Delta gets identified by sequencing after isolation. Isolation is done routinely by machines for decades. Some say that the virus was never isolated because the process is fraudulent ("tainted", "not pure"). Some say that the machines only malfunction with SARS-2, but most admit that then every other virus must be fraud too - they then promote the terrain theory. So if you are in the viruses-are-real camp, Delta gets identified by its RNA sequence.
There is another test for delta, quick and dirty until the more expensive tests are done: One of the antibody tests uses two antibody types that bind to Alpha. If one type binds, but the other fails, it's most likely Delta.
Thanks for the info. It sounds like you have some knowledge in this area.
What do you think about the narrative that the sequence that identifies COVID is a fraud because the sequence was never isolated but pieced together from viruses which ought to be similar? I think the Saulk Inst claimed they had isolated the entire sequence but I've not read the technicals to see if they also stitched.
Your commend about "most others"....is that stitching/sampling common practice when identifying viruses? Even other than COVID?
Thx
This is the first official sequence (besides the ones sent by Wuhan to the CDC, where they disappeared, maybe because they could reveal the origin of the virus):
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.8.2000097
The "supplementary data" linked there (20-00097_OKADA_SupplementS1.pdf) shows how it was done, the normal standard procedure, done more or less automatically by commercial available machines.
The resulting RNA/DNA sequences from all over the world are stored in open access databases, so that scientists can use the sequences to trace variants and for in-silico research. GISAID is one of the more prominent ones (with 3.4 million sequences in the SARS-2 database):
Thank you. I've added a link to this thread to the TODO for more reseach on this topic.
Perhaps you can clarify where I'm wrong, but what you linked is not a very convincing argument that any sar-cov-2 has been isolated and proven to cause illness.
The study is two separate cases of people suspected of having Sars-cov-2. And the claim is that both were found to have genetically identical cov viruses that correspond to sar-cov-2 in them. Quoting what they did with patient 2:
"A conventional nested RT-PCR test of this patient was positive for the CoV family 9. Subsequent genome sequencing was again compatible with the SARS-CoV-2 and shared via the GISAID EpiCoV database (EPI_ISL_403963). A nasopharyngeal swab also tested positive by RT-PCR for adenovirus."
Does this mean they took her sample, ran it through a PCR to amplify the material, and then tested to see if there was anything significantly similar to known CoV viruses? They found Cov virus and also found adenovirus? And then they tested to see if the sample was "compatible" with the Sars-cov-2 genome that they claim to know.
Couldn't you easily find CoV viruses in a healthy person's sample if you ran it through PCR? Aren't viruses everywhere? Aren't people covered in them? Aren't CoV viruses extremely common? Wouldn't we expect everyone to have them, especially after PCR?
Then the "known" sars-cov-2 is shown to also be "compatible" with the samples. But were they working with the isolated cov virus?
If sar-cov-2's "known" code is made of sequences that are found in a normal human sample, and you are not testing the isolated virus and are instead testing a not-isolated sample, you could find all the components of sar-cov-2's "known" sample even though there is no actual occurrence of all of the sequences inside a virus. This seems to be the trouble to people like myself - they're never actually isolating out the virus, they're always just genetic sequencing contaminated samples and cherrypicking what they want.
I'm no expert, but to me it appears that the scientists in this field are playing genetic games on their "illumina" computer (which the study used), but they aren't ever actually replicating the virus in host cells or proving that any specific virus is causing illness. Has PCR testing made scientists lazy? When you've seen the utter lies and trickery that climate scientist have gotten away with with their computer models, you'll forgive some skepticism for in-silico research.
(post is archived)