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.
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.