COVID-19 and many other such issues do not suddenly appear to nations. One can trace the development of these issues for eons. One of the recent outbreaks is the 1918 pandemic - referenced as H1N1 Virus.

Indeed they all develop with incremental paces over time.

The objective is to address the issues with appropriate remedies and individuals to obtain the prescribed treatments.

@Former Member posted:

COVID-19 and many other such issues do not suddenly appear to nations. One can trace the development of these issues for eons. One of the recent outbreaks is the 1918 pandemic - referenced as H1N1 Virus.

Indeed they all develop with incremental paces over time.

The objective is to address the issues with appropriate remedies and individuals to obtain the prescribed treatments.

He explains his credentials and provides many quotes about how this present outbreak was probably engineered.

Possibly by the above.

The irony is that videos like this are one of the reasons we keep going into lockdowns. It appears that some version of this video has been circulating for some time.

It has also been debunked. See here: https://www.factcheck.org/2020...mation-conspiracies/

Here is the relevant part on Dr. David Martin:

David Martin and Patent Claims

If Event 201 is the backbone of the conspiracy theory in “Plandemic,” then David Martin is the central character. He’s featured throughout the video, making claims primarily about patents.

Martin runs a company called M-CAM, which analyzes patents and intellectual property to estimate the investment value of companies.

M-CAM has five investment companies as clients, managing assets of $1.1 million, according to a recent statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“Not big in investments, seems more like another guy using predictive modeling as a selling tool for many types of information,” Suzanne Lynch told FactCheck.org in an email, after looking through M-CAM’s SEC filings. Lynch has worked on Wall Street and is now a professor of economic crime at Utica College.

Samuel Rosen, an assistant professor of finance at Temple University’s Fox School of Business, similarly described M-CAM, broadly, as an investment research company and noted in an email to FactCheck.org that it appears Martin manages a small hedge fund, too.

But Martin has also peddled conspiracy theories over the years. He published a novel in 2011, which he claimed was based on real events, alleging a rigged 2008 presidential election that was somehow tied to the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Since the pandemic began, he has used his YouTube channel to promote COVID-19 conspiracy theories. He repeats many of those claims in “Plandemic: Indoctornation.”

“The whole purpose of the patent is to prevent folks from controlling the technology,” the story quotes CDC spokesman Llelwyn Grant as saying. “This is being done to give the industry and other researchers reasonable access to the samples.”

Similarly, the director of the CDC at the time, Dr. Julie Gerberding, told reporters that filing for the patent was “a protective measure to make sure that the access to the virus remains open for everyone.”

“The concern that the federal government is looking at right now is that we could be locked out of this opportunity to work with this virus if it’s patented by someone else, and so by initiating steps to secure patent rights, we assure that we will be able to continue to make the virus and the products from the virus available in the public domain, and that we can continue to promote the rapid technological transfer of this biomedical information into tools and products that are useful to patients,” Gerberding said in a May 2003 telebriefing.

So, Martin’s claim is at odds with the CDC’s publicly stated motivation, and he offers no evidence to support his argument.

Next, Martin claims that federal law wouldn’t have allowed for a patent on that isolated virus.

Again, he’s wrong.

Instead of reading from U.S. patent law, as he says he is in the video, Martin reads from a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision. That’s an important distinction since the decision, which changed one aspect of patent law that’s relevant here, came 10 years after the CDC filed for a patent related to the virus that causes SARS.

“Nature is prohibited from being patented,” Martin says, claiming that he was quoting from a section of patent law. Building on that, he claims, “either SARS, coronavirus, was manufactured, therefore making a patent on it legal, or it was natural, therefore making a patent on it illegal.”

But that’s a false dichotomy.

While the Supreme Court did find that “[a] naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,” that decision came a decade after the CDC sought the patent.

“Isolated genes (that is, genes extracted from a longer DNA sequence) used to be patentable in the past because the courts decided that just the act of extracting them and removing the non-coding segments caused enough of a modification to turn them into patent-eligible things,” Mario Biagioli, a professor at UCLA School of Law, told FactCheck.org in an email. “No more.  A few years ago the Supreme Court decided that simply isolating a gene did not change it enough. It remained a ‘product of nature’ and therefore unpatentable.”

So, claiming that the patent is either illegal or the virus was “manufactured” is wrong.

After that, Martin takes his claim one step further, saying: “If it was manufactured, it was a violation of biological and chemical weapons treaties and laws. If it was natural, filing a patent on it was illegal. In either outcome, both are illegal.”

That’s not right, either, said Arti Rai, a professor at Duke University School of Law, in a phone interview with FactCheck.org.

In order for scientists to do research on either diseases or biological weapons, they need access to the underlying biological material and there are laws governing who can do that research and in what facilities, said Rai. It’s not necessarily illegal to possess such material.

Also, she noted, something that is illegal to use, like a chemical or biological weapon, isn’t illegal to patent.

“Lots of things have been patented over the years that would be illegal to use,” said Rai. She gave the example of devices for taking illegal drugs, explaining that having a patent on something doesn’t give you the right to use it.

Altogether, the statements Martin makes about legal issues are inaccurate, Rai said, and the way the video presents connections related to those statements are inaccurate, too.

“They try to connect dots in a way that is misleading,” she said.

It’s worth repeating, the 2003 patent filing Martin references involves a different virus than the one that causes COVID-19.

But he isn’t the first to make claims like this. Falsehoods tying unrelated patents to the novel coronavirus have been circulating almost as long as COVID-19 has been around. We wrote about some in January.