LIFE IN PRISON
The video sums it up.
YAY a video with verifiable sources. Let's see what good old verification of the info turned up THIS time. There are two sources used here. A US Patent, and the document from the Rockefeller Foundation, entitled: "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development."
If you want to see how little research "investigative journalist" Harry Vox did for the interview in the video, google "ebolavirus patent." Guess what the FIRST result is? The patent he references.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120251502...
Notice the year, 2012. For the virus involved in an outbreak that is dated...2007, in Uganda. Gee whiz they were late on getting their virus patent, weren't they? Seems fishy. Let's see what the patent is actually for, which, wouldn't you know it, it says right in the patent:
"SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
0009. The present invention is based upon the isolation
and identification of a new human Ebola virus species, EboBun. EboBun was isolated from the patients suffering
from hemorrhagic fever in a recent outbreak in Uganda. The
isolated virus is a member of the Filoviridae family, a family of negative sense RNA viruses. Accordingly, the invention
relates to the isolated EboBun virus that morphologically and
phylogenetically relates to known members filoviridae. "
In plain english: This is a patent for the isolation of the specific naturally occurring species of ebolavirus discovered during the 2007 Ebola outbreak in Uganda.
So BS information that Harry Vox knows 99.9 percent of the people listening to him won't bother to check. Let's check the other source:
https://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rocke...
Contrary to what the youtube host says, the article isn't that long. It's 50 pages more or less and there is a lot of empty space on many of the pages. It's in plain english and easy enough to skim through quickly. You want to know the truth about it? Read it!
It's a document about how different global crises might be addressed by the international community using technology. It describes four different approaches, using four different hypothetical scenarios. Lock Step which is the only scenario that fits into the propoganda that Harry Vox is trying to push, is just one of four. And he skips and glosses over the parts of the scenario that point out that the Lock Step approach has serious downsides....because it contradicts his lies.
Happy to set the record straight, cheers.
Help me with: Advice Post
Thanks Lano, your record straightening is sought the world over, I'm sure....but, I felt a little bit of aluminium mixed in with your conjecture and supposition. All the same, it was very vivid and most self-gratifying, and that's what's most important.
Keep up the good work debunking Satan's workshop because as we all know there is no truer cream of elite of society than the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgans, and Gates. These people only want what's best for us and I am glad to see (just as they are) that you are a poster child for those of us who are oblivious.
Have it your way.
BA1 wrote:
I felt a little bit of aluminium mixed in with your conjecture and supposition.
Nothing in what I said is conjecture or supposition. I have the evidence right there.
Help me with: Advice Post
Lano wrote:
BA1 wrote:
I felt a little bit of aluminium mixed in with your conjecture and supposition.I have the evidence right there.
You have presented a form of information. If you want to call it evidence, so be it.
However -
Nothing in what I said is conjecture or supposition.
Biasism is best overturned by a majority support or (at minimum) a paid sponsor.
BA1 wrote:
You have presented a form of information. If you want to call it evidence, so be it.
It's the same evidence that is in the video. Why do you believe it when Harry Vox is lying about what the evidence actually says? I am showing you the actual document that you can now read for yourself and decide whether or not it says what he says it says. Spoiler alert, it doesn't.
BA1 wrote:
However -Nothing in what I said is conjecture or supposition.
Biasism is best overturned by a majority support or (at minimum) a paid sponsor.
...What? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
I look outside and there aren't any clouds outside. I say "there aren't any clouds outisde." That's not conjecture, I'm just telling you what's happening outside. Your response is "that's just conjecture." My response is "I am showing you a window, see for yourself." Your response is "Do you think the Rockefellers would LET it not be cloudy outside?!" And then refusing to look.
That is madness. I am done with this post.
Help me with: Advice Post
How'd you like that, son? It's called playing your game and winning. Which direction do you wanna go, bottom up or top down?
Understand this Lano, I'm not obligated to respect the example of your window and the narrative of your weather report when the nature of your disposition is about wiggling out from under the most basic illustrations of what it is to sit in a burning house....or did you forget about that?
You're a day late and a dollar short of telling me what is madness.
If you want to see how little research "investigative journalist" Harry Vox did for the interview in the video, google "ebolavirus patent."
1. Thanks for getting back here so fast. Your nitro-injected investigative skills are harmonious to facts and noncontradictive to your statements.
2. It's clear that he provided enough information that you cheered and cracked your knuckles, boy you certainly have a mission now.
Guess what the FIRST result is? The patent he references.
Did you say the Patent HE references? How can you say that when, according to you, he provided no due diligence when it came to his findings?
You strut like you're the only one who is paying attention do I really have to guess what his cite results are? No, apparently I have you presenting to me what is so painfully obvious to any third grader - let me pat you on the back (wink-wink), atta boy!
It's no surprise the link leads to a white page of nothingness. But, neverthemind....we have what you brought forward.
"SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
0009. The present invention is based upon the isolation
and identification of a new human Ebola virus species, EboBun. EboBun was isolated from the patients suffering
from hemorrhagic fever in a recent outbreak in Uganda. The
isolated virus is a member of the Filoviridae family, a family of negative sense RNA viruses. Accordingly, the invention
relates to the isolated EboBun virus that morphologically and
phylogenetically relates to known members filoviridae."
๐
Notice the year, 2012. For the virus involved in an outbreak that is dated...2007, in Uganda. Gee whiz they were late on getting their virus patent, weren't they? Seems fishy.
So, you're saying because they didn't move on the Patent within the time frame YOU expect makes the whole thing "fishy?" Buy stock in aluminum foil, Lano. (But, I already said this in a different way at the top of the page because I see your drivel from afar.
The infected people in Uganda needed to be isolated and studied according to the various useless treatments.
It should go without saying it takes time to establish a minimum infrastructure in which the virus itself could be identified (hence further isolated) where more thorough studies could be conducted -
But according to you they should get a Patent on something they know nothing about...
Let's see what the patent is actually for, which, wouldn't you know it, it says right in the patent:
First of all, no, and further you will never know what the Patent is actually for.
Surprise or not, I know something about Patents because I actually have a Patent and the research involved with that was an undertaking that makes your "all conclusive" inarguable facts, anemic.
So let's compare what you've copied and pasted about the Patent to your "Plain English" conclusion.
In plain english: This is a patent for the isolation of -
STOP! Wrong. Why? Because words came out of your mouth and they were, of course, naturally incorrect.
The Patent is NOT "for the isolation of."
The Patent IS based
upon the isolation
and identification of a new human Ebola virus species, EboBun.
Let me tell you what that means in plain English; it means THEY'RE PATENTING A WEAPONIZED VARIARION of the goddamm ebola virus - not the Ebola virus itself, numbnuts!
You are not going to present any naturally occurring biological form and expect a Patient - you must first modify that biological form in order to claim "rights" of that organism.
I think it's safe to say that you can add a few years to that 2007 number when it comes to research, development and documentation. Yeah, it just gets fishier doesn't it? Things like 7 million submissions a year to the USPTO shouldn't mean anything either - no. I mean, I didn't have to wait two years for my Patent to see the light of day....uh....yes I did.
So, from the discovery of the virus in '07 to it's Patent in '12 - a mere 5 years is such a long time and rather fishey?
What ever, Lano.
I'd love nothing more than to cover the rest of your replies, but the thing is the highest amount of damage control for your smallest assertitions is become exhausting and I'm going to bed.
I don't really get the aluminium foil thing. Is that like, a reference to something? I used to make men out of aluminum foil that my mom wrapped my pb and j sandwich in when I was in school. Is that what you are referencing? How did you know that? Are you in the NSA? Is your last name Rockefeller?
In all seriousness, I appreciate you at least looking at the evidence I presented. Even as I am confused as to why you aren't able to see what it is saying. In any case, it led to a more interesting comment to read than the part where you started talking about Rothschilds as if that had anything to do with what I was saying.
There is one part that was most interesting to ME because I am actually legitimately confused about it. I am seeing conflicting sources on it.
Namely, I see sources that do claim that the CDC (who owns the patent in question) routinely patent naturally occurring viruses in order to prevent private companies from doing so, to prevent those companies from holding research on it hostage.
But I also see lots of source that say that, as you say, you cannot patent a discovery.
And yet AGAIN, I see sources that say patenting naturally occurring viruses and their genetic code is a legal gray area and that there was actually a supreme court case about in 2013.
Obviously I would need to do more research to figure out the truth but I've also reached my limit on this topic for now.
Help me with: Advice Post
I saw a video of trump saying the virus was "artificially induced"
Help-QA supports basic Markdown, emoji ๐, and tagging friends with @username!
To use this site you must be 13 years or older and occasionally submit your email address. Your email address is only shared with your explicit permission.
