By David E. Martin, PhD

Dr. David Martin is the founding CEO of M∙CAM Inc. M∙CAM is the international leader in intellectual property-based financial risk management. From auditing patent quality for governments and patent offices, to providing state-of-the-art actuarial risk management systems and solutions to the largest banks and insurance companies, M∙CAM has established a global standard in patent quality and commercial validity assessment and management.

A spokesperson for global intellectual property accountability and quality reform, Dr. Martin has worked closely with the United States Congress, numerous trade and finance regulatory agencies in the United States, Europe and Asia, in advocating and deploying infrastructure to support growing reliance on proprietary rights in business transactions. M∙CAM has supported the modernization of intellectual property, tax, and accounting laws through its work with oversight agencies and policy makers.

Dr. Martin has founded several for-profit and non-profit companies and organizations and serves of several boards. He was the founding CEO of Mosaic Technologies Inc., a company that developed and commercialized advanced computational linguistics technologies, dynamic data compression and encryption technologies, electrical field transmission technology, medical diagnostics, and stealth/anechoic technology. He was a founding member of Japan’s Institute for Interface Science & Technology. He founded and served as Executive Director of the Charlottesville Venture Group. He has served as a board member for the Research Institute for Small and Emerging Business (Washington D.C.), the Academy for Augmenting Grassroots Technological Innovations (India), the IST (Japan) the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce (Virginia), and the Charlottesville Industrial Development Agency (Virginia).

As former Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia’s School of Medicine, Dr. Martin founded the University’s first wholly-owned, for-profit, research and development and technology transfer corporation. Engaged in domestic and international technology transfer, clinical research, and financing, this company pioneered new techniques innovation management that have become industry standards. In 1999, Dr. Martin was appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia to serve on the Joint Commission on Technology and Science and has served the General Assembly and Virginia’s Center for Innovative Technology on numerous occasions.

Dr. Martin’s work with the Batten Institute at the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia and his related work at the Indian Institute for Management in Ahmedabad India has brought unprecedented curricular focus to areas of intangible asset risk management, finance, and accounting standards. In addition to his academic work, Dr. Martin has closely advised intellectual property based finance and investment programs in India, China, Denmark, the European Union, the United Kingdom, South Africa, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates.

Dr. Martin has publications in law, medicine, engineering, finance and education. He maintains active research in the fields of linguistic genomics, fractal financial risk modeling, as well as continuing his over 15 years of research in cellular membrane ionic signaling.

END

This document is prepared for humanity by Dr. David E. Martin.

This work was supported, in part, by a fund-raising effort in which approximately 330 persons contributed funds in support of the New Earth technology team and Urban Global Health Alliance. It is released under a Creative Commons license CC- BY-NC-SA. Any derivative use of this dossier must be made public for the benefit of others. All documents, references and disclosures contained herein are subject to an AS-IS representation. The author does not bear responsibility for errors in the public record or references therein. Throughout this document, uses of terms commonly accepted in medical and scientific literature do not imply acceptance or rejection of the dogma that they represent.

Background:

Over the past two decades, my company – M·CAM – has been monitoring possible violations of the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (the Geneva Protocol) 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction (the BTWC). In our 2003-2004 Global Technology Assessment: Vector Weaponization M·CAM highlighted China’s growing involvement in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology with respect to joining the world stage in chimeric construction of viral vectors. Since that time, on a weekly basis, we have monitored the development of research and commercial efforts in this field, including, but not limited to, the research synergies forming between the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), Harvard University, Emory University, Vanderbilt University, Tsinghua University, University of Pennsylvania, many other research institutions, and their commercial affiliations.

The National Institute of Health’s grant AI23946-08 issued to Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (officially classified as affiliated with Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID by at least 2003) began the work on synthetically altering the Coronaviridae (the coronavirus family) for the express purpose of general research, pathogenic enhancement, detection, manipulation, and potential therapeutic interventions targeting the same. As early as May 21, 2000, Dr. Baric and UNC sought to patent critical sections of the coronavirus family for their commercial benefit.1 In one of the several papers derived from work sponsored by this grant, Dr. Baric published what he reported to be the full length cDNA of SARS CoV in which it was clearly stated that SAR CoV was based on a composite of DNA segments.

“Using a panel of contiguous cDNAs that span the entire genome, we have assembled a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV Urbani strain, and have rescued molecularly cloned SARS viruses (infectious clone SARS-CoV)
that contained the expected marker mutations inserted into the component clones.”

On April 19, 2002 – the Spring before the first SARS outbreak in Asia – Christopher M. Curtis, Boyd Yount, and Ralph Baric filed an application for U.S. Patent 7,279,372 for a method of producing recombinant coronavirus. In the first public record of the claims, they sought to patent a means of producing, “an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus.” This work was supported by the NIH grant referenced above and GM63228. In short, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was involved in the funding of amplifying the infectious nature of coronavirus between 1999 and 2002 before SARS was ever detected in humans.

1 2 https://www.pnas.org/content/100/22/12995 Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier CC-BY-NC-SA Dr. David E. Martin 2

Against this backdrop, we noted the unusual patent prosecution efforts of the CDC, when on April 25, 2003 they sought to patent the SARS coronavirus isolated from humans that had reportedly transferred to humans during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak in Asia. 35 U.S.C. §101 prohibits patenting nature. This legality did not deter CDC in their efforts. Their application, updated in 2007, ultimately issued as U.S. Patent 7,220,852 and constrained anyone not licensed by their patent from manipulating SARS CoV, developing tests or kits to measure SARS coronavirus in humans or working with their patented virus for therapeutic use. Work associated with this virus by their select collaborators included considerable amounts of chimeric engineering, gain-of-function studies, viral characterization, detection, treatment (both vaccine and therapeutic intervention), and weaponization inquiries.

In short, with Baric’s U.S. Patent 6,593,111 (Claims 1 and 5) and CDC’s ‘852 patent (Claim 1), no research in the United States could be conducted without permission or infringement.

We noted that gain-of-function specialist, Dr. Ralph Baric, was both the recipient of millions of dollars of U.S. research grants from several federal agencies but also sat on the World Health Organization’s International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) and the Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG). In this capacity, he was both responsible for determining “novelty” of clades of virus species but directly benefitted from determining declarations of novelty in the form of new research funding authorizations and associated patenting and commercial collaboration. Together with CDC, NIAID, WHO, academic and commercial parties (including Johnson & Johnson; Sanofi and their several coronavirus patent holding biotech companies; Moderna; Ridgeback; Gilead; Sherlock Biosciences; and, others), a powerful group of interests constituted what we would suggest are “interlocking directorates” under U.S. anti-trust laws.
These entities also were affiliated with the WHO’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) whose members were instrumental in the Open Philanthropy-funded global coronavirus pandemic “desk-top” exercise EVENT 201 in October 2019. This event, funded by the principal investor in Sherlock Biosciences and linking interlocking funding partner, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation into the GPMB mandate for a respiratory disease global preparedness exercise to be completed by September 2020 alerted us to anticipate an “epidemic” scenario. We expected to see such a scenario emerge from Wuhan or Guangdong China, northern Italy, Seattle, New York or a combination thereof, as Dr. Zhengli Shi and Dr. Baric’s work on zoonotic transmission of coronavirus identified overlapping mutations in coronavirus in bat populations located in these areas.

This dossier is by no means exhaustive. It is, however, indicative the numerous criminal violations that may be associated with the COVID-19 terrorism. All source materials are referenced herein. An additional detailed breakdown of all the of individuals, research institutions, foundations, funding sources, and commercial enterprises can be accessed upon request.

From Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion for the majority

Section 101 of the Patent Act provides: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful … composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.

We have “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception[:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Mayo, 566 U.S., at _, 132 S.Ct., at 1293 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Rather, “they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work'" that lie beyond the domain of patent protection. Id., at ___, 132 S.Ct., at 1293. As the Court has explained, without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would "tie up" the use of such tools and thereby "inhibit future innovation premised upon them." Id., at ___, 132 S.Ct., at 1301. This would be at odds with the very point of patents, which exist to promote creation. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 100 S.Ct. 2204, 65 L.Ed.2d 144 (1980) (Products of nature are not created, and "manifestations… of nature [are] free to all men and reserved
exclusively to none'”).3

In their majority opinion in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the Court had “long held” that nature was not patentable. Merely isolating DNA does not constitute patentable subject matter. In their patent, the CDC made false and misleading claims to the United States Patent & Trademark Office by stating that, “A newly isolated
human coronavirus has been identified as the causative agent of SARS, and is termed SARS-CoV.”4 No “causal” data was provided for this statement.
When they filed their patent application on April 25, 2003 their first claim (and the only one that survived to ultimate
issuance over the objection of the patent examiner in 2006 and 2007) was the genome for SARS CoV.

While this patent is clearly illegal under 35 U.S.C. §101, not only did the CDC insist on its granting over non-final and final rejections, but they also continued to pay maintenance fees on the patent after the 2013 Supreme Court decision confirmed that it was illegal.

In addition, the CDC patented the detection of SARS CoV using a number of methods including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). With this patent, they precluded anyone outside of their licensed or conspiring interest from legally engaging in independent verification of their claim that they had isolated a virus, that it was a causative agent for SARS, or that any therapy could be effective against the reported pathogen.

It is important to note that the CDC’s patent applications were also rejected in non-final and final rejections for ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for being publicly disclosed prior to their own filing. In the first non-final rejection, the USPTO stated that the CDC’s genome was published in four Genbank accession entries on April 14, 18, and 21, 2003 with identity ranging from 96.8% to 99.9% identical sequences.5 Dr. Fauci knew, and failed to disclose evidence that the CDC patent was illegal, based on work he had funded in the years leading up to the SARS outbreak.

After seeking an illegal patent, petitioning to override the decision of an examiner to reject it, and ultimately prevailing with the patent’s grant, the CDC lied to the public by stating they were controlling the patent so that it would be “publicly available”.6 Tragically, this public statement is falsified by the simple fact that their own publication in Genbank had, in fact, made it public domain and thereby unpatentable. This fact, confirmed by patent examiners, was overridden by CDC in a paid solicitation to override the law.

While not covered under 35 U.S.C. §101, Dr. Fauci’s abuse of the patent law is detailed below. Of note, however, is his
willful and deceptive use of the term “vaccine” in patents and public pronouncements to pervert the meaning of the
term for the manipulation of the public.

In the 1905 Jacobson v. Mass case, the court was clear that a PUBLIC BENEFIT was required for a vaccine to be mandated. Neither Pfizer nor Moderna have proved a disruption of transmission. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the court held that the context for their opinion rested on the following principle:

“This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that ‘persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state…”

The Moderna and Pfizer “alleged vaccine” trials have explicitly acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the capacity to produce an S1 spike protein endogenously by the introduction of a synthetic mRNA sequence. Therefore, the basis for the
Massachusetts statute and the Supreme Court’s determination is moot in this case.

Further, the USPTO, in its REJECTION of Anthony Fauci’s HIV vaccine made the following statement supporting their rejection of his bogus “invention”

NOTE: We have not published the list of over 5,200 patents.

EDITOR NOTE: The above material and findings executed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinion, belief and validation of iNews Cayman/ieyenews.com or official policies of iNews Cayman/ieyenews.com