… 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.”2
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.
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.
35 U…S…C… § 101 … 5
18 U…S…C… §2339 C et seq… – Funding and Conspiring to Commit Acts of Terror … 7
18 U…S…C… § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of Domestic Terrorism resulting in death of American Citizens … 10
18 U…S…C… § 1001 – Lying to Congress … 12
15 U…S…C… §1-3 – Conspiring to Criminal Commercial Activity … 16
15 U…S…C… §8 – Market Manipulation and Allocation … 20
15 U…S…C… § 19 – Interlocking Directorates … 21
35 U…S…C… §200 – 206 – Disclosure of Government Interest … 23
21 C…F…R… § 50…24 et seq…, Illegal Clinical Trial … 25
The Commercial Actors … 27 ……
… 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……
linked from https://www.flemingmethod.com/documentation