It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Patenting Humans Through Vaccines

page: 1

log in

+2 more 
posted on Sep, 21 2021 @ 09:00 AM
There has been too few discussions regarding intellectual property rights and covid vaccines. 
First, can the synthetic genes in the vaccines be patented?  Yes, the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the geneticists (link to court ruling on page):

"A gene patent is the exclusive rights to a specific sequence of DNA (a gene) given by a government to the individual, organization, or corporation who claims to have first identified the gene. Once granted a gene patent, the holder of the patent dictates how the gene can be used..."

Next, the argument by the establishment to discredit the notion that a human can be patented:

"Humans cannot be patented, regardless of whether they are vaccinated or unvaccinated. COVID-19 vaccines do not alter people’s DNA."

The key to their argument is that the DNA is not altered, and therefore not a permanent change.  However, there are a multitude of research papers regarding mRNA vaccine use of CRISPR/CAS9 that disagree, and indicate direct changes to DNA:

"RNA can also be engineered, as Jennifer Doudna and others discovered, to target genes for editing. Using the CRISPR system adapted from bacteria, RNA can guide scissors-like enzymes to specific sequences of DNA in order to eliminate or edit a gene. This technique has already been used in trials to cure sickle cell anemia. Now it is also being used in the war against COVID...
More controversially, CRISPR could be used to create “designer babies” with inheritable genetic changes."

Inheritable genetic changes are permanent ones. 
The argument that is made to counter this is that the mRNA vaccines do not reach the nucleus.  However, CRISPR/CAS9 is very good at reaching the nucleus.  Simple online searches result in many papers and articles specifically mentioning CRISPRs ability to alter DNA, and this can happen through guide RNA, viral vectors (which the vaccines have), and during mitosis:

"The Cas9 protein is responsible for locating and cleaving target DNA, both in natural and in artificial CRISPR/Cas systems."

"CRISPR-Cas9 must translocate to the nuclei of the transfected cells for executing its nuclease activity on the genomic DNA...
CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing system has two major components: a synthetic RNA “guide RNA” (gRNA) and a non-specific CRISPR-Cas9 protein with nuclease activity... Therefore, one must check if CRISPR-Cas9 is actually binding to the correct region on the DNA."

So, how can this affect the nucleus?  During mitosis (cell division) , and through viral vectors.

"The translocation of DNA/RNA into the nucleus is mediated by the nuclear pore complex and mitosis (when the nuclear envelope breaks down and then re-assembles).
Stable (permanent) transfections are most effectively achieved by using a viral vector, though they can also occur at low frequency following the introduction of plasmid DNA.  It is common for researchers to stably transfect only DNA encoding Cas9 (but not guide RNA) to produce a Cas9-expressing cell line. Then, gRNAs for different targets can be introduced to the Cas9-expressing cells through transient transfection."

The mitosis statements are very important.  The vaccines are loaded with infectious mRNA, targeting billions of cells.  Since every cell undergoes mitosis during its lifecycle, there are literally billions of chances for permanent genetic changes in every vaccine dose and booster.  This, of course, is additional to the guide RNA being used, and any other peculiarities of cell lifecycles.

People can decide for themselves whether they feel that the vaccines will induce permanent changes, but I think its inevitable. 
Obviously, this leads back to the question "can humans be patented?".  This conversation isn't happening enough.  The courts say genes can be patented, and people have been voluntarily taking them whether coerced or not.  If the change is permanent, then it is conceivable that;  the person will no longer be considered a "human being" and therefore not qualify for human rights (become cattle, chattle, or livestock), and if the person has a child, then they will owe royalties, which will unlikely be payable (generational slavery).

To my knowledge, there are zero court rulings protecting people from these very real possibilities.  If anyone knows of any, please reply with the information.
It should also be noted that they are in the process of producing "vaccine enhancers" that are DNA based:
edit on 21-9-2021 by Wisenox because: Changed cannot to can.

posted on Sep, 21 2021 @ 09:08 AM

"COVID-19 vaccines do not alter people’s DNA."

Kind of crazy that one of the things They haven't checked for is in fact if the vaccine alters the DNA (so they say), which is stated in the insert for the approved vax (Section 13).
edit on 21-9-2021 by ATruGod because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2021 @ 09:53 AM
a reply to: Wisenox

Excellent post! S&F.

It’s my understanding that humans (indeed ANY naturally occurring animal or organism) cannot be patented precisely because no-one can ‘patent’ Nature. However… animals, plants, diseases and insects CAN be patented IF it can be proven that human activity directly led to that specimen’s existence, I.e. a new species of Rose, disease-resistant wheat, etc.
edit on 21-9-2021 by Thoughtcrime because: Punctuation

posted on Sep, 21 2021 @ 01:27 PM

“A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.”

“cDNA is not a “product of nature,” so it is patent eligible under §101. cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments. Its creation results in an exons-only molecule, which is not naturally occurring. Its order of the exons may be dictated by nature, but the lab technician unques- tionably creates something new when introns are removed from a DNA sequence to make cDNA.”

“DNA’s informational sequences and the processes that create mRNA, amino acids, and proteins occur naturally within cells. Scientists can, however, extract DNA from cells using well known laboratory methods. These meth- ods allow scientists to isolate specific segments of DNA— for instance, a particular gene or part of a gene—which can then be further studied, manipulated, or used. It is also possible to create DNA synthetically through processes similarly well known in the field of genetics. One such method begins with an mRNA molecule and uses the natural bonding properties of nucleotides to create a new, synthetic DNA molecule. The result is the inverse of the mRNA’s inverse image of the original DNA, with one important distinction: Because the natural creation of mRNA involves splicing that removes introns, the synthetic DNA created from mRNA also contains only the exon sequences. This synthetic DNA created in the laboratory from mRNA is known as complementary DNA (cDNA).“

posted on Sep, 21 2021 @ 01:30 PM
I think back to the case where a farmer planted GMO seed in his field that was patented by - IIRC - the demon Monsanto. Some of the seed blew into the crop of a neighboring farmer who had planted a non-GMO crop of the same type of grain.

The bastards from Monsanto came to check the crop, saw that the neighbor had a bit of their GMO garbage among his crop and sued him for patent infringement or some such crap.

Ultimately - again, IIRC - the farmer won against Monsanto, but the legal fees nearly killed him.

I could easily see these bastards doing the same thing. Imagine the litigious hell they could inflict. Given the fact that the government is pretty much in their pockets, there's no telling where that'd end up

posted on Sep, 21 2021 @ 01:33 PM
Also, kudos for an excellent OP. It kind of chafes me that quite often stupid foolishness gets pages of lame banter on this site while thoughtful posts like this get largely passed over.

posted on Sep, 21 2021 @ 02:17 PM
I've had the same questions about the patent possibility of humans through vaccines that would modify the DNA, when they announced the covid vaccines.

I don't know laws about this, but I have heard some rulings in affairs that led me to believe a modified organism would become legally the property of the one making the changes.

One of the most fearful aspect of this vaccine campaign that no one talks about indeed, as you say.

And I think it's more a question of when will the claim be made than an if...

Great thread idea!

new topics

top topics


log in