2/2
This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.
The largest flaw in your reasoning is that this is true. There is no “central point” or if there is, it hasn’t been caught within your discourse.
I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
How can you say both:
They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness
and
when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
???
Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades.
I can’t understand how you are extracting this conclusion from anything. It’s like it was pulled out of the aether.
And then John Enders did an experiment
I don’t care about John Enders. I haven’t looked at his experiment. I don’t give a crap about it. I am talking about the methods used today; the protocols and experiments performed today. The idea that nothing has changed…
It’s ludicrous beyond belief.
That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.
And now we have found the main flaw in your argument. This is completely untrue. Where you got this idea, I have no idea, but whoever told you this was lying.
That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.
Are you 100% positive about that?
Because the documentation says something quite different.
Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed...
Relying on the word and “experiments” of one person is not a good way to determine Truth. On the contrary, this is exactly how The Matrix is created. Just because someone says something that matches your biases or desires doesn’t make it true. Just because they have letters after their name doesn’t make them right.
Having said that, I have not read the work of Mr. Lanka. I will read his refutation of virus’s later when I have the time.
"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.
“Proof” is the misnomer. Proof is a decision, for an individual, that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). There can be no “proof” of anything because "proof" is a verb, not a noun (in actuality, even if not in the dictionary). There is however substantial evidence. What there is not, is enough evidence to meet the burden of proof (the decision) for you.
There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.
One experiment, using one protocol, is not really “evidence” of anything except that that one protocol produced some result. And that’s if the experiment was conducted sufficiently. People, even experienced experimentalists, make mistakes all the time. They come to incorrect conclusions even more often. Science is messy as fuck. People make assumptions they shouldn’t be making, they ignore variables all the time, they make decisions on what data to include, and what not to include. They take a thousand pictures and only show the one that is most “representative.” The amount of bias in science is total. It’s in every step.
That doesn’t make science useless, not at all. It means that the debate IS the science. Without the debate, any one experiment, or a thousand experiments, are useless masturbation. In total, with the evidence I have seen thus far, I am still in the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" category that virus’s exist. Until I see any evidence to support a doubt born of reason, and not desire, I will remain in that category. I will look and see what Mr. Lanka’s claims are, and what evidence he has to support them.
The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus.
The “viral genome” was found by starting with a cell fraction, and doing whole genome sequencing.
It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL
This is a gross mischaracterization for the reasons I have already stated (cell fractionation, extracellular sampling, or other partial isolation techniques).
... that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were put into a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLED a "GENOMIC SEQUENCE" ... because that is what the computer was programed to do. The computer could not have NOT done that.
I don’t really understand what you are saying here. Have you looked at how WGS works? You get a sample, you get a bunch of pieces of DNA/RNA, the computer puts them together like a puzzle. The output is a statistical measure of accuracy. You do the same test a bunch of times to make that statistical measure more accurate. It’s a perfectly sound method.
Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that.
If you are suggesting we can “create” any virus we want from normal human genetic material, and that that is what we do…
Wow.
Do you think we are all idiots?
We have been programmed to not see that we are in The Matrxi and to believe in dogma. That doesn't make us stupid.
Stefan Lanka not only showed...
WGS is a perfectly sound method of finding sequences, at least when performed on multiple samples. Perhaps Mr. Lanka doesn’t properly understand the process, or thinks that people are always doing the same thing he did. As I said, different labs have different protocols
2/2
This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.
The largest flaw in your reasoning is that this is true. There is no “central point” or if there is, it hasn’t been caught within your discourse.
I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
How can you say both:
They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness
and
when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
???
Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades.
I can’t understand how you are extracting this conclusion from anything. It’s like it was pulled out of the aether.
And then John Enders did an experiment
I don’t care about John Enders. I haven’t looked at his experiment. I don’t give a crap about it. I am talking about the methods used today; the protocols and experiments performed today. The idea that nothing has changed…
It’s ludicrous beyond belief.
That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.
And now we have found the main flaw in your argument. This is completely untrue. Where you got this idea, I have no idea, but whoever told you this was lying.
That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.
Are you 100% positive about that?
Because the documentation says something quite different.
Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed...
Relying on the word and “experiments” of one person is not a good way to determine Truth. On the contrary, this is exactly how The Matrix is created. Just because someone says something that matches your biases or desires doesn’t make it true. Just because they have letters after their name doesn’t make them right.
Having said that, I have not read the work of Mr. Lanka. I will read his refutation of virus’s later when I have the time.
"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.
“Proof” is the misnomer. Proof is a decision, for an individual, that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). There can be no “proof” of anything because "proof" is a verb, not a noun (in actuality, even if not in the dictionary). There is however substantial evidence. What there is not, is enough evidence to meet the burden of proof (the decision) for you.
There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.
One experiment, using one protocol, is not really “evidence” of anything except that that one protocol produced some result. And that’s if the experiment was conducted sufficiently. People, even experienced experimentalists, make mistakes all the time. They come to incorrect conclusions even more often. Science is messy as fuck. People make assumptions they shouldn’t be making, they ignore variables all the time, they make decisions on what data to include, and what not to include. They take a thousand pictures and only show the one that is most “representative.” The amount of bias in science is total. It’s in every step.
That doesn’t make science useless, not at all. It means that the debate IS the science. Without the debate, any one experiment, or a thousand experiments, are useless masturbation. In total, with the evidence I have seen thus far, I am still in the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" category that virus’s exist. Until I see any evidence to support a doubt born of reason, and not desire, I will remain in that category. I will look and see what Mr. Lanka’s claims are, and what evidence he has to support them.
The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus.
The “viral genome” was found by starting with a cell fraction, and doing whole genome sequencing.
It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL
This is a gross mischaracterization for the reasons I have already stated (cell fractionation, extracellular sampling, or other partial isolation techniques).
... that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were put into a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLED a "GENOMIC SEQUENCE" ... because that is what the computer was programed to do. The computer could not have NOT done that.
I don’t really understand what you are saying here. Have you looked at how WGS works? You get a sample, you get a bunch of pieces of DNA/RNA, the computer puts them together like a puzzle. The output is a statistical measure of accuracy. You do the same test a bunch of times to make that statistical measure more accurate. It’s a perfectly sound method.
Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that.
If you are suggesting we can “create” any virus we want from normal human genetic material, and that that is what we do…
Wow.
Do you think we are all idiots?
We have been programmed to not see The Matrxi and to believe in dogma. That doesn't make us stupid.
Stefan Lanka not only showed...
WGS is a perfectly sound method of finding sequences, at least when performed on multiple samples. Perhaps Mr. Lanka doesn’t properly understand the process, or thinks that people are always doing the same thing he did. As I said, different labs have different protocols
2/2
This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.
The largest flaw in your reasoning is that this is true. There is no “central point” or if there is, it hasn’t been caught within your discourse.
I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
How can you say both:
They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness
and
when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
???
Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades.
I can’t understand how you are extracting this conclusion from anything. It’s like it was pulled out of the aether.
And then John Enders did an experiment
I don’t care about John Enders. I haven’t looked at his experiment. I don’t give a crap about it. I am talking about the methods used today; the protocols and experiments performed today. The idea that nothing has changed…
It’s ludicrous beyond belief.
That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.
And now we have found the main flaw in your argument. This is completely untrue. Where you got this idea, I have no idea, but whoever told you this was lying.
That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.
Are you 100% positive about that?
Because the documentation says something quite different.
Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed...
Relying on the word and “experiments” of one person is not a good way to determine Truth. On the contrary, this is exactly how The Matrix is created. Just because someone says something that matches your biases or desires doesn’t make it true. Just because they have letters after their name doesn’t make them right.
Having said that, I have not read the work of Mr. Lanka. I will read his refutation of virus’s later when I have the time.
"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.
“Proof” is the misnomer. Proof is a decision, for an individual, that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). There can be no “proof” of anything because it is a verb, not a noun (in actuality, even if not in the dictionary). There is however substantial evidence. What there is not is enough evidence to meet the burden of proof (the decision) for you.
There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.
One experiment, using one protocol, is not really “evidence” of anything except that that one protocol produced one a result. And that’s if the experiment was conducted sufficiently. People, even experienced experimentalists, make mistakes all the time. They come to incorrect conclusions even more often. Science is messy as fuck. People make assumptions they shouldn’t be making, they ignore variables all the time, they make decisions on what data to include, and what not to include. They take a thousand pictures and only show the one that is most “representative.” The amount of bias in science is total. It’s in every step.
That doesn’t make science useless, not at all. It means that the debate IS the science. Without the debate, any one experiment, or a thousand experiments, are useless masturbation. In total, with the evidence I have seen thus far, I am still in the Beyond a reasonable doubt category that virus’s exist. Until I see any evidence to support a doubt, I will remain in that category. I will look and see what Mr. Lanka’s claims are, and what evidence he has to support them.
The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus.
The “viral genome” was found by starting with a cell fraction, and doing whole genome sequencing.
It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL
This is a gross mischaracterization for the reasons I have already stated (cell fractionation, extracellular sampling, or other partial isolation techniques).
... that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were put into a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLED a "GENOMIC SEQUENCE" ... because that is what the computer was programed to do. The computer could not have NOT done that.
I don’t really understand what you are saying here. Have you looked at how WGS works? You get a sample, you get a bunch of pieces of DNA/RNA, the computer puts them together like a puzzle. The output is a statistical measure of accuracy. You do the same test a bunch of times to make that statistical measure more accurate. It’s a perfectly sound method.
Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that.
If you are suggesting you can “create” any virus we want from normal human genetic material, and that that is what we do…
Wow.
Do you think we are all idiots?
Stefan Lanka not only showed...
WGS is a perfectly sound method of finding sequences, at least when performed on multiple samples. Perhaps Mr. Lanka doesn’t properly understand the process, or thinks that people are always doing the same thing he did. As I said, different labs have different protocols
2/2
This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.
The largest flaw in your reasoning is that this is true. There is no “central point” or if there is, it hasn’t been caught within your discourse.
I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
How can you say both:
They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness
and
when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
???
Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades.
I can’t understand how you are extracting this conclusion from anything. It’s like it was pulled out of the aether.
And then John Enders did an experiment
I don’t care about John Enders. I haven’t looked at his experiment. I don’t give a crap about it. I am talking about the methods used today; the protocols and experiments performed today. The idea that nothing has changed…
It’s ludicrous beyond belief.
That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.
And now we have found the main flaw in your argument. This is completely untrue. Where you got this idea, I have no idea, but whoever told you this was lying.
That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.
[Are you 100% positive about that?](Are you 100% positive about that?)
Because the documentation says something quite different.
Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed...
Relying on the word and “experiments” of one person is not a good way to determine Truth. On the contrary, this is exactly how The Matrix is created. Just because someone says something that matches your biases or desires doesn’t make it true. Just because they have letters after their name doesn’t make them right.
Having said that, I have not read the work of Mr. Lanka. I will read his refutation of virus’s later when I have the time.
"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.
“Proof” is the misnomer. Proof is a decision, for an individual, that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). There can be no “proof” of anything because it is a verb, not a noun (in actuality, even if not in the dictionary). There is however substantial evidence. What there is not is enough evidence to meet the burden of proof (the decision) for you.
There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.
One experiment, using one protocol, is not really “evidence” of anything except that that one protocol produced one a result. And that’s if the experiment was conducted sufficiently. People, even experienced experimentalists, make mistakes all the time. They come to incorrect conclusions even more often. Science is messy as fuck. People make assumptions they shouldn’t be making, they ignore variables all the time, they make decisions on what data to include, and what not to include. They take a thousand pictures and only show the one that is most “representative.” The amount of bias in science is total. It’s in every step.
That doesn’t make science useless, not at all. It means that the debate IS the science. Without the debate, any one experiment, or a thousand experiments, are useless masturbation. In total, with the evidence I have seen thus far, I am still in the Beyond a reasonable doubt category that virus’s exist. Until I see any evidence to support a doubt, I will remain in that category. I will look and see what Mr. Lanka’s claims are, and what evidence he has to support them.
The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus.
The “viral genome” was found by starting with a cell fraction, and doing whole genome sequencing.
It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL
This is a gross mischaracterization for the reasons I have already stated (cell fractionation, extracellular sampling, or other partial isolation techniques).
... that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were put into a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLED a "GENOMIC SEQUENCE" ... because that is what the computer was programed to do. The computer could not have NOT done that.
I don’t really understand what you are saying here. Have you looked at how WGS works? You get a sample, you get a bunch of pieces of DNA/RNA, the computer puts them together like a puzzle. The output is a statistical measure of accuracy. You do the same test a bunch of times to make that statistical measure more accurate. It’s a perfectly sound method.
Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that.
If you are suggesting you can “create” any virus we want from normal human genetic material, and that that is what we do…
Wow.
Do you think we are all idiots?
Stefan Lanka not only showed...
WGS is a perfectly sound method of finding sequences, at least when performed on multiple samples. Perhaps Mr. Lanka doesn’t properly understand the process, or thinks that people are always doing the same thing he did. As I said, different labs have different protocols
2/2
This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.
The largest flaw in your reasoning is that this is true. There is no “central point” or if there is, it hasn’t been caught within your discourse.
I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
How can you say both:
They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness
and
when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
???
Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades.
I can’t understand how you are extracting this conclusion from anything. It’s like it was pulled out of the aether.
And then John Enders did an experiment
I don’t care about John Enders. I haven’t looked at his experiment. I don’t give a crap about it. I am talking about the methods used today; the protocols and experiments performed today. The idea that nothing has changed…
It’s ludicrous beyond belief.
That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.
And now we have found the main flaw in your argument. This is completely untrue. Where you got this idea, I have no idea, but whoever told you this was lying.
That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.
[Are you 100% positive about that?](Are you 100% positive about that?)
Because the documentation says something quite different.
Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed...
Relying on the word and “experiments” of one person is not a good way to determine Truth. On the contrary, this is exactly how The Matrix is created. Just because someone says something that matches your biases or desires doesn’t make it true. Just because they have letters after their name doesn’t make them right.
Having said that, I have not read the work of Mr. Lanka. I will read his refutation of virus’s later when I have the time.
"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.
“Proof” is the misnomer. Proof is a decision, for an individual, that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). There can be no “proof” of anything because it is a verb, not a noun (in actuality, even if not in the dictionary). There is however substantial evidence. What there is not is enough evidence to meet the burden of proof (the decision) for you.
There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.
One experiment, using one protocol, is not really “evidence” of anything except that that one protocol produced one a result. And that’s if the experiment was conducted sufficiently. People, even experienced experimentalists, make mistakes all the time. They come to incorrect conclusions even more often. Science is messy as fuck. People make assumptions they shouldn’t be making, they ignore variables all the time, they make decisions on what data to include, and what not to include. They take a thousand pictures and only show the one that is most “representative.” The amount of bias in science is total. It’s in every step.
That doesn’t make science useless, not at all. It means that the debate IS the science. Without the debate, any one experiment, or a thousand experiments, are useless masturbation. In total, with the evidence I have seen thus far, I am still in the Beyond a reasonable doubt category that virus’s exist. Until I see any evidence to support a doubt, I will remain in that category. I will look and see what Mr. Lanka’s claims are, and what evidence he has to support them.
The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus.
The “viral genome” was found by starting with a cell fraction, and doing whole genome sequencing.
It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL
This is a gross mischaracterization for the reasons I have already stated (cell fractionation, extracellular sampling, or other partial isolation techniques).
... that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were put into a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLED a "GENOMIC SEQUENCE" ... because that is what the computer was programed to do. The computer could not have NOT done that.
I don’t really understand what you are saying here. Have you looked at how WGS works? You get a sample, you get a bunch of pieces of DNA/RNA, the computer puts them together like a puzzle. The output is a statistical measure of accuracy. You do the same test a bunch of times to make that statistical measure more accurate. It’s a perfectly sound method.
Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that.
If you are suggesting you can “create” any virus we want from normal human genetic material, and that that is what we do…
Wow.
Do you think we are all idiots?
Stefan Lanka not only showed...
WGS is a perfectly sound method of finding sequences, at least when performed on multiple samples. Perhaps Mr. Lanka doesn’t properly understand the process, or thinks that people are always doing the same thing he did. As I said, different labs have different protocols
2/2
This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.
The largest flaw in your reasoning is that this is true. There is no “central point” or if there is, it hasn’t been caught within your discourse.
I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
How can you say both:
They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness
and
when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
???
Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades.
I can’t understand how you are extracting this conclusion from anything. It’s like it was pulled out of the aether.
And then John Enders did an experiment
I don’t care about John Enders. I haven’t looked at his experiment. I don’t give a crap about it. I am talking about the methods used today; the protocols and experiments performed today. The idea that nothing has changed…
It’s ludicrous beyond belief.
That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.
And now we have found the main flaw in your argument. This is completely untrue. Where you got this idea, I have no idea, but whoever told you this was lying.
That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.
[Are you 100% positive about that?](Are you 100% positive about that?)
Because the documentation says something quite different.
Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed...
Relying on the word and “experiments” of one person is not a good way to determine Truth. On the contrary, this is exactly how The Matrix is created. Just because someone says something that matches your biases or desires doesn’t make it true. Just because they have letters after their name doesn’t make them right.
Having said that, I have not read the work of Mr. Lanka. I will read his refutation of virus’s later when I have the time.
"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.
“Proof” is the misnomer. Proof is a decision, for an individual, that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). There can be no “proof” of anything because it is a verb, not a noun (in actuality, even if not in the dictionary). There is however substantial evidence. What there is not is enough evidence to meet the burden of proof (the decision) for you.
There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.
One experiment, using one protocol, is not really “evidence” of anything except that that one protocol produced one a result. And that’s if the experiment was conducted sufficiently. People, even experienced experimentalists, make mistakes all the time. They come to incorrect conclusions even more often. Science is messy as fuck. People make assumptions they shouldn’t be making, they ignore variables all the time, they make decisions on what data to include, and what not to include. They take a thousand pictures and only show the one that is most “representative.” The amount of bias in science is total. It’s in every step.
That doesn’t make science useless, not at all. It means that the debate IS the science. Without the debate, any one experiment, or a thousand experiments, are useless masturbation. In total, with the evidence I have seen thus far, I am still in the Beyond a reasonable doubt category that virus’s exist. Until I see any evidence to support a doubt, I will remain in that category. I will look and see what Mr. Lanka’s claims are, and what evidence he has to support them.
The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus.
The “viral genome” was found by starting with a cell fraction, and doing whole genome sequencing.
It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL
This is a gross mischaracterization for the reasons I have already stated (cell fractionation, extracellular sampling, or other partial isolation techniques).
... that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were put into a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLED a "GENOMIC SEQUENCE" ... because that is what the computer was programed to do. The computer could not have NOT done that.
I don’t really understand what you are saying here. Have you looked at how WGS works? You get a sample, you get a bunch of pieces of DNA/RNA, the computer puts them together like a puzzle. The output is a statistical measure of accuracy. You do the same test a bunch of times to make that statistical measure more accurate. It’s a perfectly sound method.
Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that.
If you are suggesting you can “create” any virus we want from normal human genetic material, and that that is what we do…
Wow.
Do you think we are all idiots?
Stefan Lanka not only showed...
WGS is a perfectly sound method of finding sequences, at least when performed on multiple samples. Perhaps Mr. Lanka doesn’t properly understand the process, or thinks that people are always doing the same thing he did. As I said, different labs have different protocols