Patent law does not allow for someone to patent or own a living organism. However, we have seen companies such as Monsanto modify the genetics of plants to make them grow with less water and that allows them to patent and own the genetically modified thing.
If you apply the same concept to those who are taking mRNA vaccines, they could be considered property of the pharma companies.
In this twisted clown world, I would not put it past someone to try this and claim everyone who took said vaccine is now owned by these sick people. Vaccine yourself and you just signed up to be a slave. No thanks.
As I stated in another thread...
I think this is incorrect thinking for these three reasons.
mRNA does not alter the DNA, the spike proteins that it creates can, and likely will. So, i light a match, throw it on a pile of leaves next to your house, and the leaves burn down your house. The match didn't destroy your home, the leaf fire did.
You smoke for 40 years, then get cancer and die. The smoke didn't kill you, the cancer did. Where did the cancer come from? The smoke, or the 1100 carcinogens added to the tobacco in the cigarette.
Saying mRNA cant/doesn't alter DNA is a complete bullshit fallacy. It creates a rogue spike protein that THEN implants genetic code into the cellular programming. When that happens, ur completely fuked.
Same paradigm.
This has nothing to do with reality. The spike protein is expressed on the outside of the cell. It has no interaction with the DNA or the nucleus or any of the machinery required to change DNA.
Carcinogens are called carcinogens because they are molecules that interact with DNA. They are not proteins expressed from an injection of mRNA. They are molecules that can pass through a cell wall (generally small hydrophobic molecules) and can enter the nucleus by the same method. They then interact with the nucleotides themselves, often having a reaction with a base. This can cause bridging, or numerous other deleterious effects on the double helix, generally interfering with the proteins that wind/unwind/read the DNA. This can cause double stranded breaks which can lead to cancer. None of this has anything to do with anything the vaccine does.
This is a "complete bullshit fallacy". Cell biology is more well known than what you are saying. I have done experiments on many of these mechanisms myself. Your assessment of cell biology is insufficient to come to the conclusions you have.
That is the most parochial assessment of 'Reality' posted to date.
Of course the SP is on the outside of the cell, no shit, that's where it is programmed to be. It's the NEW ARTIFICAL programming that gets imprinted into the genome. Has nothing to do with the SP. Has everything to do with the new, unapproved software upload. You need to read up on genetic pathway analysis.
It's almost like we are speaking two different languages.
By the way you are using the term, I'm guessing you have no idea what "genetic pathway" means. Nevertheless, if you have something I "need to read up on" regarding the vaccines and the spike protein or ANYTHING related to anything under discussion please post it.
You missed the entire point Kramer. That is some of the most fallacious strawman shit posted to this site yet.
What experiments have your done? Share with us Fauci.
How the fuck do you know that artificial protein synthesis doesn't imprint on the genetic sting? You fucking don't, because it can, and probably will. You should read more, because molecular cellular biology, and more importantly to the context of the topic, Molecular genetics, both are definitely more well known that what you are saying.
What does this even mean? Proteins don't "imprint on the genetic st[r]ing". That doesn't have anything to do with biology. Let me repeat: this is completely non-sensical from the point of view of cell and molecular biology.
Making such statements without evidence is meaningless. If you take issue with a specific thing i have said, please site it and provide evidence of an error.
Instead of using a fact based argument, all you did was insult me and say "you're wrong". You also (fallaciously) called my statement of how biology works a "strawman". A strawman is an argument that is not relevant to the topic. Everything I stated was relevant to what I quoted. Within it was additional information on how biology actually works to attempt to help you understand why your argument was NOT relevant to the conversation.
To be more specific, in case I was too subtle, the fact that other molecules (like carcinogens) can interact with DNA in some way, has not one single thing to do with proteins interacting with DNA. And, as I tried to point out, even molecules that do interact with DNA do not meaningfully ALTER DNA (change the genetic code). On the contrary, they damage it, and it more often than not gets fixed exactly how it was. I won't get into too much detail on the difference between potential DNA damage and changing the genetic code (as you mean it) as I don't want to confuse the issue.
This non protein interaction is especially true for a cell surface protein like the spike protein in question. The translation of integral membrane proteins never involves the interior of the nucleus (its topologically impossible), much less the DNA itself. Even if they did, proteins DO NOT 'IMPRINT' ON DNA. Such a statement doesn't make any sense.
Again, if you take issue with specific things I am saying, please cite them and give evidence. I assure you I know what I am talking about. I would be happy to provide evidence for my statements if you wish (again, be specific).
UNC Health website says that the shot "teaches" our cells to make the virus spike proteins to spark the production of antibodies. Proteins are manufactured using instructions in our DNA. The only way to "teach" a cell to manufacture new proteins is to modify the DNA. The only way.
Also, the birth certificate crap is crap. My name isn't in all caps on my birth certificate, and there is no "serial number" either. The original was handwritten in cursive, and certified copies are typed, not in all caps, and there's still no "serial number." The paper is not special banker paper either. It's printed at the local printer, and has been for over 100 years.
This has nothing to do with reality. I have injected cells with mRNA and have caused them to express a desired protein. I have done it many times. This is very basic cell biology.
If you want a cell to permanently express a certain protein you have to alter the DNA. In order to make that happen in a predictable way requires ingredients that are not in any of the vaccines (as listed).
My name is in all caps on mine. There is no serial number, but I have never heard anyone mention a serial number until you did just now. The unique identifier on my birth certificate is the time, date, place of birth, and name. I also have a SSN which I suppose is more like a serial number, but its not really necessary, since my birth certificate is a unique identifier.
Most of the videos about the birth certificate crap talk about the serial numbers. And they claim that all birth certificates have the names in all caps.
Most birth certificates from the 60s on back were handwritten, therefore not in all caps. I didn't have an SSN when I was born either. I got that when I needed it for work.
The video I saw about the all caps thing was the Jay-Gould thing (or whatever his name is), but that isn't really relevant. I came across the birth certificate thing doing independent research. A lot of birth certificates are all caps from what I have seen. Perhaps it has to do with when and where. I was born in a big city. Perhaps it began in larger cities before trickling out.
Regardless of the all caps thing, that is not really relevant to birth certificates being papers of ownership. Birth certificates started around the same time that the Federal Reserve and Income Tax came into existence. This is what gives strong support for them being papers of ownership, not the other crap that I don't really know, nor care about.