OWNING YOUR DNA… ~ hehe me "wonders" what Our Living Creator ..."thinks" of "some~1 else " "owning" Our ...DNA ? Um OH YEA there IS no such thing as ...God ...till Satan starts snap~in at yer ass ... humm ? than "we" find ...faith Lol ...c
Regular readers of my books and of this site know that I have maintained there is a connection between the ideas of ancient interplanetary wars, ETs, UFOs, human and animal sacrifice, missing money (in the trillions of dollars), and the idea of a tribute or tithe. The way I see it, these things are linked, and part of a very ancient "agenda" or "policy", if you will. If these memes and ideas don't seem immediately or intuitively related, then consider how some of them - UFOs and abortion, viewed as a sacrifice - for example, merge in the dubious "character" of Hillary Clinton, who like her husband, has an interest in the former and defends the latter. Then add to this mix something that I pointed out at the Secret Space Program conference in Bastrop, Texas in 2015: the proliferation of quick genome sequencing technologies, now taken to the point of allowing sequencing in the field to a certain degree, without having to send samples to labs and wait for the results.
As I pointed out then, the FBI has demonstrated a (understandable) interest in the technology. At Bastrop, I speculated that this interest might stem from a suspicion that our "extraterrestrial cousins", if they exist at all, might be here and walking among us, and that the only way to distinguish them from humans would be genetically. In that context, I also pointed out - specifically - the rise of companies that do sequencing for a fee, and then based on comparisons with known haplogroups, tell you "where you're from", like Ancestry.com.
But during that conference I also raised the issue of patenting of DNA chimeras - literal DNA ownership - that is taking place, a subject I raised in even greater detail in my book Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men. Under current US patent law, which is similar in its standards to most nations' patent law, an object or technique is patentable if it arose from the hand of man(i.e., not the hand of God or natural evolutionary processes), and if it is reproducible by the hand of man by following a precise technique. Under these standards, genetic chimeras - organisms that have been created by genetic engineering and that do not occur naturally - have already been patented.
Yes, that's right: corporations now own certain genetically engineered life forms.
The problem, as I pointed out in Bastrop, and in the book, was that if one takes certain ancient texts literally, such as Genesis 6, or various Mesopotamian texts, then mankind himself arises precisely from such a process of genetic engineering as the "sons of God" mix it up with "the daughters of men" with the result - depending on which version one reads - that one has a race of "giants" or modern homo sapiens sapiens. That, in turn, poses the question, who, under these patent law standards, owns us? (And as I pointed out in Genes, Giants, Monsters, and Men, how would they demonstrate standing, and what court would have jurisdiction to hear it? And what about the "course of performance", since the owner(s) hasn't/haven't pressed a claim for a while... or has/have he/they?)
Now, consider all this context as you contemplate this article which was noticed by a few people this past week:
The title of the article might be somewhat misleading, as the actual main text states this:
The point about number (1) here is that you still own your DNA, but Ancestry.com gets to use it - and sell or rent it - to anyone it pleases, without having to pay you(or your estate) any royalty for doing so. And this implies, under number (3), that it is in cahoots as the DNA database of first resort for the government. Now, before I go on, is it just me, or does anyone else get the firm whiff of Mormonism in the background? Consider the following:
The Ancestry.com DNA testing service promises to analyze approximately 700,000 genetic markers. According to Ancestry.com, the service, “combines advanced DNA science with the world’s largest online family history resource to predict your genetic ethnicity and help you find new family connections.” The results of an AncestryDNA analysis include information about “ethnicity across 26 regions/ethnicities and identifies potential relatives through DNA matching to others who have taken the AncestryDNA test.”
Oh, gee, lookee lookee what Wikipedia says (Ancestry.com):
Now consider point number (3), which puts that ownership thing even more abruptly:
Specifically, by submitting DNA to AncestryDNA, you agree to “grant AncestryDNA and the Ancestry Group Companies a perpetual, royalty-free, world-wide, transferable license to use your DNA, and any DNA you submit for any person from whom you obtained legal authorization as described in this Agreement, and to use, host, sublicense and distribute the resulting analysis to the extent and in the form or context we deem appropriate on or through any media or medium and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed or discovered.”
In other words, your DNA becomes perpetual property, and so, presumably, therefore, would anyone cloned from it. In other words, viewed a certain way, the whole operation could be putting together a kind of "ark" of DNA samples, to be "resurrected" via cloning after some catastrophe, in which one's clone becomes chattel property of a corporation. And, incidentally, one could conceivable use DNA samples to "resurrect" - Russian Cosmism style - one's ancestors, who would also be property.
Consider also the insurance nightmare genetic information poses:
For example, a young woman named Theresa Morelli applied for individual disability insurance, consented to release of her medical records through the Medical Information Bureau (a credit reporting agency for medical history), and was approved for coverage. One month later, Morelli’s coverage was cancelled and premiums refunded when the insurer learned her father had Huntington’s disease, a genetic illness.Startlingly, the Medical Information Bureau (MIB) used Morelli’s broad consent to query her father’s physician, a doctor with whom she had no prior patient relationship. More importantly, the applicant herself wasn’t diagnosed with Huntington’s carrier status, but she suffered exclusion on the basis of a genetic predisposition in her family.
Hovering behind all such abuses, and even ownership claims, is, I suspect, a much older, and far deeper agenda, and the last time I looked, our lives did not come with power of attorney to assign them to someone else. Indeed, if one takes those old texts at their word, there's only One Claimant with legal title, and He didn't sign it over under a power of attorney... all other claimants, including Ancestry.com, are false, and have no standing, and the courts to which they appeal have no jurisdiction in the matter. https://gizadeathstar.com/2017/05/owning-your-dna/