Has SARS-CoV-2 been isolated?

@metal-brain said
You say they will respond, but how do you know that? The only way you could know that is if you messaged them to find out.

Be honest for a change. What do you really know and not know?

This post makes it seem like you don't want to see the data you are claiming is fraudulent. Would you rather trust an osteopathic physician instead of the researchers who did the actual experiments? Based on his resume, I doubt Dr. Mercola has ever performed a PCR reaction.

I found their data in the publication convincing. However, if you don't (I think you said it was fraudulent) you can inquire for more information. This, at least, would settle it. Talk to the source. Unless you don't want to know.

@wildgrass said
This post makes it seem like you don't want to see the data you are claiming is fraudulent. Would you rather trust an osteopathic physician instead of the researchers who did the actual experiments? Based on his resume, I doubt Dr. Mercola has ever performed a PCR reaction.

I found their data in the publication convincing. However, if you don't (I think you said it was f ...[text shortened]... ore information. This, at least, would settle it. Talk to the source. Unless you don't want to know.

I'm saying the same thing about you. You came across the website first. Why didn't you follow your own advice? More importantly, why did you say they would reply if you have never e-mailed them? You cannot possibly know that unless you are being dishonest and why would I take the word of a dishonest person?

You don't have to ask anyone if the data is fraudulent. Just ask if the data was amended in any way to cut corners. It is very possible that the only way you can see the whole genetic sequence of the virus is to acquire the virus yourself. I'm told nobody will send one though. They don't have it because they never acquired the virus either.

Everybody is relying on computer images that nobody knows is accurate. I'm sure the Russians are an exception though. I'll bet they made acquiring the SARS2 virus a huge priority as soon as they heard about it. Why would they trust data not their own?

The Russians are not that stupid, but I can't say the same for many people.

@Metal-Brain
What computer images?

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
What computer images?

Don't you read?
I only posted my source of info several times.
It is the foundation of this whole debate.

@metal-brain said
Don't you read?
I only posted my source of info several times.
It is the foundation of this whole debate.

And your sources have been shown to be inaccurate… the debate sways to and fro (you being one of the people going into new alleyways). The virus ahs been isolated. It ahs been shown repeatedly by different research teams on different parts of the world from different political systems.

the thread can safely be closed. You can open a much more specific thread with a very clear hypothesis, ideally to be formulated in one sentence and we can try to deal with that.

@ponderable said
And your sources have been shown to be inaccurate… the debate sways to and fro (you being one of the people going into new alleyways). The virus ahs been isolated. It ahs been shown repeatedly by different research teams on different parts of the world from different political systems.

the thread can safely be closed. You can open a much more specific thread with a very clear hypothesis, ideally to be formulated in one sentence and we can try to deal with that.

You are a liar.

Dr Thushan de Silva admitted they used transcribed RNA rather than RNA extracted from quantified viral stocks. She then gave her opinion that it didn't prove SARS2 was not isolated, but she offered no proof that it was isolated at all. To show something is inaccurate you need to prove it is more than an opinion. You have not done that. Reuters seems to think an opinion proves something. We all have opinions, but she has no proof. People with proof are eager to offer it.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/29/highly-probable-covid-leaked-from-lab.aspx?ui=e94d894b259b40947dee3a688e62468bc407f279f550c51135d6ba9d0d38cd93&sd=20210318&cid_source=wnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20210329Z1&mid=DM836016&rid=1119075934

@metal-brain said
You are a liar.

Dr Thushan de Silva admitted they used transcribed RNA rather than RNA extracted from quantified viral stocks. She then gave her opinion that it didn't prove SARS2 was not isolated, but she offered no proof that it was isolated at all. To show something is inaccurate you need to prove it is more than an opinion. You have not done that. Reuters seems to ...[text shortened]... 210318&cid_source=wnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20210329Z1&mid=DM836016&rid=1119075934

two things:

If you post a link cut it off at the question mark.
Don't link to articles behind a pay-wall.

Then:

You could try to use "you err at this point" instead of: "you are a liar" Lying implies intended misinformation. You try to get moral high ground, however if you err, but accuse somebody of lying it makes you a liar automatically plus it makes you a bully. Friendliness pays of sometimes.

Then here I link a (openly accessible) paper published Februray 2020 about research on isolates. Since you seem to be so much above our (and the community of scientists) ability, please show step by step the errors in the paper. Furthermore please put this in writing to the journal.

Since this is science if you find errors in method or results, the paper will be retracted and you will have done science and society a service.

@ponderable said
two things:

If you post a link cut it off at the question mark.
Don't link to articles behind a pay-wall.

Then:

You could try to use "you err at this point" instead of: "you are a liar" Lying implies intended misinformation. You try to get moral high ground, however if you err, but accuse somebody of lying it makes you a liar automatically plus it makes you a bu ...[text shortened]... ethod or results, the paper will be retracted and you will have done science and society a service.

You didn't know it was inaccurate and said it was. If you claim something you don't know is true it is a lie. Bluffing is lying too and people do that a lot on here. I don't appreciate people making false claims even if they suspect something is true. Rejecting something because of incredulity alone is unacceptable and if you have to bluff you are not looking for the truth, you are trying to suppress it. That is unethical.

Since Dr Thushan de Silva (University of Sheffield’s Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease) admitted they did not isolate the SARS2 virus who did? How do you know they got an accurate genetic sequence of the virus?

The buck has to stop somewhere. Where is that? Do you know or not?

"Then here I link a (openly accessible) paper published Februray 2020 about research on isolates."

I don't recall you posting a paper about research on isolates on this thread. Are you being honest?

@Metal-Brain

Actually I erred and didn't provied the link. Here it is:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25731

@ponderable said
@Metal-Brain

Actually I erred and didn't provied the link. Here it is:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25731

What is it supposed to prove?

@metal-brain said
What is it supposed to prove?

That the virus has been isolated...your original thesis was that is hasn't been.

@ponderable said
That the virus has been isolated...your original thesis was that is hasn't been.

I didn't see anything like that. Where does it say that?

@metal-brain said
I didn't see anything like that. Where does it say that?

Section 2.1

@ponderable said
Section 2.1

It refers to this website:

https://www.gisaid.org/

Where does it prove the SARS2 virus was isolated in it's entirety?

@wildgrass said
You eat RNA in your diet every day. It would be bizarre to call that gene therapy.

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"mRNA Therapies Classified as Gene Therapy in Europe and US

The SEC filing13 for BioNTech (BioNTech’s mRNA technology is used in the Pfizer vaccine) is equally clear, stating on page 21: “Although we expect to submit BLAs for our mRNA-based product candidates in the United States, and in the European Union, mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products, other jurisdictions may consider our mRNA-based product candidates to be new drugs, not biologics or gene therapy medicinal products, and require different marketing applications.”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-vaccines-likened-software-updates-your-body/5741503