Who “Owns” the Zika Virus?


The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Zika virus a global health emergency on Monday (February 1) without providing much detail on the disease. So here are some facts until we receive more information:

This sexually-transmitted virus has been around for 69 years and is marketed by two companies: LGC Standards (headquartered in the UK) and ATCC (headquartered in the US).

The LGC Group is:

“…the UK’s designated National Measurement Institute for chemical and bioanalytical measurements and an international leader in the laboratory services, measurement standards, reference materials, genomics and proficiency testing marketplaces.”

One of its branches, LGC Standards, is:

“…a leading global producer and distributor of reference materials and proficiency testing schemes. Headquartered in Teddington, Middlesex, UK, LGC Standards has a network of dedicated sales offices extending across 20 countries in 5 continents and more than 30 years experience in the distribution of reference materials. These high quality products and services are essential for accurate analytical measurement and quality control, ensuring sound decisions are made based on reliable data. We have an unparalleled breadth of ISO Guide 34 accredited reference material production in facilities at 4 sites across the UK, the US and Germany.”

LGC Standards entered into a partnership with ATCC, of which the latter is:

“…the premier global biological materials resource and standards organization whose mission focuses on the acquisition, authentication, production, preservation, development, and distribution of standard reference microorganisms, cell lines, and other materials. While maintaining traditional collection materials, ATCC develops high quality products, standards, and services to support scientific research and breakthroughs that improve the health of global populations.”

This “ATCC-LGC Partnership” is designed to facilitate:

“…the distribution of ATCC cultures and bioproducts to life science researchers throughout Europe, Africa, and India and […] to make access to the important resources of ATCC more easily accessible to the European, African, and Indian scientific communities through local stock holding of more than 5,000 individual culture items supported by our local office network delivering the highest levels of customer service and technical support.”

And who owns the patent on the virus? The Rockefeller Foundation!

Source: http://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/products/all/VR-84.aspx?geo_country=es#history

Why has the issue of patent ownership of the Zika virus not been the object of media coverage?

Lest we forget the words of David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. … It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

Is the ownership of the Zika Virus by the Rockefeller Foundation part of that agenda of “supernational sovereignty [dominated] by an intellectual elite and world bankers…”?

Of significance, the Zika virus is a commodity which can be purchased online from the ATCC-LGC for 599 euros, with royalties accruing to the Rockefeller Foundation.



1 Comment on Who “Owns” the Zika Virus?

  1. You stated in your opening line to your article “Who owns the Zika virus”, posted February 3rd on GlobalResearch.ca…

    “This sexually-transmitted virus has been around for 69 years and is marketed by two companies: LGC Standards (headquartered in the UK) and ATCC (headquartered in the US).” -Guilluame Kress

    But you have no proof for that statement; the article you cited merely said, that it ‘likely was transmitted’, as seen in the quote stated from the article below…

    “The first known case of Zika virus transmission in the United States was reported in Texas on Tuesday by local health officials, who said it likely was contracted through sex and not a mosquito bite, a day after the World Health Organization declared an international public health emergency.” -Reuters

    Further the TDSHS was cautious to assess that it was sexually ttransmitted…

    “The Texas Department of State Health Services was slightly more cautious in its assessment, saying in a statement, “Case details are being evaluated, but the possibility of sexual transmission from an infected person to a non-infected person is likely in this case.” -Reuters

    Finally the only laboratories that were doing Zika viral tests were the CDC labs as the virus was of no significance to commercial Labs prone to its mild symptoms; a no money-maker!
    And typically 80% of the infected were asymptomatic. The virus was only lasting generally seven to ten days, with no sign of the virus within the bloodstream after that period of time.
    Even the CDC was not stating that the virus was sexually transmitted. As in their stated quote below.
    In fact if one researches the virus, it originated in a caged Rhesus monkey in the Zika valley that had been bitten by a Zika mosquito in 1947, not through sexual transmission. In fact their is no proof at all that the virus has mutated and become sexually transmittable.

    “However, the CDC has not investigated how the virus was transmitted.” -Reuters

    My Question Mr Kress, is do you have an agenda, that inspired such a profound statement?
    Was this a simple mistake on your part, or were you purposely spinning the story?
    I don’t suspect this comment will go any further than my posting it.

    Do you realize how damaging and inflammatory that statement is…do you care?

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt…if, this truly is a mistake will you print a retraction.

    I am a user of GlobalResearch.ca, I find it troubling that they would post such an article without checking the facts. I will question that with them. And if I am not satisfied I will cease to use them as a source.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.