Good example of an artificial interaction

Archiving a conversation with Tau Braun on X.

Dr. Braun follows me but this was the first time I have been aware of or interacted with him.

---

On 2 September 2025, I replied to JulesDiner’s question, “Was there a novel coronavirus?”

There was no sudden-spreading novel* SARS-like coronavirus causing a unique disease *Novel to detection (look what we found!) is not novel to living things.

The virologists who designed the “blueprint” test rooted their design in social media rumor.

Dr. Tau Braun asked,

What was the actual sequence used for the PCR? And what chemical was the rapid test looking for?

I replied,

Hi. 

If you’re asking about the [Corman-Drosten] PCR, as far as I can tell, there was no single sequence used in the design. Martin Neil has commented on this as well (though I am not speaking for him). 

Where are the numbers? by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil

The smoking man emails

Here’s what I see: 

C-D (v 13 Jan 2020)

“We used known SARS- and SARS-related coronaviruses (bat viruses from our own studies as well as literature sources) to generate a non-redundant alignment (excerpts shown in Annex). We designed candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assays before release of the first sequence of the Wuhan virus. Upon sequence release, three assays were selected based on their matching to the Wuhan virus as per inspection of the sequence alignment (Figures 1 and 2)”

C-D (v 17 Jan 2020)

“We used known SARS- and SARS-related coronaviruses (bat viruses from our own studies as well as literature sources) to generate a non-redundant alignment (excerpts shown in Annex). We designed candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assays before release of the first sequence of 2019-nCoV. Upon sequence release, the following assays were selected based on their matching to 2019-nCoV as per inspection of the sequence alignment and initial evaluation (Figures 1 and 2). Both versions say, 

“For oligonucleotide design and in-silico evaluation we downloaded all complete and partial (if >400 nucleotides) SARS-related virus sequences available at GenBank by January 1st, 2020. The list (n=729 entries) was manually checked and artificial sequences (lab-derived, synthetic etc.), as well as sequence duplicates removed, resulting in a final list of 375 sequences. These sequences were aligned and the alignment used for assay design. The alignment was later complemented by sequences released from the Wuhan cluster. All presently release sequences match the amplicons (Figure 2). An overview of oligonucleotide binding sites in all unique sequences of bat-associated SARS-related viruses is shown in the appendix.”

The social media sourcing statements were added for the Eurosurveillance paper. 

[In The Smoking Man emails] @MartinNeil9 asked, “Which exact genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was Dr Drosten using on January 13th when he picked the primer sequences?” 

I still don’t know [and] remain unclear as to which/how many sequences “Wuhan virus”/”2019-nCoV” represents. 

Before the COVID event, I had never heard the term “variant” with respect to respiratory illness. 

“Strain”? Yes – with respect to influenza. 

What is the difference between a “variant” and a “strain”? 

Based on my reading of the differences between the versions of the “Naming/Classification” paper – and the ICTV-CSG “naming” emails I obtained from UNC, I posit that whatever these entities are, SARS-CoV-2 essentially is SARS-1 and can be characterized as a “variant” thereof. 

In fact, Drosten apparently told a German newspaper as much in mid-January 2020! I am reading an English translation, but Drosten used the term “variant”. https://berliner-zeitung.de/gesundheit-oekologie/neuer-erreger-in-china-ist-ein-sars-virus-li.4864 “According to Berlin virus researcher Christian Drosten, the new pathogen circulating in China is a Sars virus similar to that of the Sars pandemic 2002/03. ‘It’s the same type of virus, only in a different variant,’ said the director of the Institute of Virology at the Charité in Berlin.”

[Wolfgang] Wodarg, Pieter Borger, and Mike Yeadon each said something similar.¹

If we assume that the SARS-1 virus wasn’t “novel” either, is it possible that SARS-CoV-2 is simply (in evolutionary terms) the 13-year “slightly changed” version of SARS-1? 

I think this would work conceptually regardless of what one thinks these things are — or whether one believes they are “in the air” or simply “circulate” (wink wink) WITHIN us and are effects, not causes. 

I’m not claiming to understand the biological ins and outs of what I’m proposing here…just trying to take these people at their word, and use it to interrogate the claims.

I went on to say,

@drtaubraun Related to the rapid-test antigens, @jengleruk and I see a circularity problem:

Sanity Unleashed

Novelty and immunity: Why were we so blind to the obvious?

And (also via  @profnfenton and Martin Neil’s WATN) unreliable tests:

Where are the numbers? by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil

The Fallacy of Trust: Revisiting the Reliability of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing Methods

In October 2023, we explored the role of antigen testing during the pandemic in our article on Operation Moonshot in the UK…

Due to sequence homology, there is consistent cross-reactivity w/SARS-CoV-1 across tested assays and instances instances of cross-reactivity with other human coronaviruses.

Other observations/?s:

In October 2012, the U.S. National Select Agent Registry Program declared “SARS-coronavirus” a select agent, i.e., a bacterium, virus or toxin that has the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety. On what basis? 

SARS is among the diseases that can fast-track a WHO PHEIC. [It] seems to me “the coronavirus” allegedly causing a spreading-illness outbreak in Wuhan “had” to be a SARS-CoV. 

Wood House 76: Does a SARS virus automatically trigger a WHO Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)?

Revisiting an article I wrote last year on the naming of SARS-CoV-2 reminded me of a claim by Christian Drosten that warrants a “fact check…

Good thing the Germans involved with the SARS-1 test were on standby, right? 😉 

Hope that helps.

I then said,

@drtaubraun as you’re aware, the U.S. did not use the C-D PCR and had its own.* 

I can get back to you if you’re interested, but I recently noticed some things that suggest the U.S. developed its test from the sequence of the missing-in-action Snohomish Man. 

I’m not clear as to why people say a single sequence from a Wuhan patient informed everything. Maybe I’m overlooking something obvious?

*In my opinion, the “debacle” involving the early CDC tests was staged and intentional.

Braun said,

Thank you for your very thorough response. I’m going to spend some time on this and then reply.

I responded,

Good to hear, thank you. Appreciate the inquiries and the dialogue.

Please tag me in your response; X isn’t always great about “notifying”!

Dr. Braun has not returned to the thread. 

If he does, I will l post his reply here.

1 – Sources for corresponding statements linked to respective names

15 March 2025: At the time, I considered this conversation artificial on the part of Dr. Braun and documented it for that reason. My perspective about that is unchanged.