Anonymous ID: 4840da July 22, 2021, 6:33 p.m. No.14178133   🗄️.is đź”—kun

>>14178077

I was teasing, sort of.

If it is killing people, it is a sudden death where they are found at home dead for hours. I have seen harm by vaccine, but no characteristic reproducible presentation to hospital within short time-frame of vaccine administration.

 

Jury on long game as intended mechanism is still out.

Anonymous ID: 4840da July 22, 2021, 6:50 p.m. No.14178256   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>8311 >>8324 >>8401

>>14178159

>>14178217

 

Transcribed from “Dr. David Martin gives a deposition to Reiner Fuellmich”

https://www.bitchute.com/video/FPFE8nQYLBFr/

Page 1 or 2

 

The following statement was made in 2015 by Peter Daszak – EcoHealth Alliance

Reported in the National Academies of Press Publication - February 12, 2016

“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”. Occam's razor.

 

The 4,000+ patents issued relative to SARS coronavirus and the financing of the manipulations of coronaviruses have been reviewed by Dr. David Martin, Founder and Chairman of M·CAM Inc., the international leader in innovation finance, trade, and intangible asset finance (http://www.davidmartin.world/about/).

 

Based on the reported NOVEL sequences reviewed against available patent records as of the spring of 2020, over 120 patented pieces of evidence have been found to suggest that the declaration of a NOVEL coronavirus was actually an entire fallacy. “There was no NOVEL Coronavirus”. Records have been found in existing patent records of sequences attributed to novelty, going back to patents sought as early as 1999.

 

The first vaccine ever patented for coronaviruses was sought by Pfizer for S-Spike protein

January 28, 2000

U.S. Patent #6,372,224 – Canine Coronavirus S Gene and Uses Therefor

Assignee: Pfizer Inc. (New York, NY)

Inventors: Timothy J. Miller (Lincoln, NE), Sharon Klepfer (Broomall, PA), Albert Paul Reed (Exton, PA), Elaine V. Jones (Wynnewood, PA)

https://patents.justia.com/patent/6372224

 

Anthony Fauci and NIAID found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines. SARS is actually not a natural progression of a zoonotic modification of coronavirus. In 1999 Anthony Fauci funded research at the UNC Chapel Hill, to create an infectious replication defective coronavirus specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. SARS. Patented on April 19, 2002 before any outbreak occurred in Asia.

 

April 19, 2002

US Patent 7,279,327 NIAID built an infectious replication defective coronavirus specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. SARS.

https://patents.justia.com/patent/7279327

This is a division of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/822,904, filed Apr. 12, 2004, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,220,852 on May 22, 2007, which in turn claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/465,927 filed Apr. 25, 2003.

 

In violation of 35 U.S. Code § 101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101

Apr 12, 2004 filing by U.S. HHS and CDC

US Patent 7,220,852 Entire gene sequence which became the SARS Coronavirus

https://patents.justia.com/patent/7220852

Including U.S. Provisional Patent 60/465,927 filed Apr. 25, 2003 and U.S. Patent 776,521 https://patents.justia.com/patent/7776521

Covered the gene sequence AS WELL AS THE MEANS OF DETECTING IT USING RT-PCR.

 

The U.S. patent office rejected the CDC’s patent twice on gene sequence as patentable, because the gene sequence was already in the public domain. Prior to the CDC’s filing for a patent, the patent office found 99.9% identity with the already existing coronavirus recorded in the public domain. The CDC overrode the rejection of the patent examiner and after paying an appeal fine (bribe) in 2006 and 2007, and got a patent on SARS coronavirus, and then paid an additional fee to keep their application private.