Nothing Novel about It, Part I: The Proof

A week ago I listened to a presentation that I’m still thinking about. I transcribed all but the Q&A, so that gave me some time to think. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich,* had Dr. David Martin on as a guest. Dr. Martin is the chairman of M-Cam International Innovation Risk Management. As he explains it,

From a corporate standpoint we have, since 1998 been the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries.

Dr. David Martin on a broadcast of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
called "A Manufactured Illusion"; screenshot from here

Their underwriting systems “include the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records, etc.” They track what’s happening and who is involved in what’s happening. In essence, they “monitor the innovation that’s happening around the world.”

The focus for this presentation related to patents surrounding SARS (sudden acute respiratory syndrome):

We have reviewed the over 4,000 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.

He had sent Dr. Fuellmich and team (those listening in person and those participating by video conference) a document that he had first made available in spring 2020. [Dr. Fuellmich made all 205 pages available here.] This document showed the historical record involving 4000 patents related to:

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.

The short summary is,

We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel, 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 not been novel for over two decades.

Later in the presentation, he gives this soundbite:

Any assertion that this pathogen is somehow unique or novel falls apart on the actual gene sequences, which are published in the patent record.

He says there is nothing novel in the novel coronavirus that is being called COVID-19, or more officially SARS COV2. And he lays out the proof. And then the significance. We’ll cover the proof—the patent record—today, and the significance in part II.

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, interviewing Dr. David Martin
screenshot from here

The Proof

Up until 1999, all research activity related to SARS was in veterinary medicine. And the first patent, by Pfizer, was in 2000:

The application for the first vaccine for coronavirus, which was specifically the 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.

image of US Patent 6372224

This was US patent 6372224, which he says was the spike protein virus vaccine for the canine coronavirus, one of the multiple forms of coronavirus—again, at a time when work research was for veterinary uses. Therefore, he says, it’s ludicrous to assume either the coronavirus genome or the effect of the S- or spike protein on it was anything we just recently happened upon.

I’ve understood all along that there was much research into coronavirus these past decades, so that wasn’t new to me. The mainstream story is, that research and experience is why scientists had so much already in place when we needed a vaccine quickly for SARS COV2. And I had also understood that mRNA vaccine research had been tried—but that it had been unsuccessful, because most (maybe all) animal recipients died from reaction to the “vaccine.”

The next detail shows the problem. Dr. Martin says,

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.

The explanation here is a bit technical, but I think you’ll be able to follow:

SARS is actually not a natural progression of a zoonetic modification of coronavirus. As a matter of fact, very specifically, in 1999 Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina Chappell Hill specifically to create—and you cannot help but 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. It was specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.

In other words, we made SARS. And we patented it on April 19, 2002, before there was any alleged outbreak in Asia, which as you know followed that by several months. That patent, issued as patent 7279327—that patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we knew that the ace-receptor, the ace-2 binding domain, the S-1 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.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of NIAID, in hearing May 26, 2021.
photo by Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images, found in
Epoch Times article June 4, 2021

There’s a part later in the presentation where he comes back to this, when the mRNA spike protein “vaccine” Fauci filed for was denied—because it didn’t meet the definition of a vaccine. So, more on that later (in part II).

The point here is, any scientists familiar with SARS knew, from the outset of this pandemic, that SARS COV2 did not occur naturally in a wet market or from any leap from an animal to humans—because SARS is manufactured, so a subset of SARS wouldn’t show up in nature.

Dr. Martin says here, and a few other places in the presentation, “It gets worse.” Here’s the story:

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 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, US AMRIID [US Army Medical Research and Development Command], 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.

So that was reported in 2001, two decades ago.

He continues, about that previous SARS outbreak in China and research that followed:

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 US 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 US Patent 46,592,703p, which is actually a very interesting designation [I couldn’t find it and may have heard it wrong as I transcribed]; US Patent 7,776,521.

These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus, but also covered the means of detecting it using RTPCR. 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.

Dr. Martin further explains that the CDC PR team justified this illegal patent by claiming that this would make coronavirus available for everyone to research. He says this was a lie. How does he know?

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. 

Every public statement the 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 information private.

He goes on to debunk the fact checkers, who have claimed that the “novel coronavirus, designated as SARS COV2” is distinct from the CDC patent. As he explains,

Here’s both the genetic and the patent problem. If you look at 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 taxonomic 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, the 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.

Did you get that? This virus we’re facing now, called SARS COV2, is a subclade of SARS, which was created back in the early 2000s.

I looked up subclade, since the word is new to me, although I think I got the meaning from context:

In genetics, a subclade is a subgroup of a haplogroup. Subclades are often referred to in genealogical DNA tests of human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups and human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups, where they represent subbranches of major branches on the human family tree.

In other words, SARS coronavirus is the major branch, and SARS COV2 (our current scourge) is a subbranch of that major branch. It is not a variation, or variant, that is separate and distinct from the major branch; the major branch contains all of what is in the subbranch.

a SARS viron (sudden acute respiratory syndrome)
image from Wikipedia

There’s a historical date that’s important: April 28, 2003. This date is three days after the CDC filed the patent on SARS coronavirus. Just three days after that filing, a company called Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, out of Maryland [Sequoia, and Ablynx Pharmaceuticals, became proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crucell, and Johnson & Johnson], “filed a patent on antiviral agents or treatment in control of infections by coronavirus.” Either they had super speed to create a treatment in just three days, or they were working on the treatment of a pathogen yet to be created--or they knew about that pathogen before it's publication. The patent of April 28, 2003, is US Patent 7151163, issued to Sequoia Pharmaceuticals. There’s another problem here: “It was issued and published before the CDC patent on coronavirus was actually allowed.”

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.

Insider information, he deduces, is the only possible way this could happen. It was collusion. It fits the definition of a RICO case. And that pattern reappears this past year. Dr. Martin says:

SARS COV2
image from Wikipedia

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?

OK. Trying to connect dots here, but it’s looking bad. Just then Dr. Martin again says, “It gets worse.” Dr. Fuellmich says, “It can’t get worse!” And Dr. Martin answers, “Oh, it does.”

When you’re laying out evidence, you need to give people enough foundation to grasp the significance. Laying the foundation is what we’ve done so far. In part II we’ll look at why it matters that we know SARS was created in a lab, and the CDC, NIAID, and other agencies in the US and internationally were involved, and therefore fully aware that SARS COV2 was lab-created—so we can see what they were planning all along.

______________

* I referred to Dr. Reiner Fuellmich's efforts to deal with violations of the Nuremberg Code here. There I linked to an article with video.