The claimed SARS-CoV-2 virus is only an alignment, a computer model

translated by Corona Investigative, October 29, 2020

The question is whether the Chinese publication “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019” (1) is a perfect proof of the existence of the virus. The study shows that the Chinese (Prof. Zhang) calculated the genome of SARS-CoV-2 within 40 hours of receiving BALF. This process is called alignment. In this article this process is explained in more detail.

Image section of an alignment for Corona Virus

What is the alignment in virology and what have Chinese scientists done in the first two major publications on the new claimed SARS CoV-2 virus

The alignment, the easily recognizable and essential refutation of all virus assumptions

For the explanation of the term alignment, let us say in advance: An alignment is, so to speak, an adjustment. So I give something, like for example a cupboard. Now I have many small screws, boards, hinges, door handles and much more. So that the computer can do something with these many different small parts, I give it a cabinet as an alignment, e.g. a model from the furniture store catalog. The computer now tries to use this information to create a new cabinet from small parts. The computer notices that it cannot construct a complete cabinet from these small parts and simply adds missing parts so that a new cabinet can be constructed based on the orientation (furniture store cabinet model). Please keep this in mind.

The Chinese virologists have performed a sample collection on a total of 5 people. This was a bronchial lavage (BALF), i.e. a mixture of many different known and unknown gene sequences. 

These supposedly infected fluids are given on so-called cell cultures. If they die, this is equated with the presence of the suspected virus since 1954. Within the experiments in the laboratory the used tissue dies by the addition of antibiotics, chemicals and by starvation, not at all by e.g. alleged viruses. This is because it is overlooked that not an infectious agent or a pathogenic virus gene may be regarded as the cause, but that the tissue alone dies because the experimental setup itself must necessarily produce the final result!

Because virologists are trapped in their compulsive thinking and thus automatically exclude anything but cause, without carefully confirming or excluding this by control experiments according to the rules of science (obligatory by the DFG since 1998 (2)), most virologists and colleagues do not notice their misconception and thus their erroneous conclusions. 

In this process of tissue death, which is visible in the laboratory, very short pieces of nucleic acid are released and constructed by means of an alignment to form a whole genome strand.  

This construction is therefore merely a computer model, which is only assembled to a complete claimed “viral” genetic strand by very fast computers and in many calculation steps within the alignment process. 

This process, which today is carried out within a short period of time by modern tools such as fast computers and their developed algorithms, used to be done by hand in the early days of the claimed genetic virology. 

With the measles virus, the “finding process” still took decades. 

The fact that the “virus genome” (Complete genome) was constructed only in thought can be seen directly in this publication, in which the German Epidemic Institute RKI was significantly involved: “Complete Genome Sequence of a Wild-Type Measles Virus Isolated during the Spring 2013 Epidemic in Germany”. (3)

By the word Alignment every layman can see directly that – as with all so-called disease-causing viruses – no whole and intact genome strand, i.e. the complete genome, which is assigned to SARS-CoV-2, was found and isolated, but only very short snippets of nucleic acid were constructed on the basis of an alignment to something new. The complete genome strand of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 is supposed to consist of 29803 nucleotides according to the mental-computational alignment.

For clarification: never in the publications of scientists or other literature does the claim appear that from a (viral) structure or even from an “infected” liquid an even approximately complete nucleic acid (in the case of SARS-CoV-2: 29803 nucleotides long) has been found, whose determination of its molecular sequence would correspond to the whole, only intellectually constructed nucleic acid. Not even one (approximately 3000 nucleotides long) of the 10 genes (29803 nucleotides long), of which the entire genome of SARS-CoV-2 is supposed to consist, was found in its entirety. 

Small side information: 

Of 2 “genes”, which would correspond to a length of approximately 6,000 nucleotides, only fractions with a length of approximately 250-280 nucleotides are “detected” by PCR, whereupon it is inadmissibly claimed that the presence of these 2 genes has been proven. In reality, not even this is detected, but RNA molecules that happen to be present in approximately this length.

Here the coercive logic to which the virologists are subject becomes clear. This manifested itself on December 10, 1954, when John Franklin Enders was awarded the Nobel Prize for a long-ago misinterpretation of the suspected polio virus. With the Nobel Prize on December 10, 1954, his speculation about the suspected measles virus, published on June 1, 1954, became a scientific fact overnight that has not been questioned to this day. Doubt is the most important scientific commandment and rule to avoid misinterpretations and to recognize and correct existing misinterpretations.

On June 1, 1954, Enders and his colleagues published observations according to which the death of tissue in the test tube could be regarded as the result of the action of suspected viruses, but at the same time refuted this assumption, since he reported that the same death of tissue in the test tube also occurred without the addition of supposedly infected material. He expressly warns that the presumption that the presence of a virus could be proven by this effect must be researched and investigated in the future. The Nobel Prize awarded to him on December 10, 1954, for a different matter, the admonition and request to examine this technique and not to equate it with the presence of a virus, has not been made until today.

A group of independent researchers from Germany are in the process of starting these trials and are certain that these control experiments will refute all assumptions and claims of the existence of disease-causing viruses, not only the so-called SARS-CoV-2. The refutation already results from the explanations of the virologists themselves, who never isolate a virus or the viral genetic material from it, but – since 1954 – equate the death of tissue/cells in the laboratory under extreme conditions with the presence of viruses.

This dying of tissues/cells in the test tube, this effect is also called cytopathic effect

In order to understand the reasons for this compulsive thinking and assumption, this will be briefly explained here.

Important comments on the scientific publication by John Franklin Enders and his colleague Thomas Chalmers Peebles

In June 1954, Nobel Prize winner John Franklin Enders and his colleague Thomas Chalmers Peebles published a report in the journal “Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine” No. 86(2), pages 277-286, on their work with the putative measles virus entitled “Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles” (4). As described on page 278 of this publication, the authors use, among other things, the antibiotic streptomycin to “sterilize” the throat swabs of measles patients before the cells in the test tube are “infected” with the suspected measles virus suspected in them. 

Today it is known that streptomycin damages and kills cells by killing the vital bacteria within the cells, the mitochondria, which among other things metabolise oxygen. 

Another aspect that should be mentioned is that there is a scientific insight that the addition of antibiotics creates exosomes (RNA sequences) that were previously not present. 

This is confirmed on the German Wikipedia page for the entry exosome (vesicle).
There it reads:
Exosomes are vesicles of about 30 to 90 nm in size, which are released by a cell into the environment. They can be formed by lymph cells, platelets, mast cells, dendritic cells, nerve cells, astrocytes and tumor cells, among others. Exosomes are formed in a multi-stage process that includes a constriction of the cell membrane, a process known as endocytosis, and an exocytosis process. These vesicles contain, among other things, nucleic acids and proteins in varying compositions and serve as transport vehicles and for the ejection of cell components. In addition, they are used for cellular communication. Thus, exosomes may play a role in acquired immunity. But viruses, such as HI viruses, also use exosomes for transport and camouflage. Exosomes are currently being investigated as possible therapeutic options in the treatment of autoimmune diseases and cancer. The formation of exosomes can still be triggered by certain substances such as the antibiotic ciprofloxacin. (5)

Screenshot Geman Wikipedia entry to Exosomes

The corresponding study “Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA” can be found in Nature. (6)

Also, according to scientists, exosomes cannot be distinguished from claimed viruses. (7)

One can see how opaque all this is, and above all how completely unclear it is in many respects. To claim at this point that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven is completely absurd.  

But what has been suppressed until today, and in the German measles trial by the expert and the court, is the fact documented in this publication that cells regularly die in the test tube in exactly the same way, even if nothing is done with them. This refutes the claim that the way the cells die in the test tube, which is presented as a specific “cytopathic effect” (cell destroying effect) (here for details) of the alleged measles virus, is in fact a perfectly normal death of cells in the test tube under these conditions.

Although the authors of this study point this out several times (on page 283, left column in the middle and on page 285, right column three times)  

that cell death is also caused by unknown factors and unknown viruses, the authors claimed two years later that their work from 1954 was fundamental to the production of all future measles vaccines. Despite these weaknesses and refutations, this study is considered by all measles virus supporters to be the fundamental study that has succeeded in isolating and propagating the measles virus. It is also worth reading this publication for another reason: the authors admit on page 286 that there is no reason to believe that their observations in the test tube have anything to do with the changes in humans defined as measles. This is still the case today.


To date, neither the measles virus, nor any other claimed disease-causing virus has been subjected to the necessary control experiments to dispel the speculation and doubts of John Franklin Enders, that is, to dispel the uncertainties once and for all. Even the German epidemic authority RKI has not carried out these experiments to date and confirmed this at the highest level: Epidemic authority confirmed: Neither virus-existence research nor control experiments performed (8)

Now let’s get back to the alignment. Since these short pieces of nucleic acids, from which only mentally the claimed viral genome strands are formed, occur in every living being, all humans and all animals can be tested “positive”, depending on the amount and the place of acceptance of the sample to be tested. The more tests are carried out, the more positive results are artificially generated. Such a test result does not allow any statement about health or disease.

The answer of the study author Wenjie Tan himself refutes the claim that the virus was isolated in his study in the sense of the word isolation.

Award-winning journalist Torsten Engelbrecht (9) and independent researcher Konstantin Demeter (10) have asked the scientific teams of the relevant papers referred to in connection with SARS-CoV-2 to prove whether the electron microscope images shown in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.

But not a single team could answer this question with “yes” – and no one said that cleaning was not a necessary step. We only received answers such as “No, we did not receive an electron microscope image showing the degree of purification” (see below).

They interviewed several studies authors, including the author Wenjie Tan: 

“Do your electron microscope images show the purified virus (an isolation)?”, his answer:

Study: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020 [nejm] (11)

Replying Author: Wenjie Tan

Date: March 18, 2020

Answer: “We show an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

It is NO! Image of purified virus particles! 

And it is easy to take this from the illustrations. Many scientists, virologists and doctors etc. seem to have missed this hint of the author that there is no purified virus here. 

The first two authoritative studies of the Chinese CDCC have not detected any new virus!

In the first authoritative publication by the authors of CCDC, “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019”, no incidence of cases of atypical pneumonia (“patient with pneumonia of unknown cause”) is reported. Rather, they write that the patients found can be grouped into a “cluster”, a group with common characteristics. A common characteristic was the more or less frequent visit of a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan. How small the group of patients with atypical pneumonia actually was can be seen from the fact that the CCDC took swabs and fluids of the lower respiratory tract from only four patients in order to search for known and unknown pathogens.

In this study, which is regarded as authoritative, it says under Discussion: 

“our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates”.

Thus it is clearly proven that this study can at no time be considered as proof for a new type of virus!

The studies of the five people documented in the two publications relevant to the corona crisis (12)|(13) fail to investigate the possible presence or history, signs, mechanisms and effects of these known causes of atypical pneumonia. In any case, this is not part of the range of activities of a virologist and was also not feasible for the members of the CCDC due to the given panic situation. 

However, not mentioning atypical pneumonia proves a serious medical malpractice and compromises a correct treatment of the patients. The affected patients always run the risk of being mistreated with a cocktail of antibiotic substances rich in side effects, which – especially in the case of overdose – is already capable of causing the patient’s death on its own. This has been done and documented in the Lancet (14).

The virologists of the CCDC state in both publications that there is no evidence that these sequence suggestions (by alignment) are actually capable of causing diseases. As of January 10-12, 2020, the Chinese sequence proposals were still preliminary and had not yet undergone the strict process of scientifically prescribed review.

The authoritative virologists of the Chinese Federal Disease Control Commission (CCDC) published their results on 24.1.2020 and 3.2.2020. They report on the isolation of many short gene sequences, which, when strung together mentally, could represent a genetic strand of a novel virus. The authors explicitly state – as all other virologists involved to date – that the absolutely necessary experiments have not yet been carried out which would allow the assertion that this is indeed a genetic strand of a disease-causing virus. 

On the contrary: Chinese virologists even explicitly point out that the constructed genetic strand bears up to 90 % similarity to genetic strands of harmless corona viruses that have been known and claimed for decades and found in bats.

  1. The genetic strand of SARS-CoV-2 is only one model, which was created by an alignment. These many short pieces of nucleic acid were aligned (template) by means of a long sequence, which is attributed to a harmless bat corona virus. The publication of Fan Wu et al, in Nature, Vol 579 of 3.2.2020 (15), in which the genome (complete genome strand) of SARS-CoV-2 was presented for the first time, became the template for all further alignments of all other virologists and biochemists. It is important to mention that the template (bat coronavirus) was also only created by an alignment process. This genetic strand was never isolated as a whole and intact and was never seen in reality.
  2. The genome (genetic strand) of SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated, only the entire RNA obtained from a bronchial lavage (BALF) of a patient has been used to construct a new genome (complete genetic strand) with these many very short pieces of nucleic acid.
  3. No control experiments were performed to exclude that the gene sequences are tissue-own structures. We will come to that in a moment.

Short facts on the study: Na Zhu – A Novel Coronavirus From Patients With Pneumonia in China, 2019 (2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733):

  • No isolation of a virus (only obtained genetic material | BALF)
  • It was not cultivated in host cells (lung cancer cells were used)
  • No proof of filterability (centrifugation was used)
  • The alignment was not carried out independently of the other Chinese study (16), because the same corona bat virus was used for the alignment – here an agreement was definitely made, because there were dozens of completely different alleged “viruses” with which an alignment could have been carried out!

Many doctors and scientists critical of Corona have failed to notice that these and all other studies have not carried out any control experiments to date!

Although control experiments are mandatory and have been codified for scientific work (lege artis) by the German Research Society since 1998 for Germany and signed by all university rectors, they are still missing today! 

A study that disregards the obligatory control experiments must not and cannot be considered scientific. 

The Chinese virologists did not conduct control experiments to rule out, 

  • that even with human/microbial RNA from a lung lavage of a healthy person, 
  • of a person with another lung disease, 
  • of a person who has been tested SARS-CoV-2 negative,
  • or from such RNA from reserve samples from the time when the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still unknown

exactly the same addition of a virus genome from short RNA fragments is possible!

Prof. Zhang and all the others overlooked the fact that in the obtained bronchial lavage also known and unknown microbes of all kinds and their RNA remnants can be found.

95 % of the observed microbes are visible but cannot be cultivated, so their RNA and DNA sequences are unknown. Since even cell cultures (e.g. Vero E6 cells) are never free of microbes and countless impurities of any kind, there is an unconditional obligation to isolate the suspected virus and to extract its own nucleic acid (in this case RNA) in pure form!

A method like the alignment here, to calculate a theoretically long one from very short gene sequences, which is not backed up by control experiments, cannot be called scientific. Here, scientificity is given, but it is not adhered to in an obvious, comprehensible and verifiable way.

 a.) In the alignment process, no one has yet verified that the gene sequences from which the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome was calculated do not originate from gene sequences derived from the metabolism of microbes that colonize humans and cell cultures.

b.) Only about 5 % of the existing microbes are genetically identified, which makes it necessary to carry out control experiments immediately, because it is obvious that the genome of the virus was calculated completely or partially from their unknown sequences in a multi-step “alignment”.

c.) It has been known for a long time that the enzymes that produce gene sequences, not only by the well-known mechanism of “template switching”, constantly produce new gene sequences that cannot be recorded in any database and that the enzymes that produce RNA gene sequences do so even without gene templates. This means that new gene sequences are constantly being created that could not be captured by previous methods. This alone results in the obligation to carry out control experiments immediately, because it is obvious that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 was constructed entirely or partially by computer from such unspecific sequences.

Prof. Zhang explicitly mentions in this publication that he did not follow the rules for proving the existence of a virus, the Koch’s postulates. Also not the first postulate, the isolation of the virus.

Prof. Zhang explicitly mentions that there is only a correlation between the mathematical “proof” of this virus and an actual pneumonia, but no proof that his “discovery” is causal for this disease.

Structures shown in EM images and published as images of viruses have never been biochemically characterized. No nucleic acid has ever been extracted and determined from such particles. These particles are published as viruses only, with the information that the same particles of this type are produced each time “uninfected” cell cultures are treated in the same way as cell cultures defined as “infected”. Non-virologists refer to these particles as phagosomes, endosomes, exosomes, transport vesicles and in cross section as villi etc. pp.

These control attempts, which also result from the laws of thought and logic constitutive for science – to the exclusion of the obvious, namely that from the body’s own short gene sequences and from those of the numerous known and above all unknown microbes that colonize humans – have not been carried out until today. Thus nobody may and can claim that the proof of a new kind of disease-causing virus has been proven

Prof. Marcel Tanner is a Swiss epidemiologist, malaria researcher and public health specialist. He is President of the R. Geigy Foundation, President of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, [2] Director emeritus of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH). 

He also confirmed in an interview that it is not sufficient to perform an alignment to detect a pathogenic virus.

For the most detailed analysis of the authoritative study of the Chinese so far available on the Internet, see the article:

Corona: The comprehensible and verifiable refutation of the virus allegations

Translated, adapted and reblogged version – Original here________________________________________________

Telegraph main page with overview of all articles: Link

Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link

Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link

Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal________________________________________________


(1) A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019

(2) Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice

(3) Complete Genome Sequence of a Wild-Type Measles Virus Isolated during the Spring 2013 Epidemic in Germany

(4) Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles.

(5) Exosom (Vesikel) – German Wikipedia entry

(6) Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA

(7) When is a virus an exosome?

(8) Epidemic authority confirmed: Neither virus-existence research nor control experiments performed

(9) Thorsten Engelbrecht Biography

(10) Konstantin Demeter Profile

(11) see 1

(12) see 1

(13) A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China

(14) Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome

(15) A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China

(16) see 13