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.
originally posted by: Ironclad1964
a reply to: nonspecific
Well go take the Vacc then.
If you think it's safe and wholesome and all, take two doses..
Drink the S#@T..
I don't care.
Each to their own and all that.
But, if there's even a hint of a rumor I won't throw caution to the wind just because a few armchair chemists on ATS tell me to..lol
I'm pretty sure if some actual researchers in France are alarmed about it, I'll take their word for it if it's all the same to you..lol
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dragonridr
Don't need to provide evidence to agree with the story. You are the one disagreeing with the storyline. I honestly don't care if the dude got a patent or not. I just pointed out that you were incorrect in your description of how the patent process works.
So no, I'm not going to do a patent search just to verify something you disagree with. Look up the patent number and I might... might... take a closer look. Until you can do that, neither of us really know what we're talking about.
Here's a hint: the patent is not maintained by Nature. It's at the USPTO.
TheRedneck
So now what method did he develop? Well, he didn't his patent was for a process that injects mRNA into mice. he patented the mice gene in essence. Problem is that research failed to work on humans.
So in that basis would you say that the ancestors of Eugenio Barsanti could say that he was the inventor of the electric car?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific
So in that basis would you say that the ancestors of Eugenio Barsanti could say that he was the inventor of the electric car?
I would say he was one of the inventors of the car. He didn't do anything with electric motors. His contribution was an early version of the internal combustion engine.
Of course, I suppose if one wished, one could say that because the electric car is a subset of cars and Barsanti was one of the earliest inventors of the car, that his contribution was relevant even there. Might be stretching it a little, since his work was actually concerning an internal combustion engine design which is not relevant in electric cars, but I could see the argument. Nicolaus Otto perfected his work to make the internal engine design feasible.
My point is that one need not be the sole person responsible for an invention to have contributed to that invention, and basing contribution on whether or not a patent was infringed by later work is a poor metric to use to gauge contribution.
TheRedneck
So you agree the similarities are there in both examples then?
I can't accept that his claim is valid and neither by the looks of can the vast majority.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
I have a general question that has been nagging at me about the linked article that started this thread. It states the following:
Dr Jane Ruby joins Stew Peters to discuss a scientific report that just came out from the University of Almería School of Engineering in Spain entitled, “Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension: Observational Study in Optical and Electron Microscopy”, where it was found that each dose of the Pfizer shot “was found to contain 6 ng of RNA and 747 ng of graphene oxide, which is 99.103% of the medication.
Now, maybe I'm missing something, but the minimal dosage of the vaccines I have looked at is 0.3 ml, which is 300,000 nl. This appears to be claiming that 753 nl (6+747) is 99.103% of 300,000 nl?
That's not a rounding error... that's an absolute absurdity. The only way that statement could be accurate is if the dose used was 760 nl, or 0.00076 ml.
TheRedneck