A claim is circulating on social media that a vaccine patent was granted in 2017, which describes the vaccine as an "agent of biowarfare". In some cases the patent is specifically stated to relate to mRNA vaccines.
Examples:
In fact this is pretty easy to debunk by simply reading the patent - even the short excerpt included in this tweet.
The patent in question is US 9,539,210. It describes "vaccine nanocarriers capable of stimulating an immune response in T cells and/or B cells".
A nanocarrier is simply a very small (nano) material used to carry a drug into the body: typically any particle less than 100 nanometres in size would qualify. Using nanocarriers to carry vaccines can, according to the patent authors, improve the immune response from a vaccine and reduce the amount of vaccine that is required to be effective.
In common with many patents, the authors try to cover as many possible applications of the general idea as they can. They suggest many possible compositions for the vaccine/nanocarrier combination, and many possible pathogens that the vaccines could be used against.
So where does the claim about vaccines being described as "agents of biowarfare" or "chemical weapons" come from? Searching the patent text for those phrases we find this:
Why would you want to do that?
As the patent explains:
That section continues:
Claiming the patent is describing the vaccine as a bioweapon is totally incorrect: the patent describes a vaccine technology that could potentially protect people from bioweapons.
Examples:
In fact this is pretty easy to debunk by simply reading the patent - even the short excerpt included in this tweet.
The patent in question is US 9,539,210. It describes "vaccine nanocarriers capable of stimulating an immune response in T cells and/or B cells".
A nanocarrier is simply a very small (nano) material used to carry a drug into the body: typically any particle less than 100 nanometres in size would qualify. Using nanocarriers to carry vaccines can, according to the patent authors, improve the immune response from a vaccine and reduce the amount of vaccine that is required to be effective.
In common with many patents, the authors try to cover as many possible applications of the general idea as they can. They suggest many possible compositions for the vaccine/nanocarrier combination, and many possible pathogens that the vaccines could be used against.
So where does the claim about vaccines being described as "agents of biowarfare" or "chemical weapons" come from? Searching the patent text for those phrases we find this:
So, the patent discusses the possibility of incorporating a toxin into the nanocarrier, and that toxin could originate in a chemical weapon or biowarfare agent.External Quote:
In some aspects, a composition comprising a nanocarrier comprising a small molecule, an immunostimulatory agent, and a T cell antigen is provided. In some embodiments, the small molecule is on the surface of the nanocarrier or is both on the surface of the nanocarrier and encapsulated within the nanocarrier. In some embodiments, the small molecule is an addictive substance. In some embodiments, the addictive substance is nicotine. In some embodiments, the small molecule is a toxin. In some embodiments, the toxin is from a chemical weapon, an agent of biowarfare, or a hazardous environmental agent.
Why would you want to do that?
As the patent explains:
In other words, the nanocarrier is intended to provide an enhanced immune response to a molecule that would not normally trigger a strong response, due for example to its small size.External Quote:
The nanocarrier, in some embodiments, can be used to induce or enhance an immune response to a poorly immunogenic antigen (e.g., a small molecule or carbohydrate) in a subject. In some embodiments, the nanocarrier can be be used to induce or enhance an immune response to an addictive substance in a subject. In some embodiments, the nanocarrier can be used to induce or enhance an immune response to a toxin in a subject. The nanocarrier, in some embodiments, can be used to treat a subject that has or is susceptible to an addiction.
That section continues:
This makes clear what the rationale behind incorporating a toxin in the nanocarrier is: to produce a heightened immune response to a toxin, without the need to expose people to dangerous levels of the toxin. This would make it possible to vaccinate people against biowarfare or chemical weapons.External Quote:The nanocarrier, in some embodiments, can be used to treat a subject that has been or will be exposed to a toxin. In some embodiments, the nanocarrier can be used to treat and/or prevent infectious disease, cancer, allergy, asthma (including allergic asthma), or autoimmune disease (including rheumatoid arthritis). In other embodiments, the nanocarriers can be used for immune suppression in connection with transplants to ameliorate transplant rejection.
Claiming the patent is describing the vaccine as a bioweapon is totally incorrect: the patent describes a vaccine technology that could potentially protect people from bioweapons.