Coronavirus Genetics:They Added The Radioactive Marks Then Treated Them As The Virus
The coronavirus genetic story that eventually became part of the machinery used for pandemic determinations had to begin somewhere.
- Before reference genomes.
- Before PCR targets.
- Before variants.
- Before genomic surveillance.
- Before software could compare a new sequence against thousands of sequences already classified as “coronavirus.”
There had to be a first body of accepted coronavirus genetic information.
Trace that information backward, and its observational foundation is startlingly modest.
Researchers were not directly observing the physical entity the resulting sequence purported to represent and reading genetic letters from it.
They were looking at marks produced by radioactive material deliberately added to their sequencing experiments.
From those marks, scientists accepted a chain of invisible (literally not directly observed) molecular events sufficiently large to conclude that they “knew” specific nucleotide identities, at specific positions, along genetic sequences of specific lengths, attributed to coronavirus.
- Those conclusions became sequences.
- Those sequences became prior information.
- Prior information could then enter subsequent experiments.
- And the resulting sequences could become still more prior information.
That is where the government-curated closed loop begins.
And this problem is not unique to coronavirus: every purported viral sequence space is ultimately a closed loop built on inference, because its foundational sequences enter through interpretations of experimental signals rather than direct observation of an intact physical virus and its genetic sequence, while later sequences are built, classified, or interpreted using genetic information whose ancestry leads back to those earlier inferences.
Which raises questions:
- How much are we being asked to believe about the purported genetic reality of viruses that was never directly observed, but inferred from experimental signals?
- How were those foundational inferences independently validated without assuming the same molecular story used to interpret the signals?
- When did inferred nucleotide identities and positions become treated simply as “the viral sequence”?
- If those inferred sequences became references and prior information for later sequencing, how much subsequent “confirmation” is genuinely independent?
- Can a self-referential sequence system validate the physical reality it claims its sequences represent from within that same system?
- Where is the independent physical anchor outside the sequence universe that breaks the loop?
- What would actually falsify the foundational viral sequence interpretation rather than simply produce another sequence, variant, mutation, or classification within the same framework?
- How did an inference-dependent genetic system ultimately acquire the authority to help determine cases, variants, outbreaks, and pandemics in the physical world?
The Primary Source Says Exactly What They Actually Read
Go back to Allan Maxam and Walter Gilbert’s foundational 1977 sequencing paper.
They wrote:
“DNA can be sequenced by a chemical procedure that breaks a terminally labeled DNA molecule partially at each repetition of a base.”
Then:
“The lengths of the labeled fragments then identify the positions of that base.”
And finally:
“the DNA sequence can be read from the pattern of radioactive bands.”
That is their description, not mine.
Read it again in physical terms.
- The material is “terminally labeled.”
- The resulting fragments are “labeled fragments.”
- Their lengths supposedly “identify the positions” of bases.
And what researchers ultimately see is a:
“pattern of radioactive bands.”
The sequence is what they claim can be “read from” those bands.
That distinction is enormous.
Because the radioactive material responsible for making the products detectable was not something scientists saw announcing the presence of a genetic sequence.
Researchers supplied the radioactive label.
The thing producing the detectable signal was therefore already in the experiment because they had put it there.
read the rest at modernity.news
Kirk Pappin
| #
This site has plenty of interesting content, but the denial of the existence of viruses is ludicrous and it taints everything else with suspicion.
Reply
Seriously
| #
…see below…
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
It is highly suspicious that every case of a virus being discovered has been done so almost entirely by using assumptions and indirect methods that ASSUME that a virus is present. None have ever been isolated in pure form, sequenced, or shown to cause disease. Experimentts to show communication to healthy people have failed repeatedly. Sequencing that is done ALWAYS includes loads of cellular and DNA garbage (even just human snot) from tissue cultures. Vaccines are also based on this garbage, which is human garbage—what can go wrong is injecting people with human cellular garbage and breakdown products?
What is even more suspicious is that none of these intelligent investigators have ever considered or explored that there might be an environmental toxin, an internal toxin, a vitamin deficiency, or a combination of such factors causing the disease.
The cold and flu season has been called the “vitamin D deficiency” season as it mainly occurs during seasons of low sun exposure, when we make little vitamin D. And the communication of the disease simply ignores that a group of people may have the same incipient deficiency and the most sensitive or deficient individual is the first to be ill and the others follow, suggesting infectiveness.
The historical record of polio has been shown to follow the use of lead arsenate and then DDT in agriculture, has a clear seasonal pattern, declined when these chemical were banned, and increased in recent decades with permission to use DDT and derivatives in limited applications. The introduction of polio vaccines was credited with the decline in polio despite the fact that most of the decline was BEFORE the vaccines.
Hantavirus is another seasonal illness, found to be seasonal during insect control in military sites and frontlines during the Korean War. The illness was wrongly assigned to a new virus based on the assumption of a virus and ignoring the possibility of toxic effects of chemicals we introduced into the environment.
The rabies vaccine is another example, as there are a number of chemicals out there that can cause rabies symptoms. It took India almost a hundred years to realize that the multi-shot rabies vaccine was killing people. Furthermore, the single-shot rabies vaccines cannot be a viable alternative as none of these vaccines—none—are based on a real virus.
We have been brainwashed with the virus concept and it is hard to be objective enough to understand that it is a scientific fraud, really bad science, and has become a fear-based $billion per year pharmaceutical scam.
So, skip Virology (as it is worthless) and look up Terrain Theory, which indicates that healthy, well-nourished tissue is not disease-prone. My daily vitamins and mineral supplements have delightfully allowed me to not have a cold or flu in 6.5 years—I used to have them once or twice a year.
Reply