Transkription – 60.Sitzung – Corona-Ausschuss 09.Juli 2021

Transkription des 60.Corona-Ausschuss mit Dr. David E. Martin

Deutsch – Übersetzung im Text von R. Füllmich:Dr. David Martin USA

English – Original:


R. Füllmich: (04:30:30)
Are you still there?

Dr. D. Martin: (04:30:31)
Yes, I am.

R. Füllmich: (04:30:32)
Oh, great. Nice to see you again.

Dr. D. Martin: (04:30:35)
Good to see you as well.

R. Füllmich: (04:30:37)
So, I think it’s best If you, um, introduce yourself. I know you’re the chairman of cam international innovation risk management, but that doesn’t tell a whole lot of people what you’re really doing.

Dr. D. Martin: (04:30:52)
Yeah. Well, from a corporate standpoint, we have since 1998, been the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. So in the majority of the countries around the world, our underwriting systems, which include the entire Corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records, et cetera. We have the ability to not only track what is happening and who is involved in what’s happening, but we monitor a series of thematic interests, for a variety of, of organizations and individuals, as well as for our own commercial use. Because as you probably know, we maintain, three global equity index indices, which are, the, the top performing large cap and mid cap equity indexes worldwide. So our business is to monitor the innovation that’s happening around the world, and specifically to monitor the economics of that innovation, the degree to which, you know, financial interests are being served, you know, corporate interests are being dislocated, et cetera. So our business is the business of innovation and it’s finance.

R. Füllmich: (04:32:28)
Also seine Firma, er ist der Vorstand von M-CAM Internalional und er, ums ganz kurz zusammen zufassen, überwacht mit oder beobachtet besser gesagt mit dieser Firma die Innovationen die weltweit passieren dazu gehören und zwar in den und zwar so wie sie sich ausdrücken in den intangible assets. Also das sind die Das sind zum Beispiel Patente. Patente spielen hier eine ganz grosse Rolle und er betreibt mit seiner Firma 3 Er beobachtet mit seiner Firma auch die „equity indices“ um da zu sehen , wie reagiert die Finanzindustrie auf solche Innovationen. Okay. I got that.

Dr. D. Martin: (04:33:20)
Yeah. So, So obviously from the standpoint of this, presentation, as you know, uh, we have reviewed the over 4,000 patents that have been issued around SARS coronavirus. And we have done a very comprehensive review of the financing of all of the manipulations of coronavirus, which gave rise to SARS as a sub clade of the beta coronavirus family. And 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 that is exceptionally important. This was made public in the spring of 2020. This document, which, 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 ICTV, the international committee on techsonomy 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 is you’ll see in this report are 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 Corona virus sequences that have been uploaded, but there was 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 patents that were sought as early as 1999. So not only was this not a novel, anything, it’s actually not only not been novel, it’s not been novel for over two decades, let’s take a very short. And what I’ll do is I’ll take you on a very short journey through the patent landscape to make sure people understand what happened, but as you know, up until 1999, the topic of coronavirus vis-a-vis the patenting activity around coronavirus was uniquely applied to veterinary science. The first vaccine ever patented for Corona virus was actually sought by Pfizer, the application for the first, vaccine for coronavirus, which was specifically this area, spike protein. So the exact same thing that allegedly we have rushed into invention. The first application was filed January 28th, 2000 – 21 years ago. So the idea that we mysteriously stumbled on, the way to intervene on vaccines is not only ludicrous. It is incredulous, because Timothy Miller, Sharon Clepfor, Albert Paul Reed and Elaine Jones, um, on January 28th, 2000 filed what ultimately was issued as us patent 6 3 7 2 2 2 4, which was the spike protein, virus, a vaccine for the canine coronavirus, which is actually one of the multiple forms of Coronavirus. But as I said, the early work up until 1999 was largely focused in the area of vaccines for animals. The two animals receiving the most attention, were probably Ralph Baric work on rabbits and the rabbit cardiomyopathy that was associated with significant problems among rabbit breeders, and then canine coronavirus in Pfizer’s work to identify how to develop ?? , as a Spike protein vaccine, target candidates, giving rise to the obvious evidence that says that neither the Corona virus concept of a vaccine, nor that the principle of the coronavirus itself, as a pathogen of interest with respect to the spike proteins behavior is anything okay novel at all. As a matter of fact, it’s 22 years old, based on patent files, what’s more problematic. And what is, actually the most egregious problem is that right Anthony Fauci and NIAID found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines. And so SARS is actually not a natural progression of a zoonotic 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, you cannot help, but you know, lament what I’m about to read, because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19th, 2002. And you heard the date correctly. 2002, where the NIAID built an infectious replication, defective Corona virus that was specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words, we made SARS and we patented it on April 19th, 2002, before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which as you know, followed that by several months. That patent issued as us patent 7 2 7 9 3 2 7. That patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing. The fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE two binding domain, the S1 spike protein and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen was not only engineered, but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory, using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies, taking computer code and turning it into a pathogen or an intermediate of the pathogen. And that technology was funded exclusively in the early days as a means by which we could actually harness Corona virus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine. I’ll let you translate that because that’s a lot of material.

R. Füllmich: (04:41:58)
Okay. Also David hat eben erklärt, dass es über 4000 Patente um das SARS-Coronavirus gibt. Das hat seine Firma, die hat seine Firma alle genau angesehen. Über 4000 Patente, auch die Finanzierung die darum eine Rolle spielen. Die Idee , das wir es hier mit einem neuen, mit einer neuen Sequenze des Coronavirus zu tun haben, überhaupt mit einem neuen Coronavirus, die ist falsch. Es gibt 120 Patentbeweismittel dafür, dass das nicht stimmt-. Es ist keine neues Coronavirus. Es gibt höchstens eine paar Varianten, aber das Coronavirus selbst ist überhaupt nichts Neues. Die Idee dagegen zu impfen auch nicht. Seit zwei Jahrzehnten seit 1999 wird damit gearbeitet, bis 1999, also Forschung am Menschen. Bis 1999 betraft die Corona Forschung allerdings so gut wie ausschließlich die Tiermedizin. Der erste Impfstoff kam von Pfizer, der ein S, also Spikeprotein produziert hat. Das wurde patentiert am 28.Januar 2000, also vor 21 Jahren. Er hat sogar die Patentnummer gesagt US Patent 6 3 7 2 2 2 2 4 . Und das war ein Impfstoff für Hunde. Es ist also nicht nur lächerlich, sondern grober Unfug, wenn gesagt wird dass das hier alles Neu ist. Weder das Virus ist neu, noch die Idee, noch der Impfstoff ist neu. Es gibt 2 grosse Bemühungen für solche Impfstoffe, die beide was mit Tieren zu tun haben. Einmal von Ralph Baric, das ist der wichtigsten Personen hier, wir werden mal versuchen mit ihm ins Gespräch zu kommen, an Kaninchen und einmal die Pfizer Bemühungen, die sich um Hunde und die Entwicklung des S-Spike Protein Impfstoff für Hunde gekümmert hat. Also weder Corona noch der Impfstoff ist irgendetwas Neues. Im Gegenteil, Anthony Fauci vom NIAID. Das ist das.

Dr. D. Martin: (04:44:24)
„National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases“ -> Link

R. Füllmich: (04:44:42)
Der hat ein Patent auf… Er hat Forschung finanziert im Jahre 2002, die sich damit befasst ein infektiöses replikationsfähiges Coronavirus, also ein gefährliches zu schaffen. Er sagt ganz einfach darauf hat Fauci damals ein Patent bekommen am 19.April 2002 und David sagt: „We made SARS“. Wir haben das was wir hier haben selber produziert und es ist damals patentiert worden, bevor es irgendeinen SARS Ausbruch gegeben hat. Wir erinnern uns, 2003 gabs das erste Mal einen SARS-Ausbruch und da war der Kollaborateur, kann man inzwischen sagen, auf Grund der offen gelegten EMails Anthony Fauci, Drosten auch dabei. Übrigends auch bei den „Gain-of-function“ Experimenten, also bei den Experimenten, die die Viren gefährlicher machen sollen. Diese Technologie wurde damals gefunden oder erfunden als Träger für HIV-Impfungen. Okay.

Dr. D. Martin: (04:46:08)
Okay. So we get worst. My organization was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations in the very early days of 2000. You’ll remember the anthrax events in September of 2001. And we were part of an investigation that gave rise to the congressional inquiry into not only the anthrax origins, but also into what was unusual behavior around Bayer’s, um, Cipro floxacin drug, which was a drug use as a potential treatment for anthrax poisoning. And throughout the fall of 2001, we began monitoring an enormous number of bacterial and viral pathogens that were being patented through NIH, NIAID, USARM, the US armed services infectious disease program and a number of other agencies internationally that collaborated with them. And our concern was that Corona virus was being seen as not only a potential manipulatable agent for potential use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate. So our first public reporting on this took place prior to the SARS outbreak in the latter part of 2001. So you can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here 20 years later, having 20 years earlier pointed that there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to coronavirus. But after the alleged outbreak, and I’m re I will always say alleged outbreak, because I think it’s important for us to that Corona virus as a circulating pathogen inside of the viral model that we have is actually not new to the human condition and is not new to the last two decades. It’s actually been part of the sequence of proteins that circulates for quite a long time, but the alleged outbreak that took place in China in 2002, going into 2003 gave rise to a very problematic April 2003 filing by the United States center for disease control and prevention. And this topic is of critical importance to get the nuance very precise, because in addition to filing the entire gene sequence on what became SARS coronavirus, which is actually a violation of 35 us code section 1 0 1, you cannot patent a naturally occurring substance. The 35 us code section 1 0 1 violation was patent number 7 2 2 0 8 5 2. Now that patent also had a series of derivative patents associated with it. These are our patent applications that were broken apart because they were of multiple patentable subject matter. But these include us patent 4 6 5 9 2 7 0 3 P, which is actually a very interesting designation. Us patent 7 7 6 5 2 1 it’s 7 7 7 6 5 2 1. These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS Corona virus, but also covered the means of detecting it using RT-PCR. Now, the reason why that’s a problem is if you actually both the patent on the gene itself, and you own the patent on his detection, you have a cunning advantage to being able to control 100% 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 ligated justified by their public relations team as being sought so that everyone would be free to be able to research Corona virus. 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 unpatentable, 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% identity with the already existing Corona virus 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 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 that’s subtle and to make matters worse. They paid an additional fee to keep their application private. Last time I checked, if you’re trying to make information available for the public research, you would not pay a fee to keep the information private. I wish I could have made up anything I just said, but all of that is available in the public patent archive record which any member of the public can review and the public pair as it’s called at the United States patent office has not only the evidence, but the actual documents which I have in my possession. Now this is is critically important. It’s critically important because fact checkers have repeatedly stated that the novel coronavirus designated as SARS cov 2, is in fact distinct from the CDC patent. And here’s both the genetic and the patent problem. 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 to 99% of the sequence overlaps that have been identified in what’s called the novel sub Glade of SARS cov 2. What we know is that the core designation of SARS Corona virus, which is actually the clade of the beta coronavirus family and the sub clade that has been called SARS cov 2 half to overlap from a taxonomy point of view, you cannot have SARS designation on a thing without it first being SARS. So the disingenuous fact checking that has been done saying that somehow or another CDC has nothing to do with this particular patent or this particular pathogen is beyond both the literal credibility of the published sequences. And it’s also beyond credulity when it comes to the ICTV taxonomy, because it very clearly states that this is in fact, a sub clade of the clade called SARS coronavirus. Now what’s important is on the 28th of April and listen to the date very carefully because this date is problematic. Three days after CDC filed the patent on the SARS Corona virus in 2003, three days later, „Sequoia pharmaceuticals“, a company that was set up in Maryland „Sequoia pharmaceuticals“ on the 28th of April, 2003, filed a patent on antiviral agents of treatment and control of infections by Corona virus. CDC filed three days earlier, and then the treatment was available three days later. Now, just hold that thought for a second. Q:“Who is the Sequoia pharmaceuticals?“ Well, there you go. That’s a good question because „Sequoia pharmaceuticals“ and ultimately „Ablin pharmaceuticals“ became rolled into the proprietary holdings of Pfizer Crucell and Johnson and Johnson. Wow. So ask yourself a simple question. How would one have a patent on a treatment for a thing that had been invented three days earlier? Yeah. The Patent in question, the April 28th, 2003, patent 7 1 5 1 1 6, 3 issued to Sequoia pharmaceuticals has another problem. The problem is it was issued and published before the CDC patent on Corona virus 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. It is not physically possible for you to patent a thing that treats the thing that had not published because CDC had paid to keep it secret. This, my friends is the definition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering, and collusion. This is not a theory. This is evidence. You cannot have information in the future in form a treatment for a thing that did not exist.

R. Füllmich: (04:57:45)
This could well blow up into a RICO-case. Definitely.

Dr. D. Martin: (04:57:49)
This is the that’s that it is a RICO-case it’s that could blow up into it. It is a RICO-case and the Rico pattern, which was established in April of 2003 for the first Corona virus was played out to exactly the same schedule. When we see SARS cov 2 show up, when we have, Moderna getting the spike protein sequence by phone from the vaccine research center at NIAID prior to the definition of the novel sub Glade, how do you treat a thing before you actually have the thing.

R. Füllmich: (04:58:33)
I have to translate this? This is you can’t make this up. Definitely not. Also ziemlich unglaublich. Also seine Firma hat eine ganze Weile auch die Verletzung von biologischen und chemischen Kriegsführungsregeln überprüft. Damals im Zusammenhang mit dem Anthrax Gift. Das war ein paar Tage nach 911. Da wurden plötzlich, im Kongress wurden Leute, zwei Senatoren scheinbar vergiftet oder versuchte sie mit dem Gift Anthrax zu vergiften. Da gabs ein, ich glaube es war sogar einen Impfstoff. Da gab es viele Patente drauf vom National Institute of Health oder dem eben genanten NIAID und es gab die Besorgnis bei der Firma von Dr. Martin, dass Corona als träger einer biologischen Waffe benutzt werden könnte. Das war in 2001. Nach dem angebliche Ausbruch von Corona, angeblich, sagt er, weil man weiss ja nicht genau was wirklich passiert ist in 2002 in China von SARS. Im April 2003 hat das CDC die gesamte Gensequence, also das CDC, dass ist eine Behörde, das ist die wichtigste, unser RKI ist das also eine Regierungsbehörde. Aber wir wissen ja inzwischen, dass das PublicPrivatePartnerships sind, die im wesentlichen privat übernommen worden sind, Hat das CDC die gesamte Gensequence des Coronavirus patentieren lassen. PatentNummer: 7 2 2 0 8 5 2 . Das ist eine Verletzung der regel, das natürlichen, hier also natürliche Viren, patentiert werden können, aber sie haben es getan. Die haben aber nicht nur dieses Virus patentiert, sondern ausserdem die Möglichkeiten es zu finden per PCR-Test. Wie wir inzwischen wissen, geht das so wieso nicht, sondern das war nur Bestandteil dieser Plandemie. Aber auch die Möglichkeit das Coronavirus überhaupt festzustellen wurde patentiert. So dass beides im Eigentum der CDC stand und steht. Nämlich einmal dieses Virus selbst und einmal die Möglichkeit es zu finden. Angeblich , so hat das die PR-Abteilung mitgeteilt, sollte das zum Wohl der Öffentlichkeit passieren, damit jeder da mit spielen kann. Das aber, sagt Dr. Martin, ist eine einzige Lüge, denn es war ja gar nichts Neues da. Man hätte hier gar nichts patentieren können. 99% Übereinstimmung hat nämlich mit den schon bestehenden Viren hat das Patentamt festgestellt. Das hätte man gar nicht patentieren können. Aber die CDC hat gesagt, dass ist mir doch egal und hat diese Feststellung des Patentamtes einfach ignoriert -overruled- Hat, und das ist alles beweisbar, er hat die Unterlagen dabei, Schmiergeld an das Patentamt bezahlt, damit das eben doch patentiert wird und zusätzlich eine Gebühr dafür, dass das alles geheim bleibt. Es haben in der Zwischenzeit Faircheckers, „we know what the thing of faircheckers“ Ne, ne, das ist schon ok, denn dieses COVID2 ist völlig anders. Tatsache ist aber, dass eine so eine zwischen eine 89% und 99% Identität mit den voran gegangen SARS-Viren besteht. Es wird aber noch etwas spannender. 3 Tage nach dem diese Patentierung des Virus in 2003 durch die CDC erfolgte, hat eine Gruppe „Sequoia pharmaceuticals“ schon das eine Behandlungsmethode für oder gegen das Virus patentieren lassen. 3 Tage danach haben sie es patentieren lassen. Aber nicht offen gelegt. Ne, das interessante ist, das kann, sagt Dr. Martin, nur Insiderinformationen gewesen sein, die dazu geführt hat, denn die CDC haben ja extra das Patentoffice geschmiert, damit niemand was von diesem Patent weiss und das war auch noch gar nicht bekannt, offiziell jedenfalls, so dass es hier nur um Insider Geschäfte gehen kann. 3 Tage danach, also die Behandlung selbst wurde patentiert, bevor offiziell die Krankheit bekannt war. Das ist, ich habe gesagt, dass könnte explodieren als RICO-Case. Er sagt das ist einer.

Dr. D. Martin: (05:03:54)
it’s going to get worse here. It can’t get worse. How it does. In the 5th of June 2008, which is an important date because it is actually around the time when DARPA the defense advanced research program in the United States actively took an interest in Coronavirus as a biological weapon, June 5th 2008, AB-links, which as you know, is now part of Sanofi filed a series of patents that specifically targeted. What we’ve been told is the novel feature of the SARS COV 2 virus. And you heard what I just said. This is the 5th of June, 2008. Specifically they targeted what was called the poly basic cleavage site for SARS cov, the novel spike protein and the ACE two receptor binding domain, which is allegedly novel to SARS cov 2. And all of that was patented on the 5th of June, 2008. And those patents in sequence were issued between November 24th 2015, which was us patent 9 1 9 3 7 8 0. So that one came out after the „gain of function“ moratorium. That one came after the MERS outbreak in the middle east. But what you find is that then in 2016, 2017, 2019, a series of patents, all covering not only the RNA strands, but also the sub components of the gene strands were all issued to AB-links and Sanofi. And then we have cruise cell. We have Rubius therapeutics. We have children’s medical corporation. We have countless others that include Ludwig Maximilian’s University in Muenchen, protein science corporation, Dana Farber cancer Institute, university of Iowa, university of Hong Kong, Chinese national genome, human genome center in Shanghai, all identifying in patent filings that ranged from 2008 until 2017, every attribute that was allegedly uniquely published by the single reference publication, the novel bat coronavirus reveals quote natural insertions of the S1S22 cleavage site of the spike protein and possible recombinant three origin of the SARS cov 2 virus. The paper that has been routinely used to identify the novel virus. Unfortunately, if you actually take what they report to be novel, you find 73 patents issued between 2008 and 2019, which have the elements that were allegedly novel in the SARS COV 2, specifically as it relates to the poly basic Cleveland site, the ACE two receptor binding domain and the spike protein. So the clinically novel components of the clinically unique clinically contagious, you know, where I’m going with this? Okay. There was no outbreak of SARS because we had engineered all of the elements of that. And by 2016, the paper that was funded during the gain of function moratorium that said that the SARS Corona virus was poised for human emergence written by none other than Ralph Baric was not only poised for human emergence, but it was patented for commercial exploitation, 73 times,

R. Füllmich: (05:08:36)
Ralph Barick, I think I saw a video clip with him giving a speech in which he explicitly told the audience that you can make a lot of money with this.

Dr. D. Martin: (05:08:46)
Yes you can. And he has made a lot of money doing this. So for who want to live in the illusion. That somehow or another, that’s the end of the story, brief prepared for a greater disappointment because somebody knew something in 2015 and 2016, which gave rise to my favorite quote of this entire pandemic. And by that I’m not being cute. My favorite quote of this pandemic was a statement made in 2015 by Peter Dashik the statement that was made by Peter Daszak in 2015, reported in the national academies of press publication, February 12th, 2016. And I’m quoting, we need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan Corona virus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process and quote,

V. Fischer: (05:10:16)
That’s quite shocking because I thought that, let me just

Dr. D. Martin: (05:10:19)
Read that again, just because I don’t know if I might get lost in translation. So let me just go ahead and read it slowly. And as Americans love to do, when speaking to a multi-lingual audience, maybe I should say it louder. I won’t. We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan Corona virus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process and quote.

V. Fischer: (05:11:11)
That’s really, I mean, Peter Darcy, wasn’t he the one who Peter Daszak head of EcoHealth Alliance.

R. Füllmich: (05:11:18)
Peter Daszak is the good guy, Peter Daszak,

Dr. D. Martin: (05:11:21)
The person who was independently corroborating the Chinese non-lab lake non theory because there wasn’t a lab lake. This was an intentional bias, a weaponization of spike proteins to inject into people, to get them addicted to a pan Corona virus vaccine. This has nothing to do with a pathogen that was released and every study that’s ever been launched to try to verify a lab leak is a red hearing.
And there’s really nothing that is new in this nothing 0. 73 Patents on everything clinically novel, 73 all issued before 2019. And I’m going to give you the biggest bombshell of all to prove that this was actually not a release of anything because patent 7 2 7 9 3 2 7, the patent on the recombinant nature of that lung targeting Corona virus was transferred mysteriously from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to the national institutes of health in 2018. Now here’s the problem with that under the buy Dole act, the US government already has what’s called a March in right provision. That means if the U S government has paid for research, they are entitled to benefit from that research at their demand or at their whim. So explain why in 2017, in 2018, suddenly the national institutes of health have to take ownership of the patent that they already had rights to held by the university of North Carolina Chapel Hill and how did they need to file a certificate of correction to make sure that it was legally enforceable? Because there was a typographical error in the grant reference in the first filing. So they needed to make sure that not only did they get it right, but they needed to make sure every type of graphical error that was contained in the patent was correct on the single patent required to develop the vaccine research institutes mandate, which was shared between the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in November of 2019 and Moderna in November of 2019 when UNC Chapel Hill and I aid. And Moderna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine a month before an outbreak ever happened.

R. Füllmich: (05:14:18):
You, you have all the evidence, right? Yep. I’ll have to translate this.
Also, wo waren wir jetzt eben. Ah ja. Am 5. Juni 2008, haben ABLinks und was heute Sanofi ist oder Beide zusammen ein Patent beantragt auf so ziemlich alles, was mit diesen, mRNA, Subcomponents, G-Strands. Also auf so ziemlich alles, was mit diesem SARS-Corona-Virus zusammen hängt . Das interessante daran ist, dass etwa um die selbe Zeit oder kurz danach DARPA, dass ist so ein Verteidigungsministeriums, also eine Militäreinheit. bevor die sich dafür für dieses CoronaVirus aktiv interessierten als eine Biowaffe. Danach wurden Patente auf wiederum so ziemlich alles eingetragen für ABLinks Sanofi in nicht nur 2015, sondern 2016, 2019. Ich glaube eben hat er gesagt so insgesamt 73 oder sowas. 73 Patente. Also da kann es nichts Neues mehr gegeben haben. Alles wurde patentiert. Das Paper was das Neue. also um irgendetwas zu patentieren muss man etwas Neues haben. Nur natürliche Dinge kann man nicht patentieren. Das Paper, was etwas Neue identifiziert hatte sagt selber, dass es 17 Patente zwischen 2008 und 2019 einschließlich für das SpikeProtein gegeben hat. Das war bevor es überhaupt einen SARS Outbreak gegeben hat. Nein, das stimmt nicht , es gab gar keinen SARS-Outbreak, sondern wir haben das selber ausgelöst. Und ich glaube das auch wieder diese Peter Daszak, also der sagte: Oh mein Gott jetzt ist das Corona-Virus aber bereit und gefährlich auch Menschen krank zu machen. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt war das alles patentiert. Also erinnern sie sich dran, nicht nur der Virus war patentiert, sondern auch schon die Behandlung, die Vaccine, die Behandlungsmöglichkeiten waren auch schon patentiert. Er hat eben ein besonderes Zitat von diesem Peter Daszak gemacht. Ich habe einen Clip von dem gesehen, wo er einer Gruppe von wahrscheinlich Wissenschaftler und Investoren gesagt hat, das man damit eine Menge Geld machen kann mit diesem Virus aus 2015.
Und dieses Zitat lautet: „Wir müssen das öffentliche Verständnis befördern dafür, dass es eine Notwendigkeit für solche Impfungen gibt. Das wichtigste Mittel dafür, dieses öffentliche Verständnis zu fördern sind die Medien. Die wirtschaftlichen Folgen werden automatisch dem Hype folgen, der durch die Medien kreiert wird und auf diesen Hype werden dann potentielle Investoren reagieren, wenn sie sehen, dass man am Ende damit sehr viel Geld verdienen kann.“
Das hat er 2 Mal vorgelesen. – Gelächter – You speak German – JA
Also, dieses Spike Protein wurde kreiert, um die Menschen abhängig machen zu können von einem weltweit verwendeten Coronaimpfstoff. Wie gesagt, 73 Patente gibt es auf alles, was angeblich im Jahr 2019 neu war. 73 Patente bevor man dieses Neue angebliche CoronaVirus in 2019 ausrief. Es wurde dann das Patent von, dass war glaube ich auch November 2019, von der Chapel Hill University in North Carolina übertragen auf die NIH, obwohl komischerweise das ja eigentlich schon längst da sein müsste. Da sind aber ein paar Fehler gemacht worden.
Tatsache ist auf jeden Fall, dass dieses Virus. Diese beiden Punkte muss man festhalten. Das dieses Virus lange lange vorher schon patentiert war. Die Behandlungsmethode lange lange vorher patentiert worden waren. Das alles sollte geheim gehalten werden, deshalb gab es Schmiergeld Zahlungen seitens der CDC an das PatentOffice, damit das keiner raus kriegt.
Diese Impfungen wurde in Szene gesetzt. Dafür hat Dr. Martin evidence, also die ganzen schriftlichen Beweise. Diese Virus wurde erfunden und patentiert und die Impfstoffe dazu um damit richtig viele Kohle zu machen.
Das ist eigentlich alles worum es geht.
Its all about Money!

Dr. Martin: (05:19:55)
It has always been about Money and just to answer a question that was asked slightly earlier, um, the script for this was written first, January 6th, 2004,

R. Füllmich: (05:20:09)
January 6th, 2004, who wrote the script?

Dr. Martin: (05:20:11)
Merck !!! Conference called SARS and bio-terrorism . Bio-terrorism emerging infectious diseases, anti-microbials therapeutics and immune modulators Merck introduced the notion of what they called the new normal proper noun, the new normal, which is the language that became the branded campaign that was adopted by the world health organization. The global preparedness monitoring board, which was the board upon which the Chinese director of center for disease control Bill Gates is Dr. Elias of the gates foundation. And Anthony Fauci sat together on that board of directors, but the, the first introduction of the new normal campaign, which was about getting people to accept a universal pan influenza pan coronavirus vaccine was actually adopted January 6th, 2004. So, um, it’s, it’s been around quite quite a long time. Um, I’m not going to belabor many more points other than to say that it was very clear that Merck knew that sorry, that Moderna, um, knew that it was going to be placed in the front of the line with respect to the development of a vaccine in March of 2019 and this is a very important date.
Because in March of 2019, for reasons that are not transparent, they suddenly amended a series of rejected patent filings, which is a very bizarre behavior, but they amended a number of patent filings to specifically make reference to an intentional or accidental release. That I’am sorry, their term deliberate release of Corona virus. So in March, they amended for failed patent applications to begin the process of a Corona virus vaccine development. And they began dealing with a very significant problem that they had, which was, they relied on technology that they did not own. Two Canadian companies „ArBudis“ ?? Pharmaceuticals, and „Acuitus pharmaceuticals“ actually own the patent on the lipid nanoparticle envelope that’s required to deliver the injection of the MRN, a fragment. And those patents have been issued both in Canada and in the US and then around the world and their world intellectual property equivalents.
Madonna knew that they did not own the rights and began trying to negotiate with Arbudis and Acuitus to get the resolution of the lipid nanoparticle patented technology available to be put into a vaccine. And we know, as I made reference to before that in November, they entered into a research and cooperative research and development agreement with UNC Chapel Hill with respect to getting the spike protein to put inside of the lipid nanoparticle, so that they actually had a candidate vaccine before we had a pathogen, allegedly that was running around. What makes that story most problematic beyond the self-evident nature of it, um, is that we know that from 2016, until 2019 at every one of the NIHID advisory council board meetings, Anthony Fauci lamented the fact that he could not find a way to get people to accept the universal influenza vaccine, which is what was his favorite target. He was trying to get the population to engage in this process and what becomes very evident with Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, UNC Chapel Hill and others. And then most specifically by March of 2019 in the amended patent filings of Moderna, we see that there is a apifany that says, what if there was an accidental or an intentional release of a respiratory pathogen. And what makes that particular phrase problematic is it is exactly recited in the book: „a world at risk“, which is the scenario that was put together by the world health organization in September of 2019. So months before there’s an alleged pathogen, which says that we need to have 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, that was September of 2019. And the language of an intentional release of a respiratory pathogen was written into the scenario that quote must be completed by September 2020.

Dr. W. Wodarg: (05:26:13)
This was a text where Mrs. Parental and it was heading this commission, isn’t it?

Dr. Martin: (05:26:18)
Well, this is the global preparedness monitoring boards unified statement. There, there are a number of people who have taken credit and then backed away from credit for it. But yes, you’re right.

Dr. W. Wodarg: (05:26:28)
Am I right to, when I say, that also the ACE 2 receptor, that was already described in the patients before 2019.

Dr. Martin: (05:26:40)
Yes. We have 117 patents with specifically the ACE 2 receptor targeting mechanism for SARS coronavirus.

Dr. W. Wodarg: (05:26:49)
So because they always say, this is the new thing with the virus.

Dr. Martin: (05:26:52)
No, it’s not new and it has not been even remotely new it’s in publications, going back to 2008 in the weaponization conferences that took place in Slovenia, in Europe, all across Europe and all across the DARPA infrastructure. We’ve known about that since 2013, it’s isolation and amplification.

V. Fischer: (05:27:18)
And to this, um, the amendment that Merck did to this reject and patterns applications. So is, was it only about the fact that it’s like deliberately, you know, like put into the environment or something, or did they add anything else?

Dr. Martin: (05:27:34)
Well, so these were FA four failed patent applications that were essentially revitalized in March of 2019. And it was Madonna. I misspoke. I spoke about Merck. It was Madonna. And I tried to correct that. I’m sorry that that didn’t come through, but it’s, Moderna’s patent applications that were amended in March of 2019 to include the deliberate release of a respiratory pathogen language.

V. Fischer: (05:28:04)
And it has had not been rejected for some reason. They were just not, they were just sitting there basically.

Dr. Martin: (05:28:10)
Now they, they, they process is similar to other pharmaceutical companies where they evergreen applications and continually modify, modify applications to enjoy the earliest priority dates available. But that’s why you have to go back and look at the amendment of the application records to find out when the actual amendment language was put in place. But yes, I mean, the, the fact of the matter is, um, and like I said, I’m not going to belabor all of the patent data, but, but any assertion that this, this pathogen is somehow unique or novel falls apart on the actual gene sequences, which are published in the patent record, and then more graciously falls apart in the fact that we have Peter Daszak himself stating that we have to create public hype to get the public, to accept the medical countermeasure of a pan coronavirus vaccine. And what makes that most ludicrous is the fact that as we know, world health organization had declared coronavirus, um, a, a, you know, kind of a dead interest. I mean they said that, that we had eradicated coronavirus as a concern. So why having eradicated it in 2007 and 2008, why did we start spending billions of dollars globally on a vaccine for a thing that had been eradicated by declaration 2008. You know, kind of, kind of falls into the zone of incredulity to say the least.

R. Füllmich: (05:29:52)
Doesn’t that also mean if you, if you take the Entirety of the evidence, then this is a tool the coronavirus and the vaccines. This is a tool and In the interest of DARPA in creating a biological weapon out of this, this is a tool for everything else that latches onto this, including, population control, for example.

Dr. E. Martin: (05:30:16)
Well, listen, this, 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 bio weapon. There is no question that by 2005, it was unquestionably a weapon of choice and the illusion that we continue to to unfortunately see very well-meaning people get trapped in his conversations about whether we’re having a vaccine for a virus. The fact of the matter is we’re not, we are injecting a spike protein mRNA secret mRNA sequence, which is a computer simulation. It’s 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, you know, the very reliable phone conversations 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 ATTC C, G G T T C C G A BBB.
You know, is there any chance you might get a letter of valor, a consonant dropped here or there, the ludicrous nature of the story that this is somehow prophylactic or 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, 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. I mean, let’s, let’s review just for the record. When Anthony Fauci tried desperately to get some of his quote, synthetic RNA vaccines published, he had his own patents rejected by the patent office.
And I would want to read what the patent office told him, told him when NIAID own Anthony Fauci thought that he could get an mRNA like vaccine patented as a vaccine. And here’s the quote. „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.“ Okay, this is the patent office. This is not some sort of public health agency. This is the patent office. „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 five, seven, and nine are not operative as the anti HIV vaccine“, which is what he was working on „is not patentable utility.“
So, so Anthony Fauci h
imself 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.

Dr. M. Schwab (05:34:38)
Oh, can we try, can we translate this for the, for our audience? This might be very important.

R. Füllmich (05:34:48)
That is by the way, David, that is our friend Martin Schwab, Professor Martin Schwab of the.. He’s a he’s our most important legal advisor from the university of Bielefeld. He is very smart.
Also, dann wollen wir das mal übersetzen. Wir haben eben noch mal von Dr. Martin gehört, dass die Truppe, die sich also die Eingriffsrechte, die Impfrechte gesichert hatte Moderna ganz vorne weg. Die standen im März 2019 in der ersten Reihe für diese Impfstoffe. März 2019 wohlgemerkt. Da gab es keine Pandemie. Da gab es noch nicht einmal den Krankheitserreger. Die hatte nur das eine Problem. Ah Ja – Die haben sogar sich patenteren lassen, dass sie mit ihrem Impfstoff sogar dann zum Zuge kommen, wenn das Virus absichtlich frei gesetzt wird. Das muss man sich mal vorstellen. Absichtlich freigesetzt wird. Also zu einem Zeitpunkt als es das Virus offiziell noch gar nicht gab. Nun konnten sie es aber gar nicht….

V. Fischer (05:36:05):
Ich wollte noch sagen, dass sie das im März 2019 hinzugefügt den Aspekt. Das sie den Antrag, den Patentantrag erweitert um diesen Aspekt, dass es auch für absichtlich in die … ausgesetzt wird.

R. Füllmich (05:36:18):
Genau – das war bei bei der Gelegenheit, da gabs ein paar Schreibfehler und da haben sie die Gelegenheit war genommen und das auch noch reingebaut. Nicht nur die Schreibfehler korrigiert im ursprünglichen Patent, sondern auch den Rest oder Patentantrag.
So, nun jetzt konnten sie aber nicht benutzen, weil man braucht diesen Lipidumschlag so zu sagen. die Lipidumhüllung, um de, um den mRNA in den Körper einzubringen. Das hatten sie aber nicht, sondern die Rechte daran, das Patent daran, gehörte einer Kanadischen Gesellschaft. Dann wollten sie November 2019, also Moderna, die in der ersten Reihe der Impfungen standen, wohlgemerkt November 2019, immer noch keine Pandemie zu sehen. Da wollten sie mit der UNC Chappel Hill einen Deal machen, wie man diese mRNA in den Körper rein bringen könnte. Vorher, darauf hat Dr. Martin noch mal hingewiesen, hatte Fauci erfolglos versucht und sich enttäuscht darüber ausgedrückt, dass es einfach nicht geklappt hat, die Bevölkerung an massenhafte Grippeimpfungen zu gewöhnen. Da wollten sie einfach nicht mitmachen, also braucht man ja wohl eine Pandemie und was Härteres, damit sie dann doch bei Impfungen mit machen. Ach ja und es gibt 117 Patente auf diesen ACE-2 Rezeptor. Die… In 2005 wurde das ganze schon als Möglichkeit zur Kreation einer Bio-Waffe angesehen und die Schlussfolgerung, die Dr. Martin daraus zieht ist, wer hier immer noch in der Öffentlichkeit glaub, dass es hier um Impfungen für die Gesundheit der Menschen geht, der liegt sowas von neben der Spur. Wie injizieren eine Computersimulation mit einem und zwar, basierend auf einer Computersimulation, die Menschen mit einem bekannten gefährlichen SpikeProtein.
Eine Anekdote noch. Fauci vom NIAID wollte ein Patent für diese mRNA Vaccine ein bisschen schon früher haben. Das Patenoffice hat ihm damals aber gesagt, das geht gar nicht. Für die von dir gewünschten Impfungen kannst du kein Patent kriegen, weil der Körper muss mehr machen als nur eine Immunreaktion, also ein Immunreaktion absetzen. Der Körper muss oder das Immunsystem muss mit einer schützenden Reaktion, die auch eine Weiterverbreitung reagieren verhindert reagieren. Hier sind weder der patentrechliche, noch der rechtlichen, noch die klinischen Voraussetzung für eine Patentierung gegeben. Trotzdem gibt es das alles jetzt. Und das ganz ist, wie man ganz klar und deutlich, nach all dem was Dr. Martin uns erzählt hat, annehmen muss, von Anfang ausschließlich zu dem Zweck gemacht worden, erstens Geld zu verdienen mit einer Krankheit, die man erst noch patentieren musste und einem Impfstoff, den man erst noch Patentieren musste. Und das ganze ist am Ende eben, dass sind wohl die wichtigsten Punkte hier, eben gerade keine Impfung, die der Gesundheit dient, sondern hier werden Menschen bewusst mit einem gefährlichen Erreger oder es wird Menschen bewusst ein gefährlicher Erregern, nämlich dieses SpikeProtein, injiziert.
I know that David. I know a lot of our viewers are really shocked. I can see that from the responses. One of our viewers is our PCR-Test specialist, professor Kämmerer. She can’t believe what’s going on here.

Dr. E. Martin (05:40:19)
Well, here here’s the, this sad and sober irony is that I raised these issues beginning in 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 and 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.

R. Füllmich (05:41:23):
Also, das was ihn so ein bisschen bedrückt und vielleicht sogar sehr bedrückt, ist das er schon seit 2002 auf diese Gefahr, die jetzt sich gerade realisiert hat, hingewiesen hat. Seit 2005 wird das diskutiert als biologische Waffe und jetzt haben wir hunderte Millionen Menschen letzten Endes, das ist jetzt meine Kurzfassung, vergiftet mit etwas, was zwar als Impfstoff bezeichnet wird, was aber selbst das Patenoffice, als Fauci versucht hat ein Patent zu kriegen, gesagt hat, das kann man gar nicht patentieren, weil es nämlich kein Impfstoff ist. Weil es nicht dazu führt, dass jemand immun wird. Die Immunreaktion…Es gibt zwar eine Immunreaktion, aber nicht eine die man braucht, damit das ganze patentiert werden kann, damit man also geschützt ist.

Dr. E. Martin (05:42:12):
So I have, I obviously have hundreds of hours of this stuff committed to memory because I’ve been doing it for two decades, but if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.

R. Füllmich (05:42:23):
There are, I’m sure there are going to be hundreds of questions, David, we’re going to be in touch. I think you’re going to be flooded by people by people’s emails, et cetera. I’m just going to forward what comes in or we’re gonna forward what comes in. But I do think, oh yeah, we have Martin Schwab. He probably has, has a really serious question.

Prof. Martin Schwab (05:42:45):
And after me Wolfgang too. Okay. I’m a legal professor with the faculty of law in Bielefeld and I have to tell you that’s the constitutional protection units of the ministry of interior affairs observes the so-called Corona denial scene. Corona denial is everyone who there’s disagree with the official line. Yes. If this constitutional protection unit takes notice of me taking part in discussion that this dynamic was put on stage intentionally they will probably try to fire me from my job. So I have to at least ask some questions. While I heard you talking I took a look at patient number what’s what, which one was it?  7 2 2 0 8 5 2 and 7 1 5 1 1 63. And 7 2 2 0 8 5 2 was filed in April 12 and 7 1 5 and so on was filed in April 28th, 2004. I see a difference between 16 not 3 days. What did I misunderstand?

Dr. E. Martin (05:44:32):
No, April 23rd, 2003 was the CDC master filing date.

Prof. Martin Schwab (05:44:38):
Okay. Okay. I asked this question because if they try to make me redundant for my job I have to provide strong evidence.

Dr. E. Martin (05:44:53):
No we have….Have all of them sent to I know Dr. Füllmich has the has the entire record in the Fauci dossier, a hundred percent of this record is in there. The additional addendum that I sent across all has the records in there, including all the priority filing dates, as well as the issue date. So a hundred percent of this is in written published records and you have the written records.

R. Füllmich (05:45:21):
I have created my own file and it’s labeled David Martin.

Prof. Martin Schwab (05:45:26):
Okay. Okay. Um, there is a, I did a analysis of media reporting here, uh, and I can confirm that, uh, they give a very one-sided account, uh, on, uh, on the pandemic. Uh, everyone who dares to declare, uh, the threat, uh, less dangerous then, uh, uh, the government does, will be, uh, denounces, conspiracy, theorists as tinfoil and so on, you know, uh, so the media, exactly what you pointed out in the sentence, you, you, you repeated twice, uh, before, you know, uh, actually, uh, they tell us the story of the Delta variance, which, uh, uh, is told to be much more contagious that, uh, everything else, um, experts, uh, has spoken to, um, it’s all T told me that, uh, the database is, uh, contained, uh, uh, as many as more or 40,000 virus trains. Uh, so could this, could this Delta variant, uh, be, uh, um, some kind of media hype, you told us about

Dr. E. Martin (05:46:40):
The fear, there is no such thing as an alpha or a beta or gamma Delta variant. This is a, this is a means by which what is desperately sought is a degree to which individuals can be coerced into accepting something that they would not otherwise accept. There has not been in any of the published studies on what has been reportedly. The Delta variant, there has not been a population are not calculated, which is the actual replication rate. What has been estimated our computer simulations. But unfortunately, if you look at  GISaID, which is the public source of uploading anyone of a number of variations, what you’ll find is that there has been no ability to identify any clinically altered gene sequence, which has then clinically expressed variation. And this is the problem all along. This is the problem. Going back to the very beginning of what’s 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 of 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, in January of 2019 and 2020 respectively. So the problem is that even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic pneumonias, even if we were to accept that there are some set of pathogen induced symptoms, we do not have a single piece of published evidence that tells us that anything about the sub clade SARS COV 2 has clinical distinction from anything that was known and published prior to November, 2019 in 73 patents dating to 2008.

V. Fischer (05:49:24):
Could it be that the Delta variant sort of is that just the differences, you know, that the clinical symptoms are the same, but that it has the, the, you know, the capability of like infecting someone who’d already gone, who’s already gone through like variant B better, whatever.

Dr. E. Martin (05:49:44):
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 GISaID the fact that we are now looking for a thing doesn’t mean that it is a thing, because we are looking at fragments of things. And the fact is that if we choose any fragment, I could come up with, you know, I could come up with variant omega tomorrow. Yes. And I could come up with variant omega. And I could say, I’m looking for this sub strand of either DNA or RNA, or even a protein. And I could run around the world going, oh my gosh, fear the omega variant. Yes. And the problem is that because of the nature of the way in which we currently sequence genomes, which is actually a composite thing process, it’s what we call in mathematics. And interleaving, we don’t have any point of reference to actually know whether or not the thing we’re looking at is in fact distinct from either clinical or even genomic sense. And so we’re, we’re trapped in a world where unfortunately, if you go and look, as I have at the papers that isolated, the Delta variant and actually asked 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 it’s just an alteration and when you start and stop what you call the reading frame, there is no novel anything. Yes Wolfgang.

Dr. W. Wodarg (05:51:50):
Ja, darf ich? Ich möchte. Ich möchte, ich möchte gerne Deutsch sprechen, weil ich jetzt gelernt habe, dass Dr. Martin es verstehen könnte, dann sparen wir uns Übersetzung.

Dr. E. Martin (05:52:02):
I can understand most of it.

Dr. W. Wodarg (05:52:05):
Okay – i hope so. Ich hab das mal von der Variante Husum erzählt. Erinnert ihr euch? Es ist ein Dorf in Schleswig-Holstein, auch da gibt es Corona Viren. Und wenn man von Husum und nicht von Wuhan taxonomisch den Baum jetzt verfolgt hätte, dann hätte man einen ähnlichen Baum. Das hätte man auch machen können, von Düsseldorf oder von San Francisco oder von Rio. Überall hätte man einen Baum gefunden und überall hätte man gesehen, dass es immer neue Varianten gibt und dass die sich austauschen. Das ist eine Menge von Informationen, die ausgetauscht wird und das seit Tausenden von Jahren. Und was da jetzt angeschaut wird, das ist tatsächlich, ich sehe das auch so, das ist einfach, das einzige, was man aus diesen Datenbanken sieht, das ist die Tatsache, wo die Leute angefangen haben zu denken, die sie gemacht haben. Mehr sieht man da nicht aus und ich denke, es ist unheimlich wichtig auch, dass wir das wir es zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass die Natur hier laufend neue Varianten herstellt und dass unser Immunsystem sich daran eben adaptiert hat.
Wir wissen, dass die Herden Immunität über 90 Prozent besteht, weil es eben so ist, weil wir diese Viren kennen und weil unser Immunsystem sie kennt und das bisschen, was sich immer mal ändert, wie das Wetter sich ändert, darauf können wir uns einstellen. Damit können wir auskommen. Ich finde es unheimlich schön, wie Sie das Patentsystem angeschaut haben. Und ich glaube, das da haben wir auch schon mal. Ich habe diese Anregung ja schon mehrfach gemacht. Wir brauchen unbedingt Patent Anwälte, denn dann wissen wir, welche Pläne gesponnen werden, was man da so vorhat. Denn natürlich werden die Claims abgesteckt, bevor dann einer kommt und sie verteidigt. Ich finde es so verdienstvoll, was sie gemacht haben und ich kann ihren Schmerz sehr verstehen, den sie haben, dass sie so viele Jahre lang nicht gehört wurden. Ich habe mal mit einem Vertreter von dem Justiziar von Böhringer-Ingelheim gesprochen, Herrn Laurin heißt er, der hat zusammen mit einigen Ministerialbeamten hat er sich das Europäische Patentamt ausgedacht und es gab dann eine Gang das war die Alicante-Gang und diese Alicante-Gang hat dann eine Konkurrenz für das amerikanische Patentsystem praktisch entwickelt und erfunden. Die haben sich regelmäßig getroffen und haben dann nachher das Europäische Patent Office in München geschaffen. Und das war eine neue Kreation, einfach im Wettbewerb US Patent Europäisches Patent. Und ich finde diese diese Art wie diese Patent Ämter arbeiten sind auch interessant. Das finanziert sich durch die Gebühren und das finanziert sich nochmal wieder bei Widersprüchen also. Egal die geben auch gerne Patente auf etwas, was man eigentlich nicht patentieren kann und verdienen dann nochmal wieder, wenn sie den Widerspruch dann bearbeiten. Die haben ihr eigenes Rechtssystem auch nachdem sie das alles beurteilen. Das ist keine Institution, die irgendwie parlamentarisch kontrolliert wird, sondern das ist eine Institution, die von der Industrie und von einigen wirtschafts interessierten Regierungen geschaffen worden ist, als Wirtschafts Instrument. Da geht es darum, dass man geistiges Eigentum privatisiert. Und das sind Dinge, die wir überhaupt nicht… Die schwer sind, zu verstehen sind. Aber das Europäische Patentamt, da gehört die Türkei dazu. Da wird die Schweiz dazu. Das hat mit der EU überhaupt nichts zu tun. Es gibt keinerlei parlamentarische Kontrolle. Dieses Patent Office kontrolliert sich selbst. Und so ist es so wie ich weiß, auch mit anderen Patent Office jetzt überall in der Welt. Das sind wirtschaftliche Einrichtungen, mit denen die Ideen, die es gibt, dann privatisiert werden. Und das ist ein Thema, denke ich, was für die Politik wichtig ist zu verstehen. Weil wenn es keine Patente gäbe auf Medikamente und auf Impfstoffe, dann würden wir das alles nicht erleben, was wir erleben. Ich habe noch in einer Zeit… Ich habe Gelbfieber-Impfstoff verimpft, der kam aus dem Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. Der wurde dort noch hergestellt. Da hat keiner daran verdient, sondern es war ein Kostenfaktor. Das hat was gekostet. Aber das war keine Möglichkeit, Geld zu verdienen, wenn es privatisiert wurde, da war plötzlich, da ist Gelbfieber plötzlich ganz anders. Da ist es also etwas, woran man Geld verdienen kann. Und so geht es für all diese Impfstoffe. Und ich denke, wir müssen da grundsätzlich systemisch auch mal dran gehen, dass wir die Frage, wie jetzt der Erfinder belohnt werden soll, dass wir die mal diskutieren. Es hat bei der WHO 2004 oder 2005 eine Frau Dreifuß gegeben. Das ist die Sozialministerin der Schweiz und die hat eine Arbeitsgruppe geleitet. Und diese Arbeitsgruppe hat sich ausgerechnet, wieviel das kostet, wenn wir die Erfinder mit Patenten belohnen und wieviel es kosten würde, wenn wir die Forschung staatlich fördern würden, die wir brauchen. Und diese beiden Dinge gegeneinander gestellt. Wenn ich mich richtig erinnere, war das System, Erfinder mit Patenten zu belohnen, fünfmal so teuer, als wenn man die Forschung direkt finanzieren würde nach dem Bedarf, der da ist, nach dem gesundheitlichen Bedarf. Das ist eine Geschichte, die jetzt, wenn wir Patente reden und das haben wir getan. die denke ich wichtig ist als Hintergrund.
Aber ihr großes Verdienst Dr. Martin liegt wirklich darin, dass Sie einerseits Patente lesen können, dass Sie wissen, wo Sie sie finden können und dass sie diese Zeitreihe so sehr schön dokumentiert haben, die wirklich unwiderlegbar zeigt, dass das Ganze geplant ist, dass das Ganze wirtschaftlichen Hintergründe hat, Macht-Hintergründe hat, dass das Zusammenspiel zwischen staatlichen Institutionen einerseits und Wirtschaft andererseits, das Militär dann außerdem noch wieder als dritter Faktor, dass das hier diese ganze Sache schon lange, lange geplant und vorbereitet hat, die Claims abgesteckt hat und ganz genau wusste, was es mit uns machen will. Und das ist uns mithilfe der Medien jetzt belügt. Und dass wir mithilfe der Medien jetzt dazu gebracht werden, diese Story zu glauben. Und das, was wir geimpft kriegen, das haben sie auch sehr schön gesagt, das ist nicht eine Impfung gegen einen Virus, den es gibt, sondern dass es eine Impfung gegen eine Computer-Simulation, die als Biowaffe mal erfunden worden ist. Daraus hat man etwas genommen, das wurde schon lange patentiert und das kriegen wir jetzt gespritzt. Und zwar sind das mRNA Stücke, die dazu führen, dass wir giftige Spikes in unserem Körper bilden und die Nebenwirkungen, die wir da haben, das sehen wir ja überall. Wir sehen die Zahlen der Nebenwirkungen, die ganz stark steigen. Was hier geschieht, ist ein großes Verbrechen. Vielen Dank, dass Sie uns das wirklich so, dass Sie uns den Beweis damit auch in die Hand gegeben haben. Ich hoffe, dass viele Menschen das sehen und ich denke, es wird sich lohnen, das auch auf Deutsch einmal zusammen zu schreiben. Diese Geschichte, die sie uns erzählt haben, mit allen Quellen. Und ja, das ist eine schöne Aufgabe, die wir haben. Herzlichen Dank.

R. Füllmich (05:59:09):
I’ll make a long story very short he’s he’s in full agreement with your analysis. He understands your anguish with respect to you. Having told the world about this 20 years ago almost, and he admires your tenacity, and he’s extremely grateful for you having taken this very close look at the problem through patent law. Dr. Wodarg believes that patents are really problematic because it turns out that it is probably five times more expensive to patent drugs as opposed to having public, I mean, not public private, but public universities getting the stipends getting the money in order to develop these Vaccines.

Dr. E. Martin (06:00:06):
Yeah, let me, I’m going to do something that’s very unfair, but I’m going to hold the document very close to the Screen. And it’s only for representational purposes, but I want you to see that this is, this is the, um, this is the Barick patent that, that, um, that NIH needed to have returned to them for mysterious reasons. In 2018, this is 7 2 7 9 3 2 7. And people can look this up on their own. But if you actually look at the sequences that are patented, which is one of the things that we’ve done, we actually look at the published sequences and realize that depending on where you clip the actual sequence string, you will have the same thing or you’ll have a different thing based nothing more than on where you decide to parse the clip. And I wonder, I want to read you, I mean, this is something that comes directly from their patent application when they actually talk about the DNA strands, which they call sequence ID numbers. They actually specifically say the organism is an artificial sequence, an artificial sequence, meaning that it is not a sequence that has a rule based in nature. It is not something that was manifest for a particular natural derivative protein or natural derivative mRNA sequence that was isolated. Every one of these is in fact, a synthetic artificial sequence. And if you go back and you look at each one of them, which we have done, what you’ll find is that the sequences in fact are contiguous in many instances, but are overlapping in others where it is merely a Caprice determination that says something is, or is not part of an open reading frame or is, or is not part of a particular oligonucleitide sequence. Now, the reason why that’s important is because if we are going to examine what ultimately is being injected into individuals, we need the exact sequence, not a kind of similar to, we need the exact sequence. And if you look at the FDA’s requirement and if you look at the European regulatory environment, and if you look at the rest of the world’s regulatory environment. For reasons that cannot be explained, the exact sequence that has gone into what is amplified inside of the injection seems to be elusive. It seems to be, it seems to be something that someone cannot in fact state with a hundred percent certainty. The sequence is X. The problem that presents is that at this point in time, as much as we can be told that there are clinical trials going on and there are all sorts of other things going on, we have no way of verifying that a complete sequence has been is, or potentially even could be manufactured into what ultimately becomes the, lipid nanoparticle. That is, is the carrier frequency into which the injection is, is delivered. And it’s important for people to understand that as far back as 2002 and all the way through the patent filings of 2003, and then the weaponization patents that began. In 2008 in every one of these instances, fragments are identified, but they are identified without specificity. So we don’t have direct terminal ends of the fragments. We have fragments which have, you know, essentially hypothecated gaps into which anything can be placed. And that’s the reason why I find the fact-checking around the patent situation to be most disappointing, because the reason why fact-checkers among their general lazy attributes, the reason why fact checkers are not actually checking facts when it comes to the patent matters is because the actual sequences are not represented in digital form that makes it easy to do this comparison. We literally had to take images of submitted typed paper, and then code those in to do our own assessment. You cannot do this on the EPO patent site. You cannot do this with YPO data from Geneva. You cannot do this with the us patent office data. You actually have to go in and reconstruct the actual gene sequences by hand, and then you compare them to what has been uploaded on the public servers. And that’s where you find that the question of novelty is something that was not addressed. This was a manufactured illusion.

Dr. W. Wodarg (06:05:36):
I have one more question. Is it possible that we have, we see that the influenza has vanished, its gone. We don’t have influenza anymore. The influenza of for sure is the viruses are also sequenced. And is it possible that those, that those parts sequences, we now speak about that they may exist in both of the virus types, so that it’s just a matter of testing and matter of instruments to observe what we find, whether we find influenza or whether we find Corona. If we have a certain, if you have a book you have a word with, with five letters and you will find this five letters in many books. Right? Exactly. Yeah.

Dr. E. Martin (06:06:25):
Yeah. Wolfgang your question is, is a beautiful metaphor of exactly the problem. The problem is if what we’re looking for is something we’ve decided we’ve decided is worth looking for, then we’ll find it. And the good news is we’ll find it a bunch of places. And if we’ve decided that we’re no longer looking for a thing, it’s not entirely surprising that we don’t find it because we’re not looking for it. The fact of the matter is whether it’s the RT-PCR tests, that we decided that there are fragments, which by the way, I have looked at every one of the regulatory submissions that has been submitted to the FDA to try to figure out what was the gold standard to get the emergency use authorization. And what fragment of SARS-COV2 was officially the official fragment. That was the comparitor standard. And the problem is that you can’t get a single standard. So the question becomes in a world where there is no single standard. What is it that you actually find? Because if I’m looking for, and why don’t I just read this? If I’m looking for C, C a C, G C T T T G, do I add the next strand G or do I go? No, no, no. The next bit is G T T T a G T T C G. And you get the point, the point is that where I choose to start and stop, I can actually say I found it, oh, I didn’t find it here. And I didn’t find the match that I projected onto the data because I chose to look at the data in a way that I could not find the match. Influenza did not leave the human population. Influenza was a failed decade long pan influenza vaccine mandate that was desperately, desperately, desperately promoted by governments around the world. They failed. And they decided if influenza doesn’t deliver on the public promise of getting everybody to get an injection, let’s change the pathogen.

Dr. W. Wodarg (06:08:53):
There are many more they can change.

Dr. E. Martin (06:08:55):
Oh goodness, we’ve got tons more to come,

R. Füllmich (06:08:58):
But now we’re on to them.

V. Fischer (06:09:01):
I would like to tell you something about this development of the Drosten PCR-Test, you know, because we looked at it. Let me just briefly, not to that extent that you now looked at the patents that you just described, but we looked at this kind of miracle or like, I mean, strange aspect of like the Drosten test development, because he in despite the fact that he would have needed to basically through his employer, the Charite who would be entitled to holding the patents on this, this, do you know his invention, um, he just published the instruction to the house so everyone could see it. So basically the, the whole invention lost its the possibility to be patented. And that’s kind of strange, you know, when you look at it. So we asked the Charite in a freedom of information act of request. And so they said, well, um, do you know, because there was so much rush to get, get the, the, um, do you know this, um, the test out because there was this, pandemic going on. So it was like, we didn’t look at the finances, you know, we just didn’t care. So that’s kind of strange as a, as a procedure because I mean, basically this, this test is words with like, billions, you know, how could you just, I mean, this is a publicly financed, uh, hospital, how can they just give, um, you know, uh, give away your, all this whole thing. And then, because it was also in close cooperation with the private company tip more, it’s the same with him with which he had developed all the PCR tests from 2002 from the first size and then mastika and so on and so on. Um, so it’s very strange, you know, because he was basically like functioning as a door opener for this company, you know, because they, they also said to us, um, so basically, um, it was dressed in who decided to which, um, possible country or like a laboratory or whatever the test, uh, this Juno tip mobile company would send out the, uh, the test kits in order to then of course make more money because he was basically like he had a first mover advantage, you know, Drosten or this company. So it’s clear now. I mean, maybe there was nothing at that point because there was so many patents already going on. So basically from this not novel, um, virus or PCR-Test, he couldn’t patent anything that would have been new. So basically it was really like a very logical thing to do then to, to use the whole thing as a, just to do, you know, make, um, uh, profit from this first mover advantage. And maybe Drosten is somehow involved in this whole legal skill.

R. Füllmich (06:11:49):
He’s one of the most important people in this game, because he’s the one whose, whose strings they pulled first.

Dr. E. Martin (06:11:56):
Yeah, you need, you need to create illusion of demand. And there’s nothing right now that does a better job of creating the illusion of demand than the urgency of an event that you’ve manufactured.

R. Füllmich (06:12:17):
This sounds almost like comedy, but it is not.

Dr. E. Martin (06:12:20):
Well, it is in that we, we have to realize that part of the reason why it was so easy for us to monitor and track this particular, you know, campaign of coercion and terror was because we’ve done it before. You know, I, I started my comments by making sure people remember that when it came to solving for the anthrax outbreak. Now, remember that while we had hundreds of thousands of military people in the middle east, allegedly getting even for the events of September of 2001. We had two postal inspectors investigating anthrax to the largest alleged by a weapons attack on us soil. And we had two postal inspectors. You can’t genuinely believe that two postal inspectors are the, you know, the crime stopping, you know, mind bendingly powerful individuals in the university. Now I have nothing against postal inspectors, but I can guarantee you that if I was investigating a bioterror attack, I would not have the post office having two postal inspectors as their crack team doing the investigation. You know, it was disingenuous and Congress knew it. And that’s the reason why, you know, we, we publish a thing that’s that that is not necessarily a best seller, but we published an intelligence briefing on every violation of the biological and chemical weapons treaties that people are assigned around the world. And it’s a phone book that tells you where and who and who’s funding. And so for us, it, wasn’t hard to figure out that this was not a public health crisis. This was an opportunistic marketing campaign to address a stated objective and that’s why this is Ockham’s razor. It’s the easiest thing to describe because they’re the ones that set it. And the Ockham’s razor reality is they said they needed to get the public to accept a pan Coronavirus, vaccine countermeasure, and they needed the media to create the hype and investors would follow where they see profit. You do not have anything else. You need to rely on to explain the events of the last 20 months, then the actual statement of the actual perpetrator. And I don’t do the navel gazing exercise of going in to try to understand whether there were mommy issues behind a bank robber. If they’re holding a bag of money outside of a bank, I actually make the crazy assumption that may be their bank robber. Similarly, if I have somebody who says, we need to use the media to hype a medical countermeasure, which is in fact, the injection of a synthetic recombinant, Ky Merrick protein developed off of a computer simulation, if I’m actually going to listen to the motivation for why that might be being done, I will listen to the person doing the manipulation who says investors will follow where they see profit. I don’t need more explanation either.

R. Füllmich (06:16:05):
Okay. This is mind boggling. I’m really glad David, that we spoke a couple of months ago, maybe 3, 4 months ago. Um, and, uh, we were introduced to each other by David, I’m sorry James Henry. And I was trying to find, um, patent lawyers in this country who might be interested in this case. Now there are a few patent lawyers who understand about it, but there’s no one apparently up till now, but maybe this is going to change. But there was no one willing to tackle this in the context of Corona. That’s the problem.

Dr. W. Wodarg (06:16:50):
But this is not new. I’ve tried to find such a lawyer to specialized on patents for the CONCAT commission for the German Bundestag seven, 10 years ago or more than 15 years ago. And we did not sign it because they were all afraid to be critical on the system. They would be distracted. They would destroy their own job. This was very difficult.

Dr. E. Martin (06:17:12):
Yeah. Bear in mind and mind that this is an old problem, because the here’s where the problem comes in, ever since the establishment of the European patent office, the Germans and the French not surprisingly have maintained animosity. That has been just this newest version of animosity that goes back centuries. But when, when the EPO was set up, the role of the patent office in Munich became a very nationalistic issue for Germany. And the notion that German patent examiners and German patent professionals still enjoyed supremacy over the rest of Europe became dogmatic in 2003, in 2004, when the European patent office was first audited by my organization and where we showed that somewhere between 20 and 30% of the patents in Europe were functional forgeries, meaning that they were copied from previous patents, that the German representation of the European patent office lost their mind at the notion that they were doing anything remotely wrong. When the European union commissioned us to do an examination into software patents a few years later at the request of the Swedish delegation to the European union. And we showed hundreds and hundreds of software patents, which were illegally granted by the European union through the EPO. And then we found out that it was German patent examiners and German patent practitioners who were the ones who were responsible for their filing. We once again saw that there was an enormous outcry. And so what happens is that we have a dogmatically held position, which says that even though the European patent office is supposed to be pan-European, there is still in the minds of the German patent establishment, a supremacy over the rest of Europe. And if you call into question anything, including patents granted on a bio weapon, you are treading on ground that there is no forgiveness for.

Dr. W. Wodarg (06:19:42):
Yes, we did. We had some questions from transparency international, and we were wiped out. The topic was not followed.

Dr. E. Martin (06:19:51):
Yep. Yeah. You just can’t it’s not accessible. And that’s just the tragedy of what does unfortunately become a regulatory capture organization t’s actually not doing the public service.

R. Füllmich (06:20:05):

Also, das können wir kurz ansprechen und zusammen fassen. David bestätigt im Grunde das was Wolfgang vorhin schon gesagt hat. Diese Patentierung insbesondere hier im europäischen Patentoffice, was so ein bischen die Allmacht, die bis dahin bestehende Allmacht des deutschen Patentamtes in München. (Europäischen Patentamtes), was das in Frage gestellt hat. Führt letzenendes dazu, dass diese nicht regulierte Behörde macht was sie will. Deswegen hat David eben auch drauf hin gewiesen, dass seine Organisation die Patente überprüft hat, hier vom europäischen Patentamt und dabei festgestellt hat, dass zwischen 20 bis 30% dieser Patente Fälschungen waren. Effektiv „Functional Forgeries“ waren.


We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookie name Active


Die Betreiber dieser Seiten nehmen den Schutz Ihrer persönlichen Daten sehr ernst. Wir behandeln Ihre personenbezogenen Daten vertraulich und entsprechend der gesetzlichen Datenschutzvorschriften sowie dieser Datenschutzerklärung. Die Nutzung unserer Webseite ist in der Regel ohne Angabe personenbezogener Daten möglich. Soweit auf unseren Seiten personenbezogene Daten (beispielsweise Name, Anschrift oder E-Mail-Adressen) erhoben werden, erfolgt dies, soweit möglich, stets auf freiwilliger Basis. Diese Daten werden ohne Ihre ausdrückliche Zustimmung nicht an Dritte weitergegeben. Wir weisen darauf hin, dass die Datenübertragung im Internet (z.B. bei der Kommunikation per E-Mail) Sicherheitslücken aufweisen kann. Ein lückenloser Schutz der Daten vor dem Zugriff durch Dritte ist nicht möglich.
Datenschutzerklärung für die Nutzung von Google Analytics
Diese Website nutzt Funktionen des  Webanalysedienstes Google Analytics. Anbieter ist die Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. Google Analytics verwendet sog. „Cookies“. Das sind Textdateien, die auf Ihrem Computer gespeichert werden und die eine Analyse der Benutzung der Website durch Sie ermöglichen. Die durch den Cookie erzeugten Informationen über Ihre Benutzung dieser Website werden in der Regel an einen Server von Google in den USA übertragen und dort gespeichert. Im Falle der Aktivierung der IP-Anonymisierung auf dieser Webseite wird Ihre IP-Adresse von Google jedoch innerhalb von Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union oder in anderen Vertragsstaaten des Abkommens über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum zuvor gekürzt. Nur in Ausnahmefällen wird die volle IP-Adresse an einen Server von Google in den USA übertragen und dort gekürzt. Im Auftrag des Betreibers dieser Website wird Google diese Informationen benutzen, um Ihre Nutzung der Website auszuwerten, um Reports über die Websiteaktivitäten zusammenzustellen und um weitere mit der Websitenutzung und der Internetnutzung verbundene Dienstleistungen gegenüber dem Websitebetreiber zu erbringen. Die im Rahmen von Google Analytics von Ihrem Browser übermittelte IP-Adresse wird nicht mit anderen Daten von Google zusammengeführt. Sie können die Speicherung der Cookies durch eine entsprechende Einstellung Ihrer Browser-Software verhindern; wir weisen Sie jedoch darauf hin, dass Sie in diesem Fall gegebenenfalls nicht sämtliche Funktionen dieser Website vollumfänglich werden nutzen können. Sie können darüber hinaus die Erfassung der durch das Cookie erzeugten und auf Ihre Nutzung der Website bezogenen Daten (inkl. Ihrer IP-Adresse) an Google sowie die Verarbeitung dieser Daten durch Google verhindern, indem sie das unter dem folgenden Link verfügbare Browser-Plugin herunterladen und installieren:
Datenschutzerklärung für die Nutzung von Google +1
Unsere Seiten nutzen Funktionen von Google +1. Anbieter ist die Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043,  USA. Erfassung und Weitergabe von Informationen: Mithilfe der Google +1-Schaltfläche können Sie Informationen weltweit veröffentlichen. über die Google +1-Schaltfläche erhalten Sie und andere Nutzer personalisierte Inhalte von Google und unseren Partnern. Google speichert sowohl die Information, dass Sie für einen Inhalt +1 gegeben haben, als auch Informationen über die Seite, die Sie beim Klicken auf +1 angesehen haben. Ihre +1 können als Hinweise zusammen mit Ihrem Profilnamen und Ihrem Foto in Google-Diensten, wie etwa in Suchergebnissen oder in Ihrem Google-Profil, oder an anderen Stellen auf Websites und Anzeigen im Internet eingeblendet werden. Google zeichnet Informationen über Ihre +1-Aktivitäten auf, um die Google-Dienste für Sie und andere zu verbessern. Um die Google +1-Schaltfläche verwenden zu können, benötigen Sie ein weltweit sichtbares, öffentliches Google-Profil, das zumindest den für das Profil gewählten Namen enthalten muss. Dieser Name wird in allen Google-Diensten verwendet. In manchen Fällen kann dieser Name auch einen anderen Namen ersetzen, den Sie beim Teilen von Inhalten über Ihr Google-Konto verwendet haben. Die Identität Ihres Google- Profils kann Nutzern angezeigt werden, die Ihre E-Mail-Adresse kennen oder über andere identifizierende Informationen von Ihnen verfügen. Verwendung der erfassten Informationen: Neben den oben erläuterten Verwendungszwecken werden die von Ihnen bereitgestellten Informationen gemäß den geltenden Google-Datenschutzbestimmungen genutzt. Google veröffentlicht möglicherweise zusammengefasste Statistiken über die +1-Aktivitäten der Nutzer bzw. gibt diese an Nutzer und Partner weiter, wie etwa Publisher, Inserenten oder verbundene Websites.
Widerspruch Werbe-Mails
Der Nutzung von im Rahmen der Impressumspflicht veröffentlichten Kontaktdaten zur Übersendung von nicht ausdrücklich angeforderter Werbung und Informationsmaterialien wird hiermit widersprochen. Die Betreiber der Seiten behalten sich ausdrücklich rechtliche Schritte im Falle der unverlangten Zusendung von Werbeinformationen, etwa durch Spam-E-Mails, vor.
Auskunft, Löschung, Sperrung
Sie haben jederzeit das Recht auf unentgeltliche Auskunft über Ihre gespeicherten personenbezogenen Daten, deren Herkunft und Empfänger und den Zweck der Datenverarbeitung sowie ein Recht auf Berichtigung, Sperrung oder Löschung dieser Daten. Hierzu sowie zu weiteren Fragen zum Thema personenbezogene Daten können Sie sich jederzeit unter der im Impressum angegebenen Adresse an uns wenden.
Die Internetseiten verwenden teilweise so genannte Cookies. Cookies richten auf Ihrem Rechner keinen Schaden an und enthalten keine Viren. Cookies dienen dazu, unser Angebot nutzerfreundlicher, effektiver und sicherer zu machen. Cookies sind kleine Textdateien, die auf Ihrem Rechner abgelegt werden und die Ihr Browser speichert. Die meisten der von uns verwendeten Cookies sind so genannte „Session-Cookies“. Sie werden nach Ende Ihres Besuchs automatisch gelöscht. Andere Cookies bleiben auf Ihrem Endgerät gespeichert, bis Sie diese löschen. Diese Cookies ermöglichen es uns, Ihren Browser beim nächsten Besuch wieder zu erkennen. Sie können Ihren Browser so einstellen, dass Sie über das Setzen von Cookies informiert werden und Cookies nur im Einzelfall erlauben, die Annahme von Cookies für bestimmte Fälle oder generell ausschließen sowie das automatische Löschen der Cookies beim Schließen des Browser aktivieren. Bei der Deaktivierung von Cookies kann die Funktionalität dieser Website eingeschränkt sein.
Der Provider der Seiten erhebt und speichert automatisch Informationen in so genannten Server-Log Files, die Ihr Browser automatisch an uns übermittelt. Dies sind:
  • Browsertyp/ Browserversion
  • verwendetes Betriebssystem
  • Referrer URL
  • Hostname des zugreifenden Rechners
  • Uhrzeit der Serveranfrage
Diese Daten sind nicht bestimmten Personen zuordenbar. Eine Zusammenführung dieser Daten mit anderen Datenquellen wird nicht vorgenommen. Wir behalten uns vor, diese Daten nachträglich zu prüfen, wenn uns konkrete Anhaltspunkte für eine rechtswidrige Nutzung bekannt werden.
Wenn Sie uns per Kontaktformular Anfragen zukommen lassen, werden Ihre Angaben aus dem Anfrageformular inklusive der von Ihnen dort angegebenen Kontaktdaten zwecks Bearbeitung der Anfrage und für den Fall von Anschlussfragen bei uns gespeichert. Diese Daten geben wir nicht ohne Ihre Einwilligung weiter.
Impressum / Kontakt

JAMI Diallo, Länggassstr. 91, 3012 Bern, ​Schweiz

info @

Wir sind freischaffend und unabhängig. Durch deinen Support wird es so bleiben.

Wenn du Uns unterstützen möchtest, hast du folgende Möglichkeiten.

PayPal Logo

Save settings
Cookies settings