Doctor David Martin is the Chairman of M-CAM International Innovation Risk Management. Since 1998, M-CAM has been the World’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in over 160 countries, including the entire body of patents, applications, Federal grants, procurement records, etc.
Our business is to monitor the innovation that is happening around the World.
This video gets very technical, so I have done my best to summarise the content and provide some relevant quotes as well. The patent numbers mentioned in the video will be cited below and contain links to their respective records at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) — just click/tap them to open them in a new tab.
Dr Martin says his company has reviewed over 4,000 patents that have been issued around SARS-coronavirus and has done a comprehensive review of the financing of all the manipulations of coronavirus that gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta-coronavirus family.
The document he holds up to the camera at 3:50 can be viewed here:
Dr Martin says they took the gene sequences that were reported to be novel by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) and reviewed them against the patent records up to 2020. There was no novel coronavirus; there are countless very subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded, but no single identifiable novel coronavirus. They found records of sequences attributed to novelty going to patents that were sought as early as 1999.
US PATENT 6372224: Prior to 1999, patents for coronavirus were only applied in the veterinary field. Pfizer filed the first coronavirus-related patent on January 28th of 2000 for the spike protein vaccine for canine coronavirus.
US PATENT 7279327: Dr Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for an HIV vaccine. In 1999, Dr Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill to create an infectious, replication-defective coronavirus that specifically targets human lung epithelium. This patent was filed in April of 2002.
We made SARS and we patented it on April 19th, 2002.
M-CAM monitored bioweapons treaty violations in 2001 and was part of the investigation that gave rise to the Congressional inquiry into the origins of anthrax and the unusual behaviour around Bayer’s Ciprofloxacin drug that was used for anthrax poisoning. An enormous number of viral pathogen patents from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NIAID, the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (AMRIID), and international collaborators, were filed. Clearly coronavirus was being considered as a bioweapon, not just a vaccine vector.
US PATENTS 7220852 & 7776521: Following the SARS outbreak, a patent for the genome sequence of SARS was filed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in April of 2003. This would be in violation of 35 US Code Section 101 if it was a naturally occurring organism.
US PATENT 46592703P appears to be no longer accessible (I believe it has since been classified by the US Government). It covered the means of detection using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) based on the genome and primer sequences recorded in the above two patents.
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.
The US Patent Office twice rejected the sequence filing because it was already 99.9% identical to the existing coronavirus sequence already in the public domain. The CDC paid an appeal fine, overrode the rejection and got the patent approved in 2007; they also paid an additional fee to keep the application private.
So 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.
Fact checkers have repeatedly stated that the novel coronavirus designated as SARS-CoV-2 is in fact distinct from the CDC patent. 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.
US PATENT 7151163: On the 28th of April in 2003, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent for antiviral agents that could be used in the treatment, control and prevention of coronavirus infection. This patent was filed three days after the CDC filed their patents on SARS, but was published before the CDC patents got approved.
Dr Reiner Fuellmich and David Martin agree that this is evidence for a RICO case (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act).
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.
US PATENT 9193780: On the 5th of June of 2008, Ablynx (Sanofi) filed patents for the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein, and the ACE2 receptor binding domain — the supposedly novel components of the SARS-2 coronavirus. These patents were published in November 2015, after the gain of function moratorium and the MERS outbreak.
Then in 2016, 2017, and 2019, a series of patents all covering the RNA strands and subcomponents of the gene strands were all issued to Ablynx (Sanofi). Further, there were patent filings between 2008 and 2017 by Crucell, Rubius Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong, and the Chinese National Human Genome Centre in Shanghai, all identifying every attribute of the allegedly novel SARS-2 coronavirus — 73 patent filings as such between 2008 and 2019.
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.
SARS was not only poised for human emergence, it was patented for exploitation.
We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan-corona-virus 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.Dr. Peter Daszak, Head of EcoHealth Alliance (National Academies of Press Publication, 2016)
US PATENT 7279327 was transferred from UNC Chapel Hill to the NIH in 2018; under the Bayh-Dole Act, the US Government already has march-in rights on any research that they have funded, so why did they suddenly take ownership of the patent that they already had rights to in 2002? They wanted to make sure it was legally enforceable, as this was the patent required to develop the Vaccine Research Institute’s mandate. It was shared between UNC, NIAID, and Moderna in developing the spike protein vaccine in November of 2019, one month before the outbreak.
The script for this was written on January 6th of 2004 by Merck, at a conference called: “SARS and Bioterrorism”. Merck introduced the “New Normal” term adopted by the WHO and the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) — the board upon which the Chinese CDC director, Dr Christopher Elias (Gates Foundation) and Dr Anthony Fauci sat together.
Moderna knew that it was going to be placed in the frontline for the development of a vaccine. In March of 2019, four prior-rejected patent filings were amended to specifically make reference to a “deliberate release” of coronavirus. Two Canadian companies, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Acuitas Therapeutics owned the patent on the lipid nanoparticle that is required to deliver the injection of the mRNA molecule into the cell for the vaccine. Moderna negotiated the use of this, so they had a candidate for the vaccine by November of 2019.
From 2016 to 2019, at every NIAID advisory council board meeting, Dr Fauci lamented the fact that he could not get people to accept the universal influenza vaccine.
The epiphany of the “deliberate release” cited in Moderna’s March of 2019 patent filings is recited in the book “A World At Risk”, which is the scenario put together by the GPMB in September of 2019. The language of an intentional release was written into the scenario that “must be completed by September 2020”.
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.The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board
There are 117 patents that specify the ACE2 receptor mechanism going back to 2008. The WHO said we had eradicated coronavirus as a concern back in 2007/2008.
This was seen as a highly malleable bioweapon. There is no question that by 2005 it was unquestionably a weapon of choice.
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 S1 spike protein.Dr. David Martin
Dr Fauci’s own synthetic mRNA vaccines for HIV were rejected by the Patent Office, which stated the following…
These arguments are persuasive to the extent that an antigenic peptide stimulates an immune response that may produce antibodies that bind to a specific peptide or protein, but it is not persuasive in regards to a vaccine. The immune response produced by a vaccine must be more than merely some immune response, but must also be protective, as noted in the previous office action. The Art recognises the term vaccine to be a compound which prevents infection. 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.The US Patent and Trademark Office
The sad and sober irony is that I raised these issues beginning in 2002 after the anthrax scare, and the tragedy is, we are now sitting in a world where we have hundreds of millions of people who are being injected with a pathogen-stimulating computer sequence, which is being sold under what the Patent Office, what the Medical Profession, and what the FDA, in its own clinical standards, would not suggest is a vaccine, but by using the term, we actually are now subjecting hundreds of millions of people to what was known to be, by 2005, a biological weapon.Dr. David Martin
Law Professor, Martin Schwab, remarks that if the Constitutional Protection Unit there takes notice of him participating in anti-covid dialogue, they will probably try to have him fired. He says experts tell him that the databases could hold as many as 40,000 virus strains. Could the delta variant be come kind of media hype?
There is no such thing as an alpha, or beta, or gamma, or delta variant. This is a means by which, what is desperately sought, is a degree to which individuals can be coerced into accepting something that they would not otherwise accept.Dr Martin’s response
There has not been a population “R nought” (R0) calculated (i.e., the actual replication rate) in any of the published studies of the delta variant; just computer simulations. The Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) — which is the public source for uploading variations — does not show any identifiable altered gene sequence variations that show any clinical significance whatsoever. The prior 73 patents, dating from 2008 to November 2019, all contain what was reported to be novel in SARS-CoV-2.
There is no evidence that the delta variant is somehow distinct from anything else on GISAID.
Genomes are sequenced in a composite process…
If you go and look, as I have, at the papers that isolated the delta variant, and actually ask 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 where you start and stop the reading frame.
US PATENT 7279327: Dr Martin refers back to this patent again. Looking at the published sequences, depending on where you clip the actual sequence string, you will have the same thing, or a different thing, based on nothing more than where you decided to parse the clip. The patent says that the invention is an “artificial sequence”. The sequences are contiguous in many instances, and overlapping in others, where it is merely a caprice determination that says something is or is not part of an open reading frame or oligonucleotide sequence.
The reason why that’s important is because if we are going to examine what ultimately is being injected into individuals we need the exact sequence.
The exact sequence that has gone in to be amplified in the covid injection cannot be stated with 100% certainty.
And that’s where you find that the question of novelty is something that was not addressed — this was a manufactured illusion.
Wolfgang Wodard notes that influenza has disappeared and asks whether the sequences in question could be found in both viruses, like finding the same words in different books, or that it may be a matter of simply using different instruments to detect something different in the same virus.
Your question is a beautiful metaphor of exactly the problem!
Dr Martin says that there is no standard sequence for detecting the covid virus.
Influenza did not leave the human population; influenza was a failed, decade long pan-influenza vaccine mandate that was desperately, desperately, desperately promoted by governments around the world. They failed and they decided that if influenza doesn’t deliver on the public promise of getting everybody to get an injection, let’s change the pathogen.
The Occam’s razor reality is they said they needed to get the public to accept a pan-coronavirus vaccine countermeasure, and they needed 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 last 20 months than the actual statement of the actual perpetrator.Dr. David Martin
Additional links to the video:
A World At Risk:
Full URL of the M-CAM publication shown at 3:50:
The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier:
Follow-up interview with Dr David Martin on Red Voice Media: