Search engines are detecting “covid-19” years before the PLANdemic, but don’t show the sources. Could you please help with advanced searches by limiting the term (also covid19) to prior years? (add links as comments, think this as a truth wiki)
Wo1993023422A1=methods vaxing Corona Felines #SmithKline Pharna
Wo2002086068A2=SARS CoV 1 UNC Health USA
Wo2005049814A2=Pneumonia Causing Virus France
Wo2005060520A3=antibodies Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
WO2005081716A2=DNA SARS John Hopkins University
Wo2009051837A3=Vax nanotech #MIT & #Harvard
Wo2015143335A1=Chimeric Spike Protein UNC Health
Wo2017044507=MERS-CoV Nanoparticle therapeutics
Wo2017049245A2=Intracellular Triple Helix Moderna
Wo2020060606A1=Crypto mining people @ $MSFT
Wo2022034572A1=POLICY prioritizing jabs Israel
David E. Martin proved that since 1999, 73 patents back that SARS-CoV-2 is not a wild novel virus but a weaponized chimeric lab-created virus.
2008 BioNTech founded (later acquired by Pfizer).
2010 Moderna.
2012 DARPA starts funding mRNA research.
In 2016 the lipid nanoparticles British Columbia University technology, essential for mRNA vaccines, was getting ready for the plandemic. 1
Total Secrecy Orders in Effect
Invention Secrecy Activity reported by the Patent & Trademark Office
FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21
5784 5792 5878 5915 5976
By 2021, there were 6000 suppressed patents by secrecy orders of the ARMY, NAVY, AF, DOE, NSA, DTSA, NASA, DARPA.2
The virus was going to be released on purpose to force vaccination, a lucrative conspiracy, which despite of the overwhelming evidence it is still not prosecuted under RICO(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).
“enormous number of bacterial and viral pathogens that were being patented through NIH, NIAID USAMRIID, the [US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases] 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 use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate… in 1999, Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, specifically, to create, and you cannot, you cannot help, but, you know, lament what I’m about to read because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19th, 2002, and you heard the date correctly, 2002, where the NIAID built an infectious replication defective coronavirus. It was specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. 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 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.”
“ 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. Now, that 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 matters. But these includeUS 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, using RTPCR. Now the reason why that’s 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. 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 un-patentable, because the gene sequence was already in the public domain. In other words, prior to CDCs 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 overrode 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. This is not something subtle, and to make matters worse, they paid an additional fee to keep their application private… if you’re trying to make information available for the public research, you would not pay a fee to keep the information private.
… if you look at the gene sequence that is filed by CDC in2003, again in 2005, and then again in 2006, what you find is identity in somewhere between 89-99% of the sequence overlaps that have been identified in what is 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 taxonomic point of view. You cannot have SARS designation on a thing without it first being SARS.
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, and ultimately Ablynx Pharmaceuticals became rolled into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crucel, and Johnson & Johnson), Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, on the 28th of April, 2003, filed a patent in antiviral agents of treatment and control of infections coronavirus. CDC filed 3 days earlier, and then the treatment was available 3 days later… how would one have a patent on a treatment for a thing that had been invented 3 days earlier?
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. 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.”
“The first vaccine ever patented for coronavirus was actually sought by Pfizer. The application for the first vaccine for coronavirus which was specifically this S 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…US Patent 6372224, which was the spike protein virus vaccine for the canine coronavirus, which is actually one of the multiple forms of coronavirus.”
“When Anthony Fauci, tried desperately to get some of his (HIV) ‘synthetic RNA vaccines’ 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:
‘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 recognizes 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, therefore claims 5, 7 and 9 are not operative as the anti-HIV vaccine is not patentable utility.’
So Anthony Fauci himself, was told by the patent office themselves, that what he was proposing as a vaccine, didn’t meet the patentable standard, the legal standard or the…