Contributing to the conversation are Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Attorney Viviane Fischer and Prof. Martin Schwab (legal advisor to Corona Investigative Committee). See below for full transcript and links.
Published On July 10, 2021
The COVID # Fraud is Over.
The Illusion of Demand- from the Anthrax attacks to Covid19 (at 1:14:07)
Intentional Release of a Respiratory Pathogen (at 39:58)
CDC committing bribery (at 17:01)
RICO and Racketeering (at 21:55)
There is NO Delta Variant (at 56:15)
Evidence COVID Was Deliberate and For-Profit: "The New Normal Campaign" by Merck Began began on 1/6/04 (at 34:50)
Dr. Peter Daszak (at 30:50)
73 patents of Covid vaccine were created before ALL SARS, MERS and COVID19 outbreaks. (at 27:25)
Full written transcript provided by China Rising Radio Sinoland…
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich- David, I’m sorry to have kept you waiting. It’s my fault. Are you still there?
Dr. David E. Martin- Yes, I am.
Reiner- Oh, great. Nice to see you again.
David- Good to see you as well.
Reiner- So I think it’s best if you introduce yourself. I know you’re the chairman of Maqam International Innovation Risk Management, but that doesn’t tell a whole lot of people what you’re really doing.
David- Yeah, well, from a corporate standpoint, we have since nineteen ninety eight, been the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in hundred and sixty eight countries. So in the majority of the countries around the world are underwriting systems which include the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records, etc.
We have the ability to not only track what is happening and who is involved in what’s happening, but we monitor a series of thematic interests for a variety of organizations and individuals as well as for our own commercial use. Because as you probably know, we maintain three global equity 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. Corporate interests are being dislocated, etc. So our business is the business of innovation and its finance. But obviously, from the standpoint of this presentation, as you know, we have reviewed the over 4000 patents that have been issued around SARS coronavirus.
And we have done a very comprehensive review of the financing of all of the manipulations of coronavirus which gave rise to SARS as a sub clade of the beta coronavirus family. And so what I wanted to do is give you a quick overview, timeline wise, because we’re not going to go through 4000 patents on this conversation. But I have sent to you and your team a document that is exceptionally important. This was made public in the spring of 2020.
Reiner- Yes.
David- This document, which you do have and can be posted in the public record is quite critical in that we took the reported gene sequence, which was reportedly isolated as a novel coronavirus indicated as such by the ICTV, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses of the World Health Organization. We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel and reviewed those against the patent records that were available as of the spring of 2020.
And what we found, as you’ll see in this report, are over a hundred and twenty patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy. There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless very subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded, but there was no single identified novel coronavirus at all. As a matter of fact, we found records in the patent records of sequences attributed to novelty going to patents that were sought as early as nineteen ninety nine.
So not only was this not a novel anything, it’s actually not only not been novel, it’s not been novel for over two decades. But let’s take a very short and what I’ll do is I’ll take you on a very short journey through the patent landscape to make sure people understand what happened. But as you know, up until nineteen ninety nine, the topic of coronavirus Vis a VI the patenting activity around coronavirus was uniquely applied to veterinary sciences.
The first vaccine ever patented for coronavirus was actually sought by Pfizer. The application for the first vaccine for coronavirus, which was specifically this spike protein. So the exact same thing that allegedly we have rushed into invention. The first application was filed January 28, 2020 one years ago. So the idea that we mysteriously stumbled on the way to intervene on vaccines is not only ludicrous, it is incredulous.
Because Timothy Miller, Sharon for Albert, Paul Reed and Elaine Jones on January 20th, 2000, filed what ultimately was issued as US patent 6372224, 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 nineteen ninety nine 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 as spike protein vaccine target candidates giving rise to the obvious evidence that says that neither the coronavirus concept of vaccine nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest.
With respect to the spike proteins behavior is anything novel at all. As a matter of fact, it’s twenty two years old based on patent filings. What’s more problematic and what is actually the most egregious problem is that Anthony Fauci and NIAID. Found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines, and so SARS is actually not a natural progression of a genetic modification of coronavirus.
As a matter of fact, very specifically, in nineteen ninety nine, Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill specifically to create and you cannot you cannot help but lament what I’m about to read, because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19th, 2002. And you heard the date correctly, 2002 where the NIAID built and infectious replication, defective coronavirus. They were specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words, we made SARS.
And we patented it on April 19th, 2002, before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which, as you know, followed that by several months. That patent issued as US patent seven to seven nine three two seven. That patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we knew that the ace receptor, the ACE two binding domain, the S1 spike protein and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen was not only engineered but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies, taking computer code and turning it into a pathogen or an intermediate of the pathogen.
And that technology was funded exclusively in the early days as a means by which we could actually harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine. So it gets worse. We were my organization was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations in the very early days of 2000. You’ll remember the anthrax events in September of 2001.
And we were part of an investigation that gave rise to the congressional inquiry into not only the anthrax origins, but also into what was unusual behavior around Beyer’s ciprofloxacin drug, which was a drug use as a potential treatment for anthrax poisoning. And throughout the fall of 2001, we began monitoring an enormous number of bacterial and viral pathogens that were being patented through NIH, NIAID, USAMRIID, the US Armed Services Infectious Disease Program, and a number of other agencies internationally that collaborated with them.
And our concern was that coronavirus was being seen as not only a potential manipulatable agent for potential use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate. And so our first public reporting on this took place prior to the SARS outbreak in the latter part of 2001. So you can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here 20 years later, having 20 years earlier pointed that there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to coronavirus.
But after the alleged outbreak and I’m 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 thirty five US Code Section 101, you cannot patent a naturally occurring substance.
The thirty five US code section one on one violation was patent number 7220852. Now, that patent also had a series of derivative patents associated with it. These are our patent applications that were broken apart because they were of multiple patentable subject matter. But these include US Patent 46492703 P, which is actually a very interesting designation. The US Patent 776521 that is 7776521. These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus, but also covered the means of detecting it using rPCR.
Now, the reason why that’s a problem is if you actually both own the patent on the gene itself and you own the patent on its detection, you have a cunning advantage to being able to control one hundred percent of the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its detection, meaning you have entire scientific and message control. And this patent sought by the CDC was allegedly justified by their public relations team as being sought so that everyone would be free to be able to research coronavirus.
The only problem with that statement is it’s a lie. And the reason why it’s a lie is because the patent office, not once but twice rejected the patent on the gene sequence as un-patentable because the gene sequence was already in the public domain. In other words, prior to CDC filing for a patent. The patent office found ninety nine point nine percent 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 is rejection of their patent and ultimately in 2007 got the patent on SARS coronavirus. Though every public statement that CDC has made that said that this was in the public interest is falsifiable by their own paid bribe to the patent office. This is not something that’s subtle. And to make matters worse, they paid an additional fee to keep their application private.
Last time I checked, if you’re trying to make information available for the public research, you would not pay a fee to keep the information private. I wish I could have made up anything I just said, but all of that is available in the public patent archive record, which any member of the public can review, and the public payer, as it’s called it, the United States Patent Office has not only the evidence, but the actual documents, which I have in my possession.
Now, this is critically important. It’s critically important because fact checkers have repeatedly stated that the novel coronavirus designated as sars-cov-2 is in fact distinct from the CDC patent. And here’s both the genetic and the patent problem. If you look at the gene sequence that is filed by CDC in 2003, again in 2005 and then again in 2006, what you find is identity in somewhere between eighty nine to ninety nine percent of the sequence overlaps that have been identified in what’s called the novel subclass of sars-cov-2.
What we know is that the core designation of SARS coronavirus, which is actually the clade of the beta coronavirus family. And the sub-clause that has been called sars-cov-2 have to overlap from a taxonomic point of view, you cannot have Saar’s designation on a thing without it first being Saar’s. So the disingenuous fact checking that has been done, saying that somehow another CDC has nothing to do with this particular patent or this particular pathogen is beyond both the literal credibility of the published sequences.
And it’s also beyond credulity when it comes to the ICTV taxonomy, because it very clearly states that this is in fact a subclade of the clade called SARS coronavirus. Now, what’s important is on the twenty eighth 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 two thousand three, three days later, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, a company that was set up in Maryland, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, on the 20th of April 2003, filed a patent on antiviral agents of treatment and control of infections by coronavirus. CDC filed three days earlier and then the treatment was available three days later. Now, just hold that thought for a second.
Reiner- Who is Sequoia Pharmaceuticals?
David- Well, there we go. That’s a good question, because Sequoia Pharmaceuticals and ultimately Ambling Pharmaceuticals became rolled into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crucell and Johnson and Johnson.
Reiner- Well.
David- So ask yourself a simple question, how would one have a patent on a treatment for a thing that had been invented three days earlier?
Reiner- Yeah.
David- The patent in question. The April twenty eighth, two thousand three patent 7151163 issued to Sequoia Pharmaceuticals has another problem. The problem is it was issued and published before the CDC patent on coronavirus was actually allowed. So the degree to which the information could have been known by any means other than insider information between those parties is zero.
It is not physically possible for you to patent the thing that creates a thing that had not been published because CDC had paid to keep it secret. This, my friends, is the definition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion. This is not a theory. This is evidence. You cannot have information. In the future, in form a treatment for a thing that did not exist.
Reiner- This could well blow up into a RICO case, ultimately,
David- That’s it is a RICO case. It’s that could blow up into 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 sars-cov-2 show up, when we have Moderna getting the spike protein sequence by phone from the Vaccine Research Center. At NIAID, prior to the definition of the novel Sub-clan. How do you treat a thing before you actually have the thing?
Reiner- Oh, I have to translate this. This is you can’t make this up. Definitely not.
David- Yeah, it’s going to get worse here.
Reiner- Oh, no, it can’t get worse.
David- 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, ambling 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-cov-2 virus, and you heard what I just said. This is the fifth of June, two thousand and eight.
Reiner- They found what?
David- specifically they targeted what was called the poly basic cleavage site for sars-cov-2, the novel Spike Protein, and as 2 receptor binding domain, which is allegedly novel to sars-cov-2. And all of that was patented on the 5th of June 2008, and those patents in sequence were issued between November 2014 of 2015 which was US Patent nine one nine three seven eight zero, 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 subcomponents of the gene strands were all issued to Ambling and Sanofi. And then we have Crucell. We have Rubik’s Therapeutics.
We have Children’s Medical Corporation, we have Countless others that include Ludwig Maximilian University in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong, Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai, all identifying in patent filings that ranged from two thousand and eight until twenty seventeen.
Every attribute that was allegedly uniquely published by the single reference publication, the novel Bat Coronavirus reveals, quote, natural insertions at the mouth one to two cleavage site of the spike protein and possible recombinant three origin of the sars-cov-2 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 seventy three Patent’s Issued between 2008 and 2019, which have the elements that were allegedly novel in the sars-cov-2.
Specifically as it relates to the basic basically cleavage site based receptor binding domain and the spiked protein, so the clinically novel components of the clinically unique, clinically contagious. You know where I’m going with this? OK? 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 Baric. Was not only poised for human emergence, but it was patented for commercial exploitation. Seventy three times
Reiner- Is it didn’t Ralph Barack, 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.
David- Yes, you can. And he has made a lot of money doing this.
Reiner- Oh.
David- So for those who want to live in the illusion that somehow or another that the end of the story. Pre-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 This statement that was made by Peter back in twenty fifteen reported in the National Academies of Press publication February 12th, 2016, and I’m quoting.
“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process”.
Viviane Fischer-That’s quite shocking because I thought that
David- Let me let me just read that again, just because I don’t know if I might get lost in translation. So let me just go ahead and read it slowly.
Reiner- Yeah.
David- And as Americans love to do when speaking to a multilingual audience, maybe I should say it louder.
Reiner- I won’t.
David- We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues, investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process”.
Viviane-That’s really I mean, Peter Dashi, wasn’t he the one who
Reiner- No, no, no. Peter Daszak,
David- Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth Alliance
Reiner- Peter Daszak is a good guy.
Viviane-Yeah, I was just.
David- Peter Daszak the person who is independently corroborating that Chinese non lab non theory because there wasn’t a lab leak. This was an intentional bio weaponization 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.
Viviane- And there’s really nothing that is new in this.
David- Nothing zero. Seventy three patents on everything clinically novel, seventy three all issued before twenty nineteen, 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 seven two seven nine three two seven. 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 twenty eighteen.
Now, here’s the problem with that. Under the Bayh Dole, the US government already has what’s called a march-in right provision. That means if the US government is paid for research, they are entitled to benefit from that research at their demand or at their whim. So explain why in twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen, suddenly the National Institutes of Health have to take ownership of the patent that they already had rights to be 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 institutes mandate, which was shared between the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in November of twenty nineteen and Moderna in November of twenty nineteen, when UNC Chapel Hill, NIAID and Moderna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine. A month before an outbreak ever happened.
Reiner- You have all the evidence, right?
David- Yep.
Reiner- So it’s all about money.
David- 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 six, 2004.
Reiner- January six, 2004, who wrote the script?
David- Merck and the Conference called SARS and Bioterrorism.
Reiner- Uh huh,
David- Bioterrorism, emerging infectious diseases, antimicrobials, therapeutics and immunomodulators. 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 the Center for Disease Control, Bill Gates’s Dr. Elias of the Gates Foundation and Anthony Fauci set together on that board of directors.
But 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 six, 2004. So it’s been around quite, quite a long time. I’m not going to belabor 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 twenty nineteen, for reasons that are not transparent, they suddenly amended a series of rejected patent filings, which is a very bizarre behavior. 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 to Canadian companies Arbutus Pharmaceuticals and Equitas 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 U.S. and then around the world and their world intellectual property equivalents, Moderna knew that they did not own the rights and began trying to negotiate with Arbutus and Equitas 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 two thousand and nineteen 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 favorite target.
He was trying to get the population to engage in this process. And what becomes very evident with Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, UNC, Chapel Hill and others, and then most specifically by March of thousand nineteen, in the amended patent filings of Moderna, we see that there is a, 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 twenty nineteen.
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 20, 20, 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 twenty nineteen, and the language of an intentional release of a respiratory pathogen was written into the scenario that quote must be completed by September 2020.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg- This was a text from this is brutal and it was heading this commission, isn’t it?
David- Well, this is the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board’s unified statement. There are a number of people who have taken credit and then backed away from credit for it. But yes, you’re right.
Wolfgang- Am I right to when I say that also the ACTU receptor that was already described in the patents before 2019.
David- Yes. We have one hundred and seventeen patents with specifically the ace to receptor targeting mechanism for SARS coronavirus.
Wolfgang- – So because they always say this is the new thing with the virus
David- Now 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.
Viviane- And this the amendment that Merck did to this study, the rejected patent applications, so was it only about the fact that it’s like deliberately, you know, like put into the environment something or did they add anything else?
David- Well, so these were four failed patent applications that were essentially revitalized in March of two thousand and nineteen. 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 its Moderna’s patent applications that were amended in March of two thousand and nineteen to include the deliberate release of a respiratory pathogen language
Viviane- Who had said not been rejected for some reason, they were just not they were just sitting there basically.
David- No, they do process is 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 I mean, 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 is 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 two thousand and eight, you know, kind of kind of falls into the zone of incredulity, to say the least.
Reiner- But doesn’t that also mean if you if you if you take the entirety of the evidence then this is a tool the coronavirus and the vaccines. This is a tool and the interest of DARPA in creating a biological weapon out of this. This is a tool for everything else that latches on to this, including population control, for example.
David- Well, listen, this 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 bioweapon. There’s 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 not.
We are injecting a spike protein MRNA Sekra and RNA 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 sequence, as reported, 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 ATT CCG GTT CCG ABBB, you know, is there any chance you might get a letter eValora consonant dropped here or there?
The ludicrous nature of the story that this is somehow prophylactic or preventative flies in the face of one 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 as one 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, quote, 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 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. OK, 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 they 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?
Professor Martin Schwab- Oh. Can we translate this for our audience? This might be very important.
Reiner- That is that is, by the way, David, that is our friend Martin. Professor Martin Schwab. He’s our most important legal adviser from the University of Bielefeld.
David- All right.
Reiner- 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 our PCR test specialist, Professor Camilla. She can’t believe what’s going on here.
David- Well, here’s this sad and sober irony is that I raised these issues beginning in two thousand and two 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 and 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 two thousand five, a biological weapon. So I have see have hundreds of hours 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.
Reiner- I’m sure they’re going to be hundreds of questions, David. We’re going to be in touch. I think you’re going to be flooded by people, by people’s emails, et cetera. 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 as a really serious question.
Martin- I took a look at the patient number two, which one was it? 722O852, and 7151163, and 722O8521, was filed in April 12, and 715 and so on was filed in April 28, 2004. I see a difference between sixteen, not three days. What did I misunderstand?
David- April 23, 2003 was the CDC master filing date.
Martin- OK, ok.
Reiner- I know Dr. Phil mash has the entire record in the Fauci dossier. One hundred percent 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 one hundred percent of this is in written published records and you have the written records.
Martin- Ok.
Reiner- I have created my own file and it’s labeled David Martin.
Martin- OK, ok. There is a, I did analysis of media reporting here. 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, tinfoil and so on. You know, so the media exactly did what you pointed out in the sentence. You repeat it 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 of forty thousand strains.
David- All right.
Martin- So could this Delta variant be some kind of media hype you told us about there.
David- 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 is 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 are not calculated, which is the actual replication rate, what has been estimated are computer simulations.
But unfortunately, if you look at GSGIS AID, 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 twenty nineteen has clinical distinction from anything that predates November of twenty nineteen. The problem with the seventy three patents that I described is that those seventy three patents all contain what was reported to be novel. In December and January of twenty nineteen and twenty-twenty, respectively.
So the problem is that even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic pneumonia’s, 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 sub sars-cov-2 has clinical distinction from anything that was known and published prior to November. Twenty nineteen in 73 patents dating to two thousand eight.
Viviane- But could it be that the Delta variant sort of is that just the differences, you know, that the clinical symptoms are the same, but that it has, you know, the capability of, like, infecting someone who’d already gone through, like Variant B beta.
David- Well, 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 besides 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 Omega tomorrow.
Martin- Yes.
David- 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.
Martin- Yes.
David- And the problem is that because of the nature of the way in which we currently sequenced genomes, which is actually a compositing process, it’s what we call in mathematics and 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 ask 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. And when you start and stop what you call the reading frame. There is no novel anything
Reiner- Dr. Wolfgang 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.
David- Yeah, let me I’m going to do something that’s very unfair, but I’m going to hold the document very close to the screen and it’s only for representational purposes. But I want you to see that this is the Baric Patent that NIH needed to have returned to them for mysterious reasons in twenty eighteen. This is seven to seven nine three two seven. 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 realize that depending on where you clip the actual sequence string, you will have the same thing or you’ll have a different thing based on nothing more than on where you decide to pass the clip. And 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 based in nature. It is not something that was manifest for a particular natural derivative protein or natural derivative RNA 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 Ilagan nucleotide 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 to 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 100 percent certainty. The sequence is X. The problem 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 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 YPO data from Geneva. You cannot do this with the US 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.
Wolfgang- I have one more question. Is it possible that we will see that the influenza has vanished, is gone. We don’t have influenza anymore. The influenza for sure is the virus is also sequenced. And is it possible that those sequences we now speak about, that they may exist 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 koruna. If we have a certain if you have a book, you have a word with five letters. Anyway, there’s five letters in many books.
David- Right, exactly.
Wolfgang- Yeah.
David- 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 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 RTPCR 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 authorization and what fragment of sars-cov-2 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 CCACGCTTTG, do I add the next strand G or do I go, no, no, no. The next bit is a GTTTAGTTCG. And you get the point. The point is that where I choose to start and stop.
I can actually say I found it, oh I didn’t find it here and I didn’t find the match that I projected on to 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.
Wolfgang- There are many more, they can change.
David- Oh, goodness, we’ve got tons more to come,
Reiner- But now we’re on to them.
Viviane- I would like to tell you something about this development of 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 patents that you just described, but we looked at this kind of miracle or like I mean, strange aspect of like the Drosten test development, because here in India.
Despite the fact that he would have needed to basically through his employer, the charity would be entitled to holding the patents on this this, you know, his invention. He just published the instruction to they have also everyone could see it. So basically the whole invention lost it’s you know, the possibility to be patented. And that’s kind of strange, you know, when you look at it.
So we asked this in a in a Freedom of Information Act request. And so they said, well you know, because there was so much rush to get them to notice the test out because there was this pandemic going on. So it was like we didn’t look at the finances, you know, we just didn’t care. So that’s kind of strange as a as a procedure because, I mean, basically, this test is words worth like billions.
You know, how you could just, I mean, this is a publicly financed hospital. How can they just give you, you know, give away all this this whole thing? And then because he was also in close cooperation with the private company, Tip Mobule, it’s the same with which he had developed all the tests from 2002, from the first SARS and then MEARS and so on and so on.
So it’s very strange, you know, because he was basically like functioning as the door opener for this company, you know, because they also said to us. So basically it was door man who decided to which possible country or like laboratory or whatever the test, this TIP Mobule company would send out the test kits in order to then, of course, make more money, because he was basically like he had a first mover advantage, you know, trust and or this company.
So it’s clear now, I mean, maybe there was nothing at that point because there was so many patents 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 thing to do then to use the whole thing as a just to do, you know, make a profit from this first mover advantage and maybe just is somehow involved in this whole legal scheme.
Reiner- is one of the most important people in this scheme, because he’s the one whose strings they pulled first.
David- Yeah, you need you need to create the illusion of demand. And there’s nothing right now that does a better job of creating the illusion of demand then the urgency of an event that you’ve manufactured.
Reiner- This sounds almost like comedy, but it is not.
David- Well, it is in that we have to realize 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, is 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 bio weapons attack on US 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. Mind-, mind- bendingly 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 is not necessarily a best seller, 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.
And 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 set it. And the Occam’s razor reality is they said they needed to get the public to accept a pan coronavirus vaccine countermeasure and they needed the media to create the hype and investors would follow where they see profit.
You do not have anything else you need to rely on to explain the events of the last 20 months, then the actual statement of the actual perpetrator. And I don’t do the navel 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 metal 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 either.
Reiner- Ok, this is mind boggling. I’m really glad, David, that we spoke a couple of months ago, maybe three, three, four months ago, and we were introduced to each other by a David I’m sorry, James Henry.
David- Right.
Reiner- 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.
Wolfgang- But this is not new. I’ve tried to find such a lawyer to specialize competence for the commission for the German Bundestag. So 10 years ago of more than fifteen years ago. And we did not find because they were all afraid to be critical of the system.
David- yes.
Wolfgang – they would they would destroy their job. It’s very difficult.
David- Yeah, bear in mind bear in mind that this is an old problem because that 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 been just this newest version 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 organization 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 that the German represented.
Nation 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 bioweapon, you are treading on ground that there is no forgiveness for.
Wolfgang- Yes, we had some questions from Transparency International and we were wiped out. The topic was not followed.
David- Yep. Well, you just can’t it’s not it’s not accessible. And that’s just the tragedy of what has unfortunately become a regulatory capture organization. It’s actually not doing the public service. Thank you for the time that you spent. And I hope that it was helpful.
Reiner- It was very helpful, I think.
Wolfgang- Thank you very much.
Reiner- We’re going to hear a lot of echoes. Thank you, David, and have a great weekend.
David- Ok, take care, everybody.
Reiner- You too. Bye, bye.
David- Bye, bye.
Learn more about the Corona Investigative Committee: https://corona-ausschuss.deFor anonymous reports: https://securewhistleblower.com
Connect with the Committee on Telegram: https://t.me/s/Corona_Ausschuss
Connect with OVAL Media on Telegram: https://t.me/s/OVALmedia
Connect with Dr. David Martin: https://www.davidmartin.world/
See related: Dr. David Martin Releases ‘The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier” | 205 Pages, 22 Years of Research
Download PDF: The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier
Here are just a few of the patents:
https://patents.justia.com/patent/6372224
https://patents.justia.com/patent/7220852
https://patents.justia.com/patent/7151163
https://patents.justia.com/patent/9193780
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is a consumer protection trial lawyer in Germany and California. He is one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee who are now working with an international network of lawyers who will argue this biggest tort case ever, the Corona Fraud Scandal, which has meanwhile unfolded into probably the greatest crime against humanity ever.
The Corona-Committee Foundation, which is now working with attorneys worldwide, was established by four lawyers in Germany: Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Viviane Fischer, Dr. Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer.
Main website for Corona Investigative Committee: https://corona-ausschuss.de/
Corona Investigative Committee at Telegram: https://t.me/s/Corona_Ausschuss
Share anonymous information with the Corona Investigative Committee: https://securewhistleblower.com
Don't forget to feed the birds. Donate here 