How an Evil Cabal Faked a Pandemic | Part I
Part I | The Mental Leap
Every study that’s ever been launched to try to verify the COVID “lab leak” is a red herring.
That provocative statement, made by Dr. David E. Martin, PhD, and CEO of M-CAM International, in an interview with German international attorney Reiner Fuellmich, was posted on Rumble by SBN News Clips on July 21, 2021.
Dr. Martin took over an hour to present patented evidence that backs up his statements to Fuellmich and unfortunately that testimony has received only 140K views on Rumble. The interview gets very technical but it’s worth watching to feel the passion and certainty with which Dr. Martin delivers his witness.
In this article, we hope to highlight some of the key points Dr. Martin makes in the interview to try to get more people focused on the right problem.
Competing Theories
At the beginning of the COVID scare, we heard that a coronavirus mutated and leapt from the animal kingdom to the human population in a wet market in Wuhan, China.
Then people were banned from social media for suggesting the wet market story was being used to cover up an accidental pathogen leak from a nearby biolab called the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Jon Stewart unwittingly and quite hilariously promoted this censored theory last year on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. (Much to the horror of Colbert who looked panicked that his show would be canceled.)
Was Stewart right? Nope. The lab leak theory is the cover-up for the cover-up.
Most of us, some more than others, have been trying to figure out exactly what happened in 2020 and 2021. Did a bat virus mutate and infect humans or was a bioweapon deliberately released by terrorists? Was there an accidental leak from a biolab or was it a giant scam to sell medical countermeasures? It seems important to understand what happened so we can learn from it and make sure we don’t repeat it.
There’s a smorgasbord of theories and narratives to explain what happened. Which of all these is correct? Or are they all wrong together?
The Mental Leap
Spoiler alert: it’s quite a huge leap to get yourself mentally from “millions of people are getting sick and dying from a new virus” to “there was no viral outbreak, but there is a fabricated story to sell billions of PCR tests and injections.”
So, it might be useful to get a little background on coronaviruses and define some terms before we try to make the leap.
A coronavirus is any virus belonging to the family Coronaviridae, so named because of the spike proteins that protrude from the helical protein envelope that appear as a crown when viewed from the side. The word “corona” being from the Latin word for “crown.” Coronaviruses have long been known to infect the animal kingdom.
A species of coronavirus known as SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) causes a highly contagious respiratory disease. This virus emerged in humans in late 2002 in China. Coincidentally, the CDC patented the entire gene sequence of this virus within months of the outbreak.
The Encyclopedia Britannica believes that SARS “likely jumped to humans from an animal reservoir, believed to be horseshoe bats.” This statement demonstrates how uncertain the science around viruses is. Then EB makes this startling observation, “The ability of SARS coronavirus to jump to humans undoubtedly required genetic changes in the virus.”
EB incorrectly guesses that the required “genetic changes” occurred in a catlike mammal with a thickly furred tail known as a palm civet. Dr. Martin explains how the patent record shows these changes occurred in computer code.
Dr. Martin and The History of M-CAM
In the search for truth, we rely on the credibility of witnesses, their imputed motives, and the substance of their testimonies. What follows is the most compelling evidence to be found for those that need to understand what happened.
Before you hear the testimony of Dr. Martin, let’s take a minute to consider the credibility of the witness.
Dr. Martin founded M-CAM in 1998 and has served as its CEO for the last 24 years. Since that time, M-CAM has been the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries around the world. The M-CAM underwriting systems include the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, and e-government records worldwide.
In 2003 and 2004, the European Patent Office was audited by M-CAM, and they showed that somewhere between 20% and 30% of the patents in Europe were functional forgeries, meaning that they were copied from previous patents.
Later, at the request of the Swedish delegation to the European Union, M-CAM was commissioned to do an examination into software patents. They exposed hundreds of software patents which were illegally granted by the European Union through the European Patent Office.
If you have ever read even one patent, you know that they are very difficult for the layman to understand. To have the ability to review and evaluate every patent in the EPO is operating on a level that most people will never dream of. M-CAM does this at a global scale.
M-CAM’s business is to monitor the innovation that's happening around the world and specifically to monitor the economics of that innovation. In his own words, Dr. Martin explains that they “have the ability to not only track what is happening and who is involved in what's happening, but we also monitor a series of thematic interests for a variety of organizations and individuals.”
For example, M-CAM was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations in the very early days of 2000. Since then, M-CAM has published an intelligence briefing on every violation of the biological and chemical weapons treaties that people have signed around the world.
If you remember back in September 2001 while the world was still reeling from 9/11, there was an anthrax scare. Beginning on September 18, letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and to Democratic Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
M-CAM was 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.
Throughout the fall of 2001, M-CAM began monitoring an large number of bacterial and viral pathogens that were being patented through NIH, NIAID, USAMRIID, and several other agencies internationally that collaborated with them.
The Invention of the SARS Virus
Twenty years ago, Dr. Martin was concerned that the “coronavirus was being seen as not only a manipulatable 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 at Chapel Hill, specifically to help the NIAID build “an infectious, replication-defective coronavirus” that was specifically targeted for the human lung epithelium.
“In other words,” Dr. Martin asserts in another incendiary observation, “we made SARS.”
And we patented it on April 19, 2002, before there was ever a SARS outbreak in Asia, which followed the patent by several months.
“That patent,” Dr. Martin says in the interview, “issued as US Patent 7279327, clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing, the fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE-2 binding domain, the S1 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.”
Initially that technology was funded exclusively as a means by which we could harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute an HIV vaccine. As sad as we are for people who contract and suffer from HIV infections, it feels safe to say that using a virus to deliver a vaccine is not a good idea.
The SARS “outbreak” 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. This patent and its series of derivative patents are problematic for two reasons.
First, beyond the obvious concern of our government designing pathogens that can be used as bioweapons, US Patent 7220852 is a violation of 35 USC § 101: Inventions patentable. You cannot patent a naturally occurring substance.
Second, these patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus, but also covered the means of detecting it using RT-PCR (real time polymerase chain reaction).
The reason that's a problem is if you own both the patent on the gene itself, and you own the patent on its detection, you are the only entity that can say whether the virus exists or can be found. That puts the world in the unenviable position of relying solely on the good faith of the monopolistic patent owners to declare the beginning and end of an outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic.
Even though it was illegal to patent the SARS coronavirus, the CDC justified the patent application by saying they wanted to ensure that everyone would be free to research coronavirus. This was obviously not the case because the US Patent Office twice rejected the patent on the gene sequence because it was already in the public domain.
And if the gene sequence of the virus was already in the public domain, what would be the purpose of seeking a patent? Patents are typically sought for only one reason: to control the rights to the economics that flow from an invention.
Prior to the CDC filing for a patent, the Patent Office found 99.9% identity with the already existing coronavirus recorded in the public domain. After the rejection by 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.
If the CDC wanted to keep the gene sequence freely available for research, why did they pay an extra fee to keep their application private? All of this is available in the public patent archive record which any member of the public can review.
There’s another problem with all this.
Three days after the CDC filed the patent on the SARS coronavirus in 2003, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent on antiviral agents or treatment and control of infections by coronavirus. How can you get a patent on a treatment for a thing that had only been invented three days earlier?
US Patent 7151163, issued to Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, has another problem. The problem is it was issued and published before the CDC patent on coronavirus was allowed.
Dr. Martin summarizes, “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.”
As we can see from the patent record, something concerning coronaviruses and vaccines has been going on for well over two decades.
The New Normal
Not long after all this patent activity in 2003, we started to get a glimpse of the script. At a conference called “SARS and Bioterrorism, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Anti-Microbials, Therapeutics, and Immune Modulators,” Merck introduced the notion of what they called the “New Normal.” The New Normal is the language that became the branded campaign that was adopted by the World Health Organization and the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB.)
This campaign, which was about getting people to accept a universal pan-influenza, pan-coronavirus vaccine, was adopted January 6, 2004. According to Dr. Martin, “influenza was a failed decade-long pan-influenza vaccine mandate that was desperately promoted by governments around the world. They failed.” Flu hospitalizations and deaths in the 2017-18 season were the highest in the entire decade.
From 2016 until 2019, at several 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. He was trying to get the population to engage in this process.
Then they decided if influenza doesn't deliver on the public promise of getting everybody to get an injection, let's change the pathogen.
Don’t miss Part II – Time Travel or Racketeering?
I thank you & David Martin for your diligence. There’s much to uncover and in my opinion there’s no question that the entire event was long planned (see YouTube documentary by Paul Schreyer, “Pandemic Simulations”) & the pandemic was wholly faked (see Denis Rancourt’s papers and especially, recent interviews such as with “Jerm Warfare” podcast).
Why, it must be asked, would anyone wish to fake a pandemic?
Obviously, I can only speculate, but it must be admitted that it prepares the world for The Great Reset, and aligned to the UN2030 SDGs, far too well to be coincidental.
I don’t buy “money” alone as the motive. Too much by way of value destruction would have happened to owners of certain asset classes. In any case, the perpetrators by definition include the owners of Uber capital and assets. That said, there’s been a redistribution the likes of which we’ve never seen before & many have become wealthy. That was a welcome side effect for the perpetrators, I believe.
It was & is primarily about control.
Prior to the fake pandemic, almost all information was already controlled, I now realise. Adjacent to my own career field, pharmaceuticals R&D, the field of vaccines as a class has been the subject of monstrous deception for a very long time. Things weren’t OK until 2020. They’d been broken for decades.
The extent of control intended is nothing like anything that’s happened in the world previously.
If the perpetrators succeed in installing their vision, every individual will controlled at the level of almost every transaction: not only buying & selling, but crossing any regulated threshold. Imagine a world in which every threshold was regulated. That’s the world they intend for us.
If I can envisage it, they have better plans yet & a handful of pathways to accomplishing it.
All that’s required is s a common format, interoperable, editable, mandatory digital ID, accompanied by cashless CBDCs. The controllers of the databases and algorithms will define the edges of each of our digital prisons.
At first, I had seen “vaccination” as a way to on-board everyone to their unique, digital ID. It might still be. Yet if that was the intention, why not simply inject everyone with physiological saline? I knew very early that their basic design motifs meant that harms were unavoidable. And all leading Biopharma players were making the same set of decisions (& alleged “mistakes”: be assured that these people are smart. Whatever they’ve done, it’s no mistake, but entirely deliberate).
No: they had additional objectives, and nothing fits all the observations so well as depopulation.
I am surprised to find that I’d never previously heard of MCAM. Has anyone else? I’d appreciate reassurance that this is mostly my blind spot. I was heavily involved in patenting, unusually so for a biologist. In pharma, the bulk of the patents were for “composition of matter” clams, which medicinal chemists would largely draft, along with formulations, devices & “methods” patents. I liaised closely for years with talented patent attorneys, both in big pharma for 25y and later in biotech for more than a decade. I was rarely an inventor, and even them mostly the weakest types of patent protection: the “method of use” claim.
How can I not even have heard of MCAM? That perturbs me a little without being able to put my finger on anything. I think more than the specific example, what I’m experiencing is a growing realisation that I knew even less than I already realised.
Whatever, MCAM surely has a very large staff. Even now, AI isn’t good enough to sift through the millions of newly filed patent clams. That means people are doing the sifting. Even experts frequently disagree with which of a series of “nested claims” will be granted & how resilient to legal challenges on alleged infringements, lack of novelty or inventive step they might ultimately be. It’s also very slow work, inherently. The inventor is required to cite relevant “prior art”. While that is of assistance to the examiner, they also need to run searches to exclude the possibility that the inventor hasn’t missed important prior clams, granted or not, because even filed, published clams, which were subsequently dropped or disallowed, create a litter of “prior art”, making a clam for no celery and most particularly, inventive step harder and harder.
I don’t dispute David’s expert assessments about patents in the field of covid19 and related topics, but this void in my bare awareness of the existence of such an important & influential organisation, coupled with the strong direction we’re fed as a result of MCAMs work, is prompting me to consider the possibility that there is yet much more complexity yet to appreciate.
Thanks for giving the 🌎 FACTS. Seeing govs push ridiculous State Narratives, like Canada blaming Flu 💉 for Strokes & 'Fact Checked Scientific Study declaring EGGS are causing all the Blood Clots. We now KNOW it is Obama Bioweapon Fauci moved to Wuhan China. And WEF controlled countries /Biden admin TRICKED or FORCED us into injecting mNRA gene modifying Bioweapon - to END USA