If you looked you would see that I have three independent sources. The first two sources are the CDC (which is what I think you are referring to) and if you were to actually look at them (and you had sufficient knowledge to understand the information (which is non-trivial)) you would know that these CDC sources, when you really dig in, destroy their own narrative.
The third link I provided happens to link to a site that is related to the CDC, but that is only because pubmed links to pretty much every peer reviewed paper. You can find the paper on many sites that have nothing to do with the CDC.
The 4th and 5th links go to researchgate. This means they have not yet passed peer review. Researchgate has nothing to do with the CDC. In fact, it is the place to most likely find real science that refutes the CDC.
I DID look at your sources...all have been caught in a lie.
I failed to see the lab that Has the Virus Isolated be mentioned....?
If not isolated, cant create vaccine...
Say and link whatever you want. This is Planned-demic...not even sure what you're trying to prove anymore.
My point is that using links from lying organizations with that are profiting from lying...seems odd and disingenuous...but feel free..im moving on.
The CDC links (at least the second one) prove that the whole virus narrative is false (if you know how to look at the information). If nothing else, this proves that not everything at the CDC promotes the "covid-19" narrative. On the contrary, most of the data does the opposite. They expect people to not look, and those that do look they expect to be too afraid to say anything, or be discredited by those of their peers who are.
As for the peer reviewed paper I linked, it is a peer reviewed paper. You can find it on literally every single publisher of peer reviewed papers. Here are a few non-CDC links:
I can list a hundred more if you want. Its a peer reviewed paper. This is just how it works. It goes to all peer reviewed journals.
If you want to talk about how all peer reviewed science is suspect, that's another topic. It would be one that every scientist in the world agrees with, and has through all of time. In fact, that is how science works.
What it is however, is credible evidence. To refute scientific evidence requires refuting the arguments and analyses within the work. It never works to just say "your source is not credible because I don't like them." That is the opposite of debate.
That is called an ad hominem attack. It is a weak tactic by those that have no actual counter arguments. You can only provide a counter argument in a scientific debate by understanding and cogitating on the original arguments.
Your attacks on the researchgate papers are completely not credible, and you obviously have NO IDEA what researchgate is. It is literally the best place to find real science in a world trying to hide evidence.
I failed to see the lab that Has the Virus Isolated be mentioned
How many more would you like? I can do this all day (although I won't).
I am not saying these are all credible sources. I have not vetted them. I looked at the first one, and as someone who has performed similar experiments it looks completely legit at first glance.
But if I were to say these specific labs stating explicitly that they have isolated the virus are lying I would have to read each one in detail and find evidence of the lies. If I were to just make the claim they are lying because I don't like them I would become a non-credible source of information myself.
Thank you for taking the time to read what I wrote. It is good to know that people are not so bound up in their own beliefs of fear that they are willing to look at evidence that runs contrary. It is wonderful that instead of making blanket claims of "Fake News" or "shooting the messenger" people are willing to think about another persons argument and then provide well thought out and researched counter evidence to promote the discussion and come closer to the truth, whatever that may be.
If you looked you would see that I have three independent sources. The first two sources are the CDC (which is what I think you are referring to) and if you were to actually look at them (and you had sufficient knowledge to understand the information (which is non-trivial)) you would know that these CDC sources, when you really dig in, destroy their own narrative.
The third link I provided happens to link to a site that is related to the CDC, but that is only because pubmed links to pretty much every peer reviewed paper. You can find the paper on many sites that have nothing to do with the CDC.
The 4th and 5th links go to researchgate. This means they have not yet passed peer review. Researchgate has nothing to do with the CDC. In fact, it is the place to most likely find real science that refutes the CDC.
Check your statements before making accusations.
NIH=Fauci CDC=Fauci
I DID look at your sources...all have been caught in a lie. I failed to see the lab that Has the Virus Isolated be mentioned....? If not isolated, cant create vaccine... Say and link whatever you want. This is Planned-demic...not even sure what you're trying to prove anymore. My point is that using links from lying organizations with that are profiting from lying...seems odd and disingenuous...but feel free..im moving on.
But apparently did not listen to what I said.
The CDC links (at least the second one) prove that the whole virus narrative is false (if you know how to look at the information). If nothing else, this proves that not everything at the CDC promotes the "covid-19" narrative. On the contrary, most of the data does the opposite. They expect people to not look, and those that do look they expect to be too afraid to say anything, or be discredited by those of their peers who are.
As for the peer reviewed paper I linked, it is a peer reviewed paper. You can find it on literally every single publisher of peer reviewed papers. Here are a few non-CDC links:
https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/49/D1/D706/5921286
https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33585048
https://covid19.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/gess-a-database-of-global-evaluation-of-sars-cov-2hcov-19-sequenc
I can list a hundred more if you want. Its a peer reviewed paper. This is just how it works. It goes to all peer reviewed journals.
If you want to talk about how all peer reviewed science is suspect, that's another topic. It would be one that every scientist in the world agrees with, and has through all of time. In fact, that is how science works.
What it is however, is credible evidence. To refute scientific evidence requires refuting the arguments and analyses within the work. It never works to just say "your source is not credible because I don't like them." That is the opposite of debate.
That is called an ad hominem attack. It is a weak tactic by those that have no actual counter arguments. You can only provide a counter argument in a scientific debate by understanding and cogitating on the original arguments.
Your attacks on the researchgate papers are completely not credible, and you obviously have NO IDEA what researchgate is. It is literally the best place to find real science in a world trying to hide evidence.
Is that all you want?
Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida
NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories
University of the Western Cape (UWC) and Stellenbosch University (SU) (South Africa)
McMaster’s Institute for Infectious Disease Research
How many more would you like? I can do this all day (although I won't).
I am not saying these are all credible sources. I have not vetted them. I looked at the first one, and as someone who has performed similar experiments it looks completely legit at first glance.
But if I were to say these specific labs stating explicitly that they have isolated the virus are lying I would have to read each one in detail and find evidence of the lies. If I were to just make the claim they are lying because I don't like them I would become a non-credible source of information myself.
"Fake News......you know im changing the name right?.... to Very Fake News..."
Donald Trump..your POTUS
Thank you for taking the time to read what I wrote. It is good to know that people are not so bound up in their own beliefs of fear that they are willing to look at evidence that runs contrary. It is wonderful that instead of making blanket claims of "Fake News" or "shooting the messenger" people are willing to think about another persons argument and then provide well thought out and researched counter evidence to promote the discussion and come closer to the truth, whatever that may be.
/s