I mean if you look at what science has tried in the past then nothing is off the table. Why assume patented humans when these are so many other possibilities of what is taking place? You’re using a few instances of bad to support a possibility, when you’re not including all the other instances of bad, of good, of neutral.
The Supreme Court made it clear that abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not patentable subject matter. However, it "ruled that if there is anything synthetic, not from nature, inside of our genome, then whoever owns the patent on those synthetic parts now owns part or all of you as a human.
In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court, in 5-4 decision, affirmed. It ruled, in part:
Living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of the Patent Act of 1952. The fact that the organism sought to be patented is alive is no bar to patentability. The case paved the way for biotechnology companies and universities. The OncoMouse, patented by Harvard in 1988, was the first mammal ever patented. Harvard scientists genetically-modified mice to be predisposed to cancer (thus the “onco” prefix) so other scientists could study the disease.
Scientists have since created an entire discipline on “transgenic non-human mammals.” Of course there are serious ethical concerns. But the practice continue.
The case that provides the blueprint for pharmaceutical companies claiming ownership of your genes is Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013). This case originated from a Utah-based company called Myriad Genetics.
Several Plaintiffs, including Yale, Columbia, individual patients, and patient advocacy groups filed a lawsuit against Myriad and the University of Utah in May of 2009. The Plaintiffs argued that BRCA1 and BRCA2 are not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are naturally-occurring. Myriad argued that it isolated the sequences of the DNA and that the Patent Office had issued patents for other companies doing the same thing.
A long legal battle ensued that included two writs of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit twice affirmed that both isolated DNA and cDNA are patentable.** Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that only cDNA (synthetic DNA) is patentable.** Isolated, natural DNA is not patentable. Breast and ovarian cancer screening got much cheaper after the ruling since Myriad no longer owned patents on naturally-occurring genes and thus the testing.
On to Pfizer, Moderna, Et Al. And Your Genes.
The synthetic mRNA of Pfizer and Moderna, along with the viral vector DNA delivery systems of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, change your genetic code, making you “genetically-modified.” Granted mainstream media say the foregoing is “conspiracy theory.” But Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks tells you straight up that the shots change your genetic code. He calls the Moderna shot “hacking the software of life.” Viral vectors do the same thing.
So do these companies “own you” once you get the shots? Well, they own mice and bacteria created with their inventions. Once you get these shots, you are no longer a “naturally-occurring” human being. Prosthetic limbs, breast implants, etc. are not “natural” per se. But they are removable and not part of what fundamentally makes you human. Gene therapy is irreversible. Do the math yourself.
Did the corporation of the United States 'own' you after 1871, when they defrauded you into believing the corporate straw man created from your birth certificate? Did anyone tell you that corporation was a diction and not the real flesh and blood you? The word for this from the Greek is 'pharmakeia', which means anyone in positions of authority, whether it is government, corporate, church, or positions of influence causing its people to stumble and be harmed because of their deceit is likened to witchcraft. Isn't ironic that pharmacy is derived from this term and a witchcraft magic symbol is used for promoting it?
I mean if you look at what science has tried in the past then nothing is off the table. Why assume patented humans when these are so many other possibilities of what is taking place? You’re using a few instances of bad to support a possibility, when you’re not including all the other instances of bad, of good, of neutral.
The Supreme Court made it clear that abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not patentable subject matter. However, it "ruled that if there is anything synthetic, not from nature, inside of our genome, then whoever owns the patent on those synthetic parts now owns part or all of you as a human.
In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court, in 5-4 decision, affirmed. It ruled, in part:
Living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of the Patent Act of 1952. The fact that the organism sought to be patented is alive is no bar to patentability. The case paved the way for biotechnology companies and universities. The OncoMouse, patented by Harvard in 1988, was the first mammal ever patented. Harvard scientists genetically-modified mice to be predisposed to cancer (thus the “onco” prefix) so other scientists could study the disease.
Scientists have since created an entire discipline on “transgenic non-human mammals.” Of course there are serious ethical concerns. But the practice continue.
The case that provides the blueprint for pharmaceutical companies claiming ownership of your genes is Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013). This case originated from a Utah-based company called Myriad Genetics.
Several Plaintiffs, including Yale, Columbia, individual patients, and patient advocacy groups filed a lawsuit against Myriad and the University of Utah in May of 2009. The Plaintiffs argued that BRCA1 and BRCA2 are not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are naturally-occurring. Myriad argued that it isolated the sequences of the DNA and that the Patent Office had issued patents for other companies doing the same thing.
A long legal battle ensued that included two writs of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit twice affirmed that both isolated DNA and cDNA are patentable.** Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that only cDNA (synthetic DNA) is patentable.** Isolated, natural DNA is not patentable. Breast and ovarian cancer screening got much cheaper after the ruling since Myriad no longer owned patents on naturally-occurring genes and thus the testing.
On to Pfizer, Moderna, Et Al. And Your Genes.
The synthetic mRNA of Pfizer and Moderna, along with the viral vector DNA delivery systems of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, change your genetic code, making you “genetically-modified.” Granted mainstream media say the foregoing is “conspiracy theory.” But Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks tells you straight up that the shots change your genetic code. He calls the Moderna shot “hacking the software of life.” Viral vectors do the same thing.
So do these companies “own you” once you get the shots? Well, they own mice and bacteria created with their inventions. Once you get these shots, you are no longer a “naturally-occurring” human being. Prosthetic limbs, breast implants, etc. are not “natural” per se. But they are removable and not part of what fundamentally makes you human. Gene therapy is irreversible. Do the math yourself.
Did the corporation of the United States 'own' you after 1871, when they defrauded you into believing the corporate straw man created from your birth certificate? Did anyone tell you that corporation was a diction and not the real flesh and blood you? The word for this from the Greek is 'pharmakeia', which means anyone in positions of authority, whether it is government, corporate, church, or positions of influence causing its people to stumble and be harmed because of their deceit is likened to witchcraft. Isn't ironic that pharmacy is derived from this term and a witchcraft magic symbol is used for promoting it?