Discussion about this post

User's avatar
George S. Bardmesser's avatar

As a patent lawyer who has been practicing patent law for almost a quarter century, permit me to offer one cautionary note on this:

luciferase is mentioned in the text of US patent no. 10,703,789 numerous times, but it is NOT mentioned in any of the claims of the patent. This, at least in my mind, raises a question as to whether the products covered by the claims of the patent have luciferase in them.

Now, there are many possible explanations for this.

1. It is not unusual for the description/specification in a patent to cover much more than the claims, or to list embodiments that are not covered by the claims. (They are called "unclaimed embodiments.")

2. There may be other pending related applications that have claims that DO list luciferase as one of the ingredients. (This is, in fact, quite likely - the patent itself is quite lengthy, and it is entirely possible that numerous other "child" patents will issue from the same application, claiming priority to all the provisionals listed there.)

3. Since I am not a chemist (much less an organic chemist), nor a molecular biologist, it is possible that luciferase is actually listed in the claims under some different nomenclature, but I am simply not recognizing it.

4. There might be other patents or applications owned by Moderna (unrelated to this patent/application - i.e., they are not parents, grandparents, children or grandchildren of the application that became US Patent No. 10,703,789) that have claims listing luciferase. The moral here is that the story is not quite as simple as it seems, or, at a minimum, it MIGHT be more complex than it seem, if the evidence of nefariousness is solely based on what's in that patent.

None of this is a comment one way or another about the nefarious part of any of it - again, I am not a chemist, so I am not qualified to debate the merits of what evil things luciferase (which I have never heard of until recently) can, or can't, do in the human body. My comment is solely about the fact that listing a chemical compound in the specification, but not in the claims, at least raises an issue in my mind about your theory.

In any case, keep up the good work. Lord knows, there aren't many actual journalists left out there.

Best,

George Bardmesser

Expand full comment
Emily's avatar

I just subscribed here because Newmax has 'suspended' Emerald. I've emailed Newsmax to complain and also attempted to call Chris Ruddy's office to voice my concern over the network removing Emerald. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that I would not be connected to his office.

I look forward to hearing Emerald's take every day and unless Newmax does the right thing they may as well be Fox News as far as I'm concerned. Straight up censorship. Keep going Emerald, you're a voice for so many of us.

Expand full comment
37 more comments...

No posts