If You Have Been Vaxed You Are Now Owned
And Have No More Access To HUMAN RIGHTS
Supreme Court 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics
The Vaxed Can Be Patented (Owned)
Summary From The Net
7-11-21
In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc - the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is 'a product of nature'. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA vaccines (being used currently) then the (altered) genome CAN be patented.
This means that everyone who has had the 'vaccine' is now technically 'patented'. Anything that is patented is 'owned' and comes under the definition of 'trans human'.
All people who are legally identified as being 'trans human' do not have access to Human Rights or any Rights granted by the State. That is because they are not classified as anything 100% organic or human.
Therefore, technically, anyone having this 'vaccine' can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands.
Full Supreme Court Ruling
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf [Note: the link goes to Error notice]
While potentially correct (it was not a firm positive, but a maybe/probably), that still applies to the altered portions of the genome, as IP, not necessarily the actual people involved. IoW, it's likely that such patenting would just mean that Moderna, or whomever, could use DNA sequencing to prove that a competitor violated their patent with Treatment X.
For another analogy, patents on how your fancy new car's electronic stability control works doesn't make the car not yours. It just makes that particular combination of sensors, actuators, software behaviors, etc. not yours to commercially reproduce and sell.
Now, even if it did get ruled that natural vs unnatural DNA alteration changed your personhood status in some legal way, you would still have had to have that change made with full knowledge and consent, at the time of, "treatment," for it to hold any weight. If done to you without knowledge and consent, or under duress, then it's no good, as a way to deny rights because of the consequences. Informed consent has already been blown out of the water, across many dimensions, plus there's the use of coercion, as it concerns the jabs. I think the only ones that would be affected by this is some crazy way would be designer babies - genetically altered from conception, or during gestation, with the parents' informed consent. Vax babies aught to fall under similar pretext as vaxxed parents.
It's from Rense News https://rense.com/general96/if-you-have-been-vaxed-you-are-now-owned.php:
If You Have Been Vaxed You Are Now Owned And Have No More Access To HUMAN RIGHTS Supreme Court 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics The Vaxed Can Be Patented (Owned)
Summary From The Net 7-11-21
In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc - the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is 'a product of nature'. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA vaccines (being used currently) then the (altered) genome CAN be patented.
This means that everyone who has had the 'vaccine' is now technically 'patented'. Anything that is patented is 'owned' and comes under the definition of 'trans human'.
All people who are legally identified as being 'trans human' do not have access to Human Rights or any Rights granted by the State. That is because they are not classified as anything 100% organic or human.
Therefore, technically, anyone having this 'vaccine' can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands.
Full Supreme Court Ruling www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf [Note: the link goes to Error notice]
While potentially correct (it was not a firm positive, but a maybe/probably), that still applies to the altered portions of the genome, as IP, not necessarily the actual people involved. IoW, it's likely that such patenting would just mean that Moderna, or whomever, could use DNA sequencing to prove that a competitor violated their patent with Treatment X.
For another analogy, patents on how your fancy new car's electronic stability control works doesn't make the car not yours. It just makes that particular combination of sensors, actuators, software behaviors, etc. not yours to commercially reproduce and sell.
Now, even if it did get ruled that natural vs unnatural DNA alteration changed your personhood status in some legal way, you would still have had to have that change made with full knowledge and consent, at the time of, "treatment," for it to hold any weight. If done to you without knowledge and consent, or under duress, then it's no good, as a way to deny rights because of the consequences. Informed consent has already been blown out of the water, across many dimensions, plus there's the use of coercion, as it concerns the jabs. I think the only ones that would be affected by this is some crazy way would be designer babies - genetically altered from conception, or during gestation, with the parents' informed consent. Vax babies aught to fall under similar pretext as vaxxed parents.