I DID look at your sources
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
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
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.
I DID look at your sources
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
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
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.
I DID look at your sources
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
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
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)(https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200511/South-Africa-obtains-first-laboratory-isolate-of-SARS-CoV-2.aspx)
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.
I DID look at your sources
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
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
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)(https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200511/South-Africa-obtains-first-laboratory-isolate-of-SARS-CoV-2.aspx)
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.
I DID look at your sources
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
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 to 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
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)(https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200511/South-Africa-obtains-first-laboratory-isolate-of-SARS-CoV-2.aspx)
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.