• 2021 JUL 09 Reiner Fuellmich & Dr. David Martin •
RICO, Bioweapons, No Pandemic, No Novel Virus
SPEAKERS
Atty. Reiner Fuellmich, Dr. David Martin, Prof. Martin Schwab, D.r
Wolfgang Wodarg, Atty. Viviane Fischer
Reiner Fuellmich: Sorry, I have kept you waiting. It’s my fault.
Are you still there?
Dr David Martin: Yes, I am.
Reiner Fuellmich: Oh, great. Nice to see you again.
Dr David Martin: Good to see you as well.
Reiner Fuellmich: So, I think it’s best if you introduce
yourself. I know you’re the chairman of M-CAM International Innovation
Risk Management, but that doesn’t tell a whole lot of people what you’re
really doing?
Dr David Martin: Yeah, well, from a corporate standpoint, we
have since 1998, been the world’s largest underwriter of intangible
assets used in finance in 168 countries. So, in the majority of the
countries around the world, our underwriting systems, which include the
entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants,
procurement records, E-Government records, etc. We have the ability to
not only track what is happening and who is involved in what’s
happening, but we monitor a series of thematic interests for a variety
of organizations and individuals, as well as for our own commercial use,
because as you probably know, we maintain three global equity indices,
which are the top performing large cap and mid cap equity indexes
worldwide. So, our business is to monitor the innovation that’s
happening around the world and specifically to monitor the economics of
that innovation, the degree to which, you know, financial interests are
being served, you know, corporate interests are being dislocated, etc.
So, our business is the business of innovation and its finance.
Reiner Fuellmich: Reiner translates. Okay, I got that. Yeah.
[2:07]
Quote: So, not only was this not a novel anything, it’s actually not
only not been novel, it’s not been novel for over two decades.
Dr David Martin: So, obviously from the standpoint of this
presentation, as you know, we have reviewed the over 4000 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 sub clade of the beta
coronavirus family. And so, what I wanted to do was give you a quick
overview timeline wise because we’re not going to go through 4000
patents on this conversation, but I have sent to you and your team, a
document that is exceptionally important. This was made public in the
spring of 2020. This document which you do have and can be posted in the
public record is quite critical in that we took 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, we took the actual genetic
sequences that were reportedly novel and reviewed those against the
patent records that were available as of the spring of 2020. And what we
found, as you’ll see in this
report, are over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the
declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy.
There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless very subtle
modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded, but
there was no single identified novel coronavirus at all. As a matter of
fact, we found 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 actually not only
not been novel, it’s not been novel for over two decades.
But let’s take a very short, and what I’ll do is I’ll take you on a
very short journey through the patent landscape to make sure people
understand what happened. But as you know, up until 1999, the topic of
coronavirus vis-Ã -vis the patenting activity around coronavirus was
uniquely applied to veterinary sciences. The first vaccine ever patented
for coronavirus was actually sought by Pfizer. The application for the
first vaccine for coronavirus, which was specifically this 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.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a6/93/af/4676761c3fe24a/US6372224B1.pdf
So the idea that we mysteriously stumbled on the way to intervene on
vaccines is not only ludicrous, it is incredulous because Timothy
Millor, Sharon Klepfer, Albert Paul Reed, and Elaine Jones on January
28, 2000, filed what ultimately was issued as
USPatent 6372224
which was the spike protein virus, a vaccine for the canine coronavirus,
which is actually one of the multiple forms of coronavirus. But as I
said, the early work up until 1999 was largely focused in the area of
vaccines for animals, the two animals receiving the most attention were
probably Ralph Baric’s work on rabbits and the rabbit cardiomyopathy
that was associated with significant problems among rabbit breeders, and
then canine coronavirus in Pfizer’s work to identify how to develop s
and spike protein vaccine target candidates giving rise to the obvious
evidence that says that neither the coronavirus concept of a vaccine,
nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest
with respect to the spike proteins behavior is anything novel at all. As
a matter of fact, it’s 22 years old, based on patent filings.
Quote: We made SARS and we
patented
it on April 19, 2002, before there was ever an alleged outbreak in Asia,
which as you know, followed that by several months.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7279327B2/en
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. And so, SARS
is actually not a natural progression of a zoonotic modification of
coronavirus. As a matter of fact, very specifically in 1999, Anthony
Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill,
specifically to create, and you cannot help but, you know, 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 that was
specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.
In other words, we made SARS and we patented it on April 19, 2002,
before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which as you
know, followed that by several months.That patent issued is
US Patent7279327. That patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing, the
fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the S1
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.
[10:50]
Dr. David Martin: Okay. So, it gets worse. We were, 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 used 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, 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. And so, our first public reporting on this
took place prior to the SARS outbreak in the latter part of 2001. So,
you can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here 20 years later
having 20 years earlier pointed that there was a problem looming on the
horizon with respect to coronavirus.
But after the alleged outbreak and I will always say
alleged outbreak because I think it’s important for us to
understand that coronavirus as a circulating pathogen inside of the
viral model that we have is
actually not new to the human condition and is not new to the last
two decades. It’s actually been part of the sequence of proteins
that circulates for quite a long time.
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 Centre 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 101violation was
patent number7220852. (See also:
U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2013 Myriad decision) Now, that patent also had a series of derivative patents associated
with it, these are our patent applications that were broken apart
because they were of multiple patentable subject matter. But these
include US Patent
46592703p, which is actually a very interesting designation,
US Patent 7776521.
These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus,
but also covered the means of detecting it using RT-PCR. 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 cutting advantage to being able to control 100
percent of the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its
detection, meaning you have entire scientific and message control.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7220852B1/en?oq=7220852
And this patent sought by the CDC was allegedly justified by their public relations team as being sought so that everyone would be free to be able to research coronavirus. The only problem with that statement is it’s a lie and the reason why it’s a lie is because 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 CDCs 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. Now, every public statement that 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 the information private.
Now, this is critically important. It’s critically important because fact checkers have repeatedly stated that the novel coronavirus, designated as SARS-CoV-2 is in fact distinct from the CDC patent. And here’s both the genetic and the patent problem. If you look at the 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 percent of the sequence overlaps that have been identified in what’s called the novel subclade of SARS-CoV-2. 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-CoV-2 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 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. Now, what’s important is on the 28th of April, and listen to the date very carefully because this date is problematic. Three days after CDC filed the patent on the SARS coronavirus in 2003. Three days later, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, a company that was set up in Maryland, Sequoia pharmaceuticals on the 28th of April 2003, filed a patent on Antiviral Agentsof Treatment and Control of Infections by Coronavirus. CDC filed threedays earlier, and then the treatment was available three days later. Now, just hold that thought for a second.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/68/56/8d/bf2d5d6e74e38b/US7151163.pdf
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6b/c3/21/a62eb55a0e678c/US7220852.pdf
[20:39]
Reiner Fuellmich: Who is Sequoia Pharmaceuticals?
Dr David Martin: Well, there you go. That’s a good question
because Sequoia Pharmaceuticals and ultimately Ablynx Pharmaceuticals
became rolled into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crucell, and
Johnson and Johnson.
Reiner Fuellmich: Wow.
Dr David Martin: So, ask yourself a simple question. How would
one have a patent on a treatment for a thing that had been invented
three days earlier?
Reiner Fuellmich: Yeah.
[21:11]
Dr David Martin: The patent in question, the April 28th, 2003,
patent 7151163, issued to Sequoia Pharmaceuticals has another problem. The problem is
it was issued and published
before the CDCpatent on coronavirus was actually allowed. So, the degree to which the information could have been known by any
means other than insider information between those parties is zero.
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.This, my friends is the definition of criminal conspiracy
racketeering and collusion.This is not a theory. This is evidence. You cannot have information in
the future inform a treatment for a thing that did not exist.
Reiner Fuellmich: This could well blow up into a Rico case,
ultimately.
Dr David Martin: This is, it is a Rico case. It’s not could blow
up into it, it is a Rico case. 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-CoV-2 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?
Reiner Fuellmich: I have to translate this. This is, you can’t
make this up. Definitely not.
Reiner Fuellmich: translates
[23:42]
Reiner Fuellmich: Yeah, well, it’s gonna get worse here.
Reiner Fuellmich: Oh no, it can’t get worse.
Dr David Martin: Oh, it does. The 5th of June 2008, which is an
important date because it is actually around the time when DARPA the
Defense Advanced 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-CoV-2 virus. And you heard what I just said, this is the 5th of
June 2008.
Reiner Fuellmich: They found what?
Dr David Martin: Specifically, they targeted what was called the
poly basic cleavage site for SARS CoV, the novel spike protein and the
ACE2 receptor binding domain which is allegedly novel to SARS-CoV-2, and
all of that was patented on the 5th of June 2008. And those patents in
sequence were issued between November 24th of 2015, which was
USPatent 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 subcomponents of the gene strands were all
issued to Ablynx and Sanofi. And then we have Crucell. We have Rubius
Therapeutics. We have Children’s Medical Corporation. We have countless
others that include Ludwig Maximilian’s Universität in Munich, Protein
Sciences Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa,
University of Hong Kong, Chinese National Human Genome Centre in
Shanghai, all identifying in patent filings that ranged from 2008 until
2017. Every attribute that was allegedly uniquely published by the
single reference publication, the novel bat coronavirus, reveals quote
natural insertions of the s1 s2 to cleavage site of the spike protein
and possible recombinant three origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the paper
that has been routinely used to identify the novel virus. Unfortunately,
if you actually take what they report to be novel, you find 73 patents
issued between 2008 and 2019, which have the elements that were
allegedly novel in the SARS-CoV-2, specifically as it relates to the
poly basic cleavage site based your receptor binding domain and the
spike protein. So, the clinically novel components of the clinically
unique, clinically contagious, you know where I’m going with this. Okay.
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
SARScoronavirus was 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.
Reiner Fuellmich: Didn’t Ralph Baric, I think I saw a video clip
with him giving a speech in which he explicitly told the audience that
you can make a lot of money with this.
Dr David Martin: Yes, you can. And he has made a lot of money doing this.
Reiner Fuellmich: Oh.
[28:43]
Dr. David Martin: So, for those who want to live in the illusion that somehow or another that’s the end of the story, be prepared for a greater disappointment because somebody knew something in 2015 and 2016, which gave rise to my favorite quote of this entire pandemic. And by that I’m not being cute. My favorite quote of this pandemic was a statement made in 2015 by Peter Daszak. The statement that was made by Peter Daszak in 2015, reported in the National Academies Press Publication, February 12th, 2016. And I’m quoting,
"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." end quote. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK349040/
Viviane Fischer: That’s quite shocking, because I thought that
–
Dr David Martin: – let me just read that again, just because I
don’t know if I might get lost in translation. So let me just go ahead
and read it slowly. Yeah, and as Americans love to do When speaking to a
multilingual audience, maybe I should say it louder. I won’t. “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.” End quote.
Viviane Fischer: That’s really I mean, Peter Doshi, wasn’t he
the one –
Reiner Fuellmich: – no no no Peter Daszak.
Viviane Fischer: Oh Daszak?
Dr David Martin: Peter Daszak the head of Eco Health
Alliance?
Reiner Fuellmich: Peter Doshi is the good guy.
Viviane Fischer: Yeah, I was just –
Dr David Martin: – 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.
Viviane Fischer: And there’s really nothing that is new in this?
Dr David Martin: Nothing. Zero. 73 patents on everything clinically novel. 73, all issued before 2019. And I’m going to give you the biggest bombshell of all to prove that this was actually not a release of anything because Patent 7279327, the patent on the recombinant nature of that lung targeting coronavirus, was transferred mysteriously from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill to the National Institutes of Health in 2018. Now, here’s the problem with that. Under the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. government already has what’s called a march-inrights provision. That means if the U.S. government is paid for research, they are entitled to benefit from that research at their demand or at their whim. So, explain why, in 2017 and 2018, suddenly the National Institutes of Health have to take ownership of the patent that they already had rights to held by the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. And how did they need to file a Certificate of Correction to make sure that it was legally enforceable? Because there was a typographical error in the grant reference in the first filing. So, they needed to make sure that not only did they get it right, but they needed to make sure every type of graphical error that was contained in the patent was correct. On the single patent required to develop the Vaccine Research Institute’s mandate, which was shared between the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in November of 2019 and Moderna in November of 2019 when UNC Chapel Hill, NIAID and Moderna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine, a month before an outbreak ever happened
Reiner Fuellmich: You have all the evidence, right?
[34:31]
Dr David Martin: Yep.
Reiner Fuellmich: I’ll have to translate this. So, it’s all
about money.
Dr David Martin: It has always been about money, and just to
answer a question that was asked slightly earlier. The script for this
was written first January 6th, 2004.
Reiner Fuellmich: January 6, 2004? Who wrote the script?
[35:01]
Dr David Martin: Merck, at a conference called SARS and
bioterrorism, bioterrorism emerging infectious diseases,
anti-microbials, therapeutics and immune modulators. Merck 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 of
Centre 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 6th, 2004. So, it’s been around
quite a long time. I’m not going to belabor many more points, other than
to say that it was very clear that Merck knew that, sorry that Moderna
knew that it was going to be placed in the front of the line with
respect to the development of a vaccine in
March of 2019. And this is a very important date, because in
March of 2019, for reasons that are not transparent, they suddenly amended a series
of rejected patent filings, which is a very bizarre behavior, but they
amended a number of patent filings to specifically make reference to an
intentional or accidental release, I’m sorry, their term
“deliberate release of coronavirus.” So, in March, they amended four failed patent
applications to begin the process of a coronavirus vaccine development.
And they began dealing with a very significant problem that they had,
which was they relied on technology that they did not own. Two Canadian
companies Arbutus Pharmaceuticals and Acuitas Pharmaceuticals actually
own the patent on the lipid nanoparticle envelope that’s required to
deliver the injection of the mRNA fragment. And those patents have been
issued both in Canada and in the US and then around the world in their
World Intellectual Property equivalence.
Moderna knew that they did not own the rights and began trying to negotiate with Arbutus and Acuitas to
get the resolution of the lipid nanoparticle patented technology
available to be put into a vaccine. And we know, as I made reference to
before, that in November, they entered into a research and cooperative research
and development agreement with UNC Chapel 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. What makes that story most problematic, beyond the
self-evident nature of it, is that we know that 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. And what becomes very evident with Peter Daszak Eco
Health Alliance, UNC Chapel 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’s 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 quote
“must be completed by September 2020.”
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: This was a text for Mrs. Brundtland was
heading this commission, isn’t it?
Dr David Martin: Well, this is the global preparedness
monitoring boards’ unified statement. There are a number of people who
have taken credit and then backed away from credit for it, but yes,
you’re right.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: Am I right too when I say that also the ACE2
receptor that was already described in the patents before 2019?
Dr David Martin: Yes, we have 117 patents with specifically the
ACE2 receptor targeting mechanism for SARS coronavirus.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: So, because they always say this is the new
thing with the virus.
Dr David Martin: No, it’s not new, and it has not been even remotely
new.
It’s in publications going back to 2008. In the weaponization
conferences that took place in Slovenia, in Europe, all across Europe,
and all across the DARPA infrastructure. We’ve known about that since
2013. It’s isolation and amplification.
[42:04]
Viviane Fischer: And this, the amendment that Merck did to this,
[where] they rejected patent applications, so was it only about the fact
that it’s like deliberately, you know, like, put into the environment or
something, or did they add anything else?
Dr David Martin: Well, these were four failed patent
applications that were essentially revitalized in March of 2019. And it
was Moderna, I misspoke. I spoke about Merck, it was Moderna, and I
tried to correct that I’m sorry that that didn’t come through. But
it’s Moderna’s patent applications that were amended in March of
2019 to include the deliberate release of a respiratory pathogen
language.
Viviane Fischer: Was that not been rejected for some reason,
they would just not they were just sitting there basically.
Dr David Martin: No, they do processes similar to other
pharmaceutical companies, where they evergreen applications and
continually modify applications to enjoy the earliest priority dates
available. But that’s why you have to go back and look at the amendment
of the application records to find out when the actual amendment
language was put in place. But yeah, I mean, the fact of the matter is,
and like I said, I’m not going to belabor all of the patent data,
but any assertion that this pathogen is somehow unique or novel falls
apart on the actual gene sequences, which are published in the patent
record, and then more egregiously falls apart in the fact that we have
Peter Daszak himself stating that we have to create public hype to get
the public to accept the medical countermeasure of a pan-coronavirus
vaccine. And what makes that most ludicrous is the fact that as we
know World Health Organization had declared coronavirus, you know,
kind of a dead interest. I mean, 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?
You know, kind of falls into the zone of incredulity, to say the
least.
[44:39]
Reiner Fuellmich: Doesn’t that also mean if you if take the
entirety of the evidence, then this is a tool the coronavirus and the
vaccines, this is a tool, and the interest of DARPA in creating a
biological weapon out of this, this is a tool for everything else that
latches on to this including population control, for example.
Dr. David Martin: Well, listen, we have to stop falling for even
the mainstream narrative in our own line of questioning because the fact
of the matter is this was seen as a
highly malleable bioweapon. There is no question that by 2005, it was unquestionably
a weapon of choice. And the illusion that we
continue to unfortunately see very well-meaning people get trapped in is
conversations about whether we’re having a vaccine for a virus. The fact
of the matter is we’re not,
we’re injecting a spike protein mRNA sequence, which is a computer
simulation, it’s not derived from nature. It’s a computer simulation
of a sequence which has been known and patented for years.
And what we know is that that sequence, as reported is reported across
things like you know, the very reliable phone conversations that took
place between Moderna and the vaccine research center by self-report,
where I don’t know if you were on a phone call and you heard
ATTCCGGTTCCGABBB, you know, is there any chance you might get a letter,
a vowel, a consonant dropped here or there. The ludicrous nature of the
story that this is somehow prophylactic or preventative flies in the
face of 100 percent 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. So, the cover story is that if you get an expression of a
spike protein, you’re going to have some sort of general symptomatic
relief. But the fact of the matter is, there has never been an intent to
vaccinate a population as defined by the vaccination universe. And it’s
important, I mean, let’s review just for the record, when Anthony Fauci
tried desperately to get some of his quote, “synthetic RNA vaccines”
published,
he had his own patents rejected by the patent office.
And I want to read what the patent office told him. When NIAID’s own
Anthony Fauci thought that he could get an mRNA-like vaccine patented as a vaccine. And here’s the quote, “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 regard to a vaccine.” Okay, this is
the patent office. This is not some sort of public health agency. This
is the patent office. “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 art 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 the standard definition for being operative. In regards, therefore, claims five, seven and nine are
not operative, as the anti-HIV vaccine, which is what he was working on,
is not patentable utility.” So, Anthony Fauci himself was told by the
patent office themselves, that what he was proposing as a
vaccine does not meet the patentable standard, the legal standard,
or the clinical standard.
[49:26]
Prof. Martin Schwab: Oh, can we translate this for our audience?
This might be very important.
Reiner Fuellmich: That is by the way, David, that is our friend,
Martin Schwab, Professor Martin Schwab of, he’s our most important legal
adviser from the University of Bielefeld.
Dr. David Martin: Oh right.
Reiner Fuellmich: He is very smart. I know that, David I know a
lot of our viewers are really shocked. I can see that from the
responses. One of our viewers is our PCR test specialist, Professor
Kemera. She can’t believe what’s going on here.
Dr. David Martin: Well, the sad and sober irony is that I raised
these issues beginning in 2002, after the anthrax scare, and the tragedy
is we’re now sitting in a world where we have hundreds of millions of
people who are being injected with a pathogen stimulating computer
sequence, which is being sold under what the patent office, what the
medical profession, and what the FDA and its own Clinical Standards
would not suggest is a vaccine, but by using the term we actually are
now subjecting hundreds of millions of people to what was known to be by
2005 a biological weapon.
Dr. David Martin: So, I obviously have hundreds of hours of this
stuff committed to memory because I’ve been doing it for two decades.
But if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
Reiner Fuellmich: I’m sure there are going to be hundreds of
questions, David. We’re going to be in touch. I think you’re going to be
flooded by people, by people’s emails, etc. I’m just gonna forward what
comes in or we’re gonna forward what comes in, but I do think, oh, yeah,
we have a Martin Schwab, he probably has a really serious question.
Prof. Martin Schwab: And after me, Wolfgang too. Okay. I’m a
legal Professor with the Faculty of Law here in Bieldfeld, I have to
tell you that the Constitutional Protection Units of the Ministry of
Interior Affairs now observes the so-called corona denier scene. Corona
denial is everyone who dares to disagree to the –
Reiner Fuellmich: – with the official line –
Prof. Martin Schwab: – with the official line. Yes. Now. If this
Constitutional Protection Unit takes notice of me taking part in a
discussion that this pandemic was put on stage intentionally, they will
probably try to fire me from my job. So, I have to at least ask some
questions. While I heard you talking I took a look at patent number, oh
which one was it,
7220852 and
7151163. And 7220852 was filed in April 12 and 715 and so on was filed in
April 28 of 2004. I see a difference between 16, not 3 days, what did I
misunderstand?
Dr. David Martin: No. April 23rd, 2003, was the CDC
master filing date.
Prof. Martin Schwab: Okay. Okay. I asked this question because
if they try to make me go under for my job, I have to provide strong
evidence.
Dr. David Martin: Now we have all of this sent to, I know Dr.
Fuellmich has the entire record in the Fauci dossier. 100 percent of
this record is in there. The additional addendum that I sent across all
has the records in there including all the priority filing dates as well
as the issue date. So, 100 percent of this is in written published
records and you have the written records.
Prof. Martin Schwab: Okay.
Reiner Fuellmich: I have created my own file, and it’s labelled
David Martin.
[54:29]
Prof. Martin Schwab: Okay, there is, I did analysis of media
reportings here, and I can confirm that they give a very one-sided
account on the pandemic. Everyone who dares to declare the threat less
dangerous than the government does will be denounced as conspiracy
theorists, as sinful, and so on. So, the media exactly did what you
pointed out in the sentence you repeated twice before now. Actually,
they tell us the story of the Delta variant, which is told to be much
more contagious than everything else. Experts I have spoken to told me
that the databases contain as many as more or 40,000 virus strains.
Dr. David Martin: Correct.
Prof. Martin Schwab: So, could this delta variant be some kind
of media hype you told us about before?
Dr. David Martin: There is no such thing as an alpha or a beta or a gamma or a delta
variant. This is a means by which, what is desperately sought, is
a degree to which
individuals can be coerced into accepting something that they would
not otherwise accept.There has not been in any of the published studies on what has been
reportedly the Delta variant, there has not been a population R not
calculated, which is the actual replication rate. What has been
estimated are computer simulations. But unfortunately, if you look at
GISAID, which is the public source of uploading any one of a number of
variations,
what you’ll find is that there has been no ability to identify any
clinically altered gene sequence, which has then a clinically expressed variation. And this
is the problem all along. This is the problem going back to the very
beginning of what’s alleged to be a pandemic, is we do not have any
evidence that the gene sequence alteration had any clinical significance
whatsoever.
There has not been a single paper published by anyone that has
actually established that anything novel since November of 2019, has
clinical distinction from anything that predates November of
2019. The problem with the 73 patents that I described is that
those 73 patents all contain what was reported to be novel in December
in January of 2019, and 2020, respectively. So, the problem is that even
if we were to accept that there are idiopathic pneumonias, even if we
were to accept that there are some set of pathogen-induced symptoms,
we do not have a single piece of published evidence that tells us
that anything about the subclade SARS-CoV-2 has clinical distinction
from anything that was known and published prior to November 2019 in
73 patents dating to 2008.
[57:25]
Viviane Fischer: Could it be that the Delta variant sort of is
that just the differences, you know that the clinical symptoms are the
same, but that it has the, you know, the capability of like, infecting
someone who’s already gone through variant B?
Dr. David Martin: Well, so this is where we see an enormous
amount of response and reflexive behavior to media hype.
There is no, and I’m going to repeat this, there is no evidence
that the Delta variant is somehow distinct from anything else on
GISAID.
The fact that we are now looking for a thing doesn’t mean that it is a
thing because we are looking at fragments of things. And the fact is
that if we choose any fragment I could come up with, you know, I could
come up with variant Omega tomorrow. And I could come up with variant
Omega and I could say I’m looking for this sub strand of either DNA or
RNA, or even a protein. And I could run around the world going, “Oh, my
gosh, fear the Omega variant”.
Prof. Martin Schwab: Yes.
Dr. David Martin: And 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 and 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 in a systematic shift of an already
disclosed other sequence? The answer is, it’s just an alteration, and
when you start and stop what you call the reading frame.
There is no novel anything. Yes, well, Wodarg.
[1:00:50]
[Dr Wolfgang Wodarg translates]
[1:08:09]
Reiner Fuellmich: David, I’ll make a long story very short. He’s
in full agreement with your analysis. He understands your anguish with
respect to you having told the world about this 20 years ago, almost.
And he admires your tenacity. And he’s extremely grateful for you having
taken this very close look at the problem through patent law. Dr. Wodarg
believes that patents are really problematic, because it turns out that
it is probably five times more expensive to patent drugs, as opposed to
having public I mean, not public, private, but public universities,
getting the stipends, getting the money that they need in order to
develop these vaccines.
Dr. David Martin: Yeah, I’m gonna do something that’s very
unfair, but I’m gonna hold the document very close to the screen. And
it’s only for representational purposes. But I want you to see that this
the barrack patent that NIH needed to have returned to them for
mysterious reasons in 2018, this is
7279327. And people can look this up on their own. But 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 realize 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. And I want to read you, I mean,
this is something that comes directly from their patent application.
When they actually talk about the DNA strands, which they call sequence
ID numbers. They actually specifically say the organism is an artificial
sequence,
an artificial sequence, meaning that it is not a sequence that has
a rule base in nature, it is not something that was manifest for a particular natural
derivative protein or natural derivative mRNA sequence that was
isolated,
every one of these is in fact a synthetic, artificial
sequence.And if you go back and you look at each one of them, which we have
done, what you’ll find is that the sequences, in fact, are contiguous,
in many instances, but are overlapping in others, where it is merely a
caprice determination that says something is or is not part of an open
reading frame, or it is or is not part of a particular oligonucleotide
sequence.
Now, the reason why that’s important is because if we are going to
examine what ultimately is being injected into individuals, we need
the exact sequence, not a kind of similar to, we need the exact
sequence. And if you look at the FDA’s requirement, and if you look
at the European regulatory environment, and if you look at the rest of
the world’s regulatory environment, for reasons that cannot be
explained,
the exact sequence that has gone into what is amplified inside of
the injection seems to be elusive, it seems to be something that someone cannot, in fact
state with 100 percent certainty, the sequence is “X.” The problem that
that presents is that at this point in time, as much as we can be told
that there are, you know, clinical trials going on, and there are all
sorts of other things going on, we have no way of verifying that a
complete sequence has been, is, or potentially even could be
manufactured into what ultimately becomes the lipid nanoparticle that is
the carrier frequency into which the injection is delivered. And it’s
important for people to understand that as far back as 2002, and all the
way through the patent filings of 2003, and then the weaponization
patents that began in 2008, in every one of these instances, fragments
are identified, but they are identified without specificity. So, we
don’t have direct terminal ends of the fragments, we have fragments
which have, you know, essentially hypothecated gaps into which anything
can be placed. And that’s the reason why I find the fact checking around
the patent situation to be most disappointing. Because the reason why
fact checkers, among their general lazy attributes, the reason why fact
checkers are not actually checking facts when it comes to the patent
matters is because the actual sequences are not represented in a digital
form that makes it easy to do this comparison. We literally had to take
images of submitted typed paper, and then code those in to do our own
assessment. You cannot do this on the EPO’s patent site. You cannot do
this with WIPO data from Geneva. You cannot do this with the U.S. Patent
Office data. You actually have to go in and reconstruct the actual gene
sequences by hand and then you compare them to what has been uploaded on
the public servers and that’s where you find that the question of
novelty is something that was not addressed.
This was a manufactured illusion.
[1:14:30]
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: I have one more question. Is it possible that we see that the influenza has vanished is gone. We don’t have influenza anymore. The influenza for sure the viruses are also sequenced. And is it possible that those parts sequences we now speak about that they may exist in both of the virus types, so that it’s just a matter of testing and [a] matter of instruments to observe what we find, whether we find influenza, or whether we find corona. If we have a certain, if you have a book, you have a word with five letters, and you will find this five letters in many books.
Dr. David Martin: Right? Exactly. Yeah. Wolfgang, your question
is a beautiful metaphor of exactly the problem. The problem is, if what
we’re looking for is something we’ve decided we’ve decided is worth
looking for, then we’ll find it. And the good news is we’ll find it [in]
a bunch of places. And if we’ve decided that we’re no longer looking for
a thing, it’s not entirely surprising that we don’t find it because
we’re not looking for it. The fact of the matter is whether it’s the
RT-PCR tests that we decided that there are fragments, which by the way,
I have looked at every one of the regulatory submissions, that has been
submitted to the FDA, to try to figure out what was the “gold standard”
to get the emergency use authorization and what fragment of SARS-CoV-2
was officially the official fragment that was the comparative standard.
And the problem is that you can’t get a single standard. So, the
question becomes, in a world where there is no single standard, what is
it that you actually find? Because if I’m looking for and why don’t I
just read this? If I’m looking for a CCACGCTTTG? Do I add the next
strand G or do I go no, no, the next bit is GTTTATTCG. And you get the
point. The point is that where I choose to start and stop, I can
actually say I found it. No, I didn’t find it.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: Yeah.
Dr. David Martin: And I didn’t find the match that I projected
on to the data because I chose to look at the data in a way that I could
not find the match.
Influenza did not leave the human population. Influenza was a failed decade long pan-influenza vaccine mandate that
was desperately, desperately, desperately promoted by governments around
the world, they failed and they decided if influenza doesn’t deliver on the
public promise of getting everybody to get an injection, let’s
change the pathogen.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: There are many more they can change.
Dr. David Martin: Oh, goodness, we’ve got tons more to come.
Reiner Fuellmich: Yeah, but now we’re on to them.
[1:17:47]
Viviane Fischer: I would like to tell you something about this
development of the Drosten PCR test, you know, because we looked at it
just briefly, not to that extent that you now looked at the patents that
you just described, but we looked at this kind of miracle, or like I
mean, strange aspect of like the Drosten test development, because he,
despite the fact that he would have needed to basically, through his
employer, the Charité would be entitled to holding the patents on this,
you know, his invention, he just published the instruction to the
(inaudible) house so everyone could see it. So basically, the whole
invention lost its possibility to be patented, and that’s kind of
strange, you know, when you look at it, so we asked the Charité in a
Freedom of Information Act request, and so they said, “Well, you know,
because there was so much rush to get the, you know, this test out
because there was this –”
Reiner Fuellmich: – pandemic going on –
Viviane Fischer: – pandemic going on, so it was like, we didn’t
look at the finances, you know, we just didn’t care. So that’s kind of
strange as a procedure, because I mean, basically this test is worth
like billions, you know, how could you just, I mean, this is a publicly
financed hospital, how can they just give, you know, give away all this
this whole thing, and then because he was also in close cooperation with
a private company, TIB Molbiol. It’s the same with which he had
developed all the PCR tests from 2002 from the first SARS, and then
MERS, Zika, and so on and so on. So it’s very strange, you know, because
he was basically like, functioning as a door opener for this company,
you know, because they also said to us, so basically, it was Drosten who
decided to which possible country or like laboratory or whatever the
test, this TIB Molbiol company would send out the test kits in order to
then of course, make more money, because he was basically like, he had a
first mover advantage, you know, Drosten and or this company. So it’s
clear now, I mean, maybe there was nothing at that point, because there
was so many patents already going on. So basically, from this not novel
virus or a PCR test, he couldn’t patent anything that would have been
new. So basically, it was really like a very logical thing to do then to
use the whole thing as a just to, you know, make profit from this first
mover advantage. And maybe Drosten is somehow involved in this whole
legal scam, financial –
Reiner Fuellmich: – oh he’s one of the most important people in
this game, because he’s the one who’s strings they pulled first.
Dr. David Martin: Yeah, you need you need to create the illusion
of demand, and
there’s nothing right now that does a better job of creating the
illusion of demand than the urgency of an event that you’ve
manufactured.
Reiner Fuellmich: This sounds almost like comedy, but it is
not.
[1:21:15]
Dr. David Martin: Well, it is in that we have to realize that
part of the reason why it was so easy for us to monitor and track this
particular, you know, campaign of coercion and terror is because we’ve
done it before. You know, I started my comments by making sure people
remember that when it came to solving for the anthrax outbreak. Now
remember, that while we had hundreds of thousands of military people in
the Middle East, allegedly getting even for the events of September of
2001, we had two postal inspectors investigating anthrax. Two! The
largest alleged bioweapons attack on U.S. soil and we had two postal
inspectors. You can’t genuinely believe that two Postal Inspectors are
the, you know, the crime stopping, you know, mindbendingly powerful
individuals in the universe. Now, I have nothing against postal
inspectors, but I can guarantee you that if I was investigating a
bioterror attack, I would not have the post office, having two postal
inspectors as their crack team, doing the investigation. You know, it
was disingenuous, and Congress knew it. And that’s the reason why, you
know, we publish a thing that is not necessarily a bestseller, but we
publish an intelligence briefing on every violation of the biological
and chemical weapons treaties that people have signed around the world.
And it’s a phone book that tells you where and who and who’s funding,
and so for us
it wasn’t hard to figure out that this was not a public health
crisis. This was an opportunistic marketing campaign to address a
stated objective, and that’s why this is Occam’s Razor. It’s the easiest thing to
describe, because they’re the ones that set it. And the Occam’s Razor
reality is they said they needed to get the public to accept a
pan-coronavirus vaccine countermeasure, and they needed the media to
create the hype, and investors would follow where they see profit.
You do not have anything else you need to rely on to explain the
events of the last 20 months, than the actual statement of the
actual perpetrator. And I don’t do the navel gazing exercise of going in to
try to understand whether there were mommy issues behind a bank robber
if they’re holding a bag of money outside of a bank. I actually make the
crazy assumption that maybe they’re a bank robber. Similarly, if I have
somebody who says we need to use the media to hype a medical
countermeasure, which is in fact the injection of a synthetic, recombinant
chimeric protein developed off of a computer simulation. If I’m actually going to listen to the motivation for why that might
be being done, I will listen to the person doing the manipulation who
says investors will follow where they see profit. I don’t need more
explanation.
[1:24:56]
Reiner Fuellmich: Me either. Okay, this is mind boggling. I’m
really glad, David, [I mean] we spoke a couple of months ago, maybe 3 or
4 months ago, and we were introduced to each other by a David, I’m
sorry, James Henry.
Dr. David Martin: Right.
Reiner Fuellmich: And I was trying to find patent lawyers in
this country who might be interested in this case. Now, there are a few
patent lawyers who understand about it, but there’s no one apparently up
till now, but maybe this is going to change. But there was no one
willing to tackle this in the context of Corona. That’s the problem.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: This is not new. I’ve tried to find such a
lawyer to specialize on patents for the (inaudible) Commission for the
German Bundestag 10 years ago, or more than 15 years ago. And we did not
find because they were afraid to be critical on the system. They would
destroy their own job. This was very difficult.
Reiner Fuellmich: Yeah, bear in mind that this is an old
problem, because that, here’s where the problem comes in. Ever since the
establishment of the European Patent Office, the Germans and the French,
not surprisingly, have maintained animosity that has, you know, been
just this newest version of animosity that goes back centuries. But when
the EPO was set up, the role of the patent office in Munich became a
very nationalistic issue for Germany. And the notion that German patent
examiners and German patent professionals still enjoyed supremacy over
the rest of Europe became dogmatic. In 2003 in 2004, when the European
Patent Office was first audited by my organization, and where we showed
that somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of the patents in Europe,
were functional forgeries, meaning that they were copied from previous patents, that
the German representation of the European Patent Office lost their mind
at the notion that they were doing anything remotely wrong. When the
European Union commissioned us to do an examination into software
patents a few years later, at the request of the Swedish delegation to
the European Union, and we showed hundreds and hundreds of software
patents which were illegally granted by the European Union through the
EPO. And then we found out that it was German patent examiners and
German patent practitioners who were the ones who were responsible for
their filing. We once again saw that there was an enormous outcry. And
so, what happens is that we have a dogmatically held position, which
says that even though the European Patent Office is supposed to be
pan-European, there is still in the minds of the German patent
establishment, a supremacy over the rest of Europe. And if you call into
question anything, including patents granted on a bioweapon, you are
treading on ground that there is no forgiveness for.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: Yes. We had some questions from Transparency
International, and we were wiped out; the topic was not followed.
Dr. David Martin: Yep. You just can’t. It’s not accessible, and
that’s just the tragedy of what has unfortunately become a regulatory
capture organization. It’s actually not doing the public service.
Reiner Fuellmich: Reiner translates.
Dr. David Martin: Well, thank you for the time that you’ve spent
and I hope that it was helpful.
Reiner Fuellmich: It was very helpful.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: Very helpful, thank you very much.
Reiner Fuellmich: We’re gonna hear a lot of echoes. Thank you,
David, and have a great weekend.
Dr. David Martin: Okay, Take care everybody.
Dr. David Martin: Yeah, you too. Bye bye.
Viviane Fischer Bye.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: Bye bye.
Dr Reiner Fuellmich: 1:51:11
All conversing in German.
Dr. Martin's Source Documents:
Contact Dr. Martin: Activate Humanity
Dr. David Martin's Fauci/COVID-19 dossier documenting the following crimes:
35 U.S.C. § 101
18 U.S.C. §2339 C et seq. – Funding and Conspiring to Commit Acts of Terror
18 U.S.C. § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of Domestic Terrorism resulting in death of American Citizens
18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Lying to Congress
15 U.S.C. §1-3 – Conspiring to Criminal Commercial Activity
15 U.S.C. §8 – Market Manipulation and Allocation
15 U.S.C. § 19 – Interlocking Directorates
35 U.S.C. §200 - 206 – Disclosure of Government Interest
21 C.F.R. § 50.24 et seq., Illegal Clinical Trial
The Commercial Actors
COVID-19 Anti-Trust Video Documentary Clip
Violating the Entirety of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act
For Full Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKX2TAoTTww
Violating the Entirety of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act
Violating the Entirety of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act
Dr. David Martin's SARS CoV Patent Corpus Literature Review reveals over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy.
https://shermanclay.blogspot.com/2021/10/fauci-and-unc-chapel-hill-imports.html
