I appreciate you providing that. I've never seen it announced over here.

But here is the problem with it, and it could be semantics...

"Inoculation of Vero/hSLAM cells with material from the nasopharyngeal swab led to the isolation of SARS‐CoV‐2 virus in culture. Electron microscopy of the supernatant confirmed the presence of virus particles with morphology characteristic of viruses of the family Coronaviridae."

Isolated in culture means it's still in a soup. And they "confirmed" it by idenitfying particles characteristic of the Coronaviridae family".

The literature I have read, and that could also be biased, too, stands by the claim that the virus itself has not been singularly isolated, just parts of it (rna strands or proteins found in most coronavirus strains...ie: the common cold).

This is one of the main reasons it is so difficult to test for it reliably. They rely on the presence of rna strands that need to be amplified to "prove" the virus is present. Anybody with a common cold a year before the test can theoretically come back "positive to Covid-19" if they amplify the test enough (sometimes on the order of 10 x43 power). If they had the virus, the test would be definitive

I appreciate you providing that. I've never seen it announced over here.

But here is the problem with it, and it could be semantics...

"Inoculation of Vero/hSLAM cells with material from the nasopharyngeal swab led to the isolation of SARS‐CoV‐2 virus in culture. Electron microscopy of the supernatant confirmed the presence of virus particles with morphology characteristic of viruses of the family Coronaviridae."

Isolated in culture means it's still in a soup. And they "confirmed" it by idenitfying particles characteristic of the Coronaviridae family".

The literature I have read, and that could also be biased, too, stands by the claim that the virus itself has not been singularly isolated, just parts of it (rna strands or proteins found in most coronavirus strains...ie: the common cold)