Sayings — on Viruses

‘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.’ — Peter Daszak, Eco-Health Alliance

Transcript of testimony by Dr Christina Parks before Michigan (U.S.A.) House of Representatives, on HR 4471, a Bill to ban employers from forcing employees to take vaccinations, Aug 2021

Dr Christina Parks

I have a PhD in cellular and molecular biology from University of Michigan Medical School, so I’m very well-versed in the science of both these mRNA gene therapy vaccines, this kind of technology as well as what the vaccine is designed to do in the body, what it can do, what it can’t do. This is extremely complex science that has been over-simplified in the media to basically take away our freedom of choice. What I want to address today is the fact that vaccine requirements and mandates are based on the faulty assumption that the vaccines prevent transmission of the pathogen.

Does the vaccine for flu prevent transmission? No. Do the vaccines for covid prevent transmission? No. In fact they were never designed to do that. So you’re asking what about this 95% effectiveness? If you look at those clinical trials, they do not say that they prevent transmission, they expressly say that they’re measuring whether they attenuate symptoms. So they’re 95% effective based on their clinical trials at attenuating symptoms for the first variant, which is essentially gone in our population right now. The predominant variant is Delta, and CDC Director Wollensky basically said that these vaccines have no ability to prevent infection by and transmission of the Delta variant. So our policy needs not to be built on the hope of what we think, something we wanted to do, but what the data actually tell us. So does the vaccine prevent the virus from infecting and replicating in the nose and nasopharynx? No. They’ve only been shown to prevent that replication in the lungs. The mucosa is very different in the lungs and in the blood.

Studies have shown that the vaccinated, especially with the Delta variant, and the unvaccinated have similar amounts of virus in their nose and throat. In Barnstable Massachusetts the CDC tracking an outbreak of 469 cases of covid found that 74 per cent occurred in the fully vaccinated, and four out of five of those hospitalized were vaccinated. The health agencies and CDC know better and are misleading the public. What about the flu vaccine? While they have shown that basically there’s no statistical difference if you’re vaccinated and unvaccinated whether you get the flu or not. But it’s even worse because although that first year it is somewhat effective, it’s about 65% effective at preventing symptoms in you. After that it actually has negative effects.

It’s very important to see that vaccines are made to a specific variant, and when that variant mutates, the vaccine no longer recognizes it, and so it’s like you’re seeing a completely new virus. And because that’s so, you actually get more severe symptoms when you’re vaccinated against one variant, and then it mutates and then your body sees the other variants. So there’s a potential, and the science shows, that in fact with the flu if you get vaccinated in multiple years, you are more likely to get severe disease you are more likely have more viral replication and you are more likely to be hospitalized — both in adults and in children. We are seeing the same thing with covid. So we are mandating that people get a vaccine that could actually make them more sick when they’re exposed to the virus, This week a paper came out, what it showed is that with this Delta variant, when you’re vaccinated your body makes antibodies that are supposed to neutralize the virus. But they were supposed to neutralize the old variant. When they see this new variant, antibodies are taking the virus and helping it in.

We need our policy to reflect the science and we also need it to reflect our rights. As a PhD who knows the science I’m in the category of the most vaccine-hesitant group. PhDs are the most vaccine-hesitant, followed by people who have less than a high school degree, because they know what they don’t know and they don’t trust their government. The other group that is very vaccine-hesitant is African-Americans. Seventy percent of African Americans have not taken this vaccine why because they don’t trust their government. Do they have reason not to trust our government? Well, between the years of 1930 and 1970 the CDC conducted the Tuskegee experiment where they took untreated males with syphilis and they refuse to treat them even after antibiotics became available. They did not tell them that they had syphilis, they told those people that they were there to secure their health. You say well that was in the past, but I don’t think 1970 was that long ago. As an African-American and a PhD I want to ask each of you are we going to exclude 70% of African-American people from the workforce and from education? My ancestors did not work this hard I come up at from a family that worked very hard and I’m very aware that my privileges are dependent on the work of my grandmother and my great-grandmother and I have great respect for these people that put me where I am. And yet you’re telling me that my son will not be able to be educated if, based on the history of African Americans in this country, he doesn’t want to be vaccinated. So I will leave you with that question: Who are we going to exclude from the workforce? Are we going to continue with discrimination and segregation in the United States of America? Thank you. [Video]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Transcript of remarks by Dr David Martin, July 2021

Dr David Martin

Our firm has 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. 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 not only track what is happening and who is involved in what’s happening but we monitor a series of thematic interests for a variety of organizations and individuals as well as for our own commercial use, because as you probably know we maintain three Global Equity indices which are the the top performing large-cap and mid-cap equity indices worldwide. So our business is to monitor the innovation that’s happening around the world and specifically to monitor the economics of that innovation, the degree to which financial interests are being served, corporate interests are being dislocated etc. So our business is the business of innovation and its finance.

As you know we have reviewed the over 4,000 patents that have been issued around SARS Coronavirus and we have done a very comprehensive review of the financing of all of the manipulations of coronavirus which gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta coronavirus family. We took the reported gene sequence which was reportedly 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 patent records that were available as of the spring of 2020. And what we found are over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually 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 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 actually not been novel for over two decades.

Up until 1999 the topic of coronavirus was uniquely applied to veterinary sciences. The first vaccine ever patented for coronavirus was actually sought by Pfizer. The application for the first vaccine for Coronavirus which was specifically a Spike protein — so the exact same thing that allegedly we have rushed into invention — the first application was filed January 28th 2000 — 21 years ago. So the idea that we mysteriously 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 U.S. patent 637-2224, 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 a spike protein. [These] target candidates give rise to the obvious evidence that says that neither the coronavirus concept of 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 matter fact it’s 22 years old on based on patent files.

What’s more problematic and what is actually the most egregious problem is that Anthony Fauci and NIAID found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines, and so this 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 — this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19th, 2002 — you heard the date correctly, 2002 — where NIAID built an infectious replication-defective coronavirus specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words we [U.S. NIAID] made SARS and we patented it on April 19th, 2002 before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia. Which [outbreak] as you know followed that by several months, that patent issued as US patent 727-9327. That patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we knew that the ACE-2 receptor, the ACE-2 binding domain for the s-1 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.

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 but also into 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, and the US Armed Services 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 manipulable agent for potential uses as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate. 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 twenty years later having 20 years earlier pointed out that 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 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 that circulates for quite a long time.

But the alleged outbreak [of SARS-1] 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, because in addition to filing the entire gene sequence on what became SARS coronavirus, which is actually a violation of 35 U.S. Code Section 101 — you cannot patent a naturally occurring substance. The 35 U.S. Code Section 101 violation, what is patent number 7220852, now that patent also had a series of derivative patents associated with it. These patent applications were broken apart because they were of multiple patentable subject matter. These include U.S. Patent 465-9270-3p which is actually a very interesting designation, U.S. Patent 7776521. These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus but also covered the means of detecting it using RT-PCR. 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 cutting-edge 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 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 over[came] 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 that this was in the public interest is falsifiable by their own paid bribe to the Patent Office. 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 to 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. The United States 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 is 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-CoV 2, have 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 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.

Now what’s important is on the 28th of April — and listen to the date very carefully because this date is problematic — 3 days after CDC filed the patent on the SARS coronavirus in 2003, 3 days later Sequoia Pharmaceuticals — a company that was set up in Maryland — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals on the 28th of April 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 3 days later. Just hold that thought for a second. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals and ultimately [Ablig] Pharmaceuticals became rolled into the proprietary Holdings of Pfizer, [Crysel], and Johnson & Johnson, 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 715-1163, 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. You cannot have information in the future inform a treatment for a thing that did not exist. 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 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?

Before you actually have the thing on 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 biological weapon — June 5th 2008 [Ablig], which as you know is now part of Sanofi, filed the 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 they found the specific sequence they targeted, what was called the poly-basic cleavage site for SARS-CoV the novel spike protein in 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 which was U.S. Patent 919-3780, so that one came out after the gain-of-function moratorium. That one came 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 [Ablig] and Sanofi and then we have Rubius Therapeutics, we have Children’s Medical Corporation, we have countless others that include Ludwig-Maximilians-University, 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 until 2017 every attribute that was allegedly uniquely published by the single reference publication. The novel coronavirus reveals quote ‘natural insertions at the S1, S2 cleavage site of the spike protein and possible recombinant origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the paper that has routinely been 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 SARS-CoV-2 specifically as it relates to the poly-basic cleavage site ACE-2 receptor binding domain, and the spike protein, so the clinically novel components of the clinically unique, clinically contagious virus [were already in those 73 patents]. 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. A statement made in 2015 by [Eco-Health Alliance Director] Peter Daszak reported in the National Academies of Science 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‘ end quote. Let me repeat the quote: ‘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‘ end quote.

There wasn’t a lab leak. This was an intentional by 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, and every study that has ever been launched to try to verify a lab leak is a red herring. And there’s really nothing that is new in this, zero. These patents on everything clinically novel, 73, [were] all issued before 2019. To prove that this was actually not a release of anything, because patent 727-9327, 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 U.S. Government has paid for research they are 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 contained in the patent was corrected on the single patent to develop the Vaccine Research Institute’s mandate which was shared between the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in November of 2019 and Moderna in November of 2019, when UNC Chapel Hill and NIAID and Moderna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine a month before an outbreak ever happened, you have all the evidence.

The script for this was written first January 6th 2004, in Bioterrorism, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Antimicrobial Therapeutics, and Immune Modulators. Moderna introduced the notion of what they called The New Normal which 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 Center for Disease Control, Elias of the Gates Foundation, and Anthony Fauci sat together on that Board of Directors. But the 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 it’s been around quite quite a long time.

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 behavior, but they amended a number of patent filings specifically to make reference to a deliberate or accidental release of coronavirus. So in March 2019 [with] the amended failed patent applications, [they] 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 Arbutus Pharmaceuticals and Acuitas 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 in the U.S. and then around the world. Moderna knew that they did not own the rights and began trying to negotiate with Arbutus and Acuitas to make the lipid nanoparticle patented technology available to be put into a vaccine. And we know, before that in November they entered into a research and cooperative research and 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, 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 in this process.

And what becomes very evident with Peter Daszak (Eco-Health Alliance), UNC Chapel Hill and others and then most specifically by March of 2019 in the amended patent filings by Moderna, we see that there is an epiphany that says what if there was an accidental or an intentional release of 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. So months before there’s an alleged pathogen, [this book from WHO] 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 quote ‘must be completed by September 2020‘.

The ACE-2 receptor was already described in the patents before 2019. Specifically the ACE-2 receptor targeting mechanism for SARS coronavirus is in publications going back to 2008, in the weaponization conferences that took place in Slovenia in Europe, all across Europe, and all across the DARPA infrastructure. We’ve known about that since 2013 and its isolation and amplification, add to this 70 amendments that merge the two. The failed [Moderna] patent applications were essentially revitalized in March of 2019, to include the ‘deliberate release of a respiratory pathogen‘ language. Their [patenting] process is similar to other pharmaceutical companies where they ever-green applications and continually modify applications to enjoy the earliest priority dates available. 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 is put in place. Any assertion that 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 Daszak 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 World Health Organization had declared coronavirus kind of a dead letter — 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 declaration in 2008? That falls into the zone of incredulity, to say the least.

The entirety of the evidence then is that this is a tool — the coronavirus and the vaccines, this is a tool 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. This was seen as a highly malleable bio-weapon. There is no question that by 2005 it was unquestionably a weapon of choice. Unfortunately very well-meaning people get trapped into conversations about whether we’re having a vaccine for a virus. The fact of the matter is we’re not. We are injecting a spike protein mRNA secret mRNA 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 is reported across phone conversations that took place between Moderna and the [NIH] Vaccine Research Center. The story that this is somehow prophylactic or preventative flies in the face of 100% 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 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 [namely, to prevent infection].

When Anthony Fauci tried desperately to get some of his quote ‘synthetic RNA vaccines’ [for HIV] published he had his own patents rejected by the Patent Office, and I want to read what the patent office told him when NIAID’s own Anthony Fauci thought that he could get an mRNA-like vaccine patented as a vaccine. And here’s the quote: ‘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.‘ This is the Patent Office. The immune response produced by a vaccine must be more than merely some immune response, it must also be protective as noted in the Patent Office action. ‘The art recognizes the term vaccine to be a compound which prevents infection. Applicant has not demonstrated that the instantly claimed vaccine meets even the lower standards set forth in the specification let alone the standard definition for being operative. In regards therefore claims five, seven, and nine are not operative.‘ As the anti-HIV vaccine which is what he was working on is not patentable utility. So Anthony Fauci himself was told by the Patent Office themselves that what he was proposing as a vaccine does not meet the patentable standard, the legal standard, or the clinical standard.

This is the problem going back to the very beginning of what’s alleged to be 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 is actually established that anything novel since November of 2019 has 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 and January of 2019 and 2020 respectively, so the problem is that even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic pneumonias, even if we were to accept that there are some sets of pathogen induced symptoms, we do not have a single piece of published evidence that tells us that anything about the subclade SARS-CoV-2 has clinical distinction from anything that was known and published prior to November 2019 in 73 patents dating to 2008.

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 if influenza doesn’t deliver on the public promise of getting everybody to get an injection, let’s change the pathogen.

Dr David Martin’s remarks are transcribed from here.