The FASTA file at github.com contains the sequence, this is the common file format to transport this information:
RNA sequencing is done since the 70s and there are tons of machines commercial available to do that. This is routine work for lab personnel and students, nothing fancy.
They can compare it with the "reference sequence" to find out if there is more information encoded than just the spike protein:
https://www.gisaid.org/epiflu-applications/hcov-19-reference-sequence/
I don't expect that somebody will find some unexpected RNA in the mRNA vaccines. This is just a mass test run for the technology. They don't want to kill the people, they want to use them as lab rats.
That is a hypothetical sequence, hosted on github.
this hypothetical sequence shows a perfect match to the corresponding sequence from documents available online derived from manufacturer communications with the World Health Organization
(((A Perfect Match)))
Also, the genome of SARS COV 2 is also currently hypothetical. Imagine that. Two hypotheticals perfectly lining up.
If they are using de novo it means they do not have the original genome. I suppose it makes sense if you are doing it out of a vaccine, but troubling we have yet to see a legitimately sequenced genome in which to compare an S spike coding sequence to.
How do we know SARS COV 2 encodes an s spike protein? A guess based on other coronavirus strains. Which sequence supposedly does this? And does it match what's in the vaccines?
Well, tough to say when you use the sars sequence to fill in the blanks of the vaccine rna sequence. It's like Jurassic Park.
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.
(post is archived)