“Patents of Damocles” — CDC’s patents produced the Anti-Competitive Dearborn “method” to detect “Lyme disease.”

And so it seems,…

… that you can google whether or not elsewhere falsified patent claims act monopolistically (or -cly?), against valid methods, say, to detect Lyme disease, or to falsely endorse yet another false claim by patent owners (in the case of Lyme disease, it was largely CDC officers and members of the ALDF.com, the RICO entity that is the source of all the “controversy” and turmoil in Lyme Cryme land over the past 27 years)  – the Dearborn 2 tiered “testing method.”

As most of you know from reading the criminal charge sheets, Dearborn happened AFTER the early Phase I and II trials of the OspA vaccines, where the CDC criminals discovered, “Whoops, these adverse events look exactly like Late Chronic Lyme and we cant tell vaccine injury apart from break through Lyme cases (Dave Persing and Robert Schoen).”

Patents of Damocles

CHRISTOPHER R. LESLIE*

INTRODUCTION

For centuries, military thinkers have long-recognized that weapons need not
actually be fired in order to have a deterrent effect on one’s enemies. The build-up
of navies, maintenance of large standing armies, and nuclear deterrence all reflect
this simple insight. Outside of military contexts, the weapon need not even be
actually displayed in order to have the desired effect, such as the bank robber who
pats his pocket menacingly but never actually brandishes a gun. Taking a page
from military strategy, many patentholders have also realized that patents can be
used as weapons against competitive rivals even without actually enforcing one’s
patent rights in court. Like the mythical Sword of Damocles, these patents hang
over the head of any potential entrant into the market.

Over four decades ago, the Supreme Court in Walker Process recognized that
the fraudulent procurement and enforcement of a patent can-if the remaining
elements are satisfied-violate antitrust’s prohibition on illegal monopolization.
However, courts have narrowly defined “patent enforcement” to mean infringement
litigation, which permits monopolists with fraudulently procured patents to illegally
monopolize markets while evading antitrust liability so long as they do not
explicitly threaten competitors with infringement lawsuits. While there is nothing
suspicious about patentholders efficiently using the mere existence of their patents to deter infringement, when the patentee has acquired its intellectual property rights through fraud the ability to exclude competitors without explicitly threatening a lawsuit allows firms to engage in patent fraud while insulating their fraudulently procured patent from legal scrutiny. This Article explains how the current constricted conception of patent enforcement undermines this important antitrust cause of action and seriously weakens both competitive markets and the patent system as well.
http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1192&context=ilj

The ENTIRETY of this crime revolves around falsifying the claim that OspA could be a vaccine as Pam3Cys.  And we wont insult anyone’s intelligence; everyone can seefor themselves that Pam3Cys could never be a vaccine as a fungal TLR2/1 agonist (triacyl lipoprotein):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(Pam3Cys+or+P3C+or+Pam3*)+and+tlr2

503 articles.

You can even buy Pam3Cys to use in your experiments where you want to demonstrate the outcomes of immunosuppression.  TLR2/1 agonists are endotoxins of the fungal type.

They used to put Thimerosal in vaccines to prevent LYMErix.

Really.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s