The real COVID timeline

“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 include US 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 percent 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 percent 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 in 2003, again in 2005, and then again in 2006, what you find is identity in somewhere between 89-99 percent 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.

Patenting the cure before the disease is discovered

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.”

US patent office defined that gene hacks were not vaccines

“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, didnt’ meet the patentable standard, the legal standard or the clinical standard.” 3

This is an excerpt from a long document. Read the rest here substack.com

Header image: Cavernoma Alliance UK

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.