How do we know SARS COV 2 encodes an s spike protein?
You have missed the machines they have developed in the last decades: Machines to detect the sequences stored in RNA and DNA so they can be stored in databases, and machines that use these sequences to create the encoded proteins. They use spike proteins created out of the sequences stored in databases for many experiments because it is easier to quantify the self-made proteins than to quantify virus isolates.
I understand.
The problem is nobody has isolated the SARS COV 2 genome. We have a single example, that is hypothetical.
We also have guesswork between codons at the beginning and end of the sequenced sample from the vaccine.
It seems the entire SARS COV 2 genome is made of guesswork, as no one has isolated an actual sample. These machines need a sample, so we have to ask where the original isolate came from. At this stage, it is looking like the sequences itself, is fiction.
So when the guesswork at the end of the sequence in the vaccine matches up with other guesswork... it's suspicious.
Now, I'm not saying we can't. I'm saying "scientists" simply haven't. Scientists simply haven't isolated SARS COV 2. So, the fact that it even produces an S spike protein is theoretical. Now, all human affecting coronaviruses have an S spike set, so it's a good guess... it just hasn't been verified.
Like in Jurassic Park, with the frog DNA, "scientists" are taking creative license to fill in blanks.
I'm sure they've made some good guesses, but it doesn't solve the main problem that the original sample remains unverified and no other genomic sequences have been forthcoming.
But it's great that it matches the theory, perfectly. Now, let's isolate SARS COV 2, since we have millions of purported cases to confirm.
From there, we can compare the match.
From there, we can ascertain how much guesswork there is.
It is true that they have to compare a new RNA sequence with old ones to determine if they have found what they are looking for. For example, they compared the SARS 2.0 sequences with version 1.0 and MERS. Then they must look at the differences to find out if they make sense. Or if they have just found some random garbage. They do it by looking at the proteins coded by the differences. This can be done by computer models, but they can also actually produce the proteins to test their function with cell cultures.
Now, let's isolate SARS COV 2, since we have millions of purported cases to confirm.
This was done some 100,000 times. Maybe you don't trust western scientists, but Indian scientists have done that too. And Pakistani, because they don't trust the Indians. And scientists from 100 other countries. The results are collected in an open access database:
https://www.gisaid.org/hcov19-variants/
Of course, you will not trust their sponsors (neither do I), but the good thing about science is that they all watch each other with suspicion.
If you look at BLAST at the genomes, there is only the single reference genome.
Other sequences are saying they are sequenced, but only verifying as little as 30 base pairs. For this reason, those 275k sequenced samples are actually only select segments.
In fact, PANGOLIN has even restructured the How To on phylogenetic standards which is why there are so many variants.
Imagine if they faked a genome so that these segments would show false positives as much as possible... intentionally. A digitally generated chimera with just enough congruencies to catch as many of the stop and start sequences as possible.
SARS COV tests were being used until April 2020, as SARS COV 2 tests had not even been invented. Already, tremendous creative license was being taken.
To date, no one has done a gapless sequencing of any notable length of SARS COV 2. That's really what I'm looking for. Not the whole thing, but enough to be convincing.
What is happening now is they are subtracting out sequences for everything they don't want to find before they've even started, so that they only find what they want.
(post is archived)