Three Books and Some Other Research Assignments

There are things related to COVID-19 that I’ve been trying to piece together, as a regular citizen without expertise, since the whole thing started. And I’ve been surprised at the things that get labeled conspiracy theories that later get borne out as true. That is happening.

My reading list has grown considerably this week. In one video Dr. Ryan Cole quoted Mark Twain, saying, “The man who doesn’t read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.” The information is out there to be had. And a thinking person can find it. Thinking leads to the right questions, which eventually lead to true answers.

cover image from Amazon

So mainly today I’m going to list the books to read and the videos to watch, with just a little about each one. And then you’re on your own.

·       The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Kennedy was interviewed on Tucker Carlson Today, on November 15, 2021, an episode called “Coup de Vax.” He talks about a partnership between Fauci and Bill Gates, who came together with a plan to vaccinate essentially all of mankind. There’s a five-minute segment, mostly about Gates, that describes the type of corruption going on. And it’s a good illustration. Then we’ll go on to some of the dots that can be connected for Fauci’s personal culpability:

He began using his philanthropy to create a series of other quasi-governmental agencies: CEPI, GAVI, and a number of others. And then to gain control of the WHO.

He calls what he does philanthrocapitalism. It’s not about philanthropy; it’s about enriching the capitalist. What he does is, he buys—and he does this in a number of areas I show in the book. He does it with food. He did it with core curriculum. He buys large stakes in companies that could benefit from a change in governmental policies, a worldwide change in governmental policies. 

So he owns stakes, very very large stakes, in almost all the big pharmaceutical companies. Then he gives essentially about a billion dollars to WHO every year. But through Rotary International, through GAVI, through CEPI, and through the Gates Foundation—where the accumulation is even larger than the US, which is the second biggest. That gives him control over WHO’s policies. The analysts of WHO say there is nothing that goes through WHO that is unvetted first by the Gates Foundation.

And WHO controls the HIV money, and it funds the health agencies of most African countries. So they’re completely reliant on those annual checks from WHO. And what Gates and WHO do—or WHO on Gates’ behalf, because a lot of people at WHO do not want to do this—he is taking them away from their traditional occupations, which was economic development, hygiene, food supply, food production, and local democracy and local controls. So, WHO does very little of those things now, and they really focus—over 50% of their budget focuses on one of Gates’ vaccines only, the polio vaccine, which is a flawed vaccine. The polio vaccine, according to WHO’s own number, causes 70% of the polio on earth every year. So it’s not a successful vaccine.

But, what he does then is, he, through WHO—WHO will go in and say to an African country, “If you want your annual check from us, here’s what you’ve got to do. You have to show an 80% uptake of the DTP vaccine.” The DTP vaccine we don’t use in white countries, the United States. That’s the vaccine that was killing one out of every 300 kids. We got rid of it. Europeans got rid of it. But Gates gives 161 million African children that vaccine every year. And what he’ll say is, he’ll say—the WHO will say to this country, “You don’t get your HIV money; you don’t your systems money to run your health agency, unless you can show us you’ve vaccinated 80% of your kids”—that’s a hypothetical number, but it will be something like that—“with the DTP vaccine.” So those countries, then, are forced to buy that vaccine. And that vaccine, they have to purchase it ultimately from one of the companies that Gates is heavily invested in.

And Gates— He has a $33 billion corpus that he has put in the Gates Foundation, but it’s still his money. He’s still controlling it. And it’s now tax-deductible. It’s shielded from taxes. And he is now deploying it to change government policies in a way that it enriches companies that he’s elsewhere invested in.

And he does the same thing with food. He has switched many millions of Africans from subsistence that they’ve been doing successfully for, you know, 10,000 generations, to GMO crops, to heavily, you know, lots of chemical agriculture, carbon-based fertilizers—all have to be imported by his companies. He has huge investments in Monsanto, Cargill, and in the processed food companies that are then buying up those commodities cheap: Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Kraft Cheese. Those kinds of things.

So, the more you look at it, the more corrupt it gets.

But his deal with Tony Fauci—you know, which I go into in detail, what the result, the outcome for that bargain on the lives and health of millions and millions of Africans and South Asians has been absolutely catastrophic.

On a related note, there was this story today about Gates, doing what Kennedy described above, in the area of media:

·       “Bill Gates has given $319 million to bankroll select media outlets and change the public narrative—and the internet has receipts” by Sarah Taylor for The Blaze, November 18, 2021. 

 

cover image from Amazon

The next book on the list came up on Glenn Beck’s show November 17:

·         Faucian Bargain: The Most Powerful and Dangerous Bureaucrat in American History, by Steve Deace and Todd Erzen

Glenn Beck did another major explanation of corruption, called "Crimes and Cover-Up: Exposing the World's Most Dangerous Lie." It took three chalkboards. I was a full two hours. So far it’s still available on YouTube, and will continue to be available on BlazeTV (with subscription).

Many of the details are things I have come across before. He traces the history of SARS back to 2002. Anthony Fauci, before that, was attempting to come up with a vaccine for HIV, but he was doing it with an early version of mRNA, which didn’t qualify as a vaccine, by definition (the definition recently changed to accommodate the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines) and wasn’t effective. But he has been determined to come up with this new vaccine technology and have it be required for everyone in the world to take.

If you go through the history, you’ll see the connections between Dr. Baric of, I think, North Carolina University, and Dr. Shi Zhengli—the one called “the bat lady”—from China. Add in Peter Daszak, of EcoHealth, who managed funding from NIH to the Wuhan lab during the time government funding was disallowed for gain-of-function research. Dr. Fauci is involved in all of that. And recent emails show that he recognized the problems with the probable lab-leak revealing their secret funding.

There’s a careful timeline, with backup materials Beck says to go through yourself. So I downloaded those. It includes a three-page PDF list of sources. At the bottom it thanks DRASTIC research “for their tireless pursuit of the truth,” and then links to their in-depth work. I followed the link to here.

Concerning Fauci they have this segment:

Fauci approved a grant of $600,000 to the WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] for bat coronavirus research.  Fauci has sworn to Congress that this was not for “gain-of-function” research.  Fauci was relying on a very narrow definition of the term, in which the purpose of the research was to produce more potent viruses.

There is no doubt that the type of genetic engineering conducted at the WIV and other research institutions could have produced potent viruses, even if its purpose was simply to examine the effects of such manipulation. Fauci and others involved in the grant, such as Peter Daszak, have a clear interest in the virus not to have been produced as a result of this research.

It will take some time to go through all of this material. But if Beck’s summary is accurate—and I believe it is, because so much coincides with what I’m seeing elsewhere and have been collecting from multiple sources for well over a year—then we can see in real time the kind of worldwide corruption that we thought we left behind in the last century: the needless deaths of millions of people because of the selfish designs of tyrants who claim they care about “the collective” while disposing of anyone they don’t care about. And they don’t care about anyone who questions them, disagrees with them, or simply can’t grant them more power.

Glenn Beck presenting a chalkboard discussion "Crimes and Cover-Up:
Exposing the World's Most Dangerous Lie."
screenshot from here

When he reviews the three chalkboards, he points out that, on that first one, titled “The Vaccine Arms Race,” the main players, Dr. Ralph Baric, Dr. Shi Zhengli—“the bat lady” of China—and Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance are there from the beginning and throughout. But at the point he’s not ascribing ill intent. As he says,

These people actually believe that they should check all animals for all viruses. And they should find a vaccine for all of them, so we’ll always be prepared. OK, I think that’s insane. Very dangerous. But then again, I’ve been to the movie theater before.

But then there’s the big lie. There’s the connection to Anthony Fauci. He managed to pay for gain-of-function research—rather, he used our taxpayer dollars to pay for it, by funneling grant money through EcoHealth, during the years using government funding for it was not allowed. And then there’s this connection with Moderna, from 2015 on, and some very suspicious timing issues, and missing information.

On the second chalkboard, titled “The Pandemic Begins,” is where things start to look sleazy, with public-private partnerships popping up in places that benefit whoever Fauci decides they should benefit.

The real disturbing part is on the third chalkboard, title “Censorship & Cover-Up,” where he goes through a number of those Fauci emails that were recently released. There’s this part:

Two of the three men directing this propaganda campaign—and, make no mistake, as you will see, that’s exactly what it is. They were supposed to be part of Trump’s administration. Look at all of these facts. Is there any other way to describe it other than Fauci and the President’s science advisor colluding behind the President’s back, withholding information from him. Fauci has already been brought in front of Congress, and Rand Paul caught him in a bold-faced lie. Fauci will testify again. But it’s probably time to bring in the former president’s science advisor as well. Just a few, a couple questions, like, “Did you withhold information from the President? Did you ever lie to him?” That’s what will get it started.

Once you’ve watched Glenn Beck’s special, follow it up with Steve Deace’s panel discussion with Dr. Ryan Cole and Daniel Horowitz, titled “Crimes or Cover-Up? Answering the Forbidden Questions of COVID-19,” on The Blaze. 

 

cover image from Amazon

A third book not on my list is Dr. Scott Atlas’s book about COVID-19:

·         A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America, Dr. Scott W. Atlas, MD

I learned about it from his conversation with Tucker Carlson from November 17. Dr. Atlas was brought in to advise President Trump in late summer 2020. What he faced there was a “troika” of doctors: Birx, Fauci, and Redfield. All had worked together from back in the days of trying to develop an HIV vaccine. All are bureaucrats rather than doctors who see patients.

What surprised Dr. Atlas was how they never referred to any data during their meetings. He would bring in multiple studies for every meeting. They didn’t refute any of them. They simply ignored all data.

I’ve sensed that Dr. Redfield would like to have been more open to discussion, because he has been, somewhat, since his retirement. But that doesn’t excuse the utter lack of working with data during those task force meetings. The other two are probably beyond excuse. Dr. Atlas also couldn’t understand their lack of critical thinking.

So, after this sort of bombardment of info this week—all from independent sources, rather than what we now tend to call “legacy media”—maybe we’ll just list a few of the questions that come up when you look at what’s happening and do some critical thinking:

·       Why did we quarantine healthy people, instead of the most vulnerable, unlike all past disease outbreaks?

·       Why did “15 days to flatten the curve,” to avoid overwhelming the hospitals turn into 18 months (and counting) of “eradicate the disease” without any explanation for moving the goalposts?

·       Why is natural immunity ignored or dismissed, as if it doesn’t exist—when what doesn’t exist is any study showing it doesn’t exist?

·       Why is a vaccine being pushed for everyone, regardless of their risk factors, age, or natural immunity?

·       Why are vaccine injuries ignored?

·       Why was the definition of vaccine changed to remove the term “immunity”?

·       Why is the vaccine still being pushed (and attempted to be mandated) when it does no more than lessen virulence, and weakens in even that effectiveness within months?

·       Why have cheap, effective, safe drugs been banned?

·       Why have doctors been threatened for treating patients with treatments that work?

·       Why is damage to the economy and to other parts of public health ignored, with focus all on one single illness?

·       What has the censorship been intended to accomplish?

·       Why has the virus origin still not been found? Or that the probable origin location not acknowledged?

·       Who is to blame for the unnecessary deaths?

·       Why have so many people been willing to submit to edicts from elite doctors who do not provide their reasoning backed by data?

·       When will we stop the harmful lockdowns, shutdowns, and masks and get back to some sort of normal life?

·       When will the story of collusion and cover-up become common knowledge?

 

One last rather important question: When we are among those who have learned the truth, what do we do with it?

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.

Encouraging Words

I don’t like hearing, “You’re not good enough; you need to do more,” especially when it’s a group project. Like the one we’re all involved in.

We’ve been confined to home, with a few times venturing out to forage for food, for about 3 ½ weeks now—coincidentally how long we in our household have been confined because of Mr. Spherical Model’s broken ankle, which makes it easy to keep track. And we haven’t, until now, gotten anything like, “What a good job you’re doing! It’s working.” In fact, this week there’s extra pressure to add face-mask-wearing to the going out routine.

Also, someone asked Dr. Anthony Fauci the other day the question that we should have had on the table before shutting down the world economy: what has to happen before we can let up? Fauci’s answer was zero new cases and zero deaths.

This is why you don’t have experts make policy. Fauci’s side is the scientist side; he’s required (and requires himself) to give the absolute, scientific answer—as part of the information a decision-maker needs.

We don’t shut down the world economy indefinitely until there is no new incidence nor a single death. We didn’t shut it down for the flu, which causes 40,000+ deaths a year. We didn’t shut it down in the past for polio, or small pox, or measles. We didn’t shut it down for the Spanish flu in 1918—although that pandemic affected the economy on its own, and some areas were shut down. We didn’t shut it down for Ebola a few years ago.

Zero possible deaths is not a standard we typically base policy on. We don’t stop people from swimming, or boating, or hiking. We don’t stop people from driving. We don’t even stop people from driving over 25 mph, even though we can estimate how many more deaths will occur for each increment of higher speed. We set policy based on something more, which includes willingness of the people Because people need to make a living, go about our lives, and willingly face a certain level of risk.

So while Dr. Fauci is right about what he needs to say, policymakers also need a say. (We discussed this difference in thinking on March 30.)

For example, about hydroxychloroquine, Dr. Fauci points out that there have not been double-blind clinical studies to determine effectiveness, only anecdotal evidence. So he is not in a position to give the green light for that drug. But anecdotal evidence isn’t nothing.

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko,
interview with Rudy Giuliani March 26th,
screenshot from here

There’s a doctor, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a family practitioner in New York, interviewed by Rudy Giuliani on his show Common Sense, on March 26^th, with some significant anecdotal evidence. (Bill Whittle shares a 15-minute clip of this interview on his CoronaSphere Lounge , Episode11, March 30^th, which is where I saw it.)   

In New York, Dr. Zelenko has treated a plethora of coronavirus patients—699 by March 30^th. He had been using a combination of hydroxycholoquine with zinc supplements, plus azithromycin. The combination of the three had worked in 100% of sick patients. He only gave the drug to patients already struggling with the virus or who were at very high risk, not the ones who were clearly going to get over it on their own without drugs. Of these moderately severe patients, zero moved into the more serious illness of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, which requires intubation, and from which there’s only a 50% recovery rate. Zero of his patients have died. Three have needed hospitalization with pneumonia; zero needed intubation. The 3-drug protocol takes five days. It’s possible not all symptoms will be gone at that point, but the virus replication has been slowed to the point the body can fight it off without further complication.

Dr. Zelenko thinks that the hydroxycholoquine is not actually attacking the virus. Rather, the zinc is interfering with the virus’s replication process. But the zinc has trouble entering the cell without the hydroxycholoquine. Once the hydroxychloroquine creates a channel into the cell, the zinc enters and does its healing work against the virus. Meanwhile, the azithromycin, an antibiotic, is working on a secondary bacterial infection, which happens when the gunk builds up in the bronchial tubes and lungs.

All total, the treatment is about $20 per patient and can be done in an outpatient setting.

Dr. Zelenko’s results coincide with other doctors using the hydroxychloroquine. In France, hydroxychloroquine had been combined with azithromycin in the lab with 100% success. Doctors in France and South Korea, and also doctors in New York ICUs, were each using two of the three medicines, with moderate success. He used the combination of all three, with significant success.

Note that it was only March 19^th when President Trump suggested that the FDA allow hydroxychloroquine to be used in this off-label way, in clinical trials, to treat the virus. Dr. Zelenko offers his evidence on March 26^th, one week later. The speed with which we’re getting at ways to treat and test for this virus is remarkably swift.

So a policymaker can look at that, listen to Dr. Fauci, but then say, why not use this on people who need something and have nothing better to try? Would you take it, if it were you? Probably yes. And the more anecdotal evidence we get—despite the lack of a double-blind study—the more likely we are to say “definitely yes.”

[Speaking of “anecdotal" evidence, there’s this piece, possibly worth considering.] 

So, that’s how a policymaker thinks differently from a scientist. We need both. But the policymakers are the ones radically affecting our lives right now, while the scientists do their very important role in the background.

We were told to social distance at first. Then stay home, with nonessential businesses shut down, all of us hoping that doing this for a few weeks would make a big difference.

But it has been that long. And without testing of the whole population—and we need two kinds of tests: to find out who has the virus now, and to find out who has antibodies because they’ve already fought off the virus—we don’t know what’s working. In that black hole of missing data, we’re stuck at home with the economy crashing around us indefinitely.

So, is there another way to tell whether what we’re doing is working? It turns out there is.

I got this chart from Bill Whittle, who has been giving encouraging words lately. He got the info from Kinsa’s Healthweather.us.  

data on fevers, from Healthweather.us

This chart does not show Covid-19. It shows body temperatures. There are companies, such as Kinsa, that make “smart” thermometers. People take their temperature, and their information gets uploaded for mass data purposes. The data has been gathering for enough years that there’s a normal expected range for the months of the year. In our country, body temperatures rise during winter, coinciding with cold and flu season, and then go down to a summer low, and rise back up in the fall. So that’s the blue range on the chart.

If you look at the orange line, and the red dots, you can see the actual data compared to the expected data (the blue). Then look at the dates. When we started radically modifying our behavior, there’s a sharp decrease in body temperature—fewer fevers. That line pretty quickly drops below the expected level. Well below. Not only is the social distancing cutting down new fevers from coronavirus; it’s cutting down fevers from all sources to well below expected levels. In other words, what works to keep from transmitting coronavirus also works to keep from transmitting flu and colds, the typical causes of fever.

Then there’s another chart, showing places, with dates and events added—from the same source at Healthweather.us. This one compares Santa Clara, California, to Miami-Dade, Florida.

fever level comparisons of counties and California and Florida
screenshot from here

They have many of the same events happen, but with Florida most happen somewhat later. What you can see is that the drop off becomes significant after the community makes significant changes, with steepest drops after schools are closed, restaurants are closed, and stay-at-home orders are put in place.

Did something else happen, coinciding with those dates, following a similar pattern in different places, other than the social distancing we’ve been doing in reaction to the coronavirus? I don’t think so.

The evidence is strong that staying at home is having an effect.

Yay, us! We deserve a pat on the back. From ourselves, of course, since we don’t want anyone else getting close to us.

Keep up the good work! But not indefinitely. It’s not time to quit doing what we’re doing yet. But we need to be having a serious talk about when we can go back out—without causing a sudden resurgence, which would be a terrible outcome.

We could use a few miracles—pick any you like:

·       The virus miraculously disappears.

·       The virus greatly decreases in the summer months, affording us time to prepare for a second season of it in the fall—with all the testing and treatments we’ll need.

·       The virus is greatly weakened as it changes—a not uncommon mutation in viruses, which die off quickly when they kill their hosts, so they need to weaken in order to perpetuate.

·       A cure is developed, tested, and made standard for care.

·       Testing procedures—for both presence of virus and presence of antibodies—are quick, cheap, and widely available within the near future and for any future outbreak.

·       We’re so good at staying home and social distancing that the virus stops having hosts to spread to and dies a natural death.

This coming Friday, Good Friday, our Church invites everyone to join us in a worldwide fast. That means, typically, skipping two meals over twenty-four hours. (For example, you eat dinner Thursday evening, and then fast until dinner time Friday evening, when you can eat again.) Prayer during a fast can be more intentional, because you feel your weakness and thus your reliance on God. We hold a monthly fast, and donate the cost of the two meals to help the poor; feel free to do that. This is a special additional one. Note that, if your health doesn’t permit you to go that long without food, you can adjust your sacrifice to whatever you can do; your efforts and prayers will be acceptable to the Lord.

Illustration cred: Josh Asuncion
found on Facebook

In our modern world, there are so many ways we have managed to control the elements, we can sometimes forget our reliance on God. But I’ve had friends point out to me a couple of things. If the Lord wanted to use a calamity for good, how about having more time at home with families? And more, how about having people home together on Passover (Wednesday evening to Thursday evening), and even all Holy Week, including Easter Sunday?

We’ll miss getting together with our kids and grandkids for these days. But we’ve enjoyed some very sacred Sundays, meeting together as just the two of us. And we enjoyed a broadcast of a worldwide conference this past weekend. Spiritually, we’re doing better (dare I say it?)—because of the crisis.

Encouraging words are intended to instill courage. I’m glad we’re getting some of that. I pray it’s enough to fend off any more discouragement.