BTW – the original data from example 9 was sent from Vical to the USPTO on March 21, 1990 and I have the original data packet (which can be found on my website).
This patent application (along with the others) was sent to the USPTO on March 21, 1989. From there, they had a year to provide study results to the USPTO. The results of that experiment were sent to be USPTO on 21 March, 1990. The US Patent Office approved those claims with a priority date of March 21, 1989, meaning the experiment had to be conducted prior to March 21, 1990. This is clear proof that that the first mRNA vaccination in rodents happened before March 21, 1990.
If the published experiment that you list as the first, was the first in animals, those claims would have been disproved by the USPTO. That is how it works. What you have written is not only misleading, it is wrong and needs to be corrected immediately.
This is the backbone of one of Robert’s biggest complaints is no one will recognize that the USPTO approved the claim of mRNA vaccination based on the study results that were clearly the first proof of principle animal experiment. Why wasn’t this mentioned in the article? Was it purposeful? Did you not know how the patenting process works?
As Vical never allowed the researchers (including Robert) to publish these results in a peer reviewed paper, the patents are the first proof of principle of the mRNA experiments in an animal model. Patents are considered to be arbiters of proof of inventorship. I believe that Nature is well aware of this. These patents have been cited 1000s of times (particularly for DNA vaccines in the 1990s) in scientific literature. They were not hard to find or review.
One of Robert’s complaints has always been that this critical proof of principle experiment is not cited as the first in animal experiment of mRNA vaccination. How did this get missed (AGAIN)!!! Was it purposeful? It sure feels that way!
This claim and the study results provide concrete proof that this was the FIRST mRNA vaccine experiment in animals and it was conducted in mice in 1989/1990!!!
Again, I am not sure how and why this is missed?
The experimental results are right there in the patents. It is clear, concrete proof of principle and data had to be supplied to the USPTO within a year of the patent filing.
Note – that this erroneous timeline was first published in a review article by Weisman in 2018
Pardi N, Hogan MJ, Porter FW, Weissman D. mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018 Apr;17(4):261-279. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.243. Epub 2018 Jan 12. PMID: 29326426; PMCID: PMC5906799.
Since then, this false narrative and timeline has been propagated throughout the web and other science papers, including WIKI. As Dr. Weisman is not an unbiased person in this history (I will not discuss his motivations in this, but they should be clear), this should never have been allowed to be published. Someone has to have the backbone and be willing to get it right. I hope it will be Nature.
Can you explain to me why this was not listed as the first experiment of mRNA vaccines in an animal model?
How can this gross oversight be allowed to continue in the scientific press?
What will Nature do to correct this article?
Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone
I have clipped out the animal experiment from one the patents as a screenshot, but I encourage you to go to any of the patents and review for yourself.
Also, here is the website that lists most of the patents and links to them.
Here is a link to the first patent issued (note the priority date of March 21, 1989) and go to example 9.
0 Likes Share
Feel free to share this email.
Sincerely and thankful for everyone’s support