Article by Scott Armstrong | Rebunked News
Clip from The Daily Wrap-up with Ryan Cristián: Human Patenting, The Coming CBDC Push & Does Your Gov Consider You A “Domestic Threat Actor”? (3/15/2023)
For more, please visit TheLastAmericanVagabond.com
When I was younger, I read a book by Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain, etc) called Next, which to this day, is still one of my favorite books. I have read all of Crichton’s books and always enjoyed getting lost in the fantastical realities that he would paint, just adjacent to the reality in which we live. The one theme throughout all of Crichton’s work is a stern warning about what happens when science is allowed to run amuck.
Next is the story of a man named Frank Burnet who undergoes experimental cancer treatment through a university. Frank has a remarkably positive response to the treatment, more so than any other person that was studied. The university sells Frank’s cells to a biotech company who seeks to profit off of Frank’s super-genes called BioGen. After some kerfuffles and litigation, a court finds that Frank’s cells were considered “waste” and that the company could claim patent rights to those cells.
As the story unfolds, the court determines that not only does BioGen have the rights to Frank’s dead cells, but they also own the rights to his living cells… and those of his offspring! When they need to collect more of Frank’s genetic material, they send a bounty hunter after Frank and his family, forcing Frank to take his family on the run.
Next is a wild ride, replete with talking monkeys posing as human boys, hilarious talking parrots, nonstop action and some very funny moments. But it is also a harrowing tale of a world where corporations take extreme measures to capitalize on the patenting of human genes.
But is this imaginary world starting to become a reality?
Patenting Life
One of the most controversial debates at the intersection of science and law is the idea of patenting “life”. It is a troubling thought that corporations could be able to claim the “rights” to something that exists in nature, that is of the earth or is divinely created. However, the lines have been blurred in recent years with mankind’s ability to genetically alter and modify living organisms.
The case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty is cited as the landmark case that states that if an entity is able to modify or enhance a living organism, although it is alive, that entity can claim ownership over that living organism and derive a patent on it. From the text of the Supreme Court ruling:
Title 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides for the issuance of a patent to a person who invents or discovers "any" new and useful "manufacture" or "composition of matter." Respondent filed a patent application relating to his invention of a human-made, genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, a property which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria. A patent examiner's rejection of the patent application's claims for the new bacteria was affirmed by the Patent Office Board of Appeals on the ground that living things are not patentable subject matter under § 101. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed, concluding that the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law.
Held: A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under § 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within that statute.
Another major case that pertains to the issues of patent rights for living organisms is the infamous Monsanto v. Schmeiser case. The following is a synopsis from the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center:
For over forty years Schmeiser has grown and bred his own variety of canola. In 1997, he found evidence of glyphosate tolerant (RoundUp Ready®) canola in his fields. He did nothing about it and saved seed from one of his fields for use in 1998.
Farmers who purchase glyphosate tolerant canola have to sign a license agreement agreeing not to save seed from one year to the next. Schmeiser, however, has never purchased canola requiring such an agreement so he was unconcerned about saving seed from his own field.
In 1998, Monsanto found evidence of their patented glyphosate tolerant genetic material in Schmeiser's canola and ended up suing him in court. The Canadian court found Schmeiser guilty of "selling or otherwise depriving the plaintiffs [Monsanto] of their exclusive right to use plants which the defendants [Schmeiser] know or ought to know are Roundup tolerant, or using the seeds from such plants." The court held that Monsanto had the right to retrieve their patented genetic material in Schmieser's canola even though they could not prove how it got there. In addition, Schmeiser was ordered to pay Monsanto $140,000 in damages and legal costs.
This is notable because it was the first case that upheld that corporations do, in fact, have the right to claim ownership over living organisms and can seek damages when those patent rights are violated.
While this has been an ongoing debate, and a source of extreme frustration for environmental activists for decades, the issue of patented genetics has created a renewed sense of alarm with the introduction of new, widely adopted (and compulsory) technologies that appear to alter the genetic makeup of humans.
Patents on the Human Genome
We can take this argument a step further and look at the debate around the ability to patent aspects of the human genome.
Looking at an article from the pre-covid, pre-gene-altering mRNA based injection era, we can gain some insight into the debate outside of the way it is framed today. In this 2012 article from Gizmodo entitled “Human Gene Patenting: Yes, Companies Can Own Your DNA”, we learn about court cases that relate to the patenting of the human genome. From the article:
Specifically, a gene patent can be granted for a claim on a nucleic acid, or for a method of diagnosing a genetic condition. Claims can be made over a DNA or RNA sequence, or a method of identifying the existence of a DNA or RNA sequence in an individual. This can include both coding and non-coding DNA. So, for example, a patent can be taken out on the gene sequence responsible for a predisposition to Alzheimer's.
Beginning in the 1990s, with efforts like The Human Genome Project, it became apparent that there was an arms-race, of sorts, for private companies to claim ownership over certain gene sequences in the human body.
In 2005, an article appeared in Science entitled “Intellectual Property Landscape of the Human Genome” that claims that 20% of the human genome had been patented at that time. Another paper published on SSRN (Social Science Research Network) entitled “Will Gene Patents Impede Whole Genome Sequencing?: Deconstructing the Myth that 20% o the Human Genome Is Patented” appears to debunk this claim that all of these genes had been patented. However, the SSRN paper actually just speaks to the enforceability of the patents and does not negate the fact that patents actually exist.
Another interesting case involves a biotech company called Myriad Genetics, which obtained the patents on two human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The company used the patent to create an expensive diagnostic test to detect these cancers, facing harsh criticism. According to the article mentioned above by Gizmodo:
The case went to court. In 2010, a federal judge overturned Myriad's patents, arguing that genes are a "product of nature," and that they should not be patentable. The U.S. Justice Department noted that, "genomic DNA that has merely been isolated from the human body, without further alteration or manipulation, is not patent-eligible" and added that "the unique chain of chemical base pairs that induces a human cell to express a BRCA protein is not a "human-made invention."
However, the case went to appeal — and Myriad won its patents back. A three-judge panel decided that "isolated DNA" was somehow different than "naturally occurring" DNA — and that this distinction could allow fragments of human genes to be patented.
It is precedents like this that inch us closer to a world where patents on altered living organisms and patents on naturally occurring human genes could lead to disastrous results, much like what our friend Frank Burnet experienced in the novel Next.
mRNA-LNP’s, Reverse Transcription and You
Those who have followed The Last American Vagabond for a while have become familiar with many aspects of “messenger RNA” (mRNA), LNP’s (Lipid Nanoparticles), the concept of reverse transcription and the fears of altering human DNA.
A recent study came out entitled “Pre-exposure to mRNA-LNP inhibits adaptive immune responses and alters innate immune fitness in an inheritable fashion” that demonstrates that mRNA-LNP material in mice is passed down in the maternal line to offspring. The paper states: “Interestingly, mice pre-exposed to the mRNA-LNP platform can pass down the acquired immune traits to their offspring”. But what does this mean?
In the clip above, Ryan cites a Substack article entitled “Who owns who?” by Dr. Ah Kahn Syed that does a great analysis of this mouse study, so I will cite a lot of his work to cover the waterfront of this topic. We encourage you to go read Dr. Syed’s article for yourself:
In his analysis of the mouse study, Dr. Syed frames the discussion as such:
What the experiment shows is this:
By the 2nd-4th litter of the originally injected (transfected) mice, the effect of the RNA injected via lipid nanoparticles is persistent, provided the original injection (transfection) was in the maternal line.
There is only one rational conclusion from this experiment, ignoring the bluster about epigenetics and various other tenuous stuff from the authors, and that is:
The RNA injected into the original mice was incorporated into the genome in the oocytes of the maternal line of mice.
And yes, we know that the following events happen with the LNP-mRNA technology
(1) The LNP are bio-distributed to the ovaries
(2) The LNP are transfectant agents and therefore will transfect any tissue in which they are biodistribute
(3) The SARS-Cov-2 vaccine mRNA is reverse transcribed (from RNA into DNA)
Which means that the Qin paper has just confirmed the (4) in this list, that is:
(4) Biodistribution of LNP-mRNA to the ovaries results in transfection of oocytes that result in integration of cDNA into the progeny genome
In plain English, the LNP transports the mRNA to the ovaries, then to the eggs (oocytes) and because of reverse transcription that same mRNA becomes integrated into the genetic material of the offspring, and their offspring, and their offspring… well you get the gist. The only way this effect can be seen in subsequent generations is if the mRNA/cDNA given to the original recipient is being expressed in the DNA/genome of the offspring.
So what we have here is a case where altered DNA is being expressed in multiple generations of mice using the same mRNA-LNP platform that was used in the mass-injection campaign that we have seen over the last few years in humans via the COVID-19 injection.
In this paper entitled “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line”, the authors state “Furthermore, a recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells,“ and conclude:
Our study is the first in vitro study on the effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 on human liver cell line. We present evidence on fast entry of BNT162b2 into the cells and subsequent intracellular reverse transcription of BNT162b2 mRNA into DNA.
Reverse transcription is the process in which RNA is converted into DNA using enzymes known as reverse transcriptase. According to ThermoFisher Scientific:
Reverse transcription involves a broad family of enzymes called reverse transcriptases that play a unique role in the flow of genetic information…
…the general role of reverse transcriptase is to convert RNA sequences to cDNA sequences that are capable of inserting into different areas of the genome.
This paper also indicates that there are measurable levels of Pfizer BNT162b2 in the ovaries:
The Pfizer EMA assessment report also showed that BNT162b2 distributes in the spleen (<1.1%), adrenal glands (<0.1%), as well as low and measurable radioactivity in the ovaries and testes (<0.1%)
So we can see that the Pfizer BNT162b2 injection does, in fact, get reverse transcribed into DNA in the human genome, that the mRNA-LNP’s spread to multiple organ systems in the human body (specifically the ovaries, for the sake of this argument) and that evidence suggests that this altered DNA is passed onto future generations.
As Ryan points out in the video, it would not be advantageous at this time for them to create a narrative around the patentability of altered human DNA, because their acknowledgement of this phenomenon would destroy their COVID injection narrative that vehemently espouses that the shots DO NOT alter DNA.
But as the house of cards continues to collapse, have they set the stage for what they intend to roll out next?
Note to the Readers:
Thank you for your ongoing support of The Last American Vagabond. TLAV is a Value-For-Value experience. We want to invite you to subscribe to our Substack for as little as $5/month to join the discussion, comment on posts, join the TLAV Roundtable Discussions and feel good about supporting alternative media that you value. Upgrade to the Founding Member Level for the opportunity to have a monthly Q&A with Ryan as well. Thank you to all of you who already support TLAV in all the various ways that you do with your time, talent and treasure.
Has the Stage Has Been Set for Corporations and Big Pharma to Patent Humans?