Why did the CDC do this?

Updated:   Published

Specializes in A variety.

One answer why, is from the CDC via WSJ is cited below.  

It would be interesting to discuss and share viewpoints regarding the concept of putting a patent on an isolated virus, if there's any relation to SARS CoV 2, and if the public should be concerned about the ensuing events regarding this patent (and/or others of this nature).

Keep in mind: 

-This patent wasn't for SARS CoV 2

-This isn't intended for anyone to use as medical advice or make a decision about taking any vaccine

Quote

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that it wants a patent on the SARS virus simply to guarantee the discovery remains in the public domain.

The CDC's patent application, if approved, would cover both the virus and its genes and would give the Atlanta agency broad control over the development of vaccines and diagnostic tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS.

CDC Seeks Patent on SARS To Keep Discovery Public

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.

@BostonFNP

Since you did a good job spotting bad references from someone else on a different thread I'm picking on you for this one. Perhaps you've heard of this or know something about it.  I find it an interesting subject and would like to learn more.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

The CDC, along with other public health entities on other countries, pursued patents on the genetic sequencing of SAR-CoV (1) in 2003 to ensure that research on the virus could be conducted by any university, private company, public health organization, etc without be obstructed by an individual company claiming to have exclusive access.  This includes the development of testing, treatments, and vaccines.

This is because there has been attempts in the past by companies to claim exclusive rights to pursue research related certain health conditions if that research involved the use of the genetic profile of what we causing a disease or illness, although at least so far the Supreme Court has not upheld those patents for exclusive rights to genetic sequencing data.

Patently False: The Disinformation Over Coronavirus Patents | Office for Science and Society - McGill University

5
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
3 hours ago, MunoRN said:

The CDC, along with other public health entities on other countries, pursued patents on the genetic sequencing of SAR-CoV (1) in 2003 to ensure that research on the virus could be conducted by any university, private company, public health organization, etc without be obstructed by an individual company claiming to have exclusive access.  This includes the development of testing, treatments, and vaccines.

This is because there has been attempts in the past by companies to claim exclusive rights to pursue research related certain health conditions if that research involved the use of the genetic profile of what we causing a disease or illness, although at least so far the Supreme Court has not upheld those patents for exclusive rights to genetic sequencing data.

Patently False: The Disinformation Over Coronavirus Patents | Office for Science and Society - McGill University

I actually saw that before creating this post.  There appears to be debate about it because of this and other patents:

https://patents.Google.com/patent/US7151163B2/en?oq=7151163

I also see debate about how the CDC is funded

https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporations

More plainly described here:

https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/online-exclusives/CDC-pressed-acknowledge-industry-funding/

 

What leads people to believe there is something nefarious about patents and donations from pharmaceutical companies?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
5 hours ago, jive turkey said:

I actually saw that before creating this post.  There appears to be debate about it because of this and other patents:

https://patents.Google.com/patent/US7151163B2/en?oq=7151163

I also see debate about how the CDC is funded

https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporations

More plainly described here:

https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/online-exclusives/CDC-pressed-acknowledge-industry-funding/

 

What leads people to believe there is something nefarious about patents and donations from pharmaceutical companies?

Do you believe there is something nefarious there? Have you noticed that with just the right commentary that some humans will begin to worry and fret over amazing things? Think about the hysteria that we routinely hear about how people acknowledge Christmas.  Think about the recent concern that something unsavory was involved in a decision not to publish some old books.  This is the era of conmen, grifters and charlatans.  Emotion sells.  Angry, anxious, worried, and scared people will spend money.  

Just look at the number of people who heard some unflattering commentary about Fauci and they were suddenly convinced that the fellow was intentionally misleading them for nefarious purposes. 

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
9 hours ago, jive turkey said:

I actually saw that before creating this post.  There appears to be debate about it because of this and other patents:

https://patents.Google.com/patent/US7151163B2/en?oq=7151163

I also see debate about how the CDC is funded

https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporations

More plainly described here:

https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/online-exclusives/CDC-pressed-acknowledge-industry-funding/

 

What leads people to believe there is something nefarious about patents and donations from pharmaceutical companies?

I'm not sure what you're saying the two have to do with each other.

But no, I don't think there is anything nefarious about ensuring that all entities can pursue medical research and that the field is accessible and conducive to competition.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

I'm not sure what you're saying the two have to do with each other.

But no, I don't think there is anything nefarious about ensuring that all entities can pursue medical research and that the field is accessible and conducive to competition.

I heard skepticism regarding a patent on SARS virus by a Pfizer subsidiary shortly after CDC put a patent on it.  That's the first link. 

The others show funding of the CDC by pharmaceutical companies.  

I shared that for different perspectives why this is innocent, or why it's concerning

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Customer service.
On 8/25/2021 at 6:23 PM, jive turkey said:

One answer why, is from the CDC via WSJ is cited below.  

It would be interesting to discuss and share viewpoints regarding the concept of putting a patent on an isolated virus, if there's any relation to SARS CoV 2, and if the public should be concerned about the ensuing events regarding this patent (and/or others of this nature).

Keep in mind: 

-This patent wasn't for SARS CoV 2

-This isn't intended for anyone to use as medical advice or make a decision about taking any vaccine

CDC Seeks Patent on SARS To Keep Discovery Public

Jive Turkey,

That's an old article.

Screenshot_20210829-122548_Chrome.jpg
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Customer service.
On 8/26/2021 at 3:05 PM, jive turkey said:

I heard skepticism regarding a patent on SARS virus by a Pfizer subsidiary shortly after CDC put a patent on it.  That's the first link. 

The others show funding of the CDC by pharmaceutical companies.  

I shared that for different perspectives why this is innocent, or why it's concerning

 

On 8/26/2021 at 3:05 PM, jive turkey said:

I heard skepticism regarding a patent on SARS virus by a Pfizer subsidiary shortly after CDC put a patent on it.  That's the first link. 

The others show funding of the CDC by pharmaceutical companies.  

I shared that for different perspectives why this is innocent, or why it's concerning

Who do you suggest to foot the bills you can trust?

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion