ScoloCZ says that there sequences available with novel, or at least unusual , genomes. I've looked at these sequences myself and agree with that conclusion.
Are you saying that these sequences are fabricated as your legacy output proves otherwise? Or are you saying that the published COVID sequences are legit, but the conclusion that they are novel is incorrect?
If your legacy output shows a different sequence though, wouldn't that by definition make the sample "not COVID"?
Not arguing, just trying to understand what you're saying.
There were several publications from other sources in the past with minute varying differences. None of these are officially available now. They should've been the same, but that wasn't the case. Hence, the speculation is that the data is fabricated. Lab data shows previously recorded sequences.
If digitally presented data were precise in all officially approved cases, then we would have zero degree of error correction in polls, dead people voting, SSN theft, welfare scams, tax audit, digital vote manipulation, etc.
It's expected for a quickly mutating virus to show slight genomic variations in different sample strains though. If you sequence humans, their DNA wouldn't exactly match either.
You're right about different strains, but that alone shouldn't be the reason for categorizing it under a different label altogether. They even gave a separate name to the illness caused by this virus, as if people never experienced such symptoms before!
What are you saying here? It's a bit unclear.
ScoloCZ says that there sequences available with novel, or at least unusual , genomes. I've looked at these sequences myself and agree with that conclusion.
Are you saying that these sequences are fabricated as your legacy output proves otherwise? Or are you saying that the published COVID sequences are legit, but the conclusion that they are novel is incorrect?
If your legacy output shows a different sequence though, wouldn't that by definition make the sample "not COVID"?
Not arguing, just trying to understand what you're saying.
There were several publications from other sources in the past with minute varying differences. None of these are officially available now. They should've been the same, but that wasn't the case. Hence, the speculation is that the data is fabricated. Lab data shows previously recorded sequences.
If digitally presented data were precise in all officially approved cases, then we would have zero degree of error correction in polls, dead people voting, SSN theft, welfare scams, tax audit, digital vote manipulation, etc.
It's expected for a quickly mutating virus to show slight genomic variations in different sample strains though. If you sequence humans, their DNA wouldn't exactly match either.
You're right about different strains, but that alone shouldn't be the reason for categorizing it under a different label altogether. They even gave a separate name to the illness caused by this virus, as if people never experienced such symptoms before!