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. |
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment