Why does the US Government hold a patent on Ebola? Patent # ca2741523a1

Why Does The CDC Own A Patent On Ebola?

I really don't know what to add to this question posed by this news article. I guess I am looking to see if anyone here on this forum can come up with an answer.

a reply to: craig732

That's strange, could it be for vaccine purposes? So any vaccine created on this strain of Ebola is property of the US?

a reply to: DAZ21

Nah! It's another money making op by the lawyers. The families of the dead and dying will be served with lawsuits claiming unlicensed use and suffering due to illegal use of copyrighted nasties! The lawyers are probably cranking out the letters right now!

a reply to: Britguy

Yea that sounds about right actually.

And now it pops up in at one of the best places to start a plague. Maybe we're using it to take over Nigeria which is soon to be a failed state between Islamic terrorists and this disease.

Liberia, the nation formed of former slaves is clearly in the cross hairs. My favorite being how their new university entrance exams last year had 0 students pass. In the article in my link there's clearly some very racist overtones. A test must be rigged if literally zero people out of thousands fail.

American and British media tore into Nigeria for not being able to stop Book Haran. I remember listening to late bbc america on npr at one point and they were taking to a prominent Nigerian official and the British interviewer treated him like garbage constantly throwing blame and twisting words and interrupting him.

West Africa is one of the most densely populated parts of Africa and resource rich, especially Nigeria with its large oil reserves. If you add up all the current events it's hard to deny we're seeing the end game of the era we all knew. What comes after will be hell or utopia.

Liberia test scores

m.nydailynews.com...

Origin of current Ebola outbreak in west Africa

www.independent.co.uk... ddler-in-guinea-9660864.html

1) It is not a patent. It is a patent application.

2)

Accordingly, compositions and methods directed to the new Ebola virus species are described herein and the most closely related Ebola Ivory Coast species, which compositions and methods are useful for diagnosis and prevention of human Ebola virus infection; including related vaccine development, and prevention of hemorrhagic fever in a human population

www.google.com...

3) Because of the SCOTUS decision in 2013 about natural organisms, this application will very likely be denied.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

4) That is not a "news article." It's origin is naturalnews.

originally posted by: craig732
Why Does The CDC Own A Patent On Ebola?

I really don't know what to add to this question posed by this news article. I guess I am looking to see if anyone here on this forum can come up with an answer.

Several years ago, the Supreme Court basically opened the door for patenting genetic sequences of biological life. Essentially, if a sequence of a virus was substantially isolated, it could be patented. This was not clarified to a necessary extent to rule that naturally occurring forms of life were ineligible for patent until 2013. The Dept. of Health and Human Services patented these sequences in 2008-9 and I'm guessing it was a preemptive move to prevent a pharmaceutical company from doing the same.

The CDC houses an archive of viral life and had already isolated portions of the genetics of multiple dangerous viruses. In the legal patent climate before that 2013 ruling, it makes sense that they would patent everything they had, particularly for dangerous diseases. The alternative could've been a pharmaceutical company patenting the same genetic information so that they held the keys to a vaccine.

I guess you can ask yourself which you would prefer: depending on a pharmaceutical company, whose primary motive is profit, to produce a vaccine that can be administered to everyone in the US if necessary to prevent an epidemic or a governmental entity who has no profit motive and are intended to be public servants?

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: WhiteAlice

This was not clarified to a necessary extent to rule that naturally occurring forms of life were ineligible for patent until 2013

You have that wrong.
The SCOTUS decision in 2013 actually made natural organisms (and gene sequences) ineligible.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WhiteAlice

This was not clarified to a necessary extent to rule that naturally occurring forms of life were ineligible for patent until 2013

You have that wrong.
The SCOTUS decision in 2013 actually made natural organisms (and gene sequences) ineligible.

That's what I said, Phage, though my wording does read a bit wonky.

What I originally wrote:

This was not clarified to a necessary extent to rule that naturally occurring forms of life were ineligible for patent until 2013.

To rephrase what I was saying, I really should've shifted the "until 2013" to the beginning:

Until 2013, this was not clarified to a necessary extent to rule that naturally occurring forms of life were ineligible for patent.

Yeesh.

PS. To make sure that my above sarcasm is more patently (har har) clear, why the hell would I bring up the dates for the patent application/publication being 2008/9 as being pertinent to that 2013 SCOTUS ruling? Try arguing with someone who actually disagrees with you.

Thank you, Phage. Your reply clears up my question. a reply to: Phage

Why Does The CDC Own A Patent On Ebola?
booming market soon! billions to earn...

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WhiteAlice

This was not clarified to a necessary extent to rule that naturally occurring forms of life were ineligible for patent until 2013

You have that wrong.
The SCOTUS decision in 2013 actually made natural organisms (and gene sequences) ineligible.

That's what I said, Phage, though my wording does read a bit wonky.

What I originally wrote:

This was not clarified to a necessary extent to rule that naturally occurring forms of life were ineligible for patent until 2013.

To rephrase what I was saying, I really should've shifted the "until 2013" to the beginning:

Until 2013, this was not clarified to a necessary extent to rule that naturally occurring forms of life were ineligible for patent.

Yeesh.

PS. To make sure that my above sarcasm is more patently (har har) clear, why the hell would I bring up the dates for the patent application/publication being 2008/9 as being pertinent to that 2013 SCOTUS ruling? Try arguing with someone who actually disagrees with you.

I think most of us understood what you were saying, especially those of us that often come off a little bass backwards often enough that ass backwards sounds strange.

I found this conversation a bit serendipitous as I had just finished reading an article on natural sequencing, and the monsters in the in the background, that often appear, to gunk up the math. I am just learning about this oddity, which actually is, I guess, quite normal, when factored properly.

If I got the jest of it right, natural sequencing can always be reduced to a common and expected sequencing, which if true, it would seem it would be impossible for any naturally forming organism to eligible for a patent of any kind.

I am sure if I got it wrong, I won't have to wait long to be schooled in the error of my logic.

originally posted by: ressiv
Why Does The CDC Own A Patent On Ebola?
booming market soon! billions to earn...

The government is not a "for profit" entity. Obviously.

If it were, it'd be bankrupt by now.

It is kind of like being dead. The reasons one dies will not bring you back to life. We can justify them having a patent for reasons but at the end of the day they either have the patent or are trying to get it and that opens the door to other possibilities that we entrust to the people running things to only do good things with it but they really do whatever they can get away with.

a reply to: craig732

US tax payer is the one that has financed most of the testing for a vaccine here in California and in Canada, with monspanto behind, perhaps that is the reason for the patent application.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Thanks and no worries--not a geneticist though I do have a biology degree and that means some gene stuff got stuffed into me. Overall, I wouldn't be surprised if, despite all of our wild variation just from human to human, there would be common and expected sequencing just based on the little I know. DNA really is primarily comprised of just four different nucleobases for which, typically, each one can match up with only one of the others.

Insert neat mnemonic device for the base pair rule:

PuGA
PyCT

That's really simplifying things down as RNA throws in some more things but overall, that is the building blocks for just about everything. Deceptively simple and it makes Da Vinci's cryptex look more variable. Those 4 nucleobases basically comprise the amino acids involved in life (about 500 known I think) and those amino acids combine to make proteins. So yes, it makes sense to me that, the closer one looks at genetic code the more likely you're going to see repeats in it.

If I got the gist of what you're saying, lol. Coffee isn't cutting it for me today.

a reply to: Phage

Natural news...nuf said!

a reply to: craig732

Well that's simple. If anyone catches it, the govt can sue them for patent infringement!!

Next question....

lol, sorry, I could not resist.

a reply to: craig732

Maybe because US government is evil and hell bent on world domination and ultimately destruction.

Short and Sweet

So if I go get myself infected once they own it could they sue me for royalties?