@metal-brain saidTrue. What I meant was plants make the oxygen they need so are self sufficient. They don't need an outside source of oxygen.
I thought roots need oxygen. Was I misinformed?
You are right though. There are anaerobic life forms. Bacteria, yeast, etc. The assertion that life has to need oxygen is obviously false.
The anaerobic bacteria are a better counterexample.
@earl-of-trumps saidLife likely started on this planet without oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere. Think about it.
Reading up on it. Plant life consumes carbon dioxide and creates oxygen in the day But at night, they reverse that, and consume o2
But I did find that certain bacteria get by on sulphur instead of o2
@Earl-of-Trumps
So you have a petri dish of bacteria, leave it alone for a while, and the dish is full of bacteria. That is what life does ON IT'S OWN.
Just because some bag of DNA has figured out a way to penetrate cells and take over and produce more bags of DNA, killing the cells.
But put that virus in a petri dish, give it a great food source, maybe some sugar? But no matter WHAT food you put in there, how many Virus particles will be there a week later?
You think that doesn't count when saying what is alive and what is just a fukking bag of DNA?
That makes it a predatory computer program NOT A LIVING THING.
@metal-brain saidIf anyone cannot watch Bitchute I recommend an operating system with VPN.
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?
https://summit.news/2021/06/02/danish-authorities-shut-down-access-to-bitchute-over-dangerous-covid-19-information/
@sonhouse saidBeing dependent on another life form for survival is common in many different ways. That does not mean it is not a living thing. I would argue that if it has DNA, RNA and evolves it is life.
@Earl-of-Trumps
So you have a petri dish of bacteria, leave it alone for a while, and the dish is full of bacteria. That is what life does ON IT'S OWN.
Just because some bag of DNA has figured out a way to penetrate cells and take over and produce more bags of DNA, killing the cells.
But put that virus in a petri dish, give it a great food source, maybe some sugar? But no ...[text shortened]... what is just a fukking bag of DNA?
That makes it a predatory computer program NOT A LIVING THING.
Try to reproduce without a female. Try living without bacteria in your gut.
@metal-brain saidCould you just post the number of the patenta apllication, then we can look at the claims and probably understand What exactly is sought to be patented...
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?
@ponderable saidhttps://www.cbc.ca/news/health/can-you-patent-a-disease-1.1355379
Could you just post the number of the patenta apllication, then we can look at the claims and probably understand What exactly is sought to be patented...
2 edits
@metal-brain saidLooking at the depatis database I assume you refer to
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/can-you-patent-a-disease-1.1355379
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9334543B2/en ?
The header is: "Virus causing Respiratory tract Illness in susceptible mammals", which is misleading since it suggests that the virus has been patented.
The claim however is: "A method for diagnosing..."
So either I got the wrong patent or the journalists didn't do the proper homework.
Edit: replaced the link since it didn't seem to work
Edit2: I seem to have hit the wrong patent, it was filed earlier and it was a different virus, however all other Patents by them have titles that make clear that methods have been patented. So I would URGENTLY need the patent number.
@ponderable saidGoogle? Really?
Looking at the depatis database I assume you refer to
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9334543B2/en ?
The header is: "Virus causing Respiratory tract Illness in susceptible mammals", which is misleading since it suggests that the virus has been patented.
The claim however is: "A method for diagnosing..."
So either I got the wrong patent or the journalists did ...[text shortened]... titles that make clear that methods have been patented. So I would URGENTLY need the patent number.
How more establishment can you get?
@metal-brain saidYou can look also at the US Patent office but the link seems to be personalized somehow...so I got an error when following this.
Google? Really?
How more establishment can you get?
If you like Google or not, the patent texts are just the same as in the official papers.
@ponderable saidProve it. Copy and paste the relevant excerpts.
You can look also at the US Patent office but the link seems to be personalized somehow...so I got an error when following this.
If you like Google or not, the patent texts are just the same as in the official papers.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidThese are pdf's, you can't paste them here.
Prove it. Copy and paste the relevant excerpts.
Link to US Patent office:
https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9334543.PN.&OS=PN/9334543&RS=PN/9334543
@metal-brain saidCan you post the relevant patent info? This probably should have been in the OP no?
Google? Really?
How more establishment can you get?