(not just some scientist in Wuhan at the very beginning of the pandemic)
Of course, you didn’t watch it carefully. Prejudice won’t help you. The interview was done on January 23rd 2021, a year AFTER the ‘many scientists paper show they isolated the virus’. Dr. Wu Zunyou is an official of a Chinese CDC, so he should know if the virus was isolated. But I suppose you don’t believe Chinese CDC? Let’s see who is lying here. How about US CDC as an arbiter? They have posted this Lab Alert at their site:
Here is a screenshot in case they have changed something in the meantime:
Another ‘multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses’ means that the current FDA-authorized COVID-19 test could not differentiate between those two viruses, which means the virus is NOT isolated. If you need more detailed explanation, it is at this link:
False papers are thriving in the Coronavirus Hoax. The most known, notorious case is the case of a fake company called Surgisphere, whose ‘experts’ were a science fiction writer and an adult content model! A porn-star! Fake study about hydroxychloroquine that tried to discredit the tested drug was retracted from the Lancet magazine after only 13 days, but the corporate media never published the retraction, and are still citing it. And you still religiously believe those lies without even trying to pose a serious questions?
Ok, so you're referring to an idea that is so uncommon that you can only find it in some special medical book that has been removed from a youtube video? I suggest you read more, watch videos less, if you want good information.
It is not a special textbook – it is a standard textbook from the Medical Faculty of a Belgrade University. And she was also reading an excerpt saying that a natural immunity is always stronger then a vaccine immunity, which means that those who were infected does not need vaccine at all. Yes, this is a book, and I was sending that video because it was the easiest form available for everyone to see. You ask YouTube why they banned it.
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.
Also, your idea about not believing the chinese CDC is laughable. As you should have probably guessed, the first genomic mappings of sars-cov-2 were performed by Chinese scientists. They were, after all, the first ones to have access to samples. I ran across the paper at one point (it is highly cited by other scientists who have since mapped their own samples in different countries) and I can probably find it again if you will actually look at it.
Please do share this explanation, @altleft, I’m all ears. The context is pretty clear imo, NBC reporter investigating “the origin of the virus” where the “first samples were taken.” When asked why Chinese authorities hadn’t shared the data they have, this was his response, “Well, they didn’t isolate the virus, that’s the issue,” and when asked, “What about animal samples” his reply was candid, “that doesn’t tell you anything,” because it is irrelevant where the samples are coming from if the virus hasn’t been isolated from those samples.
The context seems clear, the alleged emergence of a novel virus in Wuhan and the Chinese samples that were taken in patients from the Wuhan market where it allegedly all began. He’s clearly referring to the researchers who took and analyzed those samples, and he said they didn’t isolate the virus, but hey, maybe he didn’t actually mean what he said, maybe he actually meant that they did isolate it, and that something else was the issue. As small as a sound bite as it is, it’s pretty hard to misinterpret; he either meant what he said, or he didn’t, or there’s some other cryptic meaning of virus isolation that I’m missing here. So I’d love to hear that explanation of yours, I really would.
Yes, this is exactly the point, and the Chinese official is saying those scientists didn’t isolate the virus. Am I missing something here? Genetic mappings of a virus that hasn’t been isolated and is thus only theorized to exist and to cause ‘Covid19’ (ie. Genetic mappings of RNA found in samples which may or may not be viral RNA of a virus which may or may not be new) does not prove that these non-purified particles are a novel virus.
Concerning the “viral genome sequence” mapped in the widely cited Chinese paper you reference, the original Drosten-Corman study, linked in my initial comment response, clearly states:
"In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community."
Or maybe this first “viral genome sequence” originally released to the international health community and said to establish existence of the ‘virus’ is not the one mapped in the early Chinese studies, maybe the study you reference came shortly after, but are you going to try to tell me those studies did not base their findings around the original genetic sequence that did not come from a virus isolate taken directly from a patient? No matter how you spin it, the initial genetic mapping that birthed the “viral genome sequence” come to be known as the original ‘virus’ strain was not the genetic sequencing and mapping of an isolated virus, and thus no amount of genetic sequencing and mapping, no matter how widespread, inherently establishes the existence of new virus named ‘2019-nCoV’/‘SARS-CoV2’, which could only by accomplished with the scientific gold standard of virus isolation and purification.
Maybe this has since been done, and I am just not familiar with the more recent studies, so I’d love to see the papers claiming to have done so - I’ve already looked at several that alleged ‘isolation’ but did not in fact purify virus - but no amount of studies mapping and sequencing a ‘virus’ that has yet to be isolated serve to prove the existence of that alleged virus. I patiently await for those studies to be published or brought to my attention so I can concede that the theory this virus hasn’t been proven to exist is in fact mistaken. I have always been and remain open to this possibility; I only wish to see the evidence that this virus has actually been properly isolated accompanied by end-to-end sequencing of those purified virus particles. And with this in mind, yes I for one would of course look at the Chinese study you reference, I would very much like to know which one you speak of and see the contents for myself.
Hi @jasonliberty, I only did a quick search, and couldn't find the article I referenced. But I did listen to the NBC broadcast again and as to the first part, it seems we even agree about what it means, but the conclusions we draw are where we differ. In particular, we agree on this:
Yes, he is saying that the didn't isolate the virus in the first patients they found. But this isn't terribly surprising, in my opinion. During the first couple of weeks during which the outbreak occurred, it appears the Chinese doctors were caught off guard and didn't realize they were dealing with a new and dangerous virus. In pre-covid times, if you went to the doctor with flu symptoms, I doubt they would have tried to genetically sequence it as that is expensive. But once they realized that they were dealing with something new and deadly, they took it more seriously, sampled infected patients, and sequenced the virus. But this would likely be after the initial patients had recovered or died and no longer contained the virus. At least, that is essentially what the Chinese guy is claiming.
Now, he could be lying: the question he is being asked is why they didn't share the data on those initial patients. If the "lab leak" theory is correct, then they may have had a protocol in place to test anyone reporting covid-like symptoms as a means of detecting a potential leak from the lab. And in this case, they could have isolated the virus at that time and just held back the results, hoping to snuff out the virus before it could spread. But that is purely speculative and I haven't seen strong evidence that points one way or the other.
Here's where you start to lose me. There are labs all around the world where scientists can isolate the virus from samples take from local covid-19 patients and genetically sequence the DNA.
An initial failure to identify the DNA sequence in the initial patients is mostly meaningless, except that it could be helpful to trace the origin of the virus (and if the lab leak theory is correct, this would be an obvious reason why the Chinese would not want to share such data, and that was the whole point of the "pointed question" by the NBC interviewer).
As I mentioned previously, a huge number of such studies have been performed (and I referenced several such papers written all over the world) and there doesn't appear to be much dispute about the DNA sequencing between these paper writers. These studies have additionally identified mutated forms of the virus, that's how scientists identify variants. This seems really straightforward to me, I am having trouble following what you find confusing about it.
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
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.
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...