https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9b8jcpB/x/c/4TxjNzC1Qtc
Seems to have a link to the summary. I could see that altered DNA is patentable.
There was concern on these boards a while back about the potential for a Monsanto SCOTUS ruled precedent that would allow for all genetically modified organisms (in that case it was food) to be owned by Monsanto specifically because it had the DNA Monsanto designed. Hence wind sending modified pollen into a neighbors field now made the neighbors crop property of Monsanto & the neighbor lost everything because it wasn't his design genetically (I need to find the links, though that is what got many worried at the time that this mRNA shot could be used to enslave shot takers).
edit: Did some more digging & found this writers opinion on all the GMO cases they could find & why the courts ruled the way they did. I would need to dig into them all. Cross pollination case was #3 and I am linking to the second one (ljnks for the first & third in the series are in this link too). https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/12/16/gmo-patent-controversy-2-supreme-court-cases-farmers-bowman-schmeiser/
Still going back to read the first summary to see if I can figure out why so many have been worried that genetically modified individuals might be considered property (or a potential legal pathway for that).
edit 2- The author is a geneticist & discussing how (interestingly enough) they only found Monsanto was targeted by lawsuits instead of other competitors in GMOs.
I would need to dig into the court opinions/briefs myself to determine if there is any potential legal pathway for pharma/vaccine/Shot creators to own the "trans" humans that have been genetically modified. I still am not seeing it after looking over these articles, though I could be missing something by not digging deeper yet.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9b8jcpB/x/c/4TxjNzC1Qtc
Seems to have a link to the summary. I could see that altered DNA is patentable.
There was concern on these boards a while back about the potential for a Monsanto SCOTUS ruled precedent that would allow for all genetically modified organisms (in that case it was food) to be owned by Monsanto specifically because it had the DNA Monsanto designed. Hence wind sending modified pollen into a neighbors field now made the neighbors crop property of Monsanto & the neighbor lost everything because it wasn't his design genetically (I need to find the links, though that is what got many worried at the time that this mRNA shot could be used to enslave shot takers).
edit: Did some more digging & found this writers opinion on all the GMO cases they could find & why the courts ruled the way they did. I would need to dig into them all. Cross pollination case was #3 and I am linking to the second one (ljnks for the first & third in the series are in this link too). https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/12/16/gmo-patent-controversy-2-supreme-court-cases-farmers-bowman-schmeiser/
Still going back to read the first summary to see if I can figure out why so many have been worried that genetically modified individuals might be considered property (or a potential legal pathway for that).
https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9b8jcpB/x/c/4TxjNzC1Qtc
Seems to have a link to the summary. I could see that altered DNA is patentable.
There was concern on these boards a while back about the potential for a Monsanto SCOTUS ruled precedent that would allow for all genetically modified organisms (in that case it was food) to be owned by Monsanto specifically because it had the DNA Monsanto designed. Hence wind sending modified pollen into a neighbors field now made the neighbors crop property of Monsanto & the neighbor lost everything because it wasn't his design genetically (I need to find the links, though that is what got many worried at the time that this mRNA shot could be used to enslave shot takers).