The Vaxed Can Be Patented (Owned)
In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 – Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc – the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is ‘a product of nature’. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that if you were to change a human’s genome by mRNA vaccines (being used currently) then the (altered) genome CAN be patented.
This means that everyone who has had the ‘vaccine’ is now technically ‘patented’. Anything that is patented is ‘owned’ and comes under the definition of ‘trans human’.
All people who are legally identified as being ‘trans human’ do not have access to Human Rights or any Rights granted by the State. That is because they are not classified as anything 100% organic or human.
Therefore, technically, anyone having this ‘vaccine’ can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands.
Here is an article by Shawn Paul Melville:
Big Pharma mRNA Vaccine will be used to Patent Humans
A gene patent is the exclusive rights to a specific genetic sequence given by a government to the individual or corporation who claims to have first identified that gene segment. Gene patents have often resulted in companies having “sole ownership” of genetic testing for patented genes. But what if Big Pharma’s patented viral mRNA genetic sequence vaccine is now merged with your own DNA? Are you now property of Big Pharma?
On June 13, 2013, in the case of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that “human genes” cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a “product of nature.” The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intellectual property to protect, so patents cannot be granted. Prior to this ruling, more than 4,300 human genes were patented. The Supreme Court’s decision invalidated those gene patents, making the genes accessible for research and for commercial genetic testing.
The Supreme Court’s ruling did allow “that DNA manipulated in a lab is eligible to be patented because DNA sequences altered by humans are not found in nature.” The Court specifically mentioned the ability to patent a type of DNA known as “Complementary DNA” (cDNA). Complimentary DNA (cDNA) is produced from mRNA genetic sequences within cells, that integrate with cellular DNA; the cells genetic genome.
The Judgement handed down by Justice Antonin Scalia, is at odds with science itself; the cDNA comments make little sense since it’s difficult to distinguish between “natural” DNA and cDNA. It is not correct to insist that cDNA is not a product of nature! There are several examples of cDNA in nature; Retroviruses such as HIV convert their RNA-based genomes into cDNA before they integrate into a host genome. So why this judgement in particular? Why not rule all types of human cellular DNA natural and therefore unpatentable? Did Scalia have insight on what was coming down the line with viral mRNA vaccines? Was he aware of the NWO plan involving the mass vaccination of citizens with patented biological material?
Scalia once told students and staff at a faculty lunch, that internment camps could happen again:
“But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia cited a Latin expression meaning, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”
Many believe viral mRNA vaccines have the ability to incorporate themselves into host DNA or the cellular genome. Despite assurances from Government, medical authorities, the CDC, the WHO and the Pharmaceuticals themselves who have repeatedly stated all viral RNA is destroyed by the body post-vaccination, in a postmortem study of a patient who had been vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, viral RNA was found in all his body cells and there was no evidence what-so-ever that he was infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus! But was this viral RNA genetic material located inside the nucleus of the cell where the human DNA is stored? If so did the viral genetic sequence merge with the host DNA?
Recently, a team of prominent scientists published a controversial hypothesis that genetic material of the pandemic coronavirus can integrate into our chromosomes (DNA) and stick around long after the infection is over. If they are right these viral insertions could explain the rare finding that people can recover from COVID-19 but then test positive for SARS-CoV-2 again months later. The researchers emphasized that viral integration did not mean people who recovered from COVID-19 remain infectious. The authors were able to demonstrate that the SARS-CoV-2 viral sequence can be copied by an enzyme in human cells into DNA and then insert them into our chromosomes. Critics of this research charged them with stoking unfounded fears that COVID-19 vaccines based on messenger RNA (mRNA) might somehow alter human DNA. The evidence suggests that this is indeed possible!
Viral Vector mRNA vaccines such as AstraZeneca and Pfizer’s & Moderna’s mRNA vaccines all have the capacity of “genomic integration” with host DNA. Both use viral mRNA segments that code for “spike protein” and operate on a similar delivery principle; AstraZeneca’s viral vector vaccine uses a weakened virus devoid of genetic material (called a vector) to deliver viral mRNA into human cells thereby initiating an immune response, whereas in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine, the delivery of the viral mRNA segment is done using lipid nanoparticles. It is clearly stated in this table from Sinobiologicals, a pharmaceutical company also producing vaccines, that one of the disadvantages with viral vector (mRNA) vaccines is the “Possible genomic integration of foreign DNA”; simply put, viral genetic material can integrate with the genetic material of the host itself…. your DNA! We believe that the lipid nanoparticle mRNA delivery system used by Pfizer and Moderna would also cause a similar problem! After all, viral mRNA is viral mRNA… is viral mRNA!
Here is a short video explaining how the different vaccines work. At the 2 minute mark, the video introduces viral vector mRNA vaccines (AstraZeneca) and mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Note: They both deliver mRNA vaccines. Odd how NO ONE even mentions viral mRNA when they talk about AstraZeneca?
Now should the viral mRNA vaccine incorporate it’s viral genome into your DNA a precedent has already been set and your “tainted” DNA is now considered a biological patent of the Pharmaceutical Company that provided you with the vaccine! Does this means that everyone who has had the vaccine in now technically owned and will be defined as “Trans-human” or “Transgenic”? And as such, do “Transgenic” individuals have rights under the law?
The idea that advances in molecular genetics would put human individuals or parts of their bodies under someone else’s control has been stirring emotions and terrifying people. It was this notion of “patenting humans” that mobilized members of Congress to pass legislation prohibiting the issuance of patent claims “directed to or encompassing a human organism.” The values underlying this legislation was agreeable, yet its execution was deeply flawed and the potential outcomes, hazardous. The legislation’s numerous flaws include primarily, the lack of an agreed-upon definition of “human organism.”
The idea of “patenting humans” tends to evoke images of helpless fellow humans “tagged” with patent numbers who are the property of someone, perhaps a heartless regime or corporate entity. Many believe that patents convey property rights on “human organisms” which would allow the right to sell, offer for sale, make, use, and import such “human organisms.” On the moral front, critics are concerned with the potential to erode human dignity and “play God.” The thing is… all of this is true!
The U.S. Congress responded to the moral concerns with the America Invents Act (AIA); passed by Congress and was signed into law by Rothschild’s puppet, President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. Section 33 of the AIA states that “notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.” This provision was intended to ban the patenting of “human beings” at any stage of development, including embryos, fetuses, human/non-human chimeras, and clones. However, the vague wording of section 33 and the absence of a definition for “human organism,” will give courts wide latitude when interpreting section 33; whereas “human beings” would have had more of a legal standing the term “human organism” has placed mankind at the same level of an amoeba!
The language of section 33 was originally proposed by Representative David Weldon in 2003 as an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill. Responding to criticism from lobbyist groups opposing the amendment, Weldon said it was “absurd” that “patents on stem cell lines, procedures for creating human embryos, prosthetic devices, and . . . any drug or product that might be used in or for human beings would be affected by the amendment. He argued before Congress that his amendment did nothing more than provide congressional backing for the USPTO’s (The United States Patent and Trademark Office is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce that issues patents) policy against patenting human beings. Why did Weldon not define “human beings” in the Bill? The man was a distinguished medical doctor and scientist? He knew there was definitely a difference between “human being” and “human organism”; one is Divine whereas the other is a laboratory test animal? Could it be his Jesuit upbringing or the freemason secret societies he was involved with like Phi Beta Kapa?
The Weldon amendment applies to patents on claims directed to or encompassing a “human organism” at any stage of development and includes: a human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, or adult, regardless of whether the organism was produced by technological methods. This amendment applies to patents on “human organisms” and as such these “human organism” are NOT patentable under the law. The term ‘‘human organism’’ includes an organism of the human species that has incorporated one or more genes taken from a nonhuman organism (i.e. viral genetic material). For those that have been vaccinated with viral mRNA and have viral genomic inserts in their DNA, they would be considered a “human organism,” and as such can not be patented. However some legal experts say that this is entirely possible and all those containing biologically patented genes can indeed be patented! Wonder if “you are now the property of…” that was included in the small-print on the vaccine medication package insert? Oh snap… there weren’t any inserts!
Human Rights laws specifically state that “human beings” are born human and as such have rights under the law. For a “human organism” who was human at birth and with “human rights” this definition holds true. However, their “genetically modified offspring” will technically be born as “non-human” or “transgenic” since their gene pool has been tarnished with viral genetic material! And as “non-humans” they are thus patentable! Congratulations on taking the jab! Your children and future generations will now be considered the biological patents of Pharmaceutical Companies! In perpetuity!
What the NWO did with these vaccines is not only diabolical but also far-reaching. It will not end with humans being vaccinated against COVID-19. Autonomy is lost in genetically modified embryos and children born to vaccinated parents, who are deemed “transgenic”. As such they no longer have rights under these patent laws. Should there be long-term health complications from these vaccines a state may enact laws allowing for the legalization of mandatory abortions, sterilization and even… euthanasia! Eugenics is how Hitler’s Nazi Germany dealt with the “genetically unfit” and for that matter, adults and the elderly were included in their death panels. This is the NWO depopulation agenda; if the jab doesn’t kill you, they will!
Furthermore, if a “transgenic” organism were patented, the patent owner would have a right to prevent others from interacting with the patented “transgenic” as well as having the right to constrain the actions or free will of the “transgenic.” The transgenic would become property of the patent holder and could be transferred to another person through a sale of the patent. Whether a “transgenic” is property under the control of others will affect the likelihood and extent of experimentation performed upon it: because an owner need not ask property for its consent! The patent rights over humans would be equivalent to slavery!
In drawing this line between naturally occurring DNA and cDNA, were the courts trying to encourage innovation within the industry? Or were they already aware at the time, that viral mRNA vaccines could be integrated into the human genome thus making individuals biological patents of Corporations? All premeditated and pre-planned for their “Plandemic”!