What happened to think (and research) for yourself???

Good idea. Let's do that together.

Here's the problem with the paper you cited (and I have seen this from more than one paper, which is why I wanted to know which one your were looking at):

• Your paper says, "SARS-CoV-2 was isolated from a 58-year-old man from Wuhan, China"
• And, " A nasopharyngeal swab and sputum collected when the patient presented to hospital were each positive for SARS-CoV-2"

Do you see the problem here? How could they KNOW that the sample from the patient was SARS-CoV-2 ... IF ... THEY STILL HAD NOT YET IDENTIFIED WHAT SPECIFICALLY SARS-CoV-2 WAS???

Cart before the horse problem.

The word "isolated" is taken OUT OF CONTEXT here. It means ONLY that it was a sample taken from the person, and NOT that it was necessarily isolated from anything else (so that it could be used to identify the genome sequence).

Sure, there are millions of people who have had samples taken from them and therefore "isolated" in that context. But that is NOT what some of us here are talking about when we talk about "isolate (and purify)" for the purpose of analyzing it -- whether to identify the genome sequence or to find out if it is actually a pathogen at all.

This whole thing is a pile of lies on top of lies on top of lies, so we have to be able to parse it all out, unwind the lies, and figure out what the truth is.

The word "isolated" has more than one meaning.

The paper says:

• They used "reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction" (iow: PCR)

See the problem here?

We already know that PCR does NOT diagnose. It ONLY replicates what you have. Does not tell you IF WHAT YOU HAVE CAUSED THE SYMPTOMS that the patient was reporting.

It also says:

• "Whole genome sequencing of the viral isolate and phylogenetic analysis indicated the isolate exhibited greater than 99.99% sequence identity with other publicly available SARS-CoV-2 genomes."

Another problem. BIG problem. Do you see it?

Obviously, this could not be the FIRST attempt to identify SARS-CoV-2, since they ALREADY had SOMETHING ELSE to compare it with.

Those of us who say the virus has not been isolated AND PURIFIED, are specifically referencing the Koch's Postulates framework to isolate AND purify a substance, AND also inject it into a subject (even if a rat or monkey) to find out IF IT CAUSES HARM.

THAT is the ONLY way to KNOW if this thing is at all harmful.

A substance must also be isolated and purified so that it can be analyzed ... SO THAT THE GENOME SEQUENCE CAN BE IDENTIFIED.

It does not appear that ANYBODY has ever done that. They seem to be just using a computer model.

See the problem?

In this case, they simply extracted a sample, used PCR, and then compared it to an already known SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence that they CLAIM proves this man had Covid.

The only thing this paper does is explain the first DIAGNOSIS in Australia.

It does NOT show how the SARS-CoV-2 genome was identified with an isolated AND purified sample.

The reason this is a MAJOR PROBLEM is this:

https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/19/the-scam-has-been-confirmed-pcr-does-not-detect-sars-cov-2-but-endogenous-gene-sequences/

The genetic sequence they are using could be FROM THE HUMAN BODY ITSELF, or from ANY NUMBER OF OTHER viruses or pathogens.

The ONLY way to know if THIS PARTICULAR thing is harmful to humans is to (a) isolate AND purify, then (b) inject into a test subject to (c) find out if it makes the subject sick with the SAME symptoms in the original subject(s) (there should be more than just one patient with symptoms -- there should be several with the SAME symptoms, and their samples should have the SAME material, and THAT is what should be analyzed).

This paper is just like others I have seen -- it does NOT describe how they came up with the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence. It describes how they COMPARED a sample to an ALREADY EXISTING sequence (likely, from a computer and not from a physical sample in a lab).

"Isolate" in the context that some of us are using does NOT mean merely taking a sample from someone. It is much more than that. Taking this word out of context has been done with several papers, like the one you cited.

Bottom Line

It is my suspicion that the reason the CDC (and Australia's, UK's, Ireland's, and Canada's versions of the CDC) have ALL stated there is NO sample of SARS-CoV-2 that any lab can obtain is because none exists.

The reason none exists is because it was NEVER isolated and purified, and THEN studied, extracting the genome sequence from the sample.

Instead, the genome sequence was likely created by a computer model, and probably comes directly from a portion of the human genome itself or something that already exists in most humans, such as a coronavirus (common cold).

That is why anybody could be theoretically "diagnosed" as positive using PCR, which is not a diagnostic tool. It simply comes down to (a) extracting a sample from someone, (b) giving it to a lab, (c) identifying a genome sequence that is based on a computer model that is not actually SARS-CoV-2, (d) running that sequence material through an arbitrary number of PCR cycles (the number of which constantly changes, depending on what the desired outcome is, based on the changing narrative), and (e) giving a false "positive" or false "negative" result back to the doctor/clinic, who has no idea what actually happened.

The paper you cited merely explains how the FIRST case in Australia was "diagnosed." It has nothing to do with the ORIGINAL sequencing of the genome.

P.S. Don't be so snotty in your reply next time. We can have these discussions with respect, if we want to.