It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: glen200376
a reply to: pravdaseeker
I was reading an article about the same thing yesterday on conservative woman site,here is a link to the article.
The comments there are always fun.
This was a statement made by Peter Daszak in 2015, and reported in the National Academies Press on February 12, 2016, in which he declared: ‘We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical counter-measures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.’
That first SARS event gave rise to a ‘very problematic’ April 2003 patent filing by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was for the entire SARS gene sequence, and for a series of derivative patents covering means of detection, including the PCR test [widely used today purportedly to diagnose cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection].
‘The reason why that is a problem is that if you both own the patent on the gene itself, and on its detection, you have a cunning advantage to being able to control 100 per cent of the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its detection. Meaning, you have the entire scientific and message control.’
The CDC’s public relations team sought to justify the application on the grounds that it would enable everyone to be free to research coronavirus.
That was a lie, Martin said. The US Patent Office twice rejected the application for the entire SARS sequence, on the grounds that it was already recorded in the public domain, but the CDC started a process to override this rejection. After repeated applications, and paying an appeal fine, they got the patent approved in 2007
originally posted by: pravdaseeker
a reply to: putnam6
Yeah, you got the "Gee, I wonder" bug too?
I am not savvy enough to grok all the medical lingo, cellular biology etc... but that is why I say folks who DO grok his statements need to investigate, and an official inquiry may very well be needed.
From his credentials, you can see/noticed he isn't an excitable "dummy".
That's why I put it up... there are a lot smarter folks, and some even in the medical profession who could explain it further, or add credence to his claims who are members of this forum.
Thanks for your input mate.