>>12291389

>Has anyone mapped the DNA of a previously unknown virus that's infecting millions?

My understanding is that the answer there is a definite NO, but that this fact and the implications thereof are largely being suppressed.

>>12291389

>Is there really actually a virus? Everyone is quick to say China released it from a lab but what if that was just a story.

Not sure on that. If it weren't for the whole China angle, I'd lean towards the whole thing being manipulation of medical reporting. But if the whole China angle is faked, I suppose that would require considerable collusion with white hats (or grey hats) in China?

>>12291532

>Coronavirus is an RNA virus. It’s genome is never DNA.

But has the RNA of this supposed virus been sequenced?

My sense is that most quasi-educated people think the answer is yes, and that this supposed fact grounds many "official" claims, but that in fact the answer is NO.

>>12291618

>>12291611

>>12291629

>>12291587

Let me restate what I take the crucial issues to be here. I don't think any of this is new, but maybe the core issues are not articulated enough.

(Correct me if I am wrong on any facts, or if you think I make poor inferences…)

The prevalent "test" for the supposed disease causing the "pandemic" is seemingly a PCR test. PCR is an ingenious technique for multiplying genetic molecules, avoiding the need to "produce" them via "natural" processes. It is thus a great aid for researchers wanting to use genetic molecules in further experiments.

It works by adding a sample (which may or may not contain the "target" genetic molecules) to a solution that contains some "clippers" (my term) that can find and cut those target molecules if they are present, and additional chemicals needed to reproduce those target genetic molecules (both "component" molecules and catalysts, I think). Then you put this combo solution into a timed cycler that repeatedly runs through temperature cycles that enable reactions of different sorts in sequence. The uphshot is that during each cycle, you more or less double the amount of your target genetic molecule. (Or maybe it is *1.8 or 1.5 or whatever…)

That's the part that is "solid" I take it. If you run 20 or 30 or 45 cycles and get a lot (or SEEM to get a lot… I think in practice even testing for how much you've got just amounts to shining light or some ceteris paribus thing…) then you really DID have that genetic material to start with.

Problem 1: even if it is KNOWN that the "target" genetic material was the biological cause of the "pandemic disease" IN GENERAL, this test doesn't show that it had been causing this disease in any particular case. Maybe it was part of some biological active material that wasn't doing JACKSHIT or maybe it was just freefloating genetic molecules that get sucked in somehow…

Problem 2: it isn't clear, as some anons pointed out, that the genetic material being amplified by the PCR test was EVER shown to be the actual cause of the supposed "coronavirus disease". And my understanding is that it is a "known" but "largely concealed" fact that that is the actual situation.

>>12292011

You are using the more "official" terms, but this seems to fit with what I said. What I called "clippers" you are calling "primers"… these find the target genetic material if present.

And thermocycling is just running the whole solution through a series of temperature cycles that enable a series of reactions. Each series approximately doubles the amount of the target genetic material.