Revealed: The SARS-CoV-2 Sequencing Sham

E. Rowell:  For those of you who are interested in reading “Stefan Lanka Explains Seven Flaws in Virology” they can be found here.  It is important to understand the degree to which scientists and doctors have been attacked, fired from their academic positions, and delegitimized in the media, if they publicize data that are at odds with the international pharmaceutical criminal racket.  That is why this mathematician prefers to provide these data anonymously.  There are trillions of dollars at stake for these companies and their shareholders and they will do just about anything to prevent the truth from being understood by people around the world.  They not only want the truth about viruses and vaccines sealed off from exposure, they want the truth of their evil deeds from becoming common knowledge.

The Paper Stefan Lanka Hoped Would Change The World

By Michael Wallach, THE VIRAL DELUSION    1 June 2024

In late 2020, with the world now entirely locked down and the threat of forced or nearly-forced injections rising daily, the extraordinary Dr. Stefan Lanka, a former virologist, emailed out a short paper by a mathematician in Hamburg with astounding consequences.

Dr. Lanka and his colleagues’ many decades of work exposing the foundational problems with virology were now being echoed and built upon by a small group of doctors, scientists, journalists and thinkers in a quickly growing manner in 2020, and his revelations were beginning to reach the public in a significant way.

Yet a refrain was growing among the apologists for virology against many of Lanka’s claims. The refrain was simple – that perhaps he was correct about the pseudoscience of the earlier period of virology – but that recent virology was much more advanced and was based on the mathematical complexity of genomics – a complexity that critics simply couldn’t comprehend.

Desperate to show this canard for what it was – that the so-called genetic sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” was an illusion at best and a fraud at worst — Dr Lanka had approached an eminent mathematician to blow the smoke away from this mathematical complexity hiding the fraudulence behind the claims that a SARS-CoV-2 “virus” had ever been found at all.

The paper was sent out to a handful of Lanka’s friends, myself included, but with Substack still in its infancy and most covid-critical doctors and scientists still without even a website, somehow the paper was never published on the internet.

Below is a reprint of the entire paper, published here in English, I believe, for the first time. Hopefully it can garner some attention from mathematics professors, geneticists, and lay people alike.

The mathematician Lanka turned to, calling himself only “A Mathematician From Hamburg” to avoid reprisals against his career, examined the central academic paper authored by the now infamous Dr. Fan Wu et al in Wuhan, China and printed in the February 2020 issue of the journal Nature: “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China” which claimed to have genetically sequenced a “novel virus” later named SARS-CoV-2.

The mathematician in Hamburg downloaded the full data set and the appropriate software Fan Wu had used to claim the discovery of SARS-CoV-2, and then repeated Wu’s procedures. He returned to Dr. Lanka a clear refutation of the basic reasoning used to conclude that a novel virus had ever been discovered at all.

To understand this stunning work, one must understand the basic tenets of how Fan Wu and his colleagues ever claimed to have sequenced a virus in the first place. What they did is not a-traditional in the field of virology, but once understood, it beggars the imagination how such a sequence of steps could ever have been accepted as the central basis upon which to claim anything at all, let alone a scientific field, let alone the terrorizing and shutting down of the entire world.

Some background: By the 1980s, virology still had yet to find and isolate a single virus (it still hasn’t), and had changed little since its seminal claims in the 1950’s that placing snot mixed with antibiotics on monkey kidney cells proved the existence of a virus in the snot if the kidney cells deteriorated – ignoring the many other reasons such deterioration might take place. The second, and frankly, only other significant process done in virology at the time was taking photographs of obliterated snot under an electron-micrograph. If “virologists” saw circles (or another predetermined shape) in the imagery, they claimed this was further proof that a “virus” had been found – again ignoring the problem that they had no reason to conclude that their theoretical “viruses” were the only possible reason one might see a circle or another predetermined shape.

The obvious inconclusiveness and gaping logical flaws of these “experiments” was perhaps beginning to wear thin and the field had made few advancements upon the imagination of the public sphere.

When the computer revolution emerged simultaneously with the study of genomics, virology cast about for a way to study its theorized (yet still never found, isolated or proven to exist) particles using the new technology.

It’s worth noting that this was an entirely different process than what was used more generally in genomics. In other fields of genomics, one began with an actual isolated sample of the material in question (e.g a HORSE, a FLY, or a strain of BACTERIA, etc.) and catalogued what RNA could be found consistently in the isolated sample of such material. However, in virology, as they never had an actual sample of a  “virus” in question, isolated from the rest of human fluid, all they could do was catalogue the entirety of the genetic material in their snot samples, and then take guesses as to what their imagined virus might be made from.

Over the last forty years, this so-called “genetic sequencing” has become the central process by which people in lab coats (I cannot bring myself to call them scientists) claim to have since discovered new “viruses.” Essentially, the steps are the following:

1. Find a person who is sick, ASSUME they are sick due to a virus, and then take a sample of their snot or “lung fluid.”

2. Combine this fluid with salt water and antibiotics (and often many other ingredients).

3. Feed this fluid mixture into a machine which physically breaks apart the material into tens of millions of genetic fragments.

4. Submit this mixture to a PCR process to amplify the number of the RNA fragments, including the “amplification” of any specific RNA fragments the virologists expect to find.

5. Have this machine-computer create a list of these genetic fragments.

6. Have the computer exclude a (not-at-all conclusive) partial list of known human endogenous fragments from its data-set.

7. Have the computer employ probability algorithms to find fragment sequences that overlap and create possible “contigs” – then pick out the longest sequences amongst these that can be theoretically stitched together by the computer.

8. Have the computer output a list of these combinations which are most similar to sequences that were also hypothetically created and attributed to imagined ‘viruses’ in the past.”

9. The virologists then pick amongst these combinations, deciding by consensus, the one computer-theorized sequence they think is the virus making the patient sick. If they cannot  even come close to matching one of the sequences the computer assembled to a previously theorized sequence, then the virologists claim what they have found must be a “novel virus” and pick by consensus from among the listed combinations outputted by the computer the one they best guess is the virus (and not just meaningless acidic jargon).

For those who want a deeper dive into this nonsense, I cover this in depth in the documentary The Viral Delusion at www.theviraldelusion.com, Mike Stone covers it in great detail on his blog viroliegy.com, Dr. Mark Bailey tears it apart in his paper “A Farewell To Virology” and Dr. Tom Cowan , Dr. Andy Kaufman and Amandha Volmer (among others) have countless hours detailing the absurdities of this in their videos. You can of course also read the original Fan Wu paper to see their outline of these steps.  But as the below paper makes clear, even the many doctors and scientists I spoke with in The Viral Delusion underestimated the mathematical nonsense that was employed in the Fan Wu paper (but buried deep in the methodology section)- nonsense which our esteemed mathematician reveals below.

Of course I can already hear you shouting – stop, wait! We don’t need to go any further. This is already a series of steps that is ludicrously lacking in methodological soundness. Yes, I know. To make the point for new readers more bluntly, one could use this same series of steps to clam the discovery of any novel genetic sequence whatsoever – whether it be a “virus” or “the devil’s mark,” “cooties” or proof of discovering the lingering genes of an alien. It’s a textbook example of pseudo-science built upon the logical sleight of hand known as “begging the question.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg for logical problems with making any sort of conclusion based on the above steps.

But let’s continue – for the refrain consistently from virology’s apologists was that none of these logical problems mattered, the math was so complex and so profound that it proved virology had been right all along, and anyone who questioned it simply couldn’t understand.

Enter the mathematician from Hamburg.  His paper is below, and you are welcome to skip to it of course. But it’s written in rather heady language, so I will take a moment to summarize it here.

As you will see, the mathematician began his analysis by downloading the data set of the complete RNA fragmentation from the original experiment and attempting to simply repeat the computer steps taken in the paper.

He found that even these steps were not replicable by a computer.   The sequences output by the software which claimed to find “SARS-CoV-2” could not be output by another computer running the same software. 

This is no small point! As most know, basic scientific rigor demands that experiments must be replicable for their conclusions to be considered valid – but the non-replicable nature of the SARS-CoV-2 sequencing goes far beyond that.  We’re not talking about being able to replicate an experiment that happened in living nature; we are talking about a computer running the same software upon the same data-set not being able to replicate what was claimed to have happened on another computer running the same software on the same data-set!

To make this clear, it’s as if Fan Wu et al claimed their computer could spell a word from a Scrabble set with more “P”s than the Scrabble set included.

However, that is only the beginning. The mathematician went ahead and assumed that the original data set and original output were correct to continue his analysis.

What he found lays bare that any conclusion based on this data that the patient studied in Wuhan had a novel virus was entirely unsubstantiated.

First, again, he makes clear that the sequences Fan Wu et al claimed to have outputted could NOT be assembled from the bits of RNA catalogued by the computer in the patient sample.

Second, he found that there was no way to tell whether the assembled sequence (later called SARS-CoV-2) came from human or non-human RNA. In other words, there is nothing in the experiment to show whether the sequence was assembled FROM a “virus” in the sample or just from random bits of RNA in the sample.

Third, he found that there was no way to tell whether the assembled sequence came from actually-existing RNA in the sample or was compiled from RNA markers that were there simply as a by-product of the PCR amplification the sample was exposed to.

Fourth, he found that up to 17% of the final sequence was based on RNA contigs specifically targeted and then “found” by the PCR process at cycle thresholds of ct 35 to 45, cycle counts well known in the literature to “find” anything you want.

Fifth, he found that these contigs were significantly MORE likely to have come from the PCR process itself than the original sample, and that it was HIGHLY unlikely that all of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence contigs (or even most) came from the original sample.

Sixth, he found that contigs in the remaining data sample AFTER the Fan Wu paper claims to have filtered it for known human RNA, matched known human RNA.

Seventh, he found that the final (SARS-CoV-2) sequence claimed to match “corona viruses” didn’t even match these theoretical sequences unless an “error rate” was included that was over 10 percent.

Eighth, he sought to discover whether one could take the sample and “find” other claimed viruses in it. He searched for “Hepatitus” and “HIV” and found BOTH of them to have lower error rates than “SARS-CoV-2.”

Ninth, he searched for the claimed sequences of “Ebola”  and “Marburg virus” and “found” these in the sample as well, at comparable error rates to “SARS-CoV-2.”

Tenth, he found that no control experiments were conducted to rule out any of the above or other possibilities.

In conclusion, the mathematician writes “we were able to substantiate our hypothesis that the claimed viral genome sequences are misinterpretations in the sense that they have been or are being constructed unnoticed from non-viral nucleic acid fragments.”

In other words there is nothing in the math to suggest concluding that a novel virus had been found, or was in any way the cause of the original man’s sickness – in fact it is the reverse – it is MORE likely based on the data that the sequence compiled by the computer and that Fan Wu claimed to be “SARS-CoV-2” was not from a “virus.”

A close read of the mathematician’s paper indeed suggests and explains that it’s far MORE likely that the “SARS-CoV-2” sequence was built from random bits of RNA floating in the sample combined with specifically-generated “discoveries” of RNA fragments created by PCR for the very purpose of “finding” them.  

When we remember that this Fan Wu paper formed, in essence, the bedrock of the “scientific” foundation of the claimed pandemic, it’s hard to say whether one should laugh or cry. It was upon the conclusion of this paper that the PCR testing was designed, and the world was tested for this “novel virus.” It was upon this paper that synthetic “virus” sequences were built by laboratories to test the “virus” for its qualities and to study its “nature.”

It was upon this claimed sequence by Fan Wu et al that media pundits and pseudo-scientist apologists claimed mathematical complexity beyond the ability of anyone outside of their field to understand or comment upon, and thus sought to shut down any and all criticism.

And it was upon this paper’s conclusions that the claimed “vaccine” was said to have been designed, and billions of people pressured into injecting themselves. It was the logical and mathematical ruse at the very heart of the pandemic.

But lest I steal the thunder from his analysis further, here is the reprint of the mathematician’s paper below.

Do share your thoughts after reading.

Structural analysis of sequence data in virology

An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example

Author

By a mathematician from Hamburg, who would like to remain unknown

Abstract

De novo meta-transcriptomic sequencing or whole genome sequencing are accepted methods in virology for the detection of claimed pathogenic viruses. In this process, no virus particles (virions) are detected and in the sense of the word isolation, isolated and biochemically characterized. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, total RNA is often extracted from patient samples (e.g.: bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or throat- nose swabs) and sequenced. Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.

We therefore examined the publication “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China” [1] and the associated published sequence data with bioproject ID PRJNA603194 dated 27/01/2020 for the original gene sequence proposal for SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank: MN908947.3). A repeat of the de novo assembly with Megahit (v.1.2.9) showed that the published results could not be reproduced. We may have detected (ribosomal) ribonucleic acids of human origin, contrary to what was reported in [1]. Further analysis provided evidence for possible nonspecific amplification of reads during PCR confirmation and determination of genomic termini not associated with SARS-CoV-2 (MN908947.3).

Finally, we performed some reference-based assemblies with additional genome sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus, Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity of the present sequence data with the respective sequences. We have obtained preliminary hints that some of the viral genome sequences we have studied in the present work may be obtained from the RNA of unsuspected human samples.

Continue reading