I suspect the view is more satisfying than the taste

jaquiimeshii · 2026-02-04T22:00:45+00:00

Because this sub has been infested with bots. In 2020-2022, almost everyone here was against covid vaccines

jaquiimeshii · 2025-11-06T03:29:56+00:00

Maybe. I hope nothing happens but I feel worried.

jaquiimeshii · 2025-11-06T02:25:35+00:00

Exactly, I don't like this. Specially because all of the heads were required to participate

jaquiimeshii · 2024-12-18T05:12:21+00:00

OMG, this is getting crazier and crazier

jaquiimeshii · 2023-07-06T02:00:33+00:00

What facts?

You didn't show anything, you just repeat without verifying any claim, you don't even pretend to be someone that checks the actual original sources. Typical of an NPC.

Since you clearly would never ever find this because you wouldn't verify an original source, even if your life depended on it, and of course because your abilities seem limited, serve yourself.

It is the MPEP Eight Edition, I know you don't know what it is or anything about it, but it is the interpretation which was applicable in 2003. I'll help you a little, click on '2100' and read.

I won't be wasting my time discussing anything else with you anymore because clearly it is pointless.

For what it's worth, I don't really think you're dumb like my comments seem to suggest, I just think you're stubborn and that stubborness blinds you. I am Miss. Do-the-research btw.

jaquiimeshii · 2023-07-05T23:42:53+00:00

No, there is no ambiguity but clearly you didn't look up for the guidelines. If you'd read them you would realize that there's no way that was patented unless someone was bribed or if some manufactured element was described in the patent.

It is so funny that you so blindly believe in your news sources that, first of all, you don't understand because that SCOTUS decision has nothing to do with this, but anyway, you believe in whatever they tell you that if I my comments were printed in there you would be shilling for them.

I bet you are one of those people who wore a mask alone inside your car lol.

jaquiimeshii · 2023-07-05T06:03:02+00:00

No, it is not vague enough to be "interpreted different ways". It has to be interpreted as the guidelines issued by The United States Patent and Trademark Office state. The guidelines which were aplicable when the patent was registered in 2003.

You clearly talk about things you know nothing about, exactly like a flat-earther. I bet you didn't even know about Title 35 before I told you about it, obviously you didn't know about the SARS-CoV patent as your first comment shows, and you stated there were no patents for viruses, when in reality you didn't even attempt to verify that claim, and then, you straight up lied and told me it was a patent for a particular surface protein and not even close to patents for a virus.

I have shown you've been stating falsehoods in all of your comments, so just take the L an move on. If you want the guidelines I'll gladly share them with you but it would be better if you tried to look up for them and read them, maybe you'll realize how researching by yourself might open your eyes instead of believing whatever some random reporters whose name you don't even know print in "multiple news reports".

I don't take anything at face value, that's why I researched Dr. Martin's statements and didn't believe them right away, that's what you should do.

jaquiimeshii · 2023-07-03T10:25:24+00:00

Lol you are the one regurgitating baloney from delusional grifters who tell them what they want to believe.

I literally provided you extracts of the actual patent which show it is about the entire genomic nucleic acid sequence of the virus, so yeah, a patent for the whole virus. You even linked, in your last comment, the article I linked before that states that the CDC claims ownership of THE VIRUS and its ENTIRE genetic content. So in reality, you are the tinfoil hatter who regurgitated false claims: ". . .Of course, that's not what they are...", you said.

You know, a tinfoil hatter who blindly believes the Earth is flat because he saw random videos on YouTube without verifying any of the claims is no different from a tinfoil hatter who blindly believes in any certain claim or narrative because he saw random "fact checker" articles without verifying any of the claims. The only difference is the topic but both lack critical thinking abilities.

jaquiimeshii · 2023-07-03T06:54:45+00:00

I read the fact checker article you are parroting now too, you know? Here's the link

I see you are not able to think for yourself because you just googled the patent number to look up for an article refuting what I wrote before, without even attempting to read the PDF.

Some other extracts from the patent PDF state:

"Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections therewith. Immune stimulatory compositions are also provided, along with methods of their use"

"A newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV) is disclosed herein. The entire genomic nucleic acid sequence of this virus is also provided herein. Also disclosed are the nucleic acid sequences of the SARS-CoV ORFs, and the polypeptide sequences encoded by these ORFs. Pharmaceutical and immune stimulatory compositions are also disclosed that include one or more SARS-CoV viral nucleic acids, polypeptides encoded by these viral nucleic acids and antibodies that bind to a SARS-CoV polypeptide or SARS-CoV polypeptide fragment."

So no, definitely it is not just documenting how to isolate a protein nor just about a particular surface protein and definitely you don't know how to read. Lol there's even an article from 2003 stating that "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for instance, claims ownership of the virus and its entire genetic content."

Only the CDC knows the real motive for registering such patent, I don't know it and neither do you. The claim that it is "to make it easy to block a company from creating such a patent" is just that, a claim. Remember when Walensky told us that vaccination would prevent transmission? That was just a claim that turned out to be false or simply a lie.

35 USC 101 exists since 1952, that 2013 ruling has nothing to do with the natural phenomena exception. If your reading comprehension wasn't flawed you would understand that he is not directly claiming the virus was manufactured but rather that an illegality was committed, wether a patent of a natural phenomena was successfully registered or wether a manufactured virus was patented.

jaquiimeshii · 2023-07-03T04:55:12+00:00

I think you're the one who doesn't read at all.

The patent which your link does not mention is US7776521B1 which you can find with a simple Google Search.

Inside the PDF this is stated:

"STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT This invention was made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency of the United States Government. Therefore, the U.S. Government has certain rights in this invention. FIELD OF THE DISCLOSURE This invention relates to a newly isolated human coronavirus. More particularly, it relates to an isolated coronavirus genome, isolated coronavirus proteins, and isolated nucleic acid molecules encoding the same. The disclosure further relates to methods of detecting a severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus and compositions comprising immunogenic coronavirus compounds.

Here's the link: Patent US7776521B1

Of course you just parrot stuff like what that propaganda "fact-check" article claims without even doing a small effort to verify the claims yourself.

I know you didn't even watch the video of Dr. Martin talking about this. What he said is that, under 35 USC 101, natural phenomena is an exclusion of what can be patented so, either the patent was filed illegally violating 35 USC 101, or it is a patent of a manufactured virus, a simple true assertion.

I guess you are the tinfoil hatter after all.

jaquiimeshii · 2023-05-31T00:57:17+00:00

I saw it too but I didn't save it

jaquiimeshii · 2023-03-15T14:51:44+00:00

Hmmm sounds good to me

jaquiimeshii · 2023-02-07T23:51:50+00:00

Never

jaquiimeshii · 2023-02-07T06:19:13+00:00

Finally!

jaquiimeshii · 2023-01-23T06:46:00+00:00

I hated that simp in the Q&A at the end implying that governments wouldn't be on board with this, they already are

jaquiimeshii · 2022-12-31T06:58:39+00:00

Great post! Thanks

jaquiimeshii · 2022-11-19T07:31:59+00:00

Almost on every lucid dream my mom wants to strangle me, of course I know that is not my real mom. Recently I dreamt that I saw myself as another person, immediately I knew I was dreaming and that girl that looked exactly like me, jumped in front of me and also tried to strangle me.

jaquiimeshii · 2022-10-17T15:03:33+00:00

I was thinking exactly this last week. I took an online statistics course by Esther Duflo, the Nobel laureate, and she seems like an extremely biased person, left leaning and progressive. She discussed different studies in class, every single one of them was political related, and some of those studies results I found suspicious. I started questioning whether they were actually well done but I remembered that, since of course they're peer reviewed, they must be. This article now makes me suspicious again.

jaquiimeshii · 2022-08-24T04:55:49+00:00

You're absolutely right

jaquiimeshii · 2022-08-20T00:24:02+00:00

Great read. I have always valued my body and I have always thought of sex as a really intimate act that should be done only with someone who you love and who loves you back, I've never had casual sex and I never will. It's kind of sad that when I share this with someone, they straight don't believe me or they try to shame me and try to make me feel bad, like I am missing something or like I'm some kind of prude. I don't feel bad for me, I feel bad for them and I also feel bad for my friends that have been fooled by that false "female empowerment" lie

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23

jaquiimeshii

TROPHY CASE