So now show us the lab notebook that the researcher filled out as he was doing the process... where he explains every step of the way what he is doing to isolate any virus. And regarding Covid, show us the video that went along with it.
Firstly, when I supply proof that any reasonable person would accept, you just push the requirement out further. I'm well aware that if I was able to supply images of someone's personal notebook, you'd just say "anyone can fake a photo of a notebook, you need the real thing". If I get hold of an actual physical notebook and mail it to you, you'd just say "anyone could have written this, how do I know it's by a scientist?". If I get the scientist to visit your home, you'd say "how do I know you are who you say you are?" etc. This is clearly absurd. Any why on earth would someone video what they're doing, or publish scribbles and jottings from notepads, when they could just present it all in a clean, easy to follow scientific paper?
Secondly, it's a bit rich for someone who insists that god exists to rely on a burden of proof argument anyway.
Lab notebooks are not personal things in cases of importance. Notebooks have 2 basic reasons for existing:
1. So that the researcher can follow his process to duplicate what he did the first time;
2. So that other researchers can follow the process so that they can duplicate the results of the first guy.
Anybody can glance at a writing and say that it was all fake. That's why we need the notebook... so that we can follow the process to get the results. If we can't determine the whole process, the whole operation, because the process is as unclear as your example below, there is no way to know if we are duplicating it properly. And there is no way to know if the process works or not as the report says.
In addition, the notebooks are signed or initialed by the researcher on every page, and the pages are all numbered in order in a bound book-style of notebook, to prove that it was written by the researcher. His name and address are included, so that we know where to contact him for details we don't understand.
You kinda have it backwards. We want proof, not some vague, generalized idea about something.
Pick any one of those links you gave us, and pull out the part where the the process is being described while it is being done. We want the info about the machines used, filter paper kinds, centrifuge, and an explanation of what is being done as it is done.
We don't want some generic process that somebody did with something, who knows what.
I've no idea how much you want me to copy and paste from the links I provided*, but here's a brief excerpt from the first paper:
Virus isolation, cell infection, electron microscopy and neutralization assay
The following cell lines were used for virus isolation in this study: Vero E6 and Huh7 cells, which were cultured in DMEM containing 10% FBS. All cell lines were tested and free of mycoplasma contamination, submitted for species identification and authenticated by morphological evaluation by microscopy. None of the cell lines was on the list of commonly misidentified cell lines (by ICLAC).
Cultured cell monolayers were maintained in their respective medium. The PCR-positive BALF sample from ICU-06 patient was spun at 8,000g for 15 min, filtered and diluted 1:2 with DMEM supplemented with 16 μg ml−1 trypsin before it was added to the cells. After incubation at 37 °C for 1 h, the inoculum was removed and replaced with fresh culture medium containing antibiotics (see below) and 16 μg ml−1 trypsin. The cells were incubated at 37 °C and observed daily for cytopathogenic effects. The culture supernatant was examined for the presence of virus by qRT–PCR methods developed in this study, and cells were examined by immunofluorescence microscopy using the anti-SARSr-CoV Rp3 N antibody that was generated in-house (1:1,000). Penicillin (100 units ml−1) and streptomycin (15 μg ml−1) were included in all tissue culture media.
Vero E6 cells were infected with the new virus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.5 and collected 48 h after infection. Cells were fixed with 2.5% (w/v) glutaraldehyde and 1% osmium tetroxide, dehydrated through a graded series of ethanol concentrations (from 30 to 100%) and embedded with epoxy resin. Ultrathin sections (80 nm) of embedded cells were prepared, deposited onto Formvar-coated copper grids (200 mesh), stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, and analysed using a 200-kV Tecnai G2 electron microscope.
The virus neutralization test was carried out in a 96-well plate. The patient serum samples were heat-inactivated by incubation at 56 °C for 1 h before use. The serum samples were diluted to 1:10, 1:20, 1:40 or 1:80, and then an equal volume of virus stock was added and incubated at 37 °C for 60 min in a 5% CO2 incubator. Diluted horse anti-SARS-CoV serum or serum samples from healthy individuals were used as control. After incubation, 100 μl mixtures were inoculated onto a monolayer of Vero E6 cells in a 96-well plate for 1 h. Each serum was assessed in triplicate. After removing the supernatant, the plate was washed twice with DMEM medium. Cells were incubated with DMEM supplemented with 2% FBS for 3 days. Subsequently, the cells were checked for cytopathogenic effects.
*
Of course, I do know. You're not interested in any of it, in any inconvenient evidence that shakes your predetermined faith-based narrative. Thanks for all your hard work copying that piece that you copied. It's a start for you... even though it is vague in several areas. All you have to do is read each sentence of the report, and determine a bunch of things that are not there so you could not duplicate it. It's all full of assumptions, where the notebook would say the step-by-little-step process.
But the most interesting part is in more of the report, itself. Look where the research say that their whole report is meaningless regarding proving anything:
The study provides a detailed report on 2019-nCoV, the likely aetiological agent responsible for the ongoing epidemic of acute respiratory syndrome in China and other countries. [In other words, they know that they aren't providing proof for much of anything.] Virus-specific nucleotide-positive and viral-protein seroconversion was observed in all patients tested and provides evidence of an association between the disease and the presence of this virus. However, there are still many urgent questions that remain to be answered. The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts. It appears that the virus is becoming more transmissible between humans. We should closely monitor whether the virus continues to evolve to become more virulent. Owing to a shortage of specific treatments and considering the relatedness of 2019-nCoV to SARS-CoV, some drugs and pre-clinical vaccines against SARS-CoV could probably be used to treat this virus. Finally, considering the wide spread of SARSr-CoV in their natural reservoirs, future research should be focused on active surveillance of these viruses for broader geographical regions. In the long term, broad-spectrum antiviral drugs and vaccines should be prepared for emerging infectious diseases that are caused by this cluster of viruses in the future. Most importantly, strict regulations against the domestication and consumption of wildlife should be implemented. [Not as a fact that any of this will lessen the disease, but as a precaution that doesn't have any valid backing. Doing the opposite might be the thing that helps.]
Note added in proof: Since this paper was accepted, the ICTV has designated the virus as SARS-CoV-215; in addition, the WHO has released the official name of the disease caused by this virus, which is COVID-1916.
And here is the really fun part. The report was accepted by some medical organization, and that is the proof, even though the report itself says that nothing in the report really proved anything.
The report might be useful in giving some future researchers some direction for their research. But it also says it is not proof. The medical simply accepted it as proof. What kind of BS guesswork is being handed to us? And you are falling for it.
Since this report was accepted by the medical as proof without any proof, why should we accept anything that the medical says?
