A court order was indeed delivered to the university of WA and the response from the university was accurate. This is enough evidence for me and for a court of law in Australia I would think. Can anyone contradict this proof?
-
2See: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/50205/…– FifthArrowOct 14, 2021 at 14:33
-
2This reminds me of a previous question: Is Alberta ending coronavirus restrictions because of failing to provide evidence of SARS-COV2 virus existence in court?– Weather VaneOct 14, 2021 at 14:53
-
2Questions need to be self-contained so you need to make more clear here what the actual claim is, as opposed to letting us know what you think about whatever you've read over there such that something "was accurate" and "enough evidence". (Never mind that the source doesn't inspire much confidence, so I'm not bothering to read it to figure out what you might have found satisfying.)– FizzOct 14, 2021 at 14:58
-
skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/50205/… I am not satisfied with the answer. Purification was not deemed as necessary based on above study who's main objective was to identify how the S protein interacts with the infected cell so of course in this case purification would be useless. However when wanting to isolate the virus for identification purposes I still believe purification is required.– Reuben DifesaOct 15, 2021 at 0:52
-
1What test for identification do you envision doing on an intact virus that you can't do on purified viral protein or purified viral RNA?– CJROct 15, 2021 at 2:44
|
Show 9 more comments
1 Answer
Well let's look at the title of the page:
University of Western Australia - NO Record of Isolation or Purification of CoV By Anyone Ever!
As proof of this claim, they show the response of a FOI request made to University of Western Australia. The request, in part, asks for all the evidence they have of any study or research by anyone/anywhere. The University's response on that point is to point out that it is out of the scope of a FOI request for them to be responsive to an anyone/anywhere search. (The document on the page is an image and I, frankly, don't feel like retyping it all out.)
So just on the face of what is claimed, by simply reading your own "proof", it fails to meet what is claimed. The most you can claim is not that Covid doesn't exist, not that there no record of isolation by anyone ever but simply that the University of Western Australia has seemingly not done it.
Here are papers about the isolation of the virus.
Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19
A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States
Molecular characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first case of COVID-19 in Italy
-
6The reply also states that many documents were found, but none within the exacting scope of the request. In other words, the FOI requester has made their own definition of 'isolated' for which no documents were found, and concluded that therefore there is no virus. Oct 14, 2021 at 15:01
-
I was just attempting to format the document response - this however is a much better way to present this information.– ZibbobzOct 14, 2021 at 15:36
-
6@WeatherVane: the request actually required the virus be purified by specific methods and that no PCR and no cell cultures be used. Which is rather ridiculous, but it's actually a good reason to close the Q as duplicate as it was, in fact.– FizzOct 14, 2021 at 16:06
-
3No cell cultures to grow a virus?! That's like asking for proof that a radio can work without electromagnetic radiation, then when someone doesn't deliver one, you claim radios don't work. Oct 15, 2021 at 10:31
-
2@user253751 more like asking for proof of radio waves without using a radio to propagate them Oct 16, 2021 at 10:59