This is a bombshell video conference between Dr David E Martin and Reiner Fuellmich that should fatally debunk the official COVID narrative, if you send this to everybody you know who still watches cable news.
David makes a tight case, backed by mountainous evidence that COVID-19 wasn’t a lab leak. It is a US bioweapon, as is the so-called vaccine. The primary motive is money.
Everything David says can be used in a court of law and is backed by over 20 years of research, patent filings and FOIA documents, including Anthony Fauci’s recently-released emails. David does not speculate about anything. He doesn’t get into any ulterior motives beyond what he has seen in official or verified documents. What he can definitively prove is that COVID-19 is a financially-motivated scam more than 20 years in the making.
Furthermore, he says “SARS-CoV-2” is not novel. It’s the same old SARS (SARS-CoV-1) bioweapon targeted for human lung epithelium that Anthony Fauci commissioned the University of North Carolina to create and which was patented on April 19th 2002, months before what he calls the “alleged” outbreak in Asia.
David then goes through the CDC’s patent filing for SARS coronavirus on April 25th, 2003, followed three days later by a filing by Sequoia Pharmaceuticals for the treatment of same, in a patent on anti-viral agents of control of infections by coronavirus. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals (subsequently, AB Links Pharmaceuticals) was later rolled-up into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crucell and Johnson & Johnson.
David says this is a RICO case. “And the RICO pattern, which was established in April 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?”
The goal of all of this has been to institute an aggressive “pan-coronavirus” vaccine schedule for adults, that seeks to replace our natural immune system with synthetic mRNA biology. This goal and the means to achieve it is encapsulated in a statement made by Wuhan Institute Gain-of-Function contractor, Peter Daszak in 2015: “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 that 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.”
David says, “Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth Alliance; 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 bioweapon 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…
“It’s always been all about money. And just to answer a question that was asked slightly earlier, the script for this was written first January 6th, 2004.”
Reiner asks, “January 6th, 2004. Who wrote the script?”
“Merck, at the conference called SARS and Bioterrorism. ‘Bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases, antimicrobials and immune modulators.’ Merck introduced the notion of what they called 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 the Centers 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.”
As to the vaunted Delta and Lambda “variants” that we’ve been hearing about lately, David says, point-blank, “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…Because of the way in which we currently sequence genomes, which is actually a compositing process – it’s what we’d call in mathematics, an interleaving – we don’t have any point of reference to actually know whether or not the thing we’re looking at is, in fact distinct from either clinical or even genomic sense…It’s just an alteration and a stop-and-start of what you call the ‘reading frame’. There is no ‘novel’ anything.”
As the head of an organization that monitors all breaches of biological weapons treaty violations, that publishes lists of names and contact information and that identifies who is financing these breaches, David says, “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 Razor, it’s the easiest thing to describe, because they’re the ones that said it. The Occam’s Razor reality is that they said they needed to get the public to accept a pan-coronavirus vaccine countermeasure and they needed to 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 past 20 months than the actual statement of the actual perpetrator. 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 the medical countermeasure,’ which is actually the injection of a synthetic, recombinant, chimeric protein developed off 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 simulation, who says, ‘Investors will follow where they see profit.’ I don’t need more explanation.”
4,000 PATENTS PERTAINING TO SARS
David begins by telling Reiner that his team has reviewed the over 4,000 patents pertaining to the SARS coronavirus and done a comprehensive analysis of the financing of all of the manipulations which gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the Beta Coronavirus family.
David’s team took the reported gene sequence of the so-called “novel” coronavirus, as indicated by the ICTV (the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses of the World Health Organization) and compared this gene sequence with those in the patent records as of early 2020 and what they found were over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was “entirely a fallacy.”
David says, “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 not been novel for over two decades.”
David then takes us on a short journey through the patent landscape.
“The first vaccine ever patented for coronavirus was actually sought by Pfizer…which was specifically this ‘S’ spike protein – so the exact same thing that allegedly we have rushed into invention – the first application was filed on January 28, 2000, twenty-one years ago.
“So the idea that we stumbled on the way to ‘intervene’ on vaccines is not only ludicrous it is incredulous, because Timothy Miller, Sharon Klepfer, Albert Paul Reed and Elaine Jones, on January 28th, 2000 filed what ultimately was issued as US Patent #6372224, which was the spike protein virus 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 protein’s behavior is anything novel, at all. As a matter of fact, it’s 22 years old, based on patent filings.
“What’s more problematic, actually the most egregious problem is that Anthony Fauci and NIAID found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines.
SARS IS A MAN-MADE BIOWEAPON
“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 lament what I’m about to read, because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19th, 2002…where the NIAID built an infectious, replication-defective coronavirus. It was specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.
“In other words, we made SARS. And we patented it on April 19, 2002, before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which as you know, followed that by several months.
“That patent was issued as #7279327. That patent clearly lays out, in very specific gene sequencing, the fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE-2 binding domain, the 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…
“So it gets worse. My organization was asked to monitor biological 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 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, USAMERIID, the USArmed Forces Infectious Diseases program and a number of agencies internationally that collaborated with them.
“And our concern was that coronavirus was being seen not only as 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 2001, so you can imagine how disappointed I am, to be sitting here 20 years later, having 20 years earlier pointed out 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 the viral model we have is actually not new to the human condition and it 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 Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. And this topic is of critical importance to get the nuance very precise. Because, in addition to filing the entire gene sequence on what became SARS coronavirus – which is actually a violation of 35 US Code Section 101 – you cannot patent a naturally-occurring substance, the 35 US Code Section 101 violation was Patent #7220852. Now, that patent also had a series of derivative patents associated with it. These are patent applications that were broken apart, because they were of multiple, patentable subject matter.
“These include, US Patent #46592703P, which is actually a very interesting designation, US Patent #776521. These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus, but also covered the means of detecting it, using RTPCR.
“Now, the reason why that’s a problem is if you actually both own the patent on the gene, itself and you own the patent on its detection, you have a cunning advantage to being able to control 100% of the provenance of not only the virus, itself but also its detection, meaning you have entire scientific and message control.
“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 CDC’s filing for a patent, the Patent Office found 99.9% identity with the already-existing coronavirus recorded in the Public Domain and over the rejection of the Patent Examiner, and after having to pay an appeal fine in 2006 and 2007, the CDC overrode the Patent Office’s rejection of their patent and ultimately, in 2007, got the patent on SARS coronavirus.
“So every public statement that CDC has made, that said 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.
SARS-COV-1 = SARS-COV-2
“I wish I could have made up anything I just said but 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 at the US Patent Office has not only the evidence but the actual documents, which I have in my possession.
“Now, this is 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% 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-C0V-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.”
David then goes through the CDC’s patent filing for SARS coronavirus on April 25th, 2003, three days later, followed by a filing by Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, a Maryland corporation for a patent on anti-viral agents of treatment and control of infections by coronavirus.
“Ask yourself a simple question,” David says. “How would one have a treatment for a thing that had been invented three days earlier? 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 CDC patent 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…”
Reiner says, “This well could blow up into a RICO case, ultimately.”
David says, “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 2003 for the first coronavirus was played out to exactly to the same schedule, when we see SARS-C0V-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?”
David says, “It’s gonna get worse, here. On the 5th of June 2008, which is an important date, because it is around the time that DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research program in the United States actively took an interest in coronavirus as a biological weapon. June 5th, 2008. AB Links, which is part of Sanofi files a series of patents that targeted what we’ve been told is the novel feature of the SARS-C0V-2 virus. And you heard what I just said. This s the 5th of June, 2008.
“Specifically, they targeted the polybasic cleavage site for SARS-CoV-2, the novel spike protein and the ACE-2 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 and, which was US Patent #9193780. So that one came out after the Gain of Function moratorium. That one came out 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 AB Links and to Sanofi.
“And then, we have Crucell, we have Rubius Therapeutics, we have Children’s Medical Corporation, we have countless others, that include Ludwig-Maximilian Universität in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong, Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai, all identifying in patent filings, that ranged from 2008-2017, every attribute that was allegedly uniquely published by the single reference publication, the novel bat coronavirus reveals ‘natural insertions at the S1/S2 2 cleavage site of the spike protein and possible recombinant 3 origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,’ the paper that has been routinely been used to identify the novel coronavirus.
“Unfortunately, if you actually take what has been reported to be novel, you find 73 patents issued between 2008 and 2019 that have the elements that were allegedly novel in the SARS-CoV-2, specifically as it relates to the polybasic cleavage site, the ACE-2 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 – 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 Baric – was not only poised for human emergence, but it was patented for commercial exploitation 73 times.”
NO LAB LEAK: COVID DEPLOYED TO LAUNCH THE ‘PAN-CORONAVIRUS’ VACCINE
Reiner interjects, “Ralph Baric – I think I saw a video clip where he said you can make a lot of money with this.”
“Yes, you can,” David replies, “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, 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 of Press publication, February 12, 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 that 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 head of EcoHealth Alliance. 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 bioweapon 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.
Lawyer, Viviane Fischer comments, “And there’s really nothing that is new in this –”
“Nothing.” David replies. “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 US Government already has what’s called a march-in provision. That means that if the US Government has paid for research, they’re 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 typographical 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 by 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 asks, “You have all the evidence, right?”
“Yep,” says David.
“So it’s all about money?”
Reiner says, “January 6th, 2004. Who wrote the script?”
“Merck, at the conference called SARS and Bioterrorism. ‘Bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases, anti-microbials and immune modulators.’ Merck introduced the notion of what they called 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 the Centers 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, quite a long time. I’m not going to belabor many more points, other than to say that it was very clear that Moderna knew that it was going to be placed at 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, fr reasons that are not transparent, they suddenly amended a series of rejected patent filings, which is a very bizarre behavior. But they amended a bunch of patent filings to specifically make reference to an intentional or accidental – 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 that they relied on technology that they did not own. Two Canadian companies, Arbutus Pharmaceuticals and Acuitus 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 the US and then around the world and their around-the-world equivalents.
“Moderna knew they did not own the rights and began trying to negotiate with Arbutus and Acuitus 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 cooperative agreement with UNC Chapel Hill, with respect to getting the spike protein to put inside 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 and 2019, at every one of the NIAID 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 was his favorite target. He was trying to get the population to engage on this process.
“And what becomes very evident, with Peter Daszak, EcoHealth 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. 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 a release of a respiratory pathogen was written into the scenario that ‘must be completed by September 2020…this was the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board’s unified statement. There are a number of people who have taken credit and then backed away from taking credit for it…”
Reiner’s group begins a Q&A and then David begins to wrap it up by recalling his experience investigating the anthrax attacks of 2001. He notes wryly that while 100,000 US troops had been sent to the Middle East to “get even” for 9/11, that two US Postal Service Inspectors were in charge of the anthrax investigation, the largest biological attack on US soil in its history.
Having seen all of that and having an organization that monitors all breaches of biological weapons treaty violations, that publishes lists of names and contact information and that identifies who is financing these breaches, David says, “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 Razor, it’s the easiest thing to describe, because they’re the ones that said it. And the Occam’s Razor reality is that they said they needed to get the public to accept a pan-coronavirus vaccine countermeasure and they needed to the media to create the hype and investors would follow where they see profit.
“Similarly, if I have somebody who says ‘We need to use the media to hype the medical countermeasure,’ which is actually the injection of a synthetic recombinant chimeric protein developed off 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 simulation, who says, ‘Investors will follow where they see profit.’ I don’t need more explanation.”