FULL INTERVIEW: There is No COVID Variant – No Novel Variant – No Pandemic. Dr David Martin with Reiner Fuellmich interview.

FULL INTERVIEW: There is No COVID Variant – No Novel Variant – No Pandemic. Dr David Martin with Reiner Fuellmich

FULL INTERVIEW: There is No COVID Variant – No Novel Variant – No Pandemic. Dr David Martin with Reiner Fuellmich Transcript

David. I’m sorry. You have kept you waiting. It’s my fault. Um, are you still there? Yes, I am. Oh, great. Nice to see you again. Good to see you as well. So, um, I think it’s, it’s best if you, um, introduce yourself. I know you’re the chairman of M cam international innovation risk management, but that doesn’t tell many people what you’re doing. Yeah. From a corporate standpoint, um, 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, um, our underwriting systems, which include the entire Corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records, et cetera. We cannot only track what is happening and who is involved in what’s happening, but we monitor a series of thematic interests, um, for various organizations and individuals and our commercial use. Because as you probably know, we maintain three global equity index indices: um, the, 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 precisely to monitor the economics of that innovation, the degree to which, uh, You know, financial interests are being served, you know, corporate interests are being dislocated, et cetera. So our, our business is the business of innovation, and it’s finance, um, as a zine of film, uh, um, SF, uh, on for an M cam international, um, or, um, yeah. from the when smart, Indian Intangible assets. potential spin against cause a wallet wound, math Equity indeed says or dance in Vivia, giddy finance industry of Sophia. Okay. Yeah. So, obviously, from the standpoint of this, uh, Presentation as you know, uh, we have reviewed the over 4,000 patents that have been issued around SARS coronavirus. Um, and we have done a very comprehensive review of all Coronavirus manipulations’ financing, which gave rise to two SARS as a sub-clade of the beta coronavirus family. And, and so what I wanted to do was give you a quick overview timeline-wise because we’re not going to go through 4,000 patents on this conversation. Still, I have sent you and your team an exceptionally important document. This was made public in the spring of 2020; um, this document you have and can be posted in the public record. Um, is, is quite critical. 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 available patent records, um, 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 entirely a failure. There was no novel Coronavirus. There are countless very subtle modifications of Coronavirus sequences uploaded, but there was no single identified novel Coronavirus at all. We found records in the patent records of sequences attributed to novels, going to patents that were sought as early as 1999. So not only was this not a novel, anything, it’s not only not be novel, it’s, it’s not been novel for over two decades, but let’s, let’s take a very short, um, and, and, and what I’ll do is I’ll take you on a concise journey through the patent landscape to make sure people understand what happened. But as you know, up until 1999, the topic of Coronavirus vis-a-vis the patenting activity around Coronavirus was uniquely applied to veterinary sciences. The first vaccine ever patented for Coronavirus was sought by Pfizer, the application for the, um, the first, um, vaccine for Coronavirus, which was explicitly this S spike protein. So the same thing that allegedly we have rushed into invention. Um, the first application was filed on January 28th, 2021, years ago. Um, so the idea that we, we mysteriously stumbled on, um, the, the way to intervene on vaccines is not only ludicrous. It is incredulous, um, because Timothy Miller, Sharon CLEP for Albert Paul Reed and Elaine Jones, um, on January 28th, 2000 filed what ultimately was issued as us patent 6 3 7 2 2 2 4, which was the spike protein, uh, virus, a vaccine for the canine Coronavirus, which is one of the multiple forms of Coronavirus. But as I said, the early work until 1999 was primarily focused on vaccines for animals, the two animals receiving the most attention. Um, we’re probably Ralph barracks work on rabbits and the rabbit cardiomyopathy associated with significant problems among rabbit breeders. Then canine Coronavirus, uh, in Pfizer’s work to identify how to develop S S and spike protein vaccine target candidates, giving rise to the apparent evidence that says that neither the Coronavirus concept of a vaccine nor that the principle of the Coronavirus itself, um, as a pathogen of interest concerning the spike proteins behavior is anything, uh, novel at all. It’s 22 years old, um, based on patent filings, what’s more problematic. And what is, um, actually the most egregious, uh, the problem is that Anthony Fowchee and NIAA ID found the malleability of Coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines. And so, SARS is not a natural progression of a genetic modification of Coronavirus. Very specifically, in 1999, Anthony Fowchee funded research at the University of North Carolina chapel hill, specifically to create. And you cannot, you cannot help, but, but you know, lament what I’m about to read because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19th, 2002. And you heard the date correctly, 2002, where the NIAA ID built and infectious replication, defective Coronavirus. They were specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words, we made SARS. And we patented it on April, April 19th, 2002, before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which, as you know, followed that by several months, that patent issued as us patent 7 2 7 9 3 2 7. That passed. Lays out in various specific gene sequencing. The fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE two binding domain, the Sone spike protein, and other elements of what we have come to understand 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 harness Coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine. Hmm, I’ll let you translate that. Cause that’s a lot of material. Okay. Okay. So it gets worse. Oh. Um, we were, my, my organization was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations in the very early days of 2000. You’ll remember anthrax, uh, events in September of 2001. And we were part of an investigation that gave rise to the congressional inquiry into the anthrax origins and unusual behavior around Bayer’s, um, Ciprofloxacin drug, which was a drug use as a potential treatment. Uh, 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 and I a I D U S Amaris, us armed services, um, 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, um, potential use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate. Um, and so our first public reporting on this took place. Before the SARS outbreak, um, 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’m re 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. It is not new to the human condition and is not new to the last two decades. It’s been part of the sequence of proteins that circulate for quite a long time. Still, the alleged outbreak 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. In addition to filing the entire gene sequence on what became SARS coronavirus, which violates 35 us code section 1 0 1, you cannot patent a naturally occurring substance. Um, the 35 us code section 1 0 1 violation was patent number 7, 2 2 0 85. To 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 4 6 5 9 2 7 0 3 P, which is an exciting designation. Us patent 7 7 6 5 2 1. That is 7 7 7 6 5 2 1. These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus. But also covered the means of detecting it using RTPCR. Now, that’s a problem because you both own the patent on the gene itself. You own the patent on its detection; you have a cunning advantage to control 100% of the provenance of not only the virus itself but also its detection, meaning you have full scientific and message control. 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 research Coronavirus. The only problem with that statement is it’s a lie, huh? And the reason why it’s a lie is that 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, before 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 2006, Got the patent on SARS Coronavirus, though. 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 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 public research, you would not pay a fee to keep the information private. I wish I could have made up anything I just said. Still, all of that is available in the public patent archive record, which any member of the public can review, and the public pair, as it’s called that the United States patent office has the evidence and the actual documents I have in my possession now. This is, this is critically important. It’s critically important because fact-checkers have repeatedly stated that the novel Coronavirus designated as SARS cov two is, in fact, distinct from the CDC patent. And here are 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% of the sequence overlaps that have been identified in what’s called the novel sub-Glade of SARS CoV two. We know that the core designation of SARS coronavirus, which is the clade of the beta coronavirus family, and the sub clay that has been called SARS cov to overlap from a taxonomy 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 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 sub-clade of the clade called SARS coronavirus. Now what’s important is on April 28th. And listened 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 April 28th, 2003, filed a patent on antiviral agents of treatment and control of infections by Coronavirus. CDC filed three days earlier, and then the treatment was available three days later. Now just hold that thought for a second. Who is the pharmaceutical? Well, there you go. That’s a good question because Sequoia pharmaceuticals and ultimately pharmaceuticals became rolled into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer Crucell and Johnson and Johnson. Wow. 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? Yeah, the patent in question, the April 28th, 2003, patent 7 1 5 1 1 6, 3 issued to Sequoia pharmaceuticals, has another problem. The problem is it was issued and published before the CDC patent on Coronavirus. Was 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. Hmm. 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 treatment for a thing that did not exist. This could well blow up into a Rico case ultimately. This is the that’s that 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 the same schedule, when we see SARS cov to show up when we have, Moderna getting the spike protein sequence by phone from the vaccine research center at Nia ID before the definition of the novel sub-Glade. How do you treat a thing before you have them, yeah, it’s going to get worse here. Oh, no, it can’t get worse than how it does. Yeah. June 5th, 2008, is an important date because it is actually around dark time. The defense advanced research program in the United States actively took an interest in Coronavirus as a biological weapon; on June 5th, 2008, AB Lynx, 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 two virus. And you heard what I just said. This is June 5th, 2008. They found what specifically targeted the polybasic cleavage site for SARS CoV, the novel spike protein, and the ACE two receptor-binding domain, allegedly unknown to SARS cov two. And all of that was patented on June 5th, 2008. And those patents in sequence were issued between November 24th, 2015, which was our patent 9 1 9 3 7 8 0. So that one came out after the gain of function moratorium. That one came after the murders 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 add blinks and Sanofi. And then we have crusades. We have Rubius therapeutics. We have a children’s medical corporation. We have countless others, including Lu, the big Maximilian’s university thought in Muenchen protein science corporation, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong, and the Chinese national genome human genome center in Shanghai, all identifying in patent filings. That right changed 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 Sone S two, two cleavage sites of the spike, protein and possible recombinant three origins of the SARS CoV two virus. The paper has been routinely used to identify the novel virus. Unfortunately, if you 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 two, specifically related to the polybasic cleavage site, the ACE two 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 SARS Coronavirus was poised for human emergence written by none other than Ralph Barrick was not only poised for human emergence but it was patented for commercial exploitation, 73 times, uh, Ralph Barrack, 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 it. Yes, you can. And he has made a lot of money doing this. So for those who want to live in the illusion that somehow or another, that’s the end of the story, brief 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 cute. My favorite quote of this pandemic was a statement made in 2015 by Peter dash chick. This statement was made by Peter dash chick in 2015, reported in the national academies of a 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 and quote, that’s quite shocking because I thought that, 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. And as Americans love to do, when speaking to a multi-lingual 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 and quote. That’s, I mean, a piece of Darcy, wasn’t he? The one who Peter, the head of eco-health Alliance? Peter Doshi is a good guy. Yeah. I was seeing her dad, the person who was independently corroborating the Chinese non-lab late nontheory because there wasn’t a slab 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 in every study that’s ever been launched to try to verify a slab leak is a red herring, and there’s nothing new in there. Nothing 0 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 not a release of anything because patent 7 2 7 9 3 2 7, 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. Here’s the problem: the US government already has a March in the right provided under the by Dole act. That means if the US government has paid for research, they are entitled to benefit from that research at their demand or their whim. To 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 ho how did they need to file a certificate of correction to make sure that it was legally enforced. 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 institutes mandate, which was shared between the University of North Carolina chapel hill in November of 2019 and Madonna in November of 2019 when UNC chapel hill and I aid and Madonna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine a month before an outbreak ever happened. You, you have all the evidence. So that’s my, my formula is I have to reread it. No, you speak German, huh? Yeah. Okay. So it’s all about money. Yeah, it has always been about money. And just to answer a question that was asked slightly earlier, um, the script for this was written first, January 6th, 2004, January 6th, 2004, who wrote the script Merck conference called SARS and bio-terrorism huh? Bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases. Anti-microbials therapeutics and immune modulators, Merck introduced the notion of what they called the new normal. Proper now the new normal, which is the language that became the branded campaign adopted by the world health organization, the global preparedness monitoring board, which was the board upon which the Chinese director of the center for disease control. Bill gates are Dr. Elias of the gates foundation. And Anthony Fowchee sat together on that board of directors. Still, then, the first introduction of the new normal campaign, which was about getting people to accept a universal pan influenza pan coronavirus vaccine, was adopted on January 6th, 2004. So, um, it’s, it’s been around quite, quite a long time. Um, I’m not going to belabor many more points other than to say that it was very clear. That Merck knew that, sorry, that Madonna, um, yeah, knew that it would be placed in the front of the line concerning the development of a vaccine in March of 2019. And this is a very important date. Okay. Because in March of 2019, for reasons that are not transparent, they suddenly emerged ended a series of rejected patent filings, which is very bizarre behavior. Still, they amended a number of patent filings specifically to refer to an intentional or accidental release. I’m sorry, their term deliberate release of Coronavirus. So in March, they amended for failed patent application. 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 are Buddhist pharmaceuticals, and Acuitus pharmaceuticals own the patent on the lipid nanoparticle. That’s required to deliver the injection of the MRN, a fragment. Okay. And those patents have been issued both in Canada and in the US and then around the world and their world intellectual property equivalents; Madonna knew that they did not own the rights and began trying to negotiate with our Buddhists and acuity. To get the resolution of the lipid nanoparticle, patented technology is available to be put into a vaccine. And we know, as I referred to before that in November, they entered into a research and cooperative research and development agreement with UNC chapel hill concerning getting the spike protein to put inside of the lipid nanoparticle so that they 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 is that we know that from 2016 until 2019, at every one of the N I a I D advisory council board meetings. Anthony Fowchee lamented that he could not find a way to get people to accept the universal influenza vaccine, which was his favorite target. He was trying to get the population to engage in this process, which becomes very evident with Peter, uh, EcoHealth Alliance, UNC chapel hill, and others. And then, most specifically, by March of 2019, in Madonna’s amended patent filings, we see 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. There 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 20, 20 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. This was a text where Mrs. Parental and it was heading this commission. Well, this is the global preparedness monitoring board unified statement. There, there are a number of people who have taken credit and then backed away from credit for it. But yes, you’re right. Am I right when I say that the ACE two receptor, uh, was already described in the Payton’s before 2019? Yes. We have 117 patents with specifically the ACE two receptor targeting mechanism for SARS coronavirus. So because they always say, this is the new thing with the virus. No, it’s not new. And it has not been even remotely new in publications, going back to 2008 in the weaponization conferences in Slovenia, in Europe, all across Europe, and all across, um, the DARPA infrastructure. We’ve known about that since 2013; it’s isolation and amplification. This, um, the amendment that Merck did to this D the reject and patterns applications. So, is, was it only about the fact that it’s like deliberately, you know, like, um, put into the environment or something, or did they add anything else? These were FA four failed patent applications that were, um, essentially revitalized in March of 2019. And it was Madonna. I misspoke. I spoke about merch. It was Madonna. And I tried to correct that. I’m sorry that that didn’t come through, but it’s Madonna’s patent applications that were amended in March of 2019 to include the deliberate release of a respiratory pathogen line. What was, had not been rejected for some reason, they were just not, they were just sitting there basically. No, they, they, they, they do processes similar to other pharmaceutical companies where they evergreen applications and continually modify, modify applications to enjoy the earliest priority dates available. Okay. 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 yes, I mean, the fact of the matter is, um, and like I said, I’m not going to belabor all of the patent data, but, but any assertion that this, 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 dash at 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, the world health organization had declared Coronavirus, um, a, you know, kind of, uh, a dead, a dead interest. I mean, they, they, they said that, 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 a declaration in 2008, um, you know, kind of, kind of falls into the zone of incredulity, to say the least, doesn’t that also mean if you, if you take the. The entirety of the evidence. Then this is a tool, the Coronavirus, and the vaccines. This is a tool and, and the interest of DARPA in creating a biological weapon out of this; this is a tool for everything else that latches onto this, including population control for, well, listen, this, this, we, we have to stop falling for even the mainstream narrative in our line of questioning. Um, 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. Is conversations about whether we have a vaccine for a virus. The fact of the matter is we’re not; we are injecting a spike protein MRN, a secret M RNA 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 Madonna and the vaccine research center by self-report where I don’t know if you were on a phone call. You heard a T T C C G G T T C C G a BBB. You know, is there any chance you might get a letter of valor, a consonant dropped here or there, the ludicrous nature of the story that this is somehow. Prophylactic or preventative flies in the face of a hundred 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 ES one 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, and it’s important. I mean, let’s, let’s review just for the record. When Anthony Fowchee tried desperately to get some of his quote synthetic RNA vaccines, He had his patents rejected by the patent office. And I want to read what the patent office told him when NIAA IDs own Anthony Fowchee thought he could get an MRI and alike vaccine patented as a vaccine. And here’s the quote. These arguments are purr, purr persuasive. To the extent that an antigenic peptide stimulates an immune response that may produce antibodies that bind to a specific peptide or protein, it is not compelling regarding a vaccine. Okay. This is the patent office. This is not some 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 protected as noted in the previous office action. The art recognizes the term vaccine to be a compound, which prevents infection. The applicant has not demonstrated that the instantly claimed vaccine meets even the lower standard set forth in the specification. Let alone the standard art definition for being operative in regards, therefore claims five, seven, and nine are not operative as the anti-HIV vaccine, which he was working on, is not patentable utility. So, Anthony Fowchee himself was told by the patent office themselves. What he was proposing as a vaccine does not meet the patentable, legal, or clinical standards. I know that, um, uh, David, I see many of our viewers are shocked. I can see that from the responses. One of our viewers is, uh, our PCR test specialist, professor Keva. Um, she can’t believe what’s going on here. Um, here’s this sad and sober irony: I raised these issues 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 stimulated. Um, computer sequence, which is being sold under what the patent office, what the medical profession, and what the FDA and its clinical standards would not suggest as a vaccine, but by using the term, we are now subjecting hundreds of millions of people to what was known to be by 2005, a biological weapon, I guess. Um, of not. So mentioned, let’s end. This associate’s minor quartz fast song for expert mid advice was slides instead of the tight-knit vert. Whereas zaps do patent office The moon reaction escapes. Funny. Dammit. So I have, I, you have hundreds of hours of, of this stuff committed to memory. Cause I’ve been doing it for two decades, but if you have any questions, I’d be happy to handle them. There are, I’m sure they’re 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, et cetera. I’m just going to forward what comes in, or we will deliver what comes in. But I do think, oh yeah, we have a mounting Schwab. He probably has; he has a really serious question. Uh, and after me, uh, I’ve come to, uh, okay. Uh, um, I’m a legal professor with the faculty of law. He’ll be the first to, uh, I have to tell you that’s, uh, uh, the constitutional protection units, uh, uh, of, uh, the ministry of interior affairs though observes the so-called Corona denial scene. Uh, Corolla is everyone who, uh, there is, uh, disagree to the official line. Yes, no. Um, if this constitutional protection unit notices me taking part in the discussion that this was, uh, put on stage, intentionally, uh, they will probably try to fire me from my job. So I have to, uh, at least ask some questions. Um, why I heard you talking, I, um, uh, Um, uh, I took a look at the patient number, um, oh, what’s what, which one was it? Uh, uh, 7 2, 2 0 8 5 2 and 7 1 5 1 1 6 3. And, uh, uh, 7 2, 2 0 8 5 2 was filed in April 12 and 7 0 1 5. And so on was filed on April 28th, 2004. I see a difference between 16 now, three days. What did I misunderstand? No, April 23rd, 2003, was the CDC master filing date. Okay. Okay. I asked this question because if they, uh, um, uh, try to make me redundant for my job, I have to provide strong evidence. We have all of this sent to, uh, um, I know, uh, Dr. has the, um, has the entire record in. Um, she does CA; a hundred percent of this record is in there. Um, the additional addendum that I sent across all has the records in there, including all the priority filing dates and the issue date. So a hundred percent of this is in written published records, and you have the written records. Okay. I created my file, and it’s labeled David Martin. Okay. Okay. Um, then there is a, I analyzed media reporting here, uh, and I can confirm that they give a very one-sided account, uh, on, uh, on the pandemic. Uh, everyone who dares to declare, uh, the threat, uh, less dangerous then. Uh, the government does, will be denounced, conspiracy, theorists as tinfoil and so on, you know? Uh, so the media, exactly what you pointed out in the sentence. You, you, you repeat it twice, uh, before? No, uh, actually, uh, they tell us the story of the Delta area, uh, which, uh, uh, is told to be much more contagious that, uh, everything else, um, experts, uh, has spoken to, um, until T said to me that, uh, the database is, uh, contained, uh, uh, as many as more or 40,000 virus strains. Uh, so could this, could this Delta variance, uh, uh, be, uh, um, some media hype, you told us about the fear. There, there is no such thing as an alpha or a beta or gamma Delta variant. This is, this is a means by which what is desperately sought is a degree to which individuals can be coerced into accepting something they would not otherwise accept. There have not been any the published studies on what has been reported. In the Delta variant, there has not been a population are not calculated, which is the actual replication rate. What has been estimated in our computer simulations? But unfortunately, if you look at GSG, I S, and I D, 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 beginning of what’s alleged a pandemic, 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 established that. Anything novel since November of 2019 has a 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, January of 2019, and 2020, respectively. So the problem is. That even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic pneumonia, 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 two has a clinical distinction from anything that was known and published before November 2019 in 73 patents dating to 2008. Could it be that the Delta variant sort of, um, 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, um, infecting someone who’d already gone. Who’s already gone through like variant. Better. Well, so, 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 G I S an I D; 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 a variant omega tomorrow. Yes. And I could come up with a 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. Yes. And the problem is that because of the nature of how week, currently sequence genomes, which is a composite thing process, it’s what we call mathematics. And interleaving, we don’t have any point of reference to 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 asked 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 in when you start and stop what you call the reading frame. There is no novel anything. Yes. Well, it’s God, David. I’ll make that 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. At the problem through patent law, um, it’s he, um, Dr. Vo-tech of believes that patents are problematic because it turns out that it is probably five times more expensive to patent drugs than patent drugs having public. I mean, not public-private, but public universities, getting the stipends, getting the money they need to develop these vaccines. Yeah, let me, I’m going to do something very unfair, but I’m going to hold the document very close to the screen. And it’s only for representational purposes, but I w I want you to see that this is, this is the, um, this is the Barrick patent that, that, um, that NIH needed to have returned to them for mysterious reasons. In 2018, this was seven. 7 9 3, 2 7, and people can look this up on their own. But if you look at the sequences that are patented, which is one of the things that we’ve done, we look at, um, 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 wonder, I want to read you, I mean, this is something that comes directly from their patent application when they talk about the DNA strands, which they call sequence ID numbers. They specifically say the organism is an artificial sequence, an artificial sequence, meaning that it is not a sequence that has a rule-based nature. It is not manifest. For a particular natural derivative protein or natural derivative MRN, a sequence was isolated. Every one of these is, in fact, a synthetic artificial sequence. And suppose you go back and you look at each one of them, which we have done. You’ll find that the sequences are contiguous in many instances but overlapping and others where it is merely a Caprice determination that says something is, or is not part of an open reading frame or is, or is not part of a particular oligonucleotide sequence. Now, the reason why that’s important is that if we are going to examine what ultimately is being injected into individuals, we need the exact sequence. 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, a state with a hundred percent certainty. The sequence is X. The problem that presents is that at this point, 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. Or potentially even could be manufactured into what ultimately becomes the, uh, lipid nanoparticle. That is, it is the carrier frequency into which the injection is, is delivered. And people need to understand that as far back as 2002 and through the patent filings of 2003. 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 that 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 disappointed. Hmm, because fact-checkers are among their general lazy attributes, fact-checkers are not checking facts when it comes to patent matters because the actual sequences are not represented in digital form. That makes it easy to make this comparison. We had to take images of submitted typed papers and then code those in to do our assessment. You cannot do this on the EPS patent site. You cannot do this with YPO data from Geneva. You cannot do this with our patent office data. You have to go in and reconstruct the actual gene sequences by hand and 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. I have one more question. Is it possible that we have, we see that the influencer has, has vanished is gone? We don’t have influence anymore. Uh, the influence of for sure is the viruses are also sequenced. And is it possible that those, that those, uh, parts sequences, we now speak about that they may, they may exist in, in both of the virus types, so that it’s just a matter of testing and 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, with five letters, Anyway with this five letters in many books. Right? Exactly. Yep. Yep. Okay. Your question is, 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 RTPCR tests, that we decided that there are fragments, which by the way, I have looked at every one of the regulatory submissions that have 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 two 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 find? Because if I’m looking for, and why don’t I just read this? If I’m looking for a C, C a C, G C T T T G, do I add the next strand G, or do I go? No, no, no. The next bit is G T T T a G T T C G. And you get the point; the point is that where I choose to start and stop, I can say I found it. Oh, I didn’t find it here. And, and I didn’t find the match that I projected onto the day. Because I chose to look at the data to find the match, influenza did not leave the human population. Influenza was a failed decade, extended pan influenza vaccine mandate that governments around the world desperately promoted. 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. There are many more they can change. Oh goodness. We’ve got tons more to come, but now we’re onto them. I would like to tell you something about this drug development, the drug test, and the PCR test, you know because we looked at it. Let me just briefly, not to that extent that you now looked at the patents that you just described. Still, we looked at this kind of miracle or like, I mean, strange aspect of like the Destin, um, test development, because he, um, in, in, in, even though he would have needed to basically through his employer, the shadow team who would be entitled to holding the patents on this, this, uh, do you know his invention? Um, he just published the instructor. To the house so everyone could see it. So basically, the whole invention lost its, uh, you know, uh, uh, the possibility to be patented. And that’s kind of strange; you know when you look at it. So we asked the shove it in a freedom of information act, um, uh, request. And so they, uh, they said, well, um, do you know, because there was so much, uh, rush to get, get the, um, do you know this, um, the test out because there was this, uh, pandemic going on. So it was like, we didn’t look at the finances, you know, Didn’t care. So that’s kind of strange as a, as a procedure, because I mean, basically this, this test is words with like, uh, billions, you know, how could you just, I mean, this is a publicly financed, uh, hospital, how can they just give, um, you know, uh, give away your, all this, this whole thing. And then, because it was also in close cooperation with the private company tip more, it’s the same with him with which he had developed all the PCR tests from 2002 from the first size and the mass ticker and so on and so on. Um, so it’s very strange, you know, because he was basically like, um, functioning as a door opener for this company, you know, because they, they also said to us, um, so basically, um, it was trust and who decided to which, um, Possible country or like a laboratory or whatever the test, uh, this Juno T-Mobile company would send out the, uh, the test kits to then, of course, make more money because he was basically like he had a first-mover advantage, you know, trust in the air and or this company. So it’s clear now. I mean, maybe there was nothing at that point because there were so many patterns already going on. So basically, from this not novel, um, 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 than to use the whole thing as a, just to do, you know, make, um, uh, profit from this first-mover advantage. And maybe Justin is somehow involved in this whole legal he’s one of the most important people in this scheme because he’s the one whose, whose strings they pulled first. 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. This sounds almost like comedy, but it is not. It, it is in that. We have to realize that part of the reason 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. I started my comments by making sure people remember that when it came to solving the anthrax outbreak. Remember that we had hundreds of thousands of military people in the middle east, allegedly getting even further. The events of September of 2001, we had two postal inspectors investigating anthrax to the largest alleged by a weapons attack on our 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, mind, mind, bendingly powerful individuals in the university. I have nothing against postal inspectors but, but I can guarantee you that if I were investigating a bioterror attack, I would not have the post office having two postal inspectors as their crack team doing the investigation. Um, you know, it was disingenuous, and Congress knew it. And that’s the reason why, you know, we, we publish a thing that’s that. There’s 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, and, 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 Ockham’s razor. It’s the easiest thing to describe because they’re the ones that set it. And Ockham’s razor reality is they said they needed to get the public to accept a pan Coronavirus vaccine countermeasure. They needed the media to create the hype, and investors would follow where they see. You do not have anything else. You need to rely on to explain the events of the last 20 months, then 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 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 excite a metal cap, medical countermeasure, which is, in fact, the injection of a synthetic recombinant, Ky Merrick protein developed off of a computer simulation. If I listen to the motivation for why that might be being done, I will listen to the person doing the manipulator. Who says investors will follow where they see a profit. I don’t need more explanation either. Okay. This is mind-boggling. I’m glad David that we spoke a couple of months ago, maybe 3, 3, 4 months ago. Um, and, uh, we were introduced to each other by, um, uh, David, I’m sorry. Um, uh, James Henry and I were trying to find patent lawyers in this country who might be interested in this case. A few patent lawyers now understand about it, but there’s no one apparently up till now, but maybe this will change, but there was no one willing to tackle this in the context of Corona. That’s the. Oh, this is not new. I’ve tried to find such a lawyer to specialized in patents for the on kit commission for the German Bundestag seven, ten years ago, more than 15 years ago. And we did not sign because they were all afraid to be critical of the system. After all, they would eat; they would distract. They would destroy their job. It was very difficult. Yeah. Bear in mind, bear in mind that this is an old problem. Uh, uh, because the here’s, 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, 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% 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. The European Union commissioned us to examine software patents a few years later at the Swedish delegation’s request to the European Union. And we showed hundreds and hundreds of software patents, which the European Union illegally granted through the EPO. And then we found out that it was German patent examiners in German patent, um, uh, 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 dogmatic 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, supremacy over the rest of Europe. And if you call into question anything, including patents granted on a bioweapon, you are treading on the ground that there is no forgiveness. Yes. Yep. We had some questions from transparency international, and we were wiped out. The topic was not followed. You just can’t; it’s not, it’s not accessible. And that’s just the tragedy of what does, unfortunately, become a regulatory capture organization. Um, it, it, it’s not doing the public service. Yeah. Oh, and I wouldn’t say I like it, I think it’s the one’s thing. Well, thank you. Thank you for the time that you spent. And I hope that it was helpful. It was very helpful. I thank you very much. We’re going to hear a lot of echos. Thank you, David, and have a great weekend. Okay. Take care, everybody. You too. Bye-bye. FINALLY! PASTORS ARE WARNING THE COVID-JAB IS AN ABOMINATION TO CHANGE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN Our living prophecy. No question. In my mind, we are living Bible prophecy. Amanda, the name of Robert F. Kennedy. Jr., You’d think he, I don’t know that he’s in Ken, but he stares says that almost no one understands what’s at say state. He said no one understands what’s at stake. Pharma has 80 COVID vaccines in devils. 80 of them, but bill gates and Fowchee pushed modernists Frankenstein, jab to the front of the line. What are you talking about? Preacher, scientists, and ethicists sound alarms. The fact seen uses a new untested and very controversial experimental art in technology has stopped for a moment. DNA is the code that is in your body. That code is passed from generation to generation, but it’s simply coded. It’s like an encyclopedia. It’s like a book of knowledge, all this information. Are in a region and are in a takes what it reads. And so its process disseminates it into the body. So here we go. It tells us that the vaccine uses a new untested and very controversial experimental RNA technology. For over a decade, they’ve been instead of injecting an antigen and add you font as with traditional max vaccines, Madrona plugs a small piece of Coronavirus, genetic code into human cells, all treeing DNA throughout the human body and reprogramming our cells to produce. Antibodies to fight the virus. Vaccines are a form of genetic engineering called germline gene editing. Modern is genetic alterations are passed down to future generations. Here’s a doctor. Her name is Dr. Carrie Matt dish. She is an osteopathic trained internal medicine physician. And she’s talking about genetically modified humans. And she’s talking about genetically modified humans. Yeah. Well, she’s talking about genetically modified humans. Thanks. He’s talking about genetically modified humans. She says the, of the so-called COVID vaccines, deployed. Recombine it. DNA RNA technology rewrites the genetic code much as Monsanto. For example, rewrites the genetic code of tomatoes and other seeds. Genetically modified organisms can be patented and owned. Monsanto owns the GMO seeds. Once DNA vaccines are used on humans and have never been done before, humans could also be owned. We could be in theory, be patented. None of this has been discussed at length, and very little about this. Isn’t it publicly known scientists do not understand how this affects our DNA. Recombinant RNA and DNA technology will argue matches are permanent. And unknown genetic changes in a person’s body. That, just that for a moment, because this is coming down the road. What happens to you in this generation? According to these people will be passed on from generation to generation. You can mess with DNA; you can get into problems with this. And there’s a thing called a teratoma. I mentioned to you the other day, what is that? That is a sale that shows up where it’s not supposed to show up. For example, a nose can grow on your own. Apples are something hideous in appearance that can grow in parts of your body. They’re not supposed to be there when you start messing with DNA; you are messing with the very program of life. That’s the only glory to God. That’s just one that can make DNA. A man is a fool to think that something so complicated could evolve that could only come from the hand of an old nighty, eternal God; you were programmed to be who you are and what you are before the foundation of the world. God made man in his mind to bring him forth. When he created him from the dust to the ground.  

Avoid the tech tyrants. Discover the truth for yourself.



We don’t spam or send useless info. Unsubscribe anytime.


Subscribe To Our Newsletter