This paper is the same old story, using PCR/NGS to generate a genome. Yes, the authors claim to have sequenced the virus but that doesn't mean they truly did. PCR is a fantastic manufacturing method for a known DNA sequence but it's USELESS to sequence novel viruses. Some of the COVID PCR tests use primers that are only 50 bases long…
This paper is the same old story, using PCR/NGS to generate a genome. Yes, the authors claim to have sequenced the virus but that doesn't mean they truly did. PCR is a fantastic manufacturing method for a known DNA sequence but it's USELESS to sequence novel viruses. Some of the COVID PCR tests use primers that are only 50 bases long and yet they claim that SARS-COV-2 is 30,000 RNA bases! PCR is incapable of diagnosing any viral illness and is also incapable of creating a real virus genome. (Yes, using longer primers helps but regardless the test/method is still invalid.) Some molecular biologists admit that NGS creates genomes that largely consists of sequences from the host, not the so-called "virus".
I'm a virus skeptic but I'm willing to admit that so-called "infectious" viruses may truly exist. But if that turns out to be the case, then I can say with 100% certainty that the virus genomes are all fake and all vaccines are worthless. There's ZERO proof any vaccines have ever worked.
You are incorrect, the actual isolating and sequencing of a virus has nothing to do with the PCR test. Would you like me to give you a step by step procedure on how to isolate and sequence a virus? I have not done it in decades but not much has changed.
Sorry, but you're incorrect as well. We are talking past each other. I'll stick to engineering where at least we can prove our claims with real-world results. Best wishes to you on your journey to the truth.
Taking a solution from a patient running it through a centrifuge scooping out the top layer (the supernatant) and then culturing it and detecting viral plaques in a petri dish and taking this material and running it through a gel to sequence is "as real world" as it gets and has ZERO to do with the fraudulent PCR tests that you refer to.
When you find this same sequence in a group of similarly symptomatic patients who ALSO show viral RNA at LOW cycle rates then you likely have a virus according to the Bradford Hill postulates.
Please tell me where I am "incorrect". If you have new knowledge to offer the scientists who published this paper who by the way were among the first to promote Ivermectin Zinc and zpack for early treatment I am sure they would welcome your input.
This paper is the same old story, using PCR/NGS to generate a genome. Yes, the authors claim to have sequenced the virus but that doesn't mean they truly did. PCR is a fantastic manufacturing method for a known DNA sequence but it's USELESS to sequence novel viruses. Some of the COVID PCR tests use primers that are only 50 bases long and yet they claim that SARS-COV-2 is 30,000 RNA bases! PCR is incapable of diagnosing any viral illness and is also incapable of creating a real virus genome. (Yes, using longer primers helps but regardless the test/method is still invalid.) Some molecular biologists admit that NGS creates genomes that largely consists of sequences from the host, not the so-called "virus".
I'm a virus skeptic but I'm willing to admit that so-called "infectious" viruses may truly exist. But if that turns out to be the case, then I can say with 100% certainty that the virus genomes are all fake and all vaccines are worthless. There's ZERO proof any vaccines have ever worked.
https://beardedheretic.com/2020/10/17/the-invented-pandemic-the-lack-of-virus-isolation-and-the-invalid-covid-19-test/
https://viroliegy.com/2022/04/26/introduction-to-viroliegy/
You are incorrect, the actual isolating and sequencing of a virus has nothing to do with the PCR test. Would you like me to give you a step by step procedure on how to isolate and sequence a virus? I have not done it in decades but not much has changed.
Sorry, but you're incorrect as well. We are talking past each other. I'll stick to engineering where at least we can prove our claims with real-world results. Best wishes to you on your journey to the truth.
Taking a solution from a patient running it through a centrifuge scooping out the top layer (the supernatant) and then culturing it and detecting viral plaques in a petri dish and taking this material and running it through a gel to sequence is "as real world" as it gets and has ZERO to do with the fraudulent PCR tests that you refer to.
When you find this same sequence in a group of similarly symptomatic patients who ALSO show viral RNA at LOW cycle rates then you likely have a virus according to the Bradford Hill postulates.
Please tell me where I am "incorrect". If you have new knowledge to offer the scientists who published this paper who by the way were among the first to promote Ivermectin Zinc and zpack for early treatment I am sure they would welcome your input.