Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Contig is short for contiguous. The fact that they are assembled doesn't change the fact that once assembled, they form a contiguous length of RNA.



You mistake ignore with simply not remembering everything he said. So, congratulations, you've shown that k141_27232 was not, in fact, the longest contig that the mathematician found. That doesn't change the fact that the mathematician found k141_27232 very interesting. Furthermore, there are other points that I think are quite interesting. Many of them are made in the very paragraph from which you got your sentence. Quoting the complete paragraph:

**
We obtained 28,459 (200 nt - 29,802 nt) contigs, significantly less than described in [1]. Deviating from the representations in [1], the longest contig we assembled comprised only 29,802 nt, 672 nt less than the longest contig with 30,474 nt, which according to [1] comprised almost the entire viral genome. Our longest contig showed a perfect match with the MN908947.3 sequence at a length of 29,801 nt (Tables and Figures, Tables 1, 2). Thus, we could not reproduce the longest contig of 30,474 nt, which is so important for scientific verification. Consequently, the published sequence data cannot be the original reads used for assembly.
**

Aren't you at least curious as to why the published sequence data can't be the original reads used for assembly?

Surely the fact that the mathematician and doctor Stefan Lanka couldn't even reproduce the longest sequence allegedly found by the authors of the alleged Cov 2 virus, which "comprised almost the entire viral genome" should be a blazing red flag, don't you think?



As mentioned elsewhere, there are very good reasons why the mathematician wouldn't want to put his name to the paper. It's hardly news that any professional who disagrees with the official covid narrative is bound to have serious repercussions. I think the treatment of doctors like Dr. Sam Bailey provides ample evidence for this.

In any case, you do seem to be right concerning the fact that the mathematician and Dr. Stefan Lanka never mentions the length of k141_27232 contig, at least in the analysis paper. I suspect that it may be in the tables document. I may look at that later to see if it's there.

Contig does NOT mean contiguous RNA.

In 1980, Staden [4] wrote: In order to make it easier to talk about our data gained by the shotgun method of sequencing we have invented the word "contig". A contig is a set of gel readings that are related to one another by overlap of their sequences. All gel readings belong to one and only one contig, and each contig contains at least one gel reading. The gel readings in a contig can be summed to form a contiguous consensus sequence and the length of this sequence is the length of the contig.

A sequence contig is a continuous (not contiguous) sequence resulting from the reassembly of the small DNA fragments generated by bottom-up sequencing strategies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contig
It is a word that is made up to describe the assembled reads.

You better start to backtrack since we are finding some of your claims are proven false.
Why would they necessarily be the same since the mathematician says he eliminated over 50% of them before he even started? He clearly states "After filtering the
paired-end reads, 26,108,482 of the original total of 56,565,928 reads remained, with
a length of about 150 bp."

The mathematician that refused to put his name on the paper also states this, "not all steps can be retraced or reproduced."

Since he admits he didn't do every step, the fact that he got different results is not a surprise at all. The fact that he got a result that was almost identical to the genome of Covid as assembled in the original paper should be important to note. Even while taking shortcuts and doing it differently he still got almost identical results.

Meanwhile over over 6,000 other de novo assemblies have confirmed the genome. Aren't you curious why others using different samples from different sick people got the same genome?

Aren't you curious about this?
Meanwhile we have the following evidence that you refuse to address at all. I know I am curious as to why you refuse to address it.
Viruses have been isolated and grown in tissue cultures.
Viruses grown in tissue cultures have infected people.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

 

[Scott]

Again, I think your problem is you seem to think that all contigs should have equal weight. It seems clear to me that the mathematician believes otherwise, and I believe he's right.

Where does the mathematician state that one contig should have more weight than another?

He doesn't state it outright, but I think the fact that he only tracked the top 50 longest contigs, plus the fact that he placed particular emphasis on a few of those, such as contig k141_27232, strongly suggest it. What I don't understand is why he didn't mention the name of the longest contig that the authors of the nature paper allegedly found, with a total of 30,474 nt (which I believe stands for nucleotides). Here is where he brings it up, as well as the extreme importance of this contig when it comes to the claim of the nature authors and what this means, and appears to be suggesting that the nature authors from Wuhan engaged in fraud:

**
We obtained 28,459 (200 nt - 29,802 nt) contigs, significantly less than described in [1]. Deviating from the representations in [1], the longest contig we assembled comprised only 29,802 nt, 672 nt less than the longest contig with 30,474 nt, which according to [1] comprised almost the entire viral genome. Our longest contig showed a perfect match with the MN908947.3 sequence at a length of 29,801 nt (Tables and Figures, Tables 1, 2). Thus, we could not reproduce the longest contig of 30,474 nt, which is so important for scientific verification. Consequently, the published sequence data cannot be the original reads used for assembly.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

He doesn't state it outright, but I think the fact that he only tracked the top 50 longest contigs, plus the fact that he placed particular emphasis on a few of those, such as contig k141_27232, strongly suggest it. What I don't understand is why he didn't mention the name of the longest contig that the authors of the nature paper allegedly found, with a total of 30,474 nt (which I believe stands for nucleotides). Here is where he brings it up, as well as the extreme importance of this contig when it comes to the claim of the nature authors and what this means, and appears to be suggesting that the nature authors from Wuhan engaged in fraud:

**
We obtained 28,459 (200 nt - 29,802 nt) contigs, significantly less than described in [1]. Deviating from the representations in [1], the longest contig we assembled comprised only 29,802 nt, 672 nt less than the longest contig with 30,474 nt, which according to [1] comprised almost the entire viral genome. Our longest contig showed a perfect match with the MN908947.3 sequence at a length of 29,801 nt (Tables and Figures, Tables 1, 2). Thus, we could not reproduce the longest contig of 30,474 nt, which is so important for scientific verification. Consequently, the published sequence data cannot be the original reads used for assembly.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

He doesn't use the same process.
He gets different results because he doesn't use the same process.
Then even though he got different results he compares his top 50 to the top 50 from Wuhan.
His top 50 don't match the top 50 from Wuhan which isn't surprising. I'll bet his bottom 50 don't match either.

Perhaps the one you should be accusing of fraud is the mathematician that refused to sign his work since he didn't use the same process.


Meanwhile:
What I would like to know is why the mathematician and you haven't considered the other times that Covid-2 was assembled de-novo not using the Wuhan paper and they came up with the same genetic sequence.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/omi.2022.0042
Overall, three assemblers, that is, SPAdes, IDBA, and ABySS, performed consistently well, including for genome assembly of SARS-CoV-2

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33822878/
We performed 6648 de novo assemblies of 416 SARS-CoV-2 samples using eight different assemblers with different k-mer lengths.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...uyen/f5b89ebbaa8b493f053ae398dbf3d5589b148d06
The sequencing was successfully completed and de novo assembled in less than 30 hours, resulting in one contig with no gap and a length of 29,766 bp


Who should we believe? Your mathematician that did one de novo assembly from a subset of data or others that have done over 6,0000 de novo assemblies from multiple samples?

 

[Scott]

It may well be the longest contig that the mathematician claimed to find.

It may not well be the longest contig the mathematician found since the mathematician states the longest one he found and it is NOT the one you keep referring to as the longest. [nonproductive insults snipped]

This is from the paper -
Our longest contig showed a perfect match with the MN908947.3 sequence at a length of 29,801 nt

Just so you know, (GenBank: MN908947.3) is the genome for Sars-Covid-2 that is recorded in GenBank.

The longest contig the mathematician assembled is a perfect match for the Sars-Covid-2 virus.

It's a perfect match for the -alleged- Cov 2 virus. There's no solid evidence that this contig is a virus. The abstract of the Hamburg mathematician's paper gets into that:

**
De novo meta-transcriptomic sequencing or whole genome sequencing are accepted methods in virology for the detection of claimed pathogenic viruses. In this process, no virus particles (virions) are detected and in the sense of the word isolation, isolated and biochemically characterized. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, total RNA is often extracted from patient samples (e.g.: bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or throat- nose swabs) and sequenced. Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.

We therefore examined the publication "A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China" [1] and the associated published sequence data with bioproject ID PRJNA603194 dated 27/01/2020 for the original gene sequence proposal for SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank: MN908947.3). 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.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

 

[Scott]

I presented evidence of a particle capable of replicating inside a human cell and thereby causing human illness.

I believe you're referring to the alleged polio virus. I found an article linked to in an article/video by Dr. Sam Bailey that I think is quite educational in regards to this alleged virus. I'll quote its introduction:

**
Toxicology vs Virology – Rockefeller Institute and the Criminal Polio Fraud

by F. William Engdahl

July 12, 2022

One of the outcomes of the alleged new SARS Covid virus that publicly emerged in 2019 is that the medical specialization of virology has been raised to a stature almost Godlike in the media. Few understand the origins of virology and its elevation into a leading role in today’s medicine practice. For this we need to look at the origins and politics of America’s first medical research institute, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, today Rockefeller University, and their work on what they claimed was a polio virus.

In 1907 an outbreak of a sickness in New York City gave the director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, MD, a golden opportunity to lay claim to discovery of an invisible “virus” caused by what was arbitrarily called poliomyelitis. The word poliomyelitis simply means inflammation of the spinal cord’s grey matter. There were some 2,500 New Yorkers, mostly children, designated with some form of poliomyelitis, including paralysis and even death, that year.

Flexner’s Fraud

The most striking aspect of the entire polio saga in the USA during the first half of the 20th Century was the fact that every key phase of the business was controlled by people tied to what became the Rockefeller medical cabal. This fraud started with claims by the Director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, that he and his colleague, Paul A. Lewis, had “isolated” a pathogen, invisible to the eye, smaller even than bacteria, which they claimed caused the paralyzing sickness in a series of outbreaks in the US. How did they come to this idea?

In a paper published in 1909 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Flexner claimed he and Lewis had isolated the poliomyelitis virus responsible. He reported they had successfully “passaged” poliomyelitis through several monkeys, from monkey to monkey. They began by injecting diseased human spinal cord tissue of a young boy who had died, presumably from the virus, into the brains of monkeys. After a monkey fell ill, a suspension of its diseased spinal cord tissue was injected into the brains of other monkeys who also fell ill.

They proclaimed that the Rockefeller Institute doctors had thus proven poliomyelitis virus causality for the mysterious disease. They hadn’t done anything of the sort. Flexner and Lewis even admitted that: “We failed utterly to discover bacteria, either in film preparations or in cultures, that could account for the disease; and, since among our long series of propagations of the virus in monkeys not one animal showed, in the lesions, the cocci described by some previous investigators, and we had failed to obtain any such bacteria from the human material studied by us, we felt that they could be excluded from consideration.” What they then did was to make a bizarre supposition, a leap of faith, not a scientific claim. They took their hypothesis of viral exogenous agency and made it fact, with no proof whatever. They asserted: “Therefore, …the infecting agent of epidemic poliomyelitis belongs to the class of the minute and filterable viruses that have not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.“ Therefore?

Simon Flexner simply asserted it “must” be a polio virus killing the monkeys, because they could find no other explanation. In fact he did not look for another source of the illnesses. This was not scientific isolation. It was wild speculation: “…not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.” They admitted this in a December 18, 1909 follow up in JAMA, titled, THE NATURE OF THE VIRUS OF EPIDEMIC POLIOMYELITIS.

The so-called “virus” they were injecting into monkeys was hardly pure. It also contained an undetermined amount of contaminants. It included “pureed spinal cord, brain, fecal matter, even flies were ground up and injected into monkeys to induce paralysis.” Until Jonas Salk won approval from the US Government in April 1955 for a polio vaccine, no scientific proof of existence of a virus causing poliomyelitis, or infantile paralysis as it was commonly known, had been proven. That is the case to this day. The medical world all took Flexner’s word that it “must” be a virus.
**

Full article:
Toxicology vs Virology – Rockefeller Institute and the Criminal Polio Fraud | williamengdahl.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It's a perfect match for the -alleged- Cov 2 virus. There's no solid evidence that this contig is a virus. The abstract of the Hamburg mathematician's paper gets into that:

**
De novo meta-transcriptomic sequencing or whole genome sequencing are accepted methods in virology for the detection of claimed pathogenic viruses. In this process, no virus particles (virions) are detected and in the sense of the word isolation, isolated and biochemically characterized. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, total RNA is often extracted from patient samples (e.g.: bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or throat- nose swabs) and sequenced. Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.

We therefore examined the publication "A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China" [1] and the associated published sequence data with bioproject ID PRJNA603194 dated 27/01/2020 for the original gene sequence proposal for SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank: MN908947.3). 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.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

LOL. Tell us why over 6,000 other de novo assemblies with a sample from someone sick also resulted in the same genome.
Your mathematician's paper never once shows that the other over 6,000 times the virus was found are wrong.

Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.
What is notable is how you and the mathematician have failed to address the following when you claim viruses don't exist.
Meanwhile we have the following evidence that you refuse to address at all. I know I am curious as to why you refuse to address it.
Viruses have been isolated and grown in tissue cultures.
Viruses grown in tissue cultures have infected people.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I believe you're referring to the alleged polio virus. I found an article linked to in an article/video by Dr. Sam Bailey that I think is quite educational in regards to this alleged virus. I'll quote its introduction:

**
Toxicology vs Virology – Rockefeller Institute and the Criminal Polio Fraud

by F. William Engdahl

July 12, 2022

One of the outcomes of the alleged new SARS Covid virus that publicly emerged in 2019 is that the medical specialization of virology has been raised to a stature almost Godlike in the media. Few understand the origins of virology and its elevation into a leading role in today’s medicine practice. For this we need to look at the origins and politics of America’s first medical research institute, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, today Rockefeller University, and their work on what they claimed was a polio virus.

In 1907 an outbreak of a sickness in New York City gave the director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, MD, a golden opportunity to lay claim to discovery of an invisible “virus” caused by what was arbitrarily called poliomyelitis. The word poliomyelitis simply means inflammation of the spinal cord’s grey matter. There were some 2,500 New Yorkers, mostly children, designated with some form of poliomyelitis, including paralysis and even death, that year.

Flexner’s Fraud

The most striking aspect of the entire polio saga in the USA during the first half of the 20th Century was the fact that every key phase of the business was controlled by people tied to what became the Rockefeller medical cabal. This fraud started with claims by the Director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, that he and his colleague, Paul A. Lewis, had “isolated” a pathogen, invisible to the eye, smaller even than bacteria, which they claimed caused the paralyzing sickness in a series of outbreaks in the US. How did they come to this idea?

In a paper published in 1909 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Flexner claimed he and Lewis had isolated the poliomyelitis virus responsible. He reported they had successfully “passaged” poliomyelitis through several monkeys, from monkey to monkey. They began by injecting diseased human spinal cord tissue of a young boy who had died, presumably from the virus, into the brains of monkeys. After a monkey fell ill, a suspension of its diseased spinal cord tissue was injected into the brains of other monkeys who also fell ill.

They proclaimed that the Rockefeller Institute doctors had thus proven poliomyelitis virus causality for the mysterious disease. They hadn’t done anything of the sort. Flexner and Lewis even admitted that: “We failed utterly to discover bacteria, either in film preparations or in cultures, that could account for the disease; and, since among our long series of propagations of the virus in monkeys not one animal showed, in the lesions, the cocci described by some previous investigators, and we had failed to obtain any such bacteria from the human material studied by us, we felt that they could be excluded from consideration.” What they then did was to make a bizarre supposition, a leap of faith, not a scientific claim. They took their hypothesis of viral exogenous agency and made it fact, with no proof whatever. They asserted: “Therefore, …the infecting agent of epidemic poliomyelitis belongs to the class of the minute and filterable viruses that have not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.“ Therefore?

Simon Flexner simply asserted it “must” be a polio virus killing the monkeys, because they could find no other explanation. In fact he did not look for another source of the illnesses. This was not scientific isolation. It was wild speculation: “…not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.” They admitted this in a December 18, 1909 follow up in JAMA, titled, THE NATURE OF THE VIRUS OF EPIDEMIC POLIOMYELITIS.

The so-called “virus” they were injecting into monkeys was hardly pure. It also contained an undetermined amount of contaminants. It included “pureed spinal cord, brain, fecal matter, even flies were ground up and injected into monkeys to induce paralysis.” Until Jonas Salk won approval from the US Government in April 1955 for a polio vaccine, no scientific proof of existence of a virus causing poliomyelitis, or infantile paralysis as it was commonly known, had been proven. That is the case to this day. The medical world all took Flexner’s word that it “must” be a virus.
**

Full article:
Toxicology vs Virology – Rockefeller Institute and the Criminal Polio Fraud | williamengdahl.com

What a crock of nonsense. Oooohhhh, it's the Rockefellers!!!! Classic conspiracy theory bullshit to blame the Rockefellers.

The problem with that piece is is fails to counter any of the evidence that has occurred since then.
Polio virus has been isolated and photographed.
Polio virus has been grown in a culture. The first person to show how this could be done was given a Nobel prize.
Polio virus grown in a culture has infected animals and humans.
Polio virus has been sequenced.
Vaccines reduced polio outbreaks and appear to have eradicated it.
Polio existed prior to DDT.

I notice you still have not dealt with this even though I keep posting it and no one you use as a source has been able to dispute it.
Meanwhile we have the following evidence that you refuse to address at all. I know I am curious as to why you refuse to address it.
Viruses have been isolated and grown in tissue cultures.
Viruses grown in tissue cultures have infected people.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

 

[Scott]

The evidence that the alleged Cov 2 virus is in fact composed of a substantial chunk of human RNA is strong. I strongly opposed your dismissal of this contig being human RNA way back in post #766:

**
A "similarity"? We're talking about a 98.5% match with "Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020)", as I just quoted above. That is far more than a simple "similarity". And let's not forget that this isn't some small contig we're talking about either. Again, I think you haven't grasped just how important this contig is. The mathematician certainly made it quite clear. Quoting from him once more:
**
At this point, the contig with the identification k141_27232, with which 1,407,705 sequences are associated, and thus about 5% of the remaining 26,108,482 sequences, should be discussed in detail.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc
**

True, and a whopping 1,407,705 sequences/reads, constituting around 5% of the remaining 26,108,482 reads, are associated with k141_27232.

Statistically insignificant. 0035% of the contigs is not a strong probability of being correct.

I think you're looking at the wrong percentage. As we both know, there are thousands of contigs, but I suspect that K141_27232 may have had the most sequences/reads. If you can find one with over 1,407,705 sequences/reads, let me know.

If it is a 98% match to GenBank: NR_146117.1 then it isn't a long contig at all which only goes to show again that you don't know what you are talking about when you claim it was the longest and now changed to one of the longest.
GenBank: NR_146117.1 is less than 1/2 the size of the Covid genome.
All you are arguing is that this sequence would have been filtered out if GenBank: NR_146117.1 had existed in the database.

Agreed. You seem to be agreeing at this point that this sequence was just some human RNA.

 

[Scott]

Contig is short for contiguous. The fact that they are assembled doesn't change the fact that once assembled, they form a contiguous length of RNA.



You mistake ignore with simply not remembering everything he said. So, congratulations, you've shown that k141_27232 was not, in fact, the longest contig that the mathematician found. That doesn't change the fact that the mathematician found k141_27232 very interesting. Furthermore, there are other points that I think are quite interesting. Many of them are made in the very paragraph from which you got your sentence. Quoting the complete paragraph:

**
We obtained 28,459 (200 nt - 29,802 nt) contigs, significantly less than described in [1]. Deviating from the representations in [1], the longest contig we assembled comprised only 29,802 nt, 672 nt less than the longest contig with 30,474 nt, which according to [1] comprised almost the entire viral genome. Our longest contig showed a perfect match with the MN908947.3 sequence at a length of 29,801 nt (Tables and Figures, Tables 1, 2). Thus, we could not reproduce the longest contig of 30,474 nt, which is so important for scientific verification. Consequently, the published sequence data cannot be the original reads used for assembly.
**

Aren't you at least curious as to why the published sequence data can't be the original reads used for assembly?

Surely the fact that the mathematician and doctor Stefan Lanka couldn't even reproduce the longest sequence allegedly found by the authors of the alleged Cov 2 virus, which "comprised almost the entire viral genome" should be a blazing red flag, don't you think?

As mentioned elsewhere, there are very good reasons why the mathematician wouldn't want to put his name to the paper. It's hardly news that any professional who disagrees with the official covid narrative is bound to have serious repercussions. I think the treatment of doctors like Dr. Sam Bailey provides ample evidence for this.

In any case, you do seem to be right concerning the fact that the mathematician and Dr. Stefan Lanka never mentions the length of k141_27232 contig, at least in the analysis paper. I suspect that it may be in the tables document. I may look at that later to see if it's there.

Contig does NOT mean contiguous RNA.

Agreed. It's short for contiguous. A contig can be either RNA or DNA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contig
It is a word that is made up to describe the assembled reads.

That article is actually misleading, as it suggests that contigs are only contiguous DNA assembled sequences/reads, when the truth is they can be RNA assembled sequences/reads as well.

You better start to backtrack since we are finding some of your claims are proven false.
Why would they necessarily be the same since the mathematician says he eliminated over 50% of them before he even started? He clearly states "After filtering the
paired-end reads, 26,108,482 of the original total of 56,565,928 reads remained, with
a length of about 150 bp."

The mathematician that refused to put his name on the paper also states this, "not all steps can be retraced or reproduced."

Since he admits he didn't do every step, the fact that he got different results is not a surprise at all.

I -think- we can agree that the authors of the original nature paper should have made it so that -all- their steps could be retraced and reproduced. I'm sure you're aware that the scientific method requires the reproducibility of results. Would you agree that there was a failure to do so in regards to the steps to allegedly finding the alleged Cov 2 virus?

 

[Scott]

Meanwhile over over 6,000 other de novo assemblies have confirmed the genome. Aren't you curious why others using different samples from different sick people got the same genome?

My understanding is that they are all basing their "rediscovery" of the Cov 2 genome by assuming that it actually exists to begin with.

 

[Scott]

He doesn't state it outright, but I think the fact that he only tracked the top 50 longest contigs, plus the fact that he placed particular emphasis on a few of those, such as contig k141_27232, strongly suggest it. What I don't understand is why he didn't mention the name of the longest contig that the authors of the nature paper allegedly found, with a total of 30,474 nt (which I believe stands for nucleotides). Here is where he brings it up, as well as the extreme importance of this contig when it comes to the claim of the nature authors and what this means, and appears to be suggesting that the nature authors from Wuhan engaged in fraud:

**
We obtained 28,459 (200 nt - 29,802 nt) contigs, significantly less than described in [1]. Deviating from the representations in [1], the longest contig we assembled comprised only 29,802 nt, 672 nt less than the longest contig with 30,474 nt, which according to [1] comprised almost the entire viral genome. Our longest contig showed a perfect match with the MN908947.3 sequence at a length of 29,801 nt (Tables and Figures, Tables 1, 2). Thus, we could not reproduce the longest contig of 30,474 nt, which is so important for scientific verification. Consequently, the published sequence data cannot be the original reads used for assembly.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

He doesn't use the same process.
He gets different results because he doesn't use the same process.

Only because the Wuhan researchers failed to explain their own process sufficiently.

 

[Scott]

It's a perfect match for the -alleged- Cov 2 virus. There's no solid evidence that this contig is a virus. The abstract of the Hamburg mathematician's paper gets into that:

**
De novo meta-transcriptomic sequencing or whole genome sequencing are accepted methods in virology for the detection of claimed pathogenic viruses. In this process, no virus particles (virions) are detected and in the sense of the word isolation, isolated and biochemically characterized. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, total RNA is often extracted from patient samples (e.g.: bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or throat- nose swabs) and sequenced. Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.

We therefore examined the publication "A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China" [1] and the associated published sequence data with bioproject ID PRJNA603194 dated 27/01/2020 for the original gene sequence proposal for SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank: MN908947.3). 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.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

LOL. Tell us why over 6,000 other de novo assemblies with a sample from someone sick also resulted in the same genome.

Again, my understanding is that all papers on the alleged Cov 2 virus rely on the original nature paper being accurate.

 

[Scott]

I believe you're referring to the alleged polio virus. I found an article linked to in an article/video by Dr. Sam Bailey that I think is quite educational in regards to this alleged virus. I'll quote its introduction:

**
Toxicology vs Virology – Rockefeller Institute and the Criminal Polio Fraud

by F. William Engdahl

July 12, 2022

One of the outcomes of the alleged new SARS Covid virus that publicly emerged in 2019 is that the medical specialization of virology has been raised to a stature almost Godlike in the media. Few understand the origins of virology and its elevation into a leading role in today’s medicine practice. For this we need to look at the origins and politics of America’s first medical research institute, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, today Rockefeller University, and their work on what they claimed was a polio virus.

In 1907 an outbreak of a sickness in New York City gave the director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, MD, a golden opportunity to lay claim to discovery of an invisible “virus” caused by what was arbitrarily called poliomyelitis. The word poliomyelitis simply means inflammation of the spinal cord’s grey matter. There were some 2,500 New Yorkers, mostly children, designated with some form of poliomyelitis, including paralysis and even death, that year.

Flexner’s Fraud

The most striking aspect of the entire polio saga in the USA during the first half of the 20th Century was the fact that every key phase of the business was controlled by people tied to what became the Rockefeller medical cabal. This fraud started with claims by the Director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, that he and his colleague, Paul A. Lewis, had “isolated” a pathogen, invisible to the eye, smaller even than bacteria, which they claimed caused the paralyzing sickness in a series of outbreaks in the US. How did they come to this idea?

In a paper published in 1909 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Flexner claimed he and Lewis had isolated the poliomyelitis virus responsible. He reported they had successfully “passaged” poliomyelitis through several monkeys, from monkey to monkey. They began by injecting diseased human spinal cord tissue of a young boy who had died, presumably from the virus, into the brains of monkeys. After a monkey fell ill, a suspension of its diseased spinal cord tissue was injected into the brains of other monkeys who also fell ill.

They proclaimed that the Rockefeller Institute doctors had thus proven poliomyelitis virus causality for the mysterious disease. They hadn’t done anything of the sort. Flexner and Lewis even admitted that: “We failed utterly to discover bacteria, either in film preparations or in cultures, that could account for the disease; and, since among our long series of propagations of the virus in monkeys not one animal showed, in the lesions, the cocci described by some previous investigators, and we had failed to obtain any such bacteria from the human material studied by us, we felt that they could be excluded from consideration.” What they then did was to make a bizarre supposition, a leap of faith, not a scientific claim. They took their hypothesis of viral exogenous agency and made it fact, with no proof whatever. They asserted: “Therefore, …the infecting agent of epidemic poliomyelitis belongs to the class of the minute and filterable viruses that have not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.“ Therefore?

Simon Flexner simply asserted it “must” be a polio virus killing the monkeys, because they could find no other explanation. In fact he did not look for another source of the illnesses. This was not scientific isolation. It was wild speculation: “…not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.” They admitted this in a December 18, 1909 follow up in JAMA, titled, THE NATURE OF THE VIRUS OF EPIDEMIC POLIOMYELITIS.

The so-called “virus” they were injecting into monkeys was hardly pure. It also contained an undetermined amount of contaminants. It included “pureed spinal cord, brain, fecal matter, even flies were ground up and injected into monkeys to induce paralysis.” Until Jonas Salk won approval from the US Government in April 1955 for a polio vaccine, no scientific proof of existence of a virus causing poliomyelitis, or infantile paralysis as it was commonly known, had been proven. That is the case to this day. The medical world all took Flexner’s word that it “must” be a virus.
**

Full article:
Toxicology vs Virology – Rockefeller Institute and the Criminal Polio Fraud | williamengdahl.com

What a crock of nonsense. [more pointless insults follow]

I still hope that one day you'll realize that simply insulting a poster's material first can derail a productive discussion. Anyway, I'll let it pass this time.

The problem with that piece is is fails to counter any of the evidence that has occurred since then.

I disagree.

Polio virus has been isolated and photographed.

No, microbes have been photographed and passed off as the polio "virus".

Polio virus has been grown in a culture.

You can't grow the polio "virus" without isolating it first. Show me evidence that this was ever done.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed. It's short for contiguous. A contig can be either RNA or DNA.

Are you really this stupid? It is NOT short for contiguous. Claiming is is short for contiguous only shows you can't understand simple English. Is English not your first language?
A sequence contig is a continuous (not contiguous) sequence resulting from the reassembly of the small DNA fragments generated by bottom-up sequencing strategies.

Because a word has a root doesn't mean it is a shortened version of the root word.
In 1980, Staden [4] wrote: In order to make it easier to talk about our data gained by the shotgun method of sequencing we have invented the word "contig".

That article is actually misleading, as it suggests that contigs are only contiguous DNA assembled sequences/reads, when the truth is they can be RNA assembled sequences/reads as well.

Your inability to read and understand is amazing. Contigs are not contiguous anything. Since the article is specifically about DNA sequencing it doesn't deal with RNA. The word contig is used for any sequencing and does NOT mean contiguous and is NOT a shortened version of contiguous.

I -think- we can agree that the authors of the original nature paper should have made it so that -all- their steps could be retraced and reproduced. I'm sure you're aware that the scientific method requires the reproducibility of results. Would you agree that there was a failure to do so in regards to the steps to allegedly finding the alleged Cov 2 virus?

Was there a failure by the mathematician to use the methods used in Wuhan? Yes.
That is the only thing we know. Please show us where they didn't include something in their methods and the mathematician did include in his methods. At this point you are simply throwing shit at the wall hoping no one will notice that you are covered in shit.

The Wuhan paper includes the top 80 contigs.
The mathematician, who refused to put his name on the paper, only included the top 50 contigs.
Which do you think is more thorough?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Again, my understanding is that all papers on the alleged Cov 2 virus rely on the original nature paper being accurate.

Your understanding based on what?
Are you saying de novo assembly done with samples from Vietnam is somehow relying on a sample from Wuhan? Please provide your evidence.
You didn't address any of the papers I linked to.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. It's short for contiguous. A contig can be either RNA or DNA.

Are you really this stupid?

You really have to get hold of your ad hominem addiction. It really messes with having productive discussions.

It is NOT short for contiguous. Claiming is is short for contiguous only shows you can't understand simple English.

No idea where you got -that- notion from.

A sequence contig is a continuous (not contiguous) sequence resulting from the reassembly of the small DNA fragments generated by bottom-up sequencing strategies.

Because a word has a root doesn't mean it is a shortened version of the root word.
In 1980, Staden [4] wrote: In order to make it easier to talk about our data gained by the shotgun method of sequencing we have invented the word "contig".

You missed the continuation of that. Allow me:
**
A contig is a set of gel readings that are related to one another by overlap of their sequences. All gel readings belong to one and only one contig, and each contig contains at least one gel reading. The gel readings in a contig can be summed to form a contiguous consensus sequence and the length of this sequence is the length of the contig.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contig

But alright, it is short for a "contiguous consensus sequence". Happy now?

 

[Scott]

LOL. Tell us why over 6,000 other de novo assemblies with a sample from someone sick also resulted in the same genome.

Again, my understanding is that all papers on the alleged Cov 2 virus rely on the original nature paper being accurate.

Your understanding based on what?

Based on my understanding of what I've read so far. Dr. Stefan Lanka's Hamburg mathematician felt no need to look at any other papers regarding Cov 2, so I believe that simply taking a look at the original paper was more than sufficient.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I still hope that one day you'll realize that simply insulting a poster's material first can derail a productive discussion. Anyway, I'll let it pass this time.

Facts are facts. That piece is nonsense.

I disagree.



No, microbes have been photographed and passed off as the polio "virus".

We have had electron microscope photos of the polio virus since the 50's. Where is your evidence of it being something else?
Tell us exactly what this is since you claim it isn't polio virus. Simply claiming it isn't polio virus is not a valid argument. You are making an extraordinary claim so you need evidence.
If you are claiming there is more than just polio virus in this then you need to show what else is in the photo.

And in this one taken in 1953

You can't grow the polio "virus" without isolating it first. Show me evidence that this was ever done.

One can't grow a virus without isolating it? How does it replicate then in the wild?
Something does NOT need to be isolated to grow or replicate. Just more nonsense from you.

Meanwhile you still haven't addressed
Viruses have been isolated and grown in tissue cultures.
Viruses grown in tissue cultures have infected people.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You really have to get hold of your ad hominem addiction. It really messes with having productive discussions.



No idea where you got -that- notion from.



You missed the continuation of that. Allow me:
**
A contig is a set of gel readings that are related to one another by overlap of their sequences. All gel readings belong to one and only one contig, and each contig contains at least one gel reading. The gel readings in a contig can be summed to form a contiguous consensus sequence and the length of this sequence is the length of the contig.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contig

But alright, it is short for a "contiguous consensus sequence". Happy now?

Contiguous consensus. NOT contiguous RNA.
Do you know how adjectives work? It would appear you don't.

 

[Scott]

What a crock of nonsense.

I still hope that one day you'll realize that simply insulting a poster's material first can derail a productive discussion. Anyway, I'll let it pass this time.

Facts are facts. That piece is nonsense.

I certainly agree that facts are facts, but saying that your opponent's material is "nonsense" right off the bat is the type of thing that tends to derail threads, inviting your opponent to engage in similar unproductive insults of the same nature or at least turn them off from actually reading whatever else you have to say. I suggest focusing on providing -evidence- for your point of view. If you decide to -conclude- that that the material your ideological opponent is nonsense, that would make more sense.

No, microbes have been photographed and passed off as the polio "virus".

We have had electron microscope photos of the polio virus since the 50's.

Again, no, we have had electron microscope photos of microbes that virologists -allege- are polio viruses. Feel free to try to find any evidence that any virus has ever truly been isolated.

Where is your evidence of it being something else?

It's up to the one making the claim to provide evidence for it. If you believe that these electron microscope photos are taking pictures of polio viruses, it's up to you to provide evidence that said microbes are, in fact, polio viruses.