Wednesday, April 22, 2020

COVID-19 Anti-Trust Argument

24 comments

Some of this information was submitted to the Office of the Inspector General for the United States Department of Health and Human Services on April 22, 2020

Request for Investigation - Possible Sherman Act Violation

 Citizens of the United States of America

v.

United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Robert R Redfield, et al.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Anthony Stephen Fauci, et al.
Governors of All States Issuing Executive Orders abridging the 1st Amendment of the Constitution
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Professor Ralph Baric, et al.
And unknown Parties

On April 25, 2003, the United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter, “CDC”) filed an application for a United States (Application Number US46592703P, subsequently issued as U.S. Patent 7,776,521) entitled “Coronavirus isolated from humans”.  Claim 3 –A method of detecting a severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in a sample…; and, Claim 4 - A kit for detecting a severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in a sample…, provided the CDC with a statutory market exclusion right the detection of and sampling for severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV).  Securing this right afforded the CDC exclusive right to research, commercially exploit, or block others from conducting activities involving SARS-CoV. On September 24, 2018, the CDC failed to pay the required maintenance fees on this patent and their rights expired.

From April 2003 until September 2018, the CDC owned SARS-CoV, its ability to be detected and the ability to manufacture kits for its assessment. During this 15-year period, the effect of the grant of this right – ruled unconstitutional in 2013 by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics – meant that the commercial exploitation of any research or commercial activity in the United States involving SARS-CoV would constitute an infringement of CDC’s illegal patent.

It appears that, during the period of patent enforcement and after the Supreme Court ruling confirming that patents on genetic material was illegal, the CDC and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases led by Anthony Fauci (hereinafter “NIAID” and "Dr Fauci", respectively) entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with Ecohealth Alliance Inc.) and with foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences) through the 2014 et seq National Institutes of Health Grant R01AI110964 to exploit their patent rights. 

It further appears that, during the period of patent enforcement and after the Supreme Court ruling confirming that patents on genetic material were illegal, the CDC and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (hereinafter “NIAID”) entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and with foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences represented by Zheng-Li Shi) through U19AI109761 (Ralph S. Baric), U19AI107810 (Ralph S. Baric), and National Natural Science Foundation of China Award 81290341 (Zheng-Li Shi) et al.

It further appears that, during the period of patent enforcement and after the Supreme Court ruling confirming that patents on genetic material was illegal, the CDC and NIAID entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and with foreign nations to conduct chimeric construction of novel coronavirus material with specific virulence properties prior to, during, and following the determination made by the National Institutes for Health in October 17, 2014 that this work was not sufficiently understood for its biosecurity and safety standards.

In this inquiry, it is presumed that the CDC and its associates were: a) fully aware of the work being performed using their patented technology; b) entered into explicit or implicit agreements including licensing, or other consideration; and, c) willfully engaged one or more foreign interests to carry forward the exploitation of their proprietary technology when the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that such patents were illegal and when the National Institutes of Health issued a moratorium on such research.

The aforementioned items appear to constitute, “contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy,” as defined under 15 US Code § 1.

Under 15 U.S. Code § 1 (the Sherman Antitrust Act) Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Reportedly, in January 2018, the U.S. Embassy in China sent investigators to Wuhan Institute of Virology and found that, “During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.” The Washington Post reported that this information was contained in a cable dated 19 January 2018. Over a year later, in June 2019, the CDC conducted an inspection of Fort Detrick’s U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (hereinafter “USAMRIID”) and ordered it closed after alleging that their inspection found biosafety hazards. A report in the journal Nature in 2003 (423(6936): 103) reported cooperation between CDC and USAMRIID on coronavirus research followed by considerable subsequent collaboration. The CDC, for what appear to be the same type of concern identified in Wuhan, elected to continue work with the Chinese government while closing the U.S. Army facility.

Reportedly, on December 31, 2019, the Chinese government informed the World Health Organization (WHO) that a number of cases of suspected coronavirus-associated SARS cases were being treated in the area of Wuhan.  The CDC reported the first case of SARS-CoV like illness in the United States in January 2020 with the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service reporting 650 clinical cases and 210 tests. Given that the suspected  pathogen was first implicated in official reports on December 31, 2019, one can only conclude that CDC: a) had the mechanism and wherewithal to conduct tests to confirm the existence of a “novel coronavirus”; or, b) did not have said mechanism and falsely reported the information in January. It tests credulity to suggest that the WHO or the CDC could manufacture and distribute tests for a “novel” pathogen when their own subsequent record on development and deployment of tests has been shown to be without reliability.

Notwithstanding, the CDC and WHO elected to commit to a narrative of a novel coronavirus – exhibiting properties that were anticipated in the U.S. Patent 7,618,802 issued to the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill’s Ralph Baric – and, in the absence of testing protocols, elected to insist that SARS-CoV-2 was the pathogen responsible for conditions that were consistent with moderate to severe acute respiratory syndrome. 

On March 4, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsome appears to have violated the law of the State of California by issuing Executive Order N-33-20 based on the “threat of COVID-19” with no evidence that such threat existed as confirmed by serology or confirmed immunologic evidence.  The Government Code sections cited in the Order (Government Code sections 8567, 8627, and 8665) require that criteria be met which do not include the “threat” of any condition but evidence of said condition. At that time, neither the CDC nor the WHO had sufficient testing in place to: a) confirm and isolate “a novel coronavirus” from other coronaviruses; b) California did not have pathology data to suggest that an epidemic was imminent; and, c) the rest of the United States was equally incapable of making any such assessment as a result of the aforementioned conspiring parties actions.  Governor Newsome’s Executive Order, followed by numerous other similar orders, all are based on the threat of a thing that may or may not exist.

Around March 12, 2020, in an effort to enrich their own economic interests by way of securing additional funding from both Federal and Foundation actors, the CDC and NIAID’s Dr Fauci elected to suspend testing and classify COVID-19 by capricious symptom presentation alone.  Not surprisingly, this was necessitated by the apparent fall in cases that constituted Dr. Fauci’s and others’ criteria for depriving citizens of their 1st Amendment rights.  At present, the standard according to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Interim-20-ID-01 for COVID-19 classification is:

In outpatient or telehealth settings at least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s)

OR 

at least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing OR Severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following:
• Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, or
• Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
AND No alternative more likely diagnosis

Laboratory Criteria for Reporting
● Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a clinical specimen using a molecular amplification detection test.
● Detection of specific antigen in a clinical specimen.
● Detection of specific antibody in serum, plasma, or whole blood indicative of a new or recent infection.* *serologic methods for diagnosis are currently being defined

After inflicting grave harm to the citizens of the United States of America in economic hardships resulting from their allegation of an “epidemic” or “pandemic”, the CDC and the NIAID set forth, and the President of the United States and various Governors in the respective States promulgated, standards for lifting conditions in violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that serve exclusively to enrich them.  Both the presence of a vaccine or treatment and, or, the development of testing – both that solely benefit the possible conspiring parties and their co-conspirators – are set as a condition for re-opening the country. This appears to be an unambiguous violation of the Sherman Act and, if so, should be prosecuted immediately to the full extent of the law.

Additional information is available upon request.

Submitted this 22nd of April, 2020

Dr. David E. Martin – all Whistleblower Rights and Protections Reserved

Wednesday, April 8, 2020

Small Business Indenture Act (COVID-19 to enrich Life Insurers and Banks) of 2020

1 comments


When the U.S. Congressional Pujo Committee investigated the conspiracy of interlocking directorates (the fact that multiple corporate boards were made up of the same people across multiple industries including ones with conflicts of interest) in 1912 and 1913, they realized that, in the decades following the Civil War, the United States had become effectively controlled (through its monetary system) by a few life insurance and banking interests. 
The mechanisms were very transparent.  Wages were set to be barely sufficient to motivate persistence of labor.  Not surprisingly, the knowledge of labor costs was shared by, you guessed it, directors who got inside knowledge of each other’s businesses and could thereby control the labor supply.  Consumption was encouraged to keep people addicted to whatever was “new” or “modern”.  And all of this was an elaborate scheme concocted to enrich the life insurance industry and their capital beneficiaries – banks. 
And why do I call them beneficiaries?  Simple.  The principal beneficiary of the life insurance payout in the rare instance that happens is the banks who hold unpaid debt – both consumer credit and mortgages.  To this day, have you ever wondered why purchasing a home often involves the usurious practice of also buying Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI)?  That’s because the real beneficiary of your home purchase is the: a) bank that creates your debt asset; and, b) the insurer who seldom, if ever, pays out.
To keep it simple – here’s how the scam worked then AND WORKS NOW!
1.     Keep people paid just at the margin of ‘enough’ but encourage them to live just a little beyond their means to ensure that indebtedness was persistent and would incentivize indentured obligations;
2.     Encourage credit - particularly in mortgages – by incentivizing ‘home ownership’ for the purpose of manufacturing debt ‘assets’ for banks;
3.     Sell life insurance to settle indebtedness in death never telling the public how much present value was lost in meeting actuarial obligations in death; and,
4.     Set the maturity of life insurance to lead many people to buy products that never would pay out in death (term policies).
In my film, American R/evolution (https://winderwebdesign.com/davidmartin/american-r-evolution/) – a two hour history of the death denominated U.S. economy - I discuss the thinly veiled control that life insurance has had on our country since the Civil War. 
So, as I was musing about who might be benefiting from the charade playing out before us now and in which we are all thought to be simpletons, I wondered how much has changed. 
“Why not,” I thought, “read House Resolution 6312 recently introduced by Congress entitled the “COVID–19 Relief for Small Businesses Act of 2020”.  Heralded as a landmark rescue package for the businesses that employ an estimated 90% of America, this $350 billion out of the $2 trillion package (yes, you should pause and think about how horrific the mismatch ratio is), I was optimistic that I’d see the best interest of Small Business as the leading priority.
Then came the bad news. 
Before payroll for small business is even mentioned, the real beneficiaries are named.  Have a look for yourself.  The $350 billion bailout is so that:
1.     banks can get their loans repaid; and,
2.      life insurers can keep getting their premiums. 
See for yourself!  Paying wages is the third priority. 
Where were any of the real or fake news outlets when they were fawning over this bill?  That’s right.  NOT READING IT! Your tax dollars are being spent on yet another banking and life insurance protection racket!
116th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 6312
To provide relief from COVID–19 for small business concerns, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 19, 2020
Ms. Velázquez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

A BILL
To provide relief from COVID–19 for small business concerns, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “COVID–19 Relief for Small Businesses Act of 2020”.

SEC. 2. BUSINESS STABILIZATION DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM.
(a) In General.—The Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall carry out a program to make loans directly to eligible borrowers.
(b) Eligible Borrower Defined.—In this section, the term “eligible borrower” means a person who—
(1) is a small business concern as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632); and
(2) is located in a State or territory of the United States with a confirmed or presumed positive case of COVID–19.
(c) Use Of Funds.—In addition to the use of proceeds currently permitted under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)), loans made under this section may be used for the following purposes:
(1) To make periodic payments of principal and interest, for a period not to exceed 12 months, on a loan or a loan guarantee made to an eligible borrower that meets the eligibility standards of such section 7(a).
(2) To provide benefits to employees of the eligible borrower, including group life insurance, disability insurance, sick leave, annual leave, educational benefits, paid family leave, or retirement benefits (including a pension plan or IRA).
(3) To pay wages to employees of the eligible borrower, and related State and Federal payroll taxes, except that loan proceeds may not be used to pay amounts under a garnishment order issued by an agency of a State or Federal Government.

People, this is NOT acceptable.  With the Fed making trillions available for bank liquidity, with small business preserved so that they can keep paying loans and life insurance – when will the complicity of this end?

Since I recently learned that footnotes are not accessed by most readers, here’s some information that you might like to see from the industry that needs your taxpayer bailout.  https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-life-insurance.  Have a good look.  These unfortunate firms reported:

“2018 net income after taxes for the life/annuity insurance industry fell 10.0 percent to $37.9 billion, from $42.1 billion in 2017. Net income before capital gains fell 15.8 percent in 2018, and a net realized capital gains loss of $4.7 billion contributed to lower net income. Premiums and annuity considerations rose slightly in 2018, up 1.3 percent from 2017, as annuity premiums and deposits fell 6.1 percent. Expenses grew by 10.8 percent in 2018 following a drop in 2017. Capital and surplus rose to $400.0 billion in 2018.”

While you watch governors and Presidents around the world breathlessly recite death counts from the scourge that besets us that is credited with 10% of the normal pneumonia deaths reported during the same period; when you see that the only data supporting social-distancing are computer models that were off by an order of magnitude just one week ago; and when, god-forbid, you look at the Center for Responsive Politics data that shows that one lobbying firm (and only one of their lobbyists) is engaged by 55 clients including most of the major life insurers, bio-tech pharmaceutical companies, and non-profits that include CDC Foundation partners, don’t think for a moment that the branding of COVID-19 is for your health’s sake!

Be informed:

And share this information with a public that is playing into the Kabuki Theatre that will end up with nothing but destruction!

x