Unchained Preppers
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: JohnyMac on January 12, 2022, 02:43:51 PM
-
There is something floating around the interwize stating that the SCOTUS made a ruling back in 2013, that if you are injected with a mRNA vaccine you are in part owned by the patent holder.
Here is a link to the PDF,
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf)
Does anybody know anything about this? Nemo, can you read this document and make heads or tails out of it?
-
Short answer is the first sentence on page 2. Basically if it exists on its own, it is not patentable. If someone makes it, it is patentable.
Wade through the page 2 and the paragraph on page 3, which is the summary. That should give you a basic understanding of the decision and basis.
If you know genetics you can understand most of the rest of it. Otherwise trust me.
Nemo
Held: A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA ispatent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. Pp. 10?18.
-
Interesting Nemo. Thank you.
Thoughts folks?
-
Short answer is No. The Human genome cannot be patented, even if altered. Patents cannot be issued for any human organism. Here's a couple links if you want to read further (i.e., you need a nap).
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2105.html (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2105.html)
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#aiasec33limitonissuance (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#aiasec33limitonissuance)
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/vaccine-transhuman-claims-patently-wrong-on-us-supreme-court-ruling/ (https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/vaccine-transhuman-claims-patently-wrong-on-us-supreme-court-ruling/)
-
Awesome! Thank you FF. I do noy care what MrsFF says about you...You are alright. :cheers: