Is this the value alluded to in that graveyard paper
Living, non-dead cells do not shed fragments of their DNA, though I was cavalier above in one invocation of the word "shed" I meant "shed of its effect and shed of its abilites during cell division"
The value in that paper is using mathematical logic : If a virus got trapped on a sperm or egg cell 10 million years ago, and is still mostly identifiable and not gone after 10 million years, that lucky virus fragment IS BENEFICIAL TO THE HOST.
Benefits are subtle because its too damaged to be a virus, or to even be a protein, its just a form of mystery junk, but helpful by REGULATING ADJACENT genes nearby, similar to UV sunburn palindrome repeats. Either slowing down formation, or aiding in formation of protein creation.
But these ancient fragments , if free fragments, only show up in DEAD and SHED ruptured cells shit out, sweat out, coughed out, shed out, and then under ridiculous amplification under PCR spotted in a PCR test.
I do not think ANY coronavirus , especially not SARS-2 is meant to enter human DNA, or does enter human DNA. Its too primitive and simple a virus, and it cannot even on its own rupture a cell. Its basically very clever lucky primitive little thing that itself uses 3d shape folding odds to accidentally make three lengths of its own virus DNA. But.... but... these researchers were responding to similar old papers amazed that sars-2 was detected in cured patients months later in thier blood :
SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in blood products from patients with COVID-19 is not associated with infectious virus
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33283055/
All those old paper were written
1-- BEFORE SARS-2 pure sample isolate announced by CDC the third week of December 2020 on the CDC web site
2 -- BEFORE CDC admitted 2 weeks ago that all PCR tests prior to Sept 2021 are errant and false and MOST LIKELY Influenza-A and Influenza-B, and that the testing data from CDC was errant
So ... occam's razor ? It was always just the flu (a different virus species) except for small percentage of unfortunate people near wuhan
What this also means then is evolution of a species could be largely triggered by viral infections as well as random DNA misconnections that were always assumed.
So the part about the sequences being preserved for so long over evolutionary history is because something about the fragments happened to be useful for regulating genes, not because they still get interpreted to make parts of the virus they were from (to help the immune system learn it)?
And otherwise basically these researchers are thrown off by the PCR test, thinking it's detecting the entire virus when it's just detecting small fragments not coming from human DNA.
yes and yes
A PCR is great for not letting a fragment slip by undetected at all. A PCR is worthless for assuming a fragment is from an active fresh viral infection this results in false positives, especially if amplified too much, but an unheard of low amount of false negatives
If marxists and socialists want to cripple a society with a near imaginary plague, they prefer tests with false positives.
I've just read about PCR and am trying to figure out how they determine whether it matches the DNA/RNA of interest. PCR seems to just be the part that makes lots of copies, though the primers seem a way to only multiply sequences that have those at the ends. Can they make longer primers to basically only match and multiply the sequence(s) of interest?
I'm also not grasping the electrophoresis step. Is that just to sort by length, and you just assume that a bunch of the proper length indicate that it's the one you multiplied? I see those pictures with the bands, are they basically a graph of the frequency of different lengths of DNA/RNA found?
(post is archived)