COVID-19 Paper: RNA is Assumed to be from a "Virus"
In this video I go over the main assumption in the main paper on COVID-19 "virus" isolation, and that is the RNA extracted from patient and cell culture supernatants is assumed to be "viral". It took me a long time before realizing this since the paper does not state this directly. Instead, I had to ask ChatGPT to clarify a paragraph from the paper, as well as double-checking with the mainstream science literature. And indeed this is a key assumption made in virology in general. Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is supposedly the genetic makeup of the new SARS-CoV 2 "virus" which supposedly causes "COVID", so when a "viral infection" is suspected, then typically the assumption is that RNA found is from this "virus".
ChatGPT also outlines several methods to "confirm" this assumption, such as using PCR to detect specific RNA sequences, comparing the sequences with known "viral sequences", and "immunological assays". These assays use "antibodies" (or immune system "defense proteins") that are supposedly specific to and bind to proteins (called antigens) on the "virus"; thus allowing for indirect identification of this "virus".
All of this is interesting, yet it still remains highly questionable that a bunch of nucleotide sequences (aka RNA) are somehow assumed to be "infectious disease causing particles that can infect and replicate through a host and spread to other individuals (and even shut down the entire world)"...
The paper is listed below:
- A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019
- Authors: Na Zhu et al
- Published on January 24, 2020 in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)
- https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017
The timestamps of key parts of the video are listed below:
- RNA Assumed to be from a "Virus": 0:00
- RNA extracted from Airway Fluid Samples and Culture Supernatants: 0:22
- Asking #ChatGPT to Explain Paragraph: 0:48
- #ChatGPT: Assumption is RNA is from a "Virus": 1:41
- Summary of RNA "Virus" Assumption: 3:21
This video is taken from my earlier video listed below:
- 🔥#MESScience 4: Review of COVID-19 "Virus" Isolation Paper: https://youtu.be/cvDO85Rw4d8
- Video notes: https://peakd.com/hive-128780/@mes/messcience-4-review-of-covid-19-virus-isolation-paper
- Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLai3U8-WIK0E4aQ_cq4ZDD2WGiDU5vVgx
Related Videos:
🔥#MESScience: MES Science Tutorials: https://mes.fm/science-playlist .
SUBSCRIBE via EMAIL: https://mes.fm/subscribe
DONATE! ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ https://mes.fm/donate
Like, Subscribe, Favorite, and Comment Below!
Follow us on:
MES Truth: https://mes.fm/truth
Official Website: https://MES.fm
Hive: https://peakd.com/@mes
MORE Links: https://linktr.ee/matheasy
Email me: [email protected]
Free Calculators: https://mes.fm/calculators
BMI Calculator: https://bmicalculator.mes.fm
Grade Calculator: https://gradecalculator.mes.fm
Mortgage Calculator: https://mortgagecalculator.mes.fm
Percentage Calculator: https://percentagecalculator.mes.fm
Free Online Tools: https://mes.fm/tools
iPhone and Android Apps: https://mes.fm/mobile-apps
▶️ 3Speak
This video is taken from my earlier video listed below:
I mean yes, that would be the assumption. DNA/RNA analysis is a bunch of probabilistic trickery for the most part. One good way they could make this assumption is through a differential expression analysis. Normal cells constantly make mRNA so ribosomes in the cytoplasm can make proteins. This particular virus (from my understanding) injects its own RNA into the cytoplasm. Ribosomes read this indiscriminately as there should be no foreign mRNA in the cell. They make what they find. If we do RNA seq and compare uninfected vs. infected, we can see difference between "normal" RNA vs. those that appear in infected people.