BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

[Shrewd Manager]

Now isn't this a doozy, supersleuth Fauxlex has found a complete match between the 18-bit sequence promulgated by the WHO for SARS CoV-2 and the sequence of human 'Chromosome 8'.
BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

Homo sapiens chromosome 8, GRCh38.p13 Primary Assembly - Nucleotide - NCBI

So it seems the virus is a chromo sapien too...like you...oo..hm I'd better keep the day job.

 

[Occams Barber]

Now isn't this a doozy, supersleuth Fauxlex has found a complete match between the 18-bit sequence promulgated by the WHO for SARS CoV-2 and the sequence of human 'Chromosome 8'.
BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

Homo sapiens chromosome 8, GRCh38.p13 Primary Assembly - Nucleotide - NCBI

So it seems the virus is a homo sapien too...like you...oo

I believe this proves conclusively that you are directly related to Coronavirus via your third uncle on your mother's side.

Be careful when you sneeze.

OB

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I believe this proves conclusively that you are directly related to Coronavirus via your third uncle on your mother's side.

Be careful when you sneeze.

OB

Great Uncle Shrewdius, he chromed wild and free.

 

[Tanj]

You'd really have to be completely ignorant of even the most basic aspects of PCR technology to believe that silly website. I mean completely and utterly clueless as to even the most basic way it functions.

Now I know I'm not going to convince someone so far gone in tinfoil that he refuses to believe viruses exist, but for anyone else:

1. PCR involves 2 primers which together generate a product of a known length. In this case the primer pairs with the first in the triple to create a product of 108bp. Now does the other primer bind in human DNA? No, no it doesn't, it certainly doesn't bind in such a way to generate a 108bp fragment.

2. Cov2 is an RNA virus. This means the actual procedure we use is RT-PCR (reverse transcription- PCR). This means we
a) Get rid of all dna in the sample (which includes all human DNA), leaving just the RNA
b) Run the RT reaction, which generates the first DNA strand
c) Then run the PCR on that first strand.

3. Once we have a 108 bp product, we use the third primer in the set to detect it. This means the PCR product, which must be 108bp in length, must also contain identical sequence to the 3rd probe.

4. And then the second primer triple is used for confirmation.

More eggshell than bombshell. Really dried out, sad bits of eggshell, the kind that collapses to dust if you look at it wrong.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You'd really have to be completely ignorant of even the most basic aspects of PCR technology to believe that silly website. I mean completely and utterly clueless as to even the most basic way it functions.

Now I know I'm not going to convince someone so far gone in tinfoil that he refuses to believe viruses exist, but for anyone else:

1. PCR involves 2 primers which together generate a product of a known length. In this case the primer pairs with the first in the triple to create a product of 108bp. Now does the other primer bind in human DNA? No, no it doesn't, it certainly doesn't bind in such a way to generate a 108bp fragment.

2. Cov2 is an RNA virus. This means the actual procedure we use is RT-PCR (reverse transcription- PCR). This means we
a) Get rid of all dna in the sample (which includes all human DNA), leaving just the RNA
b) Run the RT reaction, which generates the first DNA strand
c) Then run the PCR on that first strand.

3. Once we have a 108 bp product, we use the third primer in the set to detect it. This means the PCR product, which must be 108bp in length, must also contain identical sequence to the 3rd probe.

4. And then the second primer triple is used for confirmation.

More eggshell than bombshell. Really dried out, sad bits of eggshell, the kind that collapses to dust if you look at it wrong.

So, er, why is there a perfect match between primer 2 and chromosome 8? Just coincidence?

And how can you be sure primer 2 doesn't bind in fragments of human dna? How is it verified that all such fragments are removed from the sample prior to inserting the primer?

 

[returntosender]

BOING

 

[dqhall]

Now isn't this a doozy, supersleuth Fauxlex has found a complete match between the 18-bit sequence promulgated by the WHO for SARS CoV-2 and the sequence of human 'Chromosome 8'.
BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

Homo sapiens chromosome 8, GRCh38.p13 Primary Assembly - Nucleotide - NCBI

So it seems the virus is a chromo sapien too...like you...oo..hm I'd better keep the day job.

You might like to take a course in organic chemistry to decipher the genetic code that has the same molecules in different sequences to determine the functions of organisms.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You might like to take a course in organic chemistry to decipher the genetic code that has the same molecules in different sequences to determine the functions of organisms.

I'd just like to know why the exact same sequence is found in primer 2 and chromosome 8, for starters. Or is the answer hidden behind the shroud of priesthood?

 

[Tanj]

So, er, why is there a perfect match between primer 2 and chromosome 8? Just coincidence?

It's a low complexity primer, it contains no Adenosines, and only 3 Guanosines. As such rather than drawing from a pool of 4^18 it's much closer to 2^15x4^3 (which is one in 2 mil). Given the human genome is 4 billion bases pairs, then yes, on average and purely at random I'd expect that sequence to appear about 8000 times. (In point of fact if you run the blast it hits at least 50 times, which is the display limit of the default params for blast)

And how can you be sure primer 2 doesn't bind in fragments of human dna?

The same was we know primer 1 does. A blast search against the human genome comes back with no hits. More over, as I said before, not only would primer 2 have to bind, it would have to bind 108 bases upstream of primer 1, and the resulting 108 base pair PCR fragment would have to contain primer 3.

How is it verified that all such fragments are removed from the sample prior to inserting the primer?

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It's a low complexity primer, it contains no Adenosines, and only 3 Guanosines. As such rather than drawing from a pool of 4^18 it's much closer to 2^15x4^3 (which is one in 2 mil). Given the human genome is 4 billion bases pairs, then yes, on average and purely at random I'd expect that sequence to appear about 8000 times. (In point of fact if you run the blast it hits at least 50 times, which is the display limit of the default params for blast)

Ok, it's a mathematical probability.

The same was we know primer 1 does. A blast search against the human genome comes back with no hits. More over, as I said before, not only would primer 2 have to bind, it would have to bind 108 bases upstream of primer 1, and the resulting 108 base pair PCR fragment would have to contain primer 3.

A Blast on the short input sequence of both primers 1 and 2 codes return numerous hits, including a 100% match against Chromosome 8. If that is the case, seems significantly less likely we should get 100% sequence hits on the same item from both primers?

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

The question was in relation to the purity of the sample. I think we've discussed this before, the issue being how do you demonstrate that no RNA induction is occurring in the sample cell culture at the start of the PCR process?

 

[Tanj]

A Blast on the short input sequence of both primers 1 and 2 codes return numerous hits, including a 100% match against Chromosome 8.

Once again, only for the second primer. There are no exact matches for the first (from the human genome). You need both primers to bind to do the geometric amplification during the synthesis steps. Even if some of one of the primers is off binding somewhere else, it's not going to do any amplification, and after a few cycles the true product will be so overwhelmingly abundant the off target binds will be irrelevant.

If that is the case, seems significantly less likely we should get 100% sequence hits on the same item from both primers?

I don't know what that means,.

The question was in relation to the purity of the sample. I think we've discussed this before, the issue being how do you demonstrate that no RNA induction is occurring in the sample cell culture at the start of the PCR process?

It doesn't matter. As I said, this procedure requires 100% match to primer 1 and primer 2 precisely 108 bp apart and then a 100% match to primer 3 in that 108 bp section. The presence of other RNA species is irrelevant, that's kind of the whole point of PCR, to amplify up a specific piece of NA against a large heterogeneous background.