05 Jun 21
I watched Plandemic 2 and it claims the SARS2 virus patent is illegal because natural organisms cannot be patented by law.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4u7rt61YeGox/
I read that stripping genetic material from its chromosome and creating copies, or the use of biotechnology in general — likely made the patent viable. This seems to be based on cDNA being an exception to the law that prohibits patenting of organisms of natural origin.
That seems like a dishonest way of violating the law, but since the patent is not profit-seeking many people argue that it is not relevant. However, if it is not legal to patent natural organisms to begin with, why is a patent even necessary?
Is the cDNA issue an abuse of a loophole in the law or is the cDNA issue a reasonable exception to the rule?
05 Jun 21
@metal-brain saidApparently the active ingredient in Aspirin was first developed from willow leaves, was it illegal or dishonest to patent Aspirin.
I watched Plandemic 2 and it claims the SARS2 virus patent is illegal because natural organisms cannot be patented by law.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4u7rt61YeGox/
I read that stripping genetic material from its chromosome and creating copies, or the use of biotechnology in general — likely made the patent viable. This seems to be based on cDNA being an exceptio ...[text shortened]... DNA issue an abuse of a loophole in the law or is the cDNA issue a reasonable exception to the rule?
The vast majority of medicines come from compounds found in natural organisms but most of them were successfully patented.
Is this just another virus spam thread that you’ve been propagating like viruses with tiny variations on a theme?
05 Jun 21
@metal-brain saidIt’s certainly worth a discussion.
I watched Plandemic 2 and it claims the SARS2 virus patent is illegal because natural organisms cannot be patented by law.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4u7rt61YeGox/
I read that stripping genetic material from its chromosome and creating copies, or the use of biotechnology in general — likely made the patent viable. This seems to be based on cDNA being an exceptio ...[text shortened]... DNA issue an abuse of a loophole in the law or is the cDNA issue a reasonable exception to the rule?
A virus doesn’t count as a living organism for some reason (although the reason why this is, is beyond me). That’s how they can patent it.
The reasoning behind the patent is making money from everything which uses the patent. So, if you can patent Sars-Cov-2, you benefit from vaccines and the like.
It reeks unethical to me, but I don’t know enough about it.
05 Jun 21
2 edits
@shavixmir said"A virus doesn’t count as a living organism for some reason (although the reason why this is, is beyond me). That’s how they can patent it."
It’s certainly worth a discussion.
A virus doesn’t count as a living organism for some reason (although the reason why this is, is beyond me). That’s how they can patent it.
The reasoning behind the patent is making money from everything which uses the patent. So, if you can patent Sars-Cov-2, you benefit from vaccines and the like.
It reeks unethical to me, but I don’t know enough about it.
Because it cannot reproduce on it's own, though it manages reproduction using your cells to reproduce. So it is debatable IMO. I don't think that is why though. I read some dubious fact check article that claimed it was because of Complementary DNA, but this is the first time I have heard of it.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not eligible for patent protection. The DNA of a virus is naturally occurring unless it is genetically modified, so I don't believe the debate whether or not a natural virus is a life form is relevant to the SCOTUS ruling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_DNA
The CDC says they patented it so everybody could use it or something like that. That explanation seems dishonest to me though. The best way to do that should be NOT patenting it. That brings up the question of denying use. The CDC says they will not profit from the patent, so does that mean if you were to somehow patent a virus you could deny use of it to others?
If the answer is yes, that could explain why the CDC would seek a patent to make it available to all. This is referred to as "defensive patenting".
Then again, do we have that availability to all in writing from the CDC? I would hate to find out later they changed their minds because it was never in writing.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf
05 Jun 21
The documentary Plandemic 2 claims patenting a virus is not legal unless it is man made. An Ebola virus was patented though. Since the patent was granted I am assuming the film is wrong and it is legal.
I suspect the legal justification is dubious though. If all I have to do is copy DNA from a natural organism does that mean I can patent you if I copy your DNA? This all seems really strange.
@metal-brain saidThat's not quite the reason. A flower can't reproduce on it's own; some need the assistance of other organisms like insects or birds. Technically, the only living things that can reproduce on their own are organisms like bacteria, which reproduce by dividing themselves.
"A virus doesn’t count as a living organism for some reason (although the reason why this is, is beyond me). That’s how they can patent it."
Because it cannot reproduce on it's own,
to be considered "living" an organism must be to do a few things like, some form of respiration (like breathing). Viruses also don't grow or react to external stimuli (like sun, gases in the air, water or changes in temperature).
I'm sure there's some other criteria, but the gist of it: viruses lack the ability grow, have some form respiration, react to external stimuli, or need food, unlike living things. All viruses can do is reproduce.
05 Jun 21
@shavixmir - said
A virus doesn’t count as a living organism for some reason (although the reason why this is, is beyond me).
Because they do not consider a virus to be living, despite it having DNA or RNA. Go figure.
05 Jun 21
@metal-brain saidYeah. And that’s why you shouldn’t watch plandemic.
The documentary Plandemic 2 claims patenting a virus is not legal unless it is man made. An Ebola virus was patented though. Since the patent was granted I am assuming the film is wrong and it is legal.
I suspect the legal justification is dubious though. If all I have to do is copy DNA from a natural organism does that mean I can patent you if I copy your DNA? This all seems really strange.
They mix facts with fiction, obsession and conspiracy.
Total BS.
05 Jun 21
@shavixmir saidProve it.
Yeah. And that’s why you shouldn’t watch plandemic.
They mix facts with fiction, obsession and conspiracy.
Total BS.
05 Jun 21
@earl-of-trumps saidJust an addendum here.
@shavixmir - said
A virus doesn’t count as a living organism for some reason (although the reason why this is, is beyond me).
Because they do not consider a virus to be living, despite it having DNA or RNA. Go figure.
Viruses do not require oxygen to "exist" (I can't say live) and that may be the reason why they are classified as non living.
Funny that, when I had COVID, they said that early testing afterwards to see if I still had the virus
would always give a positive because even "dead" viruses show a positive in the test.
But there, they agree that there is difference between a live and dead virus.
They speak with forked tongue.
05 Jun 21
@earl-of-trumps saidLots of organisms don't need oxygen. Plants are the most obvious example.
Just an addendum here.
Viruses do not require oxygen to "exist" (I can't say live) and that may be the reason why they are classified as non living.
Funny that, when I had COVID, they said that early testing afterwards to see if I still had the virus
would always give a positive because even "dead" viruses show a positive in the test.
But there, they agree that there is difference between a live and dead virus.
They speak with forked tongue.
"Live" and "dead" viruses are analogous to "live" and "dead" electric wires.
06 Jun 21
@athousandyoung saidI thought roots need oxygen. Was I misinformed?
Lots of organisms don't need oxygen. Plants are the most obvious example.
"Live" and "dead" viruses are analogous to "live" and "dead" electric wires.
You are right though. There are anaerobic life forms. Bacteria, yeast, etc. The assertion that life has to need oxygen is obviously false.