Post by Glenda Gustin on Aug 11, 2022 15:42:39 GMT
www.bitchute.com/video/pDLKVdHBM1ok/
"THIS IS A BIOWEAPONS PROGRAM DESIGNED TO KILL US" That's what it is, and it's not just designed to kill us, it's designed to kill massive numbers of the population. We do not have a virus, we have a biological weapon. Humans built SARS and US taxpayers paid for it. In 1999we built a bioweapon. I wrote my first classified briefing on it in 2001 and I actually gave the lectures in 2001 in bioweapons global security in 2003 in ?ovian and 2004 in the Islamic Republic of Iran at the International Bioweapons Conference in Iran.
Anthony Fauci has spent--listen to this number 191 billion dollars audited funds for the bioweaponization of viruses against humanity. And its your money that has been spent. A hundred and ninety one billion dollars. We have every grant recipient, every person, their address, their phone number, their laboratory, we literally have the entirety of where that money went. And not a single investigation agency in this country is willing to look. "THIS IS A BIOWEAPONS PROGRAM DESIGNED TO KILL US" that's what it is and its not just designed to kill us, it is designed to kill massive numbers of the population. We do not have a virus, we have a biological weapon.
But unfortunately if you look at GISNIAID which is the public source of uploading of any one of a number of variations, what you'll find is that there has been no ability to identify any clinically altered gene sequence which is then a clinically expressed variation. And this is the problem all along, this is the problem going back to the very beginning of what is alleged to be a pandemic. Is we do not have any evidence that the gene sequence alteration had any clinical significance whatsoever. There has not been a single paper published by anyone that has actually established that anything novel since November 2019 has clinical distinction from anything that predates November of 2019. The problem with the 73 patents that I described is that those 73 patents all contain what was reported to be novel in December and January of 2019 and 2020 respectively. So the problem is, that even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic ? even if we were to accept that tehre are some set of pathogens that can induce symptoms, we do not have a single piece of published evidence that tells us that anything about the subclade SARS Covid has any clinical distinction from anything that was known and published prior to November 2019 in 73 patents dating to 2008.
(Question) Could it be that the Delta variant could sort of be that the different clinical symptoms are the same that it has the capability of infecting someone who has already gone through Variant B?
Well, so this is where we see an enormous amount of response and reflexive behavior to media hype. There is no, and I'm going to repeat this, there is no evidence that the Delta variant is somehow distinct from anything else on GISIAID. The fact that we are now looking for a thing does not mean it is a thing, because we are looking at fragments of things, and the fact is if we chose any fragment I could come up with, you know, I could come up with 'Variant Omega' tomorrow, and I could come up with 'Variant omega' and say I'm looking for this substrand of either DNA or RNA or even a protein and I could run around the world going 'Oh my gosh fear the Omega Variant" and the problem is, because of the nature of the way in which we currently sequence genomes which is actually a compositing process its what we'd call in mathematics 'interleaving'.
We don't have any point of reference to actually know whether or not what we're looking at is in fact distinct from either clinical or even genomic sense. And so we're trapped in a world where unfortunately if you go and look as I have at the appers that isolated the Delta variant, and actually ask the question 'is the Delta variant anything other than the selection of a sequence in a systematic shift of an already disclosed other sequence? the answer is its just an alteration of when you start at what you call the 'reading frame'.
There is no 'novel' anything."
"Let's review just for the record. When Anthony Fauci tried desperately to get some of quote synthectic mrna vaccines published, he had his own patents rejected by the patent office. And I want to read what the patent office told him when heh NIAID's own Anthony Fauci thought he could get an MRna like vaccine patented like a vaccine. And here's the quote: 'These arguments are persuasive to the extent that an anti 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."
Okay, this is the patent office not some sort of public health agency its the patent office. "The immune response produced by a vaccine must be more than merely an immune response but must also be protective as noted in the previous office action the term vaccine to be a compound which prevents infection. Applicant has not demonstrated that the instantly claimed vaccine in even the most lowest standard set forth in the specification let alone the standard definition of being operative in regards. Therefore claims five, seven, and nine are not operative as the anti HIV vaccine which is what he was working on is not patentable utility."
So Anthony Fauci himself was told by the patent office themselves that what he was proposing as a vaccine does not meet the patentable standard the legal standard or the clinical standard.
(Comment)David, I know a lot of our viewers are shocked, i can see that from the responses. One of the viewers is the PCR test specialist professor Kamela. She can't beleive what's going on here.
Well, here's the sad and sober irony. I raised these issues in the beginning of 2002 after the Anthrax scare. And the tragedy is we're 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, what the medical profession and what the FDA under its own clinical standards would not suggest is a vaccine. But by using the term we actually are now subjecting hundreds of millions of people to what was known to be by 2005 a biological weapon.
There is no such thing as an alpha or beta or gamma or delta variant. This is a means by which is desperately sought is a degree to which individuals can be coerced into accepting something which they would not otherwise accept. There has not been in any of the published studies on what has purportedly the Delta variant, there has not been a population are not calculated which has actually population rate ?. What has been estimated are computer simulations.
We have to stop falling for even the mainstream narrative in our own line of questioning. Because the fact of the matter is, this was seen as a highly malleable bioweapon. there's no question that by 2005, it was unquestionably a weapon of choice. And the illusion that we continue to unfortunately see very well-meaning people get trapped in, if conversations about whether we're having vaccines for a virus, the fact of the matter is we're not. We're injecting a spike protein m rna sequence which is a computer simulation, its not derived from nature. It's a computer simulation of a sequence which has been known and patented for years and what we know is, that that sequence as reported, is reported across things like the very reliable phone conversation that took place between Moderna and the vaccine research center by self-report. Where, I don't know, if you were on a phone call and you heard ATTCGGATTCCGABBB (?) is there any chance you might get a letter, a vowel, or a consonant dropped here or there.
The ludicrous nature of the story that this has somehow prophelactic of preventative flies in the face of a hundred percent 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 s1 spike protein. So the cover story is that if you get an expression of a spike protein you're going to have some sort of general symptomatic relief. But the fact of the matter is, there has never been an intent to vaccinate a population as defined by the vaccination universe and it's important.
"What's more problematic and is actually most egregious problem is that Anthony Fauci and NIAID found that the ability of the coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines. And so SARS is actually not a natural progression of a zoonetic modification of coronavirus.
As a matter of fact very specifically in 1999 Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill specifically to create and you cannot help but to lament what I am about to read but this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19 2002 and you heard the date correctly 2002, where the NIAID built an infectious replication defective coronavirus that was specifically targeted toward human lung epiphelium. In other words WE MADE SARS. And we patented it on April 19, 2002 before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia which as you know followed that by several months.
That patent number 2279327 that patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we knew the AIDS receptor the H2 binding domain the s1 spike protein and other elelments of what we have come to know as the scourge pathogen was not only engineered but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory using nothing more than gene sequencing technology taking computor code and turning it into a pathogen or an intermediate of the pathogen. And that technology was funded exclusively in the early days by means by which we could actually harness a coronavirus as a vector to distribute an HIV vaccine.
"So what I wanted to do was give you a quick overview timeline wise because we're not going to go through 4,000 patents on this conversation. But I have sent to you and your team a document which is exceptionally important, in the spring of 2020, which you do have and can be posted in the public record, is quite critical in that we took the reported gene sequence which was reportedly isolated as a novel coronavirus indicated as such by the ICPD? of the commitee of taxonomy of viruses of the World Health Organization.
We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel and reviewed those against the patent records that were available as of the spring of 2020. And what we found as you'll see in this report in over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy.
There was no novel coronavirus.
There are countless very subtle modifications of coronaviruses sequences that have been uploaded. But there have been no single identified novel coronavirus at all. As a matter of fact, we found records, in the patent records, of sequences attributed to novelty, going to patenets that were sought as early as 1999.
So not only was this not a novel anything, its actually not only not been novel, its not been novel for over two decades.
But now let's take a very short--what I'll do is take you on a short journey through the patent landscape to make sure people understand what happened. But as you know up untill 1999, the topic of coronavirus vis a vis patenting activity around coronavirus is uniquely applied to veterinary sciences.
The first vaccine ever patented for cornavirus was actually sought by Pfizer. The application for the first vaccine for coronavirus was specifically for this 'S' spike protein. So the exact same thing we have rushed into invention. The first application was filed January 28, 2000. Twenty one years ago. So the idea that we mysteriously stumbled on the way to intervene with vaccines is not only ludicrous, it is incredulous. Because Timothy Miller, Sharon Klupfer, Albert Paul Reed and Elaine Jones on January 28, 2000 filed and was issued U.S. Patent 6372224 which was the spike protein virus vaccine for the canine coronavirus which was actually one of the multiple forms of coronavirus.
But as I said, the early work up untill 1999 was largely focused in the area of vaccines for animals receiving the most attention were probably Ralph Baraks work on rabbits and the rabbit cardiomyopathy that was associated with significant problems among rabbit breeders and then canine coronavirus among Pfizer's work to develop s spike proteins being target candidates.
Giving rise to the obvious evidence that neither evidence for the coronavirus vaccine nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest in itself or the protein's behavior is novel at all in fact it's 22 years old based on patent files.
"There has not been a single paper published by anyone that has actually established that anything novel since November 2019 has clinical distinction from anything that predates November of 2019. The problem with the 73 patents that I described is that those 73 patents all contain what was reported to be novel in December and January of 2019 and 2020 respectively. So the problem is, that even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic ? even if we were to accept that tehre are some set of pathogens that can induce symptoms, we do not have a single piece of published evidence that tells us that anything about the subclade SARS Covid has any clinical distinction from anything that was known and published prior to November 2019 in 73 patents dating to 2008.
(Question) Could it be that the Delta variant could sort of be that the different clinical symptoms are the same that it has the capability of infecting someone who has already gone through Variant B?
Well, so this is where we see an enormous amount of response and reflexive behavior to media hype. There is no, and I'm going to repeat this, there is no evidence that the Delta variant is somehow distinct from anything else on GISIAID. The fact that we are now looking for a thing does not mean it is a thing, because we are looking at fragments of things, and the fact is if we chose any fragment I could come up with, you know, I could come up with 'Variant Omega' tomorrow, and I could come up with 'Variant omega' and say I'm looking for this substrand of either DNA or RNA or even a protein and I could run around the world going 'Oh my gosh fear the Omega Variant" and the problem is, because of the nature of the way in which we currently sequence genomes which is actually a compositing process its what we'd call in mathematics 'interleaving'.
We don't have any point of reference to actually know whether or not what we're looking at is in fact distinct from either clinical or even genomic sense. And so we're trapped in a world where unfortunately if you go and look as I have at the appers that isolated the Delta variant, and actually ask the question 'is the Delta variant anything other than the selection of a sequence in a systematic shift of an already disclosed other sequence? the answer is its just an alteration of when you start at what you call the 'reading frame'.
There is no 'novel' anything."
"THIS IS A BIOWEAPONS PROGRAM DESIGNED TO KILL US" That's what it is, and it's not just designed to kill us, it's designed to kill massive numbers of the population. We do not have a virus, we have a biological weapon. Humans built SARS and US taxpayers paid for it. In 1999we built a bioweapon. I wrote my first classified briefing on it in 2001 and I actually gave the lectures in 2001 in bioweapons global security in 2003 in ?ovian and 2004 in the Islamic Republic of Iran at the International Bioweapons Conference in Iran.
Anthony Fauci has spent--listen to this number 191 billion dollars audited funds for the bioweaponization of viruses against humanity. And its your money that has been spent. A hundred and ninety one billion dollars. We have every grant recipient, every person, their address, their phone number, their laboratory, we literally have the entirety of where that money went. And not a single investigation agency in this country is willing to look. "THIS IS A BIOWEAPONS PROGRAM DESIGNED TO KILL US" that's what it is and its not just designed to kill us, it is designed to kill massive numbers of the population. We do not have a virus, we have a biological weapon.
But unfortunately if you look at GISNIAID which is the public source of uploading of any one of a number of variations, what you'll find is that there has been no ability to identify any clinically altered gene sequence which is then a clinically expressed variation. And this is the problem all along, this is the problem going back to the very beginning of what is alleged to be a pandemic. Is we do not have any evidence that the gene sequence alteration had any clinical significance whatsoever. There has not been a single paper published by anyone that has actually established that anything novel since November 2019 has clinical distinction from anything that predates November of 2019. The problem with the 73 patents that I described is that those 73 patents all contain what was reported to be novel in December and January of 2019 and 2020 respectively. So the problem is, that even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic ? even if we were to accept that tehre are some set of pathogens that can induce symptoms, we do not have a single piece of published evidence that tells us that anything about the subclade SARS Covid has any clinical distinction from anything that was known and published prior to November 2019 in 73 patents dating to 2008.
(Question) Could it be that the Delta variant could sort of be that the different clinical symptoms are the same that it has the capability of infecting someone who has already gone through Variant B?
Well, so this is where we see an enormous amount of response and reflexive behavior to media hype. There is no, and I'm going to repeat this, there is no evidence that the Delta variant is somehow distinct from anything else on GISIAID. The fact that we are now looking for a thing does not mean it is a thing, because we are looking at fragments of things, and the fact is if we chose any fragment I could come up with, you know, I could come up with 'Variant Omega' tomorrow, and I could come up with 'Variant omega' and say I'm looking for this substrand of either DNA or RNA or even a protein and I could run around the world going 'Oh my gosh fear the Omega Variant" and the problem is, because of the nature of the way in which we currently sequence genomes which is actually a compositing process its what we'd call in mathematics 'interleaving'.
We don't have any point of reference to actually know whether or not what we're looking at is in fact distinct from either clinical or even genomic sense. And so we're trapped in a world where unfortunately if you go and look as I have at the appers that isolated the Delta variant, and actually ask the question 'is the Delta variant anything other than the selection of a sequence in a systematic shift of an already disclosed other sequence? the answer is its just an alteration of when you start at what you call the 'reading frame'.
There is no 'novel' anything."
"Let's review just for the record. When Anthony Fauci tried desperately to get some of quote synthectic mrna vaccines published, he had his own patents rejected by the patent office. And I want to read what the patent office told him when heh NIAID's own Anthony Fauci thought he could get an MRna like vaccine patented like a vaccine. And here's the quote: 'These arguments are persuasive to the extent that an anti 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."
Okay, this is the patent office not some sort of public health agency its the patent office. "The immune response produced by a vaccine must be more than merely an immune response but must also be protective as noted in the previous office action the term vaccine to be a compound which prevents infection. Applicant has not demonstrated that the instantly claimed vaccine in even the most lowest standard set forth in the specification let alone the standard definition of being operative in regards. Therefore claims five, seven, and nine are not operative as the anti HIV vaccine which is what he was working on is not patentable utility."
So Anthony Fauci himself was told by the patent office themselves that what he was proposing as a vaccine does not meet the patentable standard the legal standard or the clinical standard.
(Comment)David, I know a lot of our viewers are shocked, i can see that from the responses. One of the viewers is the PCR test specialist professor Kamela. She can't beleive what's going on here.
Well, here's the sad and sober irony. I raised these issues in the beginning of 2002 after the Anthrax scare. And the tragedy is we're 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, what the medical profession and what the FDA under its own clinical standards would not suggest is a vaccine. But by using the term we actually are now subjecting hundreds of millions of people to what was known to be by 2005 a biological weapon.
There is no such thing as an alpha or beta or gamma or delta variant. This is a means by which is desperately sought is a degree to which individuals can be coerced into accepting something which they would not otherwise accept. There has not been in any of the published studies on what has purportedly the Delta variant, there has not been a population are not calculated which has actually population rate ?. What has been estimated are computer simulations.
We have to stop falling for even the mainstream narrative in our own line of questioning. Because the fact of the matter is, this was seen as a highly malleable bioweapon. there's no question that by 2005, it was unquestionably a weapon of choice. And the illusion that we continue to unfortunately see very well-meaning people get trapped in, if conversations about whether we're having vaccines for a virus, the fact of the matter is we're not. We're injecting a spike protein m rna sequence which is a computer simulation, its not derived from nature. It's a computer simulation of a sequence which has been known and patented for years and what we know is, that that sequence as reported, is reported across things like the very reliable phone conversation that took place between Moderna and the vaccine research center by self-report. Where, I don't know, if you were on a phone call and you heard ATTCGGATTCCGABBB (?) is there any chance you might get a letter, a vowel, or a consonant dropped here or there.
The ludicrous nature of the story that this has somehow prophelactic of preventative flies in the face of a hundred percent 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 s1 spike protein. So the cover story is that if you get an expression of a spike protein you're going to have some sort of general symptomatic relief. But the fact of the matter is, there has never been an intent to vaccinate a population as defined by the vaccination universe and it's important.
"What's more problematic and is actually most egregious problem is that Anthony Fauci and NIAID found that the ability of the coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines. And so SARS is actually not a natural progression of a zoonetic modification of coronavirus.
As a matter of fact very specifically in 1999 Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill specifically to create and you cannot help but to lament what I am about to read but this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19 2002 and you heard the date correctly 2002, where the NIAID built an infectious replication defective coronavirus that was specifically targeted toward human lung epiphelium. In other words WE MADE SARS. And we patented it on April 19, 2002 before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia which as you know followed that by several months.
That patent number 2279327 that patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we knew the AIDS receptor the H2 binding domain the s1 spike protein and other elelments of what we have come to know as the scourge pathogen was not only engineered but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory using nothing more than gene sequencing technology taking computor code and turning it into a pathogen or an intermediate of the pathogen. And that technology was funded exclusively in the early days by means by which we could actually harness a coronavirus as a vector to distribute an HIV vaccine.
"So what I wanted to do was give you a quick overview timeline wise because we're not going to go through 4,000 patents on this conversation. But I have sent to you and your team a document which is exceptionally important, in the spring of 2020, which you do have and can be posted in the public record, is quite critical in that we took the reported gene sequence which was reportedly isolated as a novel coronavirus indicated as such by the ICPD? of the commitee of taxonomy of viruses of the World Health Organization.
We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel and reviewed those against the patent records that were available as of the spring of 2020. And what we found as you'll see in this report in over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy.
There was no novel coronavirus.
There are countless very subtle modifications of coronaviruses sequences that have been uploaded. But there have been no single identified novel coronavirus at all. As a matter of fact, we found records, in the patent records, of sequences attributed to novelty, going to patenets that were sought as early as 1999.
So not only was this not a novel anything, its actually not only not been novel, its not been novel for over two decades.
But now let's take a very short--what I'll do is take you on a short journey through the patent landscape to make sure people understand what happened. But as you know up untill 1999, the topic of coronavirus vis a vis patenting activity around coronavirus is uniquely applied to veterinary sciences.
The first vaccine ever patented for cornavirus was actually sought by Pfizer. The application for the first vaccine for coronavirus was specifically for this 'S' spike protein. So the exact same thing we have rushed into invention. The first application was filed January 28, 2000. Twenty one years ago. So the idea that we mysteriously stumbled on the way to intervene with vaccines is not only ludicrous, it is incredulous. Because Timothy Miller, Sharon Klupfer, Albert Paul Reed and Elaine Jones on January 28, 2000 filed and was issued U.S. Patent 6372224 which was the spike protein virus vaccine for the canine coronavirus which was actually one of the multiple forms of coronavirus.
But as I said, the early work up untill 1999 was largely focused in the area of vaccines for animals receiving the most attention were probably Ralph Baraks work on rabbits and the rabbit cardiomyopathy that was associated with significant problems among rabbit breeders and then canine coronavirus among Pfizer's work to develop s spike proteins being target candidates.
Giving rise to the obvious evidence that neither evidence for the coronavirus vaccine nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest in itself or the protein's behavior is novel at all in fact it's 22 years old based on patent files.
"There has not been a single paper published by anyone that has actually established that anything novel since November 2019 has clinical distinction from anything that predates November of 2019. The problem with the 73 patents that I described is that those 73 patents all contain what was reported to be novel in December and January of 2019 and 2020 respectively. So the problem is, that even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic ? even if we were to accept that tehre are some set of pathogens that can induce symptoms, we do not have a single piece of published evidence that tells us that anything about the subclade SARS Covid has any clinical distinction from anything that was known and published prior to November 2019 in 73 patents dating to 2008.
(Question) Could it be that the Delta variant could sort of be that the different clinical symptoms are the same that it has the capability of infecting someone who has already gone through Variant B?
Well, so this is where we see an enormous amount of response and reflexive behavior to media hype. There is no, and I'm going to repeat this, there is no evidence that the Delta variant is somehow distinct from anything else on GISIAID. The fact that we are now looking for a thing does not mean it is a thing, because we are looking at fragments of things, and the fact is if we chose any fragment I could come up with, you know, I could come up with 'Variant Omega' tomorrow, and I could come up with 'Variant omega' and say I'm looking for this substrand of either DNA or RNA or even a protein and I could run around the world going 'Oh my gosh fear the Omega Variant" and the problem is, because of the nature of the way in which we currently sequence genomes which is actually a compositing process its what we'd call in mathematics 'interleaving'.
We don't have any point of reference to actually know whether or not what we're looking at is in fact distinct from either clinical or even genomic sense. And so we're trapped in a world where unfortunately if you go and look as I have at the appers that isolated the Delta variant, and actually ask the question 'is the Delta variant anything other than the selection of a sequence in a systematic shift of an already disclosed other sequence? the answer is its just an alteration of when you start at what you call the 'reading frame'.
There is no 'novel' anything."