Thursday, July 22, 2021

Nothing Novel about It, Part II: The Significance

In Part I we laid out the proof provided by Dr. David Martin in an interview with Reiner Fuellmich (presentation here, documentation here) that shows that SARS was created in a lab, and the CDC, NIAID, and other agencies in the US and internationally were involved, and were therefore fully aware that SARS COV2 was lab-created—years before 2019.

Today we’ll get into why this matters—and what they were planning all along. The quotes are from Dr. Martin unless otherwise indicated. This is long, but there’s a summary at the end, if you’re one of those who read the end first.


summary of SARS Coronavirus patents, dating back to 1998,
graph from Dr. David E. Martin's document "The Fauci/Covid-19 Dossier"

 

THE SIGNIFICANCE

BIOWEAPONIZATION

Dr. Martin tells us June 5, 2008, is another significant date:

Because it is actually around the time when DARPA, the Defense Advance Research Program in the United States, actively took an interest in coronavirus as a biological weapon. June 5, 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 5th of June, 2008.

Specifically they targeted what was called the polybasic cleavage site for SARS COV, the novel spike protein and the ace-2 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 24, 2015, which was US 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.

I highlighted those details that caught my attention. I think Dr. Martin is making a major point about the coronavirus being developed as a biological weapon, but this isn’t something he spends a lot of time on. The point about the series of patents back in 2008 and subsequent shows that nothing about the 2019 version is novel. Specifically, “you find 73 patents issued between 2008 and 2019 which have the elements that were allegedly novel in the SARS COV2.” And then he spells out this conclusion:

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 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. 73 times.

I looked up Dr. Baric for spelling and found this.

Dr. Martin offers his favorite quote of the pandemic, quoting Dr. Peter Daszak, CEO of EcoHealth Alliance, whose work was removed from The Lancet after an exposé on his work with the Chinese Communist Party. The statement was made by Daszak in 2015 and reported in the National Academy’s press publication February 12, 2016:



“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.”

Ah. Profit. For a vaccine to fight a worldwide coronavirus “outbreak.”

Dr. Martin adds,

Peter Daszak, the person who was independently corroborating the Chinese non-lab leak, 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.

I had to puzzle through that a bit. Dr. Martin is saying Daszak corroborated the Chinese claim that the pathogen wasn’t leaked from their lab in Wuhan. I think, though, that he’s not saying it didn’t come from that lab (or possibly some other lab); he’s asserting it wasn’t an accidental outbreak; it was intentional. And it wasn’t the pathogen itself that was the bioweapon; SARS COV2 was simply the means of implementing the bioweapon, which is to inject spike proteins into people.

And his next phrase was new to me: “to get them addicted to a pan-coronavirus vaccine.” Is the so-called vaccine addictive? I didn’t hear him say any more about that in the presentation. Even giving the original doses—ideally in their plan—to everyone in the world would be a money-making scheme of incalculable proportions. Behaviors of those pushing the “vaccines” seems to lend credence to that idea. I’m not quite ready to add that the vaccines are addictive—i.e., must be repeated frequently, like a flu shot (although the need for multiple boosters has been hinted at). Or cause a person damage, withdrawals, or some other negative effect if not repeated, which is what addiction actually implies.

And I’m a bit puzzled by the spike protein being the actual bioweapon—which implies harm. But he may mean that it is the means to their end of getting it into all people, maybe multiple times. Maybe there is indeed some additional nefarious goal beyond the money.

As further evidence, he gives information about US Patent 7279327, the patent on the recombinant nature of that lung-targeting coronavirus, which was transferred “mysteriously” from the University of North Carolina Chappell Hill to the National Institutes of Health in 2018. This happened, he says,

on the single patent required to develop the Vaccine Research Institute’s mandate, which was shared between the University of North Carolina Chappell Hill in November of 2019 and Moderna in November of 2019, when UNC Chappell Hill, NIAID, and Moderna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine a month before an outbreak ever happened.

Getting back to that bioterrorism detail, he says the script was written January 6, 2004, by:

Merck [a misspeak corrected later to Moderna]. At the conference called SARS and Bioterrorism: Bioterrorism and Emerging Infectious Diseases, Antimicrobials, Therapeutics, and Immune Modulators. Merck [Moderna] 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 for the Center for Disease Control, Bill Gates’ Dr. Elias of the Gates Foundation, and Anthony Fauci sat 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 6, 2004.

For non-transparent reasons, in March of 2019, Moderna amended four failed patent application filings in order to process development of a coronavirus vaccine. Amending failed patents, to evergreen them for future efforts to patent, is not unusual, which is why you have to look at the patent application’s entire history. But, oddly, the amendments added the term “deliberate release” of coronavirus. Moderna also negotiated with two Canadian companies, Arbutus Pharmaceuticals and Acuitus Pharmaceuticals [Acuitus Therapeutics is the actual name of the Vancouver, BC, company], to gain access to the patent on the lipid nanoparticle envelope needed to deliver the injection of the mRNA fragment. [I admit I didn’t fully understand that phrase.] Then, Dr. Martin says,

In November [2019] they entered into a research and cooperative research and development agreement with UNC Chappell 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.

This is getting long, I know. He talked for well over an hour. But we’re not done. Dr. Martin explains more about the patent application amendments:

What makes that story most problematic, beyond the self-evident nature of it, is that we know, 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 favorite target. He was trying to get the population to engage in this process.

from the cover of A World at Risk,
the report at the September 2019 GPMB conference;
notice the picture of people wearing masks, which was
part of The New Normal plan. Image found here.
And what becomes very evident with Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, UNC Chappell 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 is 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 “must be completed by September 2020.”

The September 2019 conference, and the book spelling out the plan—which calls for lockdown quarantining of the well, rather than the ill and vulnerable—and coincides with the scrubbing of information about medications such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which had long been known as treatment possibilities for coronavirus—this conference and its plans actually took place nearly immediately before the outbreak, which this implies was a purposeful release for the purpose of making money off a vaccine.

 

DEFINITION OF VACCINE

But wait, there’s more. This isn’t a vaccine; it is not intended for either prophylactic (preventative) or therapeutic use. It doesn’t meet the definition of a vaccine; calling it a vaccine was just the way to get people to accept the injection. Dr. Martin says,


image found here

The ludicrous nature of the story that this is somehow prophylactic or preventative flies in the face of 100% 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.

Remember, Fauci had previously attempted to get some “synthetic RNA vaccines” (i.e., mRNA-like vaccine) patented, in use as an anti-HIV vaccine, but the US Patent Office rejected those attempts—because they did not meet the definition of a vaccine. Here’s what the Patent Office told Fauci:

“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. 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 ARP 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 standard ARP definitions for being operative in regards.

Remember, Anthony Fauci knew long before this year that an mRNA injection of a spike protein does not meet the patentable standard, the legal standard, or the clinical standard required to be called a vaccine.

Maybe that’s why we’re seeing so many cases of people getting the virus even after their two doses of the “vaccine.” The half dozen cases of Democrats who fled Texas to deny a quorum in the special session of the legislature, for example, were all fully vaccinated (the whole contingent were vaccinated; 10% tested positive for the illness while traveling together). Meanwhile, those who had the illness seem to have lasting immunity. So why the insistence that everyone—even those with natural immunity—get the vaccine? Because it’s part of the plan to inject everyone.

I don’t yet understand why, exactly, they insist on injecting everyone with the S1 spike protein. If it’s only about the money, they could have invented something totally innocuous and claimed that it was doing helpful things. This spike protein seems to travel throughout the body, instead of staying at the injection site; it seems to cause clotting, in the lungs, in the brain, in other organs. Yet even Dr. Fauci, I’m assuming, got the injections, right? Is money the driver, or is it something more nefarious? Dr. Martin seems to hint that it might be more nefarious, but he didn’t spell it out enough for me to fully understand.

However, the President of Haiti was assassinated two weeks ago. He hadn’t been allowing for the vaccine in his country. But the immediate response by the Biden administration to his tragic death is to provide vaccinations for the population of Haiti. Haiti, with a population of 11.5 million, has had a total of 19,547 cases, as of this writing (July 19), with 508 deaths. They have only 35 new cases. I don’t know how to gauge this data, but it doesn’t look to me like, of all the needs Haiti has, an injectable mRNA spike protein that doesn’t cause immunity would top the list.


WHO COVID-19 data on Haiti, July 19, 2021

 

ABOUT THAT DELTA VARIANT

One last thing, from during the Q&A: there is no “delta variant.” Dr. Martin says it’s a matter of where you set the beginning and ending frame:

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 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 ask the question, “Is the Delta variant anything other than the selection of a sequence is a systematic shift of an already disclosed other sequence?” the answer is, it’s just an alternation in when you start and stop what you call the reading frame. There is no novel anything.

He explains that the difficulty of checking for similarities or distinctions is that the information isn’t in digital form. It’s a typed paper—so all those sequences are difficult to compare until you reenter everything into a computer, letter by letter, which his people did. Then he adds,

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 realized 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.

There’s one more detail I want to include. Why, when SARS COV was under control, why sudden new interest in a vaccine? He answers:

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. 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? It kind of falls into the zone of incredulity, to say the least.

If you look back at that Peter Daszak quote, everything looks like more hype for the express purpose of getting more people injected with what is not actually a vaccine. Even the PCR tests, which were cranked up to find something almost regardless of exposure to the pathogen, were about creating hype.

As Dr. Martin says,

You need to create the illusion of demand. There’s nothing better than the urgency of an event that you’ve manufactured

If you’re into money, or control over people, or maybe both, it’s a pretty sweet plan. And I guess millions of deaths worldwide don’t bother the conscience of such people.

The original illness was actual, whether or not it was natural, and in whatever manner it was originally spread to the public; people got sick, and many people died. Is this “variant” actually different or distinguishable from the “wild” or original version? Dr. Martin seems to say no, so what do other doctors say is going on? Is the uptick in cases real, or is someone messing with the testing again—for purposes of hype?

By the way, the story this week is that George Soros and Bill Gates combined to buy Mologic, makers of the rapid PCR test. Whether they do that to gain money or to gain control, I can’t say that it inspires confidence.

 

SUMMARY

There’s still a lot I don’t understand. What was being created, or worked on, in Chappell Hill and Wuhan, if the entire sequence of SARS COV2 has been patented for a couple of decades? Gain-of-function research was intended to make it more contagious in humans—purportedly for researchers to learn how to combat it, but clearly making it an increased danger to the world if released either accidentally or intentionally. Did the gain-of-function result in anything new, as we’re told, or were the qualities of the virus there all along?

And I’d like to know why reports are so varied. I’ve heard that currently 95% of hospitalized patients are among the unvaccinated. I’ve also heard that about 80% of new cases are among the fully vaccinated. New cases, possibly mild, are very different from cases requiring hospitalization. What about people who had natural immunity from having had the virus; are they among the hospitalized, or among the new cases? And did any of the hospitalized receive early at-home treatment, which is known to work in the vast majority of cases, but which is still not the standard recommendation?

And while there are new cases, deaths aren’t really rising. So that scary statistic about hospitalizations of the unvaccinated doesn’t say these hospitalizations are in numbers to be alarmed about.

And the VAERS data grows ever higher. It had a jump this month of 5100 deaths. Is someone rigging the numbers? Were the numbers being suppressed before and are now being corrected? Compared to any other medical intervention recorded by VAERS, this vaccine program looks vastly more dangerous, but instead of receiving a black box warning or a shutdown of the program, we get more government coercion to get the injections, no matter how low-risk the person or how high-risk the injection.


The left is VAERS data through June 4 (screenshot from OAN video),
and the right is data through July 9, from VAERS website on July 22, 2021

 

There’s so much about this disease that continues to be unanswered.

Nevertheless, from this presentation, here’s my summary of what Dr. Martin has told us:

·         Nothing in SARS COV2 is natural, because it derives from SARS COV, which was synthetically created and patented.

·         Everything contained in SARS COV2 has been patented for many years; nothing is novel. The patent record shows this. This included work on a vaccine and interest in the virus and/or the injection of its spike protein as a bioweapon.

·         There was a plan, worldwide, written and presented in January 2004 by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (Fauci was on this board; their website now highlights him as the only former board member). This is when the term The New Normal became their language. In September 2019 the GPMB held a conference, at which they released a report titled A World At Risk. It included using a shutdown of the economy, quarantining of the healthy along with the vulnerable, putting everyone in facemasks—procedures for viral outbreak that haven’t been done before. This is The New Normal. Part of the plan called for rolling out a pan-coronavirus vaccine around September 2020. A candidate was being readied before the outbreak.

·         Using the spike protein in an mRNA “vaccine” was attempted in 2008 by Anthony Fauci; the US Patent Office turned it down, because it didn’t meet the definition of a vaccine: it didn’t prevent the disease, and it didn’t significantly even lessen the symptoms; it just slightly increased production of antibodies. It appears these facts are still true for the current version.

·         Anthony Fauci has been intent on getting everyone in the world injected with a vaccine for a respiratory virus for many years. Lack of total world vaccination buy-in frustrated him.

·         Peter Daszak, CEO of EcoHealth Alliance, known to have worked to help the CCP, said in 2015 that they would use media hype to get people to want the “vaccine,” and this will cause investors to see profit in it. When someone says what their plan is, and then they carry it out, maybe you should believe they meant it.

 

 

Monday, July 19, 2021

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.

Monday, July 12, 2021

Door Approaches

There’s a comedy video I saw once where a guy has some rather clever responses to telemarketers, which waste their time and thereby get them to discontinue calling. But most important is that the responses are clever.

When I heard about Biden’s plan to send US government workers door-to-door to persuade people to get the vaccine, I thought it might be a good idea to prepare a clever door answering approach. Other people have been coming up with some possibilities.

There’s this one, posted on my friend Alan Vera's FB wall with the caption, "Day 1 of the door-to-door white house vaccination canvass!!"

from Alan Vera's Facebook wall

And this one, posted by my friend Mark Ramsey, who said it was on a friend's door when they went to visit and gave them a good laugh:


from Mark Ramsey's Facebook wall

And this funny’s guy’s short video of a door-to-door team's supervisor advice:


screenshot from video shared on Facebook
by friend Tina Riddle

And I liked this cartoon by Lisa Benson, from Saturday, July 10, 2021: 



 

What about things to say? I’m probably not the best source for clever/funny answers. But I am thinking about it. There’s a claim by the government that they do not have and maintain a database of who has received the shots. But they fail to clearly say that they will not access such a database made available to them. So maybe there’s a way to challenge that.

The people come to your door and give their persuasive spiel. And you say:

Now, why in the world would the database show me as still needing the vaccine?

It’s likely that the people at your door know very little beyond the script given to them. And they go where they’re told. So, do they know whether there’s a database? I don’t know. If they’re going to targeted houses, rather than every residence, then they should know there’s a database being used. If they answer with, “OK, I’ll make sure that information get’s reported,” you can say, “So you’re verifying that I am in a database?” and they’re stuck. Or if you say, “You do that,” you’ve gotten the database to mark you as vaccinated without your actually saying anything definitively stating that you are.

Another door approach is the overly friendly religious welcome. No matter what they say, fail to address their question about your vaccination, but ask them, “So, do you go to church? Are you interested in some reading materials about my church?” And engage them as long as they’re willing—because, if you’re like me, that’s a conversation you really would enjoy. If they’re not interested in anything but a vaccine conversation, you’ll know that pretty quickly, because they’ll excuse themselves.

If they are wearing masks, ask, “So you haven’t been vaccinated yet?” They likely will say they have been, because it’s probably required for the job. Ask, “Then why are you wearing a mask? Outside? Social distanced? What’s the point of getting a vaccine if it doesn’t even help?” You’ll get a long spiel for asking that question, though.

You could respond to that with a portfolio of data you’ve put together to neutralize each point they might bring up. These might include:

·         “We’ve never before been pressured to risk a medical intervention on ourselves for the sake of the rest of society rather than for ourselves.”

·         “The disease is very low risk for anyone under 65—and miniscule for anyone under 40, and is highly treatable with low-cost, safe medicines. A reaction to the vaccine is more likely in the young—and not easily treatable.”

·         “Regardless of what you say about the safety and efficacy of this vaccine,’ you don’t have me sign an actual 15-page experimental release form that spells out the risks I’m taking; you pressure me to sign away my rights to indemnify the producers, so if something happens to me, they’ll be protected—but I won’t.”

·         “Here are the VAERS reports, as of today. No other medical intervention with that kind of track record has ever been left on the market—but you’re going door-to-door to peddle it. Why should I believe you instead of the data?”

·         “The data shows that the pandemic spread is over. The Houston Chronicle just stopped providing the daily “Coronavirus at a Glance,” because there’s no longer a public need for easy access to that data. We seem to have gotten through it with the number of people who have had the disease and those who’ve already been vaccinated—so we don’t really have a need for anyone else to get vaccinated.”     

My puppy, at 7 months. 
Her nickname is Destroyer of Worlds.
My guess is that, with millions of people to contact, I will not likely see someone at my door. And if such a person did come, what is the likelihood I will be home at that moment? And if I’m home, what if I’m busy and don’t go to the door? Or if I do answer, I won’t be able to converse because my very large puppy is trying to break out—to get licks and pats from them, but her exuberance looks more scary than friendly. So, really, in itself, the door-to-door campaign isn’t a huge worry.

What is worrisome is that we have a government that thinks it’s a wise use of our tax dollars to track us down and pressure us to get an injection of what is an experimental drug—with multiple side-effect risks—and pushing it on low-risk individuals (young people) and no-risk individuals (people who have natural immunity from having the disease).

One thing is certain: they’re not doing this campaign because of concern for my health. They have a real reason, and it’s not good. I'm gathering more details on that, but I’ll save them for another day.

Thursday, July 8, 2021

Founding Wisdom—Part II: George Washington and Others

I heard someone mention this week that the way to get people—mainly young people—to love this country is for them to learn its history. They might have been talking about learning to love the Constitution and Declaration of Independence by studying them. I’m not sure whom to credit now, but it may have been David Barton of Wallbuilders—check out their extraordinary Signers of the Declaration resource page

Anyway, with the intention of increasing love for the ideals of this country, I’m continuing the celebration of Independence Day with words from our founders.

I had so many quotes from Thomas Jefferson that I gave him his own day, in the last post. Today will be a few others of the 56 men who signed the Declaration back in 1776, risking their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, plus others who weren’t among those signers, but who nevertheless took those risks for our freedom.

 

George Washington

Washington Praying painting by Arnold Friberg
image from Wikipedia

"I have often expressed my sentiments that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."—George Washington (To the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches in Virginia)

 

The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.—George Washington (First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789)

 

Washington's inauguration by Howard Pyle
image found here
"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency."—George Washington (First Inaugural Address)

 

Your love of liberty, your respect for the laws, your habits of industry, and your practice of moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness.—George Washington

 

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”—George Washington

 

 

James Madison

James Madison portrait by John Vanderlyn
image from Wikipedia

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."—James Madison

 

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…[and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”—James Madison (Federalist 45)

 

“I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse.”

—James Madison

 

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”—James Madison

James Madison engraving by David Edwin
image from Wikipedia
 


“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”—James Madison (Federalist 51)

 

“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”—James Madison (Federalist 51)

 

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."—James Madison.

 

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow."—James Madison (Federalist 62)

 

 

John Adams

John Adams portrait by Gilbert Stuart
image from Wikipedia

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”—John Adams
(A Defense of the Constitutions of Governments of the United States of America, 1787)

 

I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration [of Independence], and support and defend these States. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even although we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not."—John Adams, July 3, 1776

 

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.—John Adams (1770, closing argument in defense of a British soldier)

John Adams portrait by John Trumbull
image from Wikipedia
 


"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."—John Adams (Thoughts on Government, 1776)

 

“All are subject by nature to equal laws of morality, and in society have a right to equal laws for their government, yet no two men are perfectly equal in person, property, understanding, activity, and virtue, or ever can be made so by any power less than that which created them.”—John Adams (Discourses on Davila—XV, 1776)

 

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."—John Adams

 

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.—John Adams

 

The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations... this radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.—John Adams (John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, Feb. 13, 1818. Cited in The Works of John Adams, vol. 10, p. 282)

 

 

Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams portrait by John Singleton Copley
image from Wikipedia
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."—Samuel Adams

 

"Here therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man."—Samuel Adams

 

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"—Samuel Adams

 

“All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.”Samuel Adams

 

Freedom of thought and the right of private judgment, in matters of conscience, driven from every other corner of the earth, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.—Samuel Adams

 

If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.—Samuel Adams

 

 

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin portrait by Joseph Duplessis
image from Wikipedia

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."—Benjamin Franklin

 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."—Benjamin Franklin

 

It is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own.—Benjamin Franklin

 

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."—Benjamin Franklin

 

 

Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton miniature attributed
to Charles Shirreff, image from Wikipedia

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."—Alexander Hamilton

 

“Here, sir, the people govern.”—Alexander Hamilton

 

"If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws—the first growing out of the last.... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government."—Alexander Hamilton (Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, Aug 28, 1794)

 

 

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine portrait by Laurent Dabos
image from Wikipedia

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue."—Thomas Paine

 

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”—Thomas Paine (American Crisis)

 

Tyranny like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.—Thomas Paine (The America Crisis)

 

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.—Thomas Paine (Common Sense)

 

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”—Thomas Paine

 

All the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make or invent or contrive principles. He can only discover them, and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.—Thomas Paine

 

 

Benjamin Rush

Dr. Benjamin Rush
image found here

“The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty.”—Benjamin Rush

 

"Where there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community."—Benjamin Rush (1788)

 

“Unless we see medical freedom put into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitution the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic, and have no place in a Republic. The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom.”—Dr. Benjamin Rush, MD (this is a paraphrase of his sentiments, developed after his death in 1813, not an actual quote)

 

When describing 24 “causes which have retarded the progress of our science,” this was number 24:

“Conferring exclusive privileges upon bodies of physicians, and forbidding men of equal talents and knowledge, under severe penalties from practicing medicine within certain districts of cities and countries.

"Such institutions, however sanctioned by ancient charters and names, are the Bastilles of our science.”—Dr. Benjamin Rush

 

 

Patrick Henry portrait by
George Bagby Matthews
image from Wikipedia
Patrick Henry


"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." — Patrick Henry