The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples.

That's not what's going on. It isn't that they can't find intact viral genomes, it's that they don't select for it. Shotgun sequencing (more specifically Illumina or PacBio) requires smaller pieces of DNA/RNA to function. There are numerous techniques for mapping a genome. These techniques mentioned are the cheapest and fastest, so it is the most often used, but all of the techniques corroborate each other. It works by getting multiple copies and overlapping them. The odds of a mismatch on an overlap, given a large enough sample size, are miniscule. The odds of the same mismatch on two subsequent tests are so small as to be ludicrous. The odds of the same mismatch on a thousand subsequent tests isn't even worth talking about. This is how it is done. When the same experiments get the same (or close enough to the same) results every time, it is safe to assume there is something to the experiment. At the least it is ridiculous to assume there isn't.

Basically, if you want to challenge these WGS techniques, you are basically stating that the entirety of genomics (not just virology) is not just "wrong," but completely fabricated, despite getting the same results each time on the same sample types (same organism). These, according to the "fabricated" idea, just so happen to be different results on different sample types, which are then also the same for each of those same sample types.

SOMETHING is making the expected sameness and differences in output from these experiments. You assume it's ridiculous and there is nothing there, but this is an assertion made, I suggest, in not understanding what is done in these experiments. Please look up these sequencing techniques to understand them. Look specifically at the math involved. Look also for examples of corroboration with different sequencing techniques. Perhaps that will reduce your incredulity.

The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples.

That's not what's going on. It isn't that they can't find intact viral genomes, it's that they don't select for it. Shotgun sequencing (more specifically Illumina or PacBio) requires smaller pieces of DNA/RNA to function. There are numerous techniques for mapping a genome. These techniques mentioned are the cheapest and fastest, so it is the most often used, but all of the techniques corroborate each other. It works by getting multiple copies and overlapping them. The odds of a mismatch on an overlap, given a large enough sample size, are miniscule. The odds of the same mismatch on two subsequent tests are so small as to be ludicrous. The odds of the same mismatch on a thousand subsequent tests isn't even worth talking about. This is how it is done. When the same experiments get the same (or close enough to the same) results every time, it is safe to assume there is something to the experiment. At the least it is ridiculous to assume there isn't.

Basically, if you want to challenge these WGS techniques, you are basically stating that the entirety of genomics (not just virology) is not just "wrong," but completely fabricated, despite getting the same results each time on the same sample types (same organism). These, according to the "fabricated" idea, just so happen to be different results on different sample types, which are then also the same for each of those same sample types.

SOMETHING is making the difference in output from these experiments. You assume it's ridiculous and there is nothing there, but this is an assertion made, I suggest, in not understanding what is done in these experiments. Please look up these sequencing techniques to understand them. Look specifically at the math involved. Look also for examples of corroboration with different sequencing techniques. Perhaps that will reduce your incredulity.

The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples.

That's not what's going on. It isn't that they can't find intact viral genomes, it's that they don't select for it. Shotgun sequencing (more specifically Illumina or PacBio) requires smaller pieces of DNA/RNA to function. There are numerous techniques for mapping a genome. These techniques mentioned are the cheapest and fastest, so it is the most often used, but all of the techniques corroborate each other. It works by getting multiple copies and overlapping them. The odds of a mismatch on an overlap, given a large enough sample size, are miniscule. The odds of the same mismatch on two subsequent tests are so small as to be ludicrous. The odds of the same mismatch on a thousand subsequent tests isn't even worth talking about. This is how it is done. When the same experiments get the same (or close enough to the same) results every time, it is safe to assume there is something to the experiment. At the least it is ridiculous to assume there isn't.

Basically, if you want to challenge these WGS techniques, you are basically stating that the entirety of genomics (not just virology) is not just "wrong," but completely fabricated, despite getting the same results each time on the same sample types (same organism). These, according to the fabricated idea, just so happen to be different results on different sample types, which are then also the same for each of those same sample types.

SOMETHING is making the difference in output from these experiments. You assume it's ridiculous and there is nothing there, but this is an assertion made, I suggest, in not understanding what is done in these experiments. Please look up these sequencing techniques to understand them. Look specifically at the math involved. Look also for examples of corroboration with different sequencing techniques. Perhaps that will reduce your incredulity.

The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples.

That's not what's going on. It isn't that they can't find intact viral genomes, it's that they don't select for it. Shotgun sequencing (more specifically Illumina or PacBio) requires smaller pieces of DNA/RNA to function. There are numerous techniques for mapping a genome. These techniques mentioned are the cheapest and fastest, so it is the most often used, but all of the techniques corroborate each other. It works by getting multiple copies and overlapping them. The odds of a mismatch on an overlap, given a large enough sample size, are miniscule. The odds of the same mismatch on two subsequent tests are so small as to be ludicrous. The odds of the same mismatch on a thousand subsequent tests isn't even worth talking about. This is how it is done. When the same experiments get the same (or close enough to the same) results every time, it is safe to assume there is something to the experiment. At the least it is ridiculous to assume there isn't.

Basically, if you want to challenge these WGS techniques, you are basically stating that the entirety of genomics (not just virology) is not just "wrong," but completely fabricated, despite getting the same results each time on the same sample types, which just so happen to be different results on different sample types, which are then also the same for each of those same sample types.

SOMETHING is making the difference in output from these experiments. You assume it's ridiculous and there is nothing there, but this is an assertion made, I suggest, in not understanding what is done in these experiments. Please look up these sequencing techniques to understand them. Look specifically at the math involved. Look also for examples of corroboration with different sequencing techniques. Perhaps that will reduce your incredulity.

The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples.

That's not what's going on. It isn't that they can't find intact viral genomes, it's that they don't select for it. Shotgun sequencing (more specifically Illumina or PacBio) requires smaller pieces of DNA/RNA to function. There are numerous techniques for mapping a genome. These techniques mentioned are the cheapest and fastest, so it is the most often used, but all of the techniques corroborate each other. It works by getting multiple copies and overlapping them. The odds of a mismatch on an overlap, given a large enough sample size, are miniscule. The odds of the same mismatch on two subsequent tests are so small as to be ludicrous. The odds of the same mismatch on a thousand subsequent tests isn't even worth talking about. This is how it is done. When the same experiments get the same (or close enough to the same) results every time, it is safe to assume there is something to the experiment. At the least it is ridiculous to assume there isn't.

Basically, if you want to challenge the WGS technique, you are basically stating that the entirety of genomics (not just virology) is not just "wrong," but completely fabricated, despite getting the same results each time on the same sample types, which just so happen to be different results on different sample types, which are then also the same for each of those same sample types.

SOMETHING is making the difference in output from these experiments. You assume it's ridiculous and there is nothing there, but this is an assertion made, I suggest, in not understanding what is done in these experiments. Please look up these sequencing techniques to understand them. Look specifically at the math involved. Look also for examples of corroboration with different sequencing techniques. Perhaps that will reduce your incredulity.

The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples.

That's not what's going on. It isn't that they can't find intact viral genomes, it's that they don't select for it. WGS (more specifically Illumina or PacBio) requires smaller pieces of DNA/RNA to function. There are numerous techniques for mapping a genome. WGS is the cheapest and fastest, so it is the most often used, but all of the techniques corroborate each other. It works by getting multiple copies and overlapping them. The odds of a mismatch on an overlap, given a large enough sample size, are miniscule. The odds of the same mismatch on two subsequent tests are so small as to be ludicrous. The odds of the same mismatch on a thousand subsequent tests isn't even worth talking about. This is how it is done. When the same experiments get the same (or close enough to the same) results every time, it is safe to assume there is something to the experiment. At the least it is ridiculous to assume there isn't.

Basically, if you want to challenge the WGS technique, you are basically stating that the entirety of genomics (not just virology) is not just "wrong," but completely fabricated, despite getting the same results each time on the same sample types, which just so happen to be different results on different sample types, which are then also the same for each of those same sample types.

SOMETHING is making the difference in output from these experiments. You assume it's ridiculous and there is nothing there, but this is an assertion made, I suggest, in not understanding what is done in these experiments. Please look up WGS to understand it. Look specifically at the math involved. Look also for examples of corroboration with different sequencing techniques. Perhaps that will reduce your incredulity.

The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples.

That's not what's going on. It isn't that they can't find intact viral genomes, it's that they don't select for it. WGS requires smaller pieces of DNA/RNA to function. There are numerous techniques for mapping a genome. WGS is the cheapest and fastest, so it is the most often used, but all of the techniques corroborate each other. It works by getting multiple copies and overlapping them. The odds of a mismatch on an overlap, given a large enough sample size, are miniscule. The odds of the same mismatch on two subsequent tests are so small as to be ludicrous. The odds of the same mismatch on a thousand subsequent tests isn't even worth talking about. This is how it is done. When the same experiments get the same (or close enough to the same) results every time, it is safe to assume there is something to the experiment. At the least it is ridiculous to assume there isn't.

Basically, if you want to challenge the WGS technique, you are basically stating that the entirety of genomics (not just virology) is not just "wrong," but completely fabricated, despite getting the same results each time on the same sample types, which just so happen to be different results on different sample types, which are then also the same for each of those same sample types.

SOMETHING is making the difference in output from these experiments. You assume it's ridiculous and there is nothing there, but this is an assertion made, I suggest, in not understanding what is done in these experiments. Please look up WGS to understand it. Look specifically at the math involved. Look also for examples of corroboration with different sequencing techniques. Perhaps that will reduce your incredulity.