The virus had to be isolated (samples collected and grown in a lab) in order for vaccines to be made. I suppose you think that all the vaccines are just randomly made from ivermectin /s. You're using a single misunderstood sound bite to attempt to contradict an incredibly numerous set of reports of isolated covid 19. Here's an article with a link to an entire database of DNA mappings for covid 19, and I'll excerpt a relevant quote:
https://asm.org/Articles/2020/October/SARS-CoV-2-Sequencing-Data-The-Devil-Is-in-the-Gen
One of the largest curated international repositories of SARS-CoV-2 sequence data is hosted by GISAID (Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data). As of September 2020, almost 100,000 full SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences, along with key contextual information (metadata) associated with each sequence, have been uploaded and shared on the GSAID SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Epidemiology (EpiCov) platform. NextStrain and NextClade open-source bioinformatics tools use GSAID data, allowing users to create highly customizable visualizations.
Next, you conflate isolating and genetic sequencing of a virus with PCR testing for that virus:
Genetic sequencing is a much more intensive task where you are determining the DNA sequence of a sample. A PCR test is just a method of analyzing a sample taken from a person to see if that sample contains a known DNA sequence.
And duh, of course, I've already read your conspiracy theory about PCR tests and the relevant quote from the CDC about PCR tests. Anyone who understands English well could understand that the CDC is suggesting moving to a test that can simultaneously test for covid AND influenza, instead of requiring two separate tests (a multiplexed test is a test that can test for two different conditions simultaneously).
Maybe the problem is you are not a native English speaker and were therefore confused by the word multiplexed? But even so, if you just bothered to read the second sentence after the sentence you highlighted, you should have been able to understand this. I'll retype it for you from your screenshot: "Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-cov-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into the influenza season." In other words, you can do two tests for the price of one with a multiplexed test. The suggested move from using the PCR test was because it was becoming flu season, an obvious and logical change to make at such a time, when diagnosing patients presenting symptoms that could be either covid or influenza.
And since you love to read, you’ll have to find textbooks in your language, instead of referring to ‘common sense’ you’ve got from corporate media, without asking how common it can be.
Most of my sources are scientific data, not corporate media. I'm not averse to using an article as a starting point for finding that data, but in most cases where I'm citing a source, you will find I generally am pointing at scientific data (or an article with links to that data), not some article written by a relatively clueless reporter. And the substance of my arguments are generally my own, just based on reasoning about the data itself. If you read my responses carefully, this should become obvious.
Lol, are you memeing yourself here? What exactly am I repeating from what "authority tells me"? And point to specific things, instead of just making blanket statements like above. There's no reasoning with that kind of argument because it doesn't actually address anything I've said. But maybe you just find it a convenient escape from having to rationally argue your position. I'll create a new quote for you to meme in the future: "Blanket memes are the last refuge of the incompetent debator".
You are absolutely incompetent debator: You have a Chinese CDC official who clearly states that virus is not isolated, and you said it’s laughable. So, you believe Chinese CDC but not this official who is out of your prejudice.
You are simply not able to ask yourself if the genome sequencing may be just a computer manipulation? Swallowing anything media serve you? You are not serious. I’m losing my time with you. Good luck.
I'm not saying that the speaker is laughable. And I have no prejudice against the Chinese. Nor do I think the speaker is lying. I think you just don't understand the meaning of what he is saying, because you lack context. I actually read more on this particular interview in the past and the explanation for this soundbite in full context was quite reasonable, but it would take me some time to find it again.
You're weighing the evidence in a laughable manner: you have a "soundbite" from a single scientist, and it is easily misconstrued: the meaning would depend on the context of the conversation and you're weighting that one sound bite higher than 100,000 scientific results.
And your idea that all these scientific papers are just "computer manipulation" is purely paranoia. Here's just a few such papers, published on many different sites for scientific research:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248371
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7895735/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32171191/
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023a3.htm
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243265
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247799
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-sars-cov2-whole-genome-sequencing-epi-summary.pdf?la=en
I could go on all day finding articles like this. But you go on believing you understand a single soundbite to mean they are all fake...