How Patent Law May Impact Our Concept of Human Sovereignty

What happens if the shot manufacturers claim to own your altered DNA? And why are most not asking this clearly relevant legal and philosophical question?

Give a gift subscription


This topic is something which I wrote a quick class about in November 2020 wondering why no one was discussing it - and STILL, I rarely see anyone so much as mention it in passing other than a random tweet or two or a passing mention in a blog where it gets buried without anyone really wrapping their heads around the topic to do it enough justice to provoke some real thought on the matter.

The Supreme Court ruling in question is from June 2013; however, considering what it covers, it would have a profound and far-reaching impact given the current scenario. This is something extremely important that, in my opinion, we should all be thinking about and acting upon to prevent what could end up being insane psychopathic supervillain levels of overreach if left unchecked....

We’re going to take this topic in a few different directions and engage with separate theories without drawing any conclusions.

The point here is to really think through the subject matter and understand that your choices have implications that you might not be considering, far reaching levels of impact that may not even be on your radar because our Fourth Estate continues to fail us and our Fifth Estate, sadly, tends not to do much better anymore.

As always, at The Starfire Codes we support and encourage autodidacticism as part of our mission. We pose questions herein that we feel you should be considering strongly, and we urge you to pick up where we leave off.

We prefer that you question everything - including, and especially, the people who urge you not to question anything. We welcome you to do thorough research and draw your own conclusions.


November 22, 2020

Are you paying attention?

Monsanto, prior to being acquired by Bayer, was genetically modifying seeds and then suing farmers for patent infringement for using them if those seeds were not purchased from a licensed Monsanto reseller. This went all the way to the US Supreme Court and the judgment was in favor of Monsanto.

There are thousands of farmers who claim that the proliferation of genetically modified patented Monsanto crops requires them to create expensive buffer zones so that cross-pollination does not inadvertently create crops that Monsanto could then sue the farmer for growing.

Some of these farmers banded together and sued Monsanto for threatening their livelihoods. Monsanto is on record promising never to do this, never to bring suit against a farmer whose crop is inadvertently affected, but again, the judgment was in Monsanto's favor, protecting patent law.

It stands to reason, if Monsanto, now Bayer, wanted to wait and pounce later, they could. There would be nothing to prevent this action than to point out the breaking of a rather flimsy promise published on their website that it was their policy not to do so. This seemed more like weaponized PR than an actual promise; however, Monsanto's stated intent to promise not to sue farmers who inadvertently end up with Monsanto's patent protected genetic traits in their crops is now on record with the courts.

How is this similar to what is about to happen now?

An mRNA shot introduces patented genetic code for antigens that may teach the body’s immune system to respond to the pathogen. Once the genetic code is inserted, your cells are permanently altered with patented genetic code. There is no way to remove it from your body.

In essence, at this point, you become a Monsanto suit waiting to happen.

Once, for instance, Pfizer or Moderna claims to own the patent on your resulting modified DNA, they could therefore claim to own either you or the affected parts of you.

It's a slippery slope with bizarre legal precedent that, of course, you might be able to use the 13th constitutional amendment to fight - but at what point in this sci-fi world of hybrid patented DNA do Pfizer or Moderna claim in a suit that a hybrid person is no longer a pure human and therefore does not have the same rights as a pure human?

How does this not end up mirroring the turns identity politics and abortion law have taken in sliding around classifications and definitions to suit political agendas? When do they start claiming they have the right to harvest your genetically modified organs or to have the right to control when and whether you are allowed to reproduce? When do they try to claim your children belong to them because their genetic material is patent protected?

These seem like bizarre questions to ask, but we are on the precipice of becoming hybridized humans. Do hybridized humans have the same rights as pure humans? How do laws regarding cloning and hybridization cover our rights? What happens if Pfizer or Moderna argue this or find some other variation upon this argument to claim they own your DNA, and therefore, you?

More importantly, why is no one asking this clearly relevant legal and philosophical question?

Why have we rushed shots for a pathogen with a 99% survival rate that bring questions like these into play?

And in a world where eventually we are likely to be bullied and coerced into taking these shots, into becoming hybridized humans by our own hands, by agreeing to take these shots in order to end the restrictions placed upon us if we do not capitulate... where do we go from here?

Whatever you do, do not take this lightly. Patent law is big business, and your actions now could complicate your personal sovereignty in the future through what amounts to some sophisticated legal trickery.

We used to see massively polarized arguments on these topics crop up in the media all the time discussing the ethical implications and the scientific innovations. Stem cell research. Dolly the sheep. Not a peep about the implications of mRNA shots. The UN's position on cloning (which is really the only thing comparable on the books) was basically to say don't clone, but if you do, the clone has human rights.

Everyone should think about this and analyze the threat for themselves with eyes open. If we don't think about certain scenarios NOW, ahead of time, this could lead to making bad choices that have the potential to make our lives incredibly complicated later. This is very serious. And most will never think of the implications of agreeing to an mRNA shot. They will just want to travel and will want to be protected from infection. Most will blindly trust.

Question: If a mutation happens to a genetically modified plant is it now naturally occurring?

Answer: Goes down to proving where it originated. If the signature alterations that were listed in the patent are detectable, yes. A naturally occurring mutation on that would still have evidence of the original alteration. If it's not a naturally occurring mutation, it could be considered patent infringement. The further out one takes these arguments, the more bizarre they get. If you had a patented gene inserted and then tried to alter it within your own body, even though it's your own body, it could be considered patent infringement if you then tried to take your self-alteration to market.

Supreme Court Ruling, June 2013:

Bakshi, A. Gene patents at the Supreme Court: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Volume 1, Issue 2, June 2014, Pages 183–189,

“In June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously decided Assn. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc., ruling that isolated naturally occurring sequences of genomic DNA (gDNA) cannot be patented. The Court left open the possibility of patenting complementary DNA (cDNA)—synthetic DNA containing the same protein-coding information as a segment of natural DNA but omitting non-coding portions called introns—and novel methods of manipulating genes or applying the information contained therein. Myriad is thus likely to trigger a series of follow-on suits to clarify the holding. Myriad's patents covered the precise location and sequence of two human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, mutations of which have been linked to breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad began as a suit filed by medical researchers, cancer patients, advocacy groups, doctors, and the American Civil Liberties Union, aiming to invalidate Myriad's patents on (1) BRCA1, BRCA2, and their associated cDNA, and (2) methods for testing drug efficacy and interpreting genetic test outputs by analyzing DNA sequences for BRCA mutations. Myriad held a patent-protected monopoly in U.S. screening tests targeting the genes.”

Thomas, C. (2013). Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al. Supreme Court of the United States. [online] Available here:

Give a gift subscription


Additional notes from Peter John Ladetto:

“There's something truly nefarious going on.

“They are claiming to detect genetic disposition to disease.

“What does that say?

“That's fraud right there because we know that disease is a result of the toxic consumption we have regarding choices like diet and drug intake, vaccines, etc.

“How on earth would our DNA predict our lifestyle and choices like that?

“Huge red flag straight away they are lying.

“I also notice that ancestry companies database uses family history and an "algorithm."

“Also they say their data base is focused on white Europeans.

“Why would it need to be?

“Is it because that demographic is the greatest wealth of historical record?

“Furthermore they are making outrageous claims like needing only 2 percent of the population’s DNA to identify anyone without having a sample of their DNA.

“To me, it’s yet another attempt to enforce control through the illusion of high science and fear of disease as the whole field of genetics is tightly woven into germ theory.

“This deceit has major implications for law enforcement, as well, as they can recreate crime scenes by creating DNA evidence and place blame on whoever they damn well feel, if this all goes according to their plan.

“This deception of course delegitimizes the entire mRNA genetic modification narrative attached to the always fraudulent practice of vaccines. Our biological replication process is not governed by imaginary mechanical particles of so called DNA which have NEVER been observed directly and therefore any claim to that effect is totally unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

“The same can be said for the legal ramifications surrounding so called GMO food. There is no such thing as genetic engineering. Humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for thousands of years and in every case mother nature is doing all the work concerning "genetic" replication.

“Virology and DNA are incestuous deceptions.

“There is no direct evidence for DNA, just conjecture, computer models and simulations and artists sketches.

“In short, we can't see DNA or any physical mechanical pieces transcribing or reverse transcribing anything.

“And yet we are told that a virus is a piece of this genetic material.

“In fact the first supposed "discoveries" of DNA and the (tobacco mosaic) virus were made by the same person, Rosalind Franklin, within short time of each other with the same X-ray crystallization microscopy device.

“With the PCR test, they can't even say that they are misidentifying normal healthy genetic material for a pathogenic virus because they cannot isolate either in the first place.

“They're just playing games with chemicals in tubes.

“So when DNA testing determines someone in jail is innocent that has no basis in fact?

“Or put innocent people in jail.

“Whatever fits and preserves their twisted narrative.

“This is something I'm trying to get down to.

“As shocking as that would be on the surface, not so much underneath.

“We're talking about the same people whose entire medical model is based on germs that don't cause disease and a virus that doesn't exist AND upon this lie have destroyed the world economy, seized inalienable rights and are attempting to force inject powerful neurotoxic chemicals into our bodies per loss of whatever rights we do still have.

“DNA is just a theoretical concept. The so-called indirect evidence of the existence and structure of DNA are just completely unsustainable interpretations. No one can prove that the bands of different sizes seen on gel electrophoresis are the expression of the existence of the hypothetical structure of what is claimed to be DNA.

“No one has ever seen what a so-called chain of molecules looks like that would form the hypothetical genetic material in chromosomes.

“The so-called INDIRECT visualization by "X-ray crystallography" or the INDIRECT one by "electron microscope" are equal to ZERO... when they say that, I quote:

"Interpreting the images requires complex mathematics to figure out what crystal structure could give rise to the observed patterns."

“(The structure of DNA was originally discovered using X-ray crystallography. This involves X-rays scattering off atoms in crystallized arrays of DNA to form a complex pattern of dots on photographic film. Interpreting the images requires complex mathematics to figure out what crystal structure could give rise to the observed patterns.)

“Take a look at the so-called DNA images in this article as well, and you'll immediately realize that "scientists" are talking about something they haven't seen with either their eyes or instruments directly.

“I would encourage anyone who believe in the idea of DNA to go back and read how it was supposedly isolated. Absolute comedy. It include actually boiling the sample. Ridiculous. There is no proof that DNA exists.”

[Author Note: If true, the implications are that we are basing law - and potentially our concept of human sovereignty - on concepts that cannot be proven to actually exist.]

Special thanks to Alison Bacon, Peter John Ladetto, Jamie Novax, and Python Exchange.

Give a gift subscription


Additional resources:

Bevilacqua, V. (2013). In the Courts: Monsanto v. Bowman: Supreme Court upholds patent holders’ rights. World Intellectual Property Organization Magazine. [online] Available here:

Breast Cancer Action. (2012). Take Back Our Genes: Ending the Patents on Breast Cancer Genes. Breast Cancer Action. [online] Available here:

Cartwright-Smith, L. (2014). Patenting Genes: What Does Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Mean for Genetic Testing and Research? US National Library of Medicine. [online] Available here:

CBC News. (2019). Twins get 'mystifying' DNA ancestry test results (Marketplace). YouTube. [online] Available here:

The COVID Blog. (2021). Joshimar Henry: 27-year-old Chicago resident doctor dead three months after Pfizer mRNA shot. The COVID Blog. [online] Available here:

Crouch, D. (2012). Harvard’s US OncoMouse Patents are All Expired (For the Time Being). Patentlyo. [online] Available here:

Crouch, D. (2021). Patent Law at the Supreme Court September 2021. Patentlyo. [online] Available here:

Feinberg, R. (2006). Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy Research: An American Perspective. Science Direct. [online] Available here:

Forbidden Knowledge TV. (2021). There is NO variant, Not novel, NO pandemic – Dr David Martin with Reiner Fuellmich. Forbidden Knowledge TV. [online] Available here:

Huerta, H. (2014). Ambry Genetics Defeats Appeal by Myriad Genetics to Restrict Market for Breast-Ovarian Cancer Genetic Testing. Businesswire. [online] Available here:

Jongema, J. (2021). DNA Sovereignty and the Coronavirus. Joshua Ray Jongema. [online] Available here:

Koepsell, D. (2009). Who Owns You?: The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes. Wiley-Blackwell.

Lewis, R. (2013). A Brief History of DNA Patents. PLOS DNA Science. [online] Available here:

McKie, R. (2001). GM corn set to stop man spreading his seed. The Guardian. [online] Available here:

MedlinePlus. (2021). Can genes be patented? US National Library of Medicine. [online] Available here:

Merrill, S. (2006). Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. National Research Council. The National Academies Press. [online] Available here:

Moderna. (2019). Moderna Announces Publication of Phase 1 Data for mRNA Vaccines Against Two Potential Pandemic Influenza Strains. Moderna TX, Inc. [online] Available here:

Moderna. (2019). Moderna Receives FDA Fast Track Designation for Propionic Acidemia Program (mRNA-3927). Moderna TX, Inc. [online] Available here:

Moderna. (2020). Statement by Moderna on Intellectual Property Matters during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Moderna TX, Inc. [online] Available here:

Moderna. (2021). Program Patents. Moderna TX, Inc. [online] Available here:

Newman, A. (2021). COVID Vaccine An Unprecedented “Experiment” on Humanity, Warns Dr. Madej. The New American. [online] Available here:

Rufo, C. (2021). What critical race theory is really about. New York Post. [online] Available here:

Sanders, M. (2021). Hacking the Software of Life •Tal Zaks. YouTube. [online] Available here:

Schneider, K. (1988). Harvard Gets Mouse Patent, A World First. The New York Times. [online] Available here:

Schulman, M. (2003). Ethics and Gene Patenting. Of SNPS, TRIPS, and Human Dignity. BioProcess International. [online] Available here:

Science Direct. (2016). Limit of Detection. Science Direct. [online] Available here:

Sherkow, J. (2016). Genome Editing. Who owns gene editing? Patents in the time of CRISPR. Portland Press. [online] Available here:

Stone, K. (2020). The Debate About Gene Patents. Thought Co. [online] Available here:

Terrell, J. (2018). Ancestry Tests Pose a Threat to Our Social Fabric. Sapiens. [online] Available here:

Teutsch, S. (2010). Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their
Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests. Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. United States Department of Health and Human Services. [online] Available here:

WebmateX. (2021). Are you a patented human being? Who is your owner? BitChute. [online] Available here:

Whitehurst, L. (2013). Myriad sues companies selling cheaper genetic breast cancer tests. The Salt Lake Tribune. [online] Available here:

Yu, P. (2013). Virotech Patents, Viropiracy, and Viral Sovereignty. Texas A&M University School of Law. [online] Available here:

Give a gift subscription