Why does the CDC (U.S. Health Agency) have a PATENT on the EBOLA VIRUS...:wtf:
- Thread starter WheresWallace
- Start date
Supercoolmayo
Superstar
Does that mean they made it?
Heafcliffe
Hope there's puddin' in the clink...
WheresWallace
Superstar
I dont know the rules on patenting diseases but I would assume if you are issued a patent then you created it, or bought it from the creator. Im pretty sure nobody can patent something that they didn't create or something that is natural. Otherwise there would be a patent on water (H2O).
But I was saying in the other Ebola thread that every time westerners touch down in Africa...people get these foreign diseases.
♥AttackOnTitan♡
UltraViolet Rainbows
KinksandCoils
African American Queen
Well in order to be able to cure a disease you have to know how it works. Often a disease will be re created. Maybe they bought the rights to re create it. Meaning no one else can do that in any lab except for their people.
I mean I'm just guessing 100%
Edit: didn't pay attention to the fact that Ebola is a virus not a disease. My bad.
I mean I'm just guessing 100%
Edit: didn't pay attention to the fact that Ebola is a virus not a disease. My bad.
Last edited:
WheresWallace
Superstar
Its for research purposes. Read the damn patent.
WheresWallace
Superstar
Well in order to be able to cure a disease you have to know how it works. Often a disease will be re created. Maybe they bought the rights to re create it. Meaning no one else can do that in any lab except for their people.
I mean I'm just guessing 100%
I disagree because that would mean that every curable disease has an existing patent. :thinking:
WheresWallace
Superstar
I read it...I must have missed that part. Do us a favor and quote it in this thread.
Also, why patent a disease for research purposes? What is the point in that?
Also, what other diseases have patents?
You can’t patent a disease condition per se, such as cancer or influenza," says Schwartz. "But if you’re talking about patenting a lifeform like a bacteria or virus, if altered by man, the answer there is yes."
Intellectual property concerns
A patent is a form of intellectual property that allows the patent holder to control the use of a product or method of doing something. That control includes the ability to charge royalties for its use.
Schwartz says that obtaining a patent on a simple mechanical invention, such as a Christmas tree stand, in a single country might cost about $10,000. But getting a patent on a more complex technology - such as one involving chemical synthesis - that also covers multiple countries can run $200,000 or more.
While patent law differs somewhat from country to country, in the area of microorganisms most nations agree on general principles, says Schwartz.
You can’t patent something that is naturally occurring, he says, but if an organism is modified in some way, it is patentable.
One of the most famous cases of biological patenting is the so-called "Harvard mouse," a type of laboratory mouse genetically modified by scientists at Harvard University to carry an "oncogene," which makes the animal susceptible to cancer. It was patented in the United States, though not in Canada.
"Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the mouse is God’s creation, but in its totality, as you would claim it as the subject for a patent, it’s a non-naturally occurring, man-made thing," says Schwartz.
In the case of a gene, modifying its information or removing it from its chromosome typically would be enough to warrant a patent, says Schwartz, because the snippet of chromosome would not appear in nature by itself.
This is a key point in the case of the novel coronavirus. To pinpoint it, Erasmus likely used what is called "deep sequencing," says Earl Brown, executive director of the Emerging Pathogens Research Centre at the University of Ottawa.
In this process, the infected sample would be run against databases of known genes and viruses to determine its genetic composition. Brown says the researchers would then typically remove the sequence from its chromosome and copy it in order to conduct further tests.
The rationale for patenting a genetic sequence such as the novel coronavirus is to be able to develop products, such as diagnostic tests or a vaccine, that could be marketed and sold, says Bernard dikkens, professor emeritus of Health Law and Policy at the University of Toronto.
"Profit is what underlies the whole patent system," he says.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.1355379
Intellectual property concerns
A patent is a form of intellectual property that allows the patent holder to control the use of a product or method of doing something. That control includes the ability to charge royalties for its use.
Schwartz says that obtaining a patent on a simple mechanical invention, such as a Christmas tree stand, in a single country might cost about $10,000. But getting a patent on a more complex technology - such as one involving chemical synthesis - that also covers multiple countries can run $200,000 or more.
While patent law differs somewhat from country to country, in the area of microorganisms most nations agree on general principles, says Schwartz.
You can’t patent something that is naturally occurring, he says, but if an organism is modified in some way, it is patentable.
One of the most famous cases of biological patenting is the so-called "Harvard mouse," a type of laboratory mouse genetically modified by scientists at Harvard University to carry an "oncogene," which makes the animal susceptible to cancer. It was patented in the United States, though not in Canada.
"Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the mouse is God’s creation, but in its totality, as you would claim it as the subject for a patent, it’s a non-naturally occurring, man-made thing," says Schwartz.
In the case of a gene, modifying its information or removing it from its chromosome typically would be enough to warrant a patent, says Schwartz, because the snippet of chromosome would not appear in nature by itself.
This is a key point in the case of the novel coronavirus. To pinpoint it, Erasmus likely used what is called "deep sequencing," says Earl Brown, executive director of the Emerging Pathogens Research Centre at the University of Ottawa.
In this process, the infected sample would be run against databases of known genes and viruses to determine its genetic composition. Brown says the researchers would then typically remove the sequence from its chromosome and copy it in order to conduct further tests.
The rationale for patenting a genetic sequence such as the novel coronavirus is to be able to develop products, such as diagnostic tests or a vaccine, that could be marketed and sold, says Bernard dikkens, professor emeritus of Health Law and Policy at the University of Toronto.
"Profit is what underlies the whole patent system," he says.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.1355379
KinksandCoils
African American Queen
Ok well like I said I'm just throwing a guess out there.
But whose to say that curable diseases don't have patents? Or maybe it's just for ones that can be epidemics or pandemics. Idk kinda interesting though
WheresWallace
Superstar
So why did they modify the Ebola virus? :thinking:
Didn't they say that the virus was NOT airborne but now they are saying that it is airborne? :thinking:
@Napoleon we're still waiting on you to provide that quote fromt he patent. :thinking:
EDIT: I see what newworld posted about conducting further tests. But truthfully, I still don't don't trust them.
conspiracy thread
not surprised
not surprised
