A computer composed genome is not the virus. It is a compositions assembled from sampled RNA fragments and pulled from genome databases pieced together by bioinformatic algorithms and heuristics. It does not exist in reality.
I see.
Fragmented RNAs can be tagged by technologies such as blockchain, but there are problems with the accuracy and threshold of reconstruction. So it's not like that.
"bioinformatic","heuristics"
These two are not for getting a "precise" solution.
"They are not suitable for a subject that needs to be "fully specified.
This is it. This is the kind of proof I want to see.
Now my "Reasons to Believe" has been updated.
However, there are not many perverts like me who completely ignore emotional abuse and concentrate only on extracting proofs in their conversations.
The current reaction of many of you is that you are either offended or scared, and people will leave early before you can talk to them.
As a result, you've been forced into your current position.
I spent a year of my comp sci PhD in bioinformatics. Learned a fair bit of molecular biology, and also that a lot of it is hand waving. The sequences you get to fill in the gaps in your composition of fragments depend on what queries you use to mine the genome databases. Of course exactly what construction you end up with depends on the heuristics choose.
The markers selected to identify this "virus" sequence are short fragments, not unique, and few. They can appear in many cornaviruses, exosomes, and even human chromosomes. This is why the PCR can't distinguish between CV and flu, there is too much overlap (not to mention that the CV sequence may not exist in reality).
With the PCR, the RNA fragments you start with may or may not be from a virus -- many assumptions have to be made. Plus, the fragments are taken from the exterior of your body (they are on the skin in the nasal passage) and say nothing about what is in your body, so the PCR cannot tell if you are actually infected.
I know about the false positive rate of PCR and I don't trust it.
I wrote, "PCR testing is being used as a statistical fraud."
The point is that there remains a part of us that cannot be denied on its own.
WIV cultivated a "something" in cloning that closely resembled its simulation candidate. And in a paper added last May, they claimed that that "something" satisfied Koch's principle.
I don't know that it is appropriate to apply cloning to culture a virus.
Maybe it is not a big problem because the additional paper satisfied Koch's principle, but I don't know if it is appropriate to conclude that because the cultured "something" matched the simulation candidate, it must be this one.
Or is there any flaw in the additional thesis that Koch's principle is satisfied?
There are still some points that have not been denied against the thesis that it existed.
Maybe I just haven't come across it yet.
I don't care either way whether the virus exists or not. However, whichever way you lean, you need to be "trustworthy".
"I can't say for sure that there is or isn't one," is the latest "credible reason" I have.
A computer composed genome is not the virus. It is a compositions assembled from sampled RNA fragments and pulled from genome databases pieced together by bioinformatic algorithms and heuristics. It does not exist in reality.
I see. Fragmented RNAs can be tagged by technologies such as blockchain, but there are problems with the accuracy and threshold of reconstruction. So it's not like that.
"bioinformatic","heuristics"
These two are not for getting a "precise" solution. "They are not suitable for a subject that needs to be "fully specified.
This is it. This is the kind of proof I want to see. Now my "Reasons to Believe" has been updated.
However, there are not many perverts like me who completely ignore emotional abuse and concentrate only on extracting proofs in their conversations. The current reaction of many of you is that you are either offended or scared, and people will leave early before you can talk to them. As a result, you've been forced into your current position.
I spent a year of my comp sci PhD in bioinformatics. Learned a fair bit of molecular biology, and also that a lot of it is hand waving. The sequences you get to fill in the gaps in your composition of fragments depend on what queries you use to mine the genome databases. Of course exactly what construction you end up with depends on the heuristics choose.
The markers selected to identify this "virus" sequence are short fragments, not unique, and few. They can appear in many cornaviruses, exosomes, and even human chromosomes. This is why the PCR can't distinguish between CV and flu, there is too much overlap (not to mention that the CV sequence may not exist in reality).
With the PCR, the RNA fragments you start with may or may not be from a virus -- many assumptions have to be made. Plus, the fragments are taken from the exterior of your body (they are on the skin in the nasal passage) and say nothing about what is in your body, so the PCR cannot tell if you are actually infected.
I know about the false positive rate of PCR and I don't trust it. I wrote, "PCR testing is being used as a statistical fraud."
The point is that there remains a part of us that cannot be denied on its own.
WIV cultivated a "something" in cloning that closely resembled its simulation candidate. And in a paper added last May, they claimed that that "something" satisfied Koch's principle.
I don't know that it is appropriate to apply cloning to culture a virus.
Maybe it is not a big problem because the additional paper satisfied Koch's principle, but I don't know if it is appropriate to conclude that because the cultured "something" matched the simulation candidate, it must be this one.
Or is there any flaw in the additional thesis that Koch's principle is satisfied?
There are still some points that have not been denied against the thesis that it existed. Maybe I just haven't come across it yet.
I don't care either way whether the virus exists or not. However, whichever way you lean, you need to be "trustworthy".
"I can't say for sure that there is or isn't one," is the latest "credible reason" I have.