Why does the CDC own a patent on Ebola 'invention?' - Natu...

[John R. Benneth]

How can you patent a virus unless you invented it?
In a message dated 8/3/2014 11:50:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

[LabelGMOFlorida]

Thanks to patent laws being changed to accommodate gmo's you can now own rights to living things. According to my interpretation of what I read it was the act of isolating it which allowed the patent.
This is my opinion
Vicki

Www.labelgmoflorida.com
Www.glutenfreeyummies.com
"jrbenneth@aol.com [minutus]" wrote:
How can you patent a virus unless you invented it?
In a message dated 8/3/2014 11:50:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

[Irene de Villiers, B.Sc]

The Patent itself says otherwise.

[0031] The invention further relates to the use of the sequence information of the isolated virus for diagnostic and therapeutic methods.

That is the gist of it.
Essentially they discovered (not invented) the gene code and have reserved exclusive right to the use of the gene code information' whether it is for diagnostic testing or treatment or experiment or vaccine development or any other application.

So they did not patent the virus itself, but the gene code of the virus and any use of it.
I consider that mad. Anyone can and should be able to go redo the gene code analysis of a live thing, and the first person to do it, should not get exclusive rights to its use.

They did NOT invent it!
If someone figured MY gene code and wanted a patent, I would have a LOT to say about it, and this is no different in principle. The gene code information belongs to the individual. Ebola viruses own their gene code IMO.

Maybe they can have some kinds of rights to the use of THEIR gene code work, but not a patent, which prevents others from doing their own gene code work on some ebola virus or other.
Mad greedy crazy law.
What nut allowed it?

Namaste,
Irene

[Roger B]

Yes, why didn't I think of that!? The ebola virus is a natural thing; therefore it is not patentable.

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 21:51:28 -0400
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Fwd: Why does the CDC own a patent on Ebola 'invention?' - Natu...
How can you patent a virus unless you invented it?
In a message dated 8/3/2014 11:50:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

[Angela McGuire]

I agree. It seems strange to patent a gene rather than the processes used to sequence it or other processes. I think the SCOTUS ruling is s slippery slope.

Angie

Sent from my iPad

[LabelGMOFlorida]

I am not sure in the virus world but but really gets me, beyond the fact they are patenting thing that can go out and reproduce outside of a lab, is the clause of rights to anything that is 70% similar. My guess is all viruses are at least 70% similar in dna????
I am not positive on this and to be clear it is my WAG, but aren't all mammals at least 70% similar based on dna. So when the goat that milks silk or something like that is patented and they sneak that clause in.... what then??? Do the powers that be finally wake up and see the madness of the road they are paving?
Jmo
Vicki
Www.labelgmoflorida.com
Www.glutenfreeyummies.com
"aim818@yahoo.com [minutus]" wrote:
I agree. It seems strange to patent a gene rather than the processes used to sequence it or other processes. I think the SCOTUS ruling is s slippery slope.

Angie

Sent from my iPad

[Irene de Villiers]

I am pretty sure they did the 70% with a specific view to nabbing the Marburg virus as well, but without having to do any work on it first. It is known that Marburg virus differs exactly 70% from Ebola.
Gee what an odd coincidence eh?
No actually they vary a great deal, as the part that would be common in a more complete life form, (one that lives and reproduces without borrowing parts and functions from another life form) is missing altogether, and only the very few gene bits that apply to variation are included in the virus.

Both Ebola and Marburg belong to the same category of virus so despite being 70% different they are actually considered very similar in virus terms. The group they belong to (filo-somethingorother for filament shape) has a very long skinny shape in common.
This shape is very convenient for entering cells piggybacking the macrocytosis mechanism which cells use to get external fluid to enter cells.
Yes at least.
But they have a vast number of genes compared to a virus, and the basics, which is most of them, are all common.
The virus has a handful of genes, but no basics.
They only see dollar signs, not madness.

....Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."