The CDC’s patent on Ebola

ebola pic
(NaturalNews), by Mike Adams

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control owns a patent on a particular strain of Ebola known as “EboBun.” It’s patent No. CA2741523A1 and it was awarded in 2010. You can view it here. (Thanks to Natural News readers who found this and brought it to our attention.)

Patent applicants are clearly described on the patent as including:

The Government Of The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary, Department Of Health & Human Services, Center For Disease Control.

The patent summary says, “The invention provides the isolated human Ebola (hEbola) viruses denoted as Bundibugyo (EboBun) deposited with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”; Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America) on November 26, 2007 and accorded an accession number 200706291.”

It goes on to state, “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.”

It’s worth noting, by the way, that EboBun is not the same variant currently believed to be circulating in West Africa. Clearly, the CDC needs to expand its patent portfolio to include more strains, and that may very well be why American Ebola victims have been brought to the United States in the first place. Read more below and decide for yourself…

Harvesting Ebola from victims to file patents

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.

It brings up the obvious question here: Why would the U.S. government claim to have “invented” Ebola and then claim an exclusively monopoly over its ownership?

  1. S. Government claims exclusive ownership over its “invention” of Ebola

The “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION” section of the patent document also clearly claims that the U.S. government is claiming “ownership” over all Ebola viruses that share as little as 70% similarity with the Ebola it “invented”:

…invention relates to the isolated EboBun virus that morphologically and phylogenetically relates to known members filoviridae… In another aspect, the invention provides an isolated hEbola EboBun virus comprising a nucleic acid molecule comprising a nucleotide sequence selected from the group consisting of: a) a nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1; b) a nucleotide sequence that hybridizes to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 under stringent conditions; and c) a nucleotide sequence that has at least 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, or 99% identity to the SEQ ID NO:

1. In another aspect, the invention provides the complete genomic sequence of the hEbola virus EboBun.

Ebola vaccines and propagation

The CDC patent goes on to explain it specifically claims patent protection on a method for propagating the Ebola virus in host cells as well as treating infected hosts with vaccines:

In another aspect, the invention provides a method for propagating the hEbola virus in host cells comprising infecting the host cells with the inventive isolated hEbola virus described above, culturing the host cells to allow the virus to multiply, and harvesting the resulting virions.

In another aspect, the invention provides vaccine preparations, comprising the inventive hEbola virus, including recombinant and chimeric forms of the virus, nucleic acid molecules comprised by the virus, or protein subunits of the virus. The invention also provides a vaccine formulation comprising a therapeutically or prophylactically effective amount of the inventive hEbola virus described above, and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.

No medical reason to bring Ebola to the United States

This patent may help explain why Ebola victims are being transported to the United States and put under the medical authority of the CDC. These patients are carrying valuable intellectual property assets in the form of Ebola variants, and the Centers for Disease Control clearly desires to expand its patent portfolio by harvesting, studying and potentially patenting new strains or variants.

Dr. Bob Arnot, an infectious disease specialist who spent time on the ground in developing nations saving lives, recently told Judge Jeanine, “There is no medical reason to bring them here, especially when you see how well Dr. Bradley was.” (2)

There is, however, an entirely different reason to bring Ebola patients to America: so they can be exploited for medical experiments, military bioweapons harvesting or intellectual property claims.

Surely, medical authorities at Emory University and the CDC are working hard to save the lives of the two patients who have been transported to the U.S. But they are also pursuing something else at the same time: an agenda of isolating, identifying and patenting infectious disease agents for reasons that we can only imagine.

Only hoping to save lives?

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?

Does the CDC hope to collect a royalty on Ebola vaccines? Is it looking to “invent” more variants and patent those too?

Make no mistake that billions of dollars in profits are at stake in all this. Shares of Tekmira surged over 11% last Friday as pressure was placed on the FDA to fast-track Ebola vaccine trials the company has set up. “Health campaigners have started a petition which has already been signed by approximately 15,500 people on change.org pressurizing FDA to approve the drug in the minimum possible time frame,” reports BidnessEtc.com. (3)

Carefully scripted medical theater

With this, we start to see the structure of the elaborate medical theater coming together: A global pandemic panic, a government patent, the importation of Ebola into a major U.S. city, an experimental vaccine, the rise of a little-known pharmaceutical company and a public outcry for the FDA to fast-track the vaccine.

If Act II stays on course, this medical theater might someday involve a “laboratory accident” in a U.S. lab, the “escape” of Ebola into the population, and a mandatory nationwide Ebola vaccination campaign that enriches Tekmira and its investors while positioning the CDC with its virus patents as the “savior of the American people.”

Yes, we’ve heard this music before, but the last time around it was called Swine Flu.

The formula is always the same: create alarm, bring a vaccine to market, then scare governments into buying billions of dollars worth of vaccines they don’t need.

Watch the episode with Judge Jeanine here:

For the original article, click here

The IHM International Register

I’ve added a link in the menu for those wishing to apply to join the IHM International Register of Homoeopaths.

The Register is a list of HAHNEMANIAN practitioners who practice homoeopathy for the benefit of the patient using tried and tested and effective methods.

For more information click here.

Schuessler’s Tissue Salts

By Dr. Gary Weaver.  For the original post, click here

SchuesslerBorn 1821 Died 1898. Medical Doctor and Naturopath.

We have been asked why Hahnemannian Homoeopaths do not use or prescribe the 12 salts of Schuessler.

Firstly, the whole system of Biochemics has NOTHING to do with Hahnemann or the practice of Homoeopathy. It has always been a source of sadness to me that noted homoeopaths of the day, gave the systems some credence. From examining the history, it is possible to see where American homoeopathy began to lose its credibility with the Hering school, who started to deviate from Hahnemanns recommendations, and even made a whole new potency scale which added nothing to the therapeutics today.

THE THEORY OF SCHUSSLER’S BIOCHEMIC METHOD.

The idea upon which Biochemic Therapeutics is based is the physiological fact that both the structure and vitality of the organs of the body are dependent upon certain necessary quantities and proper apportionment of its inorganic constitu ents. These remain after combustion of the tissues and form the ashes. These inorganic constituents are, in a very real sense, the material basis of the organs and tissues of the body, and are absolutely essential to their integrity of structure and functional activity. According to Schuessler’s theory, any disturb- ance in the molecular motion of these cell salts in living tissues, caused by a deficiency in the requisite amount, constitutes disease, which can be rectified and the requisite equilibrium re-established by administering the same mineral salts in small quantities. This is supposed to be brought about by virtue of the operation of chemical affinity in the domain of histology ; and hence this therapeutic procedure is styled by Scbiissler the Biochemic method, and stress is laid on the fact that it is in supposed harmony with well-known facts and laws in physiological chembtry and allied sciences.

As we can see from the preface taken from the book, written by Boericke, this methodology has more to do with naturopathy than homoeopathic prescribing. For each of the 12 tissue salts, there is a list of ailments, and if your ailment falls under NAME of one of them, then you take the appropriate salt. Real homoeopaths need not ask why this is not appropriate.

  • The salts are limited to certain potencies.
  • I have discovered that in the manufacture of the tissue salts, a small amount of the substance is inserted in the crude form along side the potentised version in each tablet.

This is one of those therapies that uses the term ‘homoeopathic’ and had NOTHING to do with the principles of prescribing in homoeopathy.

I know of many practitioners who will give a prescription of a tissue salt rather than do the proper job of ascertaining the symptoms and giving the appropriate medicine required. Giving a medicine for example, to a baby who is teething in the Tissue salts limits a prescription to Ferrum Phos. What if the symptoms are NOT ferrum phos? Why do some practitioners feel that low potencies are ‘safe’ to give in Tissue salts?

The I.H.M. and Hahnemann do not approve of non homoeopathic practices regardless of whether a medicine is potentized or not. On this basis, a practitioner who regularly uses the Tissue salts need to re-examine the principles of homeopathic practice and educate themselves as to what it is that they are doing.

Is knowledge of the Organon needed for prescribing?

I would definitely recommend the Organon … while it may not be the best for prescribing well it does show you the original philosophy behind homeopathy!

viewed through proving defaultI received the above comment on my recommended reading post . The comment demonstrated so sharply how even those with sincere and constant interest in homoeopathy have clearly been harmed by inadequate (gentle understatement) teaching or from reading material on the internet written by those who (another gentle understatement on the way) have no idea what they are talking about. Continue reading

Homoeopathy – recommended reading

booksRecently I saw a series of responses to a request for recommendations of books on homoeopathy. Predictably, nothing by Hahnemann was recommended. The list – for those who want to know – ranged from Kent’s philosophy, through Vithoulkas, Boericke, Clarke, Coulter, and all the usual suspects. Just not the Organon. No original Hahnemannian provings. No earlier writings at all, really.

I was trying to feel fired up about writing a response, a post, something about how you cannot proceed with homoeopathy without understanding what it was intended to do, using what mechanism and what recommended methodology. But I found I was just too tired of it. Tired of seeing homoeopaths talking about homoeopathy without once mentioning the law of similars – or when they did mention it, making it clear that they did not understand it. Tired of hearing that those (such as me…) who say you have to start where it all started, with Hahnemann, the Organon, the first provings – are pseudo-religious nutters, hanging on to old texts with maddened zeal, ranting (as Hahnemann did) rather than accepting the brilliance and experience of today’s homoeopaths.

But the Organon is really the place to start. It is the only place to start. It is pointless and worthless (and expensive) to invest in a large library of books before you understand what the person who discovered and developed the method intended. It’s not easy to read the Organon. But it’s not easy to be a homoeopath either. If you think you want to be a homoeopath, see first if you can survive the Organon. If you understand the principle and methodology. And then read it again, and again.

If you’re reading later materia medicas you also need to research who copied whom. You will find symptoms repeated from book to book in exactly the same language – which is something of a dead giveaway. This repetition often gives an artificial importance to a symptom, as if many writers are concurring about its relevance – which is clearly not the case. Sometimes the copying was intended as clinical corroboration, but most writers don’t specify that.

The worst is when writers explain Hahnemann – as if their explanation is so perfect that it absolves you from reading the original. That’s almost as bad as claiming to know someone through what other people say about them on facebook.

So what books would I recommend? Before Vithoulkas, before Stuart Close, before Coulter, before Kent, read Hahnemann and Boenninghausen.   Organon. Chronic Diseases. Materia Medica Pura. Lesser Writings.   These books set the foundations, the grounding for your future reading.  Once you have these works solidly under your belt, you will have the tools to assess any other work you read, to see what is useful and disregard the rest.

 

Viewed through proving: Ignatia’s alternating symptoms

I have been somewhat busy… but am reposting this as this kind of information bears constant revisiting…

OK, you prescribed Ignatia.  You’re absolutely sure of the remedy.  You’ve looked at it, repped it, slept on it, thought about it, checked materia medica, checked your patient notes, and you know.  You just do.

You gave the remedy and it did nothing.  Or it aggravated but didn’t seem to do anything interesting, worthwhile or exciting for homoeopathy.  But you were absolutely certain!

Time to look at Hahnemann’s Organon aphorism 251, and (if you can stomach what looks like an 11 line sentence with nary a full stop but lots of commas) the introduction to the proving.  Time to examine Ignatia’s membership in the club of remedies with alternating actions.

Here’s Aphorism 251.  The bold in the text is mine.

“There are some medicines (e.g., Ignatia, also Bryonia and Rhus, and sometimes Belladonna) whose power of altering man’s health consists chiefly in alternating actions – a kind of primary-action symptoms that are in part opposed to each other.

Should the practitioner find, on prescribing one of these, selected on strict homoeopathic principles, that no improvement follows, he will in most cases soon effect his object by giving (in acute diseases, even within a few hours) a fresh and equally small dose of the same medicine.

(Hahnemann’s footnote: As I have more particularly described in the introduction to “Ignatia” (in the first volume of the Materia Medica Pura).)”

And I’ve paraphrased the introduction to the proving to make it readable – with a little literary license (the original is in italics just below, I did warn you about the sentence…):

When Ignatia is used, sometimes the first dose doesn’t help as it’s acting on the disease with its opposite symptoms and not as a similar.  It could even aggravate.  Don’t give any other remedy, just give one more dose of Ignatia in the same dilution.  You’ll get the cure with the second dose. This is probably because of the alternating actions of this amazing remedy. But you won’t see this often, as usually in an acute disease (which is what Ignatia is best for), the first dose will do all it can if it was really homoeopathic to the case. (my version)

Original: (breathe deeply)
“In its employment it sometimes happens, which is seldom the case with other medicines, that where the first dose has not done what was intended, because (for some unknown cause) it first acted on the disease with its opposite symptoms and consequently soon caused an aggravation of the disease in its secondary action, like a palliative remedy, then (without any intermediate medicine having been given in alternation) a second dose of the same dilution can be given with the best curative effect, so that the cure is only obtained by the second dose. This is no doubt owing to the directly opposite symptoms (alternating actions) of this remarkable drug, of which I shall speak further on. But such cases do not often occur, for, as a rule, in an acute disease, the first dose effects all that this medicine can do in a homoeopathic way, if it has been accurately selected according to similarity of symptoms.”

So from Hahnemann’s directions here, we can use Ignatia’s alternating symptoms to understand and manage the progress of a case where we have prescribed Ignatia, are absolutely sure of our prescription, but the remedy doesn’t seem to be doing what we want it to do.

Where can these alternating symptoms be found?  Here are several examples from the proving, taken from Hahnemann’s notes referring to alternating states:

Does stooping low aggravate or ameliorate?

Symptoms  16, 17, 19, 47 and 51  describe situations where the prover must keep his head down, where raising the head will aggravate.
Symptoms 20, 21, 22 and 58  describe situations where stooping aggravates.

Do the pupils dilate or contract?

Symptom 106 describes contracted pupils.
Symptoms 107 and 108 describe pupils that are dilated, and have a tendency to dilate easily.

Is music agreeable to the Ignatia patient or not?

Symptom 120 states that “music causes an uncommon and agreeable sensation”.
Symptom 121 describes “insensibility to music”.

How about sour things or fruit?

According to symptoms 194 and 197, they really like sour things and fruit and do well on it.
But symptoms 193, 196 and 328 imply that it would be best to keep the Ignatia patient far away from the fruit bowl.

What about fears – fearful or fearless?

Symptom 762 says “fears every trifle”, whereas symptom 763 declares – “audacity”.

These are only a few of the alternating states highlighted by Hahnemann in the proving – Hahnemann notes around 25 issues in total.  If we work based on the principle that Ignatia is a remedy with alternating states – it’s very likely that we could see many situations of alternating states that won’t appear in the proving.

“If it is not done with exactness, let no one boast to have imitated me, nor expect a good result”

It is difficult to shift one’s mindset from an allopathic to a homoeopathic mode of interpreting and treating illness. However, once that shift is made, the new way of seeing things comes sharply into view, almost like the moment you are able to see an apparently three-dimensional image jump out of a two-dimensional page. Once you see it, you cannot “unsee” it.

Oddly enough, it seems to be even harder to make the shift from a Kentian, constitutional view of homoeopathy, to return to the original basics as practised by Hahnemann and Boenninghausen. Perhaps because so much is similar – even if the mistaken Kentian premise has catapulted the entire therapeutic method along a completely different trajectory than originally intended. The same terminology is used, often the Organon is quoted (usually minus Aphorism 6), the same polychrests show up, and despite the plethora of new and fantastically proven remedies (fantastic as in fantasy…), often many of the same older remedies are used.

Which brings me to a footnote that appears towards the end of the theoretical part of Chronic Diseases. I have always seen this quote as very clearly expressing the importance of experience over intelligence, the importance of recognizing and learning to use what works even if we don’t understand it. However, I find within this particular context, the following sentence stands out: “If it is not done with exactness, let no one boast to have imitated me, nor expect a good result.”

Or in colloquial British, ’nuff said. Over to Hahnemann:

  … It requires quite an effort to believe that so little a thing, so prodigiously small a dose of medicine, could effect the least thing in the human body, especially in coping with such enormously great, tedious diseases; but that the physician must cease to reason, if he should believe that these prodigiously small doses can act not only two or three days, but even twenty, thirty and forty days and longer yet, and cause, even to the last day of their operation, important, beneficent effects otherwise unattainable.

Nevertheless this true theorem is not to be reckoned among those which should be comprehended, nor among those for which I ask a blind faith. I demand no faith at all, and do not demand that anybody should comprehend it. Neither do I comprehend it; it is enough, that it is a fact and nothing else. Experience alone declares it, and I believe more in experience than in my own intelligence.

But who will arrogate to himself the power of weighing the invisible forces that have hitherto been concealed in the inner bosom of nature, when they are brought out of the crude state of apparently dead matter through a new, hitherto undiscovered agency, such as is potentizing by long continued trituration and succussion.

But he who will not allow himself to be convinced of this and who will not, therefore, imitate what I now teach after many years’ trial and experience (and what does the physician risk, if he imitates it exactly?), he who is not willing to imitate it exactly, can leave this greatest problem of our art unsolved, he can also leave the most important chronic diseases uncured, as they have remained unhealed; indeed, up to the time of my teaching. I have no more to say about this.

It seemed to me my duty to publish the great truths to the world that needs them, untroubled as to whether people can compel themselves to follow them exactly or not. If it is not done with exactness, let no one boast to have imitated me, nor expect a good result.

Do we refuse to imitate any operation until the wonderful forces of nature on which the result is based are clearly brought before our eyes and made comprehensible even to a child? Would it not be silly to refuse to strike sparks from the stone and flint, because we cannot comprehend how so much combined caloric can be in these bodies, or how this can be drawn out by rubbing or striking, so that the particles of steel which are rubbed off by the stroke of the hard stone are melted, and, as glowing little balls, cause the tinder to catch fire? And yet we strike fire with it, without understanding or comprehending this miracle of the inexhaustible caloric hidden in the cold steel, or the possibility of calling it out with a frictional stroke.

Again, it would be just as silly as if we should refuse to learn to write, because we cannot comprehend how one man can communicate his thought to another through pen, ink, and paper -and yet we communicate our thoughts to a friend in a letter without either being able or desirous of comprehending this psychico-physical miracle! [these days, we can add so much more to this list, driving a car, using a computer, using a cellphone and more...vr]

Why, then, should we hesitate to conquer and heal the bitterest foes of the life of our fellowman, the Chronic diseases, in the stated way, which, punctually followed, is the best possible method, because we do not see how these cures are effected?