Scientist, who heads WHO laboratory on influenza holds patent for bioengineered swine flu virus

Last couple posts here are making quite the jump to their conclusion.

Stormdancer777

Baxter has an office in the Ukraine, there's a new virus spreading in Ukraine, which obviously makes Baxter the culprit? There's 27 offices in other countries, if something happens in those countries will you jump to the same conclusion?
The video you basically said that Obama was trying to further vaccine development and pandemic prevention, I have no idea what I'm supposed to get from it but

reply to post by Copernicus


And this is where I think the confusion is arising from, when people read that the virus is being modified and engineered they think the worst.

I dunno, but I have to ask why would they need to draw up a patent for creating swine flu in 2005 when the flu has been around since the 1900's.

reply to post by Chadwickus

I dunno, but I have to ask why would they need to draw up a patent for creating swine flu in 2005 when the flu has been around since the 1900's.

Obviously, pure profit!
Makes the world go round!

Greed runs our world, nothing else. Thats painfully obvious.

Why else do they patent compounds already found and proven effective
in natural remedies that are already free? Because they can.

Originally posted by Copernicus
I dont know too much about this. Do they really need to engineer the virus to create a vaccine? Cant they get the virus from a infected host?

A vaccine is an engineered virus. They engineered the virus to be inactive.

When our bodies get infected with a virus, our immune system learns about the virus, and fights the virus. When you get sick, that is your immune system and body trying to fight the virus, and is also what kills most people (their own immune systems reaction). After you have gotten a virus, you can't get sick from the same virus ever again because your immune system knows how to fight it already. You can only get sick again if the virus mutated into something different that your immune system doesn't recognize.

A vaccine takes advantage of your immune system. Scientists get the virus, and they engineer it to be inactive. Then they inject that virus into your body and your immune system learns about it. Because the virus is inactive, you shouldn't get sick, but your immune system will still learn about the virus, so you won't be able to actually get the virus again.

The vaccine is an engineered virus.

reply to post by dodadoom


actually this patent applications rights were givin to hospital and research groups ... there's no profit for anyone =( and why else would there be a 2005 patent on a swine flu vaccine? because it was affecting pigs and they needed a vaccine for it!

reply to post by Drunkenshrew

In my opinion, this is the smoking gun, obtained by searching using the terms "Swine and Influenza and Virus and Webby" on the US Patent full-text database. You can reproduce these results yourselves and then click on the document link:

"7,037,707 Full-Text Method for generating influenza viruses and vaccines "

link

Of particular interest are these details:

"6. The method of claim 1 wherein said influenza virus of interest is selected from the group consisting of human, avian, swine and equine"

"As an influenza virus of interest, these methods may utilize human, avian, swine or equine influenza viruses.In preferred embodiment of the present iinvention the influenza virus of interest is an influenza A virusother than A/England/1/53. The HA and NA genes from any virus may be transfected into cells with the master strain of the present invention to produce a virus strain that grows more efficiently in the host cell. "

Obviously someone is counting on the continued media blackout and general apathy/ignorance of the populace at large to not seek out this public information.



[mod edit: fixed long link skewing page]

[edit on 31-10-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

Same crew.
This must be the relevant patent to the research that was discussed in the September 11, 2006 article.
Nice find. Is this information widely known?

I did google it after the fact but the only hits are other patent sites, I don't see references to it elsewhere on ATS or any non-patent sites, for that matter.

Well its another instance of the same technology having the potential to be put to use for either great good or for great profit. Those points of intersection are where the uses of certain techniques to create viruses "for the production of vaccines" could so easily have been turned to other applications.
I do think it's eerie to be reading about the "master strain" of influenza. To many associations...
It still looks like the WHO is hard at work producing recombinant viruses when they are not busy warning the world of the dangers of such.


"As an influenza virus of interest, these methods may utilize human, avian, swine or equine influenza viruses. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention the influenza virus of interest is an influenza A virus other than A/England/1/53. The HA and NA genes from any virus may be transfected into cells with the master strain of the present invention to produce a virus strain that grows more efficiently in the host cell. "

Well its another instance of the same technology having the potential to be put to use for either great good or for great profit. Those points of intersection are where the uses of certain techniques to create viruses "for the production of vaccines" could so easily have been turned to other applications.
I do think it's eerie to be reading about the "master strain" of influenza. To many associations...
It still looks like the WHO is hard at work producing recombinant viruses when they are not busy warning the world of the dangers of such.


"As an influenza virus of interest, these methods may utilize human, avian, swine or equine influenza viruses. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention the influenza virus of interest is an influenza A virus other than A/England/1/53. The HA and NA genes from any virus may be transfected into cells with the master strain of the present invention to produce a virus strain that grows more efficiently in the host cell. "

reply to post by Chadwickus


I do agree, no flag for me.
ApollonianFunMachine is not to blame, the embarassed Drunkenshrew accepts all the shame.

I just want to say, that I am sorry for the fearmongering implications of this patent/thread. As pointed out by previous posters, the patent is for a swine vaccine. I misunderstood the patent.

I wrote to ApollonianFunMachine, that I would post his info for him. Unfortunately, I tried to do it as quickly as possible through copy and paste, and then tried to give it a catchy title. So I misrepresented the facts researched by him. So I also apologize to ApollonianFunMachine.

After I read the info from ApollonianFunMachine I googled the scientists and found this research abstract from Kelly M. Lager:
en.scientificcommons.org...

Here pigs were infected with both H1/N1 and H5/N1 viruses. Such an double infection carries the risk of reassortment. A possible result could be a virus, which is highly contagious like the swine flu virus and deadly like the bird flu virus.

As mentioned before, a similar experiment has been conducted with ferrets by Richard Webby (I post the link again, since it was broken in another post.)
scitizen.com... suring-/

More recently more reassortment-experiments have been carried out by the CDC also using ferrets as experimental animals.
blogs.wsj.com...

In the past pathogens have escaped even from security laboratories operating under high biosafety levels. Terror attacks like the anthrax-attacks and experiments on humans have shown, that there is no guarantee, that all individuals and organisations involved in this kind of research, always follow a high ethic standard. So IMHO these reassortment-experiments are highly irresponsible.

Adolfo García-Sastre works for Mount Sinai Hospital. Scientists from this hospital were also involved in the recreation of the 1918 Spanish flu, conducted by Jeffrey Tauberberger and his group.
en.wikipedia.org...

As a sidenote, I am still a little concerned, about the many cancelled aspects of the patent.

[edit on 31-10-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

Here is a link to the provisional patent application (which is usually the precursor to the official patent application) which should have all the papers that were initially filed. It may not have all the info the patent application has, but it may actually have more considering it's 91 pages including the cover sheets.

www.wipo.int.../2006/083286&IA=US2005019382&DISPLAY=DOCS

You have to copy and past the end part of the link to finish the link. For some reason the linkthrough won't include the entire link I pasted

[edit on 31-10-2009 by jookiemonster]

S&F I wonder if Dr Leonard Horowitz is aware of this I would like know his take on this.
If you don't know who Leonard Horowitz check out his videos on youtube that expose this flu fraud.

Is there a known correlation between the kind of manipulations desribed as the "art" of reverse genetics mentioned in these documents, and an increased likelihood of future mutations? Check out "Detailed description of the invention" in the 2006 patent...these reassortant viruses used in vaccines have been fiddled with in a dozen-odd different ways. Doesn't this destabilize the entire genetic matrix of the virus and allow for any number of random introduced errors?


Consider the following:www.tetrahedron.org... (speaking of dr. horowitz)
If the SARS virus has arisen through recombined from a number of different viruses, then different parts of it would show divergent phylogenetic relationships. These relationships could be obscured somewhat by the random errors that an extensively manipulated sequence would accumulate, as the enzymes used in genetic manipulation, such as reverse transcriptase and other polymerases are well-known to introduce random errors, but the telltale signs would still be a mosaic of conflicting phylogenetic relationships, from which its history of recombination may be reconstructed. This could then be compared with the kinds of genetic manipulations that have been carried out in the different laboratories around the world, preferably with the recombinants held in the laboratories.Luis Enjuanes group succeeded in engineering porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus, TGEV, as an infectious bacterial artificial chromosome, a procedure that transformed the virus from one that replicates in the cytoplasm to effectively a new virus that replicates in the cell nucleus. Their results also showed that the spike protein (see Box) is sufficient to determine its disease-causing ability, accounting for how a pig respiratory coronavirus emerged from the TEGV in Europe and the US in the early 1980s. This was reviewed in an earlier ISIS report entitled, "Genetic engineering super-viruses" (ISIS News 9/10, 2000 www.i-sis.org.uk...), which gave one of the first warnings about genetic engineering experiments like these.
The same research group has just reported engineering the TGEV into a gene expression vector that still caused disease, albeit in a milder form, and is intending to develop vaccines and even human gene therapy vectors based on the virus.Coronaviruses have been subjected to increasing genetic manipulation since the late 1990s, when P.S. Masters used RNA recombination to introduce changes into the genome of mouse hepatitis virus (MHV). Since then, infectious cDNA clones of transmissible TGEV, human coronavirus (HuCV), AIBV and MHV have all been obtained.
In the latest experiment reported by Peter Rottier�s group in University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, recombinants were made of the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) that causes an invariably lethal infection in cats. The method depends on generating an interspecies chimeric FIPV, designated mFIPV, in which, part of its spike protein has been substituted with that from mouse virus, MHV, as a result, the mFIPV infects mouse cells but not cat cells. When synthetic RNA carrying the wild-type FIPV S gene is introduced into mFIPV-infected cells, recombinant viruses that have regained the wild type FIPV S gene will be able to grow in cat cells, and can hence be selected. So any mutant gene downstream of the site of recombination, between ORF 1a and ORF1b (see Box), can be successfully introduced into the FIPV.
This method was previously used to introduce directed mutations into MHV, and like the experiment just described, was carried out to determine the precise role of different genes in causing disease. This targeted recombination is referred to as �reverse genetics�, and depends on the virus having a very narrow host range determined by the spike protein in its coat.

continued...

Another research team headed by P. Britten based in the Institute of Animal Health, Compton Laboratory, in the United Kingdom, has been manipulating AIBV, also in order to create vectors for modifying coronavirus genomes by targeted recombination, a project funded by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). The procedure involved infecting Vero cells, a green monkey kidney cell line with recombinant fowlpox virus (rFPV-T7) - carrying an RNA polymerase from the T7 bacteriophage, with a promoter from the vaccinia virus - together with AIBV, and a construct of a defective AIBV genome in rFPV that can be replicated in Vero cells. Recombinant cornonaviruses with defective AIBV genomes were recovered from the monkey cells. This is significant because almost no natural coronaviruses are able to replicate in Vero cells; the researchers have created a defective virus that can do so, when a helper virus is present. The defective virus has the potential to regain lost fun ctions by ecombination.

In addition to the experiments described, the gene for the TGEV spike protein has been engineered into and propagated in tobacco plants, and Prodigene, a company specializing in crop biopharmaceuticals, has produced an edible vaccine for TGEV in maize. Information on whether or not that product was the one being field tested in a recent case of contamination reported by the USDA was withheld under �commercial confidentiality�

Thanks, jookeimonster for providing the link to the orginal version of the patent.
I checked out those claims, which are cancelled in the actual version.

In actual version:

8. (cancelled)
10. (cancelled)
14. (cancelled)
19-20. (cacelled)
23-26. (cancelled)
28-29. (cancelled)
36-40. (cancelled)
43-56. (cancelled)
58. (cancelled)
60-69. (cancelled)
71-77. (cancelled)

In original version (2006):

I included only those cancelled claims, I found interesting. So according to the claims of the original patent application, there was also an alternative bioengineered swine flu virus, which was a hybrid with another kind of virus. A chicken egg, which was incubated with this chimeric virus was provided as a prototype.

23. The immunogenic formulation of claim 15 or 21, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is a chimeric virus that expresses an epitope of a foreign pathogen.

24. The immunogenic formulation of claim 15 or 21 , wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is a chimeric virus that expresses a tumor antigen.

28. The pharmaceutical formulation of claim 17 or 27, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is a chimeric virus that expresses a heterologous sequence.

29. The pharmaceutical formulation of claim 17 or 27, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is a chimeric virus that expresses an epitope of a foreign pathogen.

47. The method of claim 42, wherein the substrate is an embryonated egg.

50. The method of claim 41, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is genetically engineered.

58. The cell of claim 57, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is genetically engineered.

62. The cell of claim 58, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is engineered to encode an epitope derived from another virus.

63. The cell of claim 58, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus has a segmented genome comprising at least one segment derived from a different virus.

64. The cell of claim 58, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is engineered to encode a tumor antigen.

71. The embryonated egg of claim 70, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is genetically engineered.

72. The embryonated egg of claim 70 which is from a chicken.

73. The embryonated egg of claim 71 , wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is engineered to encode an epitope derived from another virus.

74. The embryonated egg of claim 71, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus has a segmented genome comprising at least one segment derived from a different virus.

75. The embryonated egg of claim 71, wherein the attenuated swine influenza virus is engineered to encode a tumor antigen.


Unfortunately I wasn't able to find, what kind of virus complemented H1N1 in this hybrid-virus. I only quickly scanned the 100 page long description of the patent and couldn't find it there. I wonder if it was H5N1 (avian flu).

The patent is for a swine vaccine, but why do you need a hybrid virus from 2 pathogens in a vaccine? Aren't advuvants normally the method of choice for a stronger immune response? I can see a use in bioweapon-production, combining contagiousness from one virus with the deadliness of another.

Re: the foreign epitope or extra segments of dna from other viruses, it seem there is a push to create "piggyback" vaccines, using the influenza as a vehicle. Nice use of punning on my part I know. I think it sounds like a risky operation - at what point can you no longer vouch for the stability of these frankenstein creations...

When did it become wrong to patent something for profit? Research on vaccines isn't free, or even cheap.

Further, on the WHO site they give the reason why anyone would want to patent a virus. No, I won't link- I'm rather unhappy with ATS/this thread that so much research can be performed, always with the mindset that the most heinous and insidious crimes against humanity are underway, yet they refuse to state in this case the alleged real reason(s) behind such action.

Really, I expected a bit more rational thought, especially when the evidence is available on the WHO site.

You'll also find patent information for several other 'nasties' from the late 20th century, and their genetic code.

reply to post by conspiracyrus


No profit?

Hmmm..scientist raises institute reputation..institute is grateful and wishes you to do it again..high profile position and salary follows..lot's of loverly funding for further research and clinical trials...the odd mega kickback from big pharma for your services via the institute, which thanks to our 'fictional' scientists' elevated position, is easy to organise..

Are you sure there'd be no profit involved?

Adolfo García-Sastre and Peter Palese, two of the 6 inventors, were also involved in the resurrection of the Spanish flu:

Pathogenicity and immunogenicity of influenza viruses with genes from the 1918 pandemic virus. Tumpey TM, García-Sastre A, Taubenberger JK, Palese P, Swayne DE, Basler CF. Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Athens, GA 30605, USA. [email protected]

The 1918 influenza A H1N1 virus caused the worst pandemic of influenza ever recorded. To better understand the pathogenesis and immunity to the 1918 pandemic virus, we generated recombinant influenza viruses possessing two to five genes of the 1918 influenza virus.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Now scientists "invent" a chimeric virus, consisting partly of H1N1 and partly of an unnamed virus. (Read the cancelled claims in the original patent-link provided by jookiemonster: At least one gene stems from another virus. I couldn't find which virus)

It has been suggested, that the origin of the Spanish flu maybe a result of reassortment. Reassortment is the mixing of the genetic material of a species into new combinations in different individuals.
www.soa.org...

But, what is more important, Prof. Adrian Gibbs and Dr. Jean Downie proposed the following:

The swine flu virus had three parents from two continents and appeared suddenly without warning, evading all routine flu surveillance and quarantine; sequence data suggest it may have been created from a faulty vaccine given to pigs in North America

www.i-sis.org.uk...

Much of the research on the sequence of the 1918 influenza virus genome was funded by the Veteran's Administration and the Department of Defense. This happened to a time, when the neocons were at the peak of their power.

I just want to quote PNAC to highlight their attitude towards bioweapons:

"New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"

home.earthlink.net...

Robert Webster, another inventor, heads the World Health Organisation (WHO) collaborating laboratory on animal influenza. The WHO has been scaring the public with inflated swine flu propaganda.

So I think, it is too early to dismiss this swine vaccine as harmless.


[edit on 1-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]