// Thomas added // End

Login Form



Health

Proof That The Swine Flu Epidemic Was Man Made and Intentional

Print E-mail
( 6 Votes )
Written by Sarah Cain   
Friday, 20 November 2009 05:02

Make Sure You Are Sitting Before Reading This

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has a listing for, 'Genetically Engineered Swine Influenza Virus and Uses Thereof'.  This vaccine patent was filed with the U.S. Patent Office in 2005.  They waited for the patent to be approved in 2009 before unleashing the virus, so they could cash-in!  The patent was finally approved on January 8th, 2009.  In other words, the makers of the Swine Flu Vaccine began the lengthy patenting process long before the Swine Flu supposedly existed, which means the outbreak was no accident, and this virus is clearly not natural.  The virus conveniently went public only after its vaccine patent was approved, after waiting 3 years for it.  Could we possibly get any better proof that the Swine Flu was man made and intentionally unleashed?  We have it in writing by their own admission that they made it!  The pandemic was declared just five months after the patent was approved, in June of 2009.  Tremendous hysteria followed that was promoted by the same groups who "invented" (their word) this admittedly genetically engineered virus.

The patent application states:

"The present invention relates, in general, to attenuated swine influenza viruses having an impaired ability to antagonize the cellular interferon (IFN) response, and the use of such attenuated viruses in vaccine and pharmaceutical formulations.  In particular, the invention relates to attenuated swine influenza viruses having modifications to a swine NS1 gene that diminish or eliminate the ability of the NS1 gene product to antagonize the cellular IFN response.  These viruses replicate in vivo, but demonstrate decreased replication, virulence and increased attenuation, and therefore are well suited for use in live virus vaccines, and pharmaceutical formulations."

You see, this virus was not discovered in the wild.  It was "invented".  The patent ownership is claimed by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine (of New York University), St. Jude Children's Hospital, and the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.  St. Jude! Indeed, the rabbit hole goes very deep.  Under the 'inventors' section of the patent is listed:

  • Palese, Peter  (Leonia, NJ)
  • Garcia-Sastre, Adolfo  (New York, NY)
  • Webby, Richard J.  (Memphis, TN)
  • Richt, Juergen A.  (Ames, IA)
  • Webster, Robert G.  (Memphis, TN)
  • Lager, Kelly M.  (Colo, IA)

These names should live in infamy, and each of these people should be held accountable for every Swine Flu death.

Why would an 'attenuated' (weakened for the purpose of vaccines), genetically engineered virus exist, and be patented prior to any outbreaks in history ― when it doesn't exist outside the laboratory?  When we first reported on the Swine Flu on the audio show, we mentioned the impossibility of it having occurred naturally.  After all, Swine Flu, Avian Flu and human flu D.N.A. cannot naturally mix without destroying themselves.

If the above patent application did not match the Swine Flu virus that is now being found in humans exactly, then it would be completely useless for creating immunity.  Therefore, since the above patent is for a genetically engineered virus, then the virus spreading through the population would also have to be genetically engineered in an identical fashion, and almost certainly would have come from the same laboratory.  The virus is documented by the U.S. Patent Office to have been intentionally created prior to 2005, at a time when the virus "did not exist".  The virus would have to wait three years for patent approval to exist in the wild.

The only question that remains is, was this bio-weapon attack against the public accidental, or intentional?  Considering that they had this vaccine ahead of time, and the coordinated media cover-up yields the depressing answer to this question.  Was it just a test run, before they release something that is much worse?  Was it an attempt to create panic, so that they could rush more bills through like they did in the weeks following the World Trade Center attacks?  Is it all part of a population control experiment for the New World Order?

This virus became weaker the longer that it was in 'existence' (unleashed).  It was initially killing a lot of people in Mexico, but then the virus mutated, and it became much less harmful.  Therefore, it is unlikely that the Swine Flu Vaccine will be at all helpful against the current mutated strains.  What was initially unleashed upon the public was horrific, and the weakening of this virus was never intended by its manufacturers at the medical schools, and within the U.S. Government.  What they intended and designed for us was truly evil, and we're damn lucky.

We finally have proof from their own documents that it was man-made, and it was obviously intentional.  The fact that this virus essentially neutralized itself over time is an indicator that God has not yet completely forsaken America.

 

 

Comments (18)
  • akston  - Proof? Or ongoing flu research?
    I was going to post this info alongside a recent Toronto Star article exposing how much hype has been thrown at the H1N1 issue, but it struck me that this isn't smoking gun proof at all. This article make a point that seems sound - any 'use thereof' of an engineered virus in a vaccine application would, to be effective, have to anticipate the strain found in the wild. And the StatismWatch.ca archive has, in the past, posted experts questioning whether the Swine Flu could have been a laboratory leak, or a potential laboratory error, given that no pedigree exists for the H1N1 virus. It's completely without precedent. (Unless you count its affinity to the 1918 H1N1 pandemic virus, which is another story) But, and this is a big but, a stumbling block to this argument is if the patent is filed for a process to be performed on a class of similar H1N1 virii, with the release candidate plucked from the wilds when identified. And this seems to be the case, since the patent is for the attenuation of an immune response stimulated by the general H1N1 'NS1' gene and obviously, there is no inconsistency with the official account in that light - this is a patent for a new way to weaken a virus, should there ever be a need to weaken an H1N1 virus ;) The interesting suggestion remains of course that some form of H1N1 outbreak was anticipated, and even planned for, so more research and a survey of how funding in this field of study was managed is called for on that front. But as it stands this patent could be interpreted as ongoing research into the immunology of a wide class of virii, at least from where I stand.
  • akston  - This bit is a potential redflag
    Here's a clause discussing use of the H1N1 virus as a payload delivery system for various agents that might respond to viral therapy. Basically, they can use this viral shell to make you have an immune response to any of the following factors, below. Is this a common use of viruses these days, or some astonishing new breakthrough that requires the H1N1 vehicle itself?

    [0181]The present invention also provides methods for preventing, managing, treating, and/or ameliorating diseases and disorders including, but not limited to, swine influenza virus infections, conditions associated with swine influenza virus infection, infections other than swine influenza virus infections, conditions associated with infections other than swine influenza virus infections, IFN-treatable disorders (e.g., cancer) and conditions in which an attenuated swine influenza virus of the invention is used as a vector to induce an immune response to an antigen associated with the condition comprising administering to a subject in need thereof an effective amount of one or more attenuated swine influenza viruses of the present invention and an effective amount of one or more therapies (e.g., prophylactic or therapeutic agents) other than attenuated swine influenza viruses. Therapies include, but are not limited to, small molecules, synthetic drugs, peptides, polypeptides, proteins, nucleic acids (e.g., DNA and RNA nucleotides including, but not limited to, antisense nucleotide sequences, triple helices, RNAi, and nucleotide sequences encoding biologically active proteins, polypeptides or peptides) antibodies, synthetic or natural inorganic molecules, mimetic agents, and synthetic or natural organic molecules.
  • Thomas Corriher
    Let me get this straight... They created a vaccine for a genetically engineered virus that did not exist by "anticipating" its entire D.N.A. code 3 years beforehand, and then it coincidentally appeared out of thin air in the wild as soon as the patent was approved for the vaccine? Sorry, but that's just so stupid I can hardly be tactful about it.

    And no, this admittedly was not a virus that was pulled from the wild. Again, this was (and is) their "invention" of a genetically engineered virus.

    Let me restate something was was written above:

    "If the above patent application did not match the Swine Flu virus that is now being found in humans exactly, then it would be completely useless for creating immunity. Therefore, since the above patent is for a genetically engineered virus, then the virus spreading through the population would also have to be genetically engineered in an identical fashion, and almost certainly would have come from the same laboratory."

    I do agree with it being a red flag, and yes, that whole idea of adding a trojanized "payload" to viruses is rather troubling. In this case the "payload" was, in the very least, swine D.N.A. and bird D.N.A..

    Isn't it nice being part of their experiments?
  • akston
    If you want to start throwing around terms like 'stupid', you'd be advised to read the patent application first. Nowhere in there does it state anything about matching the entire genotype of the present virus under discussion. It talks about modifying the coding of ONE GENE - that's the NS1 gene, which we're told is common to all H1N1 strains, in order to suppress a certain biological effect (interferon stimulus? haven't looked it up yet) in the creation of swine flu vaccines. That's swine flu vaccines in general. NOT a vaccine for this particular H1N1 strain, which no one has shown uses this patent, and likely doesn't since it's not supposed to be using 'attenuated' virus. Just trying to stick to the facts here...
  • Thomas Corriher
    Okay, then let's talk "facts".

    How does the genetically engineered vaccine grant immunity if it is not an identical strain of the same virus? A vaccine miracle? And more importantly, why do they need genetically engineered vaccines for diseases which do not exist (conveniently did not exist until after they created the vaccine and patented it).

    Every vaccine is effective for exactly one particular stain (whenever they are effective -- note Gardasil contains multiple vaccines like the MMR), and that's why once the flu (or any other virus) mutates, the vaccine is no longer any good. That is why the flu vaccine is changed every year, but sadly, it is usually for last year's stain, and therefore usually useless.

    We won't see this patent "used" until one of the parties feels threatened enough to use it in court, and thus it very well may fall under the category of 'defensive patents'. It is impossible to know, but I am sure an intellectual property attorney could take us in circles on the issues endlessly. Nevertheless, the patent still clearly shows that there was an orchestrated plan to develop a genetically engineered Swine Flu "vaccine", even though Swine Flu did not exist in the wild. Why would you make a vaccine for something that doesn't exist?

    As far as this being different to the human virus, then is St. Jude Children's Hospital doing veterinary medicine now?
  • akston
    Thomas, the critical mistake I think you're making is this:

    > even though Swine Flu did not exist in the wild

    Are you sure about that? There's a reason it's called Swine Flu.

    All I'm saying, is that, though I think Sarah is great, you can't necessarily make these extrapolations. It's reasonable to think that a mistake may have been made here. Look:

    1) The potential market, the drive to create a new genetic technology to assist in the attenuation of ANY swine flu strain might be reasonably argued to exist because physicians have observed other zoological virii jumping the species barrier. So a counterexample to motive.

    2) And sorry to press this point, but it needs pressing - the technology described in the document applies to any swine flu variant with the NS1 gene. So although you are correct in stating that to create a specific vaccine you would need a specific virus, that's not what this patent does or requires. So there's no proof of means or opportunity here (eg; access to the specific H1N1 'pandemic' virus back in 2005)

    I'm just offering a critique and crosschecking the ideas presented against my own reading of the patent. This has to be a self-regulating community, right? It's serious, which is why the application of skeptical tests are required, and should be welcomed. I totally get what you're saying about the swine flu in general. Cheers.
  • Thomas Corriher
    "physicians have observed other zoological virii jumping the species barrier"

    Did you ever wonder why this "evolution" never happened in history before the advent of genetic engineering? Perhaps the Black Plague would be an exception (and that's very debatable). Don't even go there with A.I.D.S., because its entire history is one huge fraud (which we'll cover later). So why has this sort of thing suddenly become "normal"? Swine Flu in humans? Bird Flu in humans? What's next? Gorilla Indigestion? Always after the vaccines have been developed first, right?

    Sure, we can argue that it is all one big coincidence, but sooner or later we have to choose to be a coincidence theorist or a conspiracy theorist. At this point, history and the evidence favors the latter.

    Again, one last time, why exactly would you need a genetically engineered vaccine when no genetically engineered viruses exist in the wild, and how exactly would those genetically engineered viruses eventually get out there? I'll tell you one thing: it's not exactly evolution. If this "invention" is not to provide immunity (for something coincidentally appearing afterward in the wild for the first time), then what exactly is this Frankenstein creation for?

    "There's no proof of means or opportunity here (eg; access to the specific H1N1 'pandemic' virus back in 2005)"

    Actually, they tried to pull exactly the same thing back in 1976, and it was one of my points. I seriously doubt that Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and St. Jude Children's Hospital have converted themselves to veterinary medicine.

    Even if this virus/vaccine really were just for pigs, then how did those pigs naturally acquire this genetically engineered virus that the vaccine is for? How is that suddenly humans began catching it too?

    It must be evolution, right?
  • akston
    By pooh-poohing interspecies virus contaminations, you're misdirecting from the issue of whether this patent represents the creation of the current H1N1 vaccine. (They test flu on ferrets, y'know.) And you seem to be simply repeating your contention that the vaccine patent is for a genetically engineered virus, when I've shown at least three times that this isn't the case? So one last go round at this:

    > Even if this virus/vaccine really were just for pigs, then how did those pigs naturally acquire this genetically engineered virus that the vaccine is for?

    It's not claimed that the vaccine is just for pigs, as you know. Nor is it claimed that the vaccine is for a genetically engineered virus. As you know. You can guess and infer that it might be, but it's just not in the text. The patent is explicitly for a modification limited to ONE GENE that would inhibit H1N1 transmissibility in some future vaccine WERE it ever to cross the species barrier, or if the virus were to be pressed into service in genetic therapy. That's it. If we were to look for foreknowledge I_am_a_sneaky_bastard_trying_to_hack_this_site_embedded in this specific patent, we'd have to start by showing that there was no reasonable expectation that H1N1, like H5N1, might go interspecies. I submit all of the breathless 'pandemic preparedness' public service ads from the last five years as counterevidence. I really don't know what else to say on the matter. So I'll stop here. The most fearful thing about this patent is the open question of what happens if scientists slip up which tinkering with viral genetics and possibly make something worse...

    Along that line of thinking, here's something that might be more fruitful to pursue...

    Scientist Repeats Claim Swine Flu Escaped from Lab in Published Study
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=ajw2AS.d1wK8
  • Thomas Corriher
    "Genetically engineered" is actually in the patent title and application, and some of the testing was done in pigs. It is all clearly written in the document.

    I'm just going to stop with that. This has obviously become an irrational debate in which the real purpose has become getting 'the last word' in. So go ahead, and post again, to get that 'last word' in. You may claim victory, and we'll part in peace.

    I will not be posting again, unless another reader actually has something that inspires a response.
  • kate purnell
    The patent is not for a vaccine FOR a genetically engineered virus, the genetically engineered virus IS the vaccine. The patent describes how you can genetically manipulate an existing virus to make a new attenuated one "capable of generating an immune response and creating immunity but not causing illness or causing fewer and/or less severe symptoms, i.e., the viruses have decreased virulence." [0023]

    If the genetically engineered viruses that are described by this patent were "set loose" on the country... nothing would happen. That's because they are weakened and do not proliferate. By design.
  • Thomas Corriher
    That would mean wasting billions of dollars on a vaccine that did nothing, and I'm not buying into that. A vaccine is only useful if it is identical to a virus in the wild. For this vaccine to be useful, the same genetically engineered virus would have to be released.

    That whole thing about playing with a virus to somehow miraculously create immunity for viruses which do not exist (or exist yet) is all smoke and mirrors. The immune system does not work that way, and it never has. I know it, they know it, and you ought to know it too.

    By its very definition, a virus is something that replicates by design, and if it didn't, then the immune system would likely ignore it. That's why at best, weakened viruses are used in vaccines instead of dead ones. When they say a vaccine virus is "inactivated", it is part of the deceptive marketing games meant to make us feel safe. In fact, all vaccines have the potential to infect a person with the very disease that they are meant to stop. This, of course, means the release of this virus could have been accidental, and we know they were experimenting on pigs, where it supposedly originated. It is the sort of thing that is to be expected when people start playing God.
  • kate purnell
    Sir,

    "That whole thing about playing with a virus to somehow miraculously create immunity for viruses which do not exist (or exist yet) is all smoke and mirrors. "

    This seems to be the source of your confusion. You think that the patent is somehow for a specific genetically engineered virus that is now - by some incredible coincidence - able to be used to protect against a virus that is prevalent today. Well, if that were the case I could see where your fear would be founded. But you really need to be able to read the patent. It is not referring to genetically engineered viruses that they somehow created and catalogued and were FIXED as of the application in 2005. No, "genetically engineered virus" refers to the product of a PROCESS they describe in the patent, a process that can be applied to any number of eligible viruses that existed at the time or could arise in the future. And yes, that process could potentially be used to create a genetically-attenuated version of 2009 H1N1 suitable for vaccines.

    However, you need not worry about that just yet. This is not the method being used in today's H1N1 mist vaccines in any case. Just because someone got a patent on a process doesn't mean anyone has approvale to actually use that process to make vaccines. This is a novel proposal and even if it works (surprisingly, you don't have to prove something works to get a patent) an enormous amount of testing would still need to be conducted before it was implemented in production. Sort of like growing flu viruses in caterpillars instead of eggs. Interesting idea... but not likely to be in production anytime soon.

    So call it "playing God" if you like. I, for one, am grateful for the scientists doing research in this area. There will come a day where we will need a very fast way to respond to a very deadly virus, and the existing, painfully slow, methods of creating vaccines will let far too many people die. God bless those who are devising new ways to deal with such a crisis.
  • kate purnell
    The article above is incorrect in so many places, and now that I realize it is ALL over the conspiracy-web, I'll wrap it up with this post. Here are the errors and corrections:

    "In other words, the makers of the Swine Flu Vaccine began the lengthy patenting process long before the Swine Flu supposedly existed". The patent applicants and assignees are not the "makers of the vaccine". And the patent has not even been granted yet. January 8, 2009 was the date the application was PUBLISHED, not the date the patent was granted. It still has not been granted.

    "prior to any outbreaks in history"?? Huh? Swine flus have been around since 1918. Remember? And maybe the author should do a little reading (try the patent application, perhaps) about how prevalent - and scary - swine flu rightfully is. Such as section [0014].

    "After all, Swine Flu, Avian Flu and human flu D.N.A. cannot naturally mix without destroying themselves." Yes, they can, and if the author had actually READ the patent she would know how and why. Hint: PIGS.

    "Therefore, since the above patent is for a genetically engineered virus, then the virus spreading through the population would also have to be genetically engineered in an identical fashion." False, as repeatedly explained by various people here.

    "This virus became weaker the longer that it was in 'existence' (unleashed). It was initially killing a lot of people in Mexico, but then the virus mutated, and it became much less harmful." Untrue. Genetic typing has shown that the virus has not significantly changed since Mexico.

    "Therefore, it is unlikely that the Swine Flu Vaccine will be at all helpful against the current mutated strains." False. The H1N1 vaccine uses A/California/07/2009 (H1N1), which was first collected in California in April. The CDC weekly FluView report tracks the antigenic characterization of viruses collected each week. 99.7% of the viruses collected are still showing as related to A/California/07/2009 (H1N1). The vaccine still protects.

    "The only question that remains is, was this bio-weapon attack against the public accidental, or intentional?" No, the only question that remains is, are you - the reader - going to get your information from real sources or from some ridiculous website where someone with too much free time and no sense can write anything they want. Conspiracy theory EQUALS coincidence theory most of the time... and neither one makes ANY sense at all when the alleged coincidences don't even exist.


  • Sarah Cain
    So, the fact that the patent mentions the swine influenza virus multiple times (including in the title) has no bearing on this patent? Why exactly do you believe that they mention that virus, if they were patenting a method? Why would they mention the swine influenza virus a grand total of 715 times? You must have missed that when reading the patent.

    You mention that the virus has not significantly changed since the outbreak in Mexico. Why don't you tell us just how significant the change has to be before exposure to the original virus no longer provides immunity?
Write comment
Your Contact Details:
Comment:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img]   
Security
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.


 

 

F.D.A. Disclaimer: The information provided by this site is intended to be a truthful, corrective alternative to the advice provided by your physician and other medical professionals.  If you have, or suspect that you have a serious health problem, then promptly contact a naturopathic doctor, who will have more training than your orthodox, allopathic doctor.  Additionally, we will help advise you if we can.  The information presented herein is intended to diagnose, treat, cure, and prevent disease.  Your orthodox physician is statistically about 9,000 times more deadly than the average gun owner, and has a 17% chance of killing one of his patients this year.
 

Who's Online

We have 138 guests and 1 member online

Advertisements

We are proud of the fact that we are not HONcode certified.

Berkey Water Filters from http://www.directive21.com/

The Rockefellers refuse to support our work, so it's up to you. You don't have to be a wealthy megalomaniac to make a difference. Small donations of just $5 add up to make a huge difference.

Utopia Silver Supplements

This is on par with the best silver available. If you call, tell Ben The Health Wyze Report Staff sent you.