A 20-YEAR trail of patent applications concerning the virus responsible for Covid-19 proves it is neither new nor the result of a jump from animals to humans, an inquiry has been told.
Instead, the patents show that a natural virus, harmless to humans, was subjected to numerous laboratory modifications which ‘weaponised’ it, such that it could become the basis of a marketing campaign for tests and vaccines which are of questionable value to the public health, but which have proved to be a financial bonanza for drug companies.
A dossier of evidence supporting these claims has been presented to the international Corona Investigative Committee headed by Reiner Fuellmich, a senior German lawyer specialising in exposing corporate swindles. The committee has been taking testimony from scientists and other experts since July last year.
The dossier was submitted last week by Dr David Martin, who heads M-CAM International, a US company which monitors innovations relevant to financial interests.
First made public more than a year ago, Martin’s allegations were widely dismissed as ‘conspiracy’ by so-called fact-checkers, who at the time were promoting the view fostered by the scientific establishment that the virus had a natural origin.
That view has become seen as in itself based on a conspiracy to mislead involving British scientist Dr Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance, which has received tens of millions of US dollars for investigating coronaviruses, but who was appointed by the Lancet medical journal to head an inquiry into the virus’s origins.
Last month Daszak ‘recused himself’ without explanation from the inquiry. He played a leading role in a similar investigation by the World Health Organisation, widely dismissed as a whitewash when published on March 30.
On Friday last week Martin gave a two-hour, live-streamed interview to Fuellmich and his team in which he spelled out the patent data that led to his explosive conclusions; you can watch it here.)
He said that ‘somebody knew something in 2015 and 2016 which gave rise to my favourite quote of this entire pandemic’. This was a statement made by Peter Daszak in 2015, and reported in the National Academies Press on February 12, 2016, in which he declared: ‘We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical counter-measures 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.’
Of his own company, Martin said:
‘We have since 1998 been the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. Our underwriting systems include the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records, etc. We have the ability to track not only what is happening, and who is involved in what’s happening, but we monitor a series of thematic interests for a variety of organisations and individuals as well as for our own commercial use.
We have reviewed over 4,000 patents issued around SARS-coronavirus and done a very comprehensive review of the financing of all the manipulation of coronavirus which gave rise to SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome).
We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel, and reviewed those against the patent records available as of the spring of 2020. 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 fallacy. There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless, very subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded. But there was no single identifiable novel coronavirus at all.
As a matter of fact, we found patent records of sequences attributed to novelty going to patents sought as early as 1999. So not only was this not a novel anything, it’s actually not been novel for over two decades.’
Martin took the inquiry team on what he called a ‘short journey through the patent landscape, to make sure people understand what happened’.
Until 1999, he said, patenting activity around coronavirus applied only within veterinary science. As early as January 2000, the Pfizer drug company filed for a patent on a genetic sequence giving rise to a coronavirus spike protein, ‘the exact same thing we have allegedly rushed into invention’, to be used in a vaccine against a canine disease.
So, based on patent filings more than two decades old, neither the coronavirus concept of a vaccine, nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest with regard to the spike protein’s behaviour, were ‘anything novel at all’.
Even more problematic, the patent record showed that in 1999 Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), found the ‘malleability’ of the coronavirus made it a potential candidate for vaccines against HIV (the purported cause of AIDS, for which US taxpayers have contributed more than $300billion in research and treatment over the past 35 years)‘.
‘Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, specifically to create – and you cannot help but lament what I am about to read, because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19, 2002 – “an infectious replication defective coronavirus”.’
This virus was specifically targeted to invade human lung epithelia, the protective cells lining the lungs, Martin said.
‘In other words, we made SARS. Before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which as you know followed that by several months.
That patent, issued as US patent 7279327, clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we know that the . . . ACE-2 binding domain [a protein on the surface of many cell types, through which both SARS-CoV-2 and the original SARS coronavirus enter host cells], 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.
And the technology was funded exclusively in the early days as a means by which we could harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine.’
Martin went on: ‘It gets worse.’ His organisation was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations, and was part of an investigation into events in October 2001, in which letters containing anthrax spores were sent to several news media offices and two senators.
‘Throughout the fall of 2001 we began monitoring an enormous number of bacterial and viral pathogens that were being patented through the National Institutes of Health, NIAID, USAMRIID [the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases], and a number of other agencies internationally that collaborated with them.
Our concern was that coronavirus was being seen not only as a potential manipulable agent for potential use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate.
Our first public reporting on this took place prior to the SARS outbreak in the latter part of 2001. So you can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here 20 years later, having 20 years earlier pointed that there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to coronavirus.’
That first SARS event gave rise to a ‘very problematic’ April 2003 patent filing by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was for the entire SARS gene sequence, and for a series of derivative patents covering means of detection, including the PCR test [widely used today purportedly to diagnose cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection].
‘The reason why that is a problem is that if you both own the patent on the gene itself, and on its detection, you have a cunning advantage to being able to control 100 per cent of the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its detection. Meaning, you have the entire scientific and message control.’
The CDC’s public relations team sought to justify the application on the grounds that it would enable everyone to be free to research coronavirus.
That was a lie, Martin said. The US Patent Office twice rejected the application for the entire SARS sequence, on the grounds that it was already recorded in the public domain, but the CDC started a process to override this rejection. After repeated applications, and paying an appeal fine, they got the patent approved in 2007. They also paid an additional fee to keep the application private.
‘So every public statement the CDC has made that said this was in the public interest is falsifiable by their own, paid bribe to the Patent Office.’
Furthermore, three days after the CDC’s April 2003 attempt to patent the SARS sequence, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, a private venture-capital funded company founded in 2002, filed a patent application on antiviral agents, treatment and control of infections by coronavirus. This was approved, and published, before the CDC patent 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. This is the definition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion. This is not theory. This is evidence.’