In this video, with material that is by no means easy to follow, “Dr David Martin, a finance and innovations expert, has followed the patent paper trail (over 4000 patents starting as far back as 1999) on all things relating to the Sars-Coronavirus2 and has detected many anomalies and, it would appear, downright fraud and collusion between the Center for Disease Control and the US Patent Office. There are many other players as well. There is nothing particularly novel about Sars-Cov2 as it has been engineered over a period of twenty years. It is not a naturally occuring virus that has naturally adapted or crossed over from animals to humans. The spiked protein “vaccine” was also engineered as a therapeutic agent before the media-generated pandemic went global. It isn’t a vaccine as we commonly understand the term but a synthetic pathogen designed to provoke an antibody response. “(from comments)
We discuss below:
Peter:
Got a bit confused about the 73 (and later 117) pandemic preceding patents Martin refers to. What is he suggesting they were patents OF? Viral genomes modelled on genetic strands? Models of different corona spike proteins? What were DAARPA already thinking of weaponising in 2004? A new coronavirus genome model that could be artificially created, or just a more deadly spike? What is your understanding?
Also, is he suggesting that ( as with flu) there is a wider range of natural corona variants or mutations than recognised in the basic taxonomy or that all the different patents differed only in the manner of natural language strings or letter sequences. If so, were these ‘reads’ patented or one or more of the whole genome models they could be modelled as being strings or fragments of?
Adam:
Giordan and I were discussing how I don’t think spike proteins are bad in themselves, that they are a natural structure in viruses/exosomes that facilitate entry into the cell when this is called for. But as Zach Bush points out, toxins can also gain entry, so the spike protein, especially dissociated from its natural context could facilitate damage through increasing cellular toxicity.
A more “deadly spike” may have been a goal, but I don’t think gain of function is sophisticated enough or viruses complex enough to gain some kind of deadly structure. But the spike used in conjunction with other toxins and technologies could be deadly.
Giordan:
Referring to the 73 patents that Dr Martin mentions, he says that they are each referencing some aspect of the 3 claimed unique identifiers that the single research study that is routinely referenced claiming Sars-Cov-2 is unique. The 3 components that are claimed to make this thing unique from all previous coronaviruses are 1) the polybasic cleavage site 2) ACE-2 receptor binding domain 3) the spike protein and the paper that was published in 2016 (funded during the gain of function moratorium) which claims these 3 components are what by definition make this coronavirus clinically unique were not only published previously 73 times from 2008 onwards but obviously they were patented and thus positioned for commercial exploitation.
Furthermore, the “fact-checkers” that claim that SARS-COV-2 is completely different and has nothing to do with the CDC Sars coronavirus patent that was awarded as a result of bribery in 2007, overturning a previously denied patent application, is falsified on its very face because SARS-COV-2 is a taxonomical sub-clade of its taxonomical parent and thus it has to be genomically nearly identical at all the points of taxonomical overlap
so there is no way this “new” coronavirus could be developed without collaboration with (or paying license to) the CDC
Peter:
I find Giordan’s interpretation convincing. I don’t believe that simply by virtue of a microscopic resemblance to exosomes the dangerous toxicity of the spike protein can be minimised. Seth suggests [see this post] viruses are the basis of biological life and imprinted in the earth’s own memory. I think there is much of relevance in Seth’s remarks, how viruses become deadly through the stimulus of fear or desire for death, are even thrown off by individuals as a form of social communication, whereas exosomes are a medium of intercellular communication that can be activated by virus or carry cargos of viral material.
Adam:
I don’t see any fundamental disagreement between there being a pathogenic use of spike protein and the view that they have an adaptive function as part of the genomic communication network we can call the “virome”.
I think the point about exosomes is just that what gets called a virus has more to do with what they are expecting to see in a pathogenic situation than any determinable difference under the electron microscope between different intercellular particles. There are so many proteins and cellular debris floating around outside of cells. Exosome seems a good generic word for all the vesicles produced by cells no matter what the function. That viruses can be deadly is obviously true in the sense that they can often trigger an inflammatory event that leads to death. But as Seth is saying, they are just acting as messengers, triggering a crises event, when a being decides it can’t go on like before and needs a reset or possibly a reincarnation if it comes to that.
I guess there is some debate on whether “exosome” has enough meaning to justify it meaning a specific kind of extracellular vesicle. Either way, what gets called virus and what gets associated with a virus (microscopy images, PCR tests, etc) seems to be very much a shaky construct on what is a complex intercellular environment full of messages between cells, debris, etc…
