government links – Pandemic Timeline https://pandemictimeline.com Chronological Sequence of Events Tue, 19 Nov 2024 07:38:35 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2 https://pandemictimeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Covid-150x150.ico government links – Pandemic Timeline https://pandemictimeline.com 32 32 FDA grants approval for Plaquenil (hydroxychloro­quine sulfate, aka HCQ) https://pandemictimeline.com/1955/04/fda-grants-approval-for-plaquenil-hydroxychloroquine-sulfate-aka-hcq/ Tue, 19 Apr 1955 00:00:55 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=15 Hydroxychloroquine has a long history of use for the prevention of malaria.  It has been considered to be a very safe drug for several decades. The “off label” policy of the FDA allows doctors to prescribe medications for any condition, as they see fit.  An approved drug does not need additional approvals for a doctor…

Read more →

]]>

Hydroxychloroquine has a long history of use for the prevention of malaria.  It has been considered to be a very safe drug for several decades.

The “off label” policy of the FDA allows doctors to prescribe medications for any condition, as they see fit.  An approved drug does not need additional approvals for a doctor to choose to use it for another purpose that was not part of the initial application for approval.  Additional conditions for which a drug has been found to work may be added to the label information later, but doctors are able to prescribe for those conditions at any time after the drug’s initial approval.  Once approved, the drug is legally available for any use.

Sources:

]]> The National Research Act is signed into law. https://pandemictimeline.com/1974/07/the-national-research-act-is-signed-into-law/ Fri, 12 Jul 1974 00:00:37 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1198 If you are feeling pressured to take a vaccine, DO NOT QUIT YOUR JOB! Make your boss fire you. Please see the statement from America’s Front Line Doctors about this. As of August 23, 2021, the Pfizer-BioNTech inoculation is now approved under the brand name Comirnaty. The Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine…

Read more →

]]>

If you are feeling pressured to take a vaccine, DO NOT QUIT YOUR JOB! Make your boss fire you. Please see the statement from America’s Front Line Doctors about this.

As of August 23, 2021, the Pfizer-BioNTech inoculation is now approved under the brand name Comirnaty. The Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine clearly states that pre-authorization Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Comirnaty vaccine are equivalent. Any objections based on the experimental status of this vaccine are now moot. The argument now becomes whether that approval was legal. Dr. Jane Ruby and Karen Kingston both have concerns about the legality of the approval. See the post about the approval for details.

The National Research Act was enacted by the 93rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on July 12, 1974 after a series of congressional hearings on human-subjects research, directed by Senator Edward Kennedy. The National Research Act created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to develop guidelines for human subject research and to oversee and regulate the use of human experimentation in medicine. The National Research Act issued Title 45, Part 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations [45 CFR 46]: Protection of Human Subjects. The National Research Act is overseen by the Office of Human Research Protections. The Act also formalized a regulated IRB process through local institutional review boards, also overseen by the Office of Human Research Protections.

The National Research Act gained traction as a response to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study.

Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccines, explains the protections provided by the National Research Act this way:

So point number one, just to summarize; you can find it in The Code of Federal Regulations. It’s referred to as the Common Rule. So this is actually Federal Law. It’s not just words that academicians agree to. The first thing is that an emergency use authorization product, which is what all these vaccines are, as well as many of the drugs, is an experimental product. It’s not yet licensed. So that’s point number one. They’re all experimental products.

Point number two; if you’re going to be administering experimental products to patients, that falls under clinical research, and medical research. And so you have to follow the guidance for medical research. I mentioned the Common Rule is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The first clause, importantly, in the Common Rule, is there has to be complete disclosure of risk. Intuitively, what that means is, when you buy a bottle of aspirin, you pull out this little piece of paper. You look at that, and you go, “Holy Moly, this aspirin is going to kill me.” If you read all the way through, it says it could cause heart attacks or gastric erosions. You look at that and you say, “Oh, I don’t know if I want to take that aspirin.”

But the truth is that the ones that are common are up at the top. We all take aspirin or Tylenol or some version of that. That’s the level of disclosure of adverse event risk that must be provided to patients participating in clinical research. That level of information, as we’ve just been discussing, is censored. It’s not available. So we are not meeting the criteria for full disclosure of risk.

Second key principle is that that full disclosure has to be comprehensible and comprehended. Earlier on, I referred to Thrombocytopenia, and you said, “What the heck was that?” And I said, “Low platelets.” That’s a great example. The first one was scientific jargon that was incomprehensible to you. The second one you could understand. So these risks have to be conveyed using language that people can comprehend.

Third key principle; you cannot coerce. You cannot entice. The patient or the subject has to freely accept the experimental medicine of their own volition. All this messaging about, “You must take the vaccine. You must take the vaccine because otherwise Aunt Mary could get infected.” All of this messaging that the vaccine is safe, and all the peer pressure that’s happening around the vaccine is coercion.

Now it gets even more florid with other nations. I don’t think we’ve done it here in the States, but Canada has. “We are going to give out ice cream cones to get the kiddies to come and take the jab.” That’s been done. That’s coercion and enticement.

Then there’s the last little codicil in all this. We call it the age of consent. So we here in the States generally agree that the age of consent is 18. If you are at or below the age of consent, you need to have approval or consent from your parent or guardian to take an experimental medicine. They act as your agent because you’re not able to provide consent by definition.

We cannot, by law, have infants, children, and adolescents receiving experimental products without authorization of their parents.

Now, listening to this, [one] might say, “Well, we have this special case of an epidemic, and we all have to get the vaccine.” Why do we all have to get the vaccine? What’s the logic behind that? What we’re told is, “We all have to get vaccinated so we will reach herd immunity.” That’s the logic.

The problem is that this is a fallacy. We have not even gathered the data to be able to calculate in these clinical trials what would give us herd immunity. What would herd immunity mean? It would mean that we have what’s called sterilizing immunity, or in some way, if we get infected, that we don’t spread it to somebody else. That means that we’re not producing virus and shedding virus.

Sources:

Related:

See also, on this site:

]]> National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (USA) https://pandemictimeline.com/1986/11/national-childhood-vaccine-injury-act-of-1986-usa/ Fri, 14 Nov 1986 00:00:05 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=21 NCVIA’s purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims in order to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims.  The Justice Department was put in charge of the compensation program in an unprecedented arrangement.  Vice President George H.…

Read more →

]]>

NCVIA’s purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims in order to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims.  The Justice Department was put in charge of the compensation program in an unprecedented arrangement.  Vice President George H. W. Bush encouraged the signing of this bill in spite of objections from the Justice Department.

“There are so many of them. They give them to them so quickly. Like, from the moment they’re born, they want to bang them up with vaccines.”

What very few people know about the childhood vaccine schedule is that, in the early 1980s, vaccine manufacturers were losing BIG money.

For every $1 they made off the DTP vaccine, they were losing about $20 to injury lawsuits.

So Wyeth (now Pfizer) went to the Reagan White House and demanded liability protections with the threat of getting out of the vaccine business.

President Reagan asked Wyeth why they couldn’t make safer vaccines. Wyeth answered that they couldn’t because vaccines are “unavoidably” unsafe.

This led to the signing of the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act, which gave vaccine manufacturers special liability protections.

“And so, anybody who tells you vaccines are safe and effective, the industry itself got immunity from liability by convincing the President and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe,” Robert Kennedy Jr. told Joe Rogan in a previous interview.

— Joe Rogan Raises SERIOUS Questions About the Childhood Vaccine Schedule

“Isn’t it weird that you can just lie to people, and you could force people to take things, and you could hide the side effects, and you can’t sue them?”

Vaccines are the ONLY product that you can’t sue the manufacturers directly.

— Joe Rogan Drops Great Vaccine Question

Sources:

Related:

]]> Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (USA) https://pandemictimeline.com/1990/05/biological-weapons-anti-terrorism-act-of-1989-usa/ Tue, 22 May 1990 00:00:08 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=24 The BWATA extended the scope of bio-warfare materials regulation to include private individuals and non-state organizations. Drafted by Francis Boyle. Loophole: Sec. 2(b) has a “peaceful purposes” clause. SEC. 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT. (a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to— (1) implement the Biological Weapons Convention, an international agreement unanimously ratified by the United…

Read more →

]]>

The BWATA extended the scope of bio-warfare materials regulation to include private individuals and non-state organizations. Drafted by Francis Boyle.

Loophole: Sec. 2(b) has a “peaceful purposes” clause.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT.

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to—

(1) implement the Biological Weapons Convention, an international agreement unanimously ratified by the United States Senate in 1974 and signed by more than 100 other nations, including the Soviet Union; and

(2) protect the United States against the threat of biological
terrorism.

(2) INTENT OF ACT.—Nothing in this Act is intended to restrain or restrict peaceful scientific research or development.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

  • Tag: Dr. David Martin
    Dr. Martin was hired about year 2000 to track violations of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.
]]> Stromectol (Ivermectin) is approved by the Food & Drug Administration. https://pandemictimeline.com/1996/11/stromectol-ivermectin-is-approved-by-the-food-drug-administration/ Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:00:33 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1068 Ivermectin is an anti-parasite medication. Ivermectin is used to treat infections in the body that are caused by certain parasites. — The Vigilant Fox 🦊 Sources:

Read more →

]]>

Ivermectin is an anti-parasite medication. Ivermectin is used to treat infections in the body that are caused by certain parasites.

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Sources:

]]> Pfizer files patent US6372224: Canine coronavirus S gene and uses therefor https://pandemictimeline.com/2000/01/pfizer-files-patent-6372224-canine-coronavirus-s-gene-and-uses-therefor/ Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:00:58 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1417 From the patent: The present invention provides the amino acid and nucleotide sequences of a CCV spike gene, and compositions containing one or more fragments of the spike gene and encoded polypeptide for prophylaxis, diagnostic purposes and treatment of CCV infections. — Patent US6372224B1 This is the patent for the spike protein virus, a vaccine…

Read more →

]]>

From the patent:

The present invention provides the amino acid and nucleotide sequences of a CCV spike gene, and compositions containing one or more fragments of the spike gene and encoded polypeptide for prophylaxis, diagnostic purposes and treatment of CCV infections.

— Patent US6372224B1

This is the patent for the spike protein virus, a vaccine for the canine Coronavirus, which is actually one of the multiple forms of Coronavirus.

From the Reiner/Martin interview:

But as you know, up until 1999, the topic of Coronavirus vs V [VSV?] the patenting activity around Coronavirus was uniquely applied to veterinary sciences. The first vaccine ever patented for Coronavirus was actually sought by Pfizer. The application for the first vaccine for Coronavirus, which was specifically this s spike protein. So the exact same thing that allegedly we have rushed into invention. The first application was filed January 28 2000, 21 years ago. So the idea that we we mysteriously stumbled on the the way to intervene on vaccines is not only ludicrous, it is incredulous because Timothy Millor, Sharon Klepfer, Albert Paul Reed, and Elaine Jones on January 28 2000, filed what ultimately was issued as US Patent 6372224 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 Barics 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 s and spike protein vaccine target candidates giving rise to the obvious evidence that says that neither the Coronavirus concept of a vaccine, nor the principle of the Coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest with respect to the spike proteins behaviour is anything novel at all. As a matter of fact, it’s 22 years old, based on patent filings. What’s more problematic, and what is actually the most egregious problem is that 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 zoonetic modification of Coronavirus.

— Dr. David Martin at 02:53

Sources:

See also, on this site:

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]> The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act is presented https://pandemictimeline.com/2001/12/the-model-state-emergency-health-powers-act-is-presented/ Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:00:50 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=44 The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act is prepared by The Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] The MSEHPA (Model State Emergency Health Powers Act) which was passed by many states in 2002, included provisions that would allow state…

Read more →

]]>

The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act is prepared by The Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]

The MSEHPA (Model State Emergency Health Powers Act) which was passed by many states in 2002, included provisions that would allow state health officials to use the state militia to:

Take control of all roads leading into and out of cities and states;

Seize homes, cars, telephones, computers, food, fuel, clothing, firearms and alcoholic beverages for their own use (and not be held liable if these actions result in the destruction of  personal property);

Arrest, imprison and forcibly examine, vaccinate and medicate citizens without consent (and not be held liable if these actions result in your death or injury).

— ce399

Fortunately for the People, the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution declares that where federal and state laws conflict, federal law supersedes state law.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.  It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
— US Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2

The National Research Act (also known as The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects or The Common Rule) is federal law.  The Emergency Health Powers Acts are state laws.  Therefore, none of the Emergency Health Powers Acts can violate the protections provided in the National Research Act.  Please refer to the article about the National Research Act for further details.

Pres. Trump prevented the mandating of COVID-19 vaccines by releasing the vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization while still in testing.  Otherwise, Emergency Health Powers Acts in the various states could have allowed the mandating of the COVID-19 vaccines.  While the vaccines are still in testing, it is a violation of the federal National Research Act for anyone to mandate them.  Families of victims could potentially sue based on violation of the federal National Research Act.

As of August 23, 2021, the Pfizer-BioNTech inoculation is now approved under the brand name Comirnaty. The Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine clearly states that pre-authorization Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Comirnaty vaccine are equivalent. Any objections based on the experimental status of this vaccine are now moot. The argument now becomes whether that approval was legal. Dr. Jane Ruby and Karen Kingston both have concerns about the legality of the approval. See the post about the approval for details.

  • Food & Drug Administration
    October 20, 2021. “Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech].” US Food & Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download.
    Food & Drug Administration.
    This document has instructions for healthcare providers who are administering the vaccines.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

Legislation by state.

The following map is provided as a research hint.

This map is probably good as of sometime in 2006.
More states may have passed an Emergency Health Powers Act by now.
http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/annual/2006/images/chart-publichealth.gif

This list below of links by state is nowhere near complete at this time.  Emergency Health Powers Acts have been enacted in at least 34 states.  Eventually, I will get more of this filled in.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

 

]]> UNC Chapel Hill files patent US7279327: Methods for producing recombinant coronavirus https://pandemictimeline.com/2002/04/unc-chapel-hill-files-patent-7279327-methods-for-producing-recombinant-coronavirus/ Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:00:25 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1910 A helper cell for producing an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus (or more generally nidovirus) particle cell comprises (a) a nidovirus permissive cell; (b) a nidovirus replicon RNA comprising the nidovirus packaging signal and a heterologous RNA sequence, wherein the replicon RNA further lacks a sequence encoding at least one nidovirus structural protein; and (c) at…

Read more →

]]>

A helper cell for producing an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus (or more generally nidovirus) particle cell comprises (a) a nidovirus permissive cell; (b) a nidovirus replicon RNA comprising the nidovirus packaging signal and a heterologous RNA sequence, wherein the replicon RNA further lacks a sequence encoding at least one nidovirus structural protein; and (c) at least one separate helper RNA encoding the at least one structural protein absent from the replicon RNA, the helper RNA(s) lacking the nidovirus packaging signal. The combined expression of the replicon RNA and the helper RNA in the nidovirus permissive cell produces an assembled nidovirus particle which comprises the heterologous RNA sequence, is able to infect a cell, and is unable to complete viral replication in the absence of the helper RNA due to the absence of the structural protein coding sequence in the packaged replicon. Compositions for use in making such helper cells, along with viral particles produced from such cells, compositions of such viral particles, and methods of making and using such viral particles, are also disclosed.

— Patent US7279327B2

From the Reiner/Martin interview:

… in 1999 Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, specifically to create, and you cannot help but, you know, lament what I’m about to read because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19 2002. And you heard the date correctly 2002 where the NIAID built an infectious replication defective Coronavirus that was specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words, we made SARS and we patented it on April 19 2002, before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which as you know, followed that by several months. That patent issued is US Patent 7279327. That patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing, the fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE2 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 Coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine.

— Dr. David Martin at 02:53

To see how DNA is generated directly from a computer, see “How We Make DNA” – Cambrian Genomics.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

 

 

 

 

]]> CDC files patent US7220852: Coronavirus isolated from humans https://pandemictimeline.com/2004/04/cdc-files-patent-7220852-coronavirus-isolated-from-humans/ Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:24 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1420 Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections…

Read more →

]]>

Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections therewith. Immune stimulatory compositions are also provided, along with methods of their use.

— Patent US7220852B1

From the Reiner/Martin interview:

Coronavirus 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 Centre 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 101. You cannot patent a naturally occurring substance. The 35 US Code Section 101 violation was patent number 7220852.

— Dr. David Martin at 15:32

According to Dr. David Martin, this is the patent that records the entire gene sequence for the SARS Coronavirus.  All other Coronavirus related patents contain a segment of this sequence.  According to Dr. Martin, the sequence found for SARS CoV 2 is a segment of the original SARS Coronavirus.  This is documented in his report.

Source:

See also, on this site:

Related:

 

 

 

]]> Sequoia Pharmaceuticals files patent US7151163: Antiviral agents for the treatment, control and prevention of infections by coronaviruses https://pandemictimeline.com/2004/04/sequoia-pharmaceuticals-files-patent-7151163-antiviral-agents-for-the-treatment-control-and-prevention-of-infections-by-coronaviruses/ Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:00:20 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1422 The invention provides compositions and methods that are useful for preventing and treating a coronavirus infection in a subject. More specifically, the invention provides peptides and conjugates and pharmaceutical compositions containing those peptides and conjugates that block fusion of a coronavirus, such as the SARS virus, to a target cell. This blocking mechanism prevents or…

Read more →

]]>

The invention provides compositions and methods that are useful for preventing and treating a coronavirus infection in a subject. More specifically, the invention provides peptides and conjugates and pharmaceutical compositions containing those peptides and conjugates that block fusion of a coronavirus, such as the SARS virus, to a target cell. This blocking mechanism prevents or treats a coronavirus infection, such as a SARS infection, in a subject, such as a human subject.

— Patent US7151163B2

From the Reiner/Martin interview:

Dr David Martin  25:57

The patent in question, the April 28th 2003 patent 7151163, issued to Sequoia Pharmaceuticals has another problem. The problem is it was issued and published before the CDC patent on Coronavirus 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 a thing that had not been 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 [for] a treatment for a thing that did not exist.

Reiner Fuellmich  27:16

This could well blow up into a Rico case, ultimately.

Dr David Martin  27:20

This is, it is a Rico case. It’s not could blow up into it, it is a Rico case. And the Rico pattern, which was established in April of 2003 for the first Coronavirus, 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 centre at NIAID prior to the definition of the novel subclade. How do you treat a thing before you actually have the thing?

— Reiner Fuellmich Interviews Dr David Martin

Sources:

Related:

See also, on this site:

 

 

 

]]>