We certainly know the names of some of those directly involved in this COVID-19 debacle. What we still have not been able to reveal is the purpose(s) for the “noise” (what result is expected) and who are the ones that are loading the gun. So far, we’ve identified the players — those who are firing the shots. Let’s dig deeper.
It’s Deeper (and broader) than Fauci, Birx, and Gates
Fauci and Birx are the obvious pawns in all this. But they are not the “Players.” Gates, on the other hand, has the desires and capability to load the gun AND fire shots. Let’s assume for a moment that’s the case.
Let’s go back to Remdesivir.
Gilead, Remdesivir and the Chinese
Yesterday we shared how the new miracle drug was developed by Gilead in conjunction with Chinese doctors and the Wuhan infectious disease laboratory. We also told you that the Chinese jumped all over it and have begun mass production of the drug. But how does that play into the patent rights of the drug? Are we headed back to a similar situation we found ourselves in last month regarding N95 3M masks that are manufactured at a 3M plant in China? In that case, China placed millions of mask orders 45-days before the rest of the world knew anything about the virus. Their order meant the U.S. had to look elsewhere for masks as did every other country. China, in essence, cornered that market by pressuring 3M to put their country in front of all other countries for N95 masks. That left us out in the cold, even though 3M is a U.S. corporation.
Here’s how the CCP is handling the Gilead Remdesivir patent rights:
BrightGene Bio-Medical Technology, a China-based company, just announced that it has developed the technology to synthesize the active pharmaceutical ingredients of Remdesivir. “While BrightGene said that it intends to license the drug from Gilead, its move to start manufacturing at this early stage is a highly unusual and potential infringement of the American company’s intellectual property.“ This comes a week after Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology applied for a patent for Gilead’s drug Remdesivir to treat the new coronavirus. This bid would give China leverage over the global use of the therapy to fight the outbreak.
The decision to seek a patent instead of invoking a “compulsory license” option that lets nations override drug patents in national emergencies, signals China’s commitment toward intellectual property rights.
The timing is uncanny! Gilead will retain the global rights to market the antiviral medication, once approved. Gilead has also announced that it partnered with the Chinese Health Authorities on the clinical trials of Remdesivir as a treatment for coronavirus. (Those tests are those that are underway today at Tony Fauci’s laboratory) Remdesivir was developed initially in 2016 by Gilead as a treatment for the Ebola virus. Many have argued that China stole the patent from Gilead due to a technicality.
Who is Gilead?
Gilead is partnered with Wuxi Pharmaceuticals, which is owned by a philanthropist and mass manipulator himself, George Soros!
Wuxi Pharmaceuticals is conveniently located in the epicenter of the outbreak near Wuhan Institute of Virology that has been identified as the Bioweapons manufacturer of this coronavirus — if it really IS a bioweapon. If so, it looks like China has both the Bioweapon and the cure! And let’s not forget the patent on the treatment drug. How charitable do you suppose China will be with the west?
But this story doesn’t end here. George Soros also owns Gilead Biosciences.
The Plot Thickens
Doctors at Providence Regional Medical Center successfully treated a coronavirus patient within hours using Gilead’s drug Remdesivir. Given the current outbreak that has taken the world by surprise, it’s essential to look at all the current players. How is Gilead Biosciences tied to this viral outbreak?
Gilead endorsed and is involved in a drug purchasing group called UNITAID whose mandate is to create a “patent pool” for pharmaceutical companies to share their “drug patents” with other companies to produce generic drugs for distribution to poor African nations. The royalties from the sales of these generic drugs are then paid to the patent holders. UNITAID emerged from the United Nations 2000 Millennium Declaration, which has now evolved into the UN Global Compact. Their internet timeline shows that the UNITAID website Unitaid.org is also linked to Refunite.org, an agency partnered with the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) that helps to connect refugees with their families using the internet.
UNITAID has several financial backers, including WHO, UNAIDS, Global Fund, and the Roll Back Malaria Partnership. Also, UNITAID has corporate sponsorship from pharmaceuticals with the “Medicines Patent Pool.”
One billionaire investor behind UNITAID is George Soros himself. But why stop there? UNITAID is also financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and also involves a partnership with the Clinton Health Access Initiative. And interestingly enough, both UNITAID and Gilead Biosciences supported Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. Don’t forget that Soros gave $25 million to Hillary’s campaign — at LEAST $25 million.
UNITAID’s objectives are to exclude high and middle-income countries from “drug pool” while allowing “developing” countries to benefit from lower drug prices. In 2009 UNITAID’s board voted to exclude China and other more lucrative nations when considering targeted states outside of Africa. However, since then, all that has changed, and UNITAID has now included China in its “drug pool.”
Let’s pull all of this together:
A year later, we now have a Global Pandemic emerging from Mainland China, and the Chinese are the holders of the patent for the treatment drug, and they are also included in the United Nation’s UNITAID initiative that will let them benefit from lower drug pricing. Furthermore, Gilead, a prominent supporter of UNITAID, has also announced that it is partnering with the Chinese Health Authorities on the clinical trials of Remdesivir as a treatment for coronavirus. And once approved, Gilead will retain the global rights to market the antiviral medication.
Can you imagine a scenario where every other drug that is lab proven to effectively tackle COVID-19 is determined by the FDA to be ineligible for its uses for any of a multitude of reasons? What would happen then if Remdesivir is the ONLY FDA approved drug to use against COVID-19? I can easily see that happening. Though Gilead holds the unilateral marketing rights of Remdesivir, THE CHINESE HOLD THE PATENT!
Can anyone say “Blackmail?”
Next: Attack on Americans’ Constitutional Rights: Are “Stay-at-home” Decrees Constitutional?
A legislative body, state or federal, can pass any law it decides to, and a governor or president enacts it by signing it (or it’s enacted by the legislature overriding a veto). But once passed, a law can only be deemed unconstitutional or illegal or improper by judges. Not by police, nor by the opinions of individuals in society.
Once we accept that, we can examine the constitutionality or legality of stay-at-home orders. We should discuss whether such orders conform to the U.S. Constitution. Still, because such emergency orders fall under the authority of state police powers, they are generally governed by state constitutions and laws.
State police powers are a state’s capacity to regulate behavior and enforce order within its territory for the “betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its inhabitants.”
States have the power to compel obedience to their laws through whatever measures they see fit, provided those measures do not infringe upon any of the rights protected by the U.S. Constitution or their own state constitutions and are not unreasonably arbitrary or oppressive.
Some have commented on social media, saying, “Liberty is unconditional,” and “The government can’t strip you of your rights, period.” Those are generally correct statements in a philosophical sense. Still, it should be noted there is a big difference between “stripped or taken away” and “restricted or curtailed for some time.” We are all aware, or should be, that the federal and all state constitutions allow for imprisonment or the confiscation of a property when a person violates certain laws – so liberty is very much conditional, and the government can restrict your rights. For violations of the very worst crimes, the government can permanently take away your rights by ending your existence.
Each state in its constitution details the conditions that can rise to the necessary need for its governor to declare an emergency and to, therefore, take whatever actions are essential to protect the state, its assets and its people from the particular results that will or might impact both the state and its citizens. Each state has created legislatively the specific circumstances that justify and initiate such a declaration. It also created the exact terms and conditions under which the state itself and its officials, along with the state’s residents, must adhere to and are regulated by these terms during the dates applicable under the declaration.
What about the law being an affront to the U.S. Constitution? For the same reasons as laid out regarding its constitutionality under the state Constitution, it’s not an easy answer, and there are precious few precedents. No precedents exist for cases exactly like this.
What we do know, however, is that the U.S. Supreme Court has generally been very lenient on what would usually be seen as “infringements of rights” during emergencies, so long as measures taken aren’t “arbitrary or capricious.” In other words, for something like this and given the seriousness of this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely allow it so long as the governor can provide a good reason, and show that what he did was not meant to punish or harm anyone, but rather to protect society from an imminent threat.
It helps if a governor can show that the best “experts” agree that what he ordered done would be likely to work, and with COVID-19, the best experts around the world, including here in the U.S., are recommending precisely what U.S. governors are doing. Some are even recommending more drastic measures.
So, are stay at home orders constitutional, or legal? The short and likely correct answer is – probably. Maybe not, but they very likely are. What we can know for sure is that law enforcement is doing their duty and following their oath to enforce a duly passed law – a law likely few want to enforce. At the same time, they’re trying to protect everyone’s health – so if they tell you to go home unless you want to fight it in court where you’ll almost certainly lose, how about doing everyone a favor and just saying, “Yes officer – I will.
But: Wait a Minute!
The answer to the constitutionality of the declarations is probably not quite so crystal clear. There are U.S. laws that weigh into the determination by a court if a specific declaration passes Constitutional muster.
Title 18 U.S.C., Section 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
So what is “Color of Law?”
Color of law refers to an act done under the appearance of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their power to violate rights guaranteed by federal law.
And, of course, the basic template of ALL federal laws is the U.S. Constitution.
Could it be that any action by any person or institution that though legal according to state laws, violates 18 U.S.C., Section 242: “The color of law?”
What does Attorney General William Barr have to say about these various states’ actions forcing Americans to stay-in-place under a myriad of terms and conditions?
Comparing nationwide lockdown orders to “house arrest,” Attorney General William Barr has suggested the Justice Department could take legal action against states and governors to end social restrictions designed to slow the spread of coronavirus. He stated, “As lawsuits develop, as specific cases emerge in the states, we’ll take a look at them,” Barr said. “These are unprecedented burdens on civil liberties right now. You know, the idea that you have to stay in your house is disturbingly close to house arrest. I’m not saying it wasn’t justified. I’m not saying in some places it might still be justified. But it’s very difficult, as is shutting down your livelihood.”
Barr likened continuing shutdown orders to a case of a doctor who “keeps feeding the patient chemotherapy” during cancer treatment. The cancer might be killed, but so would the patient, he rationalized.
This is another way of saying the cure is worse than the disease.
It’s going to get ugly! You can bet that lawsuits are being readied as we share these thoughts in state and federal lawsuits. And you can bet one more thing: one or several of these cases WILL show-up on the docket of the Supreme Court at some point. I cannot imagine a scenario in which Americans find themselves living in a strategy, not of their own choosing but thrust upon them by arbitrary and non-specific declarations of emergencies made by governors.
We all know how this COULD end. We all know how we could make it stop before any of this litigation gets underway and paralyzes the U.S. justice system: Open the nation for business!
Will that happen? I think it will. But, unfortunately, I think it will happen not as a product of the consideration of the Constitutional rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. It will happen purely for dollars and cents. Within the economic structure and current conditions of the nation, every entity and every individual has been forced to adopt what for many is an alternative view from their normal. Everyone, if not now then soon will be on the same page on this: we MUST get the nation opened economically. Americans have the right to work — a right that has been stripped away, even though just briefly hopefully — and without work, there is no available income for anyone.
It would be wonderful if anything in our nation that confronts us in any sector of life would function through a month or two without forcing Americans into a shouting match! Apparently, that’s not possible for May. Let’s hope we can find some answers that we can initiate maybe in May, but certainly no later than June.
If we can accomplish that, most of us will try hard to just “let it go” and forget about the emotional and economic hardships these declarations have cost us. It would be wonderful to have only one thought to be concerned about in the evening when everyone finally shows up at home: do we want vanilla or chocolate ice cream for dinner? With or without nuts and RediWhip?