Sabine Hazan claims to have conducted a scientific study and found “SARS-COV-2” in fecal samples. She made this claim in a paper that was published in…. and during an interview with Del Bigtree on the Highwire.
Sabine’s claim is false. Her study is not scientific, and she did not find “SARS-COV-2”, or “COVID” as she confusingly referred to the imaginary virus during her interview with Del.
This is the study in question:
Detection of SARS‑CoV‑2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing
Sabine’s stated goal and overall design (no hypothesis?)
In the Background section of her study, Sabine stated:
“… we sought to identify the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 by NGS of fecal samples from
symptomatic study participants positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal sample RT-PCR,
in addition to asymptomatic individuals (with or without prior nasopharyngeal sample RT-PCR).
We also aimed to execute whole genome analysis to characterize SARS-CoV-2 mutational variations to identify potentially significant nucleotide changes.“
Notice that no hypothesis was stated, because this is not a scientific study.
Further, the design outlined above is not capable of identifying a virus. The study is not designed to assess causation of a contagious disease by a specific tiny infectious replicating particle, and no one on Earth has ever carried out a study showing the existence of the alleged “SARS-COV-2”, or demonstrated contagion of respiratory illnesses.
So no amount of sequencing and/or PCR testing could possibly identify “SARS-COV-2”. No sequences have ever been shown to come from a virus called “SARS-COV-2” (or called anything else), and the alleged particle (RNA genome surrounded by a spikey protein shell) has not even been shown to exist. The alleged genome has never even been shown to exist, and the spike protein has never been found in any people.
Further, even IF a virus called SARS-COV-2 had already been shown to exist, you could not confirm the presence of an intact virus simply by finding sequences.
And symptoms, especially nonspecific symptoms that have occurred throughout history, tell you nothing whatsoever about the presence of “the virus”.
So Sabine’s study could not possibly accomplish what it set out to do and is basically worthless and fraudulent. It’s sad that she is getting so much attention and misleading people with the help of Del Bigree, Sasha Latypova and others who still believe in “the virus” and that a contagious new disease was actually discovered in Wuhan.
To help those people see how worthless Sabine’s study is, let’s take a further look. Because it gets worse.
Notice that symptomatic patients who were negative on PCR were not allowed in this study. Symptomatic patients with positive PCR fit the narrative better, so best to leave the negative patients! This means that you can’t even take a meaningful look at the percentage of symptomatic patients who had a positive test result. They’re all positive, by design.
And since the “genomes” are made up of sequences which include the sequences that are targeted by the PCR tests, you increase your odds of being able to create an in silico “genome” for symptomatic patients by eliminating the patients who tested negative on PCR.
And you can’t look at these study patients as representing the population at large …
Sabine’s Methods
The Methods are provided in the last section of the paper, even after Conclusion, where few people will bother to read them.
“Study participants (n = 14) underwent testing for SARSCoV- 2 from fecal samples by whole genome enrichment NGS. ”
So the study has a small sample size. And even the reference to n = 14 is misleading, because only 8 patients actually have NGS results listed in Table 1.
“Following fecal collection in Zymo Research Shield Fecal Collection Tubes,…“
Let’s pause here and [Zymo Research: DNA/RNA Shield Fecal Collection tubes are designed for the collection and preservation of nucleic acids from stool specimens. These fecal collection tubes take a microbial snapshot of a sample while inactivating viruses making samples safe and ready for transport. Samples stored in these fecal collection tubes are stable at ambient temperature, and can be frozen for longer-term storage. Simply collect a spoonful of the specimen into the stool collection tubes prefilled with preservative and shake vigorously to ensure proper stabilization. R1137 is pre-filled with 5 glass beads to help facilitate homogenization. https://zymoresearch.eu/products/dna-rna-shield-fecal-collection-tube
MSDS for DNA/RNA Shield repeatedly states: “None of the ingredients is listed.” Also “Chemical characterization: Mixtures · Description: This product is a proprietary solution.“
https://files.zymoresearch.com/sds/dna-rna_shield_products_(us).pdf
Quick Protocol for DNA RNA Shield Fecal Collection Tube states “DNA/RNA Shield™ reagent pre-filled into vials“
https://files.zymoresearch.com/quick-protocol/_r1101_dna-rna-shield-fecal-collection-tube.pdf]
“stool samples were transported to the laboratory where RNA was extracted utilizing the Qiagen Allprep Power Fecal Kit from 200 μl of stool material that was suspended in the DNA/RNA Shield stabilization solution present in the Zymo collection vials. Zymo’s DNA/RNA Shield is designed to preserve RNA genetic integrity and prevent degradation at ambient temperature for > 1 month, or > -20 °C indefinitely. All samples were adhered to manufacture’s specifications to assure sample stability. “
“Included throughout sample processing was the SARS-CoV-2 positive control from ATCC (Heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2, VR-1986HK; strain 2019-nCoV/USA-WA1/2020), and the no template control (NTC) to monitor extraneous nucleic acid contamination. “
“Following purification, all available viral RNA was reverse transcribed (New England Biolabs NEBNext 1st and 2nd Strand Synthesis Modules), library prepped (Illumina Nextera Flex for Enrichment and IDT for Illumina- Nextera DNA UD Indexes Set), enriched (Ilumina Respiratory Virus Oligo Panel), and sequenced with Illumina’s NextSeq 500/550 High-Output v2.5 300 cycle kit on the Illumina NextSeq 550 System. Run set-up parameters on the NextSeq Control Software (Illumina Local Run Manager) included paired-end sequencing set to 76 cycles with both Index 1 and 2 at 10 bp (base pair). The 76 bp selection is appropriate due to the size of the baits in the Illumina Virus Oligo Panel. Although the sequencing kit utilized has the capacity to sequence at 2 × 150 bp, selection above 76 cycles would begin to sequence into the adapters, negatively impacting NGS quality metrics. Sequencing acceptance criteria were a Q-score (AQ30) ≥ 75%, cluster density between 120 and 240 K/mm2, and clusters passing filter (PF%) ≥ 80%. Following successful NGS QC, sequences were then mapped utilizing the minimap2 sequencing alignment tool in One Codex’s SARS-CoV-2 bioinformatics analysis pipeline. “
“SARSCoV- 2 positive samples were further analyzed for mutational variants that differed from the reference genome. The complete analysis pipeline for SARS-CoV-2 is open source and available at http://githu b.com/oneco dex/ sars-co-v-2. A detailed description of the bioinformatics methods is available at http://docs.oneco dex.com/en/ artic les/37939 36-covid -10-seque ncing -analysis.”
“SARSCoV- 2 genome sequencing data (in patients from which complete viral genomes were obtained) are deposited in NBCI’s GenBank database (Accession IDs: MW425856, MW425855, MW425854, MW425853, MW425852, MW425851 for patients 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12 respectively).”
Sabine reports that “complete viral genomes were obtained” in only 6 patients.
“The SARS-Cov-2 amino acid changes reported in the discussion section were manually analyzed utilizing the NCBI database (http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene).”
PCR: This is the only information Sabine provided about the PCR tests in the Methods section:
“Of the 14 study participants, 12 also had their nasopharyngeal swabs tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR.” END OF METHODS. (These patients were all symptomatic at baseline.)
Sabine’s Results:
“We evaluated the results from patients that had their stool samples tested by whole genome enrichment NGS, and their nasopharyngeal swabs tested by RT-PCR for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.“
I find this sentence misleading, because it sounds as though this is a study looking at patients who had both NGS and PCR tests. But it isn’t. It’s a study looking at 2 groups: patients with symptoms and positive PCR, and patients without symptoms, some of whom had PCR tests.
Of the 14 study participants, ten were symptomatic and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR, two asymptomatic individuals tested negative, and two other asymptomatic individuals did not undergo RT-PCR testing (Table 1).”
So 10 patients who had symptoms plus positive PCR were enrolled. Recall that symptomatic patients could only join the study if they also had a positive PCR, and so the positive PCR tests do not represent a finding for these patients. They are PCR+ as per the study design.
Also, four patients who had no symptoms were enrolled. The asymptomatic people were not required to have a PCR test. Half of them (n=2) did have a test, and both of them (2/2 = 100%) were negative on the test. A sample size of 2 is hardly something to get excited about.
(And don’t even think about checking for a potential correlation between symptoms and PCR test results. Recall that symptomatic patients could only join the study if they had a positive PCR test!)
Patients 2, 8, 9 and 14 are the patients with no symptoms. I’ve highlighted them in Table 1, below, to make it easier not to confuse them with the patients who started out with symptoms and a positive PCR test.
“While all patients were asked to collect stools at baseline, the samples were collected from 2 to 38 days after RT-PCR testing. Patients 5, 7, and 13, who all tested PCR positive by nasopharyngeal swab, were treated by their primary care physicians. Patients 5 and 7, were treated with Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Azithromycin (Zpack), vitamin C (3000 mg), vitamin D (3000 IU), and zinc (50 mg) for 10 days. Stools from patients 5 and 7 were collected 5 and 6 days respectively after therapy regimens were initiated, at which time, both patients reported symptom clearance. Similarly, after positive nasopharyngeal swab, patient 13 began treatment consisting of high dosages of vitamin C (up to 10,000 mg), vitamin D (up to 3000 IU), and zinc (up to 50 mg). This patient’s stool was collected 4 days after beginning the 10-day treatment regimen. Again, dosage changes were not recorded; however, symptom clearance was noted before fecal collection.“
So out of the 10 patients who were enrolled with symptoms plus positive PCR, 3 of them no longer had symptoms by the time their stool was collected 4-6 days later. For the remaining 7 patients, their stool was collected 2-38 days after their PCR test.
Of course, if any of these people were tested again on the day of stool collection, or even 5 minutes after their 1st PCR test, they could get a different (negative) result. xxx For people who believe in the test, this time delay might be a concern.
“The concordance of SARS-CoV-2 detection by enrichment NGS from stools among positive non-treated patients tested by RT-PCR nasopharyngeal analysis was 100% (7/7).“
So out of the 7 patients who were enrolled with symptoms plus positive PCR, and then had their stool collected 2-38 days later and still had symptoms at that time (but unknown PCR status), “SARS-CoV-2” was “detected” by enrichment NGS. Issues here: small sample size; exclusion of PCR negative patients increased odds of “detecting the genome”…
“Patient 8, who did not undergo nasopharyngeal analysis, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by NGS. The three patients (5, 7, 13) that received treatment and were asymptomatic prior to providing fecal samples, were tested negative by NGS. Asymptomatic patients 2 and 9, who tested negative by nasopharyngeal swab, were also negative by NGS, as was asymptomatic patient 14.”
Small sample size. Extremely weak evidence of a correlation between common symptoms and a meaningless unreliable indirect test for a virus never shown to exist, which at best only detects a target sequence and isn’t even reliable for that.
Sabine discloses zero details re PCR protocol and refused in November 2021 to provide it to me (see emails).
NGS:
Patients 8, had no baseline symptoms, wasn’t evaluated? for symptoms as stool collection, no PCR test. Only a “positive” made-up “SARS-COV-2” genome, without even any of the bogus “virus” indicators.
Patients 2 and 9 had no baseline symptoms, no symptoms as stool collection, negative PCR results, and Sabine couldn’t even make up an in silico “genome” for them.
Patient 14 had no baseline symptoms, no symptoms as stool collection, no PCR test, and Sabine couldn’t even make up an in silico “genome” for them.
“Abbreviations NGS: Next-generation sequencing; SARS: Severe acute respiratory syndrome; SARS-CoV-2: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; NCBI: National Center for Biotechnology Information; ICTV: International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses; RT-PCR: Real time polymerase chain reaction; HCQ: Hydroxychloroquine; CQ: Chloroquine; Nt: Nucleotide; C: Cytosine; A: Adenine; G: Guanine; T: Thymine; ORF: Open reading frame; BatCoV: Bat coronavirus; RBD: Receptor binding domain; ACE2: Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2; MERS: Middle East respiratory syndrome; GISAID: Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data; WGS: Whole genome sequencing; M: Male; F: Female; PA: Pennsylvania; AZ: Arizona; GA: Georgia; CA: California.“