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.
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).