AI text - please think for yourself - here are my replies to your points: It's not my standard, but the scientific standard. Question is, whether we know with certainty, if the calculated/modeled sequence exists as a single stranded RNA inside a virion and is encoding for itself. This is only assumed, never conclusively proven with certainty. 1) We have shown that the original paper is not reproducible, b/c they included confirmed human sequences in the genome candidate. This shows exactly the problem of de-nova-sequenceing via de-bruin - as it may lead to recombination of RNA from different origins. That fact alone, disproves the entire genome theory. Also overall: Reproduction of a method (or magic trick) does not establish its validity - you can have thousands of labs repeat certain steps, it still won't establish if that genome candidate truly existed. 2) Wrong too - there's no long read dataset where it shows perfect or near perfect reads that don't have any other non sars2 nt's on their ends. 3) This study did not purify a single virion, it only shows 3d models. Instead they extracted all RNA from supernatant. 4) Correct, the CDC does not posess that evidence, b/c nobody has ever been able to perform this. This means it cannot be rule out that the RNA sequence originates at least in part from host or other genetic material. So no, your AI text does not establish, that the SARS2 sequence, aka genome candiate is validated to have existed as a single RNA strand inside a virion which encodes for itself.

Exactly. It's an unvalidated mathematical model. The sequence is - beside all the known issues of reproducible (see my earlier posts/blog) - still an unvalidated mathematical model. One cannot guarantee, that that sequence exists from start to end as a single RNA strand inside a virion, which it also encodes for. xitter.cf/USMortality/status/183…