a dead interest. I mean they said that we had eradicated coronavirus as a concern. so why having eradicated it in 2007 and 2008, why did we start spending billions of dollars globally on a vaccine for a thing that had been eradicated by declaration in 2008? you know kind of falls into the zone of incredulity to say the least.
6. Fauci's Failed Patent Applications
Doesn't that also mean if you take the entirety of the evidence, then this is a tool - the corona virus and the vaccines - this is a tool and the interest of DARPA in creating a biological weapon out of this – is a tool for everything else that latches on to this including population control, for example?
Well listen. We have to stop falling for even the mainstream narrative in our own line of questioning because the fact of the matter is this was seen as a highly malleable bio weapon. there is no question that by 2005 it was unquestionably a weapon of choice. and the illusion that we continue to unfortunately see very well-meaning people get trapped in is conversations about whether we're having a vaccine for a virus. the fact of the matter is we're injecting a spike protein, secret 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 things like 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 A T T C C G G T T C C G A B B B you know is there any chance you might get a letter, a value or a consonant dropped here or there? The ludicrous nature of the story that this is somehow prophylactive or preventative flies in the face of a hundred percent 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 that 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 a population as defined by the vaccination universe.
And it's important - I mean 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 that he could get an mRNA-like vaccine patented as a vaccine and here's the quote: “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”
Okay this is the patent office. this is not some sort of public health agency. this is the patent office. “the immune response produced by a vaccine must be more than merely some immune response but must also be protective. as noted in the previous office action, the art recognizes the term 'vaccine' to be a compound which prevents infection. applicant has not demonstrated that the instantly claimed vaccine meets even the lower standard set forth in the specification, let alone the standard definition for being operative. in regards therefore, claims five, seven and nine are not operative as the anti-HIV vaccine [which is what he was working on] is not patentable utility.”
So Anthony Fauci, himself, was told by the patent office themselves that what he was proposing as a vaccine does not meet the patentable standard, the legal standard or the clinical standard.
I know that, David. I know a lot of our viewers are really shocked. I can see that from the responses one of our viewers is uh our PCR test specialist Professor Kamera - she can't believe what's going on here.
Well, um, here's the sad and sober irony is that I raised these issues beginning in 2002 after the anthrax scare. and the tragedy is we are 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, what the medical profession and what the fda in its own clinical standards would not suggest is a vaccine. but by using the term we actually are now subjecting hundreds of millions of people to what was known to be by 2005, a biological. so I have I obviously have hundreds of hours of of this stuff committed to memory because i've been doing it for two decades. but if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them.
There, I'm sure, there going to be hundreds of questions, David. we're going to be in touch. I think you're going to be flooded by people emails etc. I'm just going to forward what comes in or we're going to forward what comes in. but I do think but oh yeah, we have Martin Schwab. he probably has has a really serious question and after me, Wolfgang too.
7. Clarifying the Patent Timing
Okay, I'm a legal professor with the faculty of law here in Budapest and I have to tell you that the Constitutional Protection Unit of the Ministry of Interior Affairs observes the so-called corona denial scene. “corona denier” is everyone who dares to disagree with the official line. If this constitutional protection unit takes notice of me taking part in discussion that this pandemic was put on stage intentionally they will probably try to fire me from my job so I have to at least ask some questions. while I heard you talking, I took a look at patent number 7220852 7151163. 7220852 was filed in April 12 and 715 and so on was filed in April 28 of 2004. I see a difference between 16 not 3 days. what did I misunderstand?
Now April 23rd 2003 was the CDC master filing date.
Okay okay. I asked this question because if they try to make me redundant for my job I have to provide strong evidence.
Now we have all of this sent to - I know Dr Fuellmich has the entire record in the “Fauci dossier”. 100% of this record is in there. the additional addendum that I sent across all has the records in there including all the priority filing dates as well as the issue dates. so 100% of this is in written published records and you have the written records.
8. Delta Variant
Okay I have created my own file and it's labeled “David Martin”. I did a analysis of media reportings here and I can confirm that they give a very one-sided account on the pandemic. everyone who dares to declare the threat less dangerous than the government does will be denounced as conspiracy theorists as tin foil and so on, you know. so the media exactly did what you pointed out in the sentence you repeated twice before. No, actually they tell us the story of the delta variant which is told to be much more contagious that everything else. experts I have spoken to told me that the databases contain as many as more or 40 000 virus strains. so could this delta variant be some kind of media hype you told us about before? there is no such thing as an “alpha” or a “beta” or “gamma” “delta” variant?
This is a means by which what is desperately sought, a degree to which individuals can be coerced into accepting something that they would not otherwise accept. there has not been in any of the published studies on what has been reportedly the delta variant. there has not been a population R0 calculated - which is the actual replication rate. what has been estimated are computer simulations. but unfortunately if you look at GSIDAID which is 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 all along. this is the problem going back to the very beginning of what's alleged to be a pandemic - is we do not have any evidence that the gene sequence alteration had any clinical significance whatsoever. there has not been a single paper published by anyone that has actually established that anything novel since November of 2019 has clinical distinction from anything that predates November of 2019. the problem with the 73 patents that I described is that those 73 patents all contain what was reported to be novel in December and January of 2019 and 2020 respectively. so the problem is that even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic pneumonias, even if we were to accept 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 COV2 has clinical distinction from anything that was known and published prior to November 2019 in 73 patents dating to 2008.
But could it be that the delta variant sort of is that? just the difference is, you know, that the clinical symptoms are the same but that it has the, you know, the capability of infecting someone who's already gone through variant b?
So 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 that if we choose any fragment I could come up with, you know, I could come up with variant tomorrow. yes and I could come up with variant “omega” and I could say I'm looking for this sub strand of either DNA or RNA or even a protein and I could run around the world going - oh my gosh, fear the omega variant. yes and the problem is that because of the nature of the way in which we currently sequence genomes, which is actually a compositing process, it's what we'd call in mathematics, an “interleaving”, 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 either clinical or even genomic sense. and so we're trapped in a world where, unfortunately, if you go and look as I have at the papers that isolated the delta variant and actually asked the question “is the delta variant anything other than the selection of a sequence in a systematic shift of 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.
9. Faking Genetic Sequences
R: Yes, Wolfgang I'll make a long story very short. he's in full agreement with your analysis. he understands your anguish with respect to you having told the world about this 20 years ago almost. and he admires your tenacity and he's extremely grateful for you having taken this very close look at the problem through patent law. it's Dr Wodag believes that patents are really problematic because it turns out that it is probably five times more expensive to patent drugs as opposed to having public, I mean not public private, but public universities getting the stipends, getting the money that they need in order to develop these vaccines.
Yeah, I'm going to do something that's very unfair. but I'm going to hold this document very close to the screen and it's only for representational purposes. but I want you to see that this is the Barrack patent that nih needed to have returned to them for mysterious reasons in 2018. this is 72 and people can look this up on their own. but if you actually look at the sequences that are patented which is one of the things that we've done. we actually look at the published sequences and realise that depending on where you clip the actual sequence string, you will have the same thing or you'll have a different thing based nothing more than on where you decide to parse the clip. I want to read you - I mean this is something that comes directly from their patent application - when they actually talk about the DNA strands which they call “sequence id numbers”- they actually specifically say “the organism is an artificial sequence”. an artificial sequence - meaning that it is not a sequence that has a rule base in nature. it is not something that was manifest for a particular natural derivative protein or natural derivative mRNA sequence that was isolated. every one of these is in fact a synthetic artificial sequence.
And if you go back and you look at each one of them - which we have done - what you'll find is that the sequences in fact are contiguous in many instances but are overlapping in others. where it is merely a caprice determination that says something is or is not part of an open reading frame or it is or is not part of a particular oligonucleide sequence. now 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 similar too. we need the exact sequence. and if you look at the FDA's requirement and if you look at the European regulatory environment and if you look at the rest of the world's regulatory environment, for reasons that cannot be explained, the exact sequence that has gone into what is amplified inside of the injection seems to be elusive. it seems to be something that someone cannot in fact state with a hundred percent “the sequence is 'x'”. the problem that that presents is that at this point in time, as much as we can be told that there are, you know, clinical trials going on and there are all sorts of other things going on we have no way of verifying that a complete sequence has been is or potentially even could be manufactured into what ultimately becomes the lipid nanoparticle that is is the carrier frequency into which the injection is delivered.
And it's important for people to understand that as far back as 2002 and all the way through the patent filings of 2003 and then the weaponization patents that began in 2008 - in every one of these instances, fragments are identified but they are identified without specificity. so we don't have direct terminal ends of the fragments. we have fragments which have, you know, essentially 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 among their general lazy attributes, the reason why fact checkers are not actually checking facts when it comes to the patent matters is because the actual sequences are not represented in a 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 EPOs patent site. you cannot do this with WIPO data from Geneva. you cannot do this with the u.s patent office data. you actually have to go in and reconstruct the actual gene sequences by hand and then you compare them to what has been uploaded on 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.
10. Where Did Influenza Go
I had one more question. is it possible that we see that the influenza has has vanished, is gone? we don't have influenza the influenza for sure is the viruses are also sequenced and is it possible that those parts sequences we now speak about that they may they may exist in in both of the virus types so that it's just a matter of testing and matter of instruments to observe what we find? whether we find influenza or whether we find corona? if you have a book you have a word with five letters and you will find this five letters in many books?
Right. Exactly. and yeah, Wolfgang, your question is a beautiful metaphor of exactly the problem. the problem is if what 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 a bunch of places. and if we've decided that we're no longer looking for a thing it's not entirely surprising that we don't find it because we're not looking for it. the fact of the matter is whether it's the RT-PCR tests that we decided that there are fragments which by the way I have looked at every one of the regulatory submissions that has been submitted to the FDA to try to figure out what was the gold standard to get the emergency use authorisation, and what fragment of SARS COV2 was officially the official fragment that was the comparator standard and the problem is that you can't get a single standard. so the question becomes in a world where there is no single standard what is it that you actually find? because if I'm looking for - and why don't I just read this - if I'm looking for C C A C G C T T T G, do I add the next strand G or do I go no, no, no the next bit is G T T T A G T T C G. and you get the point. the point is that where I choose to start and stop I can actually say I found it! or I didn't find it. yeah and 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 everybody to get an injection, let's change the pathogen. there are many more they can change.
Oh goodness, we've got tons more to come. Yes. but now we're on to them. I would like to to tell you something about this development of the the the Drosten PCR test, you know. because we looked at it. I mean just briefly not to that extent that you now looked at the patterns that you just described, but we looked at this kind of miracle or like, I mean, strange aspect of the Drosten test development because he, in despite the fact that he would have needed to basically through his employer, the charity who would be entitled to holding the patents on this, his invention, he just published the instruction to the vehicle so everyone could see it. so basically the the whole invention lost the possibility to be patented. and that's kind of strange, you know, when you look at it. so we asked the charity in a freedom of information act request and so they they said well, because there was so much rush to get get this test out because there was this pandemic going on so it was, like, we didn't look at the finances. we just didn't care. so that's kind of strange as a procedure because I mean, basically this test is worth billions. How could you just, I mean, this is a publicly financed hospital, how can they just give away all this this whole thing?
And then because he was also in close cooperation with the private company tip Mulbiol - it's the same with hi with which he had developed all the PCR tests from 2002 from the first SARS and so on. so it's very strange, you know, because he was basically like functioning as a door opener for this company, you know, because they also said to us - so basically it was Drosten who decided to which possible country or laboratory or whatever the test tip mulberry oil company would send out the test kits in order to then of course make more money because he was basically had a first mover advantage, trust and or this company.
So it's clear now. I mean, maybe there was nothing at that point because there was so many patterns already going on. so basically from this not novel virus or PCR test he couldn't patent anything that would have been new, so basically was really like a very logical to thing to do. then to use the whole thing as a just to, you know, make profit from this first mover advantage and maybe Drosten is somehow involved in this whole legal - he's one of the most important people in this scheme because he's the one whose strings they pulled first.
11. History Repeating
Yeah you need you need to create the illusion of demand and there is nothing right now that does a better job of creating the illusion of demand than the urgency of an event that you've manufactured. [Laughter]
This sounds almost like comedy but it is not. well it is in that we have to realise that part of the reason why it was so easy for us to monitor and track this particular, you know, campaign of coercion and terror was because we've done it before. you know I started my comments by making sure people remember that when it came to solving for the anthrax outbreak. now remember that while we had hundreds of thousands of military people in the middle east allegedly getting even for the events of September of 2001 we had two postal inspectors investigating anthrax. Two. the largest alleged bioweapons attack on u.s soil and we had two postal inspectors. you can't genuinely believe that two postal inspectors are the, you know, the crime stopping, you know, mindbendingly powerful individuals in the universe.
Now I have nothing against postal inspectors but I can guarantee you that if I was investigating a bioterror attack I would not have the post office having two postal inspectors as their crack team doing the investigation, you know. it was disingenuous and congress knew it and that's the reason why we publish a thing that's not necessarily a bestseller. but we publish an intelligence briefing on every violation of the biological and chemical weapons treaties that people have signed around the world. and it's a phone book that tells you where and who 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 opportunistic marketing campaign to address a stated objective and that's why this is Occam's Razor. it's the easiest thing to describe because they're the ones that said it and the Occam's Razor reality is they said they needed to get the public to accept a pan coronavirus vaccine counter measure 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 actual statement of the actual perpetrator.
And I don't do the naval gazing exercise of going in to try to understand whether there were mommy issues behind a bank robber if they're holding a bag of money outside of a bank. I actually 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, in fact, the injection of a synthetic recombinant chimeric protein developed off of 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.
12. The Patent Landscape Problem
Me neither. okay this is mind-boggling. I'm really glad, David, that we spoke a couple of months ago. maybe three, four months ago. we were introduced to each other by, james henry, right? and I was trying to find patent lawyers in this country who might be interested in this case. now there are a few patent lawyers who understand about it but there's no one apparently up till now. but maybe this is going to change. but there was no one willing to tackle this in the context of corona. that's the problem.
But this is not new. i've tried to find such a lawyer too, specialised on patents for the commission for the German Bundestag some 10 years ago, more than 15 years ago and we did not find because they were all afraid to be critical on the system. Yes, they would be distracted if they would destroy their own job. this was very difficult.
Yeah, bear in mind that this is an old problem. because here's where the problem comes in. ever since the establishment of the European patent office, the Germans and the French, not surprisingly, have maintained animosity that has, you know, been just this newest version of of animosity that goes back centuries. but when the EPO was set up, the role of the patent office in Munich became a very nationalistic issue for Germany, and the notion that German patent examiners and German patent professionals still enjoyed supremacy over the rest of Europe became dogmatic in 2003 and 2004 when the European patent office was first audited by my organisation. and where we showed that somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of the patents in Europe were functional forgeries, meaning that they were copied from previous patents - the German representation of the European patent office lost their mind at the notion that they were doing anything remotely wrong.
When the European union commissioned us to do an examination into software patents a few years later at the request of the Swedish delegation to the European union, and we showed hundreds and hundreds of software patents which were illegally granted by the European union through the EPO and then we found out that it was German patent examiners and German patent practitioners who were the ones who were responsible for their filing, we once again saw that there was an enormous outcry. and so what happens is that we have a dogmatically held position which says that even though the European patent office is supposed to be pan-European, there is still in the minds of the German patent establishment, a supremacy over the rest of Europe. and if you call into question anything, including patents granted on a bio weapon, you are treading on ground that there is no forgiveness for.
Yes we have we had some questions from transparency international and we were wiped out. the topic was not followed up. you just can't. it's not it's not accessible. and and that's just the tragedy of what has unfortunately become a regulatory capture organisation. It's actually not doing the public service.
Well, thank you.
Thank you for the time that you've spent and I hope that it was helpful.
It was very helpful. thank you very much. we're going to hear a lot of echoes. thank you, David. and have a great weekend.
Okay, take care everybody