@CB
with lots of footnotes/references. It will take a few hours to explore thoroughly and form an opinion. I’m not yet ready to call it anything at this point. Interesting….

#1

@CB

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.

is not only not addressed by the MSM/FDA/WHO but seemingly something beyond the pale to even publicly question?

The efficacy claims under which the emergency authorizations to use the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines do not make any claims regarding prevention of infection, only that they reduce the severity of infection and hospitalizations. They are clearly at least somewhat 'leaky' and it is established that, at least with some viruses under some conditions (Marek's virus in poultry) that leaky vaccines can lead to the development of hotter (more infective and virulent) strains than would otherwise have the opportunity to evolve. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/leaky-vaccines-can-produce-stronger-versions-of-viruses-072715

Yet younger people are being urged - when not outright coerced - to get the vax even though they are under minimal threat from the disease. So that they do not kill grannie. Yet, if the vaccines suppress symptoms without eliminating or greatly reducing viral load, they may be exposing themselves to unnecessary risk (from vaccination) - without reducing and possibly even ¥ increasing the chances of infecting others.

Of course, another key assertion on which the EUA issuance rests is that there are no alternative vaccines or therapeutics available to deal with the problem in question - which we also now know, and have for a year or more - is utter bullshit, too.

https://www.studyfinds.org/covid-19-cure-ivermectin/

At least the French, the Greeks and the Irish are standing up to the authoritarian madness overkill.

( extra points for spotting the Gaelic Gadsden flag in the Irish protests)

#2
You do realize that people are getting infected despite getting the mRNA "vaccine" - the so-called "breakthrough" cases? In fact there are increasing reports that people will have to get "booster" shots. All this "vaccine" has shown to do is prevent serious illness and hospitalization in mainly healthy persons. The only way to ensure herd immunity for the virus it to actually contract the disease.

https://denisbider.blogspot.com/2021/07/dr-david-martin-with-reiner-fuel...
Not a vaccine:

Any assertion that this pathogen is somehow unique or novel falls apart on the actual gene sequences which are published in the patent record. More egregiously, we have Peter Daszak himself stating that we need to create public hype to get the public to accept the medical countermeasure of a pan-coronavirus vaccine. What makes that most ludicrous is that the WHO declared coronavirus a dead interest – that we had eradicated coronavirus as a concern. So why, after having eradicated it in 2007 and 2008, did we start spending billions of $ globally on a vaccine for a thing that had been eradicated by declaration in 2008?

This was seen as a highly malleable bioweapon. By 2005, it was unquestionably a weapon of choice. The illusion that we continue to see well-meaning people get trapped in, is conversations about whether we're having a vaccine for a virus. We're not. We're injecting a spike protein mRNA sequence which is the result of a computer simulation, not derived from nature, of a sequence which has been known and patented for years.

The ludicrous nature of the story that this is somehow prophylactic or preventative flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. The evidence makes it 100% 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 S1 spike protein.

The cover story is that if you get an expression of spike protein you're going to have general symptomatic relief. But there has never been an intent to vaccinate a population as defined by the vaccination universe. When Anthony Fauci tried desperately to get some of his "synthetic RNA" vaccines published, he had his own patents rejected by the Patent Office. Quote from the Patent Office: "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 standards 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 [which is what he was working on] is not patentable utility."

@studentofearth systems. The prove it isn't harmful is the rule for most chemicals. They treat the kids and anyone else with the need locally in their mouths and spit.

This is the argument used with agri-chemicals such as herbicides and pesticides. Unfortunately Monsanto/Bayer was out ahead of some of the EU regulations. Once farmers are addicted to the chemical way of life and the recipe version of doing things it's hard to remove them.

The home gardners using Roundup is the same problem. But slowly, they are beating use of chemicals back.

#2 changed after writing this diary The Unmentioned Nuclear War on American Citizens three years ago. Those noticing the increase of cancer in their communities after water sources were fluoridated became stuck on the one contemporary change they could see. Dental care has never been a high priority to provide our citizens on national or state levels.

Interesting fact on the use of fluoride in cancer patients receiving radiation to the head and neck.

The patient should be given preventive home care instructions that include rigorous oral hygiene (including interdental techniques such as flossing), daily self-application of topical fluoride, restricted intake of cariogenic foods, and remineralizing mouth rinse solutions or artificial saliva preparations. Daily topical 1.0% sodium fluoride gel application by means of custom-made fluoride carriers is recommended for reducing caries occurrence.[33,34] The classic study by Dreizen et al.[35] showed an application of a 1% neutral sodium fluoride gel applied daily in custom trays could significantly reduce caries in irradiated patients. Neutral fluoride containing mouth rinses have also proved to be beneficial in preventing caries occurrence.

@CB

alleged 24 alleged countries, something initially considered to be an atypical pneumonia that was was eventually named SARS by humans. Now there has been an alleged outbreak of another virus that was named CARS CoV-2 by humans, and allegedly spread to a lot more alleged countries. Patents have zip shit to do with it, they neither create nor define anything, especially US patents because the USPO is totally fucked up and hands them out like candy at halloween.

Dr Martin does not allege that they are "injecting spike proteins".

That's good, because they aren't. I was simply responding to your summarization as:

this was an intentional bio-weaponization of spike proteins to inject into people to get them addicted to a pan-coronavirus vaccine.

You say

THAT IS BY IT'S VERY NATURE the definition of a pan-coronavirus vaccine.

and that is absolutely, blindingly totally wrong. A pan-coronavirus vaccine would be one shot that would protect us from all current and future coronaviruses, not hundreds of shots, one per each strain of each coronavirus. Some in the scientific and medical communities are trying to narrow that down to one shot that would only protect us from dying from all serious and potentially lethal current and future viruses, seemingly taking cognizance of the fact that a true pan-coronavirus would prevent the common cold. They produce annual, quasi-targeted flu vaccines precisely because there in no pan-influenza virus vaccine. Also, the use of the word" booster" is deceptive and improper and a con if it is at all tailored to newer variant(s).

Long ago, for many decades, certain vaccines couldn't be trusted to be effective for more than a decade or two, and after that time one was given a "booster". This was simply another shot of the same stuff as the original. Tetanus was a classic - get a deep puncture wound and the first question was "when was your last tetanus shot?" too see if a booster was indicated. IF, however, you got some infection that stood up to penicillin and they then turned to one of the other *cillins or some *mycin, that was not a "booster" because it wasn't the same stuff. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the vaccines with a 2 shot regimen could be deemed to be a shot and a booster, but they would usually be considered to be a series, like the inoculations for MMR. A booster is required for vaccines whose efficacy wears off after a more or less known period of time. If Pfizer has reason to believe that its original dose is already becoming ineffective, that is good grounds to avoid their product if you haven't had your shots, and maybe get somebody else's if you have.

be well and have a good one

#4

The fact that there are patents relating to things like a cleavage site or binding domain does not mean that those things were invented by somebody. Those things have existed for ages.

Dr. David Martin does not allege that SARS-CoV-2 was invented by somebody. In fact he argues that the patent should not have been given in the first place:

SARS outbreak is "alleged": coronavirus is not new to human condition or to the last 2 decades

Alleged SARS outbreak that took place in China in 2002-2003 gave rise to a problematic April 2003 filing by US CDC

They filed for patent on the entire gene sequence on what became SARS coronavirus, a violation of 35 USC section 101 - you cannot patent a naturally occurring substance

This was patent 7220852, with derivative patents including 46592703p, 7776521

These patents also covered the means of detecting coronavirus using RT-PCR

This is problematic because if you both own the patent on the gene itself, and on its detection, you have a cunning advantage to be able to control 100% of the provenance of not only the virus itself and its detection. You have entire scientific and message control

This patent sought by the CDC was allegedly justified by their public relations team as being sought so that everyone would be free to research the coronavirus. This is a lie because the patent office twice rejected the patent on the gene sequence as unpatentable – the patent office found 99.9% identity with the already existing coronavirus in the public domain. 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 and ultimately in 2007 got the patent on SARS coronavirus

Nobody is injecting spike proteins and there is no pan-coronavirus vaccine for people to get addicted to

Dr Martin does not allege that they are "injecting spike proteins". He understands that mRNA is what is being injected - he documents the actual patents by which it is accomplished. As far as a "pan-coronavirus" is concerned, it is becoming apparent with Pfizer's request (see my post above) to the CDC to now authorize a "booster" vaccine to cover a variant, THAT IS BY IT'S VERY NATURE the definition of a pan-coronavirus vaccine. We may have to get yearly shots, just like with the current influenza vaccine.

How this virus came to be is not something Dr Martin wishes to discuss at this time. It is obvious you have not read this report.

(BTW, I find it very difficult to speak and write due to Broca's aphasia and subsequent apraxia from the stroke I had in mid-April.)

@CB

taken March 2019?

Perhaps they didn’t jump the gun, but simply had superb reaction time.

#4

We did, in fact, have an outbreak of SARS as well as of MERS and some of the work aimed at finding vaccines for them was a jumping off point for the search for a vaccine for SARS CoV-2.

https://denisbider.blogspot.com/2021/07/dr-david-martin-with-reiner-fuel...
Events prior to Covid-19:

Moderna knew it was going to be placed in the front of the line with respect to development of a vaccine in March 2019. At that time, for reasons that are not transparent, they amended a series of rejected patent filings to specifically make reference to a deliberate or accidental release of coronavirus. They amended 4 failed patent applications to begin the process of coronavirus vaccine development. They began dealing with a problem they had, which was that they relied on technology they did not own. Two Canadian companies, Arbutus and Acuitas, actually own the patent on the lipid nanoparticle envelope that's required to deliver the injection of the mRNA fragment. Those patents have been issued in Canada, the US and around the world. Moderna knew it did not own the rights and began negotiating with Arbutus and Acuitas to get a resolution of LNP technology available to put into a vaccine. In November, they entered into a cooperative R&D agreement with UNC Chapel Hill with respect to getting the spike protein to put inside the LNP, so that they actually had a candidate vaccine before we had a pathogen allegedly running around.

Their due process is similar to other pharmaceutical companies where they evergreen applications and continually modify applications to enjoy the earliest priority dates available.

From 2016 until 2019, at every one of NIAID advisory council board meetings, Anthony Fauci lamented that he could not find a way to get people to accept the universal influenza vaccine, which was his favorite target to get the population to engage in this process

By March of 2019, in the amended patent filings of Moderna, we see there's an epiphany that says "What if there was an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen?" The phrase is exactly recited in the book A World at Risk, which is the scenario put together by the WHO in September 2019 – months before there was an alleged pathogen – which says "We need a coordinated global experience of a respiratory pathogen release, which by September 2020 must put in place a universal capacity for public relations management, crowd control and the acceptance of a universal vaccine mandate." The language of an intentional release of a respiratory pathogen was written into the scenario that "must be completed by September 2020."

This is the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board's unified statement. There are a number of people who have taken credit and then backed away from credit for it.