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 💸
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.