Literatus: ‘Pandemic’ fact check: Patent on the ‘nonnatural’

Zosimo T. Literatus
·2 min read

Following my last column’s fact checking on the evidence presented in the documentary “Plandemic: Indoctornation,” this week will verify the U.S. patent law pertaining to naturally occurring living organisms, including coronaviruses.

In the interview, David E. Martin, PhD of the IQ100 Index, presented the U.S. Patent Law involving living and human organisms, specifically Section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Constitution.

Through a presentation created and published in 2015 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it can be verified that the U.S. Code does not allow any patent claims direct to, or encompassing, the human organism. This law had not changed since 1952.

The only living organisms that are eligible for patenting are those that are “non-naturally occurring non-human multicellular living organisms, including animals.” This statement is not clear, though, easily susceptible to an interpretation that “unicellular” organisms may be patentable even if natural.

Section 2105 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure clarifies the matter.

In subsection II, it reported a Supreme Court ruling that any living subject matter, if “markedly different” in characteristics from “any found in nature” can be claimed for patent protection. The key phrases in the intent of the patent law include “non-naturally occurring,” “not a product of nature,” “not unknown natural phenomenon,” and “markedly different characteristics.” Even cloned organisms are not qualified for patenting because the genetic replica is exactly like the original gene.

Martin argued that “either SARS coronavirus was manufactured therefore making the patent of it legal, or it was natural therefore making the patent on it illegal.” Based on these facts, Martin’s argument reflects a reasonable interpretation of Section 2105. His implication that the Sars-CoV is a biological weapon can be affirmed so under the definition in the Biological Weapons Convention or the Geneva Protocol.

However, his insinuation that possession of a biological weapon is illegal is not necessarily true because the Geneva Protocol made a distinction between “first use” and “second use.”

While the Protocol allows for “second use reservations,” which permit countries attacked with a biological weapon to hit back using the same biological weapon, it maintains “a ban on the first use,” or initiating an attack using a biological weapon. Under this distinction, any country may possess a biological weapon if it will not use it first against another country.

Therefore, while it is clearly illegal to patent a naturally occurring coronavirus, it is not necessarily illegal to have in possession coronaviruses that may be used as a biological weapon.

If that is so, then Martin was still correct to infer that if Sars-CoV was patentable and already patented, then it must be a scientifically engineered coronavirus.