The claim that people were “never sick” and were instead deliberately poisoned is not supported by the patent list in the original post. Infections and toxic exposures are real but different causes of illness. Identifying one requires evidence; it cannot be established by grouping unrelated patent numbers together.
Reading the documents behind the list
Several entries describe work intended to detect, prevent or treat disease:
- US5676977A proposes a silver-based AIDS treatment. The patent is neither an invention of HIV nor proof of an effective cure.
- US8835624B1 concerns an H1N1-binding aptamer, including diagnostic applications.
- US20120251502A1 concerns Ebola-related material and methods. Its publication family includes CA2741523A1, inaccurately presented in the post as an erased swine-flu patent.
- US8506968B2 concerns SARS vaccine compositions and methods.
- US10130701B2 is associated with Pirbright’s work on weakened animal coronaviruses for potential vaccines. It does not document creation of SARS-CoV-2.
The remaining incomplete or unexplained identifiers should not be treated as verified evidence. A claim that a record was “erased” also needs verification; inability to find something from a copied number does not establish concealment.
What a patent can and cannot establish
A patent protects a claimed invention within a legal framework. It does not certify that a medical intervention is safe and effective, or establish the origin of a disease mentioned in it. The USPTO distinguishes the right to exclude others from an automatic right to practise an invention. Medical use remains a separate question.
Claims of deliberate disease creation or a population-reduction scheme would need evidence of the alleged actions and a credible causal connection to illness. These documents do not supply that evidence.
Keep diagnosis tied to the individual problem
For example, HIV infection can lead to AIDS, and antiretroviral medicines can suppress the virus. A patent circulating online is no reason to abandon that care. Likewise, suspected poisoning should prompt urgent professional advice based on the particular substance and exposure, not a general-purpose cleanse.
Keep asking what the evidence actually measures: a laboratory invention, an exposure, an infection or an outcome in patients. Those distinctions protect both legitimate scrutiny and timely treatment.
References
- USPTO: What a patent right means
- Patent record US5676977A
- Patent record US8835624B1
- Ebola patent application US20120251502A1 and related publications
- Patent record US8506968B2
- Pirbright Institute: Livestock coronavirus research, January 2020
- CDC: About HIV
- NHS: Poisoning
