Last year, the documentary “Plandemic: Indoctornation” had hit social media, facing criticisms of falsehood and outright attacks from the print and digital media. Its arguments were convincing and evidence apparently strong. Some critiques even claimed it as disinformation. Of course, the critiques could be true.
However, what if they were wrong?
At the surface, it is difficult to ascertain the objectivity of these critiques. Thus, I found it necessary to fact check the evidence presented in the documentary. This means that we stay with the evidence presented in the video.
Let us begin with the evidence that David E. Martin, PhD of the IQ100 Index, presented.
On Oct. 13, 2003, The Associated Press reported on the race to patent the SARS virus between biotech/pharmaceutical companies and governments, including the United States, Canada and Hong Kong. The uproar came from the notion that nature, or any component thereof, cannot be patented, especially living things. That includes human beings, plants, birds, and animals. Thus, no one, including governments, should be allowed to patent a bald eagle or mackerel, for instance.
While the report did not clearly indicate if other countries have laws that patent life, it did report that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 1980 that the country’s Patent and Trademark Office could patent “living things” including human genes especially if a person or institution was involved in the isolation process.
Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claimed ownership of the “SARS virus and its entire genetic content.” Evidently the basis for that acquisition was the 1980 high court ruling.
The report noted a patent application for the SARS virus in Hong Kong.
This news report is still available online demonstrating that the evidence presented in the documentary exists.
A coronavirus patent also exists under Patent No. US7279327B2, which was assigned on Dec. 17, 2018 to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. government. It covers the helper cell and the coronavirus particles.
Another patent (US7220852B1) covered specifically human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), which was assigned in 2007 to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the U.S. government.
Therefore, Martin correctly reported that the United States could patent and had patented a coronavirus. However, Canada, too, had under US7897744B2.