The Viral Delusion

 Tue 11:09 am +00:00, 4 Jun 2024  4

posted by pete fairhurst 2

“Over the last forty years, this so-called “genetic sequencing” has become the central process by which people in lab coats (I cannot bring myself to call them scientists) claim to have since discovered new “viruses.” Essentially, the steps are the following:

1. Find a person who is sick, ASSUME they are sick due to a virus, and then take a sample of their snot or “lung fluid.”

2. Combine this fluid with salt water and antibiotics (and often many other ingredients).

3. Feed this fluid mixture into a machine which physically breaks apart the material into tens of millions of genetic fragments.

4. Submit this mixture to a PCR process to amplify the number of the RNA fragments, including the “amplification” of any specific RNA fragments the virologists expect to find.

5. Have this machine-computer create a list of these genetic fragments.

6. Have the computer exclude a (not-at-all conclusive) partial list of known human endogenous fragments from its data-set.

7. Have the computer employ probability algorithms to find fragment sequences that overlap and create possible “contigs” – then pick out the longest sequences amongst these that can be theoretically stitched together by the computer.

8. Have the computer output a list of these combinations which are most similar to sequences that were also hypothetically created and attributed to imagined ‘viruses’ in the past.”

9. The virologists then pick amongst these combinations, deciding by consensus, the one computer-theorized sequence they think is the virus making the patient sick. If they cannot  even come close to matching one of the sequences the computer assembled to a previously theorized sequence, then the virologists claim what they have found must be a “novel virus” and pick by consensus from among the listed combinations outputted by the computer the one they best guess is the virus (and not just meaningless acidic jargon).

For those who want a deeper dive into this nonsense, I cover this in depth in the documentary The Viral Delusion at www.theviraldelusion.com,”

and

“Enter the mathematician from Hamburg.  His paper is below, and you are welcome to skip to it of course. But it’s written in rather heady language, so I will take a moment to summarize it here.

As you will see, the mathematician began his analysis by downloading the data set of the complete RNA fragmentation from the original experiment and attempting to simply repeat the computer steps taken in the paper.

He found that even these steps were not replicable by a computer.   The sequences output by the software which claimed to find “SARS-CoV-2” could not be output by another computer running the same software. 

This is no small point! As most know, basic scientific rigor demands that experiments must be replicable for their conclusions to be considered valid – but the non-replicable nature of the SARS-CoV-2 sequencing goes far beyond that.  We’re not talking about being able to replicate an experiment that happened in living nature; we are talking about a computer running the same software upon the same data-set not being able to replicate what was claimed to have happened on another computer running the same software on the same data-set!

To make this clear, it’s as if Fan Wu et al claimed their computer could spell a word from a Scrabble set with more “P”s than the Scrabble set included.

However, that is only the beginning. The mathematician went ahead and assumed that the original data set and original output were correct to continue his analysis.

What he found lays bare that any conclusion based on this data that the patient studied in Wuhan had a novel virus was entirely unsubstantiated.

First, again, he makes clear that the sequences Fan Wu et al claimed to have outputted could NOT be assembled from the bits of RNA catalogued by the computer in the patient sample.

Second, he found that there was no way to tell whether the assembled sequence (later called SARS-CoV-2) came from human or non-human RNA. In other words, there is nothing in the experiment to show whether the sequence was assembled FROM a “virus” in the sample or just from random bits of RNA in the sample.

Third, he found that there was no way to tell whether the assembled sequence came from actually-existing RNA in the sample or was compiled from RNA markers that were there simply as a by-product of the PCR amplification the sample was exposed to.

Fourth, he found that up to 17% of the final sequence was based on RNA contigs specifically targeted and then “found” by the PCR process at cycle thresholds of ct 35 to 45, cycle counts well known in the literature to “find” anything you want.

Fifth, he found that these contigs were significantly MORE likely to have come from the PCR process itself than the original sample, and that it was HIGHLY unlikely that all of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence contigs (or even most) came from the original sample.

Sixth, he found that contigs in the remaining data sample AFTER the Fan Wu paper claims to have filtered it for known human RNA, matched known human RNA.

Seventh, he found that the final (SARS-CoV-2) sequence claimed to match “corona viruses” didn’t even match these theoretical sequences unless an “error rate” was included that was over 10 percent.

Eighth, he sought to discover whether one could take the sample and “find” other claimed viruses in it. He searched for “Hepatitus” and “HIV” and found BOTH of them to have lower error rates than “SARS-CoV-2.”

Ninth, he searched for the claimed sequences of “Ebola”  and “Marburg virus” and “found” these in the sample as well, at comparable error rates to “SARS-CoV-2.”

Tenth, he found that no control experiments were conducted to rule out any of the above or other possibilities.

In conclusion, the mathematician writes “we were able to substantiate our hypothesis that the claimed viral genome sequences are misinterpretations in the sense that they have been or are being constructed unnoticed from non-viral nucleic acid fragments.”

In other words there is nothing in the math to suggest concluding that a novel virus had been found, or was in any way the cause of the original man’s sickness – in fact it is the reverse – it is MORE likely based on the data that the sequence compiled by the computer and that Fan Wu claimed to be “SARS-CoV-2” was not from a “virus.””

 

Source: https://theviraldelusion.substack.com/p/revealed-the-sars-cov-2-sequencing