All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
21:23
The Delta Variant - Fact, Fiction and Outright Lies - Dr. Andrew Kaufman Explains
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, everyone.
I'm Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and my friend Sayurji asked me if I could record a brief video about the so-called Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2.
So I thought I would put this little presentation together and actually give you the background and explain how the genome sequencing works in the first place, because all of what they call variants are all basically just different results of doing what they call a genome sequencing.
Now, I want to also preface this by saying that these variants have not been actually studied with clinical correlations.
So, in other words, they didn't follow a group of a hundred people or a thousand people with this particular variant that they could reliably detect and then follow their clinical outcome.
So, most of the information about What they tell us that a variant is more transmissible or more severe or less severe or anything like that are based on computer simulations and are purely theoretical.
Okay, with that being said, I am going to share my screen and give part of the presentation
that I've given before, which focuses specifically on the genome sequencing.
So hopefully you can see the slides.
Okay, so I'm just going to start off with the basics about genetics, which is all based on DNA and RNA, and these are chemical compounds that are what they call polymers, meaning that they're like a necklace, with each bead being slightly different, and there are four different types of beads that you can use to make the sequence.
Adenine, thymine, guanosine, and cytosine, and they're also called bases, and you can see In the strand in the middle where there are two lines of boxes with the letters matching up, that shows the double-stranded DNA, and these letters are complementary.
So you see the top one is AT, so a T always goes with an A, and the next one GC, they always pair up together when the different strands come together.
When we talk about RNA, it only has one strand, so this pairing is not a thing, but it also has the four bases, and they correspond with the four bases of DNA.
So basically, the order of the bases, or the letters, make up the specific sequence that distinguishes what that DNA does, and also distinguishes one organism from another if you have a long enough sequence.
Okay.
So here is a slide that talks about what you could call the central dogma of genetics.
Now this is proven not to be accurate, but this is the framework that they describe that all this happens.
So I'll explain that basically there is a sequence of DNA, and DNA gets made into RNA, and that process is called transcription.
And then the RNA can then leave the nucleus where the DNA is and go out into the cytoplasm, the rest of the cell.
And when it's out there, It can code for a protein, and this type of RNA that does this is called messenger RNA.
You can see the strand on the top, and it is basically coding for specific amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
So you can see there's methionine, phenylalanine, and lysine.
Those are different amino acids.
And each one of those is paired up with three of the bases in the RNA strand, and that makes the protein sequence.
And this is called the central dogma of biology or genetics.
Okay, so what is the genome?
The genome is the genetic code or the sequence of letters for an entire organism, so everything that they have in all of their cells.
So in humans, we have 23 strands of DNA called chromosomes, and of course we have two of each, except for the sex chromosome that we might have two different ones or two of the same one.
And so all of the chromosomes end to end the entire sequence that's called the human genome, and it's distinct from other organisms.
Okay?
So, how do you sequence a genome?
Well, with the human genome, they started with an actual human and then took the genetic material out of the human cells, out of the nucleus, which are the chromosomes, and then they broke those down and sequenced each one into the sequence of letters or bases.
And this took quite a long time because they were using an earlier technique called Sanger sequencing where they have to have big long strands and sequence one base at a time, but this is how they did it.
So the key or operative concept is that they actually took the genetic material just from a human and not from any other source.
Okay, so is that how they sequence the genome of viruses?
Well, of course not.
They have a special procedure for that.
So how do you sequence a virus?
Well, you perform what's called an in silico genome sequence, which means that it takes place entirely in the mechanics and circuitry of a computer.
Right?
In other words, it's not actually from an organism.
And this is what they do to give us the so-called genome of a virus.
So they use a technique called next generation sequencing and this is a modern technique that allows the process to happen much faster because instead of sequencing a very, very long strand one base at a time, it chops it up into small pieces and it cuts it in a way that it knows exactly where it cuts it.
And then it can sequence those smaller pieces all at the same time in parallel, which saves a lot of time, just like a parallel processor in your computer is faster than a serial processor.
But if you look, this is from a company that makes the package of technology to do this procedure.
Oops.
I skipped a slide by accident here.
So going back to that, you can see at the top there are two pathways for, because this is talking specifically about viruses, and you see on the left or the light green pathway, it says to purify the virus.
And that really is the gold standard because then you know that every piece of genetic material that you are sequencing is from that pure virus and not from anything else.
Now, it gives another pathway where you have semi-pure or enriched virus particles, so this is like a partial purification where the genetic material from the virus would be by far the dominant genetic material in the sample, and so it could be distinguished from the other materials because they'd be in a much lower amount.
Okay, so then you take the genetic material out, which in the case of the alleged coronavirus would be RNA, and you basically what they do is select out small pieces only, and then they make a library from it, which is Really a step that you don't need to understand, but just know that every little strand of RNA of a certain length or shorter is included in that library, and then it sequences
The library.
And then it puts those sequences together into a big longer strand, which is a process called alignment.
And that's what I'm going to focus on teaching you about today.
And then at the end, they say they've discovered a virus.
However, since it's only in a computer and we don't know the source of the genetic material, in other words, it didn't come from just a virus.
It came from other things as well.
So we would call this an in silico or a theoretical genome.
Okay, so we have here, this is the paper from Nature, which is the first published or the index genome sequence that was placed on the computer databases that we now can pull up as the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence, and it was done by these researchers.
And so here's what they did.
They took the lung fluid from only one suspected case of SARS-CoV-2.
And of course, they said that it was from COVID-19 because of a PCR test, which we already know is not accurate.
But only one person, so not from a hundred people who are sick, not from a thousand, just from one single individual.
And what they did is they took the lung fluid from that individual and they did not purify anything out of it.
They instead just removed the RNA, the genetic material, but this came from all of the sources present in the lung fluid.
So that includes whatever the person breathed in in the moment before they did this test.
It includes the human cells of various kinds.
It includes all kinds of microbial cells like bacteria, yeast, and fungi that are normally present in our lungs and may be present in higher numbers during a disease state.
So out of all the strands of RNA we don't know where they came from but they then saw how long are these strands and how many of them are there and they selected out the short strands of 150 bases or less because that's what they need to use for this technique And they did some other processing to remove some of the sequences.
And here's how many individual pieces of RNA were read, in terms of their sequence in this study, over 56 and a half million.
And they call these reads.
Okay.
So how do they get from 56.5 million known little sequences or little pieces of RNA to a full genome?
So I'm going to show you a bit of an analogy here, and we call this little segment the Corona Chronicles.
Okay, so I'm going to read to you while you're looking at these slides here.
Sequencing a viral genome is like reading a book.
The letters in the book make up words, sentences, and paragraphs, just like the letters of DNA make up promoters, genes, and chromosomes.
The genome of the book is simply the entire sequence of letters.
If you have the book, it's just a matter of reading it.
However, what if you don't have the book?
What if you aren't sure that the book even exists?
Can you read that book?
Well, this is the situation with SARS-CoV-2.
What do they actually do when they claim to have an in silico, again meaning computer generated, genome?
Imagine you were looking for a rare science fiction book from the early 20th century
that was only rumored to exist.
You go to the library and ask for assistance.
The librarian brings you to a room in the basement where you find 116 different titles with multiple copies for each book.
The unfortunate thing is, all those books have been shredded.
However, the librarian assures you that no one has had access to the room, and in fact, all the pieces to all the books are there.
Guess how many pieces there are?
56 and a half million little pieces of paper.
You decide to try and reconstruct all the books, hoping you'll find the rumored lost book you were seeking.
You begin by matching up the bits of paper by overlapping the letters.
You tape them together into longer and longer pieces.
Then you start to realize that not all of the matches make grammatical sense.
In fact, many of the assembled fragments can be matched to many other pieces.
You do the best you can and make multiple different versions using up every single bit of paper.
So you see that these fragments come together in different ways and can have different meanings.
Now, of course, we have the rules of grammar if we were to reconstruct a book that we would be able to read a sentence and know if it makes sense or not.
but if we're just reconstructing strings of letters that don't have grammatical rules,
like when we're sequencing a genome, how do we know if we're correct or incorrect?
Let's examine a few of the sentences we constructed.
I was at home at that hour and writing into kindergarten and first grade.
So not a great sentence.
Where did this come from?
The teachers of our country have to be taught to start teaching reading and writing in a foolish, facetious tone that the perfection of mechanical appliances must ultimately supersede limbs.
Okay, now we see that we had the letters of the two words writing in was the overlap in all these sentences, but did they come in fact from the same book?
The first sentence came from the War of the Worlds and Fahrenheit 451.
As did the second sentence.
And the third sentence also came from two different books from 1984 and War of the Worlds.
Now without having the these books to find where they came from, how would we know?
Okay, we're getting to the end of our analogy here.
After months and months of matching up tiny bits of paper, you construct many contiguous strings of letters.
You call these contigs for short.
Finally, you tape together over a million pieces, many being long enough to create several novels.
Do you think one of these novels might possibly be the rumored lost book you've been seeking?
How would you know which one?
How could you be sure if you've never checked it against the actual book?
You decide to pick the longest one and call it a day.
Congratulations on completing your task.
You found the lost unknown book, or have you?
So back to the reality of the paper in nature, what they did was they did the same procedure that I just described with those books, and they didn't just create one possible book, they created many.
So you can see the two names of the software they used, Megahit and Trinity, And each one of those generated a lot of contigs.
So the Megahit had almost 400,000 different contigs.
So these are different possible genomes.
And then Trinity had 1.3 million contigs plus.
So how did they choose which one of these fits the actual genome?
Well, they picked the longest one.
Now, notice that it says the range for the Megahit software is from 200 bases long all the way to 30,474.
But how do we know there wasn't a result that was 30,450?
way to 30,474. But how do we know there wasn't a result that was 30,450? And was that the right one?
Right?
How do we know that?
Because we have nothing to compare it to, to say, oh, this matches.
And remember, we took all these little pieces that we made into these contigs from a myriad of different sources of different organisms, so we don't know which one of them came from a possible virus that we haven't even shown to be there, or which came from other sources, or did they all come from other sources.
So they did a couple more steps.
After they picked the longest contig, they noticed that it was remotely similar to a bat SARS-like coronavirus genome that they had found the same way.
So another in silico genome.
And just to give you an idea of what 89% similar is not very similar.
So according to some sources, humans are about 88% similar to house cats.
And we are 98% similar to chimpanzees, and we're still not very much like chimpanzees.
So this 89% is really a shot in the dark.
And then they did what's called the final step of the alignment, where they took this contig and they templated against that bat virus, and then they did some moving around.
They rearranged things, they take some things out, because as we see that the claim genome is actually shorter than the contig, so they must have removed some of those sequences.
Now, how did they decide which ones to remove?
As you can see, all of these steps are not based in reality, and they all introduce more error into this contraption.
Okay, so here are the questions I just asked.
Okay, so just to show you the difference between doing a real genome sequencing and in silico genome sequencing, a real sequence comes from the intact isolated and characterized organism, in silico genome from a mixture of unknown sources.
Now the real genome can be reproduced And also represents the actual code of an actual organism.
Whereas the in silico genome is not able to reproduce without errors.
And this is the meat of this talk.
Okay?
And it represents a theoretical genome from a theoretical organism.
So this is an image, and this is an old image, from GISAID, or G-I-S-A-I-D, which is the public database of all of the genome sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2.
And each one of these dots represents a different sequence or a different variant, quote-unquote.
And right now I've heard that there are over 40,000 of these that were reported.
And essentially what happened is, after that initial sequence was performed, that I described from nature, there was a set of instructions, like a recipe, of how people can now do their own genome sequencing and compare it against that.
Like that became the reference template instead of the bat virus now for all these variants that we're showing here.
And these are different colors based on differences in the sequence.
But let me tell you that the sequence differences between these variants is very, very small.
And this is all 100% artificial and imaginary because what essentially happened is that they tried to reproduce the genome sequence And they were unable to get the same results because it's not actually a valid result.
So each of these variants is really just the inability to reproduce the results.
So in summary, I think we've seen now how the in silico genome sequencing that's applied to alleged virus genomes is not possible to actually give us a picture of reality.
That this is completely an imaginary and man-made exercise, and that these genomes are used commercially, but they don't represent what is actually in nature.
And any variants are no different.
They're simply an inability to reproduce the same results That is convenient for the establishment to use to create fear and change policies.
And I just want to reiterate one more time that there had been no clinical research where they follow groups of people who allegedly have one of these variants and then show that they actually have any significant health problems whatsoever.
So when you hear the name of any new variant, what you should do is simply ignore it and remember that there is no virus in the first place, there's no actual virus genome, and there is no reliable way to tell if someone has this new disease or not because there is no test that has been validated.
So, I hope this has been helpful.
▲
Export Selection