A Letter of the Law

There was an announcement this past week from the CDC that the commonly used RT-PCR tests are unable to differentiate between COVID-19 and the regular flu. This has been known for some months (see this FDA announcement).That would explain why flu cases dropped so dramatically—almost to zero—this past year, while everything was attributed to COVID. A comment I read online (so, anecdotal only) said his wife worked in a pharmacy, and they had distributed only one prescription for Tamiflu in a year. This may mean that a lot of people suffered a worse flu than necessary, because they were misdiagnosed as having COVID.

In contradiction to this new information, based on more positive tests—which are admittedly now inaccurate—we have jurisdictions alarmed about this spike in cases. Which might not be cases. Which aren’t causing higher death rates. Which aren’t significantly increasing hospitalizations. So alarmed that they are threatening mask mandates—for everyone, even those who are fully vaccinated (which is supposed to mean they are safe from contracting or spreading the disease) and those who have natural antibodies from surviving the disease (who cannot contract or spread the disease). So there's science, if you can find it, and there's something else altogether that you might hear from those claiming to be citing the science.

 

Bringing Suit

image found here

A couple of days ago, attorney Robert Barnes shared something on his Locals.com account that was both amusing and helpful—in case you’re considering a particular type of lawsuit. This info just came to him—well, here’s how he says it: 

This letter just came to me in a bottle, and I have no idea who might have penned it, nor can I possibly vouch for it, and what you fine folks do with it is entirely in your own hands, as the Gentlemen of the Bar remind me I can proffer no general legal advice in the matter, and must officially disclaim proffering any such advice here.

“The letter” is sort of legal-type information related to forced vaccinations. He suggests going ahead and editing and/or using the info as you see fit (such as for your personal lawsuit against an employer, or maybe even some other entity, that attempts to coerce you to take this experimental intervention). So I’ll share a good chunk of it.

“The letter” starts by saying, “Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine.”

“The letter” notes that Kaiser Foundation legal team has put out such a liability warning, among other hedging of bets.

Then come three “key concerns,” and added information related to each:

1.      While the vaccine remains unapproved by the CDC and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947.

o   Subsectionbbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the "option to accept or refuse administration" of the Covid-19 vaccine.

o   This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

2.      The Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS-related cases of decades ago fully attest.

o   demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business.

§  If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate.

3.      International law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.

o   Conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.

That third one brings to mind Typhoid Mary, who was a vector for the spreading of that Typhoid fever back in the day. It turned out she, herself, just working in establishments, spread the illness. But they had to prove that before they could deprive her of making her living.

It would be hard to prove that one unvaccinated employee would/could spread this illness to vaccinated co-workers—unless you admit that the vaccine doesn’t prevent the spread of the virus, in which case there’s no compelling interest for the company to require it, since it’s ineffective anyway.

Somewhere in the body of “The letter,” it offers a bit of basic logic:

At the outset, consider the "problem" being "solved" by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren't they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare."

I’ve puzzled through this basic logic following an exchange I had with someone recently. This person said my refusal to get a vaccine would put at risk her loved ones. I pointed out that, so far, I haven’t spread a single COVID-19 germ to anyone, since I’ve managed not to get it. She encouraged me to continue my hygiene efforts. But I’m wondering how, if her loved ones got a vaccine (probably at her urging), could my not getting it affect them? Unless it’s not effective. In which case, why should I risk my health by taking a vaccine that’s not even effective? Or were her loved ones unable to take the vaccine for some reason, such as the likelihood they would have a bad reaction? And if so, why would I not get that consideration? I’m supposed to ignore that danger to me so that I don’t spread something to her loved ones that I'm not even encountering? I’m somehow disqualified from being such a loved one to someone?

This whole uproar about our duty to society is a logical fallacy.

Anyway, you can’t simultaneously believe this medical intervention stops people from getting the disease and also that the unvaccinated can spread it to the vaccinated.

After the additional information on each of the 3 key points, “the letter” adds an additional point:

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others."

If push comes to shove, I may need this letter.

 

Mask Mandates

One more thing about what is being mandated, about masks. There’s a good visualization of what the relative sizes of particulates, mostly invisible to the naked eye.

infographic by Visual Capitalist, found here

 

Note that wildfire smoke particulates are up to four times larger than coronavirus particulates. So here’s a test: if you can smell wildfire smoke while wearing your mask, it’s not stopping coronavirus particulates.

I haven’t done this test with mine, which has been stuffed in a pocket of my purse for about a month now, left unworn but handy in case I end up somewhere with a requirement. But I know that I have smelled perfume and other odors through it. The doctors—and there are many—who say wearing a mask is like wearing a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out, are in fact being accurate. In other words, most masks do no good against a virus. What are you accomplishing by wearing a mask? Avoiding spreading larger particulates, such as from pollen or white blood cells (not sure how you’d be breathing or sneezing those out, exactly).

A HEPA filter works on particulates that are .3 microns and larger. Coronaviruses can be up to .5 microns, or as small as .1 microns. So even a HEPA filter only partially helps filter coronaviruses.

An N-95 respirator mask filters to .3 microns, so that covers bacteria (at 1-3 microns) and respiratory droplets (at 5-10 microns), and even some coronavirus (those at .3 to .5 microns), but not all. There’s a note about who should not wear N-95 masks, which includes children, those restricted for medical reasons (such as breathing difficulties), and “patients and visitors.”

Oh, and N-95 masks and others don’t protect the eyes or skin, through which particulates may enter. And men with beards or stubble—they can’t get a tight enough seal. And people should receive proper training—which the regular populace out here has not.

from Frequently Asked Questions Regarding N-95 Respirators 
from Ims Learning from HHH

If your mask doesn’t filter as well as an N-95 respirator, you’re probably mopping up some respiratory droplets and maybe some bacteria, but likely not viruses. They just go through—easier than smoke particulates.

This probably explains why areas with mask mandates and draconian shutdowns had about the same results or worse than those areas that maintained freedom to choose those things.

But now that we have a sudden rise in cases—using the testing that has been declared faulty—we are threatened with returns to mask mandates. Nancy Pelosi is threatening to arrest anyone not following her mandate at the capitol—where they’ve already required vaccines and/or natural antibodies. (Until someone discovers that she never had authority to jail someone over her personal rule.)

And there’s a possible travel ban on airlines for those who don’t have proof of vaccination—regardless of whether they have natural antibodies or should be granted an exemption for health reasons. This is even though airlines use HEPA air filtration. Last time I flew (last fall) masks were required except while eating, but I don’t know whether that had been lifted recently. But today Biden announced that, although I won’t be allowed to fly, he’s lifting the vaccine proof requirement for illegal aliens—because it’s hard for them to get the paperwork. Note that it’s especially hard if they get their immunity by sharing the illness among one another—and everyone else they come in contact with.

In sum, none of this makes sense—except to the tyrants trying to impose control over the masses.

 

Charting the Data

It has been a couple of months since the last time I charted the data for Texas, Harris County, and my zip code. If you’ve been concerned that the sudden super rise in cases means we’re repeating the spikes of last August and January, maybe the data will settle your mind somewhat.

This is the 7-day rolling average of deaths per day in Texas. The two colors represent two sources. I started by getting data daily from the Houston Chronicle, which got data from the Texas and Harris County health sites. Then there came a day when I just went to those official sites myself. The data wasn’t the same, but eventually I noticed that the state was merely a day earlier than the paper, so there’s really just a slight echo. But about a month ago the Chronicle stopped showing data, so I have only the official data now. I guess at some point I’ll redo my file to show just one column. Anyway, it’s the overall shape you’ll look at.

 

This is the 7-day rolling average of deaths per day in Harris County. Again, I track deaths because the count is more accurate than cases, generally. I’ve waited a couple of weeks since the case count started rising to see if the death rate would show up as a lagging indicator. So far it has not.

 

While I don’t measure case counts, the county does provide what they call an epi-curve graph of cases. It’s a pretty good picture of the trend over time. Right now you can see that, while there has been a rise, it was from a pretty low number to a higher but still pretty low number. It’s not exactly alarming enough to return to shutdowns and mandates.

chart from here

In my zip code I measure cases. The numbers are easier to grasp in terms of who I’ll run into at the Kroger down the street. Here I’ve measured the daily new cases and the change in daily active cases—both 7-day rolling averages.

I also look at deaths in my zip code. There has been a total of 25, in a population of 34,885. Up until the last time I shared my charts, we were averaging 1 death every 15 days. We have been at the same count now since May 20—that’s 79 days as of July 28. Earlier this month there was a drop to 24 total deaths for a couple of weeks. And then there were a couple of days down to 23. Now, I’m assuming patients didn’t turn out to be alive after all; I’m assuming someone was numbered in our zip code when they should have been counted in another. Or, it’s also possible a death was attributed to COVID that shouldn’t have been and a correction happened. Or maybe it was just someone making a typo. Then it went back up to 25 this week. I think this is a correction in recording, rather than a sudden new couple of deaths. But either way, we reached 25 deaths on May 20. 

I’ve been looking at another data source that shows changes from the week previous, updated daily. I collect it but haven’t charted it yet. They do things like show a 200% rise in cases, which looks dire. But then you look and find out it was an increase from one new case to three new cases in a small county. So, it seems useful if you’re trying to get an emotional reaction, but not really that informative. Anyway, one of these days I may chart that one too, just to test my guesses.

Anyway, case counts are up—using testing that is verified inaccurate and will be replaced completely by the end of the year. The claim is that this is a new variant. Word from Israel is, the Pfizer vaccine is only about 39% effective against this variant.

Individually, COVID-19 could still be a scary challenge for any individual who actually gets the disease. But I would look to natural and long-time safe medications first—if you know you actually have it (loss of smell seems to be a consistent indicator). Chances for recovery are extremely high, regardless of your age, if you follow early at-home treatment protocols. Chances of avoiding the illness by taking the jab? Not so much.

You don’t have to take my recommendations, of course. And I shouldn’t be coerced to take yours.

 

 

How to Retake the School Board

We’ve had some trouble here with our local school board. Among other things, the main current issue is the infiltration of Critical Race Theory into what’s being taught to our children. Last fall our entire school board signed a document that reaffirms their support of CRT.  It’s subtle. It says things like promoting “the tenet prescribed in the Declaration of Independence, being, ‘all men are created equal.’” We all agree with that.

CFISD's Resolution Condemning Racism

Then, it refers to recent events in the country that have revealed racism. Except that they’re referring to the George Floyd death and subsequent riots claiming his death was caused by racism—but the trials of the police officers involved do not include any charges of racism, nor do the prosecutors bring in any evidence of racism, because there wasn’t any. So that’s a problem. We can all agree with the statement that racism will not be tolerated in our schools. But we can’t agree that it’s suddenly an overwhelming, invasive problem. The Board doesn’t provide a single local incident as evidence of any problem here.

Then there’s a claim that, despite it being nearly 6 decades since the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, “racism, systemic racism, discrimination, prejudice, injustice and inequality continue to exist.” Do they? As though no progress had been made? Is there evidence of this actually being the case in our school district? Because otherwise this is just parroting the CRT mantra that racism is everywhere.

The Board members call for a change in the teaching of history in our schools. Based on the above, we can only assume they will be promoting some distorted version approved by Critical Race Theorists, rather than real history.

Most troubling is their call for an “equity audit.” Equity doesn’t mean equality. In CRT language it doesn’t mean “all men are created equal”; it means equal outcomes—and if you don’t have equal outcomes, that means you have a systemic racism problem. And who do you hire to do an equity audit? A promoter of CRT. There is no other option. The money for that audit is already spent, by the way; now they’re ready to spend money on implementing the recommendations of the auditors, all while telling us "There's no Critical Race Theory in Cy-Fair."

They add one more thing in the resolution:

FURTHER, we resolve to encourage our district to be a place for transparent dialogue among our board, staff, school personnel, students and parents on the issue of race and racism, and there be no retribution for individuals or groups for sharing what is perceived, believed or experienced.

So when we try to have “transparent dialogue” at a school board meeting, they relegate us to a small “community comment” part of the meeting, after the part of the meeting where board members tell us we’re wrong and they won’t be listening to us. And during our time, we get a total of ten people to speak for no longer than two minutes each. Any “dialogue” is quickly squelched with a threat of kicking us out of the meeting—while scolding us for not being nice little compliant citizens.

So we need a better school board. This is true in many places across the country. Parents and citizens need to take back control of school boards, to make them answer to us. Maybe it will be instructive to look at what we will need to accomplish here to make that happen.

The Plan 

Three board members are up for election this November. And they will be the only races on this ballot; the only other items will be propositions for state constitutional amendments that came out of the legislative session and must now go before the people of Texas.

That means we can concentrate all our efforts between now and November on these three races.

The group that got us together to attend that school board meeting in June, FACT—Freedom to Act—held a planning meeting last week that I attended. The main speaker was a woman running for State Board of Education in her area, who is a former school board member in the south end of the county and therefore knows what it takes to get elected. Her mentoring will be helpful. But it’s going to be a big challenge. A lot of it comes down to block walking and talking to parents.

Eventually we got to the details of our district. One of our people, Bill Ely (he’s on the board of our Tea Party with me, and is a precinct chair, working on a couple of committees for the Harris County Republican Party), had worked out the numbers, by looking at turnout and votes in school board races in 2019, 2017, 2015, and 2013.He dug through the numbers and figured out how many votes we need to accomplish this effort, based on the most challenging goal—the highest vote getter during those years. So we know how many voters we need to get out to the polls and what percentage we want of those voters.

There are 76 precincts in the school district, so that gives us a pretty good map of the territory to cover, and a logical way to divide it up. There’s a 51.89% Republican majority, which is narrower than you would expect for NW Harris County, but it’s better than the county as a whole. If every precinct gets their voters educated and out to vote, we can accomplish this feat.

We have data showing us what kinds of voters there are, coming from whether people vote in a primary or not. A person who never votes in a primary is called a swing voter, because we don’t know their affiliation from the voting record. A person moves up in tiers depending on how many times, and how consistently, they’ve voted Republican in primary elections. I have this information on every registered voter in my precinct. It’s public record, although I appreciate the help in making it easily accessible for me as a precinct chair.

We think we'll find many of the voters we need with the middle tier and up, who are likely to feel strongly against anti-Americanism and divisiveness being taught in our schools. So those are the people we need to get out to vote in this crucial election that so many people don’t bother with. And in addition we need to educate and recruit those Republicans who’ve only voted once in a primary, and identify some of the swing voters who agree with us. (We’d be glad to take Democrats who agree with us too, but with limited resources, we probably won’t spend our time searching for them.) The added bonus is, we can use the information we get now to bring those identified voters back to the polls in the 2022 midterm election.

So, what does it take to get these votes secured? There will be social media, yard signs, meet-and-greet events, etc., as you’d expect. We plan to have a candidate forum at our Tea Party meeting next month, for example. But the real nitty-gritty—the part I’m not good at—is block walking and phone banking.

We have an estimate of what will be needed for each week of the 11 weeks of campaigning between the end of signups (August 16^th) and the election (November 2^nd). A rough estimate for me, as a precinct chair, is to recruit one or two volunteers from my precinct every single week for 11 weeks. To me that sounds daunting, but not impossible.

I should note that school board trustee is a nonpartisan position—no party affiliation is shown on the ballot. We’re using Republican Party data, because that is more likely to get us the opposition to CRT that we need. It’s important to note that, of the three incumbents we’ll be campaigning against this November, two claim to be Republicans and call themselves conservative. Since this hasn’t translated into the representation we need, we’ll have to be very careful about who we support.

There's a recruitment effort underway. I understand some possible candidates are praying about it and making their decision. I hope we can find three candidates who are conservative anti-CRT, anti-LGBTQ-agenda (not to be confused with being against individuals and their citizen rights), and pro-parental rights, while having the skills in administration and accounting that are needed for the job, which is unpaid, by the way. So I don't know yet who the candidates will be.

At Saturday’s Tea Party there was a woman who announced herself as a candidate. She said, “I stand unequivocally against everything that we have been proposing. And so I ask for your support.” Um, maybe she meant she was against the things we were against—CRT and gender theory, mainly—but it doesn’t bode well that she couldn’t say that clearly. Unless she brings herself up to speed on the issues, and finds a way to express herself more clearly, she’s not going to be one we're inspired to block walk for.

Organize to Mobilize

Dr. Richard Johnson
at Cypress Texas Tea Party on July 24, 2021

At our Tea Party this past Saturday, our main speaker was Dr. Richard Johnson, Director of the Booker T. Washington Initiative at the Texas Public Policy Forum. His credentials are impeccable, and his experience both broad and deep. Oh, and he happens to be black. (The legacy media would be surprised how many conservative blacks join us regularly. There are quite a lot of them, and they have learned to be strong in expressing their beliefs. We love them.) I thought he would be getting into more detail about what CRT is, how to identify it, and why it needs to be rooted out. But he assumed we, in that very full room, already knew why it was bad.

He had come to inspire us to mobilize. He’s a military man. And a lot of us in that room were military or related to military. So he said, what we need to do is translate the things we learned in the military to fight this new battle. We need to "organize to mobilize."

What he does at the TPPF is to gather the information for us to use, and to work with lawmakers to create good policy. But we need to be a movement that holds our local school boards accountable—where we are connected to the results of the policy, and where we have the best chance of affecting policy. Near the end of his speech he quoted Martin Luther King, Jr.:

An individual has not begun to live until he can rise above the narrow horizons of his particular individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.—MLK

And then Dr. Johnson finished with this call to all of us, because this is an American movement:

To you my fellow Texans, and my fellow Americans, we have a responsibility to every man and woman who have laid down their lives, their convenience, their comfort for the ideas of the American flag. And we cannot tolerate individuals or groups who tarnish the blood-stained banner of the American flag.

It’s a call to arms—not munitions in this fight, but ideas spread person-to-person, to effect the change we need in order to preserve our nation and our civilization.

I don’t mean to be alarmist. But the dangerous materials are already in our schools and have buy-in from our current school board—most of them elected by telling us they were conservative. Now is the time to fight, because waiting any longer is way too late.

If you’re in Cy-Fair ISD and want to volunteer for this campaign, sign up with freedomtoact.org. If you’re in another school district, know that you’ve got this problem already, so find the people taking action—or become the people taking action.

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 5^th 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 5^th 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.

 

 

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.