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.