Dr. David Martin:
"... 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
We took the actual genetic sequences that were
reportedly "novel" and reviewed those against the patent records
that were available as of the spring of 2020.
And what we found, as
you'll see in this report, are over 120 patented pieces of evidence
to suggest that the declaration of a 'novel'
coronavirus was actually
entirely a fallacy."
"As a matter of fact, very specifically in 1999,
funded research at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill... where the NIAID built an infectious replication defective
coronavirus that was specifically targeted for human lung
In other words, we made SARS. And we patented it on
April 19, 2002 before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia
which, as you know, followed that by several months.
That patent - issued as
US patent 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
exclusively in the early days as a means by which we could actually
harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine."
"... my organization was asked to monitor biological and chemical
weapons treaty violations in the very early days of 2000. You'll
remember the anthrax events in September of 2001.
And we were part
of an investigation that gave rise to the congressional inquiry into
not only the anthrax origins... And our concern was that coronavirus
was being seen as not only a potential manipulable agent for
potential use as a vaccine vector but it was also very clearly being
considered as a biological weapon candidate.
And so our first public
reporting on this took place prior to the SARS outbreak in the
latter part of 2001.
So you can imagine how disappointed I am to be
sitting here 20 years later, having 20 years earlier pointed that
there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to coronavirus.
But after the alleged outbreak... I will always say alleged outbreak
because I think it's important for us to understand that coronavirus
as a circulating pathogen, inside of the viral model that we have,
is actually not new to the human condition
and is not new to the
last two decades.
It's actually been part of the sequence of
proteins that circulates for quite a long time.
But the alleged outbreak that took place in China in 2002 going into
2003 gave rise to a very problematic April 2003 filing by the United
States Center for Disease Control and Prevention. And this topic is
of critical importance to get the nuance very precise.
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 number 7220852.
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.
But these include US
patent 46592703P (which is actually a very interesting designation),
US patent... 7776521. These patents not only covered the gene sequence
of SARS coronavirus but also covered the means of detecting it
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 percent of
the providence of not only the virus itself but also its detection - meaning you have the 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.
words, prior to CDC's filing for a patent, the patent office found
99.9% identity with the already existing coronavirus recorded in the
And, over the rejection of the patent examiner and
after having to pay an appeal fine in 2006 and 2007,
overrode the patent office's rejection of their patent and
ultimately in 2007 got the patent on SARS coronavirus.
Every public statement that CDC has made that said that this was in
the public interest is falsifiable by their own paid
bribe to the
patent office. This is not something that's subtle.
And, to make
matters worse, they paid an additional fee to keep their application
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.
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 that the
United States patent office, has not only the evidence but the
actual documents which 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-2, is, in fact, distinct from
the CDC patent.
And here's both the genetic and the patent problem.
If you look at the gene sequence that is filed by CDC in 2003, again
in 2005, and then again in 2006, what you find is identity in
somewhere between 89 to 99 percent of the sequence overlaps that
have been identified in what's called the novel subclade of
What we know is that the core designation of SARS coronavirus, which
is actually the clade of the betacoronavirus family, and the
subclade that is been called SARS-CoV-2 have to overlap from a
taxonomate 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
the clade called SARS coronavirus.
Now, what's important is on the 28th of April
- and listen to the
date very carefully because this date is problematic.
after CDC filed the patent on the SARS coronavirus in 2003 - three
days later Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, company that was set up in
Maryland - Sequoia Pharmaceuticals on the 28th of April 2003 filed
the patent on antiviral agents on treatment and control of
infections by coronavirus. CDC filed three days earlier...
the treatment was available three days later.
... 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?
... 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
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
This, my friends, is the definition of
criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion...
This is not a theory.
This is evidence..."
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich:
"This could well blow up into a RICO case ultimately."
Dr. David Martin:
"... It is a RICO case.
And the RICO pattern, which was established in
April of 2003 for the first coronavirus, was played out to exactly
the same schedule when we see SARS-CoV-2 show up - when we have Moderna getting the spike protein sequence by phone from the vaccine
research center at NIAID prior to the definition of the novel
How do you treat a thing before you actually have
"... the 5th of June 2008, which is an important date because it is
actually around the time when
DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research
Program in the United States, actively took an interest in coronavirus as a
June 5th 2008, Ablynx, which as you know is now part of Sanofi,
filed a series of patents that specifically targeted what we've been
told is the novel feature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
And you heard
what I just said. This is the 5th of June 2008...
Specifically, they targeted what was called the polybasic cleavage
site for SARS-CoV, 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 24 of
2015 - which was US patent 9193780. So that one came out after the
gain of function moratorium.
That one came after the
in the Middle East.
But what you find is that then in 2016, 2017, 2019 a series of
patents all covering, not only the RNA strands, but also the
subcomponents of the gene strands, were all issued to Ablynx and
Sanofi... we have countless others... all identifying in patent filings
that ranged from 2008 until 2017.
Every attribute that was allegedly uniquely published by the single
reference publication, the novel bat coronavirus... the paper that has
been routinely used to identify the novel virus, unfortunately, if
you actually take what they report to be novel you find 73 patents
issued between 2008 and 2019 which have the elements that were
allegedly novel in the SARS-CoV-2 - specifically as it relates to
the polybasic cleavage site, ACE-2 receptor binding-domain and the
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
was not only poised for human emergence but it was patented for
commercial exploitation... 73 times."
"My favorite quote of this pandemic was a statement made in 2015 by
Peter Daszak... reported in the National Academies Press
February 12, 2016, and I'm quoting:
'We need to increase public
understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan coronavirus
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
"... every study
that's ever been launched to try to verify a lab leak is a red
"And I'm going to give you the biggest bombshell of all to prove
that this was actually not a release of anything, because
7279327 - the patent on the recombinant nature of that
lung-targeting coronavirus - was transferred mysteriously from the
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to the National Institutes
of Health in 2018.
Now here's the problem with that. Under the Bayh-Dole Act, the U. S.
government already has what's called a 'march-in right' provision.
That means if the US government has paid for research, they are
entitled to benefit from that research at their demand or at their
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.
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 need to
make sure every typographical 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 Moderna, in November of 2019, when,
...began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine
- a month before an outbreak ever happened."
"And just to answer a question that was asked slightly earlier, the
script for this was written first January 6, 2004...
At the conference
called SARS and Bioterrorism... 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...
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 6, 2004.
... 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 in
the front of the line with respect to the development of a vaccine
in March of 2019.
And this is a very important date because in March
of 2019, for reasons that are not transparent, they suddenly amended
a series of rejected patent filings, which is a very bizarre
But they amended a number of patent filings to
specifically make reference to an intentional or accidental release
- I'm sorry - their term 'deliberate release' of coronavirus.
March they amended four failed patent applications to begin the
process of a coronavirus vaccine development..."
"... and we know, as I made reference to before that in November, they
entered into a research and cooperative research development
agreement with UNC Chapel Hill with respect to getting the spike
protein to put inside of the lipid nanoparticle - so that they
actually had a candidate vaccine before we had a pathogen allegedly
that was running around.
What makes that story most problematic, beyond the self evident
nature of it, is that we know that from 2016 until 2019, at every
one of the NIAID Advisory Council board meetings,
lamented the fact that he could not find a way to get people to
accept the universal influenza vaccine - which is what was his
favorite target he was trying to get the population to engage in
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 a epiphany that says,
'what if there
was an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory
And what makes that particular phrase problematic is it
is exactly recited in the book 'A World at Risk' which is the
scenario that was put together by the World Health Organization in
September of 2019.
So, months before there's an alleged pathogen
- which says that we
need to have a coordinated global experience of a respiratory
pathogen release - which by September 2020 must put in place a
universal capacity for public relations management, crowd
control and the acceptance of a universal vaccine mandate."
"That was September
of 2019. And the language of an intentional release of a
respiratory pathogen was written into the scenario that 'must be
completed by September 2020'."