for the 11th time. you idiot
the process is well known
the rna sequence is well known
it does not match polio or
ok you want to go into the real basics
1. patient has a certain list of symptoms
EG normal flu is a wet(mucus) cough, runny nose and so on
covid is dry cough, fever and so on
so they know symptomology wise its not a normal flu
so they know symptomology and also scans and tsts its not ebola, tuberculosis, polio or other stuff
(real simple.. not the same symptoms)
next they swab the patients with this certain list of symptoms. from different locations, different countries and find the virus and then get the rna of the virus.
they compare the rna with patients with those certain symptoms and the match
they compare it to other lists of rna from other different corona's like sars and mers. and its not a entire match but know its a close enough match to be part of the same family
they also compare it to other viruses. like polio and ebola. and its nothing like those
yep they know its not polio or ebola because the symptomology and the rna are nothing alike
then they culture the virus and grow it into enough to inject into an animal. and then they see that animal get sick.
they then test the animal and see that the rna of the virus in the animal that has the same sickness also has the same rna
..
then they call it covid19 because they know its not sars or mers. but they know its part of the corona family of virus but not the same. and also not seen in humans before. meaning its new.
this is basic stuff even you. stuck in scripts from january must know
so now its time you just give up on this script. you been debunked enough
you have been given links to the rna sequence. even you could compare them and realise it.
your ignorance to not do it does not mean no proof. just means ur an idiot.
now lets get back to the topic because you have been fully debunked
Outside of the fact that symptoms often overlap in various diseases, you are leaving out the most important parts.
Check the highlighted area for the place you are leaving the parts out.How does anybody know what virus they are getting from the swab (if any), without knowing the processes they use right at the highlighted part?
The processes that you don't show at the highlighted part should include Rivers' revision of Koch's Postulates. Or, it should be some other process that is similar. But you don't even show it. However, Dr. Andrew Kaufman shows what it should be like at
https://www.bitchute.com/video/TXargSbVp7E/. You don't show it at all!
Since you don't even seem to understand that the most important part of the information is missing in all your blabber, your blabber isn't even blabber. Rather, it's simply slobber.
So, wake up and find us the part that is missing, or admit that we don't even know that there is a virus worth thinking of having a pandemic about.
It's like the car engine that doesn't work.
1. The engine doesn't run.
2. The mechanic checks out the engine.
3. The mechanic tells us what is wrong with the engine.
4. The mechanic fixes the engine.
Guess what's missing?
Between #2 and #3... the things the mechanic did to figure out what is wrong with the engine.
In #4... the things that the mechanic did to fix the engine.
We don't need details like, "The mechanic used his right hand to take hold of the 9/16 inch wrench. The mechanic moved the wrench over the manifold. Then he lowered the wrench onto bolt 'C' and moved the wrench in such a way that bolt 'C' turned counterclockwise. He then turned bolt 'C' the eleven turns necessary to remove it."
But we do need the details like:
The mechanic removed the air filter, then the carburetor, then the intake manifold. Once he did this, he could see that there was a frog stuck in one of the intake valves. He used a forceps to remove the frog. Then the engine ran fine.
In Rivers' revision of Koch's, there are 6 steps listed. We need to know how well those steps were followed, and if they were followed at all. If they weren't followed, what steps were followed? Simply saying that they swabbed patients and found viruses isn't enough. What did they do to find the viruses? Did they stick the swab on the light bulb? Did they toss it into the air 7 times? Did they stick it into their smock pocket? Is this how they found that the swab contained any viruses?
I don't mean to talk silly. I simply want you to show us the steps they used to determine a virus existed. Rivers' revision of Koch's is one good way to make sure they did the right steps.
Nobody wants you to do something you can't do. If you don't know what the steps were, simply tell us. If the steps aren't listed in the NIH links you gave us, tell us. But with your research experience, you should be able to tell us the steps, but at least show us where they are listed in the NIH reports if they are there.
Your real name doesn't happen to be George McFly, does it? Because you are turning yourself into our density.