Over the past couple of months I’ve spent time reviewing early published papers from Chinese scientists on 2019-nCoV-2019/SARS-CoV-2 and making changes to a timeline I published last summer.
I am noticing that the pre-print and published versions of the paper that classified and (re)named 2019-nCoV as SARS-CoV-2 include the following acknowledgement:
(Pre-Print https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.937862v1.full) "The authors gratefully acknowledge the work of all researchers who released SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences through the GISAID initiative and particularly the authors of the MN908947 genome sequence."
(Published version https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z ) "We thank all researchers who released SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences through the GISAID initiative and particularly the authors of the GenBank MN908947 genome sequence: F. Wu, S. Zhao, B. Yu, Y. M. Chen, W. Wang, Z. G. Song, Y. Hu, Z. W. Tao, J. H. Tian, Y. Y. Pei, M. L. Yuan, Y. L. Zhang, F. H. Dai, Y. Liu, Q. M. Wang, J. J. Zheng, L. Xu, E. C. Holmes and Y. Z. Zhang.
Why was "that" sequence the one that received the ICTV-CSG's attention (although more than one sequence was obviously being looked at)?
Your questions hits the biggest enigma of this story. Why was there a viral sequence proposed and why exactly this one? I think we should gather as many indications in this regard as possible to get closer to an answer why the situation has developed the way it has.
Some remarks to these two versions of the CSG-paper:
2. In neither of these versions the Wu et al. paper is referenced. Just the above mentioned acknowledgment.
3. The Wu et al. paper was published on nature.com on 03 February 2020 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3#article-info), well before the submission date of both versions. I did not find any pre-print version of it. Considering the importance of this paper, one would expect it referenced in the article. All the major developments were already done on the MN908947.x sequence (PCR-test, sequence selection for at least the Moderna transfection), many days before the publication of the corresponding scientific article. This article changed the world even before it was published. Maybe it reached in the virological community a special place and as such it was not necessary anymore to reference it, because it was already common knowledge inside the discipline.
4. Both versions reference the pre-print of the Zhou et al. paper (Zhou, P. et al. Discovery of a novel coronavirus associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin. Nature in press, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 (2020)). Both use the DOI of the published version, not the DOI of the pre-print, which is https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952. Both use the title of the pre-print, which was substantially more optimistic in respect of the novelty of this virus. The title of the published article is: "A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin." "Novel" and "new" is not the same. Zhou et al. were backtracking already.
5. The Zhu et al. paper was already published on 24 Januar 2020 and referenced as such.
Per "Notes from the Field: A Novel Coronavirus Genome Identified in a Cluster of Pneumonia Cases — Wuhan, China 2019−2020" (China CDC, published online 21 Jan 2020), 3 January 2020 is the date on which “the first complete genome of the novel β genus coronaviruses (2019-nCoVs) was identified in samples of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from a patient from Wuhan by scientists of the National Institute of Viral Disease Control and Prevention (IVDC) through a combination of Sanger sequencing, Illumina sequencing, and nanopore sequencing.”
Per a CDC timeline, 5 January 2020 is date on which "the genetic sequence for the atypical pneumonia virus, Wuhan-Hu-1, is submitted to the Department of Zoonoses, National Institute of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, in Beijing, China by Yong-Zhen Zhang of Fudan University, Shanghai." https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html
I ask because ICTV-CSG chair John Ziebuhr emailed the group on 23 January 2020 with the invitation to discuss and decide the phylogenetic position, species, and name of the 2019-nCoV virus ASAP. Note that he also said Alexander (Sasha) Gorbalenya already had a paper in the works.
So, for now, we can simplify and pose, "What/which sequences was Gorbalenya et al given to look at?"
I'm unclear as to how many were available to review by 23 January.
"On 10 January, Jeremy Farrar, an infectious disease specialist who heads the London-based Wellcome Trust, tweeted his worry about rumors that the Chinese government did not share “critical public health information” because Chinese researchers wanted to ensure publication of their findings in high-profile journals first.
Less than 12 hours later, however, evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney published an “initial” sequence of the new coronavirus on virological.org, on behalf of a consortium led by Zhang Yong-Zhen of Fudan University in Shanghai. The next day, three groups working under China’s National Health Commission posted another five sequences of the virus, gathered from different patients, on GISAID, a database primarily used for sharing data on influenza viruses."
Looks like six from that.
I'm not sure if that includes two replacements for MN908947.1
I was not aware of the cautious treatment of the findings by the Chinese and wondered what role this Edward C. Holmes played, the only non-chinese scientist in the three groups of scientists coming up with the "identification of a new/novel coronavirus". It seems the Chinese wanted to handle thing against the guidelines of the WHO.
"The timeframe for data generation and release should not exceed 21 days from sample receipt, although even greater speed is highly desirable in the context of rapidly evolving outbreaks." (p. 2, lines 40-42). And:
"In each new outbreak or new transmission season GSD [genetic sequence data] should be made publicly available using a public access mechanism, including a brief description of the immediate implications for outbreak control and public health. The uploading of publicly accessible sequence data should occur before journal publication as indicated in WHO’s 2015 R&D Blueprint data sharing consultation, and subsequently confirmed in ICMJE policy." (p. 2, lines 58-62)
It seems as they wanted to publish their findings in a peer reviewed journal before uploading the genetic sequence to a database without any procedural background. As it happened in January 2020, we had some statements of chinese authorities and the genetic sequence uploaded to virology.org on January 10, 2020. With these two datapoints, Corman, Drosten et al. postulated that this genetic sequence was the cause of the pneumonia of unknown etiology, without knowing the detailed proceedings behind the genetic sequence. If they had published the article to a journal first, Drosten would have read before publishing his PCR-test-paper that "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 study." (Wu et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3).
"With these two datapoints, Corman, Drosten et al. postulated that this genetic sequence was the cause of the pneumonia of unknown etiology, without knowing the detailed proceedings behind the genetic sequence."
"Phylogenetic analysis of the complete viral genome (29,903 nucleotides) revealed that the virus was most closely related (89.1% nucleotide similarity) to a group of SARS-like coronaviruses (genus Betacoronavirus, subgenus Sarbecovirus) that had previously been found in bats in China."
Since the first SARS outbreak hoax in 2002, they always fishing for such 'virus' sequences and they decided this time it was a bingo.
Technically, the Fan Wu sequence is an 'index sequence', being associated with the index patient ('patient zero').
That in subsequent publications it inappropriately becomes 'the reference sequence' is a consequence of a tacitly assumed nomenclature convention that plagues the pseudoscience of virology.
"It was upon the conclusion of this paper that the PCR testing was designed, and the world was tested for this “novel virus.” It was upon this paper that synthetic “virus” sequences were built by laboratories to test the “virus” for its qualities and to study its “nature.”"
Not sure what you mean.
If you saying that the covid PCR scam actually wasn't based upon this paper, technically that's true - the covid hoax, including the 'novel' sequences, was devised at least two decades ago. The Fan Wu paper is just part of the fiction.
Not only Wallach but others have implied, if not directly stated, that the sequence extrapolated/constructed/whatever from the 41-YO man's specimen was used to for PCR test design -- in particular, the C-D protocol.
Also, it seems from the classification and naming paper (see pinned comment) that a bunch of sequences were looked at but the one Fan Wu sequence was considered by the ICTV-CSG as the most helpful/best.
I think the official narrative is that C-D looked at the Fan Wu publication, decided that it was indeed a 'novel' virus sequence (whatever that really means), then decided what a 'consensus' sequence would look like if they actually had access to purified samples of the so-called virus (which they didn't), and then, based upon all these farfetched assumptions, managed to devise primers for a PCR that detects when people are nervous.
The twisted logic of the story isn't unique to CovidHoax, it's emblematic of the entire 'emerging viruses' paradigm.
Exactly what rhyme or reason C-D deployed to come up with their 'consensus' sequence is prolly as hair-brained as the rest of The Science.
Wenjie Tan, Xiang Zhao, Xuejun Ma, Wenling Wang, Peihua Niu, Wenbo Xu, George F. Gao, Guizhen Wu.
China CDC Weekly, 2020, 2(4): 61-62.
doi: 10.46234/ccdcw2020.017
" ... On January 3, 2020, the first complete genome of the novel β genus coronaviruses (2019-nCoVs) was identified in samples of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from a patient from Wuhan by scientists of the National Institute of Viral Disease Control and Prevention (IVDC) through a combination of Sanger sequencing, Illumina sequencing, and nanopore sequencing. Three distinct strains have been identified, the virus has been designated as 2019-nCoV, and the disease has been subsequently named novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia (NCIP). ..."
Online 21.01.2020
-
... an then - on the very next day:
Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
Victor M Corman, Olfert Landt, Marco Kaiser, Richard Molenkamp, Adam Meijer, Daniel KW Chu, Tobias Bleicker, Sebastian Brünink, Julia Schneider, Marie Luisa Schmidt , Daphne GJC Mulders, Bart L Haagmans, Bas van der Veer, Sharon van den Brink, Lisa Wijsman, Gabriel Goderski, Jean-Louis Romette, Joanna Ellis , Maria Zambon , Malik Peiris , Herman Goossens , Chantal Reusken , Marion PG Koopmans , Christian Drosten
" ... My analysis showed that the actual window for the peer-review process was 3.5-27.5 hours, which I will elaborate on below. Everything goes back to a document of the WHO *), which was created (!!!) the day the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to Eurosurveillance. The meta-data shows that it was created on the 21st of January 2020 at 8:30 pm CET (Central European Time). ..."
A sequence is just that - a sequence of events in order and over a set timeline. ‘LIFE’ is designed by hierarchy - which every other system or application is an imitation of. It’s easy for us mortals to forget our place in God’s kingdom. We take our cues from him. In science it’s called a Phylogeny Phylogenesis is the study of the evolutionary progress of all living organisms a.k.a LIFE, i.e., species, individuals, or genes. It’s commonly represented by the schema of a tree. Like a family tree. It’s hierarchal. A virus outbreak transmits in a sequential order, across the index of any given DNA species.
Think of it like you would a software update. Every individual in the herd who is infected by the virus, is assigned their own gene sequence number. The virus is its own unique RNA code (genome sequence), and it designates a reference number to each person it infects.
Another way to look at it:
RNA is dynamic.
Whereas DNA is static.
Therefore RNA transmits as a signal (constantly)
A virus is either a ssRNA or dsRNA (single strand or double strand) that’s either positive or negative charged +/-
For context, RNA is a virus but the collective group also includes Messenger RNA (mRNA), Ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and Transfer RNA (tRNA) plus other noncoding RNA molecules transcribed from the genome. All aspects of the complex biological systems that makes up an organism or life form. In the case of this coronavirus, its genome is its own sequence / or RNA code. As it happens, each PCR test that was initially performed, read the virus sequence and its individual assigned genetic reference imprinted to each subject/person. Like a library or content management system. In no way, am I condoning the way the PCR laboratory technique was used across the human population. I condemn it. It did however produce the timeline, yet ironically, nobody seems to understand its relevance. To begin to understand this Ms Hockett, you’ll have to abandon everything you’ve previously thought about viruses. With all due respect I’m not sure if that’s you or anyone else is willing to do. The ‘science’ that human beings engage in, under the name of ‘vaccines’ is the most evil lie that’s ever been practiced in God’s kingdom. Understanding the basis of the genetic code is just the beginning to understanding the level of corruption behind the ‘Government health’ agenda. It’s your prerogative whether or not you delete this comment.
"A German mathematician working with Dr Stefan Lanka has just published a report titled, “Structural analysis of sequence data in virology – An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example.” It provides even more evidence that the virologists are caught up in a world of computer simulations – simulations that are unreliable even on their own terms, not to mention being disconnected from reality. The analysis is an important contribution exposing another element of the anti-science being used to sustain this fake pandemic. Further, it is a technical dismantling of how all “viruses” are being invented and then “found,” in an ongoing game of deception.
The paper is very technical and requires some understanding of how the virologists create a “genome,” starting with a crude sample from an alleged infected “COVID-19” patient. To make it easier, I’ve produced a summary of the main findings as outlined below:
- None of the genetic sequences used in producing the “SARS-CoV-2” genomes were shown to come from inside any viruses. It is unclear where the genetic fragments originated from.
- The original de novo “SARS-CoV-2” computer-constructed sequence published by Fan Wu, et al *) could not be reproduced by the methodology described in their paper, raising questions about how they produced it and announced the new “virus” to the world.
- The PCR protocols are calibrated to sequences of unconfirmed origin that are clearly found in many humans and apparently other things as well. The PCR process was not shown to detect a “virus,” let alone diagnose an invented illness called “COVID-19”.
- The virologists are fooling themselves by running amplifications at 35 to 45 cycles, as it can result in “detecting” sequences that are not even present in the sample. In effect, the methodology can result in “detecting” whatever sequences they are hoping to find.
- Fan Wu, et al could have found better matches for “HIV” and “Hepatitis D virus” than “a new coronavirus” in their 41-year-old man from Wuhan, who presented with pneumonia as one of the first claimed “COVID-19” cases. If they want to find a “virus”, it all depends on what they ask the computer to look for. ..."
-
The mentioned paper
Structural analysis of sequence data in virology
An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example
Wu F, Zhao S, Yu B, Chen YM, Wang W, Song ZG, Hu Y, Tao ZW, Tian JH, Pei YY, Yuan ML, Zhang YL, Dai FH, Liu Y, Wang QM, Zheng JJ, Xu L, Holmes EC, Zhang YZ.
Here is an answer for you according to GROK: "The WHO's January 13, 2020, interim guidance for laboratory testing relied on this sequence to develop RT-PCR protocols, as it was one of the earliest and most complete (one of the first near-full-length genomic sequences of SARS-CoV-2, covering approximately 29,903 nucleotides) sequences available, shared via public databases like GISAID."
Apparently its "completeness" was verified through bioinformatics analysis, aligning closely with related coronaviruses, enabling the WHO to design accurate RT-PCR primers for the January 13, 2020, protocol, but is essentially an inference made from the sequence's characteristics and its role in early SARS-CoV-2 research.
If you know anything about logical fallacy this is circular reasoning.
How do they know it is near complete if it is the first time they have constructed it? Wouldn't they have needed to have the complete sequence first to then know it is near complete?
"We declare the sequence is the most complete, because we know how many nucleotides this corona virus should have, as this is the first time we have sequenced it."
My answer: because it was all pre-planned and fabricated. All of it, from the sequence, the testing, the media fear campaigns, the worldwide government responses and mandates, the death curves, to the hospital treatment protocols and injections, and so much more.
All of this was, designed, modeled and executed as planned (decades in the making). They just needed one sequence/ one study to kick off their plan, so that the majority would accept their lies.
What came first, the sequence or the study? My bet is on the sequence.
You're answering a motive question, whereas I am posing a far more literal question about the sequence(s), from whom they were taken, and how they were used.
Jessica, this is in relation to your No Virus stack.
Why not reach out to Yeadon, West, Kaufman, Cowan, Zeck and the Bailey’s and line up an online discussion where they can explain their arguments and answer your questions; including the one from this stack. So many people will benefit from an open discussion.
"can explain why it is often said a sequence from the above study was the single reference for anything."
surely one could suggest it was to unleash what they wanted to unleash; all part of the plan; to bamboozle all; and provide a seeming legitimisation of all that was planned to unfold? I used to hear the phrase "Baffle with Bull*hit" and from what you publish, this is it par excellence; it seems that Sam Bailey talked of this 3yrs ago and cited this mathematical article; she and her husband Mark are often fiercely condemned; ("the flak is heaviest when you are over the target .."); their various videos make convincing watching; vilifed but on target;
" I am left with some things I still don’t understand but want to understand."
does the first line encapsulate what you say you do not understand?
The first SARS-COV-2 discovery paper by Fan Wu/Zhang (et al.):
"Total RNA was extracted from the BALF (lung fluid)..."
▫️[The potential viral DNA was removed, even though viruses are said to contain DNA or RNA. And RNA was extracted from lung fluid, not an alleged virus particle]
"Paired-end (150-bp reads) sequencing of the RNA library was performed..."
▫️[How did they determine >150bp won't be part of the alleged virus?]
"Sequencing reads were first adaptor and quality trimmed.."
▫️[Further discarding of potential virus material]
"The remaining 56,565,928 reads were assembled de novo...total of 384,096 (Megahit) assembled contigs & 1,329,960 (Trinity) contigs..."
▫️[So ~1.7 million sequence genomes (contigs) were created out of 56 million RNA reads]
"Non-human reads (23,712,657 reads), generated by filtering host reads using the human genome..."
▫️[Human reads were filtered after contig assembly]
"longest contigs generated by Megahit (30,474 nt).. was used for primer design..."
▫️[We have a winner! - The longest contig out of ~1.7 million was chosen as the basis of the virus sequence.
Thanks, but I think this is answering a different question than the one I am asking.
I want to know why the sequence from the Fan Wu paper is said to be a singular sequence that guided the development of the protocol the WHO shared on 13 Jan 2020.
I am noticing that the pre-print and published versions of the paper that classified and (re)named 2019-nCoV as SARS-CoV-2 include the following acknowledgement:
(Pre-Print https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.937862v1.full) "The authors gratefully acknowledge the work of all researchers who released SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences through the GISAID initiative and particularly the authors of the MN908947 genome sequence."
(Published version https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z ) "We thank all researchers who released SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences through the GISAID initiative and particularly the authors of the GenBank MN908947 genome sequence: F. Wu, S. Zhao, B. Yu, Y. M. Chen, W. Wang, Z. G. Song, Y. Hu, Z. W. Tao, J. H. Tian, Y. Y. Pei, M. L. Yuan, Y. L. Zhang, F. H. Dai, Y. Liu, Q. M. Wang, J. J. Zheng, L. Xu, E. C. Holmes and Y. Z. Zhang.
Why was "that" sequence the one that received the ICTV-CSG's attention (although more than one sequence was obviously being looked at)?
I may need to re-read those papers -- and the emails in my own article. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-sars-cov-2-name-game-long-read
Your questions hits the biggest enigma of this story. Why was there a viral sequence proposed and why exactly this one? I think we should gather as many indications in this regard as possible to get closer to an answer why the situation has developed the way it has.
Some remarks to these two versions of the CSG-paper:
1. Note that the published version of the CSG-paper was submitted to the journal on 5 February 2020 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z#article-info) and the pre-print (Gorbalenya et al., https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.937862v1.article-info) was posted on 11 February 2020.
2. In neither of these versions the Wu et al. paper is referenced. Just the above mentioned acknowledgment.
3. The Wu et al. paper was published on nature.com on 03 February 2020 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3#article-info), well before the submission date of both versions. I did not find any pre-print version of it. Considering the importance of this paper, one would expect it referenced in the article. All the major developments were already done on the MN908947.x sequence (PCR-test, sequence selection for at least the Moderna transfection), many days before the publication of the corresponding scientific article. This article changed the world even before it was published. Maybe it reached in the virological community a special place and as such it was not necessary anymore to reference it, because it was already common knowledge inside the discipline.
4. Both versions reference the pre-print of the Zhou et al. paper (Zhou, P. et al. Discovery of a novel coronavirus associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin. Nature in press, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 (2020)). Both use the DOI of the published version, not the DOI of the pre-print, which is https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952. Both use the title of the pre-print, which was substantially more optimistic in respect of the novelty of this virus. The title of the published article is: "A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin." "Novel" and "new" is not the same. Zhou et al. were backtracking already.
5. The Zhu et al. paper was already published on 24 Januar 2020 and referenced as such.
Wu Fan paper in Nature
Received - 07 January 2020
Accepted - 28 January 2020
Published - 03 February 2020
Per "Notes from the Field: A Novel Coronavirus Genome Identified in a Cluster of Pneumonia Cases — Wuhan, China 2019−2020" (China CDC, published online 21 Jan 2020), 3 January 2020 is the date on which “the first complete genome of the novel β genus coronaviruses (2019-nCoVs) was identified in samples of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from a patient from Wuhan by scientists of the National Institute of Viral Disease Control and Prevention (IVDC) through a combination of Sanger sequencing, Illumina sequencing, and nanopore sequencing.”
Per a CDC timeline, 5 January 2020 is date on which "the genetic sequence for the atypical pneumonia virus, Wuhan-Hu-1, is submitted to the Department of Zoonoses, National Institute of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, in Beijing, China by Yong-Zhen Zhang of Fudan University, Shanghai." https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html
Thanks. I agree the order of events, uploads, deposits, and publications is important and confusing.
Did you read this article yet? https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-sars-cov-2-name-game-long-read
I ask because ICTV-CSG chair John Ziebuhr emailed the group on 23 January 2020 with the invitation to discuss and decide the phylogenetic position, species, and name of the 2019-nCoV virus ASAP. Note that he also said Alexander (Sasha) Gorbalenya already had a paper in the works.
So, for now, we can simplify and pose, "What/which sequences was Gorbalenya et al given to look at?"
I'm unclear as to how many were available to review by 23 January.
At least six?
See here:
https://mcb.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2341/2020/01/WuhanScience24Jan2020.pdf
"On 10 January, Jeremy Farrar, an infectious disease specialist who heads the London-based Wellcome Trust, tweeted his worry about rumors that the Chinese government did not share “critical public health information” because Chinese researchers wanted to ensure publication of their findings in high-profile journals first.
Less than 12 hours later, however, evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney published an “initial” sequence of the new coronavirus on virological.org, on behalf of a consortium led by Zhang Yong-Zhen of Fudan University in Shanghai. The next day, three groups working under China’s National Health Commission posted another five sequences of the virus, gathered from different patients, on GISAID, a database primarily used for sharing data on influenza viruses."
Looks like six from that.
I'm not sure if that includes two replacements for MN908947.1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947.2 replaced above on 14 Jan
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947.3 replaced above on 17 Jan
I was not aware of the cautious treatment of the findings by the Chinese and wondered what role this Edward C. Holmes played, the only non-chinese scientist in the three groups of scientists coming up with the "identification of a new/novel coronavirus". It seems the Chinese wanted to handle thing against the guidelines of the WHO.
The WHO wrote in a draft paper I do not know the final version of (it was cited in a 2021 paper still as a draft: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003793), the following:
"The timeframe for data generation and release should not exceed 21 days from sample receipt, although even greater speed is highly desirable in the context of rapidly evolving outbreaks." (p. 2, lines 40-42). And:
"In each new outbreak or new transmission season GSD [genetic sequence data] should be made publicly available using a public access mechanism, including a brief description of the immediate implications for outbreak control and public health. The uploading of publicly accessible sequence data should occur before journal publication as indicated in WHO’s 2015 R&D Blueprint data sharing consultation, and subsequently confirmed in ICMJE policy." (p. 2, lines 58-62)
(WHO’s code of conduct for open and timely sharing of pathogen genetic sequence data during outbreaks of infectious disease (draft): https://web.archive.org/web/20200604193242/https://www.who.int/blueprint/what/norms-standards/GSDDraftCodeConduct_forpublicconsultation-v1.pdf)
"cautious treatment of the findings by the Chinese" meaning what?
It seems as they wanted to publish their findings in a peer reviewed journal before uploading the genetic sequence to a database without any procedural background. As it happened in January 2020, we had some statements of chinese authorities and the genetic sequence uploaded to virology.org on January 10, 2020. With these two datapoints, Corman, Drosten et al. postulated that this genetic sequence was the cause of the pneumonia of unknown etiology, without knowing the detailed proceedings behind the genetic sequence. If they had published the article to a journal first, Drosten would have read before publishing his PCR-test-paper that "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 study." (Wu et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3).
Maybe this would have sparked some discussions?
"With these two datapoints, Corman, Drosten et al. postulated that this genetic sequence was the cause of the pneumonia of unknown etiology, without knowing the detailed proceedings behind the genetic sequence."
Where did they do this?
"Phylogenetic analysis of the complete viral genome (29,903 nucleotides) revealed that the virus was most closely related (89.1% nucleotide similarity) to a group of SARS-like coronaviruses (genus Betacoronavirus, subgenus Sarbecovirus) that had previously been found in bats in China."
Since the first SARS outbreak hoax in 2002, they always fishing for such 'virus' sequences and they decided this time it was a bingo.
Agreed, and I appreciate the comment, but it doesn't address my question. :)
Technically, the Fan Wu sequence is an 'index sequence', being associated with the index patient ('patient zero').
That in subsequent publications it inappropriately becomes 'the reference sequence' is a consequence of a tacitly assumed nomenclature convention that plagues the pseudoscience of virology.
Tower of Babels.
What is the basis of Mr Wallach's claim?
"It was upon the conclusion of this paper that the PCR testing was designed, and the world was tested for this “novel virus.” It was upon this paper that synthetic “virus” sequences were built by laboratories to test the “virus” for its qualities and to study its “nature.”"
Not sure what you mean.
If you saying that the covid PCR scam actually wasn't based upon this paper, technically that's true - the covid hoax, including the 'novel' sequences, was devised at least two decades ago. The Fan Wu paper is just part of the fiction.
Not only Wallach but others have implied, if not directly stated, that the sequence extrapolated/constructed/whatever from the 41-YO man's specimen was used to for PCR test design -- in particular, the C-D protocol.
Also, it seems from the classification and naming paper (see pinned comment) that a bunch of sequences were looked at but the one Fan Wu sequence was considered by the ICTV-CSG as the most helpful/best.
Why?
I think the official narrative is that C-D looked at the Fan Wu publication, decided that it was indeed a 'novel' virus sequence (whatever that really means), then decided what a 'consensus' sequence would look like if they actually had access to purified samples of the so-called virus (which they didn't), and then, based upon all these farfetched assumptions, managed to devise primers for a PCR that detects when people are nervous.
The twisted logic of the story isn't unique to CovidHoax, it's emblematic of the entire 'emerging viruses' paradigm.
Exactly what rhyme or reason C-D deployed to come up with their 'consensus' sequence is prolly as hair-brained as the rest of The Science.
And then:
-
Notes from the Field: A Novel Coronavirus Genome Identified in a Cluster of Pneumonia Cases — Wuhan, China 2019−2020
https://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/a3907201-f64f-4154-a19e-4253b453d10c
Wenjie Tan, Xiang Zhao, Xuejun Ma, Wenling Wang, Peihua Niu, Wenbo Xu, George F. Gao, Guizhen Wu.
China CDC Weekly, 2020, 2(4): 61-62.
doi: 10.46234/ccdcw2020.017
" ... On January 3, 2020, the first complete genome of the novel β genus coronaviruses (2019-nCoVs) was identified in samples of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from a patient from Wuhan by scientists of the National Institute of Viral Disease Control and Prevention (IVDC) through a combination of Sanger sequencing, Illumina sequencing, and nanopore sequencing. Three distinct strains have been identified, the virus has been designated as 2019-nCoV, and the disease has been subsequently named novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia (NCIP). ..."
Online 21.01.2020
-
... an then - on the very next day:
Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
Victor M Corman, Olfert Landt, Marco Kaiser, Richard Molenkamp, Adam Meijer, Daniel KW Chu, Tobias Bleicker, Sebastian Brünink, Julia Schneider, Marie Luisa Schmidt , Daphne GJC Mulders, Bart L Haagmans, Bas van der Veer, Sharon van den Brink, Lisa Wijsman, Gabriel Goderski, Jean-Louis Romette, Joanna Ellis , Maria Zambon , Malik Peiris , Herman Goossens , Chantal Reusken , Marion PG Koopmans , Christian Drosten
22.01.2020
-
And an observation.
How Scientific Fraud took the World Hostage
https://www.drgoddek.com/p/how-scientific-fraud-took-the-world
"Drosten's test is the pest."
25.09.2022 - Dr. Simon
" ... My analysis showed that the actual window for the peer-review process was 3.5-27.5 hours, which I will elaborate on below. Everything goes back to a document of the WHO *), which was created (!!!) the day the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to Eurosurveillance. The meta-data shows that it was created on the 21st of January 2020 at 8:30 pm CET (Central European Time). ..."
-
*) Data as reported by: 20 January 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20200121215008/www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200121-sitrep-1-2019-ncov.pdf
-
And a mission ...
Mission summary: WHO Field Visit to Wuhan, China 20-21 January 2020
https://www.who.int/hongkongchina/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit-wuhan-china-jan-2020
22 January 2020 (!)
-
Chimera - (MI II )
Thank you.
Most of these are already in my timeline, except the field visit document https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/timeline-the-finding-and-naming-of
A sequence is just that - a sequence of events in order and over a set timeline. ‘LIFE’ is designed by hierarchy - which every other system or application is an imitation of. It’s easy for us mortals to forget our place in God’s kingdom. We take our cues from him. In science it’s called a Phylogeny Phylogenesis is the study of the evolutionary progress of all living organisms a.k.a LIFE, i.e., species, individuals, or genes. It’s commonly represented by the schema of a tree. Like a family tree. It’s hierarchal. A virus outbreak transmits in a sequential order, across the index of any given DNA species.
Think of it like you would a software update. Every individual in the herd who is infected by the virus, is assigned their own gene sequence number. The virus is its own unique RNA code (genome sequence), and it designates a reference number to each person it infects.
Another way to look at it:
RNA is dynamic.
Whereas DNA is static.
Therefore RNA transmits as a signal (constantly)
A virus is either a ssRNA or dsRNA (single strand or double strand) that’s either positive or negative charged +/-
For context, RNA is a virus but the collective group also includes Messenger RNA (mRNA), Ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and Transfer RNA (tRNA) plus other noncoding RNA molecules transcribed from the genome. All aspects of the complex biological systems that makes up an organism or life form. In the case of this coronavirus, its genome is its own sequence / or RNA code. As it happens, each PCR test that was initially performed, read the virus sequence and its individual assigned genetic reference imprinted to each subject/person. Like a library or content management system. In no way, am I condoning the way the PCR laboratory technique was used across the human population. I condemn it. It did however produce the timeline, yet ironically, nobody seems to understand its relevance. To begin to understand this Ms Hockett, you’ll have to abandon everything you’ve previously thought about viruses. With all due respect I’m not sure if that’s you or anyone else is willing to do. The ‘science’ that human beings engage in, under the name of ‘vaccines’ is the most evil lie that’s ever been practiced in God’s kingdom. Understanding the basis of the genetic code is just the beginning to understanding the level of corruption behind the ‘Government health’ agenda. It’s your prerogative whether or not you delete this comment.
Let me add. some info which might be of interest.
-
Deus Ex Machina and the Invention of “SARS-CoV-2”
https://drsambailey.com/deus-ex-machina-and-the-invention-of-sars-cov-2/
Feb. 6, 2022 - Dr. Sam Bailey
-
"A German mathematician working with Dr Stefan Lanka has just published a report titled, “Structural analysis of sequence data in virology – An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example.” It provides even more evidence that the virologists are caught up in a world of computer simulations – simulations that are unreliable even on their own terms, not to mention being disconnected from reality. The analysis is an important contribution exposing another element of the anti-science being used to sustain this fake pandemic. Further, it is a technical dismantling of how all “viruses” are being invented and then “found,” in an ongoing game of deception.
The paper is very technical and requires some understanding of how the virologists create a “genome,” starting with a crude sample from an alleged infected “COVID-19” patient. To make it easier, I’ve produced a summary of the main findings as outlined below:
- None of the genetic sequences used in producing the “SARS-CoV-2” genomes were shown to come from inside any viruses. It is unclear where the genetic fragments originated from.
- The original de novo “SARS-CoV-2” computer-constructed sequence published by Fan Wu, et al *) could not be reproduced by the methodology described in their paper, raising questions about how they produced it and announced the new “virus” to the world.
- The PCR protocols are calibrated to sequences of unconfirmed origin that are clearly found in many humans and apparently other things as well. The PCR process was not shown to detect a “virus,” let alone diagnose an invented illness called “COVID-19”.
- The virologists are fooling themselves by running amplifications at 35 to 45 cycles, as it can result in “detecting” sequences that are not even present in the sample. In effect, the methodology can result in “detecting” whatever sequences they are hoping to find.
- Fan Wu, et al could have found better matches for “HIV” and “Hepatitis D virus” than “a new coronavirus” in their 41-year-old man from Wuhan, who presented with pneumonia as one of the first claimed “COVID-19” cases. If they want to find a “virus”, it all depends on what they ask the computer to look for. ..."
-
The mentioned paper
Structural analysis of sequence data in virology
An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example
02.01.2022
... and
Tables and Figures ( 2. Dokument )
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc
-
*) Fan Wu, et al
A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7094943/
Wu F, Zhao S, Yu B, Chen YM, Wang W, Song ZG, Hu Y, Tao ZW, Tian JH, Pei YY, Yuan ML, Zhang YL, Dai FH, Liu Y, Wang QM, Zheng JJ, Xu L, Holmes EC, Zhang YZ.
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):265-269.
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3
Epub 2020 Feb 3
—-
Virus - de novo.
They're answering a different question than I am asking. See my last reply to Pete Ross
Here is an answer for you according to GROK: "The WHO's January 13, 2020, interim guidance for laboratory testing relied on this sequence to develop RT-PCR protocols, as it was one of the earliest and most complete (one of the first near-full-length genomic sequences of SARS-CoV-2, covering approximately 29,903 nucleotides) sequences available, shared via public databases like GISAID."
Apparently its "completeness" was verified through bioinformatics analysis, aligning closely with related coronaviruses, enabling the WHO to design accurate RT-PCR primers for the January 13, 2020, protocol, but is essentially an inference made from the sequence's characteristics and its role in early SARS-CoV-2 research.
If you know anything about logical fallacy this is circular reasoning.
How do they know it is near complete if it is the first time they have constructed it? Wouldn't they have needed to have the complete sequence first to then know it is near complete?
"We declare the sequence is the most complete, because we know how many nucleotides this corona virus should have, as this is the first time we have sequenced it."
Right.
Yes, we've addressed the circularity issues w/serology testing - which are basically the same with the PCR testing and sequencing issues https://sanityunleashed.substack.com/p/novelty-and-immunity-why-were-we
See also Ben Marten's post: https://www.usmortality.com/p/are-viral-genomics-evidence-of-spread
GROK still isn't answering my question
My answer: because it was all pre-planned and fabricated. All of it, from the sequence, the testing, the media fear campaigns, the worldwide government responses and mandates, the death curves, to the hospital treatment protocols and injections, and so much more.
All of this was, designed, modeled and executed as planned (decades in the making). They just needed one sequence/ one study to kick off their plan, so that the majority would accept their lies.
What came first, the sequence or the study? My bet is on the sequence.
Was the study even totally real? Possibly not.
Does this answer your question?
You're answering a motive question, whereas I am posing a far more literal question about the sequence(s), from whom they were taken, and how they were used.
There is more than one study
Jessica, this is in relation to your No Virus stack.
Why not reach out to Yeadon, West, Kaufman, Cowan, Zeck and the Bailey’s and line up an online discussion where they can explain their arguments and answer your questions; including the one from this stack. So many people will benefit from an open discussion.
They are free to respond here.
"can explain why it is often said a sequence from the above study was the single reference for anything."
surely one could suggest it was to unleash what they wanted to unleash; all part of the plan; to bamboozle all; and provide a seeming legitimisation of all that was planned to unfold? I used to hear the phrase "Baffle with Bull*hit" and from what you publish, this is it par excellence; it seems that Sam Bailey talked of this 3yrs ago and cited this mathematical article; she and her husband Mark are often fiercely condemned; ("the flak is heaviest when you are over the target .."); their various videos make convincing watching; vilifed but on target;
" I am left with some things I still don’t understand but want to understand."
does the first line encapsulate what you say you do not understand?
No. Please read all comments. Thanks.
Hi Jessica,
The simplest summary i made was back in Jan 2022, which can be found further below & at these links:
Telegram: https://t.me/JavRoJav/137
X:https://mobile.twitter.com/JavRoJav/status/1634578319730515968
FBook: https://www.facebook.com/61109134/posts/10103420595007592
Cheers.
Jav
----------
The first SARS-COV-2 discovery paper by Fan Wu/Zhang (et al.):
"Total RNA was extracted from the BALF (lung fluid)..."
▫️[The potential viral DNA was removed, even though viruses are said to contain DNA or RNA. And RNA was extracted from lung fluid, not an alleged virus particle]
"Paired-end (150-bp reads) sequencing of the RNA library was performed..."
▫️[How did they determine >150bp won't be part of the alleged virus?]
"Sequencing reads were first adaptor and quality trimmed.."
▫️[Further discarding of potential virus material]
"The remaining 56,565,928 reads were assembled de novo...total of 384,096 (Megahit) assembled contigs & 1,329,960 (Trinity) contigs..."
▫️[So ~1.7 million sequence genomes (contigs) were created out of 56 million RNA reads]
"Non-human reads (23,712,657 reads), generated by filtering host reads using the human genome..."
▫️[Human reads were filtered after contig assembly]
"longest contigs generated by Megahit (30,474 nt).. was used for primer design..."
▫️[We have a winner! - The longest contig out of ~1.7 million was chosen as the basis of the virus sequence.
Trinity didn't generate it, therefore refutes Megahit.
It potentially could also contain some of the 33 million human RNA reads]
▪️At no point was an alleged virus particle obtained (via ultrafiltration & high density (multi-sucrose) centrifugation).
▪️At no point was a whole intact sequence pulled out from inside an alleged virus particle (via gel electrophoresis).
▪️No control experiments were conducted. No control = no proof.
(Undeclared control: Trinity refuted Megahit)
▪️56 million pieces of RNA (think "Lego") made ~1.7 million random shapes.
▪️The biggest shape was chosen, and made out to be a real intact thing found in nature.
▪️And they gave that shape a name: The "SARS-COV-2" genome.
Thanks, but I think this is answering a different question than the one I am asking.
I want to know why the sequence from the Fan Wu paper is said to be a singular sequence that guided the development of the protocol the WHO shared on 13 Jan 2020.