Let’s start by looking at the confidential agreement proving Moderna had a Coronavirus vaccine candidate at least nineteen days before the alleged emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China.
The confidential agreement states that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to transfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.
The World Health Organisation declared COVID‑19 a pandemic on 11 March 2020
On February 23 the Daily Mail ran an article showing that Moderna has patented the 19 base letter (nucleotide) sequence which codes for the Furin Cleavage site in Covid-19.
However, research shows that Moderna did not merely apply for a patent in 2016 with US9587003B2: as reported in the Daily Mail. They actually applied in 2013 for 4 patents with US9149506B2, US9216205B2, US9255129B2, US9301993B2, as well for their "Covid-19 virus".
The final codon completed inserted gene sequence, ‘CTCCTCGGCGGGCA’, patented by Moderna, does not exist in natural viruses and neither does the CGG-coded Furin Cleavage site CCTCGGCGGGCACGT.
Moderna wins Covid-19 shot patent case against Pfizer-BioNTech in Europe May 18, 2024, 07:01 PM Pfizer-BioNTech who used Moderna Virus 2013: #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG to make their vaccine from. That "virus" you got "a vaccine" for: Thank Bill Gates.
Yep. I remember finding that MTA, Materials Transfer Agreement, & seeing it was between Ralph Baric, Moderna & the NIH, & noticing the date of the signatures: in mid-December, 2019!!!
This Pfizer report, anonymously authored, raises more questions than it answers. The overall tone is mundane boilerplate, without any comparison of expected results to reported adverse effects, let alone any discussion about maximum thresholds being exceeded. Much of the data presented falls into what could only be described as ambiguous.
In my opinion, this demands hearings with the Pfizer experts who were responsible for gathering and evaluating the data as well as with the FDA entities charged with oversight and approval.
Let’s start by looking at the confidential agreement proving Moderna had a Coronavirus vaccine candidate at least nineteen days before the alleged emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China.
The confidential agreement states that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to transfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.
The World Health Organisation declared COVID‑19 a pandemic on 11 March 2020
On February 23 the Daily Mail ran an article showing that Moderna has patented the 19 base letter (nucleotide) sequence which codes for the Furin Cleavage site in Covid-19.
However, research shows that Moderna did not merely apply for a patent in 2016 with US9587003B2: as reported in the Daily Mail. They actually applied in 2013 for 4 patents with US9149506B2, US9216205B2, US9255129B2, US9301993B2, as well for their "Covid-19 virus".
The final codon completed inserted gene sequence, ‘CTCCTCGGCGGGCA’, patented by Moderna, does not exist in natural viruses and neither does the CGG-coded Furin Cleavage site CCTCGGCGGGCACGT.
Moderna wins Covid-19 shot patent case against Pfizer-BioNTech in Europe May 18, 2024, 07:01 PM Pfizer-BioNTech who used Moderna Virus 2013: #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG to make their vaccine from. That "virus" you got "a vaccine" for: Thank Bill Gates.
Yep. I remember finding that MTA, Materials Transfer Agreement, & seeing it was between Ralph Baric, Moderna & the NIH, & noticing the date of the signatures: in mid-December, 2019!!!
This Pfizer report, anonymously authored, raises more questions than it answers. The overall tone is mundane boilerplate, without any comparison of expected results to reported adverse effects, let alone any discussion about maximum thresholds being exceeded. Much of the data presented falls into what could only be described as ambiguous.
In my opinion, this demands hearings with the Pfizer experts who were responsible for gathering and evaluating the data as well as with the FDA entities charged with oversight and approval.