Nothing about the "novel" coronavirus is new: Dr. David Martin with Reiner...

Dr. David Martin and his work:

  • Chairman of M-CAM International Risk Management
  • World's largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries
  • Their underwriting systems include the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records
  • They track what is happening, who is involved in what's happening, and monitor thematic interests for clients and their own commercial use
  • They maintain three global equity indices which are top-performing large-cap and mid-cap equity indexes worldwide
  • Their business is to monitor innovation around the world, especially its economic significance

On SARS coronavirus:

  • They have reviewed over 4,000 patents issued around SARS coronavirus
  • Done a comprehensive review of the financing of manipulations of coronavirus which gave rise to SARS
  • They took reported gene sequence which was reportedly isolated as the novel coronavirus, as indicated by the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses of the WHO, and reviewed those against patent records available as of spring 2020
  • They found over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest the declaration of a novel coronavirus is entirely false. 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
  • They found patent records of sequences attributed to novelty going to patents that were sought as early as 1999

Early research:

  • Until 1999, the patent activity around coronavirus was uniquely applied to veterinary sciences
  • The first vaccine ever patented for coronavirus was sought by Pfizer and specifically included the "S" spike protein – the same thing that we allegedly rushed into invention. The first application was filed January 28, 2000
  • The idea that we mysteriously stumbled on the way to intervene on vaccines is not only ludicrous, it is incredulous. Timothy Miller, Sharon Klepfer, Albert Paul Reed and Elaine Jones, on January 28, 2000, filed what ultimately was issued as US Patent 6372224, which was the spike protein virus vaccine for the canine coronavirus
  • Early work until 1999 was largely focused on vaccines for animals. The two 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 canine coronavirus in Pfizer's work to develop "S" and spike protein vaccine target candidates
  • Obvious evidence says neither the coronavirus concept of the vaccine, nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest with respect to the spike protein's behavior, is anything novel at all, in fact it's 22 years old based on patent filings
  • Anthony Fauci and NIAID found malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines
  • SARS is not a natural progression of a zoonetic modification of coronavirus. In 1999, Anthony Fauci funded research at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. From patent application filed April 19, 2002, the NIAID built an infectious replication-defective coronavirus targeted for the human lung epithelium. In other words, we made SARS and we patented it before there was ever an alleged outbreak in Asia, which followed that by several months. This US patent 7279327 clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing that we knew of the ACE receptor, the ACE-2 binding domain, the S1 spike protein and other elements of Covid-19
  • This was engineered and could be synthetically modified in a laboratory using gene sequencing technologies, taking computer code and turning it into a pathogen, or an intermediate of the pathogen
  • In the early days, this technology was funded exclusively as a means by which we could harness the coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine

SARS outbreak 2002 - 2003:

  • Martin's organization was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations in early 2000s
  • Anthrax events in September 2001 - Martin's organization was part of an investigation that gave rise to congressional inquiry into anthrax origins and unusual behavior around Bayer's ciprofloxacin drug, which was used as a potential treatment for anthrax poisoning. Throughout the fall of 2001, they began monitoring an enormous number of bacterial and viral pathogens that were being patented through NIH, NIAID, USAMRIID, and other agencies internationally. Their concern was that coronavirus was seen not only as a potential manipulable agent for use as a vaccine vector, but also as a biological weapon candidate
  • M-CAM's first public reporting on this took place prior to the SARS outbreak in late 2001
  • Disappointed to be sitting here 20 years later, having 20 years earlier pointed that there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to the coronavirus
  • SARS outbreak is "alleged": coronavirus is not new to human condition or to the last 2 decades
  • Alleged SARS outbreak that took place in China in 2002-2003 gave rise to a problematic April 2003 filing by US CDC
  • They filed for patent on the entire gene sequence on what became SARS coronavirus, a violation of 35 USC section 101 - you cannot patent a naturally occurring substance
  • This was patent 7220852, with derivative patents including 46592703p, 7776521
  • These patents also covered the means of detecting coronavirus using RT-PCR
  • This is problematic because if you both own the patent on the gene itself, and on its detection, you have a cunning advantage to be able to control 100% of the provenance of not only the virus itself and its detection. You have entire scientific and message control
  • This patent sought by the CDC was allegedly justified by their public relations team as being sought so that everyone would be free to research the coronavirus. This is a lie because the patent office twice rejected the patent on the gene sequence as unpatentable – the patent office found 99.9% identity with the already existing coronavirus in the public domain. 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 and ultimately in 2007 got the patent on SARS coronavirus
  • Every statement the CDC has made that this was in the public interest is falsifiable by their own paid bribe to the patent office. They paid an additional fee to keep their application private
  • All of that is available in the public patent archive record which any member of the public can review

Fact checkers:

  • Fact checkers have repeatedly stated that the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is distinct from the CDC patent
  • The gene sequence filed by CDC in 2003, 2005 and 2006, has identity in 89 - 99% of the sequence overlapping SARS-CoV-2
  • The core designation of SARS coronavirus, and the subclade SARS-CoV-2, have to overlap from a taxonomic point of view

Grounds for RICO:

  • On April 28, 2003, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals in Maryland filed for US patent 7151163 on antiviral agents of treatment and control of infections by coronavirus. This was 3 days after CDC filed the patent on SARS coronavirus
  • Sequoia Pharmaceuticals and ultimately Ablynx Pharmaceuticals became rolled into proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crucell, and Johnson & Johnson
  • How would one have a patent on a treatment for a thing that had been invented 3 days earlier?
  • The Sequoia patent on coronavirus treatment was issued and published before the CDC patent on coronavirus was allowed. The only way Sequoia could know information in CDC patent is by insider means, because CDC had paid to keep it secret. This is the definition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion. This is not a theory, it is evidence. This is a RICO case
  • The RICO pattern established in April 2003 for the first coronavirus was played out to same schedule with SARS-CoV-2. Moderna got 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?

Continued at link.

1 Like

Nothing about the "novel" coronavirus is new:

Submitted by CB on Thu, 07/15/2021 - 2:23am

"So SARS-CoV-2 is indeed man-made, along with the entire infrastructure of 'testing for cases' and 'vaccines to fix the problem' - concocted by unscrupulous predators who thought nothing of terrorizing the whole world in order to profit from the crisis they made and to control people's lives down to their thoughts and daily behaviors."

This might be one of the more important videos regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. I provide the video and summarize the statements below:

  • 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 SARS-CoV-2. Specifically the polybasic cleavage site, the ACE-2 receptor binding domain and the spike protein.
  • There was no outbreak of SARS because we had engineered all the elements of that. By 2016, a paper by Ralph Baric was funded during the gain-of-function moratorium, saying SARS coronavirus was poised for human emergence. At that time, it was not only poised for human emergence, but was patented for commercial exploitation 73 times
  • Fuellmich: Ralph Baric gave a video clip in which he told the audience you can make a lot of money with this. Martin: Yes, we can, and he has made a lot of money doing this
  • Martin's favorite quote of the Covid-19 pandemic – statement made in 2015 by Peter Daszak; of EcoHealth Alliance, who relayed NIAID funding to Wuhan lab, later the only American sent with WHO to investigate same lab; statement reported in a National Academies 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."
  • 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 bio-weaponization 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
  • There is nothing that is new; zero. 73 patents on everything clinically novel, all issued before 2019

Here's a PDF (edit):

Video in link above:

A Manufactured Illusion. Dr David Martin: Patients on Corona Virus and...