CRITICAL: mRNA produced cDNA a la any mRNA "vaccines" produce is patentable and people who have received it are no longer free agents and are owned by the pharmaceuticals. We've heard this time and again, but here's the source folks. 🔥â˜ðŸ”¥
(blogs.scientificamerican.com)
🚔 Crime & Corruption 💸
Any vaccinated parents that have children, you probably will not be allowed to "own" your children or make decisions for them in a future near you.
I suppose the word own is rather problematic here. But since infants below 7 cannot speak for themselves parents are supposed to speak for the child, guiding the child on the road to become an upstanding citizen.
In some jurisdictions the laws governing parental powers have been amended to : "make it easier for CPS to insert their assistance", and CPS is elevated to a co-equal branch with parents.
So, by default, in these jurisdictions, in terms of health issues with kids, as a parent you are in a losing battle to protect your child from an uncessary mRNA vaccin (99,9% survival rate or there abouts), apart from the incessant brainwashing about this issue and peer pressure.
This directly interferes with the professed right of parents to raise their child according their their philosophical outlook in life. ( See: EVRM/ EU constitution on human rights)
In US terms, it would be called State Interests.
Children of 12 in many jurisdictions are very capable of making decisions where it concerns health. Like whether or not to take a bloodtransfusion. The older they get, the more self determination is presumed.
So, I would say: if you want to have any impact on your child's education, make sure to do so in the first 7 years. Pref: Homeschooling.
Are the generated spike proteins also patented? Or just the mRNA sequence?
Is there any further information about ownership of humans based on us containing a patented substance?
Has the sequence (that can be reverse transcribed and integrated into our genome) been patented?
Ive heard about the extreme difficulty that organic farmers face, if even a single GMO patented seed or plant is found on their property they can be sued to death.
The template strands aren't fully digested by DNAse, so we are definitely getting jabbed with a proprietary mRNA and whatever else is inside the nanoparticles.could literally be anything, the QC guidelines on mRNA purity are so vague
Converting mRNA into DNA is not a simple process and requires very specialized machinery that does not exist under normal cellular conditions. In nature, this only happens when a virus brings the machinery along with it. In a lab it happens when we introduce that machinery into the system.
None of that machinery is listed as an ingredient in any of the vaccines.
Even if this machinery was in the vaccines, creating cDNA from mRNA does not necessitate its inclusion into the nuclear genome. That requires OTHER machinery that is also not a part of the listed ingredients of any of the vaccines.
This is not in ANY WAY evidence that mRNA is being written into our genomes, nor that we are no longer free agents.
We aren't free agents for completely different reasons than this. The main reason we aren't free agents is because we have signed a contract to be debt slaves. They own us as indentured servants through their mechanisms of fiat currency.
That doesn't mean they don't ever have designs to alter our DNA to own us. If they were to do so however, there are much easier ways to write to our DNA and then make questionable our legal right to ourselves (e.g. CRISPR-cas9, an actual gene editing mechanism).
Think long term: If you know anything about crops and genetic ownership by companies like Monsanto, etc. then you will be scared out of your mind at the prospects here.
And that's only the absolute fucking tippy tip of the iceberg!!!!! There are so many other ramifications and many start off mild "for your own good / wellbeing" and then over time they will become more and more blatant!
I know a great deal about it. I have done many experiments where I have altered the genomes of cells. I have to some extent studied the laws around Monsanto (though if you have something specific I will look at it). I have also written papers on GMOs, techniques related to creating GMOs, and altering DNA.
What I am talking about is the relationship between the article you are quoting, and how it has nothing to do with what you are implying.
The article talks about patenting cDNA. As a separate, but related discussion (because they are both about cDNA) it talks about how viruses can make cDNA from mRNA (the same thing I said in my original post).
IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY does that translate into the vaccines, which inject mRNA into your cells being written to your DNA, nor from there turning you into a GMO.
Here are the problems with the first:
Writing mRNA to your genome requires a whole lot of proteins that your body does not have the DNA for. That means the DNA (or RNA) code must come from another source. In the case of how nature does it, we call that whole mess of code for all the different proteins (machinery), and the body which stores it, a virus (generally). None of the genetic codes for making those proteins, or the proteins themselves are listed as ingredients of ANY of the vaccines, thus there is no evidence WHATSOEVER that the vaccines are writing to our DNA in any meaningful way.
Here are the problems with the second:
A GMO requires, at least implicitly, that a meaningful percentage of the organism has its genetic code rewritten. IF the vaccine were writing to our genetic code at all, it would happen in very few cells. In likely every case each of those cells would be destroyed by the immune system (that is both its stated design, and indicated in many of the autoimmune disease states we see in the VAERS data).
So there is no path for creating GMOs out of people via the vaccines within the scope of their listed ingredients.
If the vaccines are not what they say they are, and indeed have the necessary ingredients and are writing themselves to our DNA the company would be liable for genetic assault and any claim to ownership would be moot by that assault.
Of course they could get around that, but if they are able to get around that, our society would be so far gone that the question of legal ownership of ourselves is a meaningless question.
Sorry, I call argumentum ad verecundiam, bullshit here. I also know a great deal and my great deal conflicts with your great deal - so wall, meet wall.
The implications are evident and instrumentation self propagating.
At the end of the day the only thing we probably can do is "wait and see", which is a dreadful condition in which to find oneself, but sadly in this case many hands can be played and I think it is critical to be aware of what is POSSIBLE vs shitting on the idea. It's better to err on the side of caution.
Huh? I am, at least to the extent required here, an expert in the field of genetic engineering techniques, cell biology, and the vaccine technology. HOWEVER, I am not using my credentials as argument, rather I am putting forth argument of how biology works as argument. If you wish to address potential flaws in my argument then please do so. Suggesting I am appealing to authority, or in this case, appealing to the wrong authority is completely false, since my argument has nothing to do with any authority, and is instead based on known biology you can find in any subject material.
If true, then being specific and addressing my arguments on biology directly should be easy.
If an inference is incorrect (as I asserted with my explanation of the biology), any implications are moot.
NONE of the machinery required is listed as an ingredient of any of the vaccines. Calling me "wrong" without pointing out how I am wrong is a meaningless endeavor.
If you think that the required proteins, or the genetic material to make the required proteins is included in the vaccine ingredients, please point it out.
No, I'm a biologist with experience in all of the things related to everything going on with the vaccine. In my opinion, based on about six months of solid research on the topic, and over a decade of experience in the field, the vaccine is among the worst crimes ever perpetrated on the human race.
But that doesn't mean that every fear that everyone has is legitimate. Many of the fears that exist have no basis in biology at all. mRNA writing to DNA without all of the required machinery is one of them.
I have given reasons for why your fears, and the fears of the OP are not legitimate. You have said I was wrong but offered no evidential support, nor even addressed my arguments specifically which are based 100% on experimental biology. In many cases, my arguments are based on MY OWN experiments in biology (not just something I read in a book, or in a paper).
I could very well be wrong about anything I say, but I can back it all up with published papers. I am asking you for ANY SORT OF EVIDENCE to support your assertion that my knowledge of biology is incorrect. You have only made statements of "you're wrong" and "you must be a shill". One is not actually an argument but a refutation, the other is an ad hominem attack (also not an argument).
A conversation can not advance towards the truth without honest debate. If you will not engage me in honest debate, then why are you engaging me at all?
My claim is that none of the machinery is listed as an ingredient in any of the vaccines.
No where in there is trust in their listed ingredients. It isn't stated nor implied. In fact I say:
Which DOES imply that I acknowledge they may be lying, but EVEN IF THEY ARE, there is even MORE machinery necessary.
And more important I go on to point out that there are much better technologies available than what they say they are using if altering our DNA was the goal.
Which means that if they are altering the DNA of the vaxxed, they are almost certainly using completely different technology which would ALSO make the argument put forth by the OP moot, since it was attempting to tie in the technology they say they are using with making us into GMOs. This is an argument, which I was pointing out, is not based on biology where they were trying to base their argument on biology.
Your assessment of what you think I said has absolutely nothing to do with anything I actually said.
As for the rest...
I have no trust in them, but knowing something about the gamut of available technologies, and knowing specifics of how the stated technologies work, I can say with fair confidence that the arguments that many claim about those things are incorrect. I am NOT suggesting I understand the intentions of the vaccine producers, only how the technologies and the biology work. I know what I WOULD DO if I wanted to turn people into GMO's and it would not have anything to do with the technology that they say they are using.
I have no idea where you get this idea. The adverse effects are well understood (for the vast majority). They are of three types:
As for how to treat it, the best way is to not get the vaccine. The second best way is to protect yourself from the vaccine exactly the same as you would protect yourself from the virus: Take vitamin D, C, B's, Zn, Mg, HCQ and Ivermectin.
Jeezus, the OP is a moron. Did he even read the article? If he did, he didn't understand much of it (too many big words).
Patenting synthetic DNA is somehow stretched into "owning people". So if you get the gene therapy injections, big pharma now "owns" you... as in slavery.
Wow. That is some extremely concentrated stupidity right there.
Bullshit - you are absolutely not thinking straight. Are you oblivious to the agricultural industry??? You have NO lateral thinking capacity to say something as you have here.