Discussion on Biological Patents and Pandemics

It is a,

it is a particularly interesting location for me to be sitting

today,

given that

over a decade ago, I sat in this very chair right here in the

European

Union Parliament.

And at that time, I warned the world of what was coming.

Uh, during that conversation that was hosted at the time by

the Green and EFA and a number of the other parties of the

European Union's,

uh, various representations, we were having a conversation on whether

Europe

should adopt the United States policy of

allowing for the patents on biologically derived materials.

And at the time,

I urged this body,

and I urged people around the world,

that the weaponization of nature against humanity had dire

consequences.

Tragically, I sit here today,

um, with that unfortunate line that I don't like to say, which

I told you so.

But the fact of the matter is we're here not for

a reprisal on past decisions. We're here to

actually, once again, come to the face

of the human condition and ask the question,

who do we want to be?

What do we want humanity to look like?

And rather than seeing this as an exercise in futility, which is very

easy from time to time when you're in the position I'm

in,

I actually see this not as an exercise in futility.

I see this as one of the greatest opportunities that faces us because we

now have a public conversation, which is now front and center in

people's minds. When this was an esoteric conversation about

biological patents, nobody cared.

But when that conversation came home,

then it became something people can care about.

So I'm actually quite grateful for this opportunity.

I thank the members of parliament for hosting this.

I thank all of the translators who I apologize in advance.

I will use terminology that is probably very difficult to translate,

so my

apologies. And I'd also like to acknowledge the fact

that many

of you are aware of my involvement with this, in large

part due to the amazing work of my wonderful wife, Kim

Martin,

who encouraged me at the very early days of this pandemic to get on

front of the camera and talk about all the information

that I had been

sharing among very small groups around the world.

And it was, in fact, her encouragement

that put me in a place where

many of you have heard what I have to say.

Ironically,

the world that I came from that used to be very popular, my

CNBC and Bloomberg presentations, which were televised on

mainstream media around the world, was an audience that I lost.

I, I can confidently say COVID diminished my

fame.

But I can also confidently say that I'd rather stand among the people

with whom I'm standing today than any of the folks that

were part of that previous world. So this is a much better place to

be. My role today is to set the stage for this

conversation

in a historical context, because this did not come in the last

three years. This did not come in the last five

or six years.

This actually is an ongoing question that

probably began here in Europe in the early stages of the

mid-nineteen hundreds, but certainly by

nineteen thirteen, nineteen fourteen, this conversation started right

here in Central Europe.

The pandemic that we alleged to have happened in the

last few years also did not happen overnight.

In fact, the very specific pandemic using

coronavirus

began in a very different time.

We'll try to advance the slides here with

one of these things.

Oh, there we go.

Most of you don't know that coronavirus as a model of a

pathogen was isolated in nineteen sixty-five.

Coronavirus was identified in nineteen sixty-five as one

of the first

infectious

replicatable viral models that could be used

to modify a series of other experiences of the

human condition. It was isolated once upon a time associated

with

the common cold.

But what's particularly interesting about its isolation in nineteen sixty-five

was that it was immediately identified as a pathogen