Sequencing of the Covid virus – never been done!
It is generally accepted now that the virus SARS-COV-2 has not been isolated. But unfortunately, virologists and medical experts still believe in it and make false claims.
Their view on virus existence and/or isolation is described as follows (from the Reuters Fact Check team – link):
“There are numerous examples of scientists isolating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID -19, and sequencing its genome.
The argument about purification relates to 19th Century microbiological theory that does not apply to viruses.
The novel coronavirus has been proven to exist and has caused millions of deaths worldwide.”
If one reads the sentence carefully, “The argument about purification relates to 19th Century microbiological theory that does not apply to viruses,” it means they do not believe in standard (old fashion) purification of things and do not have the (purified) virus.
That is, there is no isolated virus available. Therefore, the non-existence of the virus has been accepted indirectly.
On the other hand, experts claim that the virus’s existence (“novel coronavirus has been proven to exist”) is based on the sequencing of virus RNA.
What is sequencing?
“The genome (i.e., RNA) sequence of a virus is the sequence or order of bases or letters (representing nucleotides) that makes up a virus’s genetic material or its genome.
If you were to write down the genome sequence of a particular coronavirus, it would be a series of about 30,000 letters.” (link).
RNAs, DNAs, genes, genomes, etc., are represented by four chemical compounds (nucleotides, or bases); adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (or uracil). They are abbreviated by four alphabet letters ACGT (or ACGU).
Sequencing means learning or determining (experimentally) the exact sequence (order) of the building blocks (the letters) that make up all RNA molecules. It means one has to have an RNA, and its sequence is determined by chopping (the nucleotides) piece by piece.
However, as described above, the virus is not available, and its RNA cannot be available either.
Therefore, sequencing is not possible.
Hence, sequencing of the virus or its RNA has never been done.
Saying it otherwise is incorrect and deceptive.
What is being done is assembling/building short nucleic acid chains (opposite of sequencing) based on a pre-conceived template (called primers).
The obtained short chains are then extended to longer chains using computer software and modeling, naming them as RNAs of the viruses or their variants.
The technical name of this process is PCR or Polymerase Chain Reaction.
It is like, one is given some beads of four colors and asked to build imaginary necklaces.
Then, the experts assemble necklaces, name them viruses or variants, and call this assembly step (incorrectly) sequencing!
Therefore, claims of RNA sequencing are scientifically inaccurate, and actual sequencing has never been done.
See more here bioanalyticx.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
This is an interesting trail I followed this morning. It began at (https://principia-scientific.com/swedish-government-threw-out-the-mad-greenies/) And one of the 3 links was (https://principia-scientific.com/is-the-ozone-hole-shrinking-at-last/) Whose author was John Ray. And as I searched for who John Ray might be I got to this
(https://www.benaroyaresearch.org/what-is-bri/scientists-laboratories/principal-scientist-labs/ray-laboratory). Where I read: “A uniques experience is the following which I discovered less than a month ago.(https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/salem/97301/weather-radar/330144). If you click the minus button to see a larger area of the Earth’s surface and move the image up so you are looking at the lower west coast of Mexico you will (if you do this soon after I send the) see a remanent if a hurricane, that had set off the coast for several days. …”. Which I had recently commented here at PSI.
If you go to Ray Laboratory and explore a bit, you will find that he is most interested in what is your thing. So I consider you might want to establish contact with him; just I hope to be able to do because of his previous interest in the ozone hole (atmospheric science). You both have “communication’ skills which I do not and I need help with my thing.
Please comment. Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
I have recently read the implication that “biology” a life sscience is little different than of chemistry, a physical science. Given nuclear physics I am not sure how to classify physics except that it is also a physical science where each isotope of an element is the same but clearly has properties different from other isotopes of the same element.
However, we know (observe) that every human has finger prints which are different from any other human’s. And now we know that each person has DNA molecules which are different from those of another human. And there is an abundance of evidence that these different DNA molecules give each human different uniques .abilities (skills, properties).
Hence, it can not be denied that the life sciences are far more difficult to explain (understand) that then the physical sciences (even meteorology or atmospheric sciences).
Right now I am listening to rain on our roof which was predicted hours ago from radar.
observationsof clouds which seemed to be moving along a predictable path toward us at a predicable rate.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry: Thanks for reading my article and commenting on it. You are seeking my response to your comments as well. I am happy to provide you with the following.
Stating, “the life sciences are far more difficult to explain (understand) that then the physical science” I am assuming that what you are saying here is that life science is different from physical science and it should/may have its own principles and theories which are different from physical science ones. I am sorry to say, unfortunately, you here seem to be influenced by the false science (“life science”) and falling into their trap.
To me life science is different, but as different as science of oil and petroleum, as an example. They do use different approaches to work in their areas, but still follow fundamental principles of science or laws of nature. On the other hand life science does not fall in this category, it is simply based on ignorance and false (self created) science.
For this discussion, I will restrict to medicines and virology areas.
For example, let’s look at the measuring aspect, when you buy a box of cereal with a label that contains 1 kilograms of cereal. However, when you take out the content and weigh it comes out 786 gm (I just made up the number for explanation). So, obviously, you are going to complain about what it is. It is a false reported weight on the box. In normal situations it will be considered as lying and fraud. However, in modern days, in medicine and life science, it would be called “ science of cerealogy. Every brand of cereal comes with its own scale, which will show a reading of exactly 1kg. So, now if you complain in response, you will hear that you have no knowledge of the science (“cerealogy”). One has to go to the university of cerealogy to learn how weights are determined and how weighing scales are developed. So, you see here it is not even physical science which is invalidated but even simple principle is violated.
You might be saying c’mon Saeed who does that, this is an absurd example. Unfortunately it is not, it is a real life example from FDA guidelines which the whole world follows. It is called product specific guidelines (https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidances-drugs/product-specific-guidances-generic-drug-development), every product comes with its own scale for declaring the quality of the product. So, if one has to evaluate the quality of a product, one must use the company suggested test and tester to test the product. Hence, everything becomes 100% of quality. This is the basis of science of pharmaceutics or pharmaceuticals. So, FDA or other authorities say we follow the science they give the impression that they follow the standard science, how’re in reality, they do not follow science but false science or rituals.
Coming to the current situation of virology. Same thing is happening. That there is a virus. When asked where the virus is, i.e., shows us the virus. They will provide the gunk (virus isolate). If you say this is gunk, the response is that you are stuck in 19th century science. 21st century science declares gunk as a science base. You will note I am not even mentioning physical science in its technical aspects, it is simple, logical and norm. So, they are following gunk science and promoting it as science or life science. It is all false or gunk.
It is the same with sequencing. As I wrote in my article sequencing means breaking down or chopping, however life science called assembling as sequencing. However, in reality, Sequence of THE VIRUS Ahas never been done.
So, in short, the current so-called life science is not science, it is simply a collection of a huge number of made up rituals and giving the real science a very bad name. People are losing trust in actual and true science, which is THE tragedy.
Based on above discussion, from the science perspective, there is no virus, no test for it or illness and by extension there cannot be any vaccine. In short there is no science.
Sorry for the long post, but I hope it will help you and others avoid falling into the trap of this fake science pandemic.
Best.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
Thank you very much for your long comment (response). For I accomplished exactly what I was trying to accomplish. For you wrote: “For this discussion, I will restrict to medicines and virology areas.” I have reread what I wrote and could not find the word “discussion”. To further this discussion I ask you and any other readers to read the following two essays and than continue our discussion.
https://principia-scientific.com/the-problem-argumentation/
https://principia-scientific.com/the-solution-discussion/
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
Thanks again for your response.
I enjoyed very much reading your response and the links you provided. Great stuff! They had the freedom to think and discuss.
Now you like to have some discussion on the topic. That is where I have difficulty, i.e., what to discuss and how to discuss it. However, we seem to agree on the topic; we could elaborate.
However, the current situation is it appears that you like to discuss “modern science” as related to environment/climate and medicines/virology/biology.
I do not have much experience in environmental/climate “science” and do not want to indulge in it as I have a mindset. If the experts cannot accurately predict the weather for tomorrow (I live in Ottawa, Canada), how could they predict the climate of the next 50 to 100 years? So, I am hesitant to read their textbooks and “research” publications.
On the other hand, concerning so-called modern medical science, I have a greater handle on it and can say with good confidence that, if not all, it is 80%+ false or fraudulent. Indeed, I can discuss that, but in modern days it is not possible. One likes to have discussions with those who claim to have experience and expertise in “modern medicine” to move forward in addressing the issues and finding solutions. But one cannot because modern medical science comes with censorship and bullying, i.e., no discussion is allowed. That clearly indicates that they are not following science, and we cannot have a useful discussion.
In this respect, I admire PSI (and John O’Sullivan for introducing me to PSI) for providing a platform for keeping the science and contrarian or logical views alive, which I am sure will be in demand once the current/” modern” nonsense subside. You, and others, are part of this team.
Truth and reality have to prevail, and it is coming soon – many temples of modern-day science (in particular, many university faculties) will mirror the current images of temples and tombs of old Egypt.
Best.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
I see I missed your comment of yesterday and only discovered it as came here to chide you for not responding to my last comment. As I read your comment, I too struggle to identify what common ground we might have to discuss.
So I will discuss one of your previous statements. “I am assuming that what you are saying here is that life science is different from physical science [true]and it should/may have its own principles and theories which are different from physical science ones. [never wrote this]” What I still consider I wrote is my comment was an explanation how, or why, life sciences are more difficult to understand, or explain, simply because of what I will term: the “human (life) factor” because in ‘higher” forms of life there are male and female, and in general I believe (not being a life scientist) I can state that no males are identical having the same properties and abilities just as the properties and abilities of females are different from males and other females.
Hence, can you agree that one should not assume until we discuss that which you want to “assume”.about what I wrote? Which is why so frequently “quote” that which others have stated or written. Which I why I wrote so many essays, that John O’Sullivan has embellished and posted as he edited my submissions and posted my submissions, that anybody, with access to the internet, can read. And yes, on a few occasions I have made comment of that he had edited.
I have the same reason that Galileo had when he wrote his books about that which he had observed and reasoned. And I did clearly disagree with him about the role of “Argumentation” in “HIS SCIENCE” as he illustrated the essential IMPORTANCE of simple observation, experimentation, and measurement in this thing which became SCIENCE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
Thanks again. It takes time to understand what you are trying to say. It may not be your writing style but my mindset and slowness in deciphering your thoughts through the writing. With this understanding, let me explain your view, focusing on “… how, or why, life sciences are more difficult to understand, or explain…”
I’m afraid I have to disagree with this thought. It means I correctly understood your thought in the previous post when I responded with, “you here seem to be influenced by the false science (“life science”) and falling into their trap.”
I am getting more and more convinced with my view that the representation of “science” with prefixes such as political science, computer science, biological science, life science, etc., are not science subjects but users of scientific principles.
I believe chemistry and physics (with mathematics) remain the actual science subjects because one can express and validate observations/processes with physical experimentations. Others, including biology, cannot. Other subjects are primarily observational. I do not mean to downplay the importance of these subjects. They are very or extremely valuable but are not science. One needs to keep them separate.
Consider the recent pandemic, such as virus declaration (observation from photographs), tests (observation of results/color by mixing ingredients), and vaccine development (observation of test results, “cases”). These are all observations, i.e., nothing isolatable, purifiable, quantifiable, or repeatable. However, unfortunately, sold under the disguise of life science or health science (“science”). But, none of them are scientific at all. If these observations are to be converted to science, then they must follow the principle of chemistry and physics, which they have not.
On the other hand, when you say “the “human (life) factor.” I can see the difficulty in understanding or explaining this aspect. However, I see it differently. The difficulty is not because “life science” is different or difficult, it is because science or its principles have not been applied correctly. For example, how could one claim that a virus and sequencing its RNA when no one has ever isolated the virus? It is just their observation/belief, not science.
Science has never been applied or used, at least correctly. So, we need to bring these issues up front instead of allowing the development of new and fancy terminologies. Have you noticed the new term vaccinology? What is that? In scientific terms, there is nothing new but a mixture/cocktail of different chemicals (see chemistry here again). I’ll leave you here, till next time.
Best!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I hope more than Saeed is reading what I have been, and am writing. And I hope more than I am reading what he has been writing. Both to me and to you, a reader, in general.
Arthur Conan Doyle had the character, Sherlock Homes, state: “Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.” I understand that by recognizing Saeed’s genius I am elevating myself to his high level. But because of my scientific experiences I KNOW the time and effort he has invested in his learning, that which he shares with us.
And we are having a discussion, not an argument, as he writes: “I’m afraid I have to disagree with this thought. It means I correctly understood your thought in the previous post when I responded with, “you here seem to be influenced by the false science (“life science”) and falling into their trap.””
To which I respond with some one else’s comment. Which I doubt, but don’t know, that Saeed has ever read. “A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the thing is false, the
apprehension of them is not understanding.” (Presumably the author was Newton)
Saeed: “I believe chemistry and physics (with mathematics) remain the actual science subjects because one can express and validate observations/processes with physical experimentations.”
“Surely You’re Joking, Mr Feynman!” is a book authored by Richard Feynman, a physicist, because he liked to tell stories about his personal experiences and one of his friends considered these stories would make a good book.
The title of one of these stories was “The 7 Percent Solution” about which I will quote a few brief paragraphs.
“I jump up from the stool and say, “Then I understand EVVVVVERYTHING!”.
“They thought I was joking. But the thing I had trouble with at the Rochester meeting—the neutron and proton disintegrating: everything fit but that, and if it was V and A instead of S and T, that would fit too. Therefore I had the whole theory!
“That night I calculated all kinds of things with this theory. The first thing I calculated was the rate of disintegration of muon and the neutron. They should be connected together, if this theory was right, by a certain relationship , and it was right to 9 percent. That’s pretty close, 9 percent. It should have been more perfect than that, but it was close enough.
“I went on and checked some other things, which fit, and new things fit, and I was very excited. I was the first time, and the only time, in my career that I knew a law of nature that nobody else knew. (Of course it wasn’t true, but finding out later that at least Murray Gell-Mann—and also Sudarshan and Marshak—had worked out the same theory didn’t spoil my fun.)”
Saeed, you began your article: “It is generally accepted now that the virus SARS-COV-2 has not been isolated.” Which FACT you have been expounding in article after article here at PSI. What you are experiencing seems like what Galileo generally experienced during his entire career. For during his time Galileo was a nobody, just as you and I am nobodies. But we both know what we have done during are careers to this point.
And we are having a discussion, not an argument. Which was Galileo’s mistake which has created confusion in our present time.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
We humans would not exist if there was not LIFE. A physical world, which we observe, does exist (sun, stars, planets, moons, gases, liquids, solids, heat (energy), storms, rain, snow, hail, etc. etc). But if there was not LIFE we would not exist and I would not be typing this for you to read and there would be nothing more on this planet (Earth) then there are on the the other planets of our solar system which humans have observed in various ways.
And we would not exist if higher life animals did not exist as male and female. About this there can be no debate. For if this were not TRUE; life and we would not exist. But there is a BOOK which describes how this physical, life world and this life world was CREATED by The Creator God. About this there can be NO DEBATE (ARGUMENT) but there can be DISCUSSION about that which we humans do not yet KNOW.
Have a good day, Jerry.
H
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
Great stuff and examples.
Sorry, I have not read Dr. Richard Feynman’s work. However, after your introduction, I searched through Google for his work and found the book you mentioned (Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!). I could only scan it in this short time to get a feel of it.
Along with Feynman, you mentioned Newton and Galileo. There are many scientists and heroes of their caliber. However, I believe most of the actual science came from the sixties and earlier eras. After that, it is mostly imitation and cheating.
Medical and pharmaceutical sciences are perhaps the most visible example of fake science. The pandemic has exposed this fakeness big time, unfortunately, at the colossal human and financial suffering and cost.
Therefore, I mostly ignore their advice/claims as “scientists” because they will mostly be fake or deceitful.
In your last post (comment), you elaborate on your view on the life science aspect. Sorry, your interpretation of life science is different than what is generally considered in medical/pharmaceutical science. Medical/pharmaceutical science considers life science as physical science, which I discuss. However, what you describe is metaphysical, which obviously cannot be handled by physical science, or at least with the current knowledge.
The medical/pharmaceutical science version (virus, DNA/RNA, genome, vaccines, PCR, isolation, etc.) is chemistry based on its false and twisted understanding. This is what I often describe and discuss, which needs to be corrected.
I hope this will help.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed and other readers,
As I went through my pile of PSI articles which I had printed, I discovered this one. (https://principia-scientific.com/study-takes-the-pulse-of-a-sleeping-supervolcano/) Which I suspect, but don’t know, is before Saeed’s time here.
While the topic of this article interested Matt and others in 2020, a major eruption has occurred since However, the reason I call attention to this article and its comments is that I consider the comments to be a wonderful example of a SCIENTIFIC discussion which clearly involves differences of opinions and which might add a critical new word (idea) to our vocabulary—POPULISM.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed and other PSI Readers,
Been impatiently waiting for PSI to get its problem solved. For I have ‘things’ to share. Like; if our opinions were all identical we could never learn anything new.
It should be obvious that I read a lot, make many mistakes, and forget that which I knew seconds before. My friends who are a few years older or a few years earlier are all aware of the last problem; which we refer to as a “senior moment”.
Have you ever ‘popped’ pop corn’? Of course, I assume you have. And I believe we might agree that a kernel of pop corn has a membrane through which water molecules can not quickly diffuse. And I believe we have to accept that inside this kernel is some liquid water. And I believe we understand that as the kernel is heated these liquid molecules are converted into gas molecules and the gas pressure inside the membrane builds up and SUDDENLY “BRURTS” the membrane and the product which one sees (results) after could not be imagined until one sees it.
Hence, I believe geologists who study volcanic eruptions should study pop corn popping.. For it has been explained to me that it was carbon dioxide gas pressure which popped the earth’s membrane (crust) during a violent eruption. Now after pondering popped corn, I question if another possible gas which creates an enormous gas pressure might be gaseous water molecules.
Drawing upon my experiences of popping corn, I know there are ALWAYS a few unpopped (old maids) kernels after the great, great majority of kernels have popped. Which I pondered a bit and came with a simple explanation (my opinion). My explanation is that these kernel’s membranes had been initially cracked so no enormous gas pressure can build up as the liquid water molecules can not be instantly converted to gas water molecules by the molten lava. (https://principia-scientific.com/study-takes-the-pulse-of-a-sleeping-supervolcano/)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. These are away from the topic (virus/virology etc.). However, for discussion purposes, you provide good examples which logically make sense.
On the other hand, it is different in the virus/virology area, where it is assumed that there is a particle called a virus that jumps around and causes an illness, but no one has seen or isolated it.
The volcanos are real, along with their molten masses, but viruses are imaginary. Does it make sense for the discussion?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
I hear you. I have been thinking about disease and what you know about it which have little experience. I have read there is this terrain theory of disease. Which to me seems like geography and climate. And I have long been aware there is a germ theory which it seems that some cannot accept.
So please enlighten me with your observations and thoughts about disease which I also read that some do not even believe to exist. I trust you and your experiences. And I believe there are some PSI readers who might like to read about what you KNOW. For I know that by our continued comments your last article is not being forgotten. As our comments remind them of its existence. A practical purpose of our comments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
No problem. I am happy to provide you with my view on the query (Germ vs.Terrain Theory).
I am not worried that it might bury my article, which started this discussion. On the contrary, I like the discussion part. It helps in finding positives and negatives about my views and hopefully will help me and others address the main issue, i.e., misunderstood “science” in the medical and pharmaceutical areas.
Regarding the theories, it happened so that John O’Sullivan (PSI) and I, with two others, are working on a book (expected to be published soon) with a chapter on this topic I have written. So I think that will provide you answer you are looking for.
The chapter is not that long. However, it may be too long as a comment. Therefore, I uploaded it to my blog server (link is https://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/blog/files/Chapter%2035%20%20Germ%20vs%20Terrain%20Theory.pdf).
I hope you will find it helpful.
Regards
Saeed Qureshi
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
Your CHAPTER is exactly what I was looking for. Tremendous!!! Any common person who can read with comprehension, should not need your experience (background) to understand what you wrote. A very good DISCUSSION. You are doing all you can do, we have to hope that that it is read by people who have greater INFLUENCE than you and John O’Sullivan, who has and does work hard. I am interested in who the ‘two others’ are.
For I read: “Two are better than one, because they have good return for their work. If one falls down, his friend can help him up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone”. (Ecclesiastes 4:9-11). You have become my friend.
And I have been encouraged by “Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again. Give portions to seven, even eight, for you do not know what disaster may come upon the land.” (Ecclesiastes 11:1,2) There is more to follow this but I am trying to be brief. We know what disaster has come upon the land during the past few years and we must keep up what we have been doing most of our lives without seeing much positive results.
Was very glad to read that you are not alone.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply