Dr. David E. Martin | Testimony - July 9th, 2021


See also: Dr. David Martin on Patent System and Over 5,000 Corona Virus Patents

Evidence given to the German-led international Corona Investigative Committee on Friday July 9 by Dr David Martin, who runs a US company monitoring innovations relevant to financial interests.  He said a review of more than 4,000 patents issued around the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) coronavirus had led to the dramatic conclusion: ‘We made SARS’. Today we continue an account of his evidence, of which the live-streamed video is here.    

THE United States has a federal law known as the RICO Act.  It sounds friendly, but is aimed at something deadly: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations.  It was introduced due to the complexity of bringing successful charges against organised crime gangs.

Dr David Martin told the Corona Investigative Committee that in April 2003, a US drug company applied for a patent on anti-viral agents, treatment, and control of infections by coronavirus, just three days after the Centres for Disease Control sought to patent the SARS coronavirus itself – in a supposedly secret application.  The first SARS outbreak had occurred in February that year in China.

His description led the inquiry committee chairman, German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, who specialises in exposing corporate swindles, to comment: ‘This could well blow up into a RICO case ultimately.’

Martin replied: ‘Not could blow up – it is a RICO case.  And the RICO pattern which was established in April 2003 for the first coronavirus was played out to exactly the same schedule when we see SARS-COV-2 show up.’ 

He claimed that Moderna (originally ModeRNA) were given the genetic sequence for the spike protein that forms the basis of their Covid vaccine by phone from the vaccine research centre at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases even before the novel subclade of the virus had been defined.  ‘How do you treat a thing before you actually have the thing?’ he asked. 

Moderna (originally ModeRNA Therapeutics) is a Massachusetts-based company founded in 2010 by a team of investors to develop RNA (ribonucleic acid) technology, thought to hold huge promise in harnessing the power of RNA code to make new medicines inside our bodies.  

Another important date, Martin said, is June 5, 2008.  This was around the time when the Defence Advanced Research Programme (DARPA) in the US took an interest in coronavirus as a biological weapon.  It was also the date when a drug company, now part of the Paris-based pharma giant Sanofi, filed a series of patents targeting genes that 12 years later are said to be the novel features of SARS-COV-2 that make it a health hazard for humans.   

From 2008 onwards, patent filings from numerous organisations identified ‘every attribute’ of the virus, as it eventually came to be described.  The reference paper routinely used to identify it, published in March 2020, claimed to show that the novel features had come about in nature, and that the virus ‘originated from multiple naturally-occurring recombinant events among those viruses present in bats and other wildlife species’.

Martin said: ‘Unfortunately, if you actually take what they report to be novel, you find 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, which have the elements which are allegedly novel in SARS-COV-2. So – there was no outbreak of SARS, because we had engineered all of the elements of that.’       

The supposedly new virus had been said since 2016 to be poised for human emergence.  But ‘it was not only poised for human emergence, it was patented for commercial exploitation – 73 times,’ Martin said.  ‘Any assertion that this pathogen is somehow unique or novel falls apart on the actual gene sequences, which are published in the patent record.’

Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (who collaborated with the laboratory in Wuhan, China, in the coronavirus ‘gain of function’ work) along with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Moderna, began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine in November 2019, a month before the Wuhan outbreak happened. 

Martin also challenged the idea that injecting people with the RNA sequence for the spike protein is a true vaccine.  The theory behind it is that by teaching the immune system to recognise the protein, which in itself has toxic effects, the body will be better equipped to deal with the toxin when exposed to the virus. 

‘The illusion that we continue unfortunately to see very well-meaning people get trapped in, is conversations about whether we are having a vaccine for a virus.  The fact is, we’re not.  We are injecting a spike protein RNA sequence, which is a computer simulation of a sequence which has been known and patented for years.  It’s not derived from nature. 

‘The ludicrous nature of the story that this is somehow prophylactic or preventative flies in the face of 100 per cent of the evidence, because the evidence makes it abundantly clear that there has been no effort by any pharmaceutical company to combat the virus. This is about getting people injected with the known-to-be harmful spike protein.’    

The reason for doing that, he argues, is to get people ‘addicted’ to a pan-coronavirus vaccine.  There had been a decade-long, pan-influenza vaccine mandate, ‘desperately, desperately, desperately promoted by governments around the world.  They failed.  And they decided if influenza doesn’t deliver, on the public promise of getting everybody to get an injection, let’s change the pathogen. 

‘You need to create the illusion of a demand, and there is nothing right now that does a better job of creating the illusion of demand than the urgency of an event you have manufactured.  

‘Here’s the sad and sober irony:  I raised these issues in 2002, after the anthrax scare, and the tragedy is we are now sitting in a world where we have hundreds of millions of people who are being injected with a pathogen-stimulating computer sequence which is being sold under what the Patent Office, the medical profession, and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in its own clinical standards would not suggest is a vaccine.  But by using the term, we are now subjecting hundreds of millions of people to what was known by 2005 to be a biological weapon.’ 

 The video of Martin’s live-streamed evidence is already receiving tens of thousands of views.   At the very least, the data he presents surely should put to rest the idea of the virus as a product of nature that just happened to develop the capacity to jump from animals to humans. 

This in itself has enormous implications.  For one thing, why should we believe the claims by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI), launched in 2017 with a huge cash infusion from the Gates Foundation, that a proposed 3.5billion-dollar quest for a universal coronavirus vaccine to ‘contain SARS-COV-2 and its variants’ is either a desirable or an achievable goal? 

Urging support for the plan, co-founder Bill Gates said ‘CEPI has helped the global science community do something incredible: develop Covid-19 vaccines in less than a year.’   That claim sounds more than hollow in the light of the 20-year patent trail revealed by Martin. 

What’s more, Martin spelled out a case that even the alleged SARS ‘variants’ of the coronavirus are artificial, representing the identification of different gene fragments rather than genuine variations.     

‘It’s just an alteration in when you start and stop what you call the reading frame,’ he said.  ‘If what we are looking for is something we have decided is worth looking for, then we’ll find it … where I choose to start or stop, I can say I found it.  Or I didn’t find it!  I didn’t find the match that I projected on to the data, because I chose to look at the data in a way that I could not find the match.’ 

With government advisers seemingly pulling ‘new variants’ out of the bag whenever they feel the grip of terror is lessening, this is another area calling for a sober reassessment of what is really going on.  

Resource Type: