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: 4
28
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Again, the CDC only holds jurisdiction in the USA.
Did you miss that bit?

There's are hundreds of vaccine patents from organisations, companies and government agencies across the world.
There are also patents issued by individuals.
What's your issue?
www.publications...




posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Just leaving this here:




posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?


What's your issue?


Um... which word did you not understand? Let me refresh your memory:


...I also see much room for abuse,unintended consequences, and/or just inefficiency....


Seems pretty clear to me. But let me expand just a little for you. Patents represent control. Control can be abused... can result in negative unintended consequences (not to mention intended)... and often creates more inefficiency by devoting time, energy and resources to that control rather than to the supposed purpose or goal. Doesn't matter if it's a little fish in a little pond or a big fish in a little pond or a whale in an ocean. Rot begets rot at any level.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

I happily gave you a star because you gave me something to think about


And I have and I can look at that ten different ways!!!

What does it say to you?



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Errrmmm...

That we could all use a smile from time to time?



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Bravo!!! You succeeded! Another happy star for you!!!

Note to self: Lighten up!

I really needed that. Thank you!



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Kettu

Bravo!!! You succeeded! Another happy star for you!!!

Note to self: Lighten up!

I really needed that. Thank you!


Anytime


I'm open-minded about the whole issue actually. I do think any entire industry predicated on profit cannot possibly be entirely 100% trusted with blind faith (when it comes to our health).

OTOH, there are a lot of smarter people than myself with decades invested in medical training and higher learning. There's good reason to listen to what some of those folks have to say, too.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




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


Insurance company lobbyists and lawyers would certainly have an opinion on it. If a vaccine starts to kill people, who are they going to sue? As well as being able to get premiums from the government to protect them from the lawsuits...
edit on 19-3-2017 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

I think we're pretty much on the same page. I'm betting that the vast majority of folks in the medical industry are doing all the right things for all the right reasons and bless them one and all -- they're worth their weight in gold!

But it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch, and they can cause exponentially more damage if unchecked.

Such is life, eh?

Sometimes the problem isn't the what but the how -- and sometimes it's both!



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Kettu

I think we're pretty much on the same page. I'm betting that the vast majority of folks in the medical industry are doing all the right things for all the right reasons and bless them one and all -- they're worth their weight in gold!

But it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch, and they can cause exponentially more damage if unchecked.

Such is life, eh?

Sometimes the problem isn't the what but the how -- and sometimes it's both!


Andrew Wakefield is an excellent example of this.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?


Andrew Wakefield is an excellent example of this.


Yes -- good example!

It's been a while since I read about that whole brouhaha so I don't remember the details, but I do remember for example parents of his patients not being properly informed of things, and more. So he basically destroyed his own good name and research by what and how he pursued and promoted his work.

Whatever good he might have been able to provide, he blew it himself -- for everyone!



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I happily gave you a star because you gave me something to think about And I have and I can look at that ten different ways!!! What does it say to you?

I was just introduced to, and ended up binge watching the UK series "Utopia".

Now that is a series that may churn up a couple more ways to think about this situation.

I swear, after watching the series, I am really torn right down the middle. There are pros and cons all over the place.
I can really see and understand everyone's point of view.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn


I was just introduced to, and ended up binge watching the UK series "Utopia".

Now that is a series that may churn up a couple more ways to think about this situation.

I swear, after watching the series, I am really torn right down the middle. There are pros and cons all over the place.
I can really see and understand everyone's point of view.


I don't watch much TV, so I hadn't been aware of it... but I just found a place to watch it online, and will make some time for it. Thanks!
edit on 2-4-2017 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?


Andrew Wakefield is an excellent example of this.


Yes -- good example!

It's been a while since I read about that whole brouhaha so I don't remember the details, but I do remember for example parents of his patients not being properly informed of things, and more. So he basically destroyed his own good name and research by what and how he pursued and promoted his work.

Whatever good he might have been able to provide, he blew it himself -- for everyone!


Just as a refresher,

He didn't disclose financial ties with a legal firm who paid him over £400,000.
He ordered invasive tests on children which were unnecessary.
He offered children £5 at his son's birthday party to take blood samples from them.
He patented a vaccine which was to take the MMR's place if he managed to get it withdrawn and did not disclose this fact.
He lied on camera about the case series' conclusion (it wasn't even a study).
He lied about how the case series was performed.
He falsified data in the case series.

All in all he was found guilty on over 30 charges and was quite rightly stripped of his medical licence.


So I would suggest his name wasn't good to begin with, he was, still is and more than likely always will be a liar and a con-man.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join