The US Department of Health and Human Services holds patents for hantavirus and other viral haemorrhagic fevers. Researcher Christina F. Spiropoulou is a key figure in these patents.
These patents involve genetically engineered viruses and “virus replicon particles” that can enter human cells. It is claimed these viruses are engineered so that they cannot spread and so cause an infection. However, at what point does such an engineered virus become the virus?
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Hantavirus Patents: Who Owns Them? And When Does a “Vaccine” Become the Pathogen?
By Dr. Tess Lawrie, 12 May 2026
Question: Would you want a modified haemorrhagic fever “virus,” capable of entering human cells but allegedly engineered not to fully spread, injected into you? This is what a hantavirus “vaccine” may be.
Question: Would you be surprised to hear that hantavirus lung infection is listed among Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine list of severe adverse drug reactions?
This article is based on revelations emerging from a two-year investigation into WHO Collaborating Centres by WCH Australia’s Lucinda van Buuren.
At What Point Does an Engineered Vaccine Platform Begin To Resemble the “Virus” It Was Designed To Prevent?
For most people, the word “vaccine” still evokes something simple: a weakened virus, a harmless protein or an injection that teaches the immune system to fight disease. But the covid-19 scam has shown that what are called vaccines can no longer be considered harmless.
Today’s “vaccine” science increasingly involves genetically engineered viruses “viral systems,” synthetic biology, programmable RNA platforms and modified viruses. Thus, the question “At what point does an engineered vaccine platform begin to resemble the ‘virus’ it was designed to prevent?” sits quietly beneath a growing heap of patents connected to emerging viruses such as hantaviruses, Nipah virus and Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus (“CCHF”).
I raised this issue in a recent interview with Del Bigtree on ‘The Highwire, Episode 475’, and the fact that one recurring name in this patent trail for hantavirus and viral haemorrhagic fevers is Christina F. Spiropoulou, a virologist associated with the US Department of Health and Human Services. She is also a Director of a key WHO Collaborating Centre, the WHO Collaborating Centre (“WHO CC”) for Viral Haemorrhagic Fevers at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) in Atlanta (WHO contract USA-155). Spiropoulou’s co-director of the WHO CC is Captain Joel Montgomery, former director of the Department of Emerging Infections at the US Naval Medical Research Unit Six (“NAMRU-6”) in Lima, Peru.
Spiropoulou has co-inventions spanning from early hantavirus engineering in the 1990s to modern “virus replicon particle” vaccine systems. This document lists Spiropoulou and Health and Human Services (“HHS”) patents, including one published as recently as January 2026. Download ‘Patents by Inventor Christina F. Spiropoulou’ HERE.
The patents are public but not well known, and the potential implications urgently need to be discussed in international public forums.
The Hantavirus Back-Story
The first alleged hantavirus disease emerged during the Korean War in the early 1950s, when around 3,000 United Nations troops developed a mysterious haemorrhagic fever later called Korean haemorrhagic fever. Approximately 5-10 % of the troops died. Biowarfare was a possibility, and the US military became sufficiently alarmed that it established a dedicated haemorrhagic fever centre in Korea, according to Wikipedia.
US military biolabs, such as NAMRUs (US Naval Medical Research Units), began identifying related rodent-borne viruses across the world. NAMRUs were set up during and after World War II to identify “pathogens of military importance.” The Rockefeller Foundation helped set some of these up.
NAMRUs have remained very active in hantavirus research and development. Publicly documented NAMRU activities include NAMRU-3 hantavirus surveillance projects in Bulgaria and NAMRU-6 work identifying Andes hantavirus variants in Peru.
According to Wikipedia, the actual virus itself, called the Hantaan virus, was only isolated in 1976, two decades after the Korean War, by South Korean virologist Ho-Wang Lee from striped field mice near the Hantan River in South Korea. Its alleged connection to the outbreak in Korea was made through antibody testing of surviving veterans.
The Four Corners Outbreak
In the spring of 1993, several healthy young adults in the Four Corners region of the American Southwest experienced sudden respiratory collapse. Seventeen deaths were attributed eventually to a previously unknown hantavirus allegedly carried by deer mice. The virus became known as Sin Nombre virus. The outbreak launched an intense period of hantavirus surveillance and genetic sequencing in the US, as evidenced by the patent paper trail.
Patenting Emerging Viruses
Several patents filed in the 1990s and early 2000s by Spiropoulou on behalf of the US Department of Health & Human Services focused on newly identified hantaviruses and methods for detecting them:
- Bayou hantavirus and related methods (1999).
- Strain of hantavirus nucleotide sequences thereof related probes, primers and vectors, and methods for detection (1999).
- Polypeptides of a novel hantavirus (2003).
These patents involve isolating viral sequences, creating probes and primers, identifying viral proteins, and developing possible vaccine targets may seem uncontroversial. In theory, this is defensive medicine to identify dangerous viruses before they spread. However, the NAMRU/CDC virology team does not merely identify “viruses,” it redesigns and patents them on behalf of HHS.
What Type of Virus (Oops, I mean “Vaccine”) Shall We Make Next in the Age of Engineered Viral Systems?
More recent patents linked to Spiropoulou concern highly modified viral platforms known as “virus replicon particles” (“VRPs”). Examples include Nipah Henipavirus and Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (“CCHF”). These VRPs are basically CDC-made VIRUSES designed to enter cells, express viral genes, initiate partial replication and stimulate immunity, while supposedly being unable to complete a full infectious cycle. The patents repeatedly emphasise that the viruses are missing key genes needed for spread. For example, the Nipah system deletes the fusion (F) protein, the CCHF system deletes the M segment responsible for glycoproteins.
The promise is that these engineered bits and pieces of genetic material create something virus-like enough to trigger strong immunity, but disabled enough to be “safe”. A recurring phrase in these patents is that the particles can undergo a “single round” of replication. This should by no means be reassuring. To replicate even once, the constructed virus/vaccine must still enter living cells, hijack cellular machinery, express viral proteins and behave in many ways like the pathogen itself.
Increasingly, “vaccine” science is looking like biological warfare orchestrated by the very institutions allegedly erected to protect and defend us. When did vaccines become engineered pathogens? Or is this what they have always been? Engineered infectious agents…The bits of genetic material known as viruses mutate, recombination occurs, biology is not predictable and anything can happen to the recipient. Engineered or unknown. This is gain-of-function by another name; “dual-use research,” yet another euphemism.
There is no evidence these patents describe released biological weapons or covert public deployment; however, the documents do reveal how normalised viral/vaccine engineering has become.
The Virus/Vaccine Process
The process that seems to be emerging for this hugely profitable racket is:
- find (or create) pathogenic materials,
- manipulate them genetically,
- give assurance of partial replication-competence,
- patent the resulting technologies, and
- then develop countermeasures against the engineered systems themselves.
Question: Would you want a modified haemorrhagic fever “virus,” capable of entering human cells but allegedly engineered not to fully spread, injected into you? This is what a hantavirus “vaccine” will be.
Who Calls The Shots?
Please note: a conflict of interest may arise if:
- a public institution helps develop a vaccine and
- it holds a patent that could generate revenue and
- it also influences decisions that affect that product’s use or evaluation.
That creates a situation where the same system is involved in both developing and potentially benefiting from the outcome.
Do these virus/vaccine patents constitute a conflict of interest for the CDC, HHS and ultimately WHO? What do you think?
Safe and Effective
The US Federal Drug Administration (“FDA”) is the WHO Collaborating Centre for the Biological Standardisation (USA-289), meaning that the FDA determines what genetic or biological vaccines are “safe and effective” for us all. For some reason, this is not reassuring!
Believe it or not, there is a better way! It includes saying ‘NO’ to anything called a vaccine from now on.
References
- “Bayou hantavirus and related methods,” US Patent 5916754 (1999)
- “Strain of hantavirus nucleotide sequences thereof related probes, primers and vectors, and methods for detection,” US Patent 5945277 (1999)
- “Polypeptides of a novel hantavirus,” US Patent 6620913 (2003)
- “Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus Replicon Particles and Use Thereof,” US Patent Application 20220023410 (2022)
- “Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus Replicon Particles and Use Thereof,” US Patent Application 20260014243 (2026)
- “Nipah Henipavirus Virus Replicon Particles and Their Use,” US Patent Application 20250064918 (2025)
- Ho-Wang Lee et al., original isolation of Hantaan virus, South Korea, 1976
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hantaan_virus?
- https://cris.pucp.edu.pe/es/publications/andes-hantavirus-variant-in-rodents-southern-amazon-basin-peru/?
- NAMRU 2 https://siarchives.si.edu/collections/auth_org_fbr_eaco43
- NAMRU 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Medical_Research_Unit_South
More about Hantavirus from the covid-19 playbook: ‘Hantavirus PCR Test Sequences Repeatedly Match Human DNA: New BLAST Analysis Raises False Positive Concerns’, Jon Fleetwood, 6 May 2026
About the Authors
Dr. Tess Lawrie is the founder of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development International (“BIRD International”), Director of EbMCsquared CiC and a member of the steering group of the World Council for Health.
Lucinda van Buuren is a registered nurse with over 29 years of experience, specialising in operating theatre practice, medical ethics, and values-based healthcare. She is the founder of World Council for Health Australia (“WCH Australia”) and the World Council for Health Nursing and Midwifery, as well as The Mindful Nurse Australia. (Read more HERE.)
Van Buuren is known for her open-source research into the WHO Collaborating Centres (“WHO CCs”) network in Australia. She argues that these centres, which include universities, hospitals and regulatory agencies like the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (“AHPRA”), operate under binding agreements to advance WHO mandates, compromising national health independence.
Featured image taken from ‘No sign of larger hantavirus outbreak, says UN health agency’, BBC, 12 May 2026
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News