Do you know what it means to “isolate” any virus” as the single cause from a single source of an alleged new infection? Your sources saying it happened does not make it so. My point on the PCR test is how it’s used to prove spread and make all positive tests NEW CASES. It proves nothing. Whatever “it” is, 99.9% are surviving it. No need for the HYsteria and further destruction.
The article mentions "PCR" exactly once and is not about PCR testing in laboratory or patient care conditions. My first post #7 was challenging the premise of the article, not anything else. Identifying and isolating a new virus in a laboratory, and using PCR testing as to detect if a person has a disease from a virus, are completely different from each other.
My sources are PhDs who published papers on how it was isolated and the history of how this was done. If it did not exist and was not isolated, it would not have NCBI Genome ID NCBI genome ID 86693. It would not have its entire genome pubilcly available like Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 isolate Wuhan-Hu-1, complete genome, or this UCSC Genome Browser on SARS-CoV-2 Jan. 2020/NC_045512.2 Assembly (wuhCor1) (WARNING: really complex stuff here).
So I am pretty sure Novel Corona Virus (Sars-Cov-II), and Covid-19 exist and were identified nearly a year ago. Just as the doctors and nurses treating patients suffering and dying from a disease they never encountered before were dealing with a new disease.
As for "CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel" paper, it does say ”Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed” on page 49. Before that, on page 1, right below the title, the next words on are "For Emergency Use Only". I think that spells out the intent of this document pretty clearly.
It was published February 2020, when the virus had been isolated by mid January. It takes time for samples to be replicated and distributed to laboratories for study. The fact that one out of the many studies at that time, was not able to get a sample of the virus, for what was a emergency only procedure, is not that surprising to me. This emergency procedure was not a high priority, because by the time it would be used the patient would have been obviously sick or dying from Covid-19 so this test would not be necessary.
I find it more than a little disingenuous that writers who criticized this paper, leave off that it was clearly "For Emergency Use Only". Second, that they try to claim that because this one study did not have any Sars-Cov2 samples for it, which it admits, none existed anywhere else while ignoring there was not enough time to have created or distributed them.