Creating the “SARS-COV-2” Genome

“In order to verify and determine the presence of a virus, and following the most fundamental rules of scientific reasoning, the virus needs to be isolated and displayed in its pure form in order to rule out that cellular genetic sequences are misinterpreted as components of a virus.”

-Ex-Virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka

If one were to follow the rules of logic it would be clear that in order to be able to logically sequence the genome of a thing, that thing must be shown to exist in reality first. If you sequence the genome of a person, you could find the person the genome belongs to in order to see if they actually physically exist. If you sequence a dog, you should be able to find the dog and prove it’s existence. Logically, this makes sense. However, if I were to show you a sequence and claim it came from a dragon, you would laugh at me. You would expect me to prove that the dragon the sequence came from actually exists. Following that logic, in order to sequence any particles assumed to be a “virus,” those particles must be shown to physically exist first. Without this proof of existence, a genome is meaningless.

So how would a virologist prove that a “viral” genome belongs to an actual “virus?” Theoretically, they should be able to take a sample (i.e. bronchoalveolar lavage fluid) directly from a sick patient and then subject it to any of the purification/isolation processes (centrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc.) which are supposed to be commonly used in Virology but are somehow regularly missing from the studies. This step would be done in order to separate (isolate) the particles they believe to be a “virus” from everything else that are sure to be contained within the sample (host cells, bacterial cells, cellular debris, extracellular vesicles, exosomes, etc.). They would check under an electron microscope to see if all of the particles in their samples are of the same characteristic size and shape. Only once they actually have a purified/isolated sample of particles believed to be “viruses” could they then attempt to prove pathogenicity in animal studies. Only once these particles have been proven to exist in reality could they then get a genome from them that would have any sort of meaning behind it.

Was this process carried out for “SARS-COV-2” (or any other “virus” for that matter)? No. The original genome for “SARS-COV-2” was stitched together in a computer based on the unpurified bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from one patient. There was no attempt at purification by spinning/filtering the sample to separate a “virus” from everything else within the BALF fluid. They did not culture a “virus” and then sequence the genome from that toxic soup. They took directly from the unpurified BALF of one patient containing many off-target genetic material and determined a “virus” genome based solely on that. It was constructed and mapped onto the model of a genome with the help of computer algorithms, prediction software, and reference genomes from similar unpurified sources.

This is how the process was described in the actual study:

A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China

“To investigate the possible aetiological agents associated with this disease, we collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and performed deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described4,6,7,8. In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. Of the 384,096 contigs assembled by Megahit9, the longest (30,474 nucleotides (nt)) had a high abundance and was closely related to a bat SARS-like coronavirus (CoV) isolate—bat SL-CoVZC45 (GenBank accession number MG772933)—that had previously been sampled in China, with a nucleotide identity of 89.1% (Supplementary Tables 12). The genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, were determined and confirmed by reverse-transcription PCR (RT–PCR)10 and 5′/3′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), respectively. This virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV) (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’) and its whole genome sequence (29,903 nt) has been assigned GenBank accession number MN908947. Remapping the RNA-sequencing data to the complete genome of WHCV resulted in an assembly of 123,613 reads, providing 99.99% genome coverage at a mean depth of 6.04× (range, 0.01–78.84×) (Extended Data Fig. 3). The viral load in the BALF sample was estimated by qPCR to be 3.95 × 108 copies per ml (Extended Data Fig. 4).

The viral genome organization of WHCV was determined by sequence alignment to two representative members of the genus Betacoronavirus: a coronavirus associated with humans (SARS-CoV Tor2, GenBank accession number AY274119) and a coronavirus associated with bats (bat SL-CoVZC45, GenBank accession number MG772933). The un-translational regions and open-reading frame (ORF) of WHCV were mapped on the basis of this sequence alignment and ORF prediction. The WHCV viral genome was similar to these two coronaviruses (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 3).  The order of genes (5′ to 3′) was as follows: replicase ORF1abspike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N). WHCV has 5′ and 3′ terminal sequences that are typical of betacoronaviruses, with 265 nt at the 5′ terminal end and 229 nt at the 3′ terminal end. The predicted replicase ORF1ab gene of WHCV is 21,291 nt in length and contained 16 predicted non-structural proteins (Supplementary Table 4), followed by (at least) 13 downstream ORFs. Additionally, WHCV shares a highly conserved domain (LLRKNGNKG: amino acids 122–130) in nsp1 with SARS-CoV. The predicted SORF3aEM and N genes of WHCV are 3,822, 828, 228, 669 and 1,260 nt in length, respectively. In addition to these ORF regions, which are shared by all members of the subgenus Sarbecovirus, WHCV is similar to SARS-CoV in that it carries a predicted ORF8 gene (with a length of 366 nt) that is located between the M and N ORF genes. The functions of WHCV ORFs were predicted on the basis of those of known coronaviruses and are described in Supplementary Table 5.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3

Keep in mind that there would be billions of micro and nanoparticles within the BALF, including the identical to “viruses” in nearly every way exosomes as well as cellular debris and extracellular vesicles.

The fact that there are numerous sources of DNA/RNA in the unpurified BALF sample is further highlighted in the WHO’s “SARS-COV-2” Genome guide:

Genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2

“Depletion of host or other non-SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in a sample leads to a higher proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reads in generated sequence data and therefore a higher chance of recovering a full genome. SARS-CoV-2 metagenomic approaches therefore typically include steps to remove host and bacterial cells, through either centrifugation or filtration prior to RNA extraction, or chemical or enzymatic removal of unwanted DNA/RNA. This is easier for liquid samples, from which cells can be more easily separated, such as bronchoalveolar lavage (Table
4). Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and DNA content are also commonly depleted during library preparation for virus RNA sequencing, and carrier RNA is often omitted from extractions or
replaced with linear polyacrylamide. Despite such measures, samples may still contain high quantities of off-target host DNA/RNA that may also be sequenced. Metagenomic approaches therefore generally benefit from input of samples with high virus loads (such that a reasonable proportion of the genetic material in the sample is virus).”

Metagenomic sequencing typically produces high numbers of off-target, non-virus reads. It is also often (though not always, depending on the sequencing platform and multiplexing) more costly than targeted capture-based or amplicon-based sequencing approaches, because more data have to be produced to generate one SARS-CoV-2 genome. Moreover, pretreatment steps that are particularly beneficial for metagenomics, such as centrifugation, are not typically performed for molecular diagnostic assays so new extractions that incorporate pretreatment steps may have to be performed for metagenomic sequencing.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240018440&ved=2ahUKEwjB9N-JgOjyAhVWvZ4KHVWZBckQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw28OrakzQD6BVezIuZC15Jw

The WHO states that centrifugation (spinning the material really fast to separate the bigger particles from the smaller ones) and filtration (used to further separate the particles based on size) are typically done to remove host and bacterial cells. However, nowhere in the “SARS-COV-2” genome paper is it ever mentioned that these two crucial steps are performed. On top of that, even if these purification steps were performed, the WHO admits that high quantities of off-target host DNA/RNA material will also be sequenced. This means that there will be high numbers of off-target “non-virus” reads coming from the metagenomic analysis. Thus, regardless of purification, there is no way it can be stated that the “SARS-COV-2” reference genome originates from a purified/isolated source.

Without purification/isolation, there is no way that they could determine the “SARS-COV-2” genome they constructed came from one source. They did not even attempt EM images in the study as there was nothing physically present for them to obtain an image from.

The researchers tried to hide this massive error by referring to another study as backup proof:

“These genomic and clinical similarities to SARS, as well as its high abundance in clinical samples, provides evidence for an association between WHCV and the ongoing outbreak of respiratory disease in Wuhan and across the world. Although the isolation of the virus from only a single patient is not sufficient to conclude that it caused these respiratory symptoms, our findings have been independently corroborated in further patients in a separate study29.”

There are two problems here:

  1. They did not isolate a “virus” from one patient. They created a sequence from one patient’s BALF. Two completely different things.
  2. The other paper they referenced admitted that they did not prove a “virus” either:

A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin

“The study provides a detailed report on 2019-nCoV, the likely aetiological agent responsible for the ongoing epidemic of acute respiratory syndrome in China and other countries. Virus-specific nucleotide-positive and viral-protein seroconversion was observed in all patients tested and provides evidence of an association between the disease and the presence of this virus. However, there are still many urgent questions that remain to be answered. The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7

Did you notice the mention of the lack of fulfilling Koch’s Postulates? These are FOUR logic-based criteria developed by Robert Koch in 1890 and they are considered an essential requirement by the WHO to prove a microbe causes disease:

Conclusive identification of a causative must meet all criteria in the so-called “Koch’s Postulates.” The additional experiments needed to fulfill these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.”

https://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_03_27b/en/

The original link appears broken but this is a screenshot I took before it went down.

If the above information does not make you at least suspicious of the validity of the A,C,T,G’s in a computer database claimed to be a physical entity, the amazing article by Iain Davis for OffGuardian further explains why this genome taken from the BALF of one patient is a problem. It gives a nice history on the equally shoddy “SARS-COV-1” as well as other reference genomes which were used as the basis for the creation of “SARS-COV-2:”

COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud

“The Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre published the first full SARS-CoV-2 genome (MN908947.1 ). This has been updated many times. However, MN908947.1 was the first genetic sequence describing the alleged COVID 19 etiologic agent (SARS-CoV-2).

All subsequent claims, tests, treatments, statistics, vaccine development and resultant policies are based upon this sequence. If the tests for this novel virus don’t identify anything capable of causing illness in human beings, the whole COVID 19 narrative is nothing but a charade.

The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.

The Wuhan team used 40 rounds of RT-qPCR amplification to match fragments of cDNA (complimentary DNA constructed from sampled RNA fragments) with the published SARS coronavirus genome (SARS-CoV). Unfortunately it isn’t clear how accurate the original SARS-CoV genome is either.

In 2003 a team of researchers from from Hong Kong studied 50 patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). They took samples from 2 of these patients and developed a culture in fetal monkey liver cells.

They created 30 clones of the genetic material they found. Unable to find evidence of any other known virus, in just one of these cloned samples they found genetic sequences of “unknown origin.”

Examining these unknown RNA sequences they found 57% match to bovine coronavirus and murine hepatitis virus and deduced it was of the family Coronaviridae. Considering these sequences to suggest a newly discovered SARS-CoV virus (new discoveries being ambrosia for scientists), they designed RT-PCR primers to test for this novel virus. The researchers stated:

Primers for detecting the new virus were designed for RT-PCR detection of this human pneumonia-associated coronavirus genome in clinical samples. Of the 44 nasopharyngeal samples available from the 50 SARS patients, 22 had evidence of human pneumonia-associated coronavirus RNA.”

Half of the tested patients, who all had the same symptoms, tested positive for this new alleged virus. No one knows why the other half tested negative for this novel SARS-CoV virus. The question wasn’t asked.

This supposed virus had just a 57% sequence match to allegedly known coronavirus. The other 43% was just “there.” Sequenced data was produced and recorded as a new genome as GenBank Accession No. AY274119.

The Wuhan researchers subsequently found an 79.6% sequence match to AY274119 and therefore called it a novel strain of SARS-CoV (2019-nCoV – eventually renamed SARS-CoV-2). No one, at any stage of this process, had produced any isolated, purified sample of any virus. All they had were percentage sequence matches to other percentage sequence matches.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/

As can be seen, the “SARS-COV-2” genome is a sequence matched creation built on the backs of other highly questionable sequence-matched creations, none of which belong to purified/isolated particles and all of which only exist as A,C,T,G’s in a computer database. To further break this down step-by-step, here is an excellent explanation of the creation process by Dr. Stefano Scoglio:

“It’s technical, but I will try to simplify: the supernatant contains all sorts of molecules, billions of different micro and nano particles, including what are called extra-cellular vesicles (EVs) and exosomes, useful particles produced by our own body and absolutely indistinguishable from viruses:”

“So, how do you isolate one specific virus from this huge blend of billions of indistinguishable particles, which includes beneficial exosomes?
Well, you do not, it’s impossible, and so you “recreate” the virus through the RT-PCR: you take two primers, two previously existing genetic sequences available in genetic banks, and put them in touch with the supernatant broth, until they attach (anneal) to some RNA in the broth, thus creating an artificial DNA molecule, which is then multiplied though a certain number of PCR runs: each run doubles the quantity of DNA, but the higher is the number of the runs necessary to produce enough “virus” material, the lower the reliability of the PCR – meaning its ability to actually “get” anything at all meaningful from the supernatant – above 30 runs the result tends to be meaningless, and all the studies, as well as the current swab tests, always use more than 30 runs.

The first unanswered question is: the primers are constituted of 18-24 bases (nucleotides) each; the SARS-Cov2 virus is supposedly composed of 30.000 bases; so the primer represents only the 0.07% of the virus genome. How is it possible to select the specific virus you are looking for on such a minute ground, and moreover in a sea of billions of virus-like particles? It would be like searching for an elephant by looking for a very small grey coloured hair of its tail: by searching the grey coloured hair you could find grey cats, grey dogs, greying human beings, and so on.

But there is more. As the virus you are looking for is new, there are clearly no ready genetic primers to match the specific fraction of the new virus; so you take primers that you believe may be closer to the hypothesised virus structure, but it’s a guess, and when you apply the primers to the supernatant broth, your primers can attach to anyone of the billions of molecules present in it, and you have no idea that what you have thus generated is the virus you are looking for. It is, in fact, a new creation made by the researchers, who then call it SARS-Cov2, but there is no connection whatsoever with the presumed “real” virus responsible for the disease.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://usercontent.one/wp/www.ooc.one/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/THE-INVENTED-PANDEMIC-the-lack-of-VIRUS-ISOLATION-and-the-INVALID-COVID-19-test.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiPtJr7quryAhUR3p4KHfScDlAQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0WDO88-PRatFybu98B3ndX

In Summary:

  • The “SARS-COV-2” genome was created from metagenomic analysis taken from the unpurified BALF of one patient
  • There are potentially billions of similar particles (extracellular vesicles, exosomes, cellular debris) in the sample
  • No centrifugation/filtration purification steps were done to the BALF sample
  • The WHO admits that despite purification steps, samples may still contain high quantities of off-target host DNA/RNA that may also be sequenced
  • The WHO states metagenomic sequencing typically produces high numbers of off-target, “non-virus” reads
  • The “SARS-COV-2” genome study did not include any EM images of purified/isolated particles nor did it attempt to prove pathogenicity through animal studies which they left to a separate team/study
  • The separate team/study also did not prove pathogenicity and admitted to not fulfilling Koch’s Postulates, a requirement the WHO considers essential to proving a microbe causes disease
  • The Wuhan researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the “SARS-CoV-2” genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences
  • They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments
  • “SARS-COV-2″ only shared a 79.6% sequence match to ‘SARS-COV-1”
  • For the original “SARS,” only 22 of 44 patient samples had “viral” RNA
  • “SARS-COV-1” had just a 57% sequence match to allegedly known “coronavirus”
  • Neither genomes for “SARS-COV-2” nor “SARS-COV-1” come from purified/isolated “viruses” and were built from sequence matches to other unpurified sources

Everything relating to “SARS-COV-2” stems from a fraudulent genome stitched together in a computer database from the unpurified BALF of one patient. They did not attempt to separate the particles from the BALF using accepted purification procedures. They did not take any EM pictures of the sample to show the existence of particles believed to be a “virus.” They didn’t even attempt a cell culture, considered the “gold standard” proof of “virus isolation.” There is no evidence for a physical entity to which the “SARS-COV-2” genome is said to belong. This whole mess can be traced back to nothing but an imaginary set of letters in a computer database.

6 comments

  1. Dang! Please don’t go away! Your approach is excellent. Quote the enemy to death using his own words. Fantastic. It’s much harder to refute hostile witnesses. Yours is a resource I can return to. AND they tell you the process they use and it sounds terrible as a proof. Wonderful.

    Just to say, the link under “de novo assembly” is broken. It may be broken in the original off-guardian piece, but I thought I’d say something. If I do a duckduckgo search, the first link is broken as well. But this one (https://www.melbournebioinformatics.org.au/tutorials/tutorials/assembly/assembly-protocol/) still seems good and has words that are informative. For example, “Genome assembly refers to the process of taking a large number of short DNA sequences and putting them back together to create a representation of the original chromosomes from which the DNA originated [1]. De novo genome assemblies assume no prior knowledge of the source DNA sequence length, layout or composition.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for the kind words and continued support as well as for looking into the link! 🙂 I will give it a look and see if I can fix or replace it. I definitely feel it is best to use their own words against them. It is simply amazing to see what they admit. We must hold them accountable for what they say in their studies versus what they say in public. It is usually night and day different. It is hard for people defending virology to refute the words of those who also believe in virology. 😉

      Like

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s