It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help Me, ATS: Why oh why does the CDC own vaccine patents???

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Excellent post. Credit where credit is due.




posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

So, long story short, it's another way that the government picks winners and losers?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Bedlam

So, long story short, it's another way that the government picks winners and losers?



You bet they do. We learned eventually that some services and agencies are worse than others after the Navy stole a couple of our designs. You have to protect yourself against the Navy. Marines never screw you over, nor does SORDAC. But Navy is an inevitable screw job.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
... Navy is an inevitable screw job.

Well, they're on ships for long periods at a time...they get urges.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ketsuko


For a forum that so distrusts big corporations, being distrustful of this regulatory move shows how little you understand the corporate mechanisms by which most of our most effective means to control our most deadly diseases are made.


Hmmm... defensive much? Because I never qualified my curiosity in any way, shape or form... neither negative nor positive. Indeed, I plainly stated my ignorance -- i.e., no opinion -- and asked for information.

But to your point, I trust government even less than corporations, so that's a non-starter.

I appreciate the insight you did offer, so thank you. And while the attendant attitude was neither necessary nor appropriate, it was very telling, so thank you again.



Really?!?!


You trust totally unaccountable corporations run by one or more people WHO YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO LEVERAGE OVER, more than the government you vote for so it is accountable to you??



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Excellent call



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: ketsuko

That's all easily fixed--put the recipe and instructions on how to produce the vaccine in the open for all to have, then you negate the need to "own" anything for a vaccine.

Government should not own the patent to anything--they have the means to keep things that they do a secret. The only reason to control a patent is to stop others from producing it at will, plain and simple.


That's a big reason why I don't understand the need for a patent. Especially with vaccines. It seems counter-productive to their goal for maximum vaccination.


While I see your point about too many people having access to deadly strains of diseases, again, that could be controlled by regulation--there's no need to own patents.


I wondered about that. I can see a reasonable need to maintain control of some things, and how patents could help achieve/maintain that control, and especially if it would otherwise be necessary to get Congress to pass such laws. But if it could be achieved with regulation, then again, why would they use patents which have other negative repercussions?


When a government owns patents and then guilts/mandates the mass consumption of that product, there's an issue there.


Yes, that's a problem. Too much room for abuse and not enough transparency, much less accountability.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

At least with corporations and companies, you have a choice as to which one(s) you purchase consumables from. With the government, you get the one "choice."

But to be fair, I have trust issues all around--government and private companies--so none are safe from my skepticism. With that in mind, at least having options and choices is a better option.

And I think that we both know that our current government is far from actually being accountable to the people anymore.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

And I'm not sure what you're getting at anyway, since you seem to agree that the government does in fact own vaccine and vaccine-related patents, so how have they twisted the truth? Or am I misunderstanding and you're saying that the government doesn't have any such patents?


You need dozens of patents for each vaccine = you need dozens of partners. This is to protect the safety of the vaccine. It is impossible for one patent to give all rights to a vaccine. Gardasil, for example, has hundreds of patents.

What I'm getting at is: yes, the CDC owns some patents to some vaccine components, but do not own a vaccine patent.

Some more info here.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Really?!?!

You trust totally unaccountable corporations run by one or more people WHO YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO LEVERAGE OVER, more than the government you vote for so it is accountable to you??


Oh dear... Let me repeat myself:

I trust government even less than corporations...


To spell it out for you: I do not trust government AND I do not trust corporations... neither has my best interests at heart... but I trust governments less because it is government which has the greater power over me.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
How can the CDC be impartial on judging a vaccine if they own a patent on some of the process. I see conflict of interest here. I think they need to revamp the CDC and maybe the FDA. The FDA actually needs more researchers testing and evaluating the chemicals they approve, presently only about ten percent of approved chemicals used in the food industry have been researched by the FDA. I wonder if the CDC even has any research scientists employed to actually test anything?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha


You need dozens of patents for each vaccine = you need dozens of partners.


It never occurred to me previously that a vaccine could involve more than one patent... so with my ignorance on full display here... how would that work? Why wouldn't the vaccine as a whole be patented as such?

Even if -- and I'm just making this up off the top of my head -- the vaccine incorporated other patented technology, such as a preservative patented by another company, why wouldn't the vaccine as a whole be patented under one patent, with the vaccine producer simply paying the appropriate fee to the preservative manufacturer? (I'm just thinking out loud... I don't expect you to know the answer... but I'm listening if you do!)


This is to protect the safety of the vaccine.


Do you mean to keep it from being produced incorrectly or unsafely by less than scrupulous folks if it was open sourced? Wouldn't that be done via quality control standards and regulations? Or is there more to it?


What I'm getting at is: yes, the CDC owns some patents to some vaccine components, but do not own a vaccine patent.


That's an important distinction. Just thought it bears repeating. (That would be one of the misrepresentations by my sources I think... yes? At the very least, this was not made clear.)


Some more info here.


Thank you for the link. Off to read it now...



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha


Some more info here.


That helped a lot -- thank you. I now understand (at least a little) how different patents come together in one vaccine... and my head is spinning! That's a whole lotta red tape!!!



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Agartha


You need dozens of patents for each vaccine = you need dozens of partners.


It never occurred to me previously that a vaccine could involve more than one patent... so with my ignorance on full display here... how would that work? Why wouldn't the vaccine as a whole be patented as such?


It can me. Many things incorporate multiple levels of patents.

If you were to, say, invent a novel method of efficient wireless power transmission and fail to claim all the obvious uses, I might file a patent against the combination of, say, using your patent in conjunction with the design of implantable ventricular assist devices.

The first moment I heard of Dr Soljacic's patent, I immediately looked up his patent filing to see if he covered that, he did. Otherwise, I'd have nailed it in the first 15 minutes.
edit on 21-2-2017 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
How can the CDC be impartial on judging a vaccine if they own a patent on some of the process. I see conflict of interest here.


It would seem so... but in theory at least, the mission of the CDC are the best interests of the people, so their judgment would be based on our best interests -- not the benefits of a patent. In theory. In practice, I don't see any way that the people making the decisions would personally benefit from such patents, and the CDC doesn't seem to be making much money off the patents, so where is the benefit? Is it just about control? But in that case, why not just use the power of regulation?

It does occur to me that those patents could be used for good. For example, if one of their patents -- for a preservative, let's say -- is equally beneficial to all vaccines, then the govt could make it easily accessible to all vaccine manufacturers, in the interest of lower vaccine costs for all.


I think they need to revamp the CDC and maybe the FDA. The FDA actually needs more researchers testing and evaluating the chemicals they approve...


I agree. It is an idea worth exploring at least. I've had this thought several times, especially when reading about the false and misleading research which has been published. Also in terms of the time/costs of bringing a new medication to market. It just seems that we need to do better.


I wonder if the CDC even has any research scientists employed to actually test anything?


Good question.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

IP laws are crazy!!! We've created quite a mess of them trying to be too clever by half.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: rickymouse
How can the CDC be impartial on judging a vaccine if they own a patent on some of the process. I see conflict of interest here.


It would seem so... but in theory at least, the mission of the CDC are the best interests of the people, so their judgment would be based on our best interests -- not the benefits of a patent. In theory. In practice, I don't see any way that the people making the decisions would personally benefit from such patents, and the CDC doesn't seem to be making much money off the patents, so where is the benefit? Is it just about control? But in that case, why not just use the power of regulation?

It does occur to me that those patents could be used for good. For example, if one of their patents -- for a preservative, let's say -- is equally beneficial to all vaccines, then the govt could make it easily accessible to all vaccine manufacturers, in the interest of lower vaccine costs for all.


I think they need to revamp the CDC and maybe the FDA. The FDA actually needs more researchers testing and evaluating the chemicals they approve...


I agree. It is an idea worth exploring at least. I've had this thought several times, especially when reading about the false and misleading research which has been published. Also in terms of the time/costs of bringing a new medication to market. It just seems that we need to do better.


I wonder if the CDC even has any research scientists employed to actually test anything?


Good question.


If the CDC is patenting the adjuvants, which seems to be the most controvercial element of vaccines, then that would mean the Pharma companies are not liable if the adjuvants cause problems, the taxpayer of the USA are liable. The Aluminum adjuvants not only stimulate the immune system to fight the flu, they stimulate the immune system to fight almost anything. If you eat too much alum pickles or aluminum leavening agents in biscuits, it can lead to increased asthma activity and also to other autoimmune activities. The thing is that you need to consider that the adjuvant in vaccines is adding to the load that the body gets from foods. If you don't eat pickles, cheese that melts quick, or anything raised with baking powder or any food preservatives containing aluminum antimicrobial chemistry, then there probably will be less side effects.

A lot of things have aluminum in them in the food supply, restaurant food is often cooked in aluminum pots. The aluminum absorbed into the pots is not that high unless the food is an acid food, like tomatoes and anything with vinegar added to it. That helps to leach the aluminum into the food. Don't heat acid foods in aluminum foil, you should not wrap bbq food in aluminum on the grill..

I know quite a bit about this, I have a granddaughter who has asthma, once we eliminated the alum pickles and I told her to avoid bisquits in the stores and restaurants, she has not had any more major events. She also avoids the soft quick melting cheeses. It does not cure the Asthma, it only lowers the instances and hugely reduces the intensity of the attacks. She also now learned to avoid some foods like Chicory anything, it is related to the chemistry in ragweed and gives her a reaction.
edit on 21-2-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
This is rather old news that somehow skipped my radar at the time, and it started with this interview of Robert Kennedy at EcoWatch:

Mercury, Vaccines and the CDC's Worst Nightmare

Wherein Kennedy made the claim:

The CDC is a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry. The agency owns more than 20 vaccine patents and purchases and sells $4.1 billion in vaccines annually.


Which was followed up -- and confirmed -- by GreenMedInfo here:

Examining RFK Jr.'s claim that the CDC “Owns over 20 vaccine patents.”

I have been around long enough to know that vaccine claims have to be checked and rechecked. And since this is a very old claim, one that I would like to be able to state (if it is true), I decided to review it.

I am fortunate to have, as one of my partners in advocacy, fellow autism parent Mark Blaxill, an Intellectual Property expert who has been employed by billion dollar corporations to manage their patents. Blaxill was the man who found out that HHS, through NIH, owns patents on all HPV vaccines, and receives a percentage of the profits for each dose of Gardasil and Cervarix administered anywhere in the world. He published the stunning revelation in a detailed three part expose entitled, A License to Kill? Part 1: How A Public-Private Partnership Made the Government Merck’s Gardasil Partner.”

When I contacted Blaxill to ask how to run a patent search, he was kind enough to do it for me. He found 57 granted US patents with the CDC listed as an assignee. You can see the search results here..


Why??? Qui bono? And how???

I understand how CDC doctors with private financial interests in pharmaceutical companies might (and do) benefit by virtue of their positions, and why/how this is a problem, such as Dr. Paul Offit:

In 2003, UPI reporter Mark Benjamin wrote an in depth piece on the conflicts of interest (COI) in vaccine safety entitled, “UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict.” We have Mr. Benjamin to thank for bringing the patents and COIs held by the members of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, including Dr. Paul Offit, to the public's attention, and for documenting the early years of Offit's increasingly absurd claims. In this article, Offit asserts that holding vaccine patents, being funded by Merck and having Merck buy and distribute, to physicians, his book extolling the virtues of vaccines, does not compromise his objectivity as a member of the committee that determines what is and is not sound vaccine practice


But I don't understand how a government entity owning patents profits anyone... so why? What am I missing?

Give me your best guesses, ATS. The good, the bad, and the fugly. Thank you!

Further reading and reference links:

Mercury, Vaccines and the CDC's Worst Nightmare
Examining RFK Jr.'s claim that the CDC “Owns over 20 vaccine patents.”
CDC cronyism exposed: Scientists with integrity call out the agency’s corrupt industry ties
SPIDER Bites CDC
How Conflicts of Interest Have Corrupted the CDC


Easy question to answer.

If the CDC develops a vaccine and they DO NOT put a patent on it, then a company can mimic the vaccine and put a patent on it themselves so they can make money on a discovery and creation that isnt there own, and then the CDC would have to purchase the vaccine from them because if they made it and sold it themselves or gave it away it would be illegal.

ITS A GOOD THING they patent drugs!

If they didn't then the price would be much higher, and the access would be much less.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse


If the CDC is patenting the adjuvants, which seems to be the most controvercial element of vaccines, then that would mean the Pharma companies are not liable if the adjuvants cause problems, the taxpayer of the USA are liable.


Tricky! Tricky! I hadn't thought about that...

Very interesting about the aluminum -- thank you! I mostly cook in cast iron and Pyrex, but I do reheat in foil sometimes, and I do have asthma, and I love baking powder biscuits (!), so I'll heed your wisdom. That may explain why sometimes I go forever with no problems, then I run into a bad spell all of a sudden...



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox


If the CDC develops a vaccine and they DO NOT put a patent on it, then a company can mimic the vaccine and put a patent on it themselves so they can make money on a discovery and creation that isnt there own, and then the CDC would have to purchase the vaccine from them because if they made it and sold it themselves or gave it away it would be illegal.

ITS A GOOD THING they patent drugs!


How funny... something similar just occurred to me. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe I read that patents are often given to the first to apply for a patent -- not necessarily the originator of the product/technology. So if that's true, then even if the government wanted to open source the technology and make it available to anyone/everyone for development, they would still have to get a patent first. Otherwise, someone could come along after the fact and apply for -- and get -- the patent, and thus control the product/technology.

So in that scenario, yes, patents are a good thing! But is that what they're doing?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join