The PCR based argument as evidence of spread is surely null and void given that hundreds of the EUA granted tests used only one or two conserved amplicons and no (zero) nested primers? In addition we have no background signal data pre 2019 to compare.
Maybe Claire Craig can explain how she comes up with "spread". Can she see the direction of flight of "viruses"? Do "viruses" have birth certificates, so you can narrow down when their journey begins? If "tests" don't exist before the "first sighting", how does she know there was no pre-history, for example years of "spread" before the first "test", by "symptomless superspreaders"?
Even within the narrative of the virus lie, some claims are embarrassing because they are completely unscientific nonsense.
I don't even want to get into the fundamental assertion, because it is only an assertion, that the existence of viruses has been scientifically proven beyond doubt, as Ms. Craig is miles away from the debate. The information is there. You just have to take note of it.
Thanks for chiming in on this, Ben. Really appreciate you lending your area of in-depth study to the conversation. I'll be responding to Clare directly, hopefully later this week.
Three things:
1) I see no problem with Clare saying she "believes" something. Using that term is not antithetical to science. Denis Rancourt "believes" official all-cause mortality for New York City is an accurate representation of what occurred; I "believe" it is fraudulent/manipulated. Our "beliefs" are rooted in our understanding of the evidence and other information we have marshaled, respectively. Believe, claim, assert, contend, etc. - unless one is submitting a paper to an academic journal or is otherwise compelled to use the language of a particular discipline or technical field, I see no reason to be concerned with "believe." (When my kids were younger, I used to say, "Scientists used to think/believe [X], but now they think/believe [Y]....")
Plus, I was asking Clare what she believes - and invited her to speculate about certain things. :)
2) Re: "It’s also worth noting that some individuals actively dismiss or downplay these verifiable limitations, often while holding significant conflicts of interest. This should not be ignored!"
Yes. It would be helpful if people would acknowledge/disclose those conflicts instead of pretending they are irrelevant or "no big deal."
3) I am with you 100% on "endogenous origin, where the detected virus or viral-like genetic material is expressed internally without external infection (i.e. a phenomenon originating from the host itself)".
I'm not a scientist or MD, but this is something I started wondering about from a common sense point of view in late 2023. The way I put it to friends/family was "is it possible that viruses - whatever those are - are WITHIN us?"
Much that passes as science is "belief" divorced from real evidence anyhow, and there is nothing scientific about pandemics, so I am not expecting much from most scientists!
gosh; gosh; so good; getting hit with this piece; is like being a 5yr old; and a bigger brother tells you Santa Claus doesn't exist; your parents made it all up; what a con all these folks are involved in; our species is very, very good at colluding when it is in its interest;
Reading this provoked a thought: I don't think these debates and discussions can ever reach a satisfactory conclusion - even with the best of intentions - because the stakes are simply too high. What we are all trying to do (by default) is to dictate how everyone else behaves, and how they view disease, because we currently live in a society where only one model and one set of 'public health' policies is allowed to exist at any point in time.
A much more sensible compromise to keep everyone happy would be to recognise a clear distinction between analog and digital viruses / viral contagion and let everyone choose which format they prefer to live by.
In the analog world (the world of snot, hugging, French kissing etc) we already have 200+ studies which have consistently failed to make people sick by exposing them to sick people and their bodily fluids.
And in the digital realm we have the absolutely terrifying model of digital contagion which was created by the BBC, LSHTM and Cambridge University in 2017 using 30,000 smartphones and a specially commissioned app. This experiment used GPS and the special apps to simulate a 'digital pathogen' in an experiment involving no biology whatsoever. The data set from this experiment became (in their words) the new "gold standard for pandemic modelling" and it was used in 2020 to set lockdown policy. We also have the digital virus and its 50 billion variants thanks to 12th generation, megaflange, dolby C genomic sequencing software.
If we just let people choose analog or digital there would be no need for endless debates, and we could all get on with our lives.
The idea that we must all adhere to the exact same model of disease is completely absurd if you think about it.
In any case, the only definitive way to settle the whole thing would be for everyone to split off into different camps - analog and digital - and get on with their lives, while observing the health outcomes of the other group(s).
In fact that IS the most appropriate and practical way of debating these topics. We should all be 'living our truth' and let's see who gets sick and who stays healthy.
If we all agreed to abandon this collectivist, 'group think' mindset and go our own separate ways I feel there would soon be very little left TO debate, because these issues of megaflange genomic assembly vs dolby C surround sound pattern sequencing that seem so relevant now (but which are actually completely abstract) would all resolve themselves perfectly naturally and without any drama once we started to see a difference in health outcomes between the different groups.
We live in an age of 'identity', and our 'identities' are now being formed in the digital realm.
Perhaps because I'm not clever enough, but I really don't care if a smartphone app informs me I must 'identify' as an asymptomatic case of variant 48923093283 of some digital genome of some digital virus...... I care if rubbing my face with the snot of a sick person will make me sick for real or not. To me that's science, because it's as close to nature as we can get.
All the abstract, convoluted digital stuff feels like just another variant of modern day woke ideology and identity-based politics. In the event of a power cut, it all ceases to be... and we are left standing in the analog realm again, where over 200 experiments involving buckets of analog snot and phlegm failed to demonstrate contagion of anything.
The entirety of meta-genomics and gene sequencing/assemblage are fraudulent.
People have been convinced through years of social engineering to believe that the things they see on screens represent biological reality.
PCR is worse than useless for diagnostics as are antigen tests. These tests are weaponized to manipulate public perceptions and invent "diseases."
The “genomic sequencing” for SARS-CoV-2 is yet another example of this fraud. The Corman-Drosten team developed the test for Covid-19 based on an In-silico Genetic Sequence (from a computer simulation).
They did not have any Viral Isolates of Covid-19 available, nor any clinical samples of anyone sick with the alleged new disease. Simply based on that, the test is invalid.
A new medical test must be validated against a 'Gold Standard", that is, a test which is 100% accurate.
The Corman-Drosten team, used the SARS sequence from 2003 (which itself was never properly purified or isolated), they then used the PCR primer related to that sequence, amplified it using PCR, sequenced that they amplified (they did this multiple times) and used the sequences that were different from the SARS sequence to develop primers for their diagnostic test. As there were no purified samples or Isolates of any kind, this entire experiment was made up.
It turns out, when you input the sequences that are being tested for, to show a positive case, the sequences show up 93 times in the human genome, and approx. 91 times from Bacteria/Fungi (Microbes). These supposed "New" sequences show up in nature and are not new at all.
Never mind, you cannot possibly say these sequences are coming from a "new virus" if you don't have the virus in the first place.
The team then sent this test to China, to test for this "Novel" virus that they created a test for, with none of the "Novel" virus at their disposal.
The Chinese scientists, who work for the WEF/Pharma Cartel BTW, "found" these sequences in their 'Atypical Pneumonia" patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms, (obviously being that these sequences show up in humans), and they create an entire "Genome" based off of 1 Clinical Sample.
In order to create a Genome correctly, you would need hundreds upon thousands of samples to develop an actual accurate "Viral Genome", they took 1 person that tested positive with a PCR test created without any virus.
They then took a clinical sample from a PCR + person's lung fluid, with symptoms consistent with "Atypical Pneumonia". They take only the short RNA strands from the clinical sample, and put them into computer programs- Megahit and Trinity.
These two programs assembled a bunch of Contigs (Possible Genome structures) made up of all the short RNA strands from the person, which number 56 Million.
The Trinity computer came up with 1,329,960 Contigs ranging from 201-11,760 base pairs, the Megahit computer came up with 384,096 Contigs ranging from 200-30,474 base pairs. In layman terms, the computer generated almost 2 million possible Genome Structures.
The longest Contig (30,474 base pairs) was chosen, simply because it was the longest one. Upon further investigation, this genome was only 80% similar to SARS-COV 1 bat-like sequence. They then add some Sars 1 sequences to make it look more like a SARS virus.
Can anyone not see at this point they are simply making shit up as they go to reach their pre-ordained conclusion?
80% is less similar than what humans are to house cats. The claim was the Genome totaled 29,903 bases long, which negates 571 bases from the Contig. If those weren't valid how do we know this entire Contig is valid?
The Contig chosen, was created out of 123,613 different pieces of short RNA from the clinical genetic sample.
They don't know where these sequences are coming from, they don't know if the genome is real, they don't know the amount of error in the process, they don't know how many "reads" were correct, this entire thing is theoretical and computer generated.
Then come thousands of papers and studies and reports all based on the original in-silico sorcery and deceptions...Turtles All The Way Down.
Or, as I like to say, when one digs down to the ultimate source of the claims with regard to “viruses”, there’s no “there” there. What do you call a “theory” built on air?
what about facts observed in patients as known by everyone:
Few days before Onset of syptoms (ONS) all ppl test negativ by PCR.
Next: One shows ONS and becomes test positiv. His near fellow shows symptoms soon after and test positiv, too.
1 or 2 Weeks later symptoms pass and test shows negativ again.
Even without symptoms a near fellow could show the same test record.
These ppl never test pos for influenza or any other test, which is specially attributed to any other virus.
--- All other ppl test still negativ!
We observed such rates of 99,999% of negative tests in German rural region, called 'Mecklenburg-Vorpommern' (1.5 mio inhabitants) during summer of 2020. Thereby tested probes were taken from symptomatic ppl or ppl who had been in contact with one who has tested positiv.
How to explain these facts without the idea of existing virus accompanied by concordant PCR-Test ?
2nd question:
How to explain the high convergence of results shown by PCR-test AND Antigen tests, which ar complete different testing technics, right ?
Even though the entire 33-base poly(A) tail cannot be reproduced based on Wu et al.'s raw reads, the whole rest of the genome can be. The length of the poly(A) tail is variable throughout the life span of the virus anyway. So if you view the genome of Wuhan-Hu-1 as a regular expression where there is a variable number of A bases at the end, then the entire genome can be reproduced from Wu et al.'s raw reads.
A paper from 2020 said: "We recently developed software to measure the length of poly(A) tail from DRS data (Y. Choi and H.C., unpublished data). Using this software, we confirm that, like other CoVs, SARS-CoV-2 RNAs carry poly(A) tails (Figures 4A–4B). The tail of viral RNAs is 47 nt in median length. The full-length gRNA has a relatively longer tail than sgRNAs. Notably, sgRNAs have two tail populations: a minor peak at ∼30 nt and a major peak at ∼45 nt (Figure 4B, arrowheads). Wu et al., 2013 previously observed that the poly(A) tail length of bovine CoV mRNAs changes during infection: from ∼45 nt immediately after virus entry to ∼65 nt at 6–9 hours post-infection and ∼30 nt at 120–144 hours post-infection. Thus, the short tails of ∼30 nt observed in this study may represent aged RNAs that are prone to decay." [https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674%2820%2930406-2]
---
You wrote that "what is typically referred to as 'the genome'" is "not exactly reproducible from the raw data". But just because the different versions of Wuhan-Hu-1 cannot be exactly reproduced from Wu et al.'s raw data doesn't mean that other de-novo assembled genomes of SARS-CoV-2 couldn't be exactly assembled from other sets of raw reads.
---
You wrote: "Fewer than 1,000 genomes have ever been assembled de novo directly from patient samples."
There were 961 results when I searched GenBank for `sars-cov-2 complete genome (megahit OR spades OR trinity)`: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=sars-cov-2+complete+genome+%28megahit+OR+spades+OR+trinity%29. But there's probably some false negatives where there's a de-novo assembled sequence at GenBank but the name of the assembler is not mentioned anywhere in the metadata. So the total number of de-novo assembled genomes published at GenBank might be over a thousand.
And the number of genomes published at GenBank is not the same as the number of assembled genomes. I have assembled the genome of SARS-CoV-2 dozens of times directly from patient samples, but I haven't published any of the genomes at GenBank.
Not a scientist, but I would agree. Our lymphatic system must respond to the spike and external symptoms may take a longer time due to load and the individuals immune system.
The PCR based argument as evidence of spread is surely null and void given that hundreds of the EUA granted tests used only one or two conserved amplicons and no (zero) nested primers? In addition we have no background signal data pre 2019 to compare.
Right on!
Maybe Claire Craig can explain how she comes up with "spread". Can she see the direction of flight of "viruses"? Do "viruses" have birth certificates, so you can narrow down when their journey begins? If "tests" don't exist before the "first sighting", how does she know there was no pre-history, for example years of "spread" before the first "test", by "symptomless superspreaders"?
Even within the narrative of the virus lie, some claims are embarrassing because they are completely unscientific nonsense.
I don't even want to get into the fundamental assertion, because it is only an assertion, that the existence of viruses has been scientifically proven beyond doubt, as Ms. Craig is miles away from the debate. The information is there. You just have to take note of it.
And what if they found it in Antarctica because it’s part of a background signal that was already there. We don’t have data from before 2019 anyway.
✅
Thanks for chiming in on this, Ben. Really appreciate you lending your area of in-depth study to the conversation. I'll be responding to Clare directly, hopefully later this week.
Three things:
1) I see no problem with Clare saying she "believes" something. Using that term is not antithetical to science. Denis Rancourt "believes" official all-cause mortality for New York City is an accurate representation of what occurred; I "believe" it is fraudulent/manipulated. Our "beliefs" are rooted in our understanding of the evidence and other information we have marshaled, respectively. Believe, claim, assert, contend, etc. - unless one is submitting a paper to an academic journal or is otherwise compelled to use the language of a particular discipline or technical field, I see no reason to be concerned with "believe." (When my kids were younger, I used to say, "Scientists used to think/believe [X], but now they think/believe [Y]....")
Plus, I was asking Clare what she believes - and invited her to speculate about certain things. :)
2) Re: "It’s also worth noting that some individuals actively dismiss or downplay these verifiable limitations, often while holding significant conflicts of interest. This should not be ignored!"
Yes. It would be helpful if people would acknowledge/disclose those conflicts instead of pretending they are irrelevant or "no big deal."
3) I am with you 100% on "endogenous origin, where the detected virus or viral-like genetic material is expressed internally without external infection (i.e. a phenomenon originating from the host itself)".
I'm not a scientist or MD, but this is something I started wondering about from a common sense point of view in late 2023. The way I put it to friends/family was "is it possible that viruses - whatever those are - are WITHIN us?"
Yes. But I typically don’t debate belief, because that it is pretty pointless, and IMO everyone is free to believe whatever ;)
Agreed on the rest :)
I'll debate anything :)
Much that passes as science is "belief" divorced from real evidence anyhow, and there is nothing scientific about pandemics, so I am not expecting much from most scientists!
(You aren't either, I'm sure!)
Ben thought you might like this there is also a video, slides and article by an immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych PhD.
DR SUZANNE HUMPHRIES IMMUNE AMNESIA LIE
DR. SUZANNE HUMPHRIES ON MEASLES MYTHS AND MANIPULATED DATA
https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/dr-suzanne-humphries-on-measles-myths-and-manipulated-data/
They are of course detecting endogenous genetic fragments and proteins. Regards. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/x-ray-crystallography-and-3d-computer?utm_source=publication-search
Thx, interesting article, so do you think that the sequences actually represent the endogenous proteins?
gosh; gosh; so good; getting hit with this piece; is like being a 5yr old; and a bigger brother tells you Santa Claus doesn't exist; your parents made it all up; what a con all these folks are involved in; our species is very, very good at colluding when it is in its interest;
Reading this provoked a thought: I don't think these debates and discussions can ever reach a satisfactory conclusion - even with the best of intentions - because the stakes are simply too high. What we are all trying to do (by default) is to dictate how everyone else behaves, and how they view disease, because we currently live in a society where only one model and one set of 'public health' policies is allowed to exist at any point in time.
A much more sensible compromise to keep everyone happy would be to recognise a clear distinction between analog and digital viruses / viral contagion and let everyone choose which format they prefer to live by.
In the analog world (the world of snot, hugging, French kissing etc) we already have 200+ studies which have consistently failed to make people sick by exposing them to sick people and their bodily fluids.
And in the digital realm we have the absolutely terrifying model of digital contagion which was created by the BBC, LSHTM and Cambridge University in 2017 using 30,000 smartphones and a specially commissioned app. This experiment used GPS and the special apps to simulate a 'digital pathogen' in an experiment involving no biology whatsoever. The data set from this experiment became (in their words) the new "gold standard for pandemic modelling" and it was used in 2020 to set lockdown policy. We also have the digital virus and its 50 billion variants thanks to 12th generation, megaflange, dolby C genomic sequencing software.
If we just let people choose analog or digital there would be no need for endless debates, and we could all get on with our lives.
The idea that we must all adhere to the exact same model of disease is completely absurd if you think about it.
In any case, the only definitive way to settle the whole thing would be for everyone to split off into different camps - analog and digital - and get on with their lives, while observing the health outcomes of the other group(s).
In fact that IS the most appropriate and practical way of debating these topics. We should all be 'living our truth' and let's see who gets sick and who stays healthy.
If we all agreed to abandon this collectivist, 'group think' mindset and go our own separate ways I feel there would soon be very little left TO debate, because these issues of megaflange genomic assembly vs dolby C surround sound pattern sequencing that seem so relevant now (but which are actually completely abstract) would all resolve themselves perfectly naturally and without any drama once we started to see a difference in health outcomes between the different groups.
We live in an age of 'identity', and our 'identities' are now being formed in the digital realm.
Perhaps because I'm not clever enough, but I really don't care if a smartphone app informs me I must 'identify' as an asymptomatic case of variant 48923093283 of some digital genome of some digital virus...... I care if rubbing my face with the snot of a sick person will make me sick for real or not. To me that's science, because it's as close to nature as we can get.
All the abstract, convoluted digital stuff feels like just another variant of modern day woke ideology and identity-based politics. In the event of a power cut, it all ceases to be... and we are left standing in the analog realm again, where over 200 experiments involving buckets of analog snot and phlegm failed to demonstrate contagion of anything.
I've also been doing a deep dive researching this topic, Ben, and can concur with your conclusions and points.
Thanks Thomas, great to hear this.
Excellent article.
The entirety of meta-genomics and gene sequencing/assemblage are fraudulent.
People have been convinced through years of social engineering to believe that the things they see on screens represent biological reality.
PCR is worse than useless for diagnostics as are antigen tests. These tests are weaponized to manipulate public perceptions and invent "diseases."
The “genomic sequencing” for SARS-CoV-2 is yet another example of this fraud. The Corman-Drosten team developed the test for Covid-19 based on an In-silico Genetic Sequence (from a computer simulation).
They did not have any Viral Isolates of Covid-19 available, nor any clinical samples of anyone sick with the alleged new disease. Simply based on that, the test is invalid.
A new medical test must be validated against a 'Gold Standard", that is, a test which is 100% accurate.
The Corman-Drosten team, used the SARS sequence from 2003 (which itself was never properly purified or isolated), they then used the PCR primer related to that sequence, amplified it using PCR, sequenced that they amplified (they did this multiple times) and used the sequences that were different from the SARS sequence to develop primers for their diagnostic test. As there were no purified samples or Isolates of any kind, this entire experiment was made up.
It turns out, when you input the sequences that are being tested for, to show a positive case, the sequences show up 93 times in the human genome, and approx. 91 times from Bacteria/Fungi (Microbes). These supposed "New" sequences show up in nature and are not new at all.
Never mind, you cannot possibly say these sequences are coming from a "new virus" if you don't have the virus in the first place.
The team then sent this test to China, to test for this "Novel" virus that they created a test for, with none of the "Novel" virus at their disposal.
The Chinese scientists, who work for the WEF/Pharma Cartel BTW, "found" these sequences in their 'Atypical Pneumonia" patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms, (obviously being that these sequences show up in humans), and they create an entire "Genome" based off of 1 Clinical Sample.
In order to create a Genome correctly, you would need hundreds upon thousands of samples to develop an actual accurate "Viral Genome", they took 1 person that tested positive with a PCR test created without any virus.
They then took a clinical sample from a PCR + person's lung fluid, with symptoms consistent with "Atypical Pneumonia". They take only the short RNA strands from the clinical sample, and put them into computer programs- Megahit and Trinity.
These two programs assembled a bunch of Contigs (Possible Genome structures) made up of all the short RNA strands from the person, which number 56 Million.
The Trinity computer came up with 1,329,960 Contigs ranging from 201-11,760 base pairs, the Megahit computer came up with 384,096 Contigs ranging from 200-30,474 base pairs. In layman terms, the computer generated almost 2 million possible Genome Structures.
The longest Contig (30,474 base pairs) was chosen, simply because it was the longest one. Upon further investigation, this genome was only 80% similar to SARS-COV 1 bat-like sequence. They then add some Sars 1 sequences to make it look more like a SARS virus.
Can anyone not see at this point they are simply making shit up as they go to reach their pre-ordained conclusion?
80% is less similar than what humans are to house cats. The claim was the Genome totaled 29,903 bases long, which negates 571 bases from the Contig. If those weren't valid how do we know this entire Contig is valid?
The Contig chosen, was created out of 123,613 different pieces of short RNA from the clinical genetic sample.
They don't know where these sequences are coming from, they don't know if the genome is real, they don't know the amount of error in the process, they don't know how many "reads" were correct, this entire thing is theoretical and computer generated.
Then come thousands of papers and studies and reports all based on the original in-silico sorcery and deceptions...Turtles All The Way Down.
It's all fraud piled on top of fraud.
Or, as I like to say, when one digs down to the ultimate source of the claims with regard to “viruses”, there’s no “there” there. What do you call a “theory” built on air?
Isn't it stupefying to watch people talk about this garbage as if it is real.
Meanwhile everything not strapped down is being stolen by the ghouls who are running this operation.
what about facts observed in patients as known by everyone:
Few days before Onset of syptoms (ONS) all ppl test negativ by PCR.
Next: One shows ONS and becomes test positiv. His near fellow shows symptoms soon after and test positiv, too.
1 or 2 Weeks later symptoms pass and test shows negativ again.
Even without symptoms a near fellow could show the same test record.
These ppl never test pos for influenza or any other test, which is specially attributed to any other virus.
--- All other ppl test still negativ!
We observed such rates of 99,999% of negative tests in German rural region, called 'Mecklenburg-Vorpommern' (1.5 mio inhabitants) during summer of 2020. Thereby tested probes were taken from symptomatic ppl or ppl who had been in contact with one who has tested positiv.
How to explain these facts without the idea of existing virus accompanied by concordant PCR-Test ?
2nd question:
How to explain the high convergence of results shown by PCR-test AND Antigen tests, which ar complete different testing technics, right ?
PCR and antigen tests produce results based on their programming and tell you nothing about anything.
Beyond these frauds virtually all medical tests are based on metrics that have little to do with actual biology.
PCR is testing for oligonucleotide charge. It's testing charge.
It's all fraud.
https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/what-is-the-pcr-really-testing-for
Genome sequencing is just made up science. So the discussion ends there.
made up stuff?
If you don't call things that you believe in beliefs, what do you call them?
Even though the entire 33-base poly(A) tail cannot be reproduced based on Wu et al.'s raw reads, the whole rest of the genome can be. The length of the poly(A) tail is variable throughout the life span of the virus anyway. So if you view the genome of Wuhan-Hu-1 as a regular expression where there is a variable number of A bases at the end, then the entire genome can be reproduced from Wu et al.'s raw reads.
A paper from 2020 said: "We recently developed software to measure the length of poly(A) tail from DRS data (Y. Choi and H.C., unpublished data). Using this software, we confirm that, like other CoVs, SARS-CoV-2 RNAs carry poly(A) tails (Figures 4A–4B). The tail of viral RNAs is 47 nt in median length. The full-length gRNA has a relatively longer tail than sgRNAs. Notably, sgRNAs have two tail populations: a minor peak at ∼30 nt and a major peak at ∼45 nt (Figure 4B, arrowheads). Wu et al., 2013 previously observed that the poly(A) tail length of bovine CoV mRNAs changes during infection: from ∼45 nt immediately after virus entry to ∼65 nt at 6–9 hours post-infection and ∼30 nt at 120–144 hours post-infection. Thus, the short tails of ∼30 nt observed in this study may represent aged RNAs that are prone to decay." [https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674%2820%2930406-2]
---
You wrote that "what is typically referred to as 'the genome'" is "not exactly reproducible from the raw data". But just because the different versions of Wuhan-Hu-1 cannot be exactly reproduced from Wu et al.'s raw data doesn't mean that other de-novo assembled genomes of SARS-CoV-2 couldn't be exactly assembled from other sets of raw reads.
---
You wrote: "Fewer than 1,000 genomes have ever been assembled de novo directly from patient samples."
There were 961 results when I searched GenBank for `sars-cov-2 complete genome (megahit OR spades OR trinity)`: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=sars-cov-2+complete+genome+%28megahit+OR+spades+OR+trinity%29. But there's probably some false negatives where there's a de-novo assembled sequence at GenBank but the name of the assembler is not mentioned anywhere in the metadata. So the total number of de-novo assembled genomes published at GenBank might be over a thousand.
And the number of genomes published at GenBank is not the same as the number of assembled genomes. I have assembled the genome of SARS-CoV-2 dozens of times directly from patient samples, but I haven't published any of the genomes at GenBank.
The head and the tail. You were only able to get the head, by arbitrarily trimming the reads.
—
The point was the magnitude, it’s not millions but at best thousands.
—
You assembling these from patient samples does neither, prove spread nor that the sequence exists in nature.
Can you please define the term 'virus'?
Not a scientist, but I would agree. Our lymphatic system must respond to the spike and external symptoms may take a longer time due to load and the individuals immune system.