The human genome project was a bonanza for pcr/gene sequencing machines, and R01 grants from NIH. It helped create the myth that scientists know everything about humans including down to individual, never observed genetic nano particles. Billions and billions made.
Constant failures on it being unable to resolve any real health issues or diseases only led to the need for MORE large scale sequencing and computer modeling studies.
By this time in history its sure looking like just another money making “scientific” hoax
'Structural analysis of sequence data in virology. An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example' authored by a mathematician from Hamburg who wishes to remain unknown.
I am uncertain of the date of publication. I've had it for more than a year.
" A repeat of the de novo assembly with Megahit (v.1.2.9) showed that the published results could not be reproduced. We may have detected (ribosomal) ribonucleic acids of human origin, contrary to what was reported in [1]. Further analysis provided evidence for possible nonspecific amplification of reads during PCR confirmation and determination of genomic termini not associated with SARS-CoV-2 (MN908947.3).
Finally, we performed some reference-based assemblies with additional genome
sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus,
Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity
of the present sequence data with the respective sequences. We have obtained
preliminary hints that some of the viral genome sequences we have studied in the
present work may be obtained from the RNA of unsuspected human samples."
"Yes, the author discusses this "perfect match" in the text, but they frame it as a suspicious anomaly rather than as proof of the virus's existence.
While the 0.00% figure itself is only listed in the table on Page 9, the author references this finding in the main text in two key places:
Page 4: The author writes, "Our longest contig showed a perfect match with the MN908947.3 sequence at a length of 29,801 nt".
Page 18 (Discussion): They reiterate, "On the contrary, the longest contig we generated (29,802 nt) showed a nearly complete match with reference MN908947.3".
How they spin it: Instead of concluding "The virus is real because the match is perfect," the author uses this perfection to argue that the data is fake. They claim that because they could only reproduce a perfect match for 29,802 nucleotides (instead of the originally claimed 30,474), the original dataset must have been manipulated or is not the true source data.
They effectively argue that finding 98% of the virus perfectly is evidence of fraud because they didn't find 100% of it—ignoring that the 98% "perfect match" mathematically proves the viral sequence was present in the sample."
Mathematical precision is not only crucial, it needs to be shown to be demonstrably repeatable. Concordance may appear high but remains incorrectly deemed by some as a perfect match.
The author makes a number of further important points: "Consequently, the published sequence data cannot be the original short reads used for contig generation. This is to be regarded as extremely problematic in the context of scientific publications, since in this way it is no longer possible to verify the published results."
"Thus, we were able to substantiate our hypothesis that the claimed viral
genome sequences are misinterpretations in the sense that they have been or are being constructed unnoticed from non-viral nucleic acid fragments. In particular, our results underscore the urgent need to perform appropriate control experiments."
This doesn't make any sense Ben. Primers are designed in pairs for reasons: If the nested forward primer perfectly matches chromosome 1, then it can bind a specific site there. For the paired reverse primer to produce a DEFINED AMPLICON (as intended in nested PCR), it must bind to the complementary strand at an appropriate distance on the same contiguous sequence - which, in the human genome, means the same chromosome.
Primers binding to different chromosomes would not produce a consistent, amplifiable product in standard PCR conditions, as the template strands are not physically linked in that way during amplification. THM: No PCR product for PCR or nested PCR would occur from the primers you've listed/referenced.
So your hypothesis is wrong based on this claim, and if vaccine mRNA is indeed found in 50% of unvaccinated people then we need to find out why. But so far, it doesn't seem to be because the "vaccine-specific" primers were amplifying human DNA. I would think more toward "shedding" hypothesis.
As to speculating on why the paper disappeared, the authors will likely resubmit to a new journal. Stay tuned.
Your argument assumes intact chromosomal DNA as template. But blood samples contain cell-free DNA (~150bp fragments) and extracted cellular DNA gets sheared during processing.
So in the PCR tube it's not really "chromosomes" - it's a soup of fragments, isn't it? Does the "different chromosomes = no product" logic still hold for fragmented samples through 50 cycles of nested PCR? Especially when one nested primer is a 20/20 perfect match and the other is 18/20?
Since you seem to have lab access (I obviously don't) - would be interesting to just run these primers on unvaccinated human blood and see what happens. Any signal? At what Ct?
Why the dismissive tone? If we can't debate strictly on the matter, please refrain from commenting here.
I understand textbook PCR theory - but you dismissed my point about fragmented DNA in real clinical samples under non-ideal conditions at 50 cycles (20 outer + 30 nested).
Two questions:
1. Have you actually run these exact primers on unvaccinated human samples as a negative control? Or can you point to published data showing this?
2. How do you explain the 50% positive rate in unvaccinated women? What's your alternative explanation?
Jo, you make a mistake like this one because you have never done a PCR in your life. Fragments is not the explanation: in order for the PCR to work the sequence to be amplified must be on one single DNA fragment. If the primers have perfect matches in the human genome, these are on different chromosomes so they can never be on one single DNA fragment.
A sequence doesn't have to been on the same chromosome to be endogenous and amplified. For example the so called HIV sequences are amplified in breast tumours but not in the surrounding tissue. Does only the tumour have an infection? These sequences are also found in pregnant people. They are not viral.
I'm a layman in this area, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't human genome contain viral sequences? Last time I read some evolutionary biologists claimed 8% and even 10% of human genome consisted of viral sequences.
I personally find it hard to believe that many unvaccinated people would be victims of vaccine shedding. Is there any real evidence for this claim other then the unreliable PCR testing?
BTW: thank you for providing the insights into the other side of the argument. 🙂
If they are looking for RNA sequences they would have to convert these into DNA before the PCR. Meaning any sequences such as the 'spike', known to be produced by cells under stress, would be in complementary strands on the same contiguous sequence?
There are a few commenters on here who blindly follow the official narrative. The inventor of the PCR, Dr Kary Mullis, said that this "test" CANNOT tell you if someone is sick, infected, or if whatever is found will make them sick. The use of PCR "tests" was and is, complete bullshite.
Samples of the isolated and genetically modified Coronaviruses have been kept in numerous countries and are shared as they are found so their sequences can be checked.
If vaccine shedding is real, as many claim, what is the likelihood of those specific sequences to be intact, so that they can be absorbed into cells for transcription of the exact spike protein?
Maria Gutschi just mentioned another Israeli study from the Pfizer Jab fan Milana Frenkel-Morgenstern as supervising author. It was published in less that 1 month after submisson and IMHO should be retracted because it does not provide the primers used to detect a 75 bp segment.
I would like to go to the bottom of why that paper disappeared, but like McKernan, your arguments suggest you have not done any PCR in your life. Yes there are perfect matches to the primers in the human genome, but unless they are very close on the same chromosome, they will not amplify human DNA, that's a fact. Of course you don't have a single read of a 30 knt genome, like all sequencing it is done with overlapping fragments, so you probably have never sequenced anything to come up with such an argument. The whole human genome has been sequenced, 100%, and there is no coronavirus sequence in it whatsoever. So I understand you would like to claim it is all an invention, but the virus has been sequenced in countless labs around the world, the whole genome has been derived over 3 million times: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=SARS-CoV-2+complete+genome
I don't think there is a single genome that has been more sequenced than that one, so it is ludicrous to argue that there is an issue with the sequence.
You are right when it comes to the theory of (nested) PCR itself, however his would only be relevant if the sars2 seq would have been properly validated and sequenced from a pure or single virion isolate, which is not the case. I recommend you go back to the sources I shared to study.
Of course there’s no known viral sequences in the human genom. Because it’s a model not an actual representation of all human genomes (if such thing even exists).
Thus repeating a faulty method millions of times does not prove its validity.
The 'viral' sequences and proteins don't have to be in the genome to be endogenous. The cell may produce them under certain conditions by different ways of reading and translating. The human genome only has 20,000 protein coding genes but expresses between 75,000-100,000 proteins. RNA coding for proteins using alternative splicing or other ways cellular proteins are produced, will not be recognised as human, . Our microbiome is also known to interact with our genes which leads to yet more not-recognised-as-human genetic expression. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing?utm_source=publication-search
What is this fantasy that the sequence of a virus is valid only if derived by one particular protocol? This virus has been virologically and physically isolated, then sequenced. All around the world. More than 3 million distinct isolates. There is no mystery to it, it is straightforward.
You don't seem to know that the whole genome of more than two million humans have now be sequenced... So we have a pretty good idea what is there, what is common to all these humans, and where their genome vary. We can even detect the admixture of a few % of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, which varies with ethnicity. So 2 million genomes for a population of 8 billions, I think is fairly representative. And clearly there is no sequence for any respiratory virus in any of these genomes. So where does the SARS-CoV-2 sequence come from? From a virus that circulates among humans since late 2019, with a little help from ill-intentioned humans.
There has been tremendous amounts of fraud, lies, deception by all the "authorities" during the COVID p(l)andemic, but the virus is real and in fact it is the "vaccine" that is a bigger weapon.
False, the virus has not been physically isolated, in the sense that it was separated from similar material - i.e. when it comes to sequencing from other genetic material. CDC has personally confirmed this to me - check my above FOIA link. Also, C. Massey has several letters proving that there is no purified isolate.
I've demonstrated a pathway of how the sequence might have just been a semi-random combination of several endogenous (or bacterial, or other..) reads - thus the ball is in the geneticists court to prove that a single genome strand of RNA exists from 1 to 29,903 and is indeed found within the capsule of a virion. - This proof has never been shown.
Literally cry me a river. Scientist have isolated the virus all over the world, it is so trivial an operation that they don't bother describing it other than the virus was isolated. Incompetent CDC notwithstanding, how could the virus be sequenced over 3 million times if it wasn't real and if the isolation was not trivial?
Good question. How could it be sequenced 3 million times (though often finding 'variants') if it hadn't been isolated. Easy, because it hasn't been isolated and 'sequencing' uses unpurified samples and....nested PCR primers. The sequencing is not end to end, it uses consensus reads at each alleged 'point' of the 'genome' - ie how many of A, C, G and T (or U) there are. So they have to know what they're looking for inorder to find it and are amplifying sequences, possibly from the human genome or possibly RNA sequences produced endogenously under conditions of stress and altenative splicing or other mechanism) and converted into DNA prior to PCR and thus amplified (this would also mean position of chromosome is irrelevant). The results are always very messy ie they have lots of base pairs in the wrong place that have to be 'tidied up' to make it look like their fictional 'viral genome'. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/x-ray-crystallography-and-3d-computer?utm_source=publication-search
Indeed it is not necessary to purify a virus to sequence it, so? Does not make the sequence any less valid. Overlapping PCR products are sequenced to obtain the sequence of the full genome. Completely trivial.
Pure nonsense! Absolutely nothing is 100% pure in biology, even in chemistry. When the only nucleic acid present is that of the virus, that's pure enough.
Why have numerous FOIA requests for the isloation/sequencing been answered with, (paraphrasing) "we don't have that information"? If it's been done, where is the proof?
When you understand the method used to "isolate" and how sequencing is an entirely different load of bollocks by itself, you'd understand nothing was ever isolated nor sequenced.
Because they were addressed to institutions whose mission has nothing to do with basic science, so of course they don't have responsive material. You can only turn to the scientific literature or virologists to answer such questions, I am afraid. I have designed, made and used so many different recombinant viruses from various viral families it is not even funny, so obviously I don't doubt their existence. When you design, for instance, a virus so that the cells it infects will produce a fluorescent red protein in the mitochondria and a fluorescent blue protein in the peroxisomes, make the virus, infect the cells and see red mitochondria and blue peroxisomes after UV illumination in live cells, you know for a fact that viruses are not a figment of your imagination, are not a mistaken interpretation of a CPE. I understand questioning everything, it is healthy, especially nowadays with the depth of corruption of all our institutions. It is Ok if viruses exist, they have been with us all along, we have a good enough immune system if we are otherwise healthy to deal with all the natural viruses that exist or may emerge.
We've known for decades, from the work of Barbara McClintock, the stress produces changes in DNA and changes in have its read. This could easily produced 'spike' sequences (which have been found by stressing cells since the 1980s). The sequences are not in the human genome, that doesn't mean they are not endogenous. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/spikes-and-knobs?utm_source=publication-search
Thank you for the link, Jo, but sorry this is nonsense, spontaneous generation of a sequence as complex as a coronavirus cannot possibly occur, be it after stressing of the cells or any other mechanism. Probability for a random sequence to produce a coronavirus is 1 in 810,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 in 8.1 10^17. Absurd.
Sorry Marc, but what you say is nonsense! I did not say that the genome spontaneously generated! Megahit takes millions of contiguous reads and thousands of putative 'genomes' and picks one. See Fan Wu et al. 56 million RNA sequences were put into a computer and 300,000 to 1,000,000 possible genomes were produced. One was plumped for, switched around and had further sequences added to make it look like what the computer operators thought a ‘viral’ genome should look like. Ta da! The short sequences, such as p132-230 ie the 'spike' protein, are then 'found' again by PCR in other unpurified samples.
How is that even faintly relevant? In real life, you have one or two or three, even ten different viruses in a patient sample and there is no issue reconstituting each of their genome.
Yeah, it is not because Jamie goes in lalaland that you need to follow him there. Speaking of education, calling DNA a hoax..., that's what happens when you have near zero understanding of science.
No virus has ever been isolated. They have never been proven to exist, at all. They have never even proven the prerequisite that would lead to suspicion of a thing like viruses in the first place, which is contagion. No disease was ever proven to be contagious (and this is true, because no disease is or was ever contagious).
Nice profession of faith. You cannot support your claim viruses don't exist as no one can prove a negative... Then you have observations reported in over 1.5 million publications regarding viruses. One can come up with a theory to account for these observations. That theory is called virology and you can try to refute it, that's how science works. You can propose an alternative theory to account for these observations if you wish. Good luck.
The human genome project was a bonanza for pcr/gene sequencing machines, and R01 grants from NIH. It helped create the myth that scientists know everything about humans including down to individual, never observed genetic nano particles. Billions and billions made.
Constant failures on it being unable to resolve any real health issues or diseases only led to the need for MORE large scale sequencing and computer modeling studies.
By this time in history its sure looking like just another money making “scientific” hoax
'Structural analysis of sequence data in virology. An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example' authored by a mathematician from Hamburg who wishes to remain unknown.
https://impfen-nein-danke.de/u/structural_analysis_of_sequence_data_in_virology.pdf
I am uncertain of the date of publication. I've had it for more than a year.
" A repeat of the de novo assembly with Megahit (v.1.2.9) showed that the published results could not be reproduced. We may have detected (ribosomal) ribonucleic acids of human origin, contrary to what was reported in [1]. Further analysis provided evidence for possible nonspecific amplification of reads during PCR confirmation and determination of genomic termini not associated with SARS-CoV-2 (MN908947.3).
Finally, we performed some reference-based assemblies with additional genome
sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus,
Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity
of the present sequence data with the respective sequences. We have obtained
preliminary hints that some of the viral genome sequences we have studied in the
present work may be obtained from the RNA of unsuspected human samples."
"Yes, the author discusses this "perfect match" in the text, but they frame it as a suspicious anomaly rather than as proof of the virus's existence.
While the 0.00% figure itself is only listed in the table on Page 9, the author references this finding in the main text in two key places:
Page 4: The author writes, "Our longest contig showed a perfect match with the MN908947.3 sequence at a length of 29,801 nt".
Page 18 (Discussion): They reiterate, "On the contrary, the longest contig we generated (29,802 nt) showed a nearly complete match with reference MN908947.3".
How they spin it: Instead of concluding "The virus is real because the match is perfect," the author uses this perfection to argue that the data is fake. They claim that because they could only reproduce a perfect match for 29,802 nucleotides (instead of the originally claimed 30,474), the original dataset must have been manipulated or is not the true source data.
They effectively argue that finding 98% of the virus perfectly is evidence of fraud because they didn't find 100% of it—ignoring that the 98% "perfect match" mathematically proves the viral sequence was present in the sample."
Mathematical precision is not only crucial, it needs to be shown to be demonstrably repeatable. Concordance may appear high but remains incorrectly deemed by some as a perfect match.
The author makes a number of further important points: "Consequently, the published sequence data cannot be the original short reads used for contig generation. This is to be regarded as extremely problematic in the context of scientific publications, since in this way it is no longer possible to verify the published results."
"Thus, we were able to substantiate our hypothesis that the claimed viral
genome sequences are misinterpretations in the sense that they have been or are being constructed unnoticed from non-viral nucleic acid fragments. In particular, our results underscore the urgent need to perform appropriate control experiments."
This doesn't make any sense Ben. Primers are designed in pairs for reasons: If the nested forward primer perfectly matches chromosome 1, then it can bind a specific site there. For the paired reverse primer to produce a DEFINED AMPLICON (as intended in nested PCR), it must bind to the complementary strand at an appropriate distance on the same contiguous sequence - which, in the human genome, means the same chromosome.
Primers binding to different chromosomes would not produce a consistent, amplifiable product in standard PCR conditions, as the template strands are not physically linked in that way during amplification. THM: No PCR product for PCR or nested PCR would occur from the primers you've listed/referenced.
So your hypothesis is wrong based on this claim, and if vaccine mRNA is indeed found in 50% of unvaccinated people then we need to find out why. But so far, it doesn't seem to be because the "vaccine-specific" primers were amplifying human DNA. I would think more toward "shedding" hypothesis.
As to speculating on why the paper disappeared, the authors will likely resubmit to a new journal. Stay tuned.
Your argument assumes intact chromosomal DNA as template. But blood samples contain cell-free DNA (~150bp fragments) and extracted cellular DNA gets sheared during processing.
So in the PCR tube it's not really "chromosomes" - it's a soup of fragments, isn't it? Does the "different chromosomes = no product" logic still hold for fragmented samples through 50 cycles of nested PCR? Especially when one nested primer is a 20/20 perfect match and the other is 18/20?
Since you seem to have lab access (I obviously don't) - would be interesting to just run these primers on unvaccinated human blood and see what happens. Any signal? At what Ct?
That would settle it either way.
P.S. Thanks for your respectful comment.
You don't under how PCR works, Ben. That was my point.
Why the dismissive tone? If we can't debate strictly on the matter, please refrain from commenting here.
I understand textbook PCR theory - but you dismissed my point about fragmented DNA in real clinical samples under non-ideal conditions at 50 cycles (20 outer + 30 nested).
Two questions:
1. Have you actually run these exact primers on unvaccinated human samples as a negative control? Or can you point to published data showing this?
2. How do you explain the 50% positive rate in unvaccinated women? What's your alternative explanation?
Those primers need to act in the same place. Otherwise, no amplification.
If the sample is full of fragments they don't have to be in the same place.
Jo, you make a mistake like this one because you have never done a PCR in your life. Fragments is not the explanation: in order for the PCR to work the sequence to be amplified must be on one single DNA fragment. If the primers have perfect matches in the human genome, these are on different chromosomes so they can never be on one single DNA fragment.
I'm sure you can then link us to the documented studies that answer:
1. Have you actually run these exact primers on unvaccinated human samples as a negative control? Or can you point to published data showing this?
2. How do you explain the 50% positive rate in unvaccinated women? What's your alternative explanation?
A sequence doesn't have to been on the same chromosome to be endogenous and amplified. For example the so called HIV sequences are amplified in breast tumours but not in the surrounding tissue. Does only the tumour have an infection? These sequences are also found in pregnant people. They are not viral.
I'm a layman in this area, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't human genome contain viral sequences? Last time I read some evolutionary biologists claimed 8% and even 10% of human genome consisted of viral sequences.
I personally find it hard to believe that many unvaccinated people would be victims of vaccine shedding. Is there any real evidence for this claim other then the unreliable PCR testing?
BTW: thank you for providing the insights into the other side of the argument. 🙂
What are 'viral' sequences but human sequences mislabelled as 'viral'? https://jowaller.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-intellectual-freedom?utm_source=publication-search
Do you know what "junk DNA" theory is or was?
If they are looking for RNA sequences they would have to convert these into DNA before the PCR. Meaning any sequences such as the 'spike', known to be produced by cells under stress, would be in complementary strands on the same contiguous sequence?
There are a few commenters on here who blindly follow the official narrative. The inventor of the PCR, Dr Kary Mullis, said that this "test" CANNOT tell you if someone is sick, infected, or if whatever is found will make them sick. The use of PCR "tests" was and is, complete bullshite.
Yep the 'spike' proteins are endogenous https://jowaller.substack.com/p/spikes-and-knobs?utm_source=publication-search
Does the NIH keep all the samples of these 3 million plus sequencing?
Who has ever checked the samples?
Which primers were used and who gave the reference primers for the PCR use for all of the sequences at NIH?
Who licensed this use in the PCR equipment and who verified and validated the readers?
Samples of the isolated and genetically modified Coronaviruses have been kept in numerous countries and are shared as they are found so their sequences can be checked.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/pfizer-contracted-for-mass-production
and
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/centreville-student-supervisors-make
As far as I know RFK Jr. and Donald Trump are happy to keep them on US soil.
The Wuhan US Bioweapon as an example
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/first-detected-covid19-case-arrived
and Pfizer Weaponized Dengue Virus
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/directed-evolution-gain-of-function
David Speicher's friends are some of the collectors and custodians of viruses.
Australian citizen Danielle E Anderson is one who has them in her freezer.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/david-speicher-collaboration-with
What does vccine shedding really mean?
If vaccine shedding is real, as many claim, what is the likelihood of those specific sequences to be intact, so that they can be absorbed into cells for transcription of the exact spike protein?
Maria Gutschi just mentioned another Israeli study from the Pfizer Jab fan Milana Frenkel-Morgenstern as supervising author. It was published in less that 1 month after submisson and IMHO should be retracted because it does not provide the primers used to detect a 75 bp segment.
https://mariagutschi.substack.com/p/persistent-detection-of-vaccine-modrna
The Israeli paper on Pfizer Jab-Associated Myositis
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/7/1135
I would like to go to the bottom of why that paper disappeared, but like McKernan, your arguments suggest you have not done any PCR in your life. Yes there are perfect matches to the primers in the human genome, but unless they are very close on the same chromosome, they will not amplify human DNA, that's a fact. Of course you don't have a single read of a 30 knt genome, like all sequencing it is done with overlapping fragments, so you probably have never sequenced anything to come up with such an argument. The whole human genome has been sequenced, 100%, and there is no coronavirus sequence in it whatsoever. So I understand you would like to claim it is all an invention, but the virus has been sequenced in countless labs around the world, the whole genome has been derived over 3 million times: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=SARS-CoV-2+complete+genome
I don't think there is a single genome that has been more sequenced than that one, so it is ludicrous to argue that there is an issue with the sequence.
You are right when it comes to the theory of (nested) PCR itself, however his would only be relevant if the sars2 seq would have been properly validated and sequenced from a pure or single virion isolate, which is not the case. I recommend you go back to the sources I shared to study.
Of course there’s no known viral sequences in the human genom. Because it’s a model not an actual representation of all human genomes (if such thing even exists).
Thus repeating a faulty method millions of times does not prove its validity.
The 'viral' sequences and proteins don't have to be in the genome to be endogenous. The cell may produce them under certain conditions by different ways of reading and translating. The human genome only has 20,000 protein coding genes but expresses between 75,000-100,000 proteins. RNA coding for proteins using alternative splicing or other ways cellular proteins are produced, will not be recognised as human, . Our microbiome is also known to interact with our genes which leads to yet more not-recognised-as-human genetic expression. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing?utm_source=publication-search
What is this fantasy that the sequence of a virus is valid only if derived by one particular protocol? This virus has been virologically and physically isolated, then sequenced. All around the world. More than 3 million distinct isolates. There is no mystery to it, it is straightforward.
You don't seem to know that the whole genome of more than two million humans have now be sequenced... So we have a pretty good idea what is there, what is common to all these humans, and where their genome vary. We can even detect the admixture of a few % of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, which varies with ethnicity. So 2 million genomes for a population of 8 billions, I think is fairly representative. And clearly there is no sequence for any respiratory virus in any of these genomes. So where does the SARS-CoV-2 sequence come from? From a virus that circulates among humans since late 2019, with a little help from ill-intentioned humans.
There has been tremendous amounts of fraud, lies, deception by all the "authorities" during the COVID p(l)andemic, but the virus is real and in fact it is the "vaccine" that is a bigger weapon.
False, the virus has not been physically isolated, in the sense that it was separated from similar material - i.e. when it comes to sequencing from other genetic material. CDC has personally confirmed this to me - check my above FOIA link. Also, C. Massey has several letters proving that there is no purified isolate.
I've demonstrated a pathway of how the sequence might have just been a semi-random combination of several endogenous (or bacterial, or other..) reads - thus the ball is in the geneticists court to prove that a single genome strand of RNA exists from 1 to 29,903 and is indeed found within the capsule of a virion. - This proof has never been shown.
Literally cry me a river. Scientist have isolated the virus all over the world, it is so trivial an operation that they don't bother describing it other than the virus was isolated. Incompetent CDC notwithstanding, how could the virus be sequenced over 3 million times if it wasn't real and if the isolation was not trivial?
No they haven't. The method for 'isolating' 'viruses' neither isolates anything nor yields anything that would be a pathogenic particle.
Good question. How could it be sequenced 3 million times (though often finding 'variants') if it hadn't been isolated. Easy, because it hasn't been isolated and 'sequencing' uses unpurified samples and....nested PCR primers. The sequencing is not end to end, it uses consensus reads at each alleged 'point' of the 'genome' - ie how many of A, C, G and T (or U) there are. So they have to know what they're looking for inorder to find it and are amplifying sequences, possibly from the human genome or possibly RNA sequences produced endogenously under conditions of stress and altenative splicing or other mechanism) and converted into DNA prior to PCR and thus amplified (this would also mean position of chromosome is irrelevant). The results are always very messy ie they have lots of base pairs in the wrong place that have to be 'tidied up' to make it look like their fictional 'viral genome'. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/x-ray-crystallography-and-3d-computer?utm_source=publication-search
Indeed it is not necessary to purify a virus to sequence it, so? Does not make the sequence any less valid. Overlapping PCR products are sequenced to obtain the sequence of the full genome. Completely trivial.
"This virus has been physically isolated"
I would be interested to see the source for this.
You know it is just a matter of differential centrifugation to isolate the virus from a cell supernatant. Trivial.
No pure viral isolate exists. What you are suggesting is not a pure isolate. Maybe on a gel or sth could be the closest they can get...
Pure nonsense! Absolutely nothing is 100% pure in biology, even in chemistry. When the only nucleic acid present is that of the virus, that's pure enough.
So why couldn't SARS2 by isolated by this method? Other, smaller things can be. Where is it?
It has been isolated by this method. For instance https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36146795/
Why have numerous FOIA requests for the isloation/sequencing been answered with, (paraphrasing) "we don't have that information"? If it's been done, where is the proof?
The proof is in obtaining the sequence of the virus, has been done 3+ million times... Not enough for you?
When you understand the method used to "isolate" and how sequencing is an entirely different load of bollocks by itself, you'd understand nothing was ever isolated nor sequenced.
And when you understand that they used a short read method to recombine short reads of unknown origin. It all makes sense... (or not)
When I understand the method?!? I think I understand it way better than you, given that I have done it countless time throughout my career.
You didn't address the point about all those FOIA requests...
Because they were addressed to institutions whose mission has nothing to do with basic science, so of course they don't have responsive material. You can only turn to the scientific literature or virologists to answer such questions, I am afraid. I have designed, made and used so many different recombinant viruses from various viral families it is not even funny, so obviously I don't doubt their existence. When you design, for instance, a virus so that the cells it infects will produce a fluorescent red protein in the mitochondria and a fluorescent blue protein in the peroxisomes, make the virus, infect the cells and see red mitochondria and blue peroxisomes after UV illumination in live cells, you know for a fact that viruses are not a figment of your imagination, are not a mistaken interpretation of a CPE. I understand questioning everything, it is healthy, especially nowadays with the depth of corruption of all our institutions. It is Ok if viruses exist, they have been with us all along, we have a good enough immune system if we are otherwise healthy to deal with all the natural viruses that exist or may emerge.
What is meant as an 'isolate' by virologists, however millions of them their are in distinct dishes, is not separate or distinct- it just denotes observation of some activity within a petri dish. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/isolation-means-you-have-isolates?utm_source=publication-search
We've known for decades, from the work of Barbara McClintock, the stress produces changes in DNA and changes in have its read. This could easily produced 'spike' sequences (which have been found by stressing cells since the 1980s). The sequences are not in the human genome, that doesn't mean they are not endogenous. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/spikes-and-knobs?utm_source=publication-search
Thank you for the link, Jo, but sorry this is nonsense, spontaneous generation of a sequence as complex as a coronavirus cannot possibly occur, be it after stressing of the cells or any other mechanism. Probability for a random sequence to produce a coronavirus is 1 in 810,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 in 8.1 10^17. Absurd.
Sorry Marc, but what you say is nonsense! I did not say that the genome spontaneously generated! Megahit takes millions of contiguous reads and thousands of putative 'genomes' and picks one. See Fan Wu et al. 56 million RNA sequences were put into a computer and 300,000 to 1,000,000 possible genomes were produced. One was plumped for, switched around and had further sequences added to make it look like what the computer operators thought a ‘viral’ genome should look like. Ta da! The short sequences, such as p132-230 ie the 'spike' protein, are then 'found' again by PCR in other unpurified samples.
How is that even faintly relevant? In real life, you have one or two or three, even ten different viruses in a patient sample and there is no issue reconstituting each of their genome.
You got some educating to do: https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/the-dna-hoax
Yeah, it is not because Jamie goes in lalaland that you need to follow him there. Speaking of education, calling DNA a hoax..., that's what happens when you have near zero understanding of science.
Yes, calling DNA a hoax or saying the jabs cause turbo cancer is not helping.
No virus has ever been isolated. They have never been proven to exist, at all. They have never even proven the prerequisite that would lead to suspicion of a thing like viruses in the first place, which is contagion. No disease was ever proven to be contagious (and this is true, because no disease is or was ever contagious).
Nice profession of faith. You cannot support your claim viruses don't exist as no one can prove a negative... Then you have observations reported in over 1.5 million publications regarding viruses. One can come up with a theory to account for these observations. That theory is called virology and you can try to refute it, that's how science works. You can propose an alternative theory to account for these observations if you wish. Good luck.