Looking up this person, Dr. Derek Knauss (or Derick Knauss) gives me absolutely nothing except links to websites posting this story in one form or another. Looking up Dereck/Derick Knauss on a people finder produced zero results in CA (he said he works in Southern CA). Looking him up on scholar.google.com also provides nothing. Zero, zilch, nada, which is basically impossible if he is in fact a Ph.D.
There is NO evidence that this person exists or does the job he says he does, therefore this person is not a source of credible information.
The virus existing has substantial credible evidence however. That does not mean it does exist. It most certainly does not mean it is as deadly as reported. It does not mean anything other than that in doing research on it, I find credible evidence of its existence.
Here is a link to a database where sars-cov-2 variants from all over the world were submitted from independent tests that can be compared and studied.
Here is an early analysis of the virus that suggests it was designed in a lab.
Here is another analysis that suggests the reason it is so contagious is because its cell surface binding proteins were modeled after the same proteins used by the HIV virus. Something that is almost impossible to have happened naturally. This particular paper was forced to be retracted by the PTB, almost certainly to force people to not look deeper into this line of reasoning.
There is much, much more evidence that it has been isolated and tested. Please note I am not saying that the deaths attributed to Covid-19 are accurate (or even close, or even any at all). I am not saying anything about this scamdemic (in this post) OTHER than that the sars-cov-2 has been isolated and is a real virus.
If anyone can provide evidence that these are untrue assertions I will be more than happy to look into it.
Sir you have only one source of info that we Know is fact, the HIV transmission sourse which we have known for a solid year now...ALL your sources arefrom organizations that we also KNow have been lying to us for a year now. Not sure your motives, but to use sources from known liars seems a bit disingenuous to try to disprove another. You seem to be part of the problem.
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.
Looking up this person, Dr. Derek Knauss (or Derick Knauss) gives me absolutely nothing except links to websites posting this story in one form or another. Looking up Dereck/Derick Knauss on a people finder produced zero results in CA (he said he works in Southern CA). Looking him up on scholar.google.com also provides nothing. Zero, zilch, nada, which is basically impossible if he is in fact a Ph.D.
There is NO evidence that this person exists or does the job he says he does, therefore this person is not a source of credible information.
The virus existing has substantial credible evidence however. That does not mean it does exist. It most certainly does not mean it is as deadly as reported. It does not mean anything other than that in doing research on it, I find credible evidence of its existence.
For example:
There is much, much more evidence that it has been isolated and tested. Please note I am not saying that the deaths attributed to Covid-19 are accurate (or even close, or even any at all). I am not saying anything about this scamdemic (in this post) OTHER than that the sars-cov-2 has been isolated and is a real virus.
If anyone can provide evidence that these are untrue assertions I will be more than happy to look into it.
Sir you have only one source of info that we Know is fact, the HIV transmission sourse which we have known for a solid year now...ALL your sources arefrom organizations that we also KNow have been lying to us for a year now. Not sure your motives, but to use sources from known liars seems a bit disingenuous to try to disprove another. You seem to be part of the problem.
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.