Response to Dilyana Gaytandzhieva on the Legality of a Toxic Mosquito Delivery System
On March 31, Dilyana Gaytandzhieva asked on Twitter: "Dear 'independent' fact-checkers, any comment on the "peaceful purposes" of this US patent for a Toxic Mosquito Aerial release system, granted in 2015? The invention includes a drone which can release infected mosquitoes that could spread bioagents"
She referenced United States Patent 8,967,029 B1.
What is this patent for? It's for a drone that contains mosquitoes that feed upon toxic "mosquito food. " I assume that the toxic mosquito food is blood that contains some type of disease or virus.
The question is, is United States Patent 8,967,029 B1 legal under the so-called "Biological Weapons Convention," or more formally, The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and On Their Destruction (known as the Biological Weapons Convention, or BWC).
Interestingly, the applicants of the Patent addressed this question themselves. They said that toxins themselves are not banned, only non-peaceful purposes of the toxins were banned. Here's what they said:
It's true enough that the BWC does allow the creation of biological weapons for peaceful purposes. The BWC says State Parties can create vaccines and medicines to combat biological weapons. Under this loophole, anyone State Party can develop a biological weapon.
Here, however, the patent applicants have applied for a toxic biological weapons delivery system, not to create a medicine or vaccine to combat a biological weapon. How could this possible qualify as a "peaceful purpose" such as developing a vaccine or medicine?
The patent applicants claim that their drone-based blood-fed mosquito delivery system could be a way to "immunize" the public.
This application is illegal under the Biological Weapons Convention. No public would consent to having any medicine delivered to them by mosquitos. It is absurd. A mosquito delivery system of vaccines or medicines would a random delivery method. Should the public want a medicine or vaccine they will get it from a medical provider, not wait around for a mosquito to bite them. By any reasonable standard, this application does not qualify as a peaceful purpose under the BWC.
Further, as evidence of criminal intent, the United States Patent 8,967,029 B1 applicants stated deadly non-peaceful applications of their invention in no uncertain terms.
They went into a long history of biological warfare, as if it was a good thing. Do these applicants sound like they intended peaceful applications of their invention?
Peaceful purpose? Absolutely not. The question now becomes, who should be held responsible for the violation of the Biological Weapons Convention?
A September 2018 documentary on Lugar Center reported that Dilyana Gaytandzhieva attempted to contact the Patent holder, S. Mill Calvert. In the video, they claimed that they could not find any record that S. Mill Calvert existed. They felt that the name was fictitious. Dilyana corresponded with the lawyer for the patent application, Louis Ventre Jr.
Whether or not S. Mill Calvert exists, I do not believe patent attorney Louis Ventre Jr.'s involvement in the violation of the Biological Weapons Convention is excused in any manner by attorney-client privilege.
As a citizen of the United States, I demand that Louis Ventre Jr. be prosecuted for the violation of the Biological Weapons Convention under any applicable criminal code available in the United States.
I am not certain who has jurisdiction over crimes of this nature. Louis Ventre Jr. is based in Oakton, Virginia. Here is the link to contact the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. I recommend that every citizen of the United States who reads this should contact this Office and request prosecution of Louis Ventre Jr. If they do not have jurisdiction, I'm sure they will refer us to the proper office.
And on behalf of the United States, Dilyana, I apologize.
Charles Wright