Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Contributed by Dr. Joseph A. Finley, Jr.
Hundreds of patents show SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus that has been tinkered with for decades. Much of the research was funded by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, and may have been an outgrowth of attempts to develop an HIV vaccine
In 1999, Fauci funded research at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to create “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifcally targeted for human lung epithelium. This appears to be the virus that became known as SARS-CoV
U.S. Patent 7279327 shows we knew the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the S-1 spike protein, and other elements of SARS-CoV-2 were engineered and could be synthetically modifed using gene sequencing technologies
The CDC holds patents to a SARS coronavirus that is 89% to 99% identical to the sequence identifed as SARS-CoV-2, as well as the PCR test to diagnose it
120 patents detail supposed “unique” features of SARS-CoV-2: the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 binding, proving it’s not a novel virus at all
In a January 2021 lecture, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., introduced the term “the pandemic virus industrial complex,” to describe the academic, military and commercial complexes that are driving the pandemic agenda and obscuring facts that indicate SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus.
In the video above, David E. Martin, Ph.D., introduces shocking evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is indeed a manmade bioweapon, and has been in the works for decades. Much of this research was funded by none other than the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Pandemic virus industrial complex indeed! You do not want to miss this bombshell interview, conducted by Reiner Fuellmich,1 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee2,3 (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss or ACU4). A transcript5 is available if you prefer to read it.
SARS-CoV-2 Is Not a Novel Coronavirus at All
Martin has been in the business of tracking patent applications and approvals since 1998. His company, M-Cam International Innovation Risk Management, is the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in fnance in 168 countries. M-Cam has also monitored biological and chemical weapons treaty violations on behalf of the U.S. government, following the anthrax scare in September 2001.
According to Martin, there are more than 4,000 patents relating to the SARS coronavirus. His company has also done a comprehensive review of the fnancing of research involving the manipulation of coronaviruses that gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta coronavirus family.
In his testimony to ACU, he reviews some of the most pertinent patents, showing SARS-CoV-2 is not a novel coronavirus at all but, rather, a manmade virus that has been in the works for decades.
“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 … it’s not been novel for over two decades. ~ David Martin, Ph.D.”
A comprehensive list of 120 patents relating to SARS-CoV-2-associated features can be found here.6 The features patented are referenced in two key scientifc papers, “A Novel Bat Coronavirus Reveals Natural Insertions at the S1/S2 2 Cleavage Site of the Spike Protein and a Possible Recombinant 3 Origin of HCoV-19,” and “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”
On that list, we see numerous patents detailing manipulation of the polybasic cleavage site for SARS-CoV, the spike protein, as well as ACE2 binding, all three of which are supposed to be unique features of SARS-CoV-2. As explained by Martin:
“We took the reported gene sequence, which was reportedly isolated as a novel virus, 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, 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.
There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless, very subtle modifcations of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded, but there was no single identifed ‘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 not been novel for over two decades.”
Spike Protein Vaccine for Coronavirus Patented 22 Years Ago
Up until 1999, coronavirus patents were all in the veterinary sciences. The frst coronavirus vaccine to use the S spike protein was patented by Pfzer in January 2000 (Patent No. 6372224). It was a spike protein virus vaccine for canine coronavirus. You can look up the actual patents for yourself on the United States Patent and Trademark Ofce’s website,7 if you like.
“Ralph Baric’s work on … rabbit cardiomyopathy … and then canine coronavirus in Pfzer’s work, to identify how to develop S spike protein vaccine target candidates, [give] rise to the obvious evidence that …
- neither the coronavirus concept of a vaccine, nor the principle of the coronavirus itself, as a pathogen of interest with respect to the spike proteins behavior, is anything novel at all. As a matter of fact, it’s 22 years old based on patent flings,” Martin says.
From HIV Vaccine Development to COVID-19
According to Martin, Fauci and the NIAID “found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines,” and in 1999, Fauci funded research at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (where Baric has a lab) to create “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifcally targeted for human lung epithelium.
The patent for that replication-defective coronavirus that attacks human lung cells was fled April 19, 2002 (Patent No. 7279327). “In other words, we made SARS,” Martin says. Or perhaps more accurately, Fauci and UNC did. Several months after that patent fling, the SARS outbreak in Asia occurred.
“That patent, issued as U.S. Patent 7279327 … clearly lays out in very specifc gene sequencing, the fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, 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 modifed 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 ameans by which we could harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine.”
Coronavirus — A Biological Weapon Candidate Since 2001?
As mentioned, Martin has monitored biological and chemical treaty violations since 2001, following the anthrax attacks. Throughout the fall of 2001, an “enormous number” of bacterial and viral pathogens were patented through the National Institutes of Health, the NIAID, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and their international collaborators.
“Our concern was that coronavirus was being seen as not only a potential manipulatable agent for potential use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate,” Martin says.
Before the SARS outbreak in China, Martin reported these concerns publicly. “So, you can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here … having 20 years earlier pointed that there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to coronavirus,” he says.
CDC Holds Patents on SARS Coronavirus
In April 2003, after the SARS outbreak in China had occurred, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tried to fle a patent for the entire gene sequence for the SARS coronavirus (Patent No. 7220852). This is a violation of 35 U.S. Code Section 101, which states you cannot patent a naturally-occurring substance.
That CDC patent also had several derivative patents associated with it, including U.S. patent 46592703P and U.S. patent 7776521. These two patents cover the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus and the means for detecting it using RT PCR testing.
Together, these patents are highly problematic, because if you own both, then “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 scientifc and message control,” Martin explains.
The CDC tried to justify the patent by saying they were being sought in order to ensure that everyone would be free to research coronaviruses. However, that is a lie, Martin says. The U.S. patent ofce rejected the patent on the gene sequence as unpatentable because it was 99.9% identical to a coronavirus that was already in the public domain.
The CDC paid an appeal fne in 2006 and again in 2007. They also paid an additional fee to keep the application private. In the end, the CDC overrode the patent examiner’s rejection and secured the patent in 2007.
“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,” Martin says. According to Martin, the gene sequence fled by the CDC in 2003, 2005 and 2006 is 89% to 99% identical to the sequence identifed as SARS-CoV-2.
April 28, 2003 — three days after the CDC fled its patent for the SARS coronavirus — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals fled a patent on an antiviral agent for the treatment and control of infectious coronavirus (Patent No. 7151163). So, the CDC fles a patent on SARS coronavirus, and three days later there’s a treatment?
This strongly suggests there was a working relationship behind the scenes. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, founded in 2002, develops antiviral therapeutics with a special focus on drug-resistant viruses.8 Its lead investors include the Wellcome Trust.
But there’s yet another problem with Sequoia’s 2003 fling for an antiviral agent. It was actually issued and published before the CDC patent on SARS coronavirus had been granted, which didn’t happen until 2007, and the CDC had paid to keep the application private.
“So, the degree to which the information could have been known by any means other than insider information between those parties is zero,” Martin says. “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 defnition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion. This is not a theory, this is evidence. You cannot have information in the future, and form 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 frst 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 defnition of the novel subclade. How do you treat a thing, before you actually have the thing?”
Sanof Holds Patents to Novel Feature of SARS-CoV-2
The next bombshell revelation occurred on June 5, 2008, when Ablynx, now a part of Sanof, fled a series of patents detailing what we’ve been told are novel features of SARS-CoV-2, namely the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain. The frst of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 9193780, was issued November 24, 2015.
Between 2016 and 2019, a series of patents were issued to Ablynx and Sanof covering the RNA strands and the subcomponents of the gene strands.
Between 2008 and 2017, a series of patents were also fled by a long list of players, including Crucell, Rubeus Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong and the Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai.
This series of patents detail ever single attribute that is supposed to be unique to SARS-CoV-2, according to the paper, “A Novel Bat Coronavirus Reveals Natural Insertions at the S1/S2 2 Cleavage Site of the Spike Protein and a Possible Recombinant 3 Origin of HCoV-19.”
This paper has routinely been used to identify the so-called novel coronavirus that is SARS-CoV-2. Yet there are 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, that describe the very elements that are said to be unique to SARS-CoV-2. Patents have been fled for SARS-CoV-2’s polybasic cleavage site, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, and the spike protein.
“So, there was no ‘outbreak’ of SARS, because we had engineered all of the elements of that,” Martin says. And by 2016, when Baric published a paper warning that SARS coronavirus was “poised for human emergence,” the virus in question had already been patented for commercial exploitation 73 times!
The Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex Is Swimming in Proft
Baric is one of the few people who has profted signifcantly from this pandemic, which he appears to have been part of creating. Another is Fauci. The same drug companies that hold patents on not-so-novel SARS-CoV-2 features are also raking in profts from their COVID shots.
In 2015, Dr. Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance that funneled research dollars from the NIAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for coronavirus research, who has promoted the ofcial narrative that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin, stated:9
“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 proft at the end of the process.”
Sounds an awful lot like what we’re facing right now, doesn’t it? At the end of the day, this pandemic has primarily been about proft and the shifting of wealth, from the lower-and middle-classes to the already ultra-wealthy. This is a war on the public, waged using biological weapons and information warfare, with the ultimate goal of “resetting” life and commerce as we know it.
Intentional Weaponization of Spike Protein
“There wasn’t a lab leak. This was an intentional bio-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’s ever been launched to try to verify a lab leak, is a red herring.
[There are] 73 patents on everything clinically novel — 73, all issued before 2019. And I’m going to give you the biggest bombshell of all to prove that this was actually not a release of anything, because Patent No. 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 U.S. government has paid for research, they are entitled to beneft 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 fle a Certifcate of Correction to make sure that it was legally enforceable, because there was a typographical error in the grant reference in the frst fling?
They needed to make sure that not only did they get it right, but they needed to make sure every typographical error that was contained in the patent was correct on THE SINGLE PATENT REQUIRED, to develop the Vaccine Research Institute’s mandate, which was shared between the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and Moderna in November of 2019, when UNC Chapel Hill, NIAID and Moderna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine — a month before an outbreak ever happened.”
‘New Normal’ Coined by Merck at 2004 Bioterrorism Conference
The more we learn, the grimmer it gets. Clearly, plans for our current-day predicament were laid well over a decade ago. According to Martin, the slogan “The New Normal” was coined by Merck during a January 6, 2004, conference called “SARS and Bioterrorism, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Antimicrobial Therapeutics, and Immune Modulators.”
This term has now become a branded campaign adopted by the World Health Organization, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board and the rest of the pandemic virus industrial complex.
Incidentally, Fauci is on the board of directors of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, as is Dr. Chris Elias, president of the Global Development Program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and George Fu Gao, Ph.D., director-general of the Chinese CDC and a Chinese communist party member.10
It’s a long interview, but it does not disappoint. I urge you to take the time to listen to it, as Martin really lays out the timeline of when and how this pandemic virus came to be. He’s also published a 205-page paper11 detailing Fauci’s involvement that you can download from archive.org.
It now seems clearer than ever that everything we’re experiencing was planned and executed with a proft motive in mind. Armed with this new knowledge, I urge you once again to reclaim your life, your freedom and independence, and resist this manufactured notion of a “new normal.” A new normal will surely be established if we persist, but it will be the converse of what the pandemic virus industrial complex is hoping for.
We will resurrect medicine and science from the induced coma these felds are currently in, and usher in a new era of medical freedom, personal liberty, responsible and transparent government, fscal stability and health care that actually promotes health rather than slow death. It may take a while, but together, we can do it. To get there, keep sharing information such as that provided by Martin in this mind-blowing interview in any way you can. In the end, truth will prevail. Believe it.
Sources and References