Latest Comments by ozoneranger

Latest Comments by ozoneranger

ozoneranger 3,452 Views

Joined Nov 18, '02. Posts: 379 (45% Liked) Likes: 541

Sorted By Last Comment (Past 5 Years)
  • 3

    Ponder this. The CDC owns a patent on this variant of Ebola, and any other viral variant within 30% of this specific genomic sequence.
    http://www.google.com/patents/CA2741523A1?cl=en

    Patent holders for intellectual property waltz from industry to regulatory agency then back to industry unimpeded, a practice I find deplorable. For all practical intents & purposes they are married.

    The vaccine currently in clinical trial is being “fast tracked” by the FDA, meaning industry PAID the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) to get this off the ground, sans standard safety protocols.
    (In fact, half of the FDA’s budget comes from fees paid by manufacturers to facilitate accelerated approval for new drugs and medical devices).


    It’s worth noting, the virus in the before mentioned patent is not the same variant currently believed to be circulating in West Africa and that may very well be why American Ebola victims have been brought to the United States in the first place.

    From the patent description on the EboBun virus, we know that the U.S. government:

    1) Extracts Ebola viruses from patients.
    2) Claims to have “invented” that virus.
    3) Files for monopoly patent protection on the virus.

    To understand why this is happening, you have to first understand what a patent really is and why it exists. A patent is a government-enforced monopoly that is exclusively granted to persons or organizations. It allows that person or organization to exclusively profit from the “invention” or deny others the ability to exploit the invention for their own profit.

    On one hand, it’s worth pointing out that the CDC’s patent on Ebola is at least partially focused on methods for screening for Ebola and treating Ebola victims with drugs or vaccines. This seems like a worthwhile precaution against an infectious disease that clearly threatens lives.

    On the other hand, why the patent? Patenting Ebola seems as odd as trying to patent cancer or diabetes. Why would a government organization claim to have “invented” this infectious disease and then claim a monopoly over its exploitation for commercial use?

    Make no mistake that billions of dollars in profits (and zero liability) are at stake in all this. Vaccines are the ONLY product with this unique marketing advantage.

    So,
    1. The patent for this sub-variant of Ebola was acquired in 2007 for a vaccine that has proven disastrously elusive for decades.
    Long Quest for Ebola Vaccine Slowed by Science, Ethics, Politics

    "Slowed by ethics" Yes, ethics got in the way.

    2. Safety steps are abandoned because the virus, which has never posed a threat beyond isolated outbreaks in Africa, is suddenly a possible pandemic of epic proportions.

    3. Bring patients to America & show the world we have this under control, “see, we saved those heroic doctors”…

    4. Sell us a scantly tested vaccine during a “crisis” (remember, you can't sue the manufacturer for a vaccine injury).

    5. Nurses & 1st. responders will be the first to see the pointy end of the syringe.


    There are 5 individuals listed on the patent, where are they now?

    This is how Ebola is seen in the eyes of the investor.
    Because all pharma companies are publicly traded, their 1st. bound legal duty is to the investor.

    Fiduciary obligation, look it up.

    Ebola stocks: 2 to sell, and 5 to consider buying - MarketWatch

    Why Ebola Vaccine Makers' Stocks Soared (NLNK, TKMR)

    This blog is usually on the money when it comes to news in the development end of vaccines.

    Vaccine News | Vaccine Market | Vaccine Research | Fierce Vaccines


    I laughed at the swine flu panic, and was suitably horrified at the number of narcolepsy cases following vaccination in certain genetic phenotypes.

    Bringing Ebola patients to our shores?
    Well, either SKB is closer to an answer than thought, or we're in deep doo.

    My money on the former, literally.

  • 0

    Quote from mrr5745
    I had the opportunity many years ago to meet one of the scientists who helped develop the vaccine. When the vaccine was released, it was only approved for women up to age 26. The reason for this is because that is who Merck included in their clinical trial. When I left my job as an STD nurse (2009) they were currently holding clinical trials for men and older women.

    Part of the argument against vaccinating is that by vaccinating women, the population will develop "herd immunity." Obviously, the major flaw here is men who have sex with men would have no protection, but some politicians seem to be okay with that.

    Anyway, HPV strains 16 and 18 are known to cause cervical, oral, esophageal, and anal cancer. Women and men should receive the vaccine regardless of their prior sexual activity. Even if the pt is already infected with one strain of HPV, the vaccine will still protect them from other strains. Even people who are not sexually active should be vaccinated - obviously it's more effective when given before the pt has been exposed to HPV. Even though sexual contact is the most common form of transmission, there have been cases of babies being exposed d/t improper hand washing of their caregiver before diaper changes.

    In the original VRBPAC Background Document Gardasi HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine- May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting
    Mecrk reports an increase risk of carcinoma in situ of 44.6% in women who were given the vaccine while currently infected with strains 16 & 18, yet practitioners are not serotyping these women prior to giving the vaccine. This does not bode well for the non sexual naive individual.

    http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/...006-4222B3.pdf

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vac.../gardasil.html


    If California politicians have their way, parents will lose their right to informed consent for their minor children, who may, or may not be sexually active. Since 12 year olds aren't known for reading FDA briefings, I doubt they will be informed about the risk associated with current HPV status & increased risk of cancer.
    Will they be warned of the increased risk of cancer in sexually active populations?
    I doubt it.
    Would a 12 year old lie about her status of sexual activity in order to get a vaccine she thinks will protect her?
    I mean heck, mom & dad will never know, right?

    A previous push to require all California girls entering sixth grade to be vaccinated with the HPV Vaccine was withdrawn from the state legislature in 2007. The current bill would circumvent the state’s parental consent laws and “allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.” The bill states: “The minor’s parents or guardian are not liable for payment for medical care provided pursuant to this section.” So, who is?
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...introduced.pdf

    This begs the question.
    After the child is given the vaccine without parental consent, should there be an adverse reaction, who's on the hook for the child's medical bills?
    Well, the parents who were never consulted in the first place, that's who.


close
close