Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Saying that the alleged Cov 2 virus has been sequenced 100k times over and over again doesn't make it so. You didn't address the quote from Iain Davis' article at all. You know, the fact that all alleged sequencing of the Cov 2 virus is based on the original Wuhan sequencing, which was de novo sequencing- that is, an arrangement guessed at, probably by computer software, and the alleged cov 2 virus has never been isolated.



Iain Davis actually links to that very article- it's the very first link in the quote I made from his article. It's apparently where he realized that they had never isolated the alleged virus and simply guessed at its arrangement using de novo assembly.

The fact that the gene database has had the virus sequence submitted to it over 100,000 times would make it so. Your denial doesn't make the fact that it has been sequenced over 100,00 times disappear.

Of for fuck's sake. De novo sequencing is not guessing. If it was done wrong then it would quickly become apparent after 100 other sequences. If you weren't a troll, we could actually discuss the science. How do you know it has never been isolated? Did you bother to look at all 100,000+ entries in the database that list the sequence and how the obtained it? You are the one guessing here. You have not looked at the actual science.

The fact that Davis is almost as ignorant as you doesn't make him correct. There are 3 ways to "isolate" in order to perform sequencing of a virus. One way is to sequence everything and then subtract the known sequences and assemble what is left. It isn't guessing. It isn't "they didn't isolate it." The sequence has since been confirmed using the 3 ways over 100,000 times. Davis at least admits he is ignorant before he goes on to prove his ignorance.

 

[Scott]

Saying that the alleged Cov 2 virus has been sequenced 100k times over and over again doesn't make it so. You didn't address the quote from Iain Davis' article at all. You know, the fact that all alleged sequencing of the Cov 2 virus is based on the original Wuhan sequencing, which was de novo sequencing- that is, an arrangement guessed at, probably by computer software, and the alleged cov 2 virus has never been isolated.

Iain Davis actually links to that very article- it's the very first link in the quote I made from his article. It's apparently where he realized that they had never isolated the alleged virus and simply guessed at its arrangement using de novo assembly.

The fact that the gene database has had the virus sequence submitted to it over 100,000 times would make it so.

All those 100,000 alleged sequencings are based off of the first one, from that nature article that both you and Iain Davis cited. That initial alleged sequencing, in turn, was done using de novo sequencing, which means that the sequence was just guessed at.

Of for fuck's sake. De novo sequencing is not guessing. If it was done wrong then it would quickly become apparent after 100 other sequences.

Apparently you still don't understand how the Cov 2 virus was allegedly sequenced. I decided it would be better to quote from the book Virus Mania:

**
Incidentally, SARS-CoV-2 was “pieced together” on the computer. The physician Thomas Cowan called this “scientific fraud.” He wrote on October 15, 2020: “This week, my colleague and friend Sally Fallon Morell brought to my attention an amazing article put out by the CDC, published in June 2020. The article’s purpose was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.” In fact, the article section “Whole Genome Sequencing” shows that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, that the CDC “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512).”

Cowan draws the following analogy: “A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”1359

Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the RNA gene sequences “pulled” from the tissue samples prepared in these studies and “calibrated” to the PCR tests belong to a very specific virus, in this case SARS-CoV-2. Especially since the electron microscope images, which are supposed to represent SARS-CoV-2, actually show particles that vary greatly in size. In one paper, the particles range from 60 nm to 140 nm. A specific virus that has such extreme size variation cannot exist by definition.
**

Source:
Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (p. 392). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

All those 100,000 alleged sequencings are based off of the first one, from that nature article that both you and Iain Davis cited. That initial alleged sequencing, in turn, was done using de novo sequencing, which means that the sequence was just guessed at.

You don't quite seem to understand how sequencing works.
It isn't guessing. It is a logic exercise. The problem with your argument is that while they assume the first sequence is correct but then they compare their sequencing to the original. If the first sequence was not correct it would quickly be discovered because the subsequent sequences wouldn't align. They would have sequences that don't fit at all when compared to the first sequence. This would quickly prove the original sequence was incorrect. Wnen you have over 5,000,000 sequences that all align with only minor mutations, it would be mathematically impossible for the first sequence to be as incorrect as you are claiming.

Apparently you still don't understand how the Cov 2 virus was allegedly sequenced. I decided it would be better to quote from the book Virus Mania:

**
Incidentally, SARS-CoV-2 was “pieced together” on the computer. The physician Thomas Cowan called this “scientific fraud.” He wrote on October 15, 2020: “This week, my colleague and friend Sally Fallon Morell brought to my attention an amazing article put out by the CDC, published in June 2020. The article’s purpose was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.” In fact, the article section “Whole Genome Sequencing” shows that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, that the CDC “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512).”

Cowan draws the following analogy: “A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”1359

Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the RNA gene sequences “pulled” from the tissue samples prepared in these studies and “calibrated” to the PCR tests belong to a very specific virus, in this case SARS-CoV-2. Especially since the electron microscope images, which are supposed to represent SARS-CoV-2, actually show particles that vary greatly in size. In one paper, the particles range from 60 nm to 140 nm. A specific virus that has such extreme size variation cannot exist by definition.
**

Source:
Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (p. 392). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.

I better understand than you do and certainly a lot better than Samantha Bailey who has given up her medical license to avoid being charged with medical malpractice.

There is a problem with the comparison that Cowan makes using a unicorn. The problem is that the sequencing doesn't take a few pieces of one unicorn and claim they know how it was built. It takes multiple parts from 500 different mostly complete unicorns and looks at them to see how they assemble. If they have a knee and lower leg that goes to the hoof and a knee and upper leg, it becomes apparent that the knee goes between the lower leg and the upper leg. In some cases they might have the entire leg and in other cases they might only have the knee. Because they have so many parts that are the same connected to other parts they can start to assemble the entire unicorn quite easily. It's the same with virus sequencing. In one sequence they might have 3/4's of the total genome and in other cases they might have only 5% but they can look for the overlapping parts and assemble it based on those overlapping parts. it isn't guessing. It is something a 3rd grader can be taught to do.

After that first sequence is figured out, then 5,000,000 other times they take sequences and use them to assemble complete genomes that closely match the first one. Each time they are not just sequencing one virus, they are sequencing multiple copies that may be cut up into various pieces. A 5 year old would be able to show that it didn't go together the original way if they don't match up the next 5,000,000 times.

 

[Scott]

All those 100,000 alleged sequencings are based off of the first one, from that nature article that both you and Iain Davis cited. That initial alleged sequencing, in turn, was done using de novo sequencing, which means that the sequence was just guessed at.

You don't quite seem to understand how sequencing works.
It isn't guessing. It is a logic exercise.

Show me evidence that it isn't guessing, albeit educated guessing, and you will have an argument.

The problem with your argument is that while they assume the first sequence is correct but then they compare their sequencing to the original. If the first sequence was not correct it would quickly be discovered because the subsequent sequences wouldn't align. They would have sequences that don't fit at all when compared to the first sequence. This would quickly prove the original sequence was incorrect.

So you say. First question- are you even a doctor? Because there are several doctors who no longer believe viruses exist and if the issue was as basic as you suggest, I seriously doubt they would still no longer believe viruses exist.

Apparently you still don't understand how the Cov 2 virus was allegedly sequenced. I decided it would be better to quote from the book Virus Mania:

**
Incidentally, SARS-CoV-2 was “pieced together” on the computer. The physician Thomas Cowan called this “scientific fraud.” He wrote on October 15, 2020: “This week, my colleague and friend Sally Fallon Morell brought to my attention an amazing article put out by the CDC, published in June 2020. The article’s purpose was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.” In fact, the article section “Whole Genome Sequencing” shows that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, that the CDC “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512).”

Cowan draws the following analogy: “A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”1359

Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the RNA gene sequences “pulled” from the tissue samples prepared in these studies and “calibrated” to the PCR tests belong to a very specific virus, in this case SARS-CoV-2. Especially since the electron microscope images, which are supposed to represent SARS-CoV-2, actually show particles that vary greatly in size. In one paper, the particles range from 60 nm to 140 nm. A specific virus that has such extreme size variation cannot exist by definition.
**

Source:
Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (p. 392). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.

I better understand than you do and certainly a lot better than Samantha Bailey who has given up her medical license to avoid being charged with medical malpractice.

Apparently you think that just because Samantha Bailey no longer has a medical license, that means she can't know what she's talking about. In case there's any doubt, she still has all her medical knowledge, as well as all the specialized knowledge that she's acquired regarding vaccines that most doctors wouldn't have.

There is a problem with the comparison that Cowan makes using a unicorn. The problem is that the sequencing doesn't take a few pieces of one unicorn and claim they know how it was built. It takes multiple parts from 500 different mostly complete unicorns and looks at them to see how they assemble.

Where are you getting this 500 number from?

If they have a knee and lower leg that goes to the hoof and a knee and upper leg, it becomes apparent that the knee goes between the lower leg and the upper leg. In some cases they might have the entire leg and in other cases they might only have the knee. Because they have so many parts that are the same connected to other parts they can start to assemble the entire unicorn quite easily. It's the same with virus sequencing. In one sequence they might have 3/4's of the total genome and in other cases they might have only 5% but they can look for the overlapping parts and assemble it based on those overlapping parts.

I imagine you're pulling all of these numbers out of thin air. Or do you have evidence that 3/4s of the total alleged genome of the Cov 2 virus was found at once?

Finally, all of this conversation fails to take into account that the Cov 2 virus itself should have been isolated long ago if it were actually real. There would be no need to guess at its genome from microscopic material that could come from a variety of things. Virus Mania gets into this:

**
Lack of Detection of So-Called SARS-CoV-2

Incidentally, the virus hunters have conveniently ignored a pivotal scientific principle in their argument. Complete purification is an indispensable pre-requisite for virus identification as stated by textbooks1350 1351, virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier (see box with quotes from well-known experts) and the second of Koch’s postulates (see chapter 3, subchapter “Where Is the Proof of HIV?”).

“Purification”, mind you, means the separation of an object from everything that does not belong to it—as, for example, Nobel Prize winner Marie Curies isolated radium from tons of pitchblende in 1898. Only on the basis of such a complete purification can it be proven that the nucleic acid sequences found in the particles in question originate from a new virus.

For this, one must remember that the PCR is extremely sensitive. This means that it can “pick up” even the smallest genetic fragments—i.e. DNA or RNA fragments. But it is not possible with the PCR to determine where these nucleic acid sequences come from. This must be determined beforehand in a separate process. And since PCR tests are “calibrated” to nucleic acid sequences, in this case RNA sequences (since it is assumed that SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus), it must of course be clearly proven that these genetic fragments are actually part of the claimed virus. And in order to prove this beyond any doubt, the correct isolation and complete purification of the suspected virus are indispensable pre-requisites.

To make this quite clear once again, it is worthwhile to employ a paternity suit analogy. Here, in order to compare the DNA of the suspected father and the child, one must ensure that the DNA is extracted from the bodies of the alleged father and the child. The same standard undoubtedly applies to determining whether RNA belongs to a virus or not. In a paternity suit, the genome can, mind you, be extracted from a single “particle” (father/ child). This is different for particles suspected of being viruses. The viral genome cannot be obtained from a single particle due to its extremely small size. This means that it must be obtained from a large mass of identical, i.e. completely purified particles, or at least from material that does not contain any foreign RNA.

Thus, when cells, cell debris and particles are mixed in a laboratory culture, the only way to determine which RNA (or even proteins) are viral is to separate the particles from all non-viral material. However, some researchers use the term “isolation” in their work to give the impression to the uninitiated reader that a virus has been isolated in pure form. In fact, however, this has not happened, because the procedures described in these works do not represent a proper process of isolation including complete purification. Consequently, they misuse the term “isolation” in their publications.

And so we decided to be the first in the world to ask the research teams of the relevant papers cited in connection with the alleged detection of SARS-CoV-2 whether the electron microscope images shown in their in vitro studies depict completely purified viruses. However, not a single team of authors—including those of two pivotal studies (Zhu et al., Wan Beom Park et al. )—could answer this question with a yes. And it should be noted that no one wrote back suggesting that complete purification is not a necessary step for solid virus detection.

We also contacted Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea … to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that “[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction … tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”1355 And that’s why we asked Calisher whether he knows of a single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 had been isolated and then truly purified. His answer: “I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”1356
**

Source: Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (pp. 387-389). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.

The book goes on, talking about various efforts to find a purified Cov 2 virus. So far, nothing.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Show me evidence that it isn't guessing, albeit educated guessing, and you will have an argument.

It is a simple logic puzzle.
Given the following snippets assuming there is no repeat, you have no idea how long the string, is or how many different snippets you have, assemble them in the correct order.




tctaaa

tagatctgttct

ttgta

ttgtagatct

gttctctaaa

It can be done in very few steps. A simple computer program that matches and finds patterns would do this in no time.
In the first string look for anything that matches in the other strings.


Here is the result showing the overlap in the snippets that give the final result.

..................tctaaa
............gttctctaaa
.....tagatctgttct
ttgtagatct
ttgta

Complete and it takes almost no time for a simple version. No guessing was required.

With a longer genome you have longer snippets to match up. You are not restricted to the number of times you can sequence different samples to try to get the final match. You are simply looking for patterns that overlap.

 

[Scott]

Show me evidence that it isn't guessing, albeit educated guessing, and you will have an argument.

It is a simple logic puzzle.
Given the following snippets assuming there is no repeat, you have no idea how long the string, is or how many different snippets you have, assemble them in the correct order.




tctaaa

tagatctgttct

ttgta

ttgtagatct

gttctctaaa

It can be done in very few steps. A simple computer program that matches and finds patterns would do this in no time.
In the first string look for anything that matches in the other strings.


Here is the result showing the overlap in the snippets that give the final result.

..................tctaaa
............gttctctaaa
.....tagatctgttct
ttgtagatct
ttgta

Complete and it takes almost no time for a simple version. No guessing was required.

With a longer genome you have longer snippets to match up. You are not restricted to the number of times you can sequence different samples to try to get the final match. You are simply looking for patterns that overlap.

You saying that it's a simple logic puzzle doesn't make it so. The group of doctors that I reference in the opening post clearly don't agree with your assessment. I also see that you didn't address the fact that there's many signs that the Cov 2 virus has never been isolated, despite claims to the contrary.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So you say. First question- are you even a doctor? Because there are several doctors who no longer believe viruses exist and if the issue was as basic as you suggest, I seriously doubt they would still no longer believe viruses exist.

Oh look. A logical fallacy. Since you can't argue the science you have decided to pound the table.

Apparently you think that just because Samantha Bailey no longer has a medical license, that means she can't know what she's talking about. In case there's any doubt, she still has all her medical knowledge, as well as all the specialized knowledge that she's acquired regarding vaccines that most doctors wouldn't have.

What specialized knowledge? Her never having sequence anything in her life makes her more qualified than the people that have sequenced millions of different genomes?

Where are you getting this 500 number from?

Is 500 less than 5,000,000? Is that your complaint as to the number? The number doesn't matter since specific viruses have been sequenced millions of times and found to be almost identical minus the small genetic mutations.

I imagine you're pulling all of these numbers out of thin air. Or do you have evidence that 3/4s of the total alleged genome of the Cov 2 virus was found at once?

ROFLMAO. Denial works so well for you. When you can't argue the science just deny it and demand evidence even after you have been given the evidence multiple times.

Finally, all of this conversation fails to take into account that the Cov 2 virus itself should have been isolated long ago if it were actually real. There would be no need to guess at its genome from microscopic material that could come from a variety of things. Virus Mania gets into this:

You keep repeating the lie that they guessed. What evidence do you have of them guessing? Can you point to the random number generator in the code used to find the sequences? Without a random number generator there is no guessing. It is based on pattern recognition which is not a guess.

**
Lack of Detection of So-Called SARS-CoV-2

Incidentally, the virus hunters have conveniently ignored a pivotal scientific principle in their argument. Complete purification is an indispensable pre-requisite for virus identification as stated by textbooks1350 1351, virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier (see box with quotes from well-known experts) and the second of Koch’s postulates (see chapter 3, subchapter “Where Is the Proof of HIV?”).

“Purification”, mind you, means the separation of an object from everything that does not belong to it—as, for example, Nobel Prize winner Marie Curies isolated radium from tons of pitchblende in 1898. Only on the basis of such a complete purification can it be proven that the nucleic acid sequences found in the particles in question originate from a new virus.

For this, one must remember that the PCR is extremely sensitive. This means that it can “pick up” even the smallest genetic fragments—i.e. DNA or RNA fragments. But it is not possible with the PCR to determine where these nucleic acid sequences come from. This must be determined beforehand in a separate process. And since PCR tests are “calibrated” to nucleic acid sequences, in this case RNA sequences (since it is assumed that SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus), it must of course be clearly proven that these genetic fragments are actually part of the claimed virus. And in order to prove this beyond any doubt, the correct isolation and complete purification of the suspected virus are indispensable pre-requisites.

To make this quite clear once again, it is worthwhile to employ a paternity suit analogy. Here, in order to compare the DNA of the suspected father and the child, one must ensure that the DNA is extracted from the bodies of the alleged father and the child. The same standard undoubtedly applies to determining whether RNA belongs to a virus or not. In a paternity suit, the genome can, mind you, be extracted from a single “particle” (father/ child). This is different for particles suspected of being viruses. The viral genome cannot be obtained from a single particle due to its extremely small size. This means that it must be obtained from a large mass of identical, i.e. completely purified particles, or at least from material that does not contain any foreign RNA.

Thus, when cells, cell debris and particles are mixed in a laboratory culture, the only way to determine which RNA (or even proteins) are viral is to separate the particles from all non-viral material. However, some researchers use the term “isolation” in their work to give the impression to the uninitiated reader that a virus has been isolated in pure form. In fact, however, this has not happened, because the procedures described in these works do not represent a proper process of isolation including complete purification. Consequently, they misuse the term “isolation” in their publications.

And so we decided to be the first in the world to ask the research teams of the relevant papers cited in connection with the alleged detection of SARS-CoV-2 whether the electron microscope images shown in their in vitro studies depict completely purified viruses. However, not a single team of authors—including those of two pivotal studies (Zhu et al., Wan Beom Park et al. )—could answer this question with a yes. And it should be noted that no one wrote back suggesting that complete purification is not a necessary step for solid virus detection.

We also contacted Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea … to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that “[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction … tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”1355 And that’s why we asked Calisher whether he knows of a single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 had been isolated and then truly purified. His answer: “I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”1356
**

Source: Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (pp. 387-389). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.

The book goes on, talking about various efforts to find a purified Cov 2 virus. So far, nothing.

[/QUOTE]
What a crock of shit that shows they know nothing about sequencing. When sequencing DNA for a paternity suit the DNA is purified in the exact same manner as the RNA is purified for sequencing a virus. Yet they are willing to accept the DNA sequencing without question.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You saying that it's a simple logic puzzle doesn't make it so. The group of doctors that I reference in the opening post clearly don't agree with your assessment. I also see that you didn't address the fact that there's many signs that the Cov 2 virus has never been isolated, despite claims to the contrary.

The doctors you keep using are idiots that don't understand simple logic.
You didn't address the simple logic that you asked for, I provided and you are now pretending I didn't provide. You continue to prove you are either an idiot or a troll.

You keep repeating the same bullshit over and over and refusing to dispute anything that I have presented.


Here, just for you is a scientific paper that uses the word "isolation" so you can forget that stupid and idiotic claim that they don't use the word.

Purification of viral particles and RNA, and DNA
sequencing. Virus isolation was performed on a
bronchoalveolar lavage specimen of a fatal SARS case
belonging to the original case cluster from Toronto, Canada.
Viral particles from this Tor2 isolate were purified and the
genetic material (RNA) was extracted (12) from the Tor2
isolate (13).
https://www.science.org/cms/asset/fa3598d2-9af0-4ae3-a10c-88c6b2faed7c/pap.pdf

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You saying that it's a simple logic puzzle doesn't make it so.

My saying it doesn't make it so. The facts make it so.
All the software use alignment to arrange the sequence snippets.

https://www.genecodes.com/sequencher-features/next-gen-sequencing/rna-seq
https://www.illumina.com/informatics/sequencing-data-analysis/rna.html


This one has a nice picture showing the alignment with location of start and end for the snippets.
https://github.com/dylanbeeber/crispRdesignR

 

[Scott]

So you say. First question- are you even a doctor? Because there are several doctors who no longer believe viruses exist and if the issue was as basic as you suggest, I seriously doubt they would still no longer believe viruses exist.

Oh look. A logical fallacy.

Here's to hoping you don't start limiting your responses to stating that what I've said is some logical fallacy or other as a certain other poster has decided to start doing here. Anyone can claim that what someone else says is a logical fallacy. Simply stating this is generally useless. If you believe I've made a logical fallacy and actually want to make a meaningful post, you should explain what precisely I've said that you believe constitutes said logical fallacy.

Apparently you think that just because Samantha Bailey no longer has a medical license, that means she can't know what she's talking about. In case there's any doubt, she still has all her medical knowledge, as well as all the specialized knowledge that she's acquired regarding vaccines that most doctors wouldn't have.

What specialized knowledge?

You'd know if you actually engaged in the quotes from the book she co authored.

Her never having sequence anything in her life makes her more qualified than the people that have sequenced millions of different genomes?

You still believe that all those viral sequences are real, I don't.

Apparently you still don't understand how the Cov 2 virus was allegedly sequenced. I decided it would be better to quote from the book Virus Mania:

**
Incidentally, SARS-CoV-2 was “pieced together” on the computer. The physician Thomas Cowan called this “scientific fraud.” He wrote on October 15, 2020: “This week, my colleague and friend Sally Fallon Morell brought to my attention an amazing article put out by the CDC, published in June 2020. The article’s purpose was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.” In fact, the article section “Whole Genome Sequencing” shows that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, that the CDC “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512).”

Cowan draws the following analogy: “A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”1359

Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the RNA gene sequences “pulled” from the tissue samples prepared in these studies and “calibrated” to the PCR tests belong to a very specific virus, in this case SARS-CoV-2. Especially since the electron microscope images, which are supposed to represent SARS-CoV-2, actually show particles that vary greatly in size. In one paper, the particles range from 60 nm to 140 nm. A specific virus that has such extreme size variation cannot exist by definition.
**

Source:
Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (p. 392). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.

There is a problem with the comparison that Cowan makes using a unicorn. The problem is that the sequencing doesn't take a few pieces of one unicorn and claim they know how it was built. It takes multiple parts from 500 different mostly complete unicorns and looks at them to see how they assemble.

Where are you getting this 500 number from?

Is 500 less than 5,000,000? Is that your complaint as to the number? The number doesn't matter since specific viruses have been sequenced millions of times and found to be almost identical minus the small genetic mutations.

I was curious as to where you were getting your number. You seem to be saying that you simply made it up. Fair enough. Finding identical snippets of RNA doesn't mean that those snippets were part of a unicorn. In this case, the important thing is, is there any solid evidence that a viral entity designated Cov 2 exists? From what I've seen, the answer is a solid no.

I imagine you're pulling all of these numbers out of thin air. Or do you have evidence that 3/4s of the total alleged genome of the Cov 2 virus was found at once?

ROFLMAO. Denial works so well for you. When you can't argue the science just deny it and demand evidence even after you have been given the evidence multiple times.

Present the evidence that 3/4 of the total alleged genome was found anywhere then.

Finally, all of this conversation fails to take into account that the Cov 2 virus itself should have been isolated long ago if it were actually real. There would be no need to guess at its genome from microscopic material that could come from a variety of things. Virus Mania gets into this:

You keep repeating the lie that they guessed. What evidence do you have of them guessing?

I believe the passages I quoted to you from Virus Mania make it clear enough.

Finally, all of this conversation fails to take into account that the Cov 2 virus itself should have been isolated long ago if it were actually real. There would be no need to guess at its genome from microscopic material that could come from a variety of things. Virus Mania gets into this:

**
Lack of Detection of So-Called SARS-CoV-2

Incidentally, the virus hunters have conveniently ignored a pivotal scientific principle in their argument. Complete purification is an indispensable pre-requisite for virus identification as stated by textbooks1350 1351, virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier (see box with quotes from well-known experts) and the second of Koch’s postulates (see chapter 3, subchapter “Where Is the Proof of HIV?”).

“Purification”, mind you, means the separation of an object from everything that does not belong to it—as, for example, Nobel Prize winner Marie Curies isolated radium from tons of pitchblende in 1898. Only on the basis of such a complete purification can it be proven that the nucleic acid sequences found in the particles in question originate from a new virus.

For this, one must remember that the PCR is extremely sensitive. This means that it can “pick up” even the smallest genetic fragments—i.e. DNA or RNA fragments. But it is not possible with the PCR to determine where these nucleic acid sequences come from. This must be determined beforehand in a separate process. And since PCR tests are “calibrated” to nucleic acid sequences, in this case RNA sequences (since it is assumed that SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus), it must of course be clearly proven that these genetic fragments are actually part of the claimed virus. And in order to prove this beyond any doubt, the correct isolation and complete purification of the suspected virus are indispensable pre-requisites.

To make this quite clear once again, it is worthwhile to employ a paternity suit analogy. Here, in order to compare the DNA of the suspected father and the child, one must ensure that the DNA is extracted from the bodies of the alleged father and the child. The same standard undoubtedly applies to determining whether RNA belongs to a virus or not. In a paternity suit, the genome can, mind you, be extracted from a single “particle” (father/ child). This is different for particles suspected of being viruses. The viral genome cannot be obtained from a single particle due to its extremely small size. This means that it must be obtained from a large mass of identical, i.e. completely purified particles, or at least from material that does not contain any foreign RNA.

Thus, when cells, cell debris and particles are mixed in a laboratory culture, the only way to determine which RNA (or even proteins) are viral is to separate the particles from all non-viral material. However, some researchers use the term “isolation” in their work to give the impression to the uninitiated reader that a virus has been isolated in pure form. In fact, however, this has not happened, because the procedures described in these works do not represent a proper process of isolation including complete purification. Consequently, they misuse the term “isolation” in their publications.

And so we decided to be the first in the world to ask the research teams of the relevant papers cited in connection with the alleged detection of SARS-CoV-2 whether the electron microscope images shown in their in vitro studies depict completely purified viruses. However, not a single team of authors—including those of two pivotal studies (Zhu et al., Wan Beom Park et al. )—could answer this question with a yes. And it should be noted that no one wrote back suggesting that complete purification is not a necessary step for solid virus detection.

We also contacted Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea … to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that “[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction … tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”1355 And that’s why we asked Calisher whether he knows of a single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 had been isolated and then truly purified. His answer: “I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”1356
**

Source: Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (pp. 387-389). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.

The book goes on, talking about various efforts to find a purified Cov 2 virus. So far, nothing.

What a crock of shit that shows they know nothing about sequencing.

Do you think that using insults adds to your point?

When sequencing DNA for a paternity suit the DNA is purified in the exact same manner as the RNA is purified for sequencing a virus. Yet they are willing to accept the DNA sequencing without question.

You haven't shown any evidence that the alleged Cov 2 virus was ever isolated or purified. I, on the other hand, have shown evidence that it was not.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Here's to hoping you don't start limiting your responses to stating that what I've said is some logical fallacy or other as a certain other poster has decided to start doing here. Anyone can claim that what someone else says is a logical fallacy. Simply stating this is generally useless. If you believe I've made a logical fallacy and actually want to make a meaningful post, you should explain what precisely I've said that you believe constitutes said logical fallacy.

Your statement was full of logical fallacies.

Are you a doctor? Logical fallacy since it pretends that facts rely on being a doctor.
Because several doctors believe ... Logical fallacy. Because one person believes something doesn't make it true.
Are you not intelligent enough to recognize such simple logical fallacies?

You'd know if you actually engaged in the quotes from the book she co authored.

I did engage in them and refuted them by showing that viral sequencing doesn't rely on finding 3 incomplete parts of one virus.. The quote is ridiculous because it uses a false analogy. Now you seem to want to ignore my refutation and revert to an idiotic quote as if it still stands when it clearly doesn't.

You still believe that all those viral sequences are real, I don't.

Only proving you are an idiot.

I was curious as to where you were getting your number. You seem to be saying that you simply made it up. Fair enough. Finding identical snippets of RNA doesn't mean that those snippets were part of a unicorn. In this case, the important thing is, is there any solid evidence that a viral entity designated Cov 2 exists? From what I've seen, the answer is a solid no.

I have linked to the genome database that contains over 6,000,000 times that the Cov 2 viruse has been sequenced and submitted to the database. Your denial of reality is strong but it is still a denial of reality.




Present the evidence that 3/4 of the total alleged genome was found anywhere then.

I have already linked to multiple science articles that show that.

I believe the passages I quoted to you from Virus Mania make it clear enough.

What you believe and reality seem to be far removed from each other.

Do you think that using insults adds to your point?

Do you think that posting quotes from people that don't know what they are talking about adds to your point? It only proves you can't tell fact from fiction and you can't tell science from fantasy.

You haven't shown any evidence that the alleged Cov 2 virus was ever isolated or purified. I, on the other hand, have shown evidence that it was not.

Really? You have provided evidence that the virus was never isolated or purified in the over 6,000,000 times it was sequenced?
So you posted about every one of those times and proved they didn't isolate it? Where can I find those 6,000,000 pieces of evidence

All you have done is post idiotic rantings by people that believe that because viruses can't be purified in the same way that bacteria can be they they can't exist. I have already pointed out to you that humans can't be isolated and purified in the same way as bacteria. Does the lack of purification prove the humans don't exist? Applying a standard of proof that can never be met is not proof that something doesn't exist. It is only proof that the person demanding that proof is not living in reality.

 

[Scott]

The doctors you keep using are idiots that don't understand simple logic.

Using ad hominems is a great way to end a debate by showing your ideological opponent that you're more interested in the equivalent of a brawl than an actual discussion, so if that was your intent here, congratulations.

 

[Scott]

You saying that it's a simple logic puzzle doesn't make it so.

My saying it doesn't make it so.

Glad we agree on that at least.

The facts make it so.

And here is where we go our separate ways.

All the software use alignment to arrange the sequence snippets.

https://www.genecodes.com/sequencher-features/next-gen-sequencing/rna-seq
https://www.illumina.com/informatics/sequencing-data-analysis/rna.html


This one has a nice picture showing the alignment with location of start and end for the snippets.
https://github.com/dylanbeeber/crispRdesignR

I quoted a long explanation on how there's been a lack of detection of the Cov 2 virus back in post #244. Your response in 247 started with "What a crock of shit". You've got to develop your discussion skills.

 

[Scott]

So you say. First question- are you even a doctor? Because there are several doctors who no longer believe viruses exist and if the issue was as basic as you suggest, I seriously doubt they would still no longer believe viruses exist.

Oh look. A logical fallacy.

Here's to hoping you don't start limiting your responses to stating that what I've said is some logical fallacy or other as a certain other poster has decided to start doing here. Anyone can claim that what someone else says is a logical fallacy. Simply stating this is generally useless. If you believe I've made a logical fallacy and actually want to make a meaningful post, you should explain what precisely I've said that you believe constitutes said logical fallacy.

Your statement was full of logical fallacies.

Are you a doctor? Logical fallacy since it pretends that facts rely on being a doctor.

The only logical fallacy here is your straw man argument. I never stated that "facts rely on being a doctor".

Because several doctors believe ... Logical fallacy. Because one person believes something doesn't make it true.

Yet another straw man argument. I never said that just because someone believes something means that it's true. That being said, if several doctors are skeptical or outright no longer believe that biological viruses exist, I'd think why they believe this is worth examining deeply, rather than simply subjecting their explanations to ad hominem attacks.

 

[Scott]

Apparently you think that just because Samantha Bailey no longer has a medical license, that means she can't know what she's talking about. In case there's any doubt, she still has all her medical knowledge, as well as all the specialized knowledge that she's acquired regarding vaccines that most doctors wouldn't have.

What specialized knowledge?

You'd know if you actually engaged in the quotes from the book she co authored.

I did engage in them

Yeah, by saying things like "What a crock of sh*t*".

and refuted them by showing that viral sequencing doesn't rely on finding 3 incomplete parts of one virus..

They've provided evidence that the alleged Cov 2 virus has never been detected at all, which I quoted in post #244.

The quote is ridiculous because it uses a false analogy.

I quote a lot of things, you'll have to be specific as to what quote you're referring to.

You still believe that all those viral sequences are real, I don't.

Only proving you are an idiot.

Alright, an ad hominem has arrived, time to stop.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Glad we agree on that at least.



And here is where we go our separate ways.



I quoted a long explanation on how there's been a lack of detection of the Cov 2 virus back in post #244. Your response in 247 started with "What a crock of shit". You've got to develop your discussion skills.

When you keep shoveling shit, there is no reason to call it anything but shit.

I have presented the genome databases and the procedures for sequencing. You have not presented anything that shows those to not be true. Your only argument is you "don't believe." the problem with your argument is it is a classic conspiracy theory argument. You have presented nothing that fits the facts better than the current scientific consensus. You have only presented bullshit that ignores most of the facts and doesn't even attempt to give a reasonable theory of what it is if isn't a virus.

Your claim that there has been a lack of detection of the Cov 2 virus does not explain why since that paper you used as your source the virus has been sequenced over 5,00,000 times with no one that has actually done the sequencing finding problems with the initial sequencing. Your argument is a crock of shit. It doesn't address reality. If the initial sequence was wrong then it would be quickly apparent within 100 times of the sequence being done again. For the sequence to be done 5,000,000 times and always found to be in the same wrong order would be impossible based on how the sequencing is performed.

Here is a paper where they sequenced the Cov - 2 virus and then compared it to the Wuhan one.
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/MRA.00169-20
They used the reference sequence from Wuhan to assemble it but then also as a control assembled the sequence de novo without using any reference.
They used over 8,000,000 bp to assemble a virus that is about 29,000 bp long. The overlapping snippets would make it mathematically impossible to assemble in any other way.

 

[Scott]

I quoted a long explanation on how there's been a lack of detection of the Cov 2 virus back in post #244. Your response in 247 started with "What a crock of shit". You've got to develop your discussion skills.

When you keep shoveling shit, there is no reason to call it anything but shit.

There you go again. There was a time when you were capable of engaging in a productive discussion on this subject. It seems that time has passed.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The only logical fallacy here is your straw man argument. I never stated that "facts rely on being a doctor".

So this has nothing to do with being a doctor?
So you say. First question- are you even a doctor? Because there are several doctors who no longer believe viruses exist and if the issue was as basic as you suggest, I seriously doubt they would still no longer believe viruses exist.

Not only did you use the word doctor twice, you then gave no facts other than them being doctors for why they no longer believe. Being a doctor has no bearing on the facts and yet you imply rather strongly that as doctors they are better able to assess "facts."

Yet another straw man argument. I never said that just because someone believes something means that it's true. That being said, if several doctors are skeptical or outright no longer believe that biological viruses exist, I'd think why they believe this is worth examining deeply, rather than simply subjecting their explanations to ad hominem attacks.

Keep building on that logical fallacy. My argument is not a strawman. Because a doctor believes something is not evidence that their beliefs should be examined anymore than because some idiot on the internet believes something their belief is worth examining.
The problem you have is you aren't willing to actually examine their beliefs. You believe their bullshit and peddle their shit here without examining any of it.
Explain how someone can assemble over 9,000,000 bps using overlaps that results in a virus 29,811 bp long and this can be done over 6,000,000 time and the same result is found every time. I look forward to your math showing us that it is likely for that many different sequencings can occur using this method and they could always find the same wrong result. Are the odds 1 in 10^1,000,000 or even higher than that?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

There you go again. There was a time when you were capable of engaging in a productive discussion on this subject. It seems that time has passed.

And you can't respond with anything related to the topic? Hmmmm... I spent over a paragraph explaining why your shit is shit and you didn't dispute any of it. I think even you recognize you are peddling shit since you don't defend your shit but simply complain that someone points out that your shit stinks.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yeah, by saying things like "What a crock of sh*t*".



They've provided evidence that the alleged Cov 2 virus has never been detected at all, which I quoted in post #244.



I quote a lot of things, you'll have to be specific as to what quote you're referring to.



Alright, an ad hominem has arrived, time to stop.

Where is your evidence that the Covid-2 virus hasn't been detected?
I have evidence of it being sequenced over 6,000,000 times. Where is your evidence proving that hasn't happened?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/?term=txid2697049[Organism:noexp] NOT 0[Mbases

At this point you are claiming that all of those that have sequenced the virus are frauds. The burden is on you to prove them frauds at this point.