FWIW, part of my comp sci PhD research was spent in bioinformatics -- using computer algorithms and heuristics along with database mining techniques to compose gene sequences. A composed sequence may be probable or improbable depending on the queries used to extract segments from various gene databases, which themselves have varying degrees of quality.
Is the sequence so constructed that of a real organism? No it is not. Until it can be compared against an actual isolated sequence it only has a estimated likelihood of existence.
The very first "sequence" of SARS-CoV-2 was composed from RNA remnants that were assumed to be part of the virus (vs. exosome material, or inhaled particles) and used in database queries that assumed an 80% likeness to SARS-CoV-1. How much of the SARS-1 sequence was a composition itself, I don't know, but it likely was also to some degree, since composition is very common in the field.
This serial stacking of assumptions and estimates on top of suppositions and best guesses, along with no verification lends a fantasy/wish fulfillment aspect to the whole mess. It's what leads me not to trust most of what comes out of modern microbiology where it directly references genetic sequences.
To the degree that the virus has never been properly isolated, but only "observed" in toxic soups of monkey kidney cells, etc, then an actual sequence cannot exist. PCR tests based on the composed sequences are worthless -- when not spewing false positives, they may actually detect something, but it is not THE virus, because they can't detect something that has never been properly defined.
So, though the virus may indeed be real, the ability to detect it reliably is not.
FWIW, part of my comp sci PhD research was spent in bioinformatics -- using computer algorithms and heuristics along with database mining techniques to compose gene sequences. A composed sequence may be probable or improbable depending on the queries used to extract segments from various gene databases, which themselves have varying degrees of quality.
Is the sequence so constructed that of a real organism? No it is not. Until it can be compared against an actual isolated sequence it only has a estimated likelihood of existence.
The very first "sequence" of SARS-CoV-2 was composed from RNA remnants that were assumed to be part of the virus (vs. exosome material, or inhaled particles) and used in database queries that assumed an 80% likeness to SARS-CoV-1. How much of the SARS-1 sequence was a composition itself, I don't know, but it likely was also to some degree, since composition is very common in the field.
This serial stacking of assumptions and estimates on top of suppositions and best guesses, along with no verification lends a fantasy/wish fulfillment aspect to the whole mess. It's what leads me not to trust most of what comes out of modern microbiology where it directly references genetic sequences.
To the degree that the virus has never been properly isolated, but only "observed" in toxic soups of monkey kidney cells, etc, then an actual sequence cannot exist. PCR tests based on the composed sequences are worthless -- when not spewing false positives, they may actually detect something, but it is not THE virus, because they can't detect something that has never been properly defined.
So, though the virus may indeed be real, the ability to detect it reliably is not.